The Simplicity Of The Escape Con Comes From The Greeks In Iphigenia In Tauris!

The Good: Decent plot, One or two good lines
The Bad: Over-explains itself, No stunning lines, Somewhat weak characterizations
The Basics: A lighter play, Iphigenia In Tauris is one of Euripides’s plays that is happier, but troublingly obvious.


Lately, it seems like I have been reading quite a few Greek tragedies in my downtime. I’ve been reading plays largely because my breaks are so short and plays allow me to leap into a story without getting so immersed that I miss coming off my break. Fortunately, after a few tragedies, I had the chance to enjoy a Greek play that was dramatic, but not tragic. And enjoy it I did! Iphigenia In Tauris by Euripides is a Greek play that is a farce of convenience without any comedy. In fact, it reads almost like a thriller and were it not for how wordy it can be with explaining itself, it might be tempting to call Iphigenia In Tauris the original escape thriller.

Iphigenia In Tauris, like most Greek plays, is intended to be performed on a limited stage. As a result of having a small intended space upon which to act, Iphigenia In Tauris has limited stage directions and as a result, characters talk quite a bit about what they are doing or pretty big events that are happening off-stage. The result is a play that reads like someone telling the story of an escape plan, as opposed to watching people actually make a great escape. As well, readers today will find that Iphigenia In Tauris includes so many allusions to Greek stories that were distant subplots in the story of the Trojan War. Those two elements may make Iphigenia In Tauris a little less accessible to non-scholars of classic literature as opposed to those of us who love the classics.

Decades after being sold into slavery at the Temple of Artemis in Tauris, Iphigenia is a high priestess used by the Taurians to prepare their sacrifices (human sacrifices) for consecration within the temple. Iphigenia, along with the Chorus of Greek captives taken during the Trojan War for the same purpose, has never forgotten that she is a captive and she mourns her loss of freedom, even though she is really good at making sacrifices to Artemis. Whenever sailors land on Taurian shores, the soldiers capture them and bring them to Iphigenia for consecration and sacrifice. The Taurian King Thoas is thrilled when a pair of Greeks crash on the shores of Tauris and are captured by his soldiers.

The captives, who are brought to Iphigenia, are Orestes and his cousin, Phylades. Orestes is Iphigenia’s younger brother, though neither recognizes the other because of how young they were when Iphigenia was captured. Iphigenia makes a bargain with her captives: she will let one escape if they will take a message back to her brother, letting him know she is alive in order to get rescued by him. Orestes and Phylades fill Iphigenia in on her family’s fate after her capture and when she finally tells the pair the name of her brother, the Greeks conspire to steal a statue of Artemis from the temple and all get back to Orestes’s ship alive!

Euripides writes well and the story of Iphigenia is filled in well-enough so that readers can catch all of the specific allusions to Greek politicians and classic figures. While characters like Achilles who are mentioned (who are pretty famous to a layman), the extensive backstory of Agamemnon, Iphigenia, and Agamemnon’s wife are much more obscure. Their stories are told much the same way that “action scenes,” like Orestes describing how he intends to rob the temple of Artemis , are described.

Unfortunately, while Iphigenia In Tauris is good, the level of explanation is so extensive and dense that readers keep waiting for the inevitable. If Iphigenia In Tauris was to be a tragedy, the title character would only find out about her relation to Orestes after his death, but given how Euripides writes the scene leading up to the revelation of his identity, Orestes and Phylades toy with Iphigenia. The result is that the reader knows what is coming, in terms of the characters foreshadowing and setting up the reveal long before they make it explicit.

Iphigenia In Tauris is a decent play, even if it is a bit over-written. It’s refreshing to read something Greek that is not a tragedy, but it does make one wonder if Greek theatergoers needed both the authenticity of explanations of stories and lineage as well as somewhat dense descriptions that stave off the inevitable revelations of the truth that seem self-evident from such descriptions. Iphigenia In Tauris is entertaining, though it lacks a real “wow factor.”

For other plays, please check out my reviews of:
Hippolytus – Euripides
Arms And The Man – George Bernard Shaw
An Enemy Of The People – Arthur Miller

5.5/10

For other book reviews, please check out my Book Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Hippolytus Is A Background Character In His Own Tragic Play By Euripides.

The Good: Some decent lines, Ethics, Tragic story
The Bad: Incredibly simple, Very monolithic characters, Ridiculously simple plot
The Basics: The Euripides play Hippolytus has a very basic story with a clear Greek moral that might be better if it had action motivated by characters, as opposed to nebulous, manipulative, gods.


Lately, I’ve been on a classic play kick. I’ve been reading Euripides and the latest play by the ancient Greek playwright I have read is Hippolytus. Hippolytus is one of those plays that would never be made into an American movie for two key reasons: first, the plot is pretty creepy and deals with incestual lust and second, the major actions are not motivated by the primary characters. There is something very uncompelling about watching a work where the characters are simply tools as opposed to motivating the plot. Yet, in Hippolytus, the characters are basically playthings of the gods without actually having independent strength of their own.

Moreover, as a very simplistic play, Hippolytus does not rely upon a dramatic sense of movement or action. Instead, Hippolytus has all of its important action occur off-stage and Euripides tells as opposed to show in his writing. The Chorus in Hippolytus is relied upon heavily to sell the events of the plot, which makes for a pretty disappointing play (to read and use one’s imagination to imagine watching).

At the royal palace at Trozen, Queen Phaedra is troubled. Her stepson, Hippolytus, is a devote of Artemis. Artemis, among other things, is a Goddess of Virginity and Hippolytus is celibate. As a result, Hippolytus has offended Aphrodite, the Goddess of sexual love. Aphrodite curses Phaedra with a lust for Hippolytus. Phaedra realizes her feelings are wrong and refuses to act upon her sexual attraction to her stepson, but she confesses her feelings to her nurse. Her nurse, in turn, tells Hippolytus how Phaedra feels and advises the boy to consider relieving her pressure. Pissed off and offended, Hippolytus confronts his stepmother, but does not tell anyone of her feelings because he made an oath to the nurse not to tell anyone before she revealed Phaedra’s secret.

Embarrassed beyond belief and still cursed with the lust, Phaedra kills herself. King Theseus returns home to discover his wife dead and is distraught. When he finds Phaedra’s suicide note on her, he is angered at Hippolytus. In her suicide note, Phaedra claims that Hippolytus raped her and she killed herself to avoid the shame. Theseus banishes Hippolytus, who does not tell of Phaedra’s lustful feelings because of the promise he made. Leaving the kingdom, Hippolytus’s boat get beaten upon the rocks and he is nearly killed before the truth comes out.

Hippolytus is an exceptionally basic tragedy. It has a clear moral: don’t fuck your kids. Or, alternatively, don’t lie/some promises are not worth keeping or have sex of you’ll offend the gods. Anyway, the moral story leads to tragedy for all involved and it would be so much more compelling if one cared at all about the characters. As it is, the characters are just manipulated because Aphrodite is a pissy goddess who punishes one guy who just won’t give it away.

The problem is, Aphrodite is not characterized as interesting. She is just shallow and vengeful against a man who retains his virginity. Given how many people there were in Greece, punishing one man for not giving it up seems more ridiculous than divine and powerful. There’s not even a powerful relationship between Aphrodite and Artemis in Hippolytus. The result is a somewhat random grudge match with humans as tools of the gods. That part is not exactly a message that resonates today.

For other plays, please check out my reviews of:
Alcestis – Euripides
Arms And The Man – George Bernard Shaw
An Enemy Of The People – Arthur Miller

4.5/10

For other book reviews, please check out my Book Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Criticizing Euripides: Alcestis Is Basic, Not Literature.

The Good: Decent human emotion
The Bad: Plot fails to develop, Characters do not motivate the play’s events, Simplistic
The Basics: Little more than a character thumbnail sketch, Alcestis is a disappointing play that does not truly develop as much as it concludes.


One of the nice things about working in a terrible corporate environment is that I am given more time to read. Being forced to take breaks and having nothing in common with my coworkers has inspired me to go through more of my personal library and that has been an upside of a bad situation. Unfortunately, not all of my reading material is truly as memorable as one might hope. Alcestis, the classic Greek play by Euripides (as translated into English by Philip Vellacott) certainly falls into that category.

Alcestis is a very basic play that never truly develops beyond its original concept. It suffers because there is no genuine character development in it and, as such, it reads like a repetitive plot summary of the important events that precede the play itself. The play is hard to get excited about because it is, largely, one man whining quite a bit and then someone else doing the “heavy lifting” for him. In fact, the protagonist of Alcestis, the Greek king Admetus, is all about letting other people take important actions on his behalf and that makes for an uninspired lead character. Equally as important is the fact that Alcestis undermines its own themes about the nature of sacrifice.

Beginning with Apollo making a deal with Death in which he acknowledges that King Admetus was set to die, but that Queen Alcestis has opted to take his place, the machinations of the gods are affected by Alcestis’s strong sense of character. At the palace, Alcestis calls Admetus to her and declares that if she is taking his place with Death, that he should never remarry and not force their children to accept a stepmother. Alcestis then appears to die and her funeral procession leaves the palace. Shortly thereafter, Admetus begins to mourn and the palace takes in visitors.

Hercules, a friend of Admetus, drops by and despite the palace not being ready to receive him, Admetus insists that Hercules enjoy the hospitality of the king. While Admetus mourns – having lied and told Hercules that the palace is in mourning for the death of a recent visitor and friend of the family – Hercules gets drunk and makes a fool of himself. Admetus’s mother and father visit the palace to try to join in the mourning for Alcestis, but Admetus pushes them away, angered that neither of them offered to sacrifice themselves for Alcestis when he was dying. Admetus’s father, Pheres, is especially angered by Admetus’s insistence that he should have sacrificed himself so Alcestis did not have to step up. But when a servant tells Hercules the truth, Hercules is disappointed that Admetus lied to him and he resolves to wrestle Alcestis from the very grasp of Death itself.

Alcestis is a very basic philosophical play, but part of the problem with it is that it explores ideas, but takes no stances. So, for example, Alcestis’s sacrifice is seen as universally noble, but Admetus’s anger toward his father is met with a rational argument; Alcestis made her sacrifice with her free will and Pheres was under no obligation (as a free man himself) to sacrifice himself for his son. Pheres argues that he loves life as much as Admetus and that it would have been more honorable for Admetus to die as he had been fated to than let Alcestis take his place in death and then whine about her sacrifice. Pheres makes a good point, though Alcestis makes a reasonable point that as a man close to death anyway, Pheres could have made a sacrifice that illustrated real love for his son and daughter-in-law (especially given that he has nothing to live for).

Either way, the points become moot when the random element of Hercules is added to the mix. Alcestis, who has only the briefest on-stage role in the play that bears her name, has easily the most character in the play. She acts out of love and makes a decision with only the most minor string attached. Nevertheless, she makes her decision out of love and she does not articulate any regret for her decision.

But, Admetus whines his way through Alcestis and Hercules steps up to do the heroic thing. That makes Admetus seem weaker than Hercules (which he is!) and less resolved than his wife. Instead, he gets a second chance at life and whines his way into possibly getting that opportunity at no cost. That makes for a morally ambiguous play that seems to have the message that if one whines to the right people, they can get anything they want.

The play does not end up taking any strong stance on what is right or wrong in the circumstance and the moral ambiguity makes Alcestis seem more pointless than a treatise on free will. The reason for this (because I am not one who likes to be force fed the themes to my literature) is that no side in Alcestis argues with enough of a compelling or well-rounded view. Instead, each side argues its own monolithic point until Hercules just goes out and makes most of the arguments null and void. In other words, Alcestis fails to even commit to making a philosophical discussion. Even though it is short, Alcestis reads more like a waste of time than a compelling journey through ideas or characters.

For other plays, please check out my reviews of:
Arms And The Man – George Bernard Shaw
An Enemy Of The People – Arthur Miller
Long Day’s Journey Into Night – Eugene O’Neill

3.5/10

For other book reviews, please check out my Book Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Arms And The Man Presents A Very Typical Love Story . . . With Wonderful Lines And Lots Of Charm!

The Good: Very funny, Interesting characters, Decent plot, Some wonderful lines
The Bad: Very basic plot/character development
The Basics: Bernard Shaw writes the seminal pacifist romantic comedy with Arms And The Man.


The last few nights, as I work at my night job, I have found myself thinking of my high school and college girlfriend. For over three years we dated, despite going to different high schools and colleges and having increasingly divergent interests. One of the things she became very interested in was live theater. She went to an artistic high school and became a theater techie, so I attended a couple plays that she worked the light board and sound for. I realized that the reason she was drifting to my mind – a decade and a half after we were last together – because the book I was reading on my breaks was Arms And The Man. Arms And The Man, as I began to recall as I read, was my ex-girlfriend’s favorite play back in the day.

Reading Arms And The Man, I could actually see why – at least for the young woman she was back in the day. Arms And The Man is a romantic comedy by Bernard Shaw and it’s a quick read. The three act play is set during and after the Serbo-Bulgarian War in a Bulgarian house of Petkoff. Petkoff was a Major and he has left his wife and his daughter home while he and his daughter’s fiancé are out fighting the war.

One night, as the Serbian Army is fleeing through the town, Raina (the daughter of Major Petkoff) and Catherine lock down their house to protect themselves as soldiers flee through the town. Raina is in her bedroom when a soldier climbs the drainpipe and enters her room. The man is a Swiss soldier of fortune working for the Serbs. Raina is not intimidated by the exhausted soldier and when he tells a story that includes Raina’s fiancé, Sergius, her interest is piqued. Sergius, as it happens, led a cavalry charge against the Serbians which was tactically unwise, but succeeded because the Serbs had ammunition problems. Raina is thrilled by the story of Sergius’s victory and uses it as a point of derision against the man who has invaded her bedroom. The man reveals that he loathes warfare and prefers chocolates and over the course of the ludicrous conversation, he becomes exhausted, Raina becomes enthralled and she hides him in her room from the military forces that are pursuing him.

Months later, with the war over, Sergius returns to the Petkoff residence to reconnect with Raina. Raina is flirtatious with Sergius, but somewhat reserved and the Petkoff maid, Louka, becomes the subject of Sergius’s attention as well. With the relationship between Sergius and Raina strained, the appearance of Bluntschli (the man rescued by Raina months prior) at the home becomes a source of romantic intrigue. Bluntschli reappeared at the house to return the housecoat he wore when escaping the Bulgarian soldiers who were searching for him and to Raina’s shock, both Sergius and the Major recognize him. Over the course of the time together, Sergius and Raina realize they have little in common and Bluntschli and Raina banter quite a bit. When Bluntschli inherits a fortune, Raina is torn between the reliable, but unwanted, Sergius, and the uncertain, but desireable, Bluntschli.

Arms And The Man is funny and charming. Bernard Shaw is a master of banter in Arms And The Man. In addition to being witty and cute, Shaw uses his dialogue to deliver some pretty exceptional observations. Shaw has some biting commentary on military doctrines that remain relevant even today. As well, Shaw makes clever observations on the way men and women relate. He strips away the pretense of societal structures by having Raina’s affections for Sergius be based more on his reputation and stature as opposed to anything they have in common, contrasted with the instant chemistry of Raina and Bluntschli.

The characters in Arms And The Man are interesting. Bluntschli is funny, insightful, and charming; Raina coins the cute pet name “chocolate-cream soldier” for him. The moments of farce are well-delivered for humor without ever seeming ridiculous in a way that diminishes the rest of the potency of the themes. The result is a substantive romantic comedy that makes meaningful commentary that continues to resonate.

For other plays I have reviewed, please visit:
An Enemy Of The People By Arthur Miller
A Long Day’s Journey Into Night By Eugene O’Neill
The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare

8/10

For other book reviews, please visit my Book Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Simplified Premise, Great Idea: An Enemy Of The People!

The Good: Good plot, Decent characters, Themes
The Bad: No truly incredible lines, Underdeveloped characters, Rushed feeling
The Basics: Arthur Miller’s adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s play about societal pressure is smart but underdeveloped in An Enemy Of The People.


As I work at night, I use my breaks to read. Ironically when I picked An Enemy Of The People off the shelf (I’ve had the book since college, but not yet gotten around to reading it), I had no idea how relevant it would be to my life at work. An Enemy Of The People is essentially about how economic pressures cause a whole town to turn against a single man. As managerial issues came up at work, I actually took comfort in reading An Enemy Of The People.

An Enemy Of The People was my first experience with a work of Arthur Miller. Ironically, my first experience with Miller is not one of his original works. Instead, Miller adapted the play from a work of Henrik Ibsen. The book of An Enemy Of The People is only 125 pages and the three act play is a fast read. Unfortunately, the duration of the play An Enemy Of The People is indicative of a lack of sophistication. The concept of An Enemy Of The People is very simple and the characters never truly develop; the protagonist starts and ends the same way with a bunch of people talking about him for most of the play. That makes An Enemy Of The People far less compelling than it otherwise could be.

Doctor Thomas Stockmann and his family live in Kirsten Springs in Norway, a small village that is on the verge of incredible growth because of the health properties of the water in the town. Thomas’s brother is the mayor of Kirsten Springs and they have an amicable relationship . . . until the day that Dr. Stockmann gets test results he sent away for on the water. University scientists confirmed for Dr. Stockmann that runoff from a nearby plant is poisoning the rejuvenating water of Kirsten Springs. Getting the support of the local newspaper to print the article on the water situation, Thomas believes he will be hailed as the savior of the village.

But, when Peter Stockmann learns about Dr. Stockmann’s plan to expose the water problem, he begins a smear campaign against the scientist. Mayor Stockmann tells the newspaper owners that if the Kirsten Springs spa project is torpedoed, he will have to levy a massive tax to fix the problem which will destroy the local economy. Attributing a sinister motive to his brother, Peter turns the newspaper against Thomas and works to ensure that none of the halls in town will host Thomas speaking about the problem. When one of the town’s few free speech activists allows Thomas to hold a symposium on the issue, Peter hijacks it and turns the town against Thomas before the doctor can even present his argument.

An Enemy Of The People is essentially about how politicians work to protect their own interests often at the expense of the truth to maintain their power. What is billed on the back of the book as a play about the strength of the truth is a bit of a misnomer; An Enemy Of The People focuses so little on Dr. Stockmann’s pursuit of the truth and so much more on Peter Stockmann’s machinations to discredit him. Peter works the newspaper staff and manipulates the townspeople with procedural issues as opposed to the substance of the argument Dr. Stockmann has.

In fact, the frustrating aspect of An Enemy Of The People is how Dr. Thomas Stockmann has motives assigned to him and he pretty much rolls over on that. Everyone else in authority in the town accepts the biased motive Peter assigns to Thomas as well. That’s frustrating to see and it also diminishes the characters that surround the protagonist and antagonist. I get that Miller/Ibsen is trying to illustrate that people are sheep, but in An Enemy Of The People they are put at such absolutes that the play is frustrating to read and the characters do not pop. The newspapermen do not bother to stand up to Peter and they are not smart enough to question Peter’s accusations. They have empirical evidence delivered from a University and yet seem to forget that in face of Peter making one statement about why he thinks Thomas is accusing the Springs of being poisoned.

The result is that there is remarkably little conflict; An Enemy Of The People has a quick revelation and reversal and the rest of the play is just Dr. Stockmann and his family being persecuted. Lacking extensive clever lines, An Enemy Of The People is a great idea, but a mediocre execution. It might be worth reading once, but it’s not a play I’m likely to keep in my permanent collection.

For other plays I have reviewed, please visit:
A Long Day’s Journey Into Night By Eugene O’Neill
The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare
Spamalot!

6.5/10

For other book reviews, please visit my Book Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Long Journey Into The Family In Decline: Long Day's Journey Into Night Is Perfect!

The Good: Excellent Dialog, believable characters, overall powerful writing
The Bad: Slow pace?
The Basics: A wonderful character study and tragedy, Long Day's Journey Into Night is ideal for anyone with a beating heart!


Long Day's Journey Into Night is the finest example of playwriting as literature ever. That includes Shakespeare. Shakespeare's arguable weakness is in direction. Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night is written like a novel in terms of literary depth and its a refreshing breath into theater.

The play is about the Tyrone family, which is a family of alcoholics on the verge of extinction. It's the archetypal Modernist play and it's no mistake that it's being produced somewhere in the world right now - it maintains relevancy.

The play revolves around James Tyrone, a man in deep denial about his family and his stern position in ruling it. Surrounding the overbearing patriarch is a drug-addled wife, Mary who hallucinates and denies her way through the night of the play. Their sons are James Tyrone, Jr. (or Jamie), a young man who is largely regarded as a failure of an older son. The youngest, Edmund, is an acerbic young man who is on the verge of cruel and he's quite ill.

The pace of the play is a little slow in that it occurs all in one evening but it often feels longer as the loaded dialog wends its way with realistic intensity and diversion. The play is, essentially a bunch of people sitting around and talking. There's very little action in this one. It's a Modernist play, what did you expect?

The basic plot of Long Day's Journey Into Night is that a family is coming and going in the house one evening, evaluating each other, playing cards and blaming each other for all of the woes they've experienced. In some ways, it's a rewrite of Hamlet which capitalizes on the themes of loss and madness that Shakespeare tapped into, too. The advantage of this work is that there is no relying on the supernatural, which is arguably a weakness of Hamlet.

My description does the plot little justice, actually it captures it fine. The play is not plot intensive, it's character heavy. The characters are fascinating and that's the focus of the play. Patriarch James Tyrone is living in a serious depression given his two adult sons are both underachieving losers. Matriarch Mary Tyrone lives with a great love for her sons while trying to reconcile that both aren't for one reason or another succeeding. Jamie Tyrone is the depressed older son, clearly plagued by alcoholism as well as being a generally rotten man. Edmund is the family's youngest member and much of the discussion revolves around him. He is ill and weak and how the family deals with him and how he deals with himself make the play poignant and interesting.

Long Day's Journey Into Night is a character piece with a lot going on behind the scenes. It's essentially a psychological exploration and it succeeds admirably at that. It's something that it's easy to appreciate as you're immersed in, if for nothing else than to be glad you're not any of these characters.

For other classic works, please check out my reviews of:
The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare
A Moveable Feast - Ernest Hemingway
The Sound And The Fury - William Faulker

10/10

For other book reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |