Theatre

Different theatrical genres call for different acting styles, and with the openness of todays society to various different forms these styles have come to reach mainstream consciousness. These styles are employed in order to convey the intrinsic meaning of a specific piece. At the same time, it is also helpful in relating to the audience the intentions of the directors vision, though it might veer away from the original depiction on the text. Such dynamics are prevalent in the comparison of two excellent examples of the Greek tragedy, Mark Cullingham and Richard Whiteheads production of the popular tragedy Medea (1982) for the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts, and Sir Peter Halls production of the rarely mounted play Choephori (1983) for the National Theatre of Great Britain. These two productions, despite being of the same genre, employed two different acting styles that laid out the groundwork for the direction of the production. The earlier play employed a more contemporary or verse style (most popular with Shakespearean plays) that was better received among modern audiences. The latter, on the other hand, went back to the roots of the drama by following the principles of the truly Classical Greek tragedy as executed 2,500 years ago. These differences and their accompanying effects will be discussed further in this paper.
First of all, the Greek tragedy essentially revolves around the suffering and woes of heroes and historical figures of the Greek times. It focused on wars and the after effects that lead to the demise (or, rarely, the survival) of the characters. In Euripedes Medea we see the title character engulfed by her anger towards her husband, the hero Jason, after he replaces her with a more suitable wife. It is the story of the torment and revenge of one of classical literature most memorable women. Revenge also drives the plot in Aeschylus Choephori. We see the siblings Orestes and Electra plot their revenge against those who have killed their father, Agamemnon, and usurped his throne and kingdom in the process. It is this vicious vengefulness that drives them to murder the newly crowned king and their own mother. Both plays are highly emotional in nature and the depths of these emotions are rarely delved by any actor, and once one does, it is hailed as an extraordinary feat.

But the similarities end here when, upon the directors vision, the actors adapt a different style. As previously mentioned, the acting style in Medea is more contemporary. In the first scene, we see the character of Medeas nurse, played by Judith Anderson, an actress whose performances of Medea during her younger years have garnered her great acclaim. In the few minutes that she arrives on stage, one will immediately see the particular acting that she employs. She is found on stage in a stylized position. Crouched, she unfurls and delivers her lines in poetry. Her words are wrought by deep emotions, suggested by her pauses and breaks, and the subtle actions that she employs. It is also important to note that the translation, written by Richard Jeffers (who accordingly, wrote the role of Medea with Judith Anderson in mind), is a complete departure from the original text as it employed a more narrative form.

On the other hand, Choephori opens with the audience watching actors in masks in the style employed by the ancient Greek theatre. All the actors, whether they play female roles, are men as is the tradition in classical Greece. They wear masks that differ subtly from each other, an aspect that might seem a hindrance to their speech. But, remarkably, their language is fluid and the words are clear and strong. Unlike, the style of Medea wherein the clarity of emotions are given weight, this production prioritizes the clarity of the text and the lines. There is minimal movement and even more minimal emotions, further hindered by the masks they are wearing. Essentially, this acting style gives far more importance to the authorship of the play rather than on its performative aspect.

And, given that they have masks on, the actors have to learn to utilize these masks in order to further the minimal emotional aspect of their performance. Certain tilts of the head or raising of the chin can connote particular emotional equivalents. Based on observation, a tilt of the head to the side might mean a questioning. On the other hand, actors in Medea have the capacity to use their facial gestures to convey a more complex emotional arch. They need not adapt a strict retinue of movements to relate a particular feeling.

The latter play also uses song in their performances, as aspect that is rarely found in contemporary tragedies. This singing is utilized in order to add to the emotional quotient brought about by the text. Medea, on the other hand, doesnt use this style and basically relies mostly on the narrative to push the story.

Overall, the differences between these two plays rely on how the directors see it in todays context. Medea, because of its timeless theme of pain and revenge of a woman scorned, is found to be best mounted when capitalizing on its plot. Choephori, aside from being another great representation of Greek tragedies, is used as medium to showcase the truly Classical principles of Greek theatre. Rather than an emotional extravaganza, it is becomes a platform for the audience to appreciate how it was originally staged. At the end, these two plays, though coming from different styles, show how plays no matter similar, can vary in order to convey a grand vision.