Suppose you have just seen the first Athenian production of Euripides' Alcestis and that you are trying to decide whether or not Euripides should be the playwright who wins this year's prize. What do you see in this play that would make you lean toward Euripides as the prize winner? Anything in the play that would incline you not to vote for Euripides?Monday, October 21, 2019
Euripides Discussion I--Alcestis
Suppose you have just seen the first Athenian production of Euripides' Alcestis and that you are trying to decide whether or not Euripides should be the playwright who wins this year's prize. What do you see in this play that would make you lean toward Euripides as the prize winner? Anything in the play that would incline you not to vote for Euripides?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Euripides does a great job with his story. I love the catharsis at the end...it's just much needed sweet end to the story. The characters are great and the chorus isn't confusing. The are only two things I hate (one of which is the same thing I hate in other stories ancient, modern, or otherwise) is that the confusion between Heracles and Admetus could have s easily been avoided if Admetus had simply said that his wife had died. Of course, I understand that some of the events of the story are hinged on this confusion taking place, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The other thing I hate is how Euripides milks Alcestis' death for all it's worth. Rather than her just dying like a normal person, Euripides drags it on and on. However, besides that I love everything else about the play. It was a real page-turner for me.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I would award Euripedes with the prize. I think one of the most interesting things about Alcestis is that it cannot be put squarely into a broad category of play. It's not entirely a tragedy, comedy, or satire, and combines many elements of the three. It's tone is relatively ambiguous and it resembles some tragicomedies or dark comedy movies. The ending also leaves us confused as to what genre Alcestis should fit in. At first it's a tragedy, with the death of Alcestis, but ultimately has an happy ending when she is restored from death by Heracles.
ReplyDeleteI believe Euripides should earn the prize without a doubt this one of the most well-written plays from the time period. Like James says there is a lot of different emotion going on for the crowd. It is sad, then it gets kind of funny, and ends fairly happy I would say. There is some question marks left with the audience at times though. Simply why didn't Admetus not tell Hercules his wife died? Or how does Hercules bring Alcestis back from the dead? I believe some of these questions may be better off unanswered. It adds to the curiosity aspect that keeps the audience involved.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I would vote for Euripides as the prizewinner for this play. While it is a descent play, there are a couple of things in it that make me lean more towards not voting for it than for voting for it. One thing that makes me not want to vote for this play is the chorus. While their talking parts in the play work well in their purpose, the Stasimon sections here just feel very out of place for me. Another aspect that makes me not like this play as much is Alcestis’ death. It really feels long-winded and drawn out and feels like something that could have either taken less time to cover with better dialogue from her, or even have been an off-stage event, similar to how deaths are handled in other plays. The main thing that drives me away from voting for this play, however, is the prologue scene. It’s a very out of place thing and doesn’t really feel necessary. Nothing in this scene is really not talked about in the next two scenes. The only exception to that is why Alcestis is dying, which could have been some added lines to either Admetus or Alcestis. It also sums up the entire play very early on in only a few sentences from Apollo, which really just feels harmful to the play. Even though the story is known and can’t be changed much from its original form, it just really makes it feel like there’s no reason to keep watching the play, as it all been told to the audience at the start.
ReplyDelete-Sam Tucker
I hate to be a critic of such a beloved play, but this one by Euripides wasn't my cup of tea. I will say that the attention to emotional tone of scenes seem to be very well done. For me, the drawn out death of Alcestis was a little over the top. The play it self to me felt a little too broken up and I struggled to feel the flow from scene to scene. I admit, this could be from having to read it instead of watching it. The best scenes in my opinion were the emotional conversations between Alcestis and Admetus just before she dies and the interaction with Admetus and his father, Pheres, at Alcestis' funeral. The last scenes with Heracles giving Alcestis as a rescued gift from the dead back to Admetus felt rushed. I thought that Sophocles did a much better job of building suspense during Oedipus' search for the truth than Euripides does with Heracles revealing Alcestis to Admetus. It almost seemed like the play was pressed for time and so the ending was sped up. A lot of dramatic scenes of mourning with a little short catharsis scene. Maybe I'm too much of a Sophocles fan.
ReplyDelete-Jonathon Fargher
I think Euripides deserves the prize. It was one of the least confusing plays we have read in class, but it still makes you think. This play cannot be put into a box category because it has so many different parts, like James said. Its not a true tragedy or comedy or satire it has all three combined in one play. I enjoyed the twist of believing it was a tragedy with the death of Alcetis, but then when she is resurrected from death by Heracles is the best example of this play not being just one type of play.
ReplyDeleteThings that would incline me to vote for Euripides are his uniqueness in his writing of this fourth part of a tetralogy. Usually the fourth play would have been a satyr play but Alcestis is a tragedy. I also like how he expanded the myth of Admetus and Alcestis by adding come and folk tale elements. But what inclines me to not vote for him is to me it is unclear of who is the main character and tragic protagonist between Alcestis or Admetus. A lot of this comes from the some parts of the playing being drawn out and the confusion as well. With things being drawn out, suspense wasn't really seen in the play as much as other playwriters.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I think the play should be a prize winner is the plot of the story. It combines the common Greek themes into its plot and executes it well. I like the part when Admentus gets help to cheat death, but his wife, Alcestis, ends up being sent to the underworld as a sacrifice. It shows how being selfish will affect your loved ones around you. I think that there should have been something more towards the end instead of Hercules bringing Alcestis back from the Underworld.
ReplyDeleteMitchell Buller
i agree with Mitch, Euripides combines tragedy, comedy and satire with folk lore really well. He also shows the immediate consequences of selfish actions. When Disney's Jafar wishes to be an all-powerful genie, he doesn't see the negative consequences beforehand and becomes powerful, but very limited in what ha can and cannot do. similar to how Admentus cheats death at the cost of his wife's life. however, tension build up is not a strong suit in this play, unlike the others we have looked at already.
ReplyDeleteChris Paye
I don't think it deserves the award because everything worked out. I think that if we knew the context of the play (if it was commentary on Greek life or just a part of Greek life) would make it more apparent. I'm always interested in the subtle attacking of society's ills. That being said it was too well-rounded for the story itself to bet he goal of the story - it just feels like too much of a feel-good simple story, especially considering its competition (which we don't know much about but we do know the styles of, which were more exciting/suspenseful/etc..) I think that given the slot it was in, it was good, but also that it wasn't THAT good. It just seems more funny and over the top, all the sadness of Alcestis' death, and then a drunk Heracles just going to Thanatos and drunkenly taking her back. It's a hero story but you're not sure who the hero is, and death himself is just like "just trying to do my damn job people."
ReplyDeleteI think Euripides does not deserve this reward as the others before him were far more greater in writing. This play we read for today seemed rushed and incomplete. The boring/emotion parts were over played and drawn out and then the good action and resolution was sped up and just presented at the end for a happy conclusion. I did though enjoy the character of Admetus as his struggle to stay alive, he struggles to live in the moment and cherish what he has now..before it is too late.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to give Euripides an award for "greatest play" it would sure nit be for this one. I too agree with a few of my fellow students in saying that this play was emotionless. I think that he has written plays that I have read that really blew my mind. This play, however, did not do that for me. Thessaly was a strong woman who would do anything for her husband. Admetus was a coward who would rather give his wives life away then his. I think this play could have had more action and liveliness to it. Making it far from Euripides best play.
ReplyDeleteBy Tabitha Sonne
DeleteI agree with Shane Herman, this play did seem rushed and incomplete. I think that there are boring parts in this play as well. I think that some of the other plays were much more interesting, Heracles was probably my favorite character in this one.
ReplyDelete