|
alcestis doesn't speak
What I feel I am continually butting my head against is this great void in the middle of the play, the unspoken experience of Alcestis. I have been thinking about this in terms of a survivor's relationship to trauma and death. If the central event is the trauma then by virtue of their status as survivor a person is peripheral, it did not happen to them. In this sense we are coming up against something that is un-narratable, un-playable. The true end is absolute and puts an end to our representational capacity. Is this true?
If we look at the Alcestis play, Admetus could be seen as a survivor of the traumatic event, it doesn't happen to him. In this sense he resonates with stories of survivor's guilt, and the need to tell stories, 'what if' tales, as a survivor of trauma. The 'what if' stories function to re-involve oneself in the central event, to move from the periphery to the core (which is, paradoxically annihilation).
I am worried about the resounding silence at the end of the play: Alcestis doesn’t speak.
Anna Schmitz, Az Theatre