January Conference 1999
THEATRE
: ANCIENT & MODERN
Return
to contents
Greek
Tragedy and Storytelling:
A Fresh Look at Narrative and Performance
Steve
Woodward, The Open University, UK
In this paper I
am aiming to show how Attic tragic drama can be appropriated
and adapted for performances of different kinds, depending on
the intentions of those who are using the drama in this way
and the medium used. Specifically I shall be looking at how
Attic tragic drama is appropriated for, as well as appropriate
to, journeys of self-discovery by individuals and groups of
individuals through performance. This will be illustrated with
reference to two different types of example, firstly groups
of children aged twelve to thirteen who have re-enacted the
Oedipus story mediated to them by a teacher/storyteller, and
secondly Pier Paolo Pasolini who in his film Edipo Re explores
the question of identity through a personal cinematic interpretation
of the same storyline. Differences and similarities of narrative
approach between these will be highlighted. This will be done
taking into account the different contextual frameworks within
which each is working, the one fluid and changing in response
to live storyteller and audience, the other framed in an unchanging
performed version albeit one which has gone through the creative
flux of production. In both cases artistic possibilities are
circumscribed by particular restraints which are different from
each other as well as being different from the context of performance
pertaining in the fifth century BCE when Sophocles produced
the version which has influenced all subsequent reworkings.
Yet despite these
differences, it will be argued, similar issues emerge concerning
the structuring of narrative, both how it is achieved and for
what reasons and with what results. This can be used to suggest
that Attic tragic drama and the body of myth from which it originated
is an appropriate starting-off point for journeys of exploration,
both personal and artistic, and for the making of meanings during
those journeys communicated as they are through performance.
Madan Sarup has
argued that the complex nature of identity is bound up with
narrative through the human propensity for storytelling.[1]
Moreover, in using as his example the play Oedipus Tyrannus,
the main theme of which he sees as a 'person's search for
identity', he implicitly recognises the link between storytelling
and dramatic re-enactment, thus highlighting the dynamic nature
of the process through which identity is explored and constructed.
For identity is seen not as a fixed entity but as a changing
construction which depends upon interrelationships with others
and with place. Care must be exercised, however, in using the
term 'identity' in this context. As Justina Gregory, for example,
has argued, this term is often too loosely attached to the drama
of Oedipus Tyrannus. For, in showing that for an Athenian
of the fifth century BCE identity was linked with status in
specific ways, she gives the vague phrase 'drama of identity'
a particular contextual focus.[2]
By extension any twentieth century CE view of identity in relation
to the play depends on the reception of it within a specifically
twentieth century CE context, and even within this there is
no one correct, definitive interpretation, for the reception
by a sophisticated Italian film-maker will necessarily differ
from that by children in an English school. This does not mean,
however, that certain common features are not present, not the
least of these being the fact that a performance of some kind
takes place as an expression of the act of appropriation of
the story at whatever level of artistic competence.
At the heart of
such performance lies the art of storytelling. For this to be
set in motion something called a story is needed. This is not
so obvious as it sounds, for the story must have coherence and
for this to be achieved it must assume a form, which of necessity
must reflect the circumstances of composition. Therefore, for
me to say that I want to use the Oedipus story as the basis
for my storytelling means that I am looking for a version of
it. I might go to a translation of Sophocles' play, or I might
go to the original Greek, perhaps using the Oxford text, or
I might use a classical reference book, or I might rely on a
sort of folk memory of the story from my experience of classical
culture over many years, or most likely I might use a combination
of these.
I now have the problem
of detail. How reductionist do I need to be in order to have
my story ready for telling? What decisions do I take, on what
grounds and how, over which details are essential to the story
and which are simply embellishments? Is it, indeed, possible
to reduce a story in this way to a series of Barthean structuralist
nuclei driven by the agency of characters whose actions and
words are thus circumscribed.[3]
It is illuminating to examine summaries by others (for example
Freud's synthesis, the purpose of which was linked to journeys
of discovery of a particular psychological kind,[4]
or summaries by translators like Wertenbaker or Fagles who are
trying to provide a route through Sophocles' play for readers
and audience)[5] in the quest for
some sort of archetypal structure. It may even be significant.
My purpose, however, is not like some latter-day Casaubon to
find a key for all the mythologies, but to produce a working
version for storytelling.
If my storytelling
is to be oral there are considerable implications. A written
version can be read internally by the reader, who has no need
to communicate with anyone else and who, therefore, has no need
to elaborate on the text as it stands. If, on the other hand,
the story is being read aloud to someone else, although it is
likely that the text will largely be left unchanged, there is
some scope for improvisation, whether by design in response
to the listener or by inadvertent error. An oral telling without
an intermediary text, however, is completely different, requiring
as a necessary part of its dynamic improvisatory work on the
part of the teller in order to give the story shape and to accommodate
interactions with the audience.[6]
A second necessary
decision is on form. Sophocles' version of the Oedipus story,
as being the most influential, might provide the main story-points,
especially if a secondary objective is to introduce listeners
to the tragic drama. Its form, however is that of a play set
within a single place and a limited time-scale. The characters
might on occasion use storytelling to impart previous action
but their main immediate function is to interact in front of
an audience which is difficult to portray in storytelling. A
more natural storytelling version, therefore, can be by using
details from the Sophoclean drama to construct a linear, diachronic
journey. This also has the practical advantages of both reinforcing
the idea of 'journey of discovery' and enclosing the essentials
of the story within a configuration more immediately meaningful
to young people than Sophocles' complex web of reference.
The details for
such a structuring can be extracted from Sophocles' dramatic
exposition, resulting in a sequential narrative that starts
a little before the birth of Oedipus and continues as a straight
life-story up to the point of Oedipus' exile from Thebes. A
clearly tabulated version of this approach has been presented
by Brian Vickers not for storytelling purposes but to show what
he calls the 'chronology of the myth' followed by 'the chronology
of the play'.[7] It is a useful
check to any construction of storyline but even here key moments
such as what happened at the crossroad in Phocis are not certain
and defined. This breakdown is as follows:
7. Oedipus flees
Corinth.
8. Laius and his
party of four servants killed at a crossroad in Phocis
9(a). [FALSE] Laius
killed by several bandits
9(b). [TRUE] Laius
killed by one man
10. Oedipus solves
the riddle of the Sphinx.
11. Oedipus marries
Jocasta.
This shows how difficult
it is to arrive at a series of essential points to the story.
The true/false dichotomy
of what 'really' happened at the crossroad after Oedipus decided
to take the road to Thebes may be fundamental to the fabric
of Sophocles' drama but is not an issue in linear biographical
narrative, where the journey, told by a narrator from a single
point of view, has no complex network of possible perspectives.
More important here is the decision of Oedipus to take the Theban
route, which is implied in Vickers' framework but not included
as a separate event, presumably because it is not a factor developed
in the Oedipus Tyrannus.
Yet in a sequential
storytelling the storyteller is likely to include this as a
separate incident for the story to make sense. Another storytelling
addition is the request by the Thebans to Oedipus to help them
against the Sphinx as linking his arrival from Phocis to his
encounter with the Sphinx. My storytelling summary is, therefore,
adapted accordingly.
A more ruthless
summary might reduce this, but for storytelling purposes all
links are needed in order to compose a credible sequence. The
storyteller can then improvise and elaborate through performance
to create interest and richness of fabric. [A demonstration
of the technique is possible here.][8]
This flexible approach,
based on what have variously been called 'nucleii' or 'kernels'
of major events that advance the plot and which are supplemented
and embellished by intermediary events and the intervention
of characters through the storyteller's manipulations and interactions
with the audience, provides a stimulus for dramatic activity.[9]
The performance and decisions of the storyteller are important,
but so too are the responses of the audience.
I would now like
to summarise and analyse some re-enactments of this part of
the story done by children in response to a storytelling that
was based on the principles described above. Six groups of children
in a mixed-ability class in a comprehensive school in South
Yorkshire devised, improvised, performed and finally scripted
plays. Transcriptions were made of audiotaped improvised performances
presented to the class as a whole at the end of a process that
had taken several weeks. The children had become fluent storyteller-actors,
enacting the same sequences time and time again, their written
scripts serving as approximations or rough maps, not definitive
final versions.[10]
I shall concentrate
on one short section, the encounter of Oedipus with the Sphinx,
partly because of space, and partly because this incident is
at the heart of Oedipus' journey of self-discovery. At this
point he is trying to construct an identity for himself whilst
trying to deny something which will later be seen as crucial
to its formation (i.e. the prophecies about killing his father
and marrying his mother). His actions of avoidance are helping
to form an identity which uses what he is trying to avoid. He
is also creating a reputation for cleverness which underpins
his relationship with the people of Thebes and which is the
source both of his success and of his undoing. The children
found this intriguing even if they did not understand the full
implications.
The improvised plays
had as their potential starting-point the prophecy given to
Laius before Oedipus' birth and as a terminus his assumption
of kingship and marriage to Jocasta. The six groups were given
freedom of choice within these parameters. As a result five
of the groups included the Sphinx segment. From these a distinct
spine of similarities in terms of events can be detected along
with the inevitable variations.
Two influencing
factors may have helped to produce convergence of plotlines,
firstly the influence of the storyteller and secondly the working
environment consisting as it did of a single classroom which
encouraged cross-group collaboration and imitation. All groups
had as the centre-point the confrontation between Oedipus and
the Sphinx with Oedipus' cleverness emphasised. Before this
they all included a section in which Oedipus agreed to confront
the Sphinx, but in each case this was effected differently,
some, for example, suggesting the incentive of a reward, but
one making Jocasta persuade Oedipus. All five groups also had
an end section in which Oedipus became king and married Jocasta,
but no two were identical, the degree of Oedipus' keenness and
agency being variable.
Characters were
used in a variety of combinations to tie the structure together,
a prototypical chorus emerging from four groups. How should
this evidence be interpreted?
There seem to be
four main points.
Firstly, the influence
of the storyteller in demonstrating how interactions of characters
can drive the plot. Secondly, the ways in which groups use their
experience of listening to reinterpret the storyline in dramatic
form, keeping certain incidents but adding variations. Thirdly,
and as a direct consequence of the two previous features, the
fact that given certain circumstances dramatic reinterpretations
can be seen to arise naturally from the process of storytelling.
Fourthly, and specific
to this particular story, the centrality of the construction
of identity both in terms of Oedipus as subject and for the
children themselves in their living through Oedipus' life-experience
in a proactive creative way. They enjoy experiencing the imaginative
trek through the desert and Oedipus' cleverness in answering
the riddle both for the storyline and for their own participation
in restructuring through performance. Their own identities are
being constructed at the same time as the artistic creations
they produce. Thus there is both an aesthetic aspect, in the
autonomous structuring of an improvised drama, and an existential
one, in their awareness of where they stand in relation to it
and to those with whom they have collaborated. The children
are not threatened through exposure to something difficult and
dangerously personal, but are able to identify sufficiently
with the hero (and this applies equally to boys and girls) without
losing a sense of their own agency in his creation.
I now turn to Pier
Paolo Pasolini's film Edipo Re (1967) in the hope that,
through making comparisons between the manipulation of narrative
by a film-maker on the one hand and by a teacher/storyteller
and children improvising drama on the other, I will be able
to draw some conclusions about how narrative is shaped, with
particular reference to the construction of identity through
a journey of discovery. Pasolini as a conscious mature artist
was, of course, working at a higher level of intentionality
and skill than any child could achieve, although the distinction
is not quite so stark if the input of the teacher/storyteller
is seen as equivalent to at least part of Pasolini's role. Nonetheless
there are certain interesting similarities between what he has
done and the dramatic work of the children described earlier.
In particular he chose to structure his film, at least in part,
diachronically, starting with the abandonment of the baby Oedipus
and giving a life-story. This is a similar approach to that
tried in the classroom, the treatment of the baby proving a
matter of concern to the children and one which they had been
keen to include in their drama. If this is added to the incidents
at the crossroads and the encounter with the Sphinx one has
a collection of key moments of interest. Could it be that the
children have intuitively latched onto those particular junctures
in the story that have particular narratological and psychological
interest also to the film-maker? Pasolini's structure is more
complex through the addition of a prologue and an epilogue to
which he consciously attributed Freudian significance, the whole
consisting of what he called four 'movements':[11]
1. Prologue, set
in 'modern' times
2. The events
of the myth that precede the action of Sophocles' play
3. A version of
Oedipus Tyrannus
4. Epilogue, set
in 'modern' times
As the emphasis
of this paper is on narrative elements rather than psychological
ones I shall not concentrate on meanings except in so far as
they are affected by how meanings are presented in narrative
terms. Pasolini's Oedipus follows the same journey as that shown
to and taken by the children: a shepherd finds a child, Polybus
adopts the child, Oedipus is accused of not being who he thinks
he is, he goes to the Delphic oracle for advice, he is told
he will kill his father and marry his mother, he reaches a crossroads
where he decides to take the route to Thebes, he kills men in
an incident, he reaches Thebes, he offers help on request, he
destroys the power of the Sphinx. I was haunted by Pasolini's
film portrayal of Oedipus in this section as he trudged through
desert with his wide-brimmed petasus to shield him from the
sun, long shots alternating with close-ups to show his reactions
to his predicament. It corresponded, in fact, to my own instincts
as storyteller, for by coincidence before I had ever viewed
the film I had in my storytelling used the image of trudging
through the desert as part of the quest both to construct identity
and to try to avoid the one assigned by fate. I was fascinated
by the intensity, the determination, the exploration of self
portrayed and wished to convey this to my audience, sensing
that this depth of concentration on identity was something they
would welcome, certainly on the level of enjoyment and probably
on a deeper level of which they were not explicitly conscious.
Yet there are also
several clear differences, the main ones of which I will now
discuss briefly. Firstly, in Pasolini's version at the crossroads
Oedipus does not make a rational decision based on conscious
evaluation of the merits and demerits of the three possible
routes but spins round with his hands over his eyes, allowing
chance to dictate his direction. This appears to reflect an
acceptance by Pasolini of some element of 'blind' fate in Oedipus'
journey. Secondly, it is a character called Anghelos who asks
for Oedipus help against the Sphinx. The fact that Anghelos
is played by Pasolini himself seems to accentuate the personal
nature of the journey of the film-maker. Thirdly, the Sphinx
does not ask a riddle, but speaks enigmatically of the answer
lying within Oedipus himself. Oedipus' response is to push the
Sphinx down to its death, showing Oedipus' agency as well as
the internal journey of discovery that is taking place simultaneously
with the physical journey.
All in all it can
be seen that Pasolini has particular purposes for his manipulation
of structure. Time and space do not allow me to explore the
diversity of meanings that can be attached to these, but what
is important for the purpose of this paper is that manipulation
of structure occurs and seems to coincide with the making of
meanings of some kind. This is equally true of the work of the
storyteller end children described earlier.
I finally turn to
Oedipus Tyrannus which served as the starting-out point
for both explorations. Clearly the context of its performance
was particular, being embedded in a culture where a form of
communal storytelling unfolded in the theatre. The mode was
dramatic, depending on conventions which imposed certain conditions.
Certainly Sophocles used these conventions expertly, positioning
plot and characters within a framework of time and place where
the interaction and verbal exchanges between characters told
the story present and past, sometimes in fragments. The encounter
between Oedipus and Laius is revealed from two different perspectives
through the storytellings of Oedipus and Jocasta respectively,[12]
whereas the Sphinx episode is revealed only partially through
a series of references by the Priest, Creon, Oedipus and the
Chorus, its status as the zenith of Oedipus' fortunes and skill
being emphasised.[13] Through
judicious selection Sophocles has prioritised what is needed
to serve his purpose in Oedipus' particular journey of self-discovery.
This is culturally specific, but also capable of appropriation.
In fact Greek mythic
storylines, especially those in dramatic form, seem generally
amenable to appropriation and reinterpretation. This can be
attributed to the clearly defined junctures in an ultimately
sequential narrative which underlies even a work as complex
as Oedipus Tyrannus. In addition these are linked by
the subject's search for and construction of identity, as in
the case of Oedipus. This construction is carried out through
performance, whether in the theatre or in a film or in a classroom
storytelling session.
The construction
of identity is something we participate in throughout our lives.
Children at the onset of adolescence are at a point when such
considerations are particularly powerful. It is not surprising,
therefore, that much is to be gained from presenting them with
story frameworks in which they can actively participate.[14]
I have, I hope, demonstrated one way in which this can be done.
Creative artists
such as Pasolini might also be seen as people who explore things
which the population at large have neither the time, perceptiveness,
the will, the opportunity nor the skills to undertake. They
use the raw stuff of their own life in their artistic explorations,
but can strengthen it if, like Pasolini, they apply it to a
tested structure such as that supplied by Greek myth.
Greek myth is a
type of storyline that has endured. I do not wish to attribute
universal significance to it. What I do wish to do is to reiterate
its value as a structure that can be varied and reformed depending
upon the particular journey undertaken. Children may be intrigued
with the ways in which a hero like Oedipus travels on a journey
physically and mentally, proving himself resilient and resourceful
in the face of danger. Through storytelling and their own participation
in dramatic improvisation they can explore their own attitudes
and those of others to the hero and his storyline as well as
to their own growing perception of themselves. Pasolini may
have had a particular journey he wished to make as a human being,
but it is through the use of the moving image in the adaptation
of a mythic structure that, in this instance, he enabled himself
to construct a route through the desert for his journey. For
just as identity is constantly being constructed, so myth is
capable of being adapted to accommodate the process.
Return
to contents page
Endnotes
[1]
M. Sarup Identity, Culture and The Postmodern World (Edinburgh
University Press, 1996) 15.
[2]
J. Gregory 'The encounter at the crossroads in Sophocles' Oedipus
Tyrannus', Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. CXV, 1995
pp. 141-146.
[3]
R. Barthes 'Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives'
pp. 79-124 in (ed and tr) S. Heath Image, Music, Text
(Fontana, 1977).
[4]
S. Freud 'Oedipus Rex' pp.101-102 in (ed) T. Woodard Sophocles
(Prentice-Hall, 1966).
[5]
In fact the more straightforward summary is supplied by B. Knox
'Greece and the Theater' pp. 27-28 in (tr) R. Fagles Sophocles:
The Three Theban Plays Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1984. Knox
shows some recognition of the difference between sequential
narrative and the play-form in his use here of the phrase 'order
of mythical events'.
[6]
The importance of the audience in oral storytelling has been
given some recent attention, for example by V. Zajko 'Speaking
Myth', Arethusa 28, 1995 pp. 21-38, but there is no demonstration
of how this might be realised, the theorising of performance
and its reception remaining a relatively neglected area.
[7]
B. Vickers Towards Greek Tragedy I (Longman, 1973) 502-507.
[8]
When I delivered this paper at the conference, at this point
I gave a demonstration of oral storytelling technique, starting
from Oedipus' arrival as a stranger at Thebes and ending at
the point when he is offered the kingship of the city and Jocasta's
hand in marriage as rewards for destroying the Sphinx. Such
a storytelling is by its nature ephemeral and unique, nor transcribed
in print does it have the improvisatory impact of live performance.
It is also beyond the scope of this paper to conduct an analysis
of the details of the performance. Nonetheless this is an area
of narratology that has not received the attention it deserves.
There is increasing interest in storytelling, but not so much
in how stories are told. For example, E. Minchin 'Homer and
the art of storytelling', Omnibus 37, 1999 pp. 1-3 uses
modern storytelling to illuminate aspects of Homer's technique
but only in a generalised way. Even storytellers themselves
tend to avoid close analysis of performance, looking at meaning
and effect rather than how structure evolves, for example J.
Peters, T.Aylwin and S. Steele 'Elena The Wise', Storylines
vol.4 no.7, (1998).
[9]
Barthes 'Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives'
pp. 93-96 discusses narrative in terms of nuclei (cardinal functions),
Sarup 'Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World' pp. 17-18
in terms of kernels. My own preference is for the term 'junctures'
as indicating important turning-points or sites of decision-making,
as I have argued in S. Woodward The Uses of Classical Greek
Myth and Drama in the Education and Development of the Child
(unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Sheffield, 1987) 142-146.
[10]
These particular pieces of work were recorded and transcribed
in March 1981. Other examples, recorded by different children
at different times, reinforce my findings from them.
[11]
I follow the summary of M. Viano A Certain Realism: Making
Use of Pasolini's Film Theory and Practice (University of
California Press, 1993) 173-174, rather than that of N.Greene
Pier Paolo Pasolini: Cinema as Heresy (Princeton University
Press, 1990) 152, as his division into four parts and summary
classifies more decisively the diachronic structure of the underlying
story than Greene's tripartite division which includes the mythic
Oedipus' early life with the action of Sophocles' play as a
single central section.
[12]
Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus ll. 711-813.
[13]
Vickers Towards Greek Tragedy p. 503 includes the more
explicit and direct major references to Oedipus' agency, those
by the Priest (l. 35), Oedipus himself (ll. 391-398) and Chorus
(ll. 1197-1201), but not more oblique ones, those by Creon (ll.130-131),
Chorus (ll. 1197-1201) and Chorus (l. 1525)
[14]
Recent work has been done on the justifiability, usefulness
and effect of mythic storylines in moral education in schools.
For example J. Winston Drama, Narrative and Moral Education
(Falmer Press, 1998) 123-142 shows how the folk-tale of Jack
and the Beanstalk can be used with children to explore ethics
through storytelling and drama that is serious but not necessarily
solemn. M. Hourihan Deconstructing the Hero: Literary Theory
and Children's Literature (Routledge, 1997) 1-8 and 233-235
acknowledges the narrative power of mythic quest stories like
Jason and the Golden Fleece, arguing that as they are gender-biased
a widening of the bank of such stories is desirable.
Return
to contents
|
Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English