The Theatre Times: Many will be familiar with the looming presence of Oedipus or Antigone in Classical Greek tragedy. But how many remember the so-called secondary characters (nurses, soldiers, pedagogues) with whom the great heroes of the past appeared on stage?
“Minor” characters of 5th century BC works have an important role in encouraging audience reflection.
6 comments:
Recognizing the role of these minor characters is so important. I agree with the article to a large extent that the minor characters in movies Classical Greek plays should not be treated as devices. They have so much impact on the course of the play and often symbolic represent certain types of people that exist in society. At the same time, their representation also says a lot about our biases and stereotypes which is interesting to decipher. It’s a good diagnostic method. However, I wasn’t aware of exactly how impactful these minor characters could have on the audience. Like with the example in the article, audience members felt empowered when a character of a similar socio-political background to them expressed themselves among people of a higher social status. By focusing on these characters and parts, it will definitely encourage the audience, those who are less-privileged, to stand up and defend themselves.
Minor characters are SO important to a story, otherwise they wouldn’t be there! It’s great that this article is recognizing that and providing a good defense as to why that it. It’s crucial for the main characters in a show to be fully realized, but it goes an extra step if the same treatment is given to the smaller characters. They don’t have to revolve around the actions of the main character, but also be developed as their own personalities. This article makes a great point about how such characters can include more diversity in the story with their backgrounds. It is because of that diversity they should not be ignored, because ignoring them would ignore giving the show more depth and value. I wish the article wrote a bit more on the importance of minor characters in modern shows, because now more than ever is diversity becoming an essential for a show. Overall, it did do a great job of explaining an often underappreciated aspect of a story.
Stories about heroes lend to interesting narratives, but they can often be hard to relate to. Especially in modern times, when ancient Greek tragedies and Shakeapearean plays are still being produced, we must find a way for the audience to look in and see themselves apart from kings and queens. Minor characters can be the comic relief or support system for the lead, but they don't always have to be. The Nurse in "Romeo and Juliet" is one specific example I can think of. I worked on a production of it once, and I was so drawn to her personal tale and influence on the Capulet family. She did have some of the funnier and active dialogue of the tragedy, but she also was largely responsible for Juliet's upbringing. She confided in her more often than her own mother. When the non-royal characters have more depth, they can add a great deal of color to the story.
More often than not, I find myself drawn to minor characters in stories more so than I am to any of the main characters. Minor and supporting characters are often less explicitly fleshed out, so their personas are very open to interpretation and therefore easy to be made likeable by the medium's intended audience. That aside, minor characters, when handled deftly by skilled writers, serve to highlight the assets or flaws of a main character to give them depth relative to other characters who are more relatable to the audience. Being able to understand the importance of a minor character and their role in a story is often crucial to understanding the main character and their story as well. A story with only protagonist type characters with no minor or supporting characters like you and me do not make interesting stories to tell.
Wow this is such an important topic. The secondary characters in theatrical performances and films do not get nearly enough attention as they should. Most character research that has been done in the past has been exclusively looking at the main characters of classic stories. The secondary or supporting roles are not usually studied as closely as the main characters, but it seems like that could be changing. Usually, the secondary characters are there to advance the plot in some way or present some kind of deeper moral message. Without secondary characters the plots of these classic stories would not exist! The secondary characters are often representative of the middle class which makes them relatable to the people of the middle class which is the majority. So, when these characters have a voice within the story this gives the audience members the idea that they too have a voice to be heard.
As viewers of theatre, we often forget that the minor characters are more than just set dressing or characters that serve the purpose that their name often is. In the world of a book or TV show I feel like it's easier to find a certain connection to the minor characters because they tend to be more fleshed out and now, in particular, it's not uncommon for a show or novel to take a detour from the main storyline to follow a subplot. With theatre that can be more difficult. Given its live nature, it's harder to take those detours into the lives of the minor characters because there simply isn't the time or digressing from the main action can detract from the pacing of the show. Because of this, I often find myself discounting and ignoring the minor roles because their individuality is lost in conveying the main purpose of the overall picture. I'd like to change my viewpoint and try to see the non-major roles as important contributing factors to the world of the play.
Post a Comment