Medea Response- Zora Kesich
Medea Response
Euripedes’ Medea is one of the few Greek tragedies I have seen performed. Thus, my prior knowledge of tragedies is limited, but nonetheless, I found the play to be captivating and complex. I found it interesting that the protagonist of the play, Medea, was not necessarily easy to relate to in her actions but her motivations themselves were understandable to the audience and nothing she did seemed out of character.
The character of Medea was provocative and entertaining to watch throughout the play. It made me feel uneasy, knowing that she was emotionally unstable and willing to stop at nothing in order to enact her idea of justice. The actress who played Medea, did a convincing job of portraying this emotional instability. In the scenes where she was fraught with anger and hysterical, she certainly made me believe that she was authentically feeling these emotions. I found her character interesting because she was struggling with pain that could almost be considered universal. She was asking the questions, as many have asked before and after her: Why did this person hurt me? Why do they love someone else instead of me? These questions are not unique, but the way Medea responded to her pain was certainly a more extreme method than others in her position would choose to employ.
Medea’s reasoning for her actions was that she was seeking justice. When one of her slaves points out that she is not truly seeking justice, but revenge, she is unfazed and continues in her pursuit of ‘justice’. I think that the way her character is written suggests some form of mental illness, even if there was name for it at the time. Medea is unable to look out for her children’s best interest, she is so deeply hurt. Without the person whom she loved, her whole world came crashing down around her and she had no ability to even attempt to move forward from this. She handled the situation in the most dramatic way possible, in order to hurt others the way she felt she herself had been hurt. To me, this suggests that areas in her brain that regulate emotion were not working as they should.
Medea’s character develops, but not in the same way as I had previously understood the concept. Prior to this, ‘character development’ had a positive connotation for me. I assumed, (subconsciously) that characters changed for the better. Medea’s change was from that of extreme depression and despair to one of calculated vengefulness, and then at the very end to one of amplified pain. I think it was more interesting that her character remained in turmoil throughout the play, rather than being neatly simplified with a relatively happy ending. I suppose this is the purpose of tragedies, but as I had not been exposed to many tragedies before this, I did not truly understand the concept until watching the play.
Overall, the most interesting aspect of the play to me was as Medea’s tortured mental state, and the manner in which it played itself out. I found it noteworthy that the play began with Medea’s pain. We never got to see her in a happy marriage with Jason. Throughout the entirety of the play she was either in a state of despair or seeking vengeance. Thus, we only know Medea as a tortured soul, allowing the viewer to comprehend her irrational actions, although not sympathize with them. I never found myself shocked at anything she did. To me, all of her behavior seemed like a natural progression. From the beginning, the viewer can tell that she is so deeply hurt, to the point where she is ignoring the welfare of her children, that much of her behavior throughout the play will be extreme and motivated by strong emotions rather than logic.