Oresteia: Eumenides (The Furies) by Aeschylus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ต.ค. 2024
- National Theatre's production of Eumenides, as directed by Sir Peter Hall. Translation by Tony Harrison.
Recorded from Bravo television channel c.1990. Originally screened on Channel 4 in 1983.
![[ 🔴LIVE ] Minecraft : Day2 #ปริมรูหนู วันนี้ต้องชุดเพชร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j6tAV3CRSHA/mqdefault.jpg)
wow, what a production! all three parts were stunning. this is why we have jury trials, and the metaphores are profound like nothing since.
I love this!!! Tony great work!! I watch this and the companions all the time. Amazing actors!!!
Thanks for uploading this; I watched the first two and was dying to see this in a not-blurry format.
There's a superior version of this video that can be found by searching 'Oresteia Eumenedies 1983 (subtitled & cleaned)'.
Thanks.
thank u
Bookmarks 37:00
7:40 Enter Ghost of Clytemnestra
15:22
19:21 The Furies start entrancing Orestes with a song.
28:26 Enter Athena
48:00
56:57 The Furies start to be won over
You can see a subtitled version of this by searching for 'Oresteia - Eumenides 1983 (subtitled & cleaned)'
Thank you so much!
You're welcome, @@firenzeval
‘Eumenides' 是 Aeschylus 的 Oresteia三部曲中的第三部，此三部曲由導演 Sir Peter Hall 指導。第三部一開始即是主角Orestes被復仇女神(the Furies)為弒母罪名窮追不捨，而去到阿波羅神殿找真理之神--阿波羅討公道。復仇女神所領的歌隊句句唱出對Orestes的指控，從他們緊湊且哀怨、憤怒的歌調中，可以感受到他們已經憤怒到不可以「理性」的話語來訴說事情的始末，只好以較「感性」的歌曲來呈現。由於演員們皆戴著面具演出，看不見其面部表情的時候，更能夠專注於他們的台詞呈現，其中的情緒或高昂或低落更加能夠體現。對於復仇女神的窮追不捨，阿波羅也無法做審判，於是讓Orestes去找雅典娜討公道，雅典娜讓Orestes陳述弒母是因為父親尋仇，認為復仇女神們只對他做出指控實在不公平，也讓復仇女神們說明緊追Orestes的緣由是他殺害了他自己的血親。針對此事件，雅典娜並不親自做出審判，而是交給陪審團(the Jury)來做出裁決，也為Oresteia 這齣冤冤相報的悲劇做了一個了結，結束了無止盡的報復進而衍生出的更多悲劇發生。雅典娜帶領希臘公民走向一個更文明且公正的社會，由此也可以看出智慧女神的智慧著實吸引人的美妙之處。
was struck immediately by how much it resembles ancient Japan/Japanese theatre in an abstract way more than Greece.
Gosh, I wish I could read that!
@@annalieff-saxby568 Did you ever read it? You can you know...
Thank you for sharing
I wish I could have seen the original play!
I did. It was awesome!
I wish you'd have done so,
The prose and its rhythms
Made all who have heard it
Weep, and be saddened.
@@annalieff-saxby568 Wow, you're two and a half thousand years old?
@@jrb4935 lol. I saw the Tony Harrison/Harrison Birtwhistle version. TH's translation is superb, and the thumbnail is from his "Furies", the third part of the trilogy.
Great stuff, but the echo effect sure doesn't help
42.48- well done for getting this far
Do the Furies embrace us all? to this Day.
Is that Tony Robinson I hear in there?
Yep, he was involved in it. You can see a documentary about the production of the work on my channel Sophia.
I wasn't sure then decided it had to be Baldrick in the Libation Bearers
glad I'm not the only person who noticed this
This is some freaky shit
This is a good production overall but the furies don't look very scary. Aren't they supposed to be terrifying?
I think they all look horrifying
I'm bricking it
music at around 28:00 sounds like miles davis' bitches brew
Yeah, it’s incredible! Birtwistle is a genius!
A barrel chested Apollo,no matter.
27:56
I am so crushingly disappointed with this and Libation Bearers compared to Agamemnon. She had a very strong case for rightfully killing her husband, clearly stated multiple times in Agamemnon, and not just by her but acknowledged by the chorus too, and it was flippantly glossed over in Libation Bearers and totally ignored here. It gives me a nagging suspicion that either Agamemnon was not written by the same person or if it was written by the same person then it wasn't actually meant to accompany the latter two plays. The tone is too different, or maybe not the tone but particularly the treatment of Clytemnestra. These latter two plays totally shit on two of Clytemnestra's strongest and most moving lines from the first play. "Well what about justice for this murderer here?!" "The child I labored!" Both subsequent plays made it clear that nobody other than Clytemnestra cared about justice for her daughter's murder, and this play's explicit answer to "the child I labored!" was that that's not very important. I know scientifically that's what some people really believed at the time, but that amazing line from the first play did not prepare me for such a slap in the face in this play.
To think, if the latter two plays were lost to time, I would've thought Agamemnon to be the first part of what must have been a near flawless masterpiece of a trilogy tonally far ahead of its time. Tragically, Agamemnon was just the beautiful Titanic before it sank. The moment in Libation Bearers when Orestes and Electra gloss over their sister's murder was the moment the ship hit the iceberg. This play started pretty well - I had hopes the furies would make a compelling case as to why Clytemnestra's killing was justified but Orestes' wasn't - but not only was their case so much weaker than it should've been, but the counterargument 'proving' mothers less important was the moment the ship sank.
I'll continue to occasionally rewatch Agamemnon because it is a masterpiece but I'm going to pretend that the latter two plays were not meant to be the same trilogy.
You're missing the extended metaphore of familial bonds pitted against political bonds aka she gods pitted against he gods aka the family against the state and - finally - matriarchy angainst patriarchy.
Athena, born only of he-god Zeus, has to side with the State, as it is her nature to side with men. And, the Furies have to get screwed AND accept it in order for civil society to progress past familial loyalty to an ordered state.
remember Greek drama flourished for about 100 years exactly when Greek Democracy existed in Athens. Of course these were written by the same man. Stop bringing 21st Century values to 500BC.
@@pablobarosa27 soft disagree. I am projecting, of course, but I think even within the play's internal logic it could've had the same outcome with just slightly changed lines but been much more emotionally satisfying. Both Agamemnon and Orestes were just following the gods' orders when they killed, Clytemnestra was not. There, problem solved. I think if literally everything else was the same but they approached the latter plays from that angle, it would've been infinitely more satisfying. What I hated wasn't that it didn't turn out better for Clytemnestra but that her motivations were so strongly conveyed in the first play and totally ignored in the other two. It was one thing for her kids to ignore her motivations, but I was furious - pun intended - that the furies inexplicably did as well. It totally could've still been a lesson about duty vs personal desire. I don't think it's projecting too much to wish the plays were more tonally consistent in their treatment of Clytemnestra.
Edit: I'm disappointed you didn't respond because I'm curious about your thoughts on this. I'm totally fine with the play siding with Orestes, that's just how the story goes. My issue with it was that Clytemnestra gave such a compelling argument for her actions in the first play and the other two plays' counterargument felt too weak. A great argument demands a better counterargument that I felt the latter plays completely failed to give, and I feel the writer was even aware of that because the latter plays don't recall her compelling argument from the first play at all. I do feel a good counterargument is possible, like I said above, arguing that Agamemnon and Orestes were both following the gods' commands when they killed and Clytemnestra was not. Maybe there's another good argument but I can't think of more. That's what the latter plays needed, not a happier ending in line with modern morality but just to be written as well as the first play.