When browsing the Ancient greek language myth Orpheus, I was instantly struck by heroism with the central persona. Orpheus may be the classic man hero, defeating all road blocks to bring back his beloved Eurydice, only to be eventually disenchanted by a thing even more effective than his heroism: his own take pleasure in. Because of the essentially classical, romanticized nature of Orpheus, My spouse and i felt it would be an ideal supply text for a modern-day meaning.
In order to gain a much better understanding of the written text, I primarily adopted, in Stuart Hall’s terms, the ‘preferred’ browsing; that is, the way the audience will be ‘meant’ to learn a text, who they are anticipated to empathise with and what conclusions they are meant to attract. Applying Greimas’s structuralist plan, I found it easy to determine Orpheus as the ‘subject’ or, relating to Propp’s ‘spheres of influence’, the ‘hero’. Orpheus can also be referred to as Propp’s ‘donor’ figure through his amazing skill in playing the lyre, which provides him with apparently unlimited power with regards to charming the gods from the underworld.
The ‘sender’ will be Eurydice, pertaining to dying and subsequently ‘sending’ Orpheus in the quest to the underworld. The ‘villain’ could possibly be Aristaeus to get chasing Eurydice, or any with the creatures from the underworld pertaining to opposing Orpheus. Alternatively, and maybe more interestingly, the ‘villain’ could be Orpheus’s own appreciate, which is thus strong it forces him to appear back, and lose his wife forever. Eurydice may also be identified as Greimas’s ‘object’ or perhaps Propp’s ‘princess’: the ‘object’ of Orpheus’s quest, whose only ‘skill’ is to be ideal by the ‘subject’, Orpheus. I actually also used Tzvetan Tordorov’s theory that there is a similar narrative framework to all or any stories.
Intended for Todorov, a tale usually begins with a state of tranquility and a harmonious relationship, an ‘equilibrium’: Orpheus has his love, his music and is completely happy. This after that evolves in ‘disruption’: Eurydice dies and Orpheus must journey towards the underworld to get her back again. Then Orpheus attempts to mend the ‘disequilibrium’, by charming the creatures of the underworld.
Next, in accordance to Todorov, a ‘new equilibrium’ is often found. Yet , in Orpheus, this is not the truth. Eurydice is usually left inside the underworld and Orpheus’s mind is kept singing exclusively in the upper world, continue to crying out pertaining to his misplaced love, unable to find his ‘new equilibrium’ by being denied even oneness in death. Applying these structuralist hypotheses, I found, just served to emphasize the essentially patriarchal mother nature of the misconception.
The literary theorist Terry Eagleton discussions of how “[a text’s] blindnesses, what it does not say and how it does not claim it… [is] maybe as important as what it articulates” (Eagleton, 1996) i. at the. the ‘untold’ story, the ‘gaps’ in the original tale, can allow for additional perspectives other than the conventional, ‘preferred’ reading. In comparison with Orpheus, My spouse and i felt the fact that character of Eurydice, and her account of events, was a very important ‘blindness’, which will had been largely ignored by simply Greek mythology. Because of this, I decided to adopt a much more ‘oppositional reading’, as Lounge would characterise it, and subsequently, an even more ‘feminist’ strategy, making Eurydice the classic hero.
This made available a variety of choices to me about the other jobs. Could Orpheus (or Christian in my re-working) now end up being the ‘villain’, his ‘quest’, from her perspective, becoming more akin to a ‘hunting down’? The ‘object’ can now become Edie’s desire to be recognised and appreciated. May Christian’s ‘underworld’ not end up being Edie’s ‘new equilibrium’?
I actually also thought it would be interesting to tape Christian of his ‘donor’ role by causing his music talent most a faï¿½ade. I felt that it was a perfectly reasonable reading of the unique text to believe that the reason Orpheus ‘required’ Eurydice was simply to work as his ‘muse’ and inspire him to create beautiful music. By interpreting Orpheus’ need for Eurydice on a even more literal level, I could generate Edie normally the one who was the actual musician. This will make Christian’s requirement for her all the more desperate because, without Edie, Christian seems he can no longer be a successful artist, as is the case in the original text.
I actually also experienced that the story of Orpheus had practically become too romanticized and was therefore open to a parody. Subsequently, I tried to create a carnivalesque interpretation, that is, exaggerate a number of the key areas of the character types until that they almost become ‘grotesque’, in order to evoke connaissance. I decided to generate my audience aged 14-18, as I sensed that they could feel comfortable with the modern-day, typically egotistical, music culture, and also be open to, and appreciate, the try to invert the first tale’s gender stereotyping. As I wanted to build a visually active as well as linguistically comical part, I chose the genre of any television episode: a genre likely to appeal to my own target audience.
This kind of also permits the piece to instantly break out of realistic look in order to give the drama a distinctly surreal edge, for example , the impromptu arrival in the snake. I actually felt digging in this element of ‘magical realism’ to the part would enhance the farcical characteristics and increase the funny. The beginning few moments are key to establishing the tone in the piece, plus the characters’ associations. The starting scene of a “rock band” performing onstage is designed to get the viewer’s attention, while also appealing to my audience.
Christian uses the simple register of the archetypal ‘rock star’: “We’ve been Christian and the Might Poles! Goodnight! ” This kind of lexis offers connotations of arrogance and vanity, which can be designed to compare with the stupidity of Orpheus’s kilt as well as the band identity ‘Christian plus the May Poles’, a juga on the unique ‘Maenads’. By having Edie backstage, providing the actual musical skill, she in the beginning appears a relatively oppressed, marginalised character: often forced to be in the background: “Yeah. Well, I actually ain’t ‘Christian’, am I? ” There is a sense that Edie has approved the belief made upon her by Christian: that she’s simply an accessory to his accomplishment.
I gave her a distinct Northern highlight in order to appear more ‘down to earth’ than her ‘rock star’ counterpart, as well as to appeal even more to the target audience as the ‘under-dog’. Through, Christian is usually portrayed since the archetypal, vain, man ‘rock star’. I attempted to emphasize this kind of vanity linguistically, through his self-obsessed use of language – “You’ve already got flowers.
My flowers. Flowers handpicked by moi” – and also through his obsession along with his eyebrows. I felt that by giving this conventionally ‘effeminate’ concern to both Christian and ‘s, I could additional parody the ‘strong’ guy stereotype connected with Greek misconceptions.
One of the important changes which i made to the first text is that in my drama, Edie runs away from Christian as opposed to “Aristaeus”. She is also willingly ‘bitten’ by the snake. By having Edie willingly keep Christian for the ‘underworld’, this is in keeping with my total ‘feminist’ viewpoint of way, as it at this point becomes Edie’s ‘quest’ to find her part as a performer. Instead of producing the characters of my own ‘underworld’ quietly linked to the character types in the initial myth, I decided on overstating their most obvious physical features in order to provide a great out and out carnivalesque adaptation.
For that reason, I decided that a theatre can be an ideal setting, and, by simply drawing inspiration from the persona of the serpent, introduced thinking about a mimodrame production of the Bible inside the hope that this would make further humour. Deliberately using the notion of stereotypes, that is certainly foregrounding the complete issue, was also a amusing device. As Christian is definitely the ‘stereotypical ordinary star’, therefore all the characters of the underworld are unoriginal actors, as I felt this may add a fresh angle to these conventionally scary characters.
The utilization of ‘stock’ statistics and the terminology associated with all of them, – such as the ‘wise’ Yorkshiremen – would also improve audience acknowledgement and indicate the characters would not need to be individually released. In previously drafts, I had developed attempted to give the beginning a more serious advantage, in order to comparison with the absurdity of the underworld. I had designed monologues, in the style of Rick Cartwright’s Road, in an attempt to give greater character insight. However , these monologues seemed to ‘jar’ with the other scenes and make the commencing appear ‘flat’, without really adding to the piece.
Even though established the characters, they did so in a rather dull, pedestrian way, so these kinds of scenes had been reworked. Nevertheless , I nonetheless felt I had fashioned to emphasize the between the characters of the ‘upper world’ and others of the ‘underworld’ and one of many ways I did so this was through my selection of language. Because my selected setting was obviously a theatre, I desired to give the dialect of the ‘underworld’ a distinct theatrical edge.
A good way I tried to achieve this was through my personal use of “luvvies'” discourse, for instance , the Serpent’s line “How marvellous! “, an indication with the affected register of vocabulary associated with the theater. This filled with air speech is in immediate distinction to equally Christian and Edie’s even more ‘down to earth’, North dialect and I tried to stress this comparison by having the two types of speech juxtaposed in order that they may ‘break against’ each other and subsequently, make humour: “Greetings Child/Who on earth are you? ” Another theatrical device which I made use of was the ‘one liner’ – a tool associated with pantomime – inside the hope that this would make the piece feel like a “pantomime production of Orpheus” mainly because it were.
For example the serpent’s ‘one-liner’ “I’m playing the snake incidentally” endeavors to add humour by overstatement, as I interpreted this character on a textual level to make my serpent, an actor “wearing a giant green snake costume”. This line as well refers to both pantomime production of the Bible and the first Greek myth. It will advise viewers currently familiar with the myth that the ‘descent into the underworld’ is about to begin with, and provide a ‘sneak preview’ into long term events.
The ‘wise men’, Rod, Greg and John were included with act as a Cerebus figure. I offered them each a pint of dark beer in order that they may well ‘foam at the mouth’ because Cerebus was famed intended for doing, to make them “drunk and… quite menacing” to be able to, like Cerebus, be perceived as ‘vicious’. Through their physical similarity as well as the syntactical correspondency of their language, they are made to appear like a ‘club-act’, completing off each other’s phrases in an practically ‘pantomime patter’ style, in order to ‘gang up’ on Christian: “We are wise guys. /The sensible men of Yorkshire”.
We also built them speak simultaneously, to be able to appear as if they are ‘one being with 3 heads’: “We know! ” I changed the original mythological character of Charon in another actor or actress, Little Ron. I mixed many of the classic aspects of Charon such as the hood and cape, with sun glasses in order to comparison with Charon’s ‘blazing eyes’ motif. We also produced him exceedingly short to be able to dismiss virtually any preconceptions that this audience may possibly have of Charon getting ‘spooky’ and ‘all powerful’. As opposed to Orpheus paying Charon ‘one silver coin’ to descend in the underworld, Christian instead provides Little Ron a cigarette.
I experienced this built in with my own modern-day prospect and also would add a comical element by simply effectively having “God” smoking. One of the most remarkable changes My spouse and i made to the original tale is that in my edition, Edie chooses to stay in the ‘underworld’, in fact it is she, in contrast to Des/Hades, who also sends Christian back to the ‘upper world’ with the dismissive remark “I’m an presenter, Chris”. By simply changing the original ending, Edie has found her real presence in the underworld, and to her, it is the higher world which is full of misery.
Christian, however becomes a classic photo of guy melancholy: “homeless and struggling to even strum his electric guitar. ” He could be an allusion to the current problems in masculinity, a phenomenon often been vocal in the media, his ‘traditional role’ because the musician taken over by simply his woman counterpart: forgotten for “Keith Harris”. Because of this, Christian seems his masculinity has been insecure. This is then simply made sarcastic by his final chicken cry of “My tweezers! ” In the final picture, I had Edie “smiling sadistically” as your woman plucks her eyebrows, a sign of her mocking of Christian, a reversal with the original patriarchal tale.
To get whereas in the original textual content, it is the ‘hero’ Orpheus whom ‘goes on his quest and fails’, inside my transformation it is the ‘heroine’ Edie, who not merely sets off on her behalf ‘quest’ nevertheless also succeeds and finally, it is she who ‘comes out on top’. BIBLIOGRAPHY Philip, Neil. The Illustrated Publication of Myths, (DK, 2000) Hughes, Allen.
Ted Hughes’ Collected Plays for Children, (Faber, 2001) Widdicombe, Rupert. The Sunday Times, (4 September 1994, CINEMA, pages 10-11) Ross, Alison and Greatrex, Jen. A2 English Terminology and Materials, (Heinemann, 2001) Eagleton, Terry.
Literary Theory, An Introduction (Blackwell, 1996) Machery, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Development (Routlege and Kegan Paul. 1978) Penible, Robert.
The Greek Myths: 1 (Penguin, 1955) Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Quest: Mythic Framework for Writers (Michael Wiese Productions, 1998) Cartwright, Jim. Road (Samuel French, 1989)