Eurydice

It took me a few reads of the first part of this to really understand how I felt about this piece. Somewhere in the middle is a transition that occurs that makes Eurydice a much more interesting and compelling character. I did not enjoy the first part of this at all. The second, however, I was very drawn to.

At first, Orpheus and Eurydice seem scattered, uninteresting characters with no depth. Then, as they begin interacting with the underworld, the transition happens. It is as though relearning all the information about her life has made it more important to her. However, at the end, she abandons both her father and her husband. The ideas and morals in this story are very compelling, but I found Eurydice to not be worthy of such a profound story as a character.

However, the Greek Chorus is a really interesting thing to interact with, especially as a playwrite. They are characters that are both narrators (and thus outside the story and omniscient), yet they interact with the characters and help guide them. It is only in Greek theatre that this kind of overlap is possible, and it allows for the characters to directly interact with the story itself, because they seem to break the rules of the story that the Stones dictate. I wonder how we could adapt this into different types of narrators for types of theatre other than this.

As much as I disliked the character of Eurydice, I think she grows the most in the play. This is very much a coming of age story for her, and the progression she goes through of relearning everything from the ground up is a very nice build to climax. I also liked how the climax of the piece was not when she is sent back to her second death, but rather, when she gets there, and she goes through her second mourning of her father. This is a very philosophical and gripping idea, and that was really the aspect of the story that struck me most.

Dialogues!

Dialogue is a very tricky thing. Unlike monologues, a character cannot stand on his/her own, and the stream of consciousness must be guided by another person. As in the scene from Closer, it was a call and response that built to a climax. In this way, it is almost more honest and developed than a monologue because, not only are you held responsible by what you say, but there is someone interacting and responding to your answers. Because of this, it allows a more astute development of the problems, and of the characters. A person needs a driving force to allow a guide to their story. As in Death of a Salesman, having someone deny you creates an obstacle. It clearly demonstrates who the protagonist and antagonist is, and thus furthering the development of plot and character analysis. This cannot happen in a monologue, because, even the antagonist will be able to defend his own point of view. The duality of characters allows the audience to become attached to one or the other, and thus become more emotionally invested.

The series of questions and answers is, perhaps, the most important feature of the dialogue. A play/movie/any story really is made up of questions; some big, overlying questions that drive the entire plot, and some smaller, more immediate questions that keep the audience intrigued and dedicated throughout. Dialogue is the easiest and most satisfying way to answer questions quickly and directly. Angels in America is a perfect depiction of direct question and response that develops the characters, as well as involving the audience. Many times they are asking questions that the audience already knows the answer to, and that allows the audience to become omniscient views, and includes them in something that the characters themselves have been left out of. This creates a bond between the audience and the characters, and gives them a sense of power or control over the situation (which everyone likes).

Even with Shakespeare, dialogue provides an outlet to allow the audience to see the characters interact. This is much more effective than monologue in Shakespeare because, I am willing to admit, it is easy to get lost in the language and miss the point of a character. But, as in Henry IV, dialogue is intriguing, and creates character just from their intonation and body language. The way two characters interact physically tells almost more about them than the words themselves, and this is a crucial part of character development. Because of this, dialogues are not only more entertaining for the audience, but more precise, and thorough with representing and furthering character and plot development.