tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5420719061656060373.post8189539177506056052..comments2011-05-22T11:39:13.982-07:00Comments on Rescumi: Blood Relations: Part IIRectihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06737375327012412922noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5420719061656060373.post-9840396643156303322011-03-10T12:53:37.887-08:002011-03-10T12:53:37.887-08:00Thanks for your excellent comments.
I don’t disag...Thanks for your excellent comments. <br />I don’t disagree that there are a few great plays that transcend contemporary ethics or morals, or that don’t really confront moral issues. They have to be extremely rich in exposing the personal tragedy of characters. In that event, we might say there is an ethical issue: “Now that you know how human I am, tell me how I can go on living?”<br /> Blood Relations, which can never be called “great,” does not even attempt that. We’re not watching much of Lizzie’s existential rage on stage. In fact, most of the action happens AFTER the trial, when Lizzie is living scot free.<br /> At that stage, she does not have the requisite debate with herself about the ethics of killing her parents. All she does is continue to complain: Why does everybody stare at me??<br /> It’s true that ethical standards, in Greek tragedy, are sometimes hard to pinpoint.<br /> Notwithstanding that, I don’t think one can claim Medea as a text outside of ethics. There is rage, jealousy, anger; but there is also awareness of how monstrous her act of murder will be. In addition, Medea was a foreign-born character for those Athenians who watched the play; given Athenian culture, that audience would have been much more at ease watching Medea as a “monster” than we are, as we watch the daughter of the Bordens. Finally, it must be said that moral pain is expressed by the Chorus.<br /> As I mentioned above, it’s the programming of this manifestly political play, Blood Relations, that causes us unease. The play is not a “window into the lesbian soul.” It’s a justification of patricide, some might say a trivialization of it, based upon an unexplainable affection for the character Lizzie by the author.Rectihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06737375327012412922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5420719061656060373.post-75262701798293980962011-03-10T11:36:09.885-08:002011-03-10T11:36:09.885-08:00This second instalment of “Blood Relations” raises...This second instalment of “Blood Relations” raises questions about the critical approach. Can it not be argued that great literary works (which don’t necessarily include Pollock’s play) transcend ethical criticism and social mores?<br /><br />Consider that Pollock’s Lizzy Borden (not the historical figure) is in a long line of bloody females going back to Clytemnestra and Medea. When the latter murders her children, does Euripides expect the audience simply to understand the action as an ethical failure?<br /><br />Pollock’s presentation of Lizzy might also be seen in the Romantic context of Byron’s or Shelley’s heroes. Manfred is essentially a psychodrama which presents the character’s rage and rebellion as beyond the rule of conventions.<br /><br />These comparisons are not intended to elevate Pollock’s Blood Relations but to suggest why even a bad play (like Manfred) can have a long life independent of good judgment. Perhaps this discussion is really about faddish tastes in Theatre.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140255278886770910noreply@blogger.com