I find myself incredibly torn between my shock and disapproval at Medea's murderous rampage and the victimization of her by Jason, which I believe led her into an uncontrollable, semi-unconscious madness, where it can be argued that she was not of sound mind when she committed the atrocities.
To be clear, I don't condone Medea's actions at all. Murder of innocents is not a rational or justifiable means of solving one's problems, even committing revenge. But from an objective psychological and legal standpoint I can acknowledge that Medea was NOT in a rational state of mind when she committed these murders. Before Jason's betrayal, Medea, although unorthodox in her method, was a loyal partner of Jason, dedicated to being with him and keeping them safe. She made many personal sacrifices for his benefit. But because of Jason's deep seeded insecurities and paranoia, he kicks Medea to the curb and leaves behind his innocent children whose only crime was that they were the product of a regretful congress. Crushed, with her world turned completely upside down, Medea is transformed into a relentless machine that is more volatile, and vengeful than her her former self. Her intention was to destroy Jason by taking beloved things away from him: Glauce, his status, his reputation, his sense of security, his hope, and last but not least, his children. So why shouldn't she take his life to complete her vengeance? Why not even her own out of unfathomable sorrow? This is unclear to me. But what is clear is that one thing, and one thing alone consciously/unconsciously threw her into a state of madness and incited her towards this destruction: Jason's abandonment of her and their children.
It's true. Medea and Jason's romantic relationship was a train wreck waiting to happen. Jason probably could've avoided his eventually brutal and tragic circumstances by cutting his ties with Medea in the beginning, saving him and her much heartache, and their children from living a traumatic, devastatingly short lived existence. But when he continued that relationship with Medea, married her and had children with her, he entered a sacred bond that should not be broken by law of ethics and of course, the Gods. If it was broken dire, consequences would follow. He eventually did break the family bond, and severe repercussions did occur: he lost basically everything. Jason's weakness of character, cowardice, and lack of judgement is what inevitably doomed his family.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although I am forced to take into account that marriage is a man-made ceremony and tradition, I can agree that the marriage breaking may have been the beginning. Because Jason broke his 'vow' cannot condone Medea's actions. Jason attached only what he chose to their ideal 'marriage', and it's obvious that Medea invested in more than just politics and status. Are we surprised that Jason left Medea? That's what their entire relationship has been all along. He used her from the beginning, manipulating her rash and violent ways to knock out those people in his way. And now that she can no longer service him, (no pun intended) he cast her away. However, was leaving the marriage Jason's best choice? Hell, no. I mean, are we really that surprised that Medea has killed her children? Creon has made the decision of exile for her, fearing her violent ways. The nurse admits fully that she has, "turned away from the children and does not like to see them", and confides to the audience that she fears Medea may do some "dreadful thing, for her heart is violent". Given the history of Medea's naturally violent characteristics, I am not surprised the play ended as it did. But honestly, Jason should not have been surprised either. He knew damn well what she was capable of and even used it to his advantage! If I were him, I would have never had the ego to leave a woman like that. And so I agree with Sparrow: Jason's lack of judgement is to blame.
Sparrow ask the question..Why didnt Madea kill Jason? The answer intertwines perfectly in the complex web Euripedes created her character to be. She simply wanted him to suffer. We have all heard the term...HELL HAVE NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED!!!!! She wanted him to grieve, lament, pine and wallow in regret and guilt the same way she had. I have to admit that there was some level of pleasure in learning how Madea gains vengence. Being a member of the once broken hearted and misused sorority of sisterhood, provided me some enjoyment in his demise. However, the joy quickly disipates when I learn of her attack on the children. I completely flatline when the ephipany of the real message is illuminated. It is simply the universal law...NO ONE EVER HAS OR EVER WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OR HER CHOICES. Its an age old universal law. What you put out will come back. Their is no who is right or wrong. They both were wrong and they both had to deal with those repercussions. We all make mistakes. However, if we examine situations like this and bring them into our everyday life, hopefully we will be more conscious before we speak, think or do things in which we know are not righteously just.
Since we're talking about playscript interpretation, here, I wonder how you would all raise this very question in performance. That is, to me, the posts on Medea here are hitting on a lot of key questions: Who is responsible, and why? What do we expect to happen? I wonder how you might stage the play, or certain moments of it, to emphasize these important questions. Is it possible to stage a question in theatre rather than giving a simple answer, do you think? In my estimation, that's where the power of theatre lies: its possibility for ambiguity and pointing out complex problems. Can we find a way to *ask* the audience what they think about the question of personal responsibility, rather than telling them what they should think?
Another thing about the play itself: Beth points out something extremely important regarding character. If you were to make Medea a Greek woman with money, would this be the same play? How would we feel if she made the same decision at the end, but didn't have a history of violent behavior? Of course, the Greek audience knew her history already so the decision was already made. But it's an important thing to consider when thinking about what part character plays in our understanding of a drama.
Post a Comment