We have 3 different versions of Antigone for the last two seminars. The first was a straightforward translation. The second was Jean Anouilh's Nazi-Occupied France version. Finally, Bertolt Brecht's retelling. In all 3 books I take Antigone's side. I never falter on this. Antigone fights for what is right. Her understanding of the world is pleasantly attractive. She is trapped in a world of pragmatism. She believes the stories of deities and believes in punishment and reward. She stands for honour and virtue. She's also kind of a silly girl. But whatever.
The biggest difference amongst the three versions is the character Creon. In our first telling Creon is a cold bastard and nobody should like him. I don't anyway.
In Anouilh's version we have a bit more sympathy for Creon. We have this sympathy because we have a better understanding of his situation. He gives Antigone the freedom to stand on her own and he urges her to make a choice that will have a better solution for her. She still does not take it. She stands in defiance to Creon even though Creon explains that he knows what she is saying and he tries to calm her youthful fire with aged wisdom. Creon is by no means a good person in this version. He is a good leader though. He thinks and acts like a leader. So it is hard to judge him if we don't see where he is coming from.
In Brecht's version we get back to a colder Creon. He is slightly more worthy of our sympathy than the original Creon. This Creon gives us some really badass observations that make him right if not likable: "Ingrates! You'll eat the meat but you don't like to see the cook's bloody apron!" (57) and "so far no one has sent back the bronze-plate that I brought you from Argos, but you huddle together and babble about the blood-baths and complain of my crassness" (57). It is easy to criticize but people should consider their role in a situation before speaking up about the morality of it all. If we benefit from the wars on the middle east we should consider these benefits before speaking up about morals and equality. Even if you drive an electric car you probably bought it from a company that sells regular gasoline cars. Not to mention oil is used for more than just fueling cars. After all people, someone has to stand on the walls and someone has to get their hands dirty so we don't. Until we find a way to live without requiring these forms of evil we really can't condemn the evil-doers.
What I find changes the most from telling to telling is the degree to which we can relate to Creon. This is important because the Antigone character remains relatively stable throughout. As stated, I always take Antigone's side. This play is her play, it is her story. She will always do what Antigone does for the reasons Antigone has. She will always die for what she does. The difficult question is not about whether we take her side but whether or not we understand Creon.
If we understand the evil that he does we may feel like forgiving or permitting it. But we don't have to do that. And, I can scream bloody murder as long as I want it doesn't change anything. The hardest thing to do with Antigone is understand the hopeless inevitability of it all. The real problem started long before the action of the play. We are really just watching the end play out as it must.
The degree to which we can sympathize with the devil is the topic of interest then. So, how much do you have? Do you dare to investigate Creon's character, or, is it easier to call him a prick and walk away? Isn't it more valuable to understand the things we call evil? We can at least have fun with it, so listen to this song instead of thinking about it:
No comments:
Post a Comment