I'm afraid my blog may not be as academically sound as our previous blogger but I will do my best. I just finished re-reading Madea. (I read it years ago for an intro to theatre class) The common consensus among most average Joe's is that Madea is a crazy stone cold bitch. First of all, I love all media forms (get it Madea forms? lol) that approach morally ambiguous decisions. It's the same reason Ben Linus is my favorite character on Lost and and the same reason I love Noah Bennett from Heroes. These are characters that make the choices and do the things that others would not. Most of us hate them for it. The rest of us....well lets just say we appreciate the situation that they are in.
I was raised on the idea of black and white=good and evil. To me, while I was growing up, there was no grey area. Then I left home and realized why Mormon life is so naive. There is no black and white good and evil, there are only shades of grey. The simple truth that most of us do not want to accept is that under the right circumstances we are all capable of anything.
The situation faced by Madea is the loss of everything she has worked for since before the play began. She sacrificed everything for Jason. And what has he done? Jason spat in her face and tossed her out on the street.
The questions I pose to you (you know the story I don't need to reiterate it) is this: Was she justified in her revenge? Should she have taken it as far as killing the children? Did Glauce deserve to go the way she did? Is Madea to blame for Creon's death even though she didn't poison him directly? Is justice by any means necessary still justice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jared snagged my attention with his discussion of that indefinable and yet undeniable shade of gray that lurks between our conventional black/white (bad/good) framework. This is an area that I’ve long been fascinated with, perhaps because I enjoy straddling the fence but more likely because, as Jared said, it’s the characters stuck in gray (ambiguous) beliefs and moral structures that haunt and intrigue most of us. Yet, although it was his initial talk on the gray that drew me in, it was Jared’s bolded statement that ultimately led to respond on his post.
“The simple truth that most of us do not want to accept is that under the right circumstances we are all capable of anything”—I feel this statement raises some interesting questions concerning Medea if I can make a small change to the idea. I believe that the simple truth that most of us are not capable of believing is that, under the right circumstances, we are all capable of anything. It sounds like I’m arguing semantics here and perhaps, to a degree, I am. Yet I can’t help but see a significant distinction between the idea that we do not want to accept and the notion that most of us are incapable of doing so.
Jared’s original statement seems to support the belief that we are in control. We do not want to accept the notion therefore we don’t. Yet I would go a step further and reply that most people do not simply choose not to accept that dark truth but rather, to maintain their sanity, they are truly incapable of entertaining such thoughts. I think then this is what makes Medea such a disturbing character.
Medea is not frightening because she goes to any lengths to accomplish her goals. She is not terrifying because of her feminine attack on a masculine world. And she does not terrorize the minds of audiences simply because she kills her children. (After all, in an age where we increasingly hear of post-partum filicide, the idea of mothers killing children is not new.) Instead, what makes the tale of Medea disturb us, what makes Medea a character as horrifying as she is cunning, is the idea that she is capable of acknowledging the fact that under the right circumstances we are all capable of anything.
Her ability to think beyond the boundaries instilled in most of us by God (or a higher power if one prefers) is what makes Medea a danger, to Jason as well as to audiences. Her mental structure is as foreign to most people as her heritage was alien to the Greeks.
Some criminals act out of necessity (Les Miserable’s Jean valJean), some villains act out of personal gain (Lady MacBeth), and some are bad because they are true monsters (Beowulf’s Grendel). Yet these are not nearly as bloodcurdling as those select creatures who, like Medea, behave the way they do because they can, because they are capable of acknowledging that all of us can slip into that fathomless shade of gray.
Interesting thoughts from both of you ... I can't help but connect this with Jackie's very first post regarding justice and ethics. It's such a prevalent theme in drama: in what circumstances could you perform certain actions? To what lengths would you go to right what you perceive as a serious wrong? And what kinds of actions can be justified in extreme situations?
I also think it's important to consider history: how is our understanding of ethics and morality different than a Greek one? Can we really say what people did or did not imagine was possible at this time and place in history, or are we limited to a narrow historical perspective? Do characters in drama help us to imagine difference in that way, and encourage us to at least try to empathize with Medea?
But what's also interesting is this idea of choice when it comes to imagination. Are we just unwilling to let ourselves imagine what it might feel like to be in Medea's spot, or are we truly incapable of that kind of empathy?
I wonder, also, how the degree to which we can imagine transgressing our own boundaries is related to our ability to understand the severity of Medea's situation. If we see how horribly she acts, are we able to also see how unjust the rules are that have put her in those circumstances? I'm teaching Brecht in my other two classes right now and am thinking about his idea that "first comes bread and then comes morality." If you don't have a place to live or food to eat or family or friends, how might that affect your ability to consider the consequences of your actions?
Is someone with money and power (Creon, for example) who is in a position to be generous and understanding but fails to do so at fault in this situation, as well?
Post a Comment