綫人

 

‘綫人’(Le Doulos)是一部很梅維爾的電影，但又可算是一部很不梅維爾的電影。有這樣矛盾的想法，是因為此片在梅維爾電影中是一部過渡性的作品。大多數觀眾都認識’獨行殺手’，’劫寶群英’等佳作，其實這些作品算是這位大師較後期的作品，在那時他已經把其為人所熟悉的冷峻簡約風格發揮得淋漓盡致。梅維爾的前期作品，題材則是較為多樣:有探索精神意志的，亦有一些改編作品，亦有他最喜歡的犯罪片種。梅維爾說過他對三十年代的犯罪電影很感興趣，而’綫人’的風格亦有模仿這些電影。

此片較為特別的是它有很多的對白，這與梅維爾後期的電影是截然不同！因為他的後期電影極為風格化，戲中角色偏向沉默寡言，說話是一語中的。反而是角色輕微的表情和動作更能夠反映到這些江湖人物的內心世界。就是因為對白的減少，而令這些微表情没有被淡化。’綫人’繁多對白的風格，影響了塔倫天奴的開山之作’落水狗’，而且電影中錯綜複雜的情節和人脈關係亦具創意。’綫人’雖然受到法國本土觀眾和新浪潮評論家的歡迎，不過當時美國影人不甚喜歡此片的風格，批評電影對白令人感到沉悶，可謂死唔斷氣！

其實梅維爾這樣的安排是有其原因的。’綫人’複雜的故事線，是想表達不同角色因為利益上的衝突而引致爾虞我詐的局面。這是一個’我當你兄弟，你當我契弟’的殘酷國度。主角因為被人篤灰而鎯鐺入獄，出獄後又想重新開始籌劃劫案，再來嘗嘗大茶飯的滋味。不過人的關係並沒有任何的進化:電影中的對白，看似給予觀眾們很多情節上的資料，但很多都是角色們企圖互相誤導的語言偽術。在冷酷無情的世界，每一個人為了個人利益，甚至只為苟且偷生，就要行屍走肉般互相散播充滿誤導性的提示。一些有智慧的觀眾，或者會用觀察力和邏輯去解開阡陌交錯的故事結構，但即使他們怎樣去fact check每一個細節，他們最終才會醒悟:真正的Big Boss是梅維爾，只是一直被他的睿智玩弄於股掌中。

主角跟片中的其他玩家一樣，不知道可以信任甚麼人。或許是宿命使然，他因為被誤作另一人而遭射擊，中槍倒地。在生命終結時，他想保存自己一念之仁，告訴他一直誤解的同黨不要墮進死亡的陷阱。不過一切已經太遲，同黨亦中彈身亡。仁義是梅維爾所嚮往的做人態度，即使在’綫人’，或者受此片影響的’龍虎風雲’和’落水狗’等，在一切以利益為重的氛圍中亦能夠偶然地察覺得到。或者，這就是大師梅維爾所希冀的道義世界。

by Ed Law

以戲服人 Film Analysis 

Greek Dramatists vs. Filmmakers : Sophocles x Kurosawa

'Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man.' 

- Sophocles, 'Antigone'

The most fascinating aspect of anthrôpos (άνθρωπος, Greek for 'human being') as a biological species is the intellectual ability to understand ourselves. Nothing is more valuable than self-knowledge : through an appreciation of oneself, we get to understand our potentials and limitations and hence lead to a fulfilling and optimistic existence. The great dramatists through human history engage us with the eternal questions about human nature. They challenge us with dilemmas, they stage sufferings of their characters and tragic circumstances that lead to the audiences' empathy, and above all, their brilliant words and images leave lasting impressions and inspire humanity. Sophocles and Akira Kurosawa both lived in truly exciting eras : for the Greek dramatist, the century when Athens were at its most prosperous; and for the Japanese filmmaker, the 20^th century. Yet there is an aspect common between them – their humanistic approaches to their work. Through their respective art forms, Sophocles and Kurosawa explored what humanity could achieve and what pitfalls might arise due to the character flaws. The reason why they are so memorable is not because of a drive to win competitions or peer recognition, but because of their high moral standings - their genuine care for other fellow human beings.

It makes sense to start from an understanding of the intellectual backgrounds for the two artists, to see the contextual issues that motivated them to explore further in their work. Much of Sophocles's life coincided with the golden era of Athens. Through the leadership of a successful politician known as Pericles, Athens have enjoyed an era of direct democracy and cultural heights. Pericles embraced reason and cherished human values through his governance. He also encouraged artistic and cultural activities and reinforced the civilized aspect of this ancient polis. Indeed Pericles and Sophocles have likely collaborated before – as the politician has served as a 'producer' to the dramatist's work. The producers, which were the patrons for the tragedian and sponsored the production of the tragedy in the competition at City Dionysia, was a testament to the civic values of Athens. If the playwright won the competition, the patron would win esteem from his peers, and that explained the motivations behind the members of aristocratic class to sponsor and support these public events.

Another agon very evident in the 5^th - 4^th century BC in Greece was the interactions between different intellectual schools and philosophers. It was the age when the nomos-physis debate reached its apex. That was the age when Socrates, widely considered as the father of Western Philosophy, lived and engaged with others on knowledge in Athens. He shifted the focus of philosophical inquiry from the concerns of the natural philosophers in the Pre-Socratic era to a human-centered perspective, focusing on human knowledge and morality. The debate intensified due to the emergence of the first generation of Sophists, who were paid educators especially for the richer ones. The Sophists committed to the belief that knowledge could be taught, and the use of language could lead one to succeed in a debate (even if his viewpoint was defective and weak). Many of these ancient teachers were great orators, and they treasured the gift of excellent public speaking, which was an important skill for anyone to achieve political success in Athens. The positions of the Sophists were far more radical than Socrates : the nomos-oriented Protagoras believed that human was the standard who measured all things; and the physis-oriented Thrasymachus asserted that justice was reserved for the stronger ones by nature. Much of Sophocles's life resided in this cultural hub of Classical Greece, and he lived a long enough life to witness the rise and fall of Athens, from the age of Pericles to the threat of Peloponnesian War.

If Sophocles had the fortune to participate and contribute to an exciting era of Athenian culture, then Akira Kurosawa was just as fortunate to witness cinema from its earliest days to an era where cinema stood as a forefront to technology – the dawn of 21^st century. Born in the decade when D. W. Griffith was trying his hands on revolutionizing a new art form, Kurosawa developed an interest in both painting and cinema at a young age, watching classics of silent cinema like 'Battleship Potemkin' and 'The Threepenny Opera'. While influenced by the films of John Ford and Sergei M. Eisenstein, Kurosawa was also influenced by other artists and thinkers, from Shakespeare to Dostoevsky to Nietzsche. The ghosts of psychological realism, psychoanalysis and existentialism lurked on many of Kurosawa's films, announcing their relevance to any future audience. While Kurosawa often admitted that he 'didn't understand much about movies', his perceived lack of understanding has already influenced many members of New Hollywood Cinema and European Art Cinema of the 1960s-1970s, and he continued to exert influence on the filmmakers of Asia and USA from the 1980s. His significant contributions to film art led to his acclamation as the Shakespeare of cinema.

Sophocles and Kurosawa were both stylists in their own rights. They understood the meticulous choice of style could enhance the intensity of tragic conflicts and addressed the content they wanted their viewers to contemplate about. Both artists in particular excelled in the techniques of contrast in their masterpieces. The successful ingredient of a Sophoclean tragedy is the idea of 'reversal of fortune'. For the characters in a Sophoclean play, their actions would almost always lead to some misfortunes they did not deserve. The irony is that often the actions were well-intentioned – the audience can easily appreciate that the character just wanted to do something constructive about the situation they found themselves in, yet due to a combination of factors we will explore later, often lead to tragic outcomes. For Oedipus, he just wanted to find out the truth of his past and stopped the plague that haunted his kingdom. For Jocasta, she just wanted to make Oedipus free from mental turmoils. For Antigone, she just wanted to fulfill her duties and buried his dead brother, no matter what negative political status he was designated. For Creon, he just wanted to be a successful and wise ruler. For Deianeira, she just wanted to bring her husband Heracles back. They all believed in something, and were committed to action to make things happen, yet they all suffered at the end of the day, ending in unhappiness, loneliness and the loss of their lives. Sophocles exposed to us a truth many of us are not willing to confront – human existence contains more problems than solutions.

Sophocles used different techniques to address the inevitable conflicts and reversal of fortune commonplace in humanity. Sophocles was gifted with staging agon (struggles) in his plays. His use of stichomythia heightened the conflicting values between two different characters, foreshadowing that one of them would lose the struggle and faced the dire consequences of their personal beliefs. What is more disturbing is that the two opposing perspectives often have respective merits, meaning that the abandonment of one of the perspectives would have tragic implications : we would lose something valuable from the struggle, and there were seldom all-win situations at the end of the day. Sophocles also adopted enjambment in many of his plays, meaning that he deliberately 'broke' a complete verse in two lines. That provided a 'cliffhanger' effect for the line, and the audience would feel much tension when the character delivered the line – much like a 'jump-cut' in the modern cinema. In some cases the 2 parts of the same line might show dissonance from each other, enhancing its dramatic impact. Sophocles knew how to give the most ironic dramatic effect possible, as noted from 'Antigone'. Using a hyporchema (lively dance song) from the chorus, the audience might think Creon has finally changed his mind and acquitted Antigone from her 'crime', and a happy ending was in place for everyone. Yet what we are then met with is the complete opposite : Antigone committed suicide for her beliefs, followed by the death of Creon's wife and son. This twist of fate could find its descendants in films like Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and demonstrated the complete reversal of fortune for all the stakeholders in the story, and hence provided a significant emotional impact for the audience.

Kurosawa also appreciated the use of contrast for dramatic effects. Taking inspirations from Sergei M. Eisenstein, Kurosawa adopted montage editing in many of his action scenes. Coupled with his use of very dynamic camera shots, that led to a kinetic and visceral impact for the viewers, as in films like 'Rashomon', 'Seven Samurai' and 'Yojimbo'. Kurosawa pioneered the use of analytical editing in action sequences, and juxtaposed a few different sets of action in the same sequence, which differs in camera distances, directions, and angles. A well noted formalism was the 'A-B-A' style : like when a warrior was riding a horse, the continuous movement was broken down into 3 components, with a long shot-closeup-long shot arrangement. This trick gave the illusion of a very dynamic movement for the viewers, arousing their emotional excitement. Kurosawa was also among the first filmmakers to use slow-motion shots in action cinema, as in 'Seven Samurai'. The approach of slow-motion editing would be further developed by directors like Sam Peckinpah in his own approach to action sequences.

Regarding the characters, Kurosawa often included characters with contrasting and distinct personalities in his films. The characters often were members from different social classes (such as Rashomon, Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, High and Low, Kagemusha), they had conflicts of interests (Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Ran), or had stark contrasts in terms of personality (Stray Dogs). Through the specific circumstances these characters had to interact with each others and sorted out the problems together, which at the same time exposed the issues hidden in human existence and mapped out the irreconcilable conflicts that drove historical progress. 

'What dangerous enterprise have you in mind?' 

- Ismene to Antigone, 'Antigone'

Though Sophocles and Kurosawa often had pessimistic and cynical views regarding our species, they both shared a confidence for Man to achieve his potential. For both artists, the most important thing to look out for is to appreciate our limitations - for Sophocles, the appreciation of the distinctions between humans and gods, and for Kurosawa, the acquisition of self knowledge. Many Sophoclean characters are larger than life : intelligent, resourceful and confident like Oedipus; possession of form beliefs and sense of morality like Antigone; courageous and strong like Ajax, Philoctetes and Orestes; passionate and empathetic like Jocasta, Electra and Deianeira. O These are all positive attributes of humanity that can lead to a successful and fulfilling life, yet these characters had the misfortune to misplace these characteristics in the wrong context. In a sense, they were going too far and were not recognizing the limitations of humanity. Moreover, Sophoclean characters had character flaws : they were often stubborn (Oedipus, Antigone, Creon); had a strong sense of pride and hubris (Oedipus, Ajax, Philoctetes); often made poor or problematic judgement under the influence of passion (Deianeira, Electra, Jocasta); and were never yielding to other people's perspectives (basically every characters I have just mentioned). By committing a fatal flaw (harmatia), they were soon entrapped by various misfortunes. The ancient viewers, with foreknowledge about the background myth, wished to see the characters successfully avoiding their miserable fate, yet everyone knew that these characters would not change – because those were the very personalities that defined what they were. The stories of Sophoclean characters can drive any viewers emotional – we feel bad for Oedipus, because he is so good. 

'You are too fond of dark obscurities.'

-Oedipus to Teiresias, 'Oedipus Rex'

The 'Ode to Man' from 'Antigone' best illustrated this sentiment. The choral song celebrated the potential of humanity to conquer, control and solve the problems since the earliest days. On the surface, Sophocles celebrated the spirit of Athens through the ruler-ship of Pericles, who treasured rationalism and humanism. Yet like much of the design of the play itself, the attitude in this Ode was ambivalent – especially with the choice of the word 'deinos', which meant both 'wonderful' and 'terrible' at the same time. One can easily think of Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' in this respect, too. While the words were celebrating the intelligence of humans, the characters in 'Antigone' were committing some genuinely unintelligent behaviors, and there might an example of ironic contrast from Sophocles. The chorus was also cautious to note that humans have not yet found a solution to conquer Death – and this inevitable endpoint of human existence would continue to pose as the ultimate challenge, for the various characters in the play to confront.

In the films of Kurosawa, we can also find talented and resourceful individuals. From 'Sanshiro Sugata', 'Seven Samurai', 'The Hidden Fortress', 'Yojimbo', 'Red Beard' and so on, we can find characters who are expert in their respective fields, and they often have developed their own philosophies regarding their expertise. Yet, success did not come easy. They had to possess the motivation to experiment, accepted failure through the journey and learnt from mistakes. They should also learn from their apprentices, so that they could develop a fuller understanding about the big picture, without losing sight of the alternative perspectives from others. They had to be cautious of corruption from their environment and within themselves (Throne of Blood, Ran, The Bad Sleeps Well, Drunken Angel), to avoid destruction of social order and moral degradation. 

'Where are you now, divine prognostications!'

-Jocasta mocking the oracles, 'Oedipus Rex'

It has been mentioned before that almost all Greek tragedies had a divine dimension to it. Divine interventions were commonplace in these myths, meaning that we cannot make sense of the story in a purely secular approach. Divinities were prominently featured in Sophocles's plays, yet I do not think his motivation was theological or religious in any sense. It is fair to say that Sophocles wanted us to explore the 'Fate versus Free Will' question, yet to him fate was never an excuse to ignore one's moral responsibility. The intelligent Oedipus solved the riddle of the Sphinx, that has haunted many through his times : the creature that walked on four legs when born; two legs when grown up; three legs when old. The answer was exactly the mystery Oedipus had to solve and understand about through his tragic life - 'Man'. Through his misfortunes and experience he has endured, Oedipus has come to understand what that meant to be human, as the testament to Sophocles's vision of humanism. A mere mortal may not be able to control his fate, yet one can be noble and be accountable for the actions he has taken, to live a moral and optimistic existence.

Kurosawa's cinema is a secular one – it is human-centered and seldom involve any spiritual themes. Films like 'Rashomon' and 'Ran' has led some critics to conclude that the filmmaker was an atheist, or in some cases similar to the Atomist views of an indifferent God, from the ideas of Epicurus and Lucretius alike. For 'Rashomon', a sense of Nietzschean perspectivism was rampant. Yet even if we do not know the truth of the murder at the end, that does not mean we should fall into a sense of ethical nihilism. Kurosawa believed in his fellow humans' ability to have a moral compass in their minds. When the old farmer saw the abandoned infant, he was willing to commit a moral action and took care of the baby. After all, having a rational mind and moral conscience are the features that distinguish us from other biological organisms.

'Till at last he is schooled in wisdom.'

-Chorus,'Antigone'

Sophocles and Kurosawa believed that we have the power and wisdom to leave behind our animalistic and anti-social nature and achieve a sense of self-actualization through our limited existence in the human world. Sophocles and Kurosawa have once been mortal, yet their wills to strive for the best interest of humanity will certainly be immortalized.

Sophocles plays mentioned : Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Electra, Ajax, Philoctetes, Women in Trachis

Kurosawa films mentioned : Sanshiro Sugata, Drunken Angel, Rashomon, Seven Samurai, The Bad Sleeps Well, Throne of Blood, The Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, High and Low, Red Beard, Kagemusha, Ran 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Sling Blade

 

Billy Bob Thornton is a sort of Renaissance man in cinema. Not only he is an acclaimed actor, he is also an Oscar-winning writer, a director, a musician and a TV host. In fact, it is quite hard to find an artist with so many sets of caliber for today's standard. Thornton's most personal and memorable work is 'Sling Blade', who propelled him to international stardom and the best example of his power in acting, writing and directing a film!

'Sling Blade' is THE Billy Bob Thornton film. Not only he acted, wrote and directed this 1996 gem, the film itself was based on a mini-play in a TV show by Thornton a few years before that. In that mini-play, which featured him and also Molly Ringwald, who famously played the role of the princess – Claire - from 'The Breakfast Club', concerned the fictional character Karl Childers, who was mentally disturbed from a young age. He was institutionalized in a mental hospital since 12, because he killed his mother and her lover with a kaiser blade (or, somebody calls it a sling blade). The play chronicled an interview from a journalist (Ringwald's character) to the adult Childers before he was released from an asylum after some psychiatric evaluation. For 'Sling Blade' itself, it concerned what happened after Childers was released into the community, and the 'interview' itself was featured in the first couple of minutes in the film.

Hence Childers was released back into a small town in Arkansas. Through clinically he might have some mental issues, he had hands-on skills of repairing machines, so he eventually found his place in the town as a repairman in a small shop. While Karl appeared to be a simple-minded person, he was willing to connect and interact with others despite of some difficulties in speech due to his cognitive impairments. He had a kind heart and befriended Frank, a child who had a close relationship with his widowed mother Linda. Both Frank and Linda were victimized by Doyle, Linda's abusive boyfriend. Luckily, they all found solace in Vaughan, who was also under-privileged due to his sexual orientation. Karl was able to build up a positive relationship with Frank, acting as a surrogate father for him. Yet there was still a dragon to slay : Doyle has announced that he wished to marry Linda, and his increasingly aggressive control over Frank and Linda has worried everyone. No matter how one hopes for a simpler world, it is always complicated with evils from within. Karl knew that he had to take action to protect Frank – just what would he do?

It is informative to know the context of 'Sling Blade' with regards to other films when it came out in 1996. Many viewers observed obvious similarities to 'Forrest Gump' of 1994, and stated that the Billy Bob Thornton film was a grittier and more realistic film about mental illness. One should note that 'Sling Blade' was a small-scale production, more inclined as an independent film, so Thornton was willing to go for a more contentious style in the film, focusing on the more debatable dilemmas that patients of mental illness would likely to face in the real world. 'Forrest Gump', while an excellent film, is more of a crowd-pleaser, and I feel that it resembles more like a fairy tale than a film grounded in realism (which it attempts hard to convince the audience). It is about a simple man who was just extremely lucky to drop into every iconic historical moments possible, and if 'Forrest Gump' is a box of chocolate, that is the one from Willy Wonka's factory, loaded with sugar and only for kids. 'Sling Blade' is a box of dark chocolate (which is my favorite), which you can carefully appreciate rough its subtle bitterness. When one knows how to appreciate chocolate, they know which one to go after.

It is of some coincidence that 'Sling Blade' also shared some similarities with two other Oscar-nominated films from 1996. 'Sling Blade' had a brilliant male performance like Geoffrey Rush's 'Shine', in which Rush won the Best Actor Oscar. Both films portrayed an underdog protagonist who had to blend in to their environment, and confronted their shady past. It is even more curious to note for subtle parallels in 'Sling Blade' and Lars von Trier's 'Breaking the Waves', with Emily Watson's mind-blowing performance. Her character, who was simple-minded and intoxicated with a strong sense of faith, was like a female version of Karl Childers. The parallels were even further than that : Bess (Emily Watson in 'Breaking the Waves') and Childers were both fighting against the prejudice in their respective communities, and their eventual martyrdom. While I believed the motivation could be unintentional, Thornton's 'Sling Blade' has suggested a moral and religious outlook for us to contemplate, as Karl's actions often reflected the discrepancies between justice and legality.

Thornton has put much efforts into 'Sling Blade', and made it a beautiful and memorable film that seldom appeared in the escapist era of cinema. Thornton's portrayal of Karl was first-rate. He went into the details of patients who suffered from mental illness, with accurate speech patterns and subtle gestures and movements, and the nature of their illness – such as an impaired ability to understand things beyond a literal level. Thornton took an old-school approach to develop his character – through the film he exposed to us the background and circumstances that led to his illness and institutionalization at such a young age. Also, Thornton wisely avoided a over-sentimental narrative. In the film we did not see an overtly dramatic scenario where everyone was against Karl (to make him appear vulnerable), instead we witnessed a supportive community, with many simple and kind-hearted people who was willing to help. All these aspects make 'Sling Blade' a more realistic film and easier for the audience to identify with.

Viewers can feel empathetic to Karl because of the circumstances he was forced to endure when he was merely a child. First, he did not receive good parenting. He was forced to commit immoral acts requested from his irresponsible father – to dispose an unwanted infant. It was outrageous because the adult shifted the responsibility of a moral transgression to a child, and the child simply was not mature enough to analyze the implications of the action. With an impaired mentality, Karl murdered his mother and his lover because his lover was attempting to rape her. While on a legal point-of-view there was no way to justify a murder, the irony of Karl's action showed that he appreciated the moral implications of the action. He knew that it was wrong for the lover to do such a nasty thing this mother, and he felt disillusioned and disgusted by his mother's moral degradation, because she willingly allowed herself to be sexually assaulted. The murder was Karl's response of reprimanding the situation – he just chose the legally unacceptable way to do so when he attempted to achieve a sense of justice. After all, is Karl really that bad? He was willing to socialize with others (even when he might appear slow due to his impairment), and he certainly had a sense of empathy and care to his friends. He was on track with his rehabilitation in the environment and his skills for repair-work has led to acceptance and respect in his community. We can even go further and state his mental issues did not necessarily prevent him from being a noble and moral individual. Karl has sorted out the issues from his past and appreciated it was wrong to kill someone under the law, and he could make sense of his problems through the circumstances of his childhood. Karl was also intelligent enough to see the warning signals from the relationships between Frank and Doyle. He mapped out the same trajectory that has happened to his own childhood. He knew that he was committed to help Frank to avoid disaster, and he was so single-minded that he was ready to give up anything to achieve that.

The climax of 'Sling Blade' was memorable and had an afterlife on the internet, as noted from the enthusiastic approvals of millions of viewers. That scene, who chronicled Karl's murder of Doyle, is a 'killer moment' for me, to put it in Mr. Tarantino's words. This well-executed sequence was a dead-pan and tragic scene, yet it also possessed a darkly humorous tone that it provided catharsis for the audience. Karl sharpened a lawnmower blade and went to confront Doyle. Doyle, drunken as always, did not appreciate the imminent threat. Karl bluntly announced his intention to kill Doyle with the blade, and asked Doyle for advice on what to do after Doyle was dead (!!). Thinking Karl was just trolling around, Doyle taught him to call 911 and even suggested him to 'get an ambulance or a hearse'. His advice was met with a few heavy blows from Karl's blade, and then Doyle was a dead man. Fully understanding the consequence of his actions, he called the police to turn himself in, and consumed a 'last supper' of biscuits with mustard before his arrest. The sequence suggested that Karl has clearly contemplated and weighted on the issues. While he knew that it was illegal to kill anyone, he has determined that only by eliminating Doyle could he save Frank from a fate like his. He was totally conscious that he might face severe punishment for the murder, yet he decided to sacrificehe his freedom to liberate an innocent child. To put it in a more symbolic perspective, Karl's action was a personal redemption for being an accomplice of his own father's crime of killing the infant. His murder of Doyle signified that he has destroyed the evil that his father and Doyle represented. Willing to face punishment for his crime, Karl has demonstrated a sense of legal obligation and he became a martyr for his own values. It was fortunate to note that after the trial, Karl was again institutionalized rather than receiving more severe punishment, and he has clearly shown a more positive outlook and a peace of mind in seclusion.

'Sling Blade' is certainly a small film with a big heart! 

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis

Greek Dramatists vs. Filmmakers : Aeschylus x Griffith

 

The passage of time does not necessarily separate the common concerns for artists from different era. While it makes sense to appreciate art through a contextualist perspective, trying to understand the motivations of the author from the context which the author finds himself / herself in, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that there are many essential and timeless themes that artists continue to have the urge to express their personal views through their work. That is why we can often compare works of different artists, even if they belong to different fields. The eternal issues that fascinate humanity, that leads us to find approaches to 'know more about ourselves', are always evident in the various forms of art. The Greek philosopher Aristotle has written probably the first work in drama criticism in the Western culture – 'Poetics'. In this work Aristotle urged his audience to distinguish between the philosophical concepts of 'universal' and 'particular', and how various forms of written language – poem, verse, and prose – could serve as vehicles to express these ideas. The contrast between 'universe' and 'particular' is not only important for the abstract philosophical issues, but also for the appreciation of style in drama. Before we start the collisions of worlds between the Greek tragedians and modern filmmakers we should make sense of the these concepts.

The universal aspects of humanity are attributes that are shared by every humans, and are independent of circumstances and contexts they find themselves in. Human 'nature', the various stages of human existence, the cycles and construction and destruction, are common to different human cultures, and one should not be surprised that thinkers and artists from different cultures often think alike. Socrates and Confucius, Fichte and Yangming Wang, Nietzsche and Zhuang Zi, seemed to place concern in similar issues regarding humanity. Not only this reflects intelligence is independent of culture, that also shows the existence of universal themes across time.

Yet the more the time progresses, emphasis has started to be placed on individual difference. Now the concern is not on what is common in all of us, but what is specific about each of us. The advent of humanism advocated for individual psychology and look for 'particulars'. In fact if we observe the trend of the development of tragedies from Aeschylus to Euripides, the direction from universal to particular is very evident. The focus shifts from emphasizing the big picture to more specific inner thoughts of the characters through the centennial development of the ancient art form. Curiously, when cinema from Griffith to Kurosawa to Peckinpah also followed a similar trajectory. It is possible to conceive of the reason as that the pioneers of various art forms often had ambitions to capture as much as they can, through the use of their new found techniques.

A common aspect between Aeschylus and Griffith is that they were among the first practitioners of an art form, and they both possessed original insights that revolutionized the ways their respective art forms will be viewed by future generations. In Aeschylus’s case, he was among the first artists to appreciate the dramatic potential of choral songs, widely performed in Greece even before his times. Through the first tragedian’s efforts, he transformed these choral songs, which often possessed a coherent narrative and were about ancient myths, into full-fledged dramas. Aeschylus achieved this feat by some techniques that might appear obvious and simplistic for today’s audience – by increasing the numbers of actors, and by enhancing the dramatic conflicts between characters. Though that appeared to have long way to go when compared to the sophisticated dramas that originated from it, Aeschylus has laid the core foundations for the dramatic art - indeed also for novels, poetry and eventually cinema.

For D. W. Griffith, it is curious to note a similar scenario that took place in the early 20^th century. That was a time when different forms of art – theater, novels, poetry, painting, sculpture and music have already been developed into mature art forms. Yet at that time, cinema was still at its infancy – arguably any thing that remotely resembled a ‘motion picture’ only appeared in the 1890s. The movies from the early age were choppy, silent, and black-and-white. It is also essential to note that the intention of showing movies at that era was to be some forms of spectacle, to show the audience a new sense of wonder. The movies in their earliest days often did not have any stories to tell, and they did not have anything to say. While certain pioneering films, like Edwin S. Porter’s ‘The Great Train Robbery’ and Georges Melies’ ‘A Trip to the Moon’ appeared to have an obvious and coherent plot, most movies were shown for the sake of ‘showing such an idea was possible’. One would certainly not compare the narrative contents of such films with a play by Henrik Ibsen or a novel by Emile Zola, which also appeared in the late 19^th century. It is through the work of D. W . Griffith, who possessed a foresight of the narrative potential of this new medium. While early films like 'A Trip to the Moon' had a run time of about 10 minutes, Griffith's landmark film, 'The Birth of a Nation', had a length of 175 minutes and a coherent plot. Griffith did have a long story to tell!

Both Aeschylus and Griffith were fascinated with history. To put it in a more specific way, they were both interested in the concept of 'time'. As mentioned in the previous article, in the drama festival of Athens, each playwright had to submit 3 tragedies for each entry. It is widely accepted that the 3 plays are not necessarily related in terms of content. For Aeschylus, he tended to write 'trilogies', meaning that the 3 plays were not only related in theme, but they were also continuous in a temporal matter – like 'Lord of the Rings', for example. We are lucky the one of his complete trilogies have survived, so we can appreciate what that means to be a trilogy. 'The Oresteia', which chronicled the generational conflicts of the Agamemnon household through revenge and bloodshed, was like an ancient version of a soap opera about a dysfunctional family. Through the play, Aeschylus explored the relations of events through time – the past and the present. While one can not run from the consequences that originate from past events, we can take action to guarantee a better possible future.

Griffith was also very interested in portraying the image of time through cinema. Because of the technique of editing, cinematic time can be distorted and transformed to give a more sensational feeling to the audience, rather than like a 'surveillance camera' style video. Deleuze, in his analysis of Western cinema, coined this as the 'movement-image' and cited Griffith's films as exemplary. Griffith had the ambition to capture the totality of the cinema, using the technology he had at his hands at his era. While Griffith did not invent the technique of montage editing, he was among the first to apply this technique for dramatic and narrative purpose. Though the use of editing, he broke down a whole set of actions to its components, giving the audience a visceral feel. Yet, the summation of all these components represented the full story Griffith was attempted to illustrate. His meticulous combinations of these sequences led to Deleuze's comments that they represented an organic unity, unfolding through cinematic time. Such an approach reflected Griffith's commitment to capture all the possible perspectives of a given cinematic scenario.

In terms of narrative style, Aeschylus used contrast to heighten the dramatic conflicts. The events through the generations in 'Oresteia' seems to echo with Heraclitus’ conception of ‘unity of opposites’, reflecting the irony that history is repeating itself with a pattern, a testament of the universalizing aspect of human nature itself.

Griffith also appreciated the power of contrast for dramatic effect, and he employed a style of parallel and convergent editing to this end. In 'The Birth of a Nation', the filmmaker portrayed a number of military conflicts. The use of convergent editing portrayed the action of the two conflicting parties in parallel, until coming to a final convergence point for the showdown. The tension that was generated from this arrangement is significant, and the classic cowboy 'walking prelude' before a shootout from many Westerns is a clear influence from this kind of style, for which Deleuze coined as a 'duel mode'.

Greek drama, with the attributes appearing as a combination of poems and music, observed rigorous metrical requirements. The standard format for Greek tragedy was iambic trimeter, yet dramatists like Aeschylus could also be quite flexible regarding these rules. For example, he could switch to a metric which sounded like a faster pace of speaking when he wanted to illustrate emotional excitement. The choral section were mainly formalized songs, and it is crucial to stress these were not merely some ancient versions of 'transition shots'. Not only the odes from the chorus were memorable and insightful comments about human nature, they were stylized and catchy in a sense it resembled the dynamic shots of cinema. Aeschylus has adopted a staunch formalism in his choral songs. Not only they came in pairs known as strophe and antistrophe, these lines often addressed and contrasted each other in terms of content, giving a classical and balancing beauty to these ancient songs. Furthermore, Aeschylus used a lot of repetitions, not only certain words, or even certain lines or passages in his choral lyrics, to stress and imprint, like what Homer would have done, the essential and universal statements he wished to pass on to his audience. If the verse speech spoken by the characters represented the particular perspective - what these individuals thought about through speaking out their minds, then the songs and odes delivered by the members of the chorus served a deeper and holistic purpose. As in the case of 'Oresteia', the repetitions of words as well as recurring scenes suggested the inevitable doom that different generations would experience the bloodshed and suffering again and again.

The earliest days of cinema were not that fortunate. Being silent films, the filmmakers could not use spoken words to convey meanings. For Griffith, he was able to stress the difference between subjective and objective perspectives through the meticulous use of camera angles and distances. For the incidents that involved groups, he employed long shots and mobile camera style to lead to a result as grand as possible. Indeed the mobile camera style was employed by many masters who wanted to portray cinematic dynanism – from Erich von Stroheim to Abel Gance to Daisuke Ito, dynamic shots were used to show 'large actions'. Griffith was just as good as showing subjective emotions through the use of static close-ups : an image of Lillian Gish, one of the most famous actresses of the silent era of cinema, was a classic example. Her character was abused by her parents, and the close-up of her distressed look would generate sympathy from any audience. From these contrasting techniques Griffith could illustrate the different mental perspectives commonplace in other art form.

While Greek drama were limited in using words to convey meanings and visual imaginations, the three great tragedians all embraced the power of words. They applied their caliber to deliver beautiful lines who evoked poetic images in the audience's mind. Poetic images led to great metaphors, and Aeschylus played with contrasts in his portrayal of epic cycles, giving us the impression of the very existence of conflicting sides. Metaphorically, the first two parts of the trilogy dealt with darkness of human psyche, and the third part provided light of civilized existence. The co-existence of light and dark served as a unity of human existence, and the ability to turn from dark to light was a testament to human potential.

Many of the most iconic images from cinema came from the Silent Age, because the filmmakers had so limited resources to produce films, and they could not rely on a great quote, great music, or spectacular effects to give the audience a lasting impression. Griffith, like his fellow silent filmmakers, had to focus 100% on the mise-en-scene – what was put onto the screen. Yet, the most important asset any filmmakers needed is the substance of the film itself. For Griffith's film 'Intolerance', he led us through the earliest days of human civilization, and showed that certain attributes of humanity re-surfaced again and again. Like 'Oresteia', the painful cycles of retribution and suffering passed through generations, just as essence of human nature disguised itself through different faces throughout history. The humanity of Aeschylus and Griffith can be felt through their attempts to change our world with art : only by using reason, and having a will to confront and analyze our mistakes in the past can divert us from an inevitable fate of tragic proportions.

Aiskhulos Euphorionos Eleusinieus* and David Wark Griffith might be separated by thousands of years in time, yet their common emphasis on the themes of individual and State, history and psychology, light and dark, are so similar that I cannot help but feel that there are some universal themes that continues to fascinate artists ever since the earliest point of human culture. In fact, I will not be too surprised to note that Griffith was influenced by Aeschylus and other Greek dramatists, because in the old days well educated individuals were often well acquainted with texts of Classics and Humanities, and any great artists, which possessing unique gifts in themselves, were also inspired by the old masters. If Aeschylus never existed, the power of drama might never be fully realized. Without D. W. Griffith, modern cinema cannot exist. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

*This is Aeschylus’s ‘full name’ in the context of his time, which was designated as ‘Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, of the local organization (known as deme) Eleusis’).

September

Woody Allen's 'September' (1987) is interesting because it is a serious drama, present in an era when Allen was still mainly concentrated in the comedic genre. The film is very similar to his 'Interiors' (1978), in terms of design and content. Yet, 'Interiors' is a more daring and hardcore drama, and the tone is dark and somber throughout the film. Allen intended to shoot 'September' as a chamber play, as if a theatrical production captured on film. Thus, he adopted a restricted and austere approach when filming, limiting the story inside an apartment , with only 6 key characters. Allen's choice of techniques also showed his commitment to make 'September' as theatrical as possible - the prominent use of long takes and avoidance of Bergman-esque close up shots. That is quite distinct from 'Interiors', given the latter film's influence from Bergman.

'September' is loosely influenced by a play of Anton Chekhov, though Allen has taken some liberty in his own screenplay. Lane (Mia Farrow) has moved into a sumptuous apartment, while sorting out some of her personal trauma at the young age. Some other family and friends moved in and out of the apartment, interacting and also exploring their hidden personal feelings for each other.

The situation for Lane in the film was to come to terms with a scarred experience from her past, and to look for a peace of mind by moving into the new apartment. The scenario was rather ironic because it resembled the real experience for Allen to film 'September'. Allen encountered a few changes in plan, and actually re-shot the whole film by changing many of the cast members. Even he is not satisfied with the end-product we are now watching, as it underachieved in the theatrical release. It sounds as if Allen is finding the best endpoint for this film, and he has stated that he is willing to do that again if he has another chance.

The denouement of the film, as Lane finally admitted the origin of her mental issues, was very cathartic if it was compared with the calm atmosphere throughout the film. The power was quite similar to the part in 'Persona' when Elizabeth asserted the nature of her identity. Only through the power of communication could the characters reconcile with the truth, so that they could get over it and led a positive outlook to continue their journeys in life.

Once the storm has subsided, life moves on. 

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis

Solon : Law and Order

The emergence of novel ideas and concepts requires individuals to think outside the box. Often, the circumstances that lead to the question serve as the motivations to put forward these proposals. Immediate success do not appear right away – it may need the work and efforts of a few generations to reach an ultimate endpoint. Nevertheless, we should not forget the forward-thinkers who have the courage to reform the status quo in the first place. Athens of Classical Greece was among the earliest example of a primitive form of democracy in the Western world, and that originated from the work of an intelligent man – Solon.

The legacy of Solon leads to the birth of the English word 'solon', which means a wise lawmaker. Solon, like his contemporary Thales, was acclaimed as a member of the 'Seven Wise Men of Ancient Greece'. Though he was born an aristocrat, he was a forward-thinking man and appreciated the needs for a change. Through his various attempts on the political reform at Athens, he has provided the foundation for the politicians of his next century, like Cleisthenes, Ephialtes and Pericles to develop a mature form of Athenian democracy, a milestone of Classical Greece.

A significant point for the development of the Greek civilization was the formations of polis (city-states) around the 7^th century BC. These city-states were autonomous from each other and they each had their own type of governing bodies. Many of these city-states were under one-man rule (tyranny) or rule by a few individuals (oligarchy), and some, like Sparta, actually adopted a militant stance regarding their politics. Our focus is on Athens, which has unified to become a polis at the peninsula of Attica around the 7^th century BC.

The precipitating factors that led to Solon's reforms were apparent even before he was born. At the time the relations between the different social classes were not in good terms to begin with. With an oligarchic political structure, the political power was firmly grasped among the few aristocratic individuals. Not only controlling much of the politics, they also controlled the land and properties. It is fair to say that the economic issues were destabilizing the conditions of Athens and it could likely spiral into severe political turmoil. The class of peasants, which had to rely on the rich class for the loans of land, ended up having troubles to repay the debts. In the past, the 'old school' approach to settle this type of dispute was to enslave the debtors, and that resulted in a lot of discontent for the working class. Things heated up even more with the emergence of a politician known as Draco. He made attempts to stabilize the social condition by setting up new laws, which led to severe punishment for the offenders. That only further sustained the conflict between the rich and the poor. Indeed the word 'draconian', which is used to describe excessively harsh laws, was originated from this man.

In 594 BC, Solon was already a statesman at Athens. Observing a combination of problems, he knew that he had to act fast and made some drastic changes. Solon started by drafting a new constitution for Athens. Being a poet besides his political engagements, Solon intended to achieve eunomia – which was the title of one of his poems. The term can be translated as 'governance according to good laws'. The general direction of Solonian constitution was to strike a more healthy balance between the two conflicting social classes. That was done by an apparent increase in stakes for the peasant class in the society.

Solon passed new laws that was committed to seisachtheia, the abolishment of the existing debts. He outlawed all the slavery due to debts, thus freeing the enslaved peasants from the rich landowners and now the lower class did not bear any legal obligations to be forced into work by the landowners. He has built up a four-level, wealth-based hierarchy for the assembly. While the top three levels were mostly constituted of aristocrats and rich individuals who held public office, the citizens of bottom level had the right to vote, and hence they could influence the decision of political issues. Solon also carried out some legal reforms important for later eras : all the citizens of Athens could bring charges against wrongdoers, and he also alleviated and amended some of the harsh Draconian laws before him.

Solon has emphasized that his concepts were based on a commitment to justice for the people in Athens. Yet his moderation turned out to be unsatisfactory for many people. Because Solon did not transfer the land rights to the lower class, the peasants did not think he has done enough to achieve social justice. The aristocrats were not happy, neither – because they felt Solon was taking away the land rights and properties from them, and that was eroding their rights on their private property. Solon might be quite idealistic about changing his world, yet he was too simplistic when understanding the implications of the problem. He did not counteract the issue that the aristocratic class might bypass the laws by some indirect means – such as through the influences of the clans and tribes – to restore their power and again exert control on the peasants. That pinpointed why Solon's refusal to give lands to the peasant class could be an obstacle to a successful reform in the first place.

By the end of his political career, Solon was not able to achieve popularity as the time when he stepped in to the political arena. The Athenians had some first tastes of reform and democracy, yet it could take a century's time for the polis at Attica to achieve a more sophisticated from of democracy, after passing through and enduring a few different forms of governance. Solon may not have the last laugh in his life, yet no one will doubt his courage and his contributions to the eventual prosperity of the Athenian empire – the dawn of dēmokratiā (dēmos: people; kratos: rule). 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

From Tîmê to Time : Homer x Aeschylus

Homer's unique approach towards ancient poetry has proved to leave a lasting impression for the history of literature. While subsequent writers have often alluded to elements from Homer's work, many of them also challenged the strange worldview offered from this ancient master of literature.

Leaving the issue of narrative aside, the most contentious issue for Homer's poems, for both Classical Greece and modern audience, is the worldview known as the Homeric outlook. For today's audience, this outlook is very different from the epistemological and moral outlook of the modern era, and will certainly spark intense debate regarding their implications. Even at ancient Greece, the Pre-Socratic philosophers have already been providing critiques on the Homeric way of understanding the world, and the tragedians of the Classical Greece also questioned and challenged the Homeric moral outlook in their plays.

Starting from the values of the Homeric world, we can build up the shape of man in this distanced universe. Homeric heroes, in a sense, are simplistic when they are compared to the psychological makeup of modern humans. The most important value of the Homeric Greece was honor – which was ' tîmê ' in ancient Greek. For the men of this ancient world - bear in mind that the equality of sex was absent in ancient Greece – achieving honor was to gain respect from others and to boost one's self-esteem. Any actions taken by a Homeric hero were always motivated by the potential of achieving honor, and that was as simple as that. There were no other moral considerations, including the consideration of other's well being. Thus, one can conclude that these ancient heroes showed a strong sense of individualism, and they were so single-minded to achieve their own sense of honor, often obliviously ignoring the other factors that might become an obstacle to their final aims. To the people of today, these warriors could be seen as rather self-centered characters.

The Homeric world was a violent and physical world. Warriors, who fought in battles, were the most well-respected and success in battles would achieve the highest honor. Even the way of fighting was crucial for the categorizations – the full-contact, one-on-one sword fights represented the ultimate test for honor; other means such as archery was seen as a less esteemed form of weapon. The Homeric world prioritized so much on physical strength and prowess that other attributes such as oratory and intelligence were viewed as something secondary and they would lead to less respect from the peers.

Homeric heroes were very courageous. Because they knew that they were not immortal gods, they appreciated the fact that they only had limited chances in their lives to achieve honor. In fact, they anticipated crossing path with the threats from death from time to time. Only by winning in a battle, thus evading death for the time-being, could lead to a sense of honor. By accepting the inevitable end of mortality, they believed that they could achieve a sense of timelessness through honor, and were then remembered by future generations.

Thus, the warriors knew they always had to give their very best shot in every violent encounters. In today's language, they could not tolerate weakness. If they showed some pity or forgiveness, which were the positive attributes of humanity, they might be perceived as weak by others. As illustrated in the works from Homer, the heroes spoke out their minds, and there were no confusions or ambiguities about what they were thinking about. Because for these ancient warriors, when they said they would do something, they had to commit to it for the sake of being honorable men. The creation of a Homeric hero is thus complete.

Some readers may start to get a bit uncomfortable about such a character. Instead of a muscular, sword-wielding athlete, they may picture a self-centered, unsympathetic, narcissistic bigot instead. Homeric heroes have proved to puzzle readers of many generations, yet many scholars advise that the key to the problem is to appreciate that they are very different from us, and there is not much point to debate whether they are moral or not by today's standard.

The reason for such a difference is because in the ancient world depicted by Homer, the concept of 'polis' (city-state) has not yet been developed and therefore concepts like communal values and public interests were something alien to the Greek people from the Mycenaean era and the Dark Age. When It came to the era of Classical Greece, city states have already seen a mature development. The Athenian empire, the birthplace of Greek tragedies, was a prosperous place and they have commenced a preliminary form of democracy. The most important aspect for the citizens was the commitment to the polis, meaning that the citizens had to consider the benefits to the public when they took any actions. While the Greek tragedies took place in a mythical world, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides reflected the issues of Classical Greece, including the various aspects of the polis, in their many tragedies.

While Aeschylus has certainly admired Homer and Homeric influence could be observed in his tragedies, the tragedian from Classical Greece also questions the Homeric outlook, in terms of its epistemology and morality.

Aeschylus's plays questioned the moral implications offered from the Homeric outlook and the danger of staunch individualism from the heroes. In Homer's epic poems, it was the gods and goddesses who drove the action of humanity by influencing the human characters. As these divine figures often had conflicts in interest, that led to all the folly in the human world. Thus in a moral point of view, a Homeric character could always explain something by attributing it to the action of gods, and though the explanation of divine will they could shift the responsibility to other factors.

While the intervention of the divine was still evident in the Aeschylean plays (and indeed, also the plays by Sophocles and Euripides), these plays had a tendency towards a more naturalistic outlook and stressed man's action and responsibility as much as the divine will itself. While the actions taken by the human characters reflected the divine will – which was the worldview of this particular framework, the tragedians since Aeschylus allowed more room for the human characters to commit to the moral choices, and face the consequences of the choices they have made.

Even for the same incident, a Homeric outlook and a Classical outlook can point to different moral conclusions. For example, Orestes's murder of his mother, for cuckolding and killing King Agamemnon, is totally justified by a Homeric ethical perspective, as it is a matter of honor. Indeed in Homer's 'Odyssey', the incident was seen as a benchmark for Telemachus, Odysseus' son. That suggested Telemachus had to do something as significant as that to become a 'real man'. Yet in Aeschylus's 'Oresteia', the murder led to the anger of the Furies, the guarantor of justice. The matricide had to be examined from a legal perspective through the trial endorsed by Athene. Aeschylus placed a more rational and analytical lens onto the issue, which fit well with the rational inquiry demanded by both Pre-Socratic and Classical Greek Philosophy.

From that, a fantastic art form has transformed! 

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Homer : The First Man of Literature

The various forms of art of Classical Greece, which laid the foundation of the aesthetic considerations for the Western culture, placed emphasis on two criteria – the expression of eternal ideals and and the expression of unity. The former concern found its elaboration in Plato's philosophy and the latter was stressed in particular by Aristotle in his theories of drama. The great tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides effectively demonstrated the above values, which in fact was already evident from the epic poems of Homer.

Homer was an epic poet from ancient Greece, who was considered one of the first practitioners of Western Literature. Though there are theories suggesting that 'Homer' was a name that designated a collective effort of various poets, most people agree with the consensus that Homer was a single person who was responsible for the authorship of two ancient epic poems, 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey'. The First Man of literature has proved to have a long-lasting influence in the world of art. Not only Homer has influenced the great tragedians of Classical Greece, the power of Homeric style could be felt in Virgil, John Milton, James Joyce and many others. The name '2001: A Space Odyssey' points to Homer's 'The Odyssey', so is Homer Simpson – we are going a bit too far here!

In this article I will describe the general style of the epic poems by Homer. With the exception of one specific example, I will leave the discussion of the worldview and moral outlook of Homer in the next article. The rationale is that I want to compare the idea of honor – the key value of the Homeric era - with the diverse values of Classical Greece.

It is important to stress a few aspects where modern audience will find alien regarding Homer's work. The first aspect is the nature of Homer's epic poems itself. While the poems are just as poetic as any poems from subsequent eras itself, these epic poems were intended as oral poetry - meaning that they were performed through some ancient form of singing to the audience. While there were controversies as to whether Homer or the other authors have written out any part of these poems - given the tremendous length of the poems, the whole experience is very different from reading, say, a collection of William Blake's work. Because for later poems, the reader can have the liberty to read it in his minds, so that is a different way of perception. The oral poetry of ancient Greece had a performative aspect, and that was why I maintained that these poems from the Homeric era were more similar to drama and films than modern poetry itself. One can easily feel the influence of Homer on subsequent Greek dramatists, who in turn inspired later theater and eventually film art itself.

Because the epic poems were delivered in an oral way, it resembled a music performance. Thus, Homer would have to adopt aesthetic considerations that not only made his stories a grand scale, but also fit to the rhythms and meters required for oral delivery. The epic poets in Homer's era adopted the dactylic hexameter style, and in order to be flexible to this requirement, Homer used a lot of repetition in words and even phrases, to the point that it might appear ritualistic to some audience. The effect of this repetitive style is profound, because it served as an imprinting effect to the audience in a psychological way. You start to associate certain personality traits to a character, much like President Trump did when he labeled his political opponents in his Tweets (just kidding!)

Homer has established the appropriate tone for his epic poems, by not immersing himself into the story itself. Homer's epic poems took an impersonal and objective stance, and it was even more distanced for modern audience, not only because of span of time, but also the alienating content for the audience to encounter. Yet his poems were able to pull the audience back, through their exploration of the eternal qualities of Man.

Homer, like other known epic poets, were interested in the epic cycle of the characters in Greek mythologies. Yet, Homer's caliber came from his intense dramatic focus. He would choose the important parts of the hero's story to enhance the narrative impact he wished to exert. Thus work like 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' were focused only on a defined period of time of the hero's life, which proved to be juiciest moments of their life stories. Though Homer was a poet from antiquity, one will be impressed by the power of his words, and depth of his characterization and plot development.

While Homer lived in a primitive era, he already possessed a gift to hype up the dramatic impact of his words. Not only his words were poetic, he played with the temporal aspects of his epic long poems by the juxtaposition of past and present. Homer's poems possessed an elegant formalism, and the way he fit all the mythological and humanistic aspects in the same story has reached a pleasant harmony. Homer's poems were long because the plot tended to branch out into side-stories, and as a testament to his clarity, these subplots served nicely as self-containing episodes and they did not divert the dramatic focus Homer has carefully planned.

Homer played with contrasting themes in his poems, and this style has certainly influenced numerous dramatists, artists and filmmakers. Not only Homer mingled with reality and fantasy or identity, his most fascinating characters were also very multi-faceted. Odysseus, the man who just wanted to go back home, is the prime example. Though any audience will easily side with Odysseus due to the sympathy to his plight, he is more of an antihero in most cases, and indeed one may conclude he is an amoral character by today's standard. Odysseus could easily use deceptions, tricks and fake identities as means to his own end throughout his ordeal, if he felt that would contribute to his ultimate aim of returning home. True, one can argue Odysseus was not observing a strict Homeric moral code (which is the focus of the next article), yet that is the reason why Odysseus has left such a lasting impression for literature. Odysseus is a realistic character that many readers can be easily identified with. Though Homer was no psychologist, he certainly understood how to capture the audience's heart through strong characterization. One can still learn from the old master Homer when creating his own masterpiece! 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics