Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution." Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'脢tre et le N茅ant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
The Flies is a play by Jean-Paul Sartre, written in 1943. It is an adaptation of the Electra myth, previously used by the Greek playwrights Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides.
The play recounts the story of Orestes and his sister Electra in their quest to avenge the death of their father Agamemnon, king of Argos, by killing their mother Clytemnestra and her husband Aegisthus, who had deposed and killed him.
Jean-Paul Sartre lived his entire life without closure - very much like his heroes Orestes and Electra do here.
Bitten by flies as the insects take their necessary revenge for the heroes' (almost) necessary disobedience to the Law of Athens.
They are between a rock and a hard place.
And they suffer without solace. ***
Ever had an itch you couldn't scratch?
The young Sartre did. He was on tenterhooks. He had analysed all creature comforts out of existence. He now stood alone - bitten incessantly by the flies of angst.
You know, for him the primary one among those itches - and it wasn't a Physical one - was "le Pudeur," or our shared human Shame. Sometimes, he says, we are ashamed to be alive (like at our coming of age).
We FEEL, Sartre says, our Useless Facticity. We are an object for other objects. We're checkmated, cause we're now woke. We see clearly.
Really?
So what does Sartre do about it? Nada.
He paddles furiously upstream without a paddle up Crap Creek for the rest of his life. Trying to found his existence in the void. For his own glory.
O mensch! Shouldn't he deserve at least an E for Effort?
Well, what he needs, like the rest of us, is much more - God's Grace. (Which, being Sartre, he outright refuses even though it's free.)
Can't stop to smell the roses around Crap Creek, he'd say!
But he could easily swim to shore and smell them, after plugging his nose against the stench of being merely human, go home, take a hot shower, put on clean grubbies, air his beefs and cry his buckets to his soulmate - but no.
He refuses even love. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do!
He has his IMAGE.
A WOKE image. Gotta keep it polished!
Electra and Orestes, his mangled Aeschylan personas, have their woke image too. They're revered Royal blood, after all! But Flies hate Royals, cause Royals would never stoop so low as to scratch.
And they are GUILTY Royals.
So, naturally, the Flies of Angst bite harder. ***
Would Saint Francis have used a fly swatter, do you think?
Of course not.
But for another reason.
He loved ALL his too-human earthly fellow beings too much.
He was a gentle man who was simply HIMSELF, and not an image.
Would he have abased himself enough to scratch the bites in public?
You betcha.
And he woulda loved every gosh darned minute of it...
Because some such heavenly moments are Sacred moments of Peace in the Storm. ***
So you know what the moral of my little story is? It's this:
PLEASE, don't get stuck in your own messy issues...
After refusing the help that only God can give you.
Live your life as Francis of Assisi lived it, without noise.
Work along with your shame and the world's bitter bites like ordinary folks do -
I don鈥檛 know why but I decided to reread this play again after finishing but it did come right after that play, and also I really liked it the first time. Honestly, I don鈥檛 know if there is anything that I can say about the play that I haven鈥檛 already said below, but there were a few things that I picked up that I would like to add to what I said above.
Well, I am sitting in a room in Brussels, and yeah, maybe Satre doesn鈥檛 really relate to Brussels as he does to Paris, but the only Belgian books that I can think of are The Smurfs and Tintin. I鈥檝e pretty much read all of the Tintin books, and I have no interest in reading any Smurf books (even if there are any smurf books 鈥� all I remember was that they were a bunch of toys that were sold at BP service stations, and later on down the track became a cartoon).
Anyway, the concept of the flies is interesting because it seems as if the reason Argos is haunted by them is due to a murder, that of Agamemnon. Satre really does build up the idea of a city that has been cursed by the gods. This isn鈥檛 something that was drawn out in the Ancient Greek plays as far as I can remember, but then again it has been a while since I read them. The thing is that flies are attracted to corpses, so the metaphor seems to be here that the murder of Agamemnon has attracted the flies, and now they won鈥檛 leave.
However, at the end to the play, where Orestes confronts the people, it isn鈥檛 about liberating them from a tyrant, because the people didn鈥檛 see Aegisthus as a tyrant. Rather it was about accepting that he committed a crime, and in doing so is accepting his punishment for it. Interestingly much of the trouble arose because Aegisthus tried to hide from his guilt, and the people accepted this, and in doing so took much of the guilt upon them as well.
It is clear that after 15 years, and Orestes arrives 15 years to the day of Agamemnon鈥檚 murder, Aegisthus is a weak and broken man. When he murdered Agamemnon, he was welcomed as a liberator, but instead the gods saw him as a murderer. Interestingly, there is also the thing with Clytemnestra, Orestes鈥� mother, and the reason that the furies pursued Orestes after he murderer her. Once Aegisthus is dead, Electra pleads with him not to murder her as well, and follows the path of the people in refusing to accept her part in the crime.
Finally, there was mention of a suggestion of an incestuous relationship between Orestes and Electra (something that is played out in other Greek myths). I sort of noticed it with the use of the language that seems to be used either for a mother to a child, or between two lovers, but seemed out of place between a brother and a sister. At first I just thought it was a little strange, or maybe it had something to do with the translation, but upon digging a bit deeper (namely reading the Wikipedia article), the idea of incest is flagged.
Yeah, once again, I really did like this play, especially the second time I read it, and as it turns out, I am reading the next play in the book as well (though I should put it aside once I finish that play and read some more Vonnegut).
Beware the flies Orestes! Beware the Flies 1 September 2016 - Paris
I have seem some recent adaptations of Greek myths in the cinemas of late and to say that they were rubbish was an absolute understatement. Mind you, that is Hollywood and Satre is anything but, and when I discovered that the last play in the book that I had picked up at a second-hand bookshop was based on the myth of Orestes my immediate thought was 'this is going to be good'. As it turned out it was good 鈥� really, really good. In fact I would love to see it performed. Actually I would so love to see it performed that I want to join an amateur theatre company and force them to stage it (though I know for a fact that that is not going to happen 鈥� having a full time job makes it really difficult to become involved in the arts, unless of course you devote your entire time to the project, which I simply cannot do).
The problem with writing a review of this play, in the way that I write reviews, is that I cannot do it without actually spoiling the play, especially since there is one enormous twist in it that reveals what is actually going on 鈥� and it all has to do with the flies. So, I will try to say as much as possible about the play without revealing the twist, and when I do I will put up a spoiler alert. Anyway, like the said Hollywood movies, what is happening is that Satre is putting his own interpretation on the myth, however unlike the aforementioned movies he does a much better job at it. The major themes with the modern interpretation of the ancient Greek myths is the rejection of the supernatural.
The thing with our modern interpretation is that we see these myths as a story of how humanity rejects the gods and takes control of their own lives. Unfortunately Hollywood simply dresses it up with great special effects and huge battles, and then finishes off by saying that humanity no longer has any need for the gods so bugger off and leave us alone. What Satre does is that he goes much deeper into it explaining why humanity, as represented by Orestes, has rejected the gods, and it all has to do with free will. Zeus gave Orestes free will to obey him, and Orestes uses that free will to reject Zeus (which is an interesting analogy to Christianity). However, as I will explain, while Orestes takes on a figure of Christ, this play isn't a Christian allegory (Satre was an atheist), but rather uses the play to create a new interpretation of Christ.
So, first, I should mention the background, though those who have been following my reviews probably already know the story of how when Agamemnon returned from Troy he discovered that his wife Clytemnestra was having an affair with Aegisthus, and they both murder him and Aegisthus takes the throne. Orestes flees as he is the heir to the throne, and for Aegisthus to become king he needs to get rid of the heir apparent. Anyway, the city becomes infested with flies, and these flies remain for over fifteen years. Aegisthus knows what these flies are about, however nobody else does. In a way they are the result of Aegisthus' sin 鈥� the murder of the true king, and his adulterous affair with Clytemnestra. The city of Argos, through their acts, has become tainted. However, it goes much further than that, which I have decided that I won't actually reveal.
Anyway, along comes Orestes, and the first part of the play, much like the Ancient Greek versions, has Orestes trying to find out who he can trust and who he can't. He approaches Electra and spends time testing her to see if she will support him or betray him. However, as it turns out it isn't Electra who betrays him, but Zeus. Yet despite Zeus' warning of his impending doom, Aegisthus chooses to do nothing 鈥� his crime, his guilt, and his sin has so worn him out that he simply has no desire to hold onto the throne anymore. In a way his claim to the throne is a Phyric victory 鈥� sure, he is king, but the guilt that has come upon him has so worn him down that it no longer seems worth it.
It is interesting that we see similar themes pop up in other plays 鈥� Hamlet has the usurper who kills the king and marries the queen, while Macbeth as the usurper whose guilt so wears him out that he simply become too exhausted to continue (though he does fight until the bitter end). Yet Shakespeare had a purpose in writing against usurpers, but I'm not entirely sure if Satre was writing in a similar vein 鈥� the play was published during World War II while France was occupied by the Nazis. In a way this could almost be a subtle dig at the Vichy government who, after capitulating to the Germans, pretty much became collaborators.
Yet there is also this idea of somebody coming along and taking away a nation's sin. At the end of the play Orestes rejects Zeus, claiming that because he has free will, he has the free will to reject Zeus and go his own way. However, he also acknowledges his crime (killing his mother) 鈥� something that Aegisthus (and the city) refused to do. In a way Aegisthus believed that he was in the right, and the fact that the city did not rise up against Aegisthus because he had a hand in murdering Agamemnon, were cursed to be tormented by the flies. However Orestes, while avenging the death of his father, takes ownership of his crime, and leaves the city, and takes the flies with him 鈥� in a way a form of Christ figure.
Yet it is interesting how, when he kills his mother, the city rises up against him in revolt 鈥� sure, they did nothing when Agamemnon was murdered, but then again he had been away for ten years, and ten years is an awful long time 鈥� long enough for the population to become accepting of a new king. Yet Orestes does not take the title 鈥� well he does, but he takes the title of a king without a country. In the original version he is driven out of Argos and flees to Athens when he faces trial, and is acquitted, for his crime. No such thing happens here, but he accepts his crime, and he accepts his punishment, and in doing so redeems the city from the curse of the flies.
Yes, Orestes sounds as if he is some sort of Christ figure, and in a way he is, yet there is a twist 鈥� Christ came as God in the flesh, while Orestes, through his free will, rejects Zeus. In a way what Orestes is doing is giving the people of Argos their freedom. He takes ownership of the crime and frees them from the curse of the flies, but in rejecting Zeus he shows them that they do not need to be beholden to the gods, but they have their own free will to make their own decisions and decide their own destiny. However, for the people to realise that, they needed a Christ figure to come along and show them 鈥� the problem is that people don't actually want to do that, they want to be led, which is why people like Jim Jones are always able to attract so many followers.
Sartre's play influenced by Nietzsche, adaptation of the Electra myth. Reminder that freedom is not the ability to physically do whatever one wants. It is the ability to mentally interpret one's own life for oneself鈥攖o define oneself and create one's own values.
***
(muhe: simbol gri啪e savjesti, krivice, kajanja, neslobode)
"Bolnu tajnu bogova i kraljeva: da su ljudi slobodni. Oni su slobodni Egiste. Ti to zna拧, a oni to ne znaju."
"Ali ja sam svoja prva 啪rtva: vidim sebe samo onako kako me oni vide."
"Kada se jednom sloboda rasprsne u du拧i nekog 膷oveka, bogovi protiv njega ne mogu ni拧ta. Jer, to je stvar ljudi, i na drugim je ljudima - samo na njima - da ga puste ili zadave."
"Orest: 艩ta me se ti膷e Jupiter? Pravda je stvar ljudi i nije mi potreban bog da me o njoj nau膷i. Pravedno je (...) vratiti im ose膰anje dostojanstva."
"Elektra, iza tih vrata je 膷itav svet. Svet i jutro. Napolju sunce se di啪e iznad puteva. Uskoro 膰emo iza膰i, i膰i 膰emo putevima obasjanim suncem i te k膰eri no膰i izgubi膰e svoju mo膰: zraci sunca proburazi膰e ih kao ma膷evi. (...) A mora koja te pro啪dire, misli拧 li da 膰e ikad prestati da me mu膷i? No, 拧ta me se ti ti膷e, ja sam slobodan. Slobodan. I pomiren sa samim sobom."
"... (gri啪a savjesti) potrebna ti je da te odvrati od mr啪nje koju ose膰a拧 prema samoj sebi."
"Jupiter: A ti, mani taj ponosni ton, on nipo拧to ne prili膷i jednom krivcu koji ispa拧ta svoj greh. Orest: Ja nisam krivac i ne mo啪e拧 me naterati da ispa拧tam ono 拧to ne smatram zlo膷inom."
"Orest: Tu膽 sam sebi znam. Van prirode, protiv prirode, bez opravdanja, bez uto膷i拧ta, osim u samom sebi. Ali ne膰u se podvrgnuti tvom zakonu: osu膽en sam da se povinujem samo svome."
"Jupiter: Ta膷no kad li膷e na tebe (ljudi), mrzim ih. Orest: Pri膷uvaj se, priznaje拧 svoju slabost. Ja tebe ne mrzim. Ti si bog, a ja sam slobodan. Na sli膷an na膷in smo sami i na拧a mora je sli膷na."
"Jupiter: Jadni ljudi! Da膰e拧 im na poklon usamljenost i sramotu, strgnu膰e拧 tkanine kojima sam ih pokrio i odjednom 膰e拧 im razotkriti njihovu egzistenciju, njihovu bestidnu i ljutavu egzistenciju, koja im je data ni radi 膷ega."
"... ljudski 啪ivot po膷inje s' one strane o膷ajanja."