Publication: Medeas de cine: del texto teatral a la representación fílmica
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-08-08
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Dentro del ámbito literario el personaje de Medea resultaba ya fascinante en la Antigüedad grecorromana para poetas y artistas que relataron en sus obras su visión personal de la leyenda. Pero Medea no sólo se ha configurado en múltiples versiones dependiendo del género literario desde la que ha sido abordada como personaje, sino que ha generado múltiples reflexiones poliédricas desde todas las disciplinas artísticas. Las múltiples caras de este personaje tornan imposible reducir su esencia a una sola obra de arte. Asombra la gran cantidad de traducciones, versiones, adaptaciones y reelaboraciones literarias que se han realizado sobre la Medea de Eurípides y la de Séneca en todo el mundo europeo y más allá de sus fronteras sobre todo a partir del siglo XV. Pero ¿por qué Medea ha sido y sigue siendo una personalidad tan influyente? ¿Dónde radica su poder de fascinación? ¿Dónde su misterio? ¿Por qué su identidad se expande hacia lo inefable? ¿Qué hay en ella de cercano y a la vez de indescifrable? ¿Por qué nos atrae tanto como nos espanta? ¿Por qué escapa Medea a la definición unívoca? ¿Es la contradicción múltiple su única definición posible? ¿Cuál es el significado profundo de su íntima y radical unión con la violencia? Ciertamente, Medea –como toda gran creación artística y filosófica– plantea más preguntas que respuestas. A la complejidad de la Medea «humana» hay que añadir los rasgos de carácter «divinal» que le son propios al personaje y que sólo adquieren pleno sentido dentro de un contexto mítico arcaico religioso: marco necesario para reconocer la figura de la Medea diosa. Por consiguiente, el horizonte creativo general anunciado exige el estudio de los antecedentes literarios del mito mediante los cuales poder rastrear de dónde y cómo se origina aquello que llamamos personaje de Medea, y así poner de manifiesto la significación evolutiva del personaje desde su origen mítico, etnológico y religioso hasta la revisión literaria elaborada por Séneca a partir del racionalismo estoico...
Within the literary field the character of Medea was already fascinating in Greco-Roman antiquity for poets and artists who recounted in his works his personal vision of the legend. But Medea is not only configured in multiple versions depending on the genre from which has been addressed as a character, but has generated multiple polyhedral reflections from all artistic disciplines. The many faces of this character become impossible to reduce its essence to a single work of art. It is amazing the large number of translations, versions, adaptations and literary reworkings that have been made on the Medea by Euripides and Seneca throughout the European world and beyond its borders especially from the fifteenth century. But why has Medea been and does she remains an influential personality? Where does its fascination lie? Where is the mystery? Why does her identity expand into the ineffable? What is in it closely and at a time indecipherable? Why does it attract us as much as frighten? Why does Medea escape the univocal definition? Is multiple contradiction its only possible definition? What is the deeper meaning of their intimate and radical union with violence? Certainly, Medea ―as every great artistic and philosophical creation― raises more questions than answers. The complexity of the "human" Medea must be added the character traits "divine" that are proper to the character and only acquire full meaning within an archaic and mythical religious context: necessary framework to recognize the figure of Medea goddess. Therefore, the general creative horizon announced requires the study of literary history of the myth by which to track where and how what we call character Medea originates, and thus revealing the evolutionary significance of the character from its mythical, ethnological and religious origin to literary review prepared from stoic rationalism by Seneca...
Within the literary field the character of Medea was already fascinating in Greco-Roman antiquity for poets and artists who recounted in his works his personal vision of the legend. But Medea is not only configured in multiple versions depending on the genre from which has been addressed as a character, but has generated multiple polyhedral reflections from all artistic disciplines. The many faces of this character become impossible to reduce its essence to a single work of art. It is amazing the large number of translations, versions, adaptations and literary reworkings that have been made on the Medea by Euripides and Seneca throughout the European world and beyond its borders especially from the fifteenth century. But why has Medea been and does she remains an influential personality? Where does its fascination lie? Where is the mystery? Why does her identity expand into the ineffable? What is in it closely and at a time indecipherable? Why does it attract us as much as frighten? Why does Medea escape the univocal definition? Is multiple contradiction its only possible definition? What is the deeper meaning of their intimate and radical union with violence? Certainly, Medea ―as every great artistic and philosophical creation― raises more questions than answers. The complexity of the "human" Medea must be added the character traits "divine" that are proper to the character and only acquire full meaning within an archaic and mythical religious context: necessary framework to recognize the figure of Medea goddess. Therefore, the general creative horizon announced requires the study of literary history of the myth by which to track where and how what we call character Medea originates, and thus revealing the evolutionary significance of the character from its mythical, ethnological and religious origin to literary review prepared from stoic rationalism by Seneca...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filología, leída el 26-09-2016