What Makes A Tragedy

This week in class we have been reading essays about what makes a story a tragedy. We read articles by many different authors, all of whom had different opinions. The two readings I liked the most were "Tragedy and the Common Man" by Arthur Miller and "The Greek Tragedy: Doom is Booming" by Lloyd Rose. Miller had the opinion that tragedies were about a character struggling against society to improve or uphold their social status and this battle is tragic. Rose believed that tragedies were a story where you already pretty much knew the plot and you were simply watching the main character suffer, and dramas were stories where you find out what happens and these events bring on feelings of tragedy. Before these readings I always thought that tragedies and dramas were the same thing. I now realize that there are distinctions between the two, yet I disagree with Rose that they are entirely separate entities. I feel that dramas are the evolved modern versions of tragedy that have storytelling infused with the suffering. Dramas are the newer better version of tragedies. Just like films with audio are the improved version of silent films. We still view them both as movies, on the newer films have the advantage of better technology and storytelling techniques. Simply watching somebody suffer with no plot is not as enjoyable as watching a story unfold and seeing the character suffer with each new event.

Thank you Aristotle for Over-hyping Oedipus Rex

As mentioned in my previous post, I was really enjoying Oedipus the King. However, after finishing the play I feel that the ending has somewhat ruined the story for me. While the ending might have been tragic in the Greek sense, I didn't mind it cathartic or morose, which I feel are important traits for tragedies to have. I really didn't have a strong connection with Oedipus by the end of the story because it all took place in one day, and during that whole time period Oedipus wasn't really being the nicest guy. The part where he is also saying goodbye to his daughters seemed as if it was supposed to be tragic, yet since the story never showed him interacting with his daughters until that point the scene really invoked no emotion. In all I feel that the story didn't end with the big bang I was expecting.
Also, this week were assigned a new project were we have to make a tragic piece of media. I plan on making a film because it is my favorite form of media. However, I feel that it will be difficult to make a tragic short film because there will not be a lot of time to try to establish a connection with the characters. One film I felt that did this well was Up. The first few minutes of the movie consists of a montage that is meant to give a background of how the protagonist met his wife, their time together, and ultimately her death. At the end of these few minutes when the wife dies I felt bad for the main character, I would even say it was more tragic than Oedipus the King. I am thinking of making a short with similar traits such as limited dialogue and quick passages of time. What do you think would be best to make a short tragic film?

Tragedies - Week of 10/11

This week in class we have been learning about tragedies and their Greek origins. This has led me to ask the question of what makes something tragic? Personally, I feel that one important factor of what makes something tragic is irony. It seems that in many tragic movies or stories you feel an unexpected sympathy for the characters. For example, in 2001: A Space Odyssey you feel sympathy for HAL when he is being disconnected, even though he is only a computer and has killed many people. In the Boy In the Stripped Pajamas most people would obviously sympathize with the child because he is innocent, yet I still felt bad for his family which is unexpected because his father is a Nazi officer. In The Life Aquatic the movie ends with the main character finding the shark that ate his best friend and saying, "I wonder if it remembers me?" The main character is supposed to like a washed up Jeac Cousteau, and isn't necessarily the nicest the guy. The question he asks is completely ironic and very emotional.
The Greeks thought that tragedies needed to have a character start at a prominent position and then go in a downward spiral. However, many of the tragedies I personally like tend to start after the main character has already gone through their downward spiral and chronicles them trying to rebuild themselves only to fall back down again. I think that it is better because I like it when tragedies end on a sad note rather than having the main character learn the error of their ways and find redemption, as it was common in Greek tragedies. I feel like a happy ending every time is too unrealistic.
What do you think?

I Said I'm Sorry Athens - Week of October 4th

This week we read and discussed the Apology by Plato. Before reading this all I knew of Socrates was that many consider him to be the father of philosophy, he liked stimulating conversation through questions, and that he was put to death for corrupting the youth. After I read the Apology I gained a new appreciation for Socrates. I really liked the strategies he would use to prove his point. He would first ask questions to develop a premise that the opposition agreed with. For example, when he was trying to prove that he did not corrupt the youth he first got Meletus to agree that no man would intentionally try to harm himself. Socrates then used this conceit to show that he could not logically be intentionally corrupting the youth since he would be trying to harm himself. It is these types of logical proofs that are best for trying to prove an argument. I am a member of Model United Nations, and during conferences you are often making speeches trying to convince somebody of your point. In the future I plan to argue in the same style as Socrates.
Another thing I found interesting was the similarities between Socrates and Jesus. Both were given a message by the gods to spread amongst men, both were killed because of what they taught and that they refused to stop, both were poor during their lives, both traveled constantly spreading their teachings, and both had followers that did not write about them until after they died. I don't know whether theses similarities have any implications, but they are interesting to say in the least.
The reading offered a brief insight into classical Greek philosophy, and I hope in future readings we will learn more because I want to increase my knowledge and understanding of philosophies.