Prompt: I want to know how you respond to the character of Medea. In class, I discussed how several of the characters responded to Medea, and sometimes, as with the Nurse, Aigus, and the Chorus, the response is complex--sympathetic and complicit but by no means happy. In your blog, identify two or three passages in the play that change your perception and attitude toward Medea, and then explain what you think about the ending, with Medea on her chariot pulled by dragons. Why does Euripides end the play in this manner? What is his reason for showing her "getting away" with the murders of her children, Creon, and his daughter? To help you clarify your own response to Medea, I urge you to insert images of Medea as you find them on the web and references to any commentaries on the play that you encounter.

After reading over Medea a few times through, I had mixed feelings for this wild, untamed-beast-like creature they call human. The first part of the play revealed her evil deeds that made her so reputably bad in my eyes. She gave up her everything by killing her father and her brother and fleeing from her hometown to be with Jason. Furthermore, Medea convinced the two daughters of Pelias into poisoning their own father. 

Medea is portrayed as a evil, soulless witch in the very beginning of the play

However, even though I can call her such a disgusting name, I feel bad at the same time. My view towards Medea changed in lines 17-130, when Medea takes the role of a high school teenager after a breakup, feeling hopeless and bitter as the nurse tries to make things better. She experiences great contempt for everything that reminds her of Jason, including her own two children. Medea's sorrow continues through episode 1 when she is talking with the chorus and when Creon banishes Medea from Corinth.

 

Medea expressing her sorrow to the chorus

Finally, during the Second Stasimon, my view towards Medea changed and stayed the same until the end of the story as she is reunited with Aegeus. Suddenly this once brutal, soulless woman is respectful and calm as she talks to Aegeus, King of Athens. With this section of the play, my opinion of Medea changed and had I been in the play, I would have helped her. The kindness that she displayed won me over and nothing could taint the perception that I had for her. Suddenly I was wanting her to scheme a horrible plan to kill Jason; I even thought the plan she devised was not brutal enough. I was pleasured by the messenger's message to Medea after the royal family was killed. I enjoyed Jason's rage vicariously through Medea and celebrated the ending of this play as I ran around my dorm room yelling, "SHE DID IT!"

Medea manages to change my opinion of her when she talks to Aegeus

I personally thought this was a very suitable ending for this play and I think Euripides ended the play with Medea flying away to Athens in order to prove a point. Euripides wanted to prove with Medea that no matter how much pain she caused to herself, it was worth the pleasure of getting revenge on Jason. All the pain that she suffered through motivated her more and more to get back at Jason and once she did, she was rewarded with glory and a golden chariot pulled by dragons.

I think that the Chariot in the end signified the completion of her task/revenge

Prompt: Contrast two forms of medieval theater with two forms of Japanese theater. What differentiates the forms in relation to philosophical, political, or aesthetic objectives? Why have Japanese theater forms endured so long while medieval theater forms have not endured so well into our own time?

After studying Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman theater, as well as Medieval and Renaissance forms of theater, it was time to move even more east to study ancient Japanese theater. What interested me in particular was Bunraku and Kabuki - two of the four styles of Japanese theater. Below, I will see exactly how different

Bunraku and Kabuki styles of theater are philosophically, politically, and aesthetically. 

Bunraku is a show performed by puppets that are manipulated by humans on a small stage. Each puppet is controlled by three puppeteers (the first puppeteer controls the eyelids, eyeballs, eyebrows, mouth, and the right arm, the second puppeteer controls the left arm only, and the third controls the legs). As the puppeteers are manipulating the puppets, the chanter (tayu) provides the voices of all the characters and the shamisen player presents music for a dramatic effect. Bunraku became popular in the late 17th century when playwright Chickamatsu Monzaemon and 

chanter Takemoto Gidayu worked together and created the Takemoto puppet theater in 1684 (Overview of Bunraku Puppet Theater). Many of these plays had themes based off of Buddhist and Confucian morals.  

Above: Performers are performing "Katsuragawa -Renrinoshigarami" at the National Bunraku Theater

Kabuki theater is a Japanese performance that with women performers. However, due to some moral issues, women were banned, which benefited the Kabuki theater by making the playwrights concentrate more on drama, rather than beauty. Even so, Kabuki theater had very elaborate costumes, and had many spectacular scenic effects. Kabuki, unlike Noh theater, was innovative and changed quite a bit and because of that, it was the most popular of the four types of Japanese theater. Performances were held on large stages and often involved a romance.

Kabuki Performers often wore very elaborate costumes

The main difference between Bunraku and Kabuki is the fact that Bunraku uses puppets while Kabuki performers did not. There are other differences, such as the theater space size, and costumes as well as the type of audience Lastly, Bunraku resists change while Kabuki accepts it. Bunraku theater was actually influenced by Kabuki theater, but it concentrated more on the story and drama rather than the characters.

Overall, these two types of Japanese theater interest me a lot. Hopefully, I will someday and go see one of these fascinating types of play.

Sources:

http://web-japan.org/museum/bunraku/about_bu.html

http://www.pref.osaka.jp/en/attraction/culture/bunraku/index.html

http://park.org/Japan/Kabuki/about/overview.html

Prompt: Describe two fundamental differences between ancient Greek and ancient Roman theater and give a reason why the Romans and Greeks differed in their organization of space for theater.

While ancient Greek and ancient Roman theater may have their similarities, it is their differences that mostly stand out. Ancient Greek and ancient Roman theater are different because of their layouts of theater space and different classes of actors.

Ancient Greek and ancient Roman theater were very different from the way their theaters were built and organized. Although both cultures used the same basic structure, they have slight variations in their design. 

The William Randolph Hearst Greek Theatre

One of the variations in design is the location of where a theater is built. The Greeks used to build their theaters of wood; they were also built near sanctuaries and took advantage of slopeside for seating. Meanwhile, the Romans' theaters were nearly all temporary structures built on foundations. It was not until 55 BC that the Romans built their first permanent theater structure which seated approximately 40,000 people. That was a lot more than that of the Greek's, which could only hold 15,000. The Roman theater had a lot of influences from the church because of the conflicts that theater had with the church. Therefore, the theaters weren't always used for theater purposes. Other minor differences was the skene of the Roman Theater, which was three stories high (compared to the Greek's two story high skene).

The Theater of Aspendos, Turkey

Ancient Greek and ancient Roman theater are also different because of the people that acted. It is true that actors from both cultures were male and wore masks. However, they were different because they were from different classes. Greek actors were mostly aristocrats, and treated performances as competitions. The Roman actors, on the other hand, were mostly from the lower classes of the social ladder. Their performances were also mostly treated as gifts of entertainment to society from the wealthy people.

Sources:

http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/tragedy_theater.html

http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/comedy/romnthtr.htm