I found Bertolt Brecht's poem "The Antigone Legend" to be a very confusing but interesting read. One thing that grabbed me was Brecht's portrayal of Creon (spelled with a "K" in the poem) as a tyrant who was, above all, hungry for power. In lecture for Humanities Core, we have been learning about other possible motives for Creon's stubborn actions. For example, just as Antigone was sincerely standing up for her beliefs in the "laws of the gods," Creon was sincerely defending the laws of the State, which as the king, it was his responsibility to do anyway. He was , according to some scholars or commentators, merely doing his job and justly using his authority.
In the brief introduction before the text of the poem in our HCC readers, Judith Malina writes, "Brecht himself used [the poem] as a rehearsal device intended to develop objectivity in the actors' performances" (187). If I understand the word "objectivity" correctly, it involves a tone of neutrality. How can the poem be objective if it seems to uphold the image of Antigone as the moral one, the "legend," who mesmerizes (if not dissuades) the Elders and her uncle with her wise, self-assured comebacks. Brecht takes this image of Antigone and contrasts it starkly with Creon's hardheartedness. To illustrate the evil of Creon's consuming thirst for control, Brecht compares him to a "monster," in the thirteenth stanza (188). Apparently, even the Elders saw their king in this way. And yet they "looked at [Antigone] coldly and stood by the tyrant" (188). Much of the dialogue made little sense to me. Then again, I have only read the poem once. Perhaps more than one re-reading will help clear things up a bit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
your question about "objectivity" is great--there is certainly a paradox involved in the idea that brecht's moral ("exemplary") antigone is objective. it might help to think about what brecht is trying to do, and i like that you take note of the "legendary" aspect of antigone. it seems that though he is interesting in thinking about how people react/act in relation to tyranny, he is not really interested in exploring the motivations of the tyrant (i.e. creon/hitler)--or is he? the note about "objectively" also refers to brecht's artistic/theatrical technique of "estrangement" or alienation. he wanted to produce his plays in such a way that the audience would not immediately identify with the characters on stage. in doing so, he hoped that the audience would reflect on their own decisions and actions, instead of simply participating in the spectacle before them. "objectively" becomes something else, then, it seems--since there is clearly a good/bad on stage, it seems to press towards this conflict in terms of the spectators. thoughts about this? it is also interesting that brecht has an article about fascist theater--he claims that nazi propaganda employs the same tactics as aristotelian (e/p/l?) theater (which he is stongly against; epic theater is for him anti-aristotelian).
Post a Comment