My strongest reaction to Medea was in how timeless some of the stories of tragedy are. Medea has a fairly unsophisticated plot. Man wrongs woman, man and woman get divorced, bitter woman gets revenge on man. This sequence of events has become so mainstream in this country, with its 50% divorce rate, that it is merely more than material for a romantic comedy or tabloid fodder. Thousands of years after Euripedes wrote his tragedy for the audience of Athens. this story line is still pertinent.

The difference lies in where the audiences’ sympathies fall. Most of the time we feel bad for the figurative scorned woman, left behind to support herself and her children. The theme of exile is timeless in it’s tragedy. Exile doesn’t exist now like it did then, with people being banished to the countryside to never return. But the loss of social support, of a home or of one’s family is heartbreaking. However, Euripede’s title character, Medea, is so bereft, inconsolable and sinister in her rage that it makes it difficult for the audience to empathize. While her situation is disheartening, Euripede’s makes his character so unlikable that I find myself feeling much more for Jason, and wondering how he ended up in cahoots with a vengeful lunatic like Medea.

I think this confusion of allegiance to the characters is where interest in the play lies. Sure what Jason did was wrong, in theory, but I don’t really feel like Medea deserves happiness anyways. This diversion from the formulaic is appreciated.