Honestly the first thing I thought when I finished Eurydice was that I need to write in more parts for rocks in my plays. I think this play did a really great job with incorporating odd and unique characters, and making them seem completely regular by the end of the play. Thinking back, I would have to say that the strength of Eurydice came almost completely from the characters. They could have said very different things than the script called for, but I still would have enjoyed it because the combination of characters employed in the play was somehow very interesting. I would like to go through them quickly:
Orpheus and Eurydice: From the very start I was in love with them. The setting played perfectly into the idea of two true-lovers going for a dip in the pond, and all their talk about music and promising made the scene really work for me. Eurydice spoke almost exclusively in questions, making her really seem like depended on Orpheus. Their banter and movement really sold them in the first scene, and even though they didn't really have more interaction until she dies again, we know clearly that these characters are in love.
Man: Right away we hate the man. He is unnamed and horrible. In one question, "Are you a homeless person," we know what this man is all about. He perfectly plays up the 'tough-guy' role, and I can't help but detest him.
Father: He is a nice touch. The father's role turns this play into far more of a tragedy than it already is. His love of his daughter is so clear through his careful writings and teachings, and when he dips himself in the river we can't help but be reminded of Romeo poisoning himself when he believes Juliet to have died.
The Stones: With the stones, Eurydice starts to get more bewildering but simultaneously more intriguing. I immediately thought of how the costumes were going to look, but after a few lines it didn't matter. These stones were such unique characters that somehow genuinely told the rock's tale. I was put off at first at the blatant supernaturality of the stones, but once the dialogue got going they materialized so powerfully that they just became natural characters.
Grandmother: She had an interesting role, kind of like Lucky in Godot. I wasn't too impressed with this character, but it tied in the musical theme, so I guess it can stay.
Child: This was another character that became more an more real the more I read. What a fantastic idea though, right? The Child is the lord of the undeworld, I mean. This slight change is unique, compelling, and changes hugely the dynamic between the characters. The child comes onto Eurydice and we feel dirty to even think about it. Like a child with too-small clothes, this character seems to be ironically stuck in limbo between manhood and childhood, and that simple character choice molded a great deal of his dialogue.
Old Woman: This was a strange choice that brought the myth into modernity even more than the 1950s swim suits.
If I learn nothing else from Eurydice, it should be about choosing characters wisely. Eurydice did, and the play was practically written once the character list was. By choosing characters that will inherently attack each others weaknesses, the play has a constant source of tension. For instance, homosexuality paired with heterosexuality creates an instant and prolonged conflict. Different viewpoints on races or having a disease, anything that permanently affects the way a person addresses the world, can be utilized by another character to drive dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love that you focused on character here. Especially considering what everybody was saying in class. Like you, I was drawn to these characters. They played off of each other well, moving the story along, giving us relationships to focus on. I thought the love between Orpheus and Eurydice, though possibly juvenile, was genuine. They weren't they same person, they were hardly similar. They couldn't even understand each other the majority of the time, but we still felt their connection. I thought theses characters were extremely lovable.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to say: Nice Blog Post title :)
ReplyDeleteI think it's quite interesting, like Megan said, to focus solely on the characters in your blog post. Also, I think there's always room for inanimate objects in plays(I personally prefer talking small furry animals[ at this point i'm thinking kittens] that sing, but to each his own :P).
ReplyDeleteEven though I had mixed feelings about the play, the strengths, to me, lay in everything but the characters. It was the wonderful things that were done with the set like we saw in class that made me realize what abstract artistry I had come upon. The characters, to me, were a bit flat. Maybe their lack of realism did it, I don't know. Although sometimes I disapproved of the stage directions, maybe I don't always :S(now I'm confusing myself I think) . I found the characters to be, as the professor said on Tuesday, weird and a bit obnoxious. However, I think how you stage it is what makes the play beautiful and the characters "loveable".
PS: I also second the Nice Blog Post title :).
Yup, these characters rock. All of them -- no mean feat. But they do so in an unusual way. Your idea of having the play pretty well done once you finish the character list is a great one -- a great exercise. Try it. This is actually our project for the next round of reading/writing, but you can start here too if you like. Can you make a play that's compelling right from the character descriptions?
ReplyDeleteSee if you can nail down what makes these characters so compelling and appealing and effective and then how that's communicated on stage. You've said this: "By choosing characters that will inherently attack each others weaknesses, the play has a constant source of tension." How does that work here? And how might it work on your page/stage? And what else makes it work here? I think it's not mostly inherent attacking of weakness in this case. I'm more compelled by the love you mention in several ways -- E&O's love, E's dad's Romeo-like love and hers for him. Love becomes its own character(s) here, and that adds significantly to all this.