The Theatre of the Absurd

Transcription

Author(s): Martin Esslin
Source: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 4, No. 4 (May, 1960), pp. 3-15
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124873 .
Accessed: 20/11/2013 01:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane Drama
Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 180.149.52.49 on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 01:44:56 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
By MARTIN
ESSLIN
The plays of Samuel Beckett,ArthurAdamov, and Eugene Ionesco
have been performedwithastonishingsuccessin France,Germany,Scandinavia, and the English-speakingcountries.This reception is all the
more puzzling when one considersthat the audiences concerned were
amused by and applauded these plays fullyaware that they could not
understandwhat theymeant or what theirauthorswere drivingat.
At firstsightthese plays do, indeed, confronttheirpublic with a bewilderingexperience,a veritablebarrageof wildlyirrational,oftennonsensical goings-onthat seem to go counter to all accepted standardsof
stage convention.In theseplays,some of which are labeled "anti-plays,"
neitherthe timenor the place of the action are everclearlystated.(At the
beginning of Ionesco's The Bald Soprano the clock strikesseventeen.)
The charactershardlyhave any individualityand ofteneven lack a name;
moreover,halfwaythroughthe action theytend to change their nature
completely.Pozzo and Lucky in Beckett'sWaitingfor Godot, forexample, appear as masterand slave at one momentonly to returnaftera
while with theirrespectivepositionsmysteriously
reversed.The laws of
probabilityas well as thoseof physicsare suspendedwhen we meetyoung
ladies withtwo or even threenoses (Ionesco's Jackor the Submission),or
a corpse that has been hidden in the next room that suddenlybegins to
grow to monstroussize until a giant footcrashesthroughthe door onto
the stage (Ionesco's Amidde). As a result,it is oftenunclear whetherthe
action is meant to representa dream world of nightmaresor real happenings. Within the same scene the action may switchfromthe nightmarish poetryof high emotions to pure knock-aboutfarce or cabaret,
and above all, the dialogue tends to get out of hand so that at timesthe
wordsseem to go counterto the actionsof the characterson the stage,to
degenerateinto listsof wordsand phrasesfroma dictionaryor traveler's
conversationbook, or to get bogged down in endless repetitionslike a
phonographrecordstuckin one groove.Only in this kind of demented
world can strangersmeet and discover,aftera long and polite conversation and close cross-questioning,
that, to their immense surprise,they
must be man and wife as theyare livingon the same street,in the same
house, apartment,room, and bed (Ionesco's The Bald Soprano). Only
here can the whole life of a group of charactersrevolvearound the passionate discussionof the aestheticsand economics of pinball machines
(Adamov's Ping-Pong).Above all, everythingthat happens seems to be
beyond rational motivation,happening at random or throughthe dementedcaprice of an unaccountableidiot fate.Yet, thesewildlyextravagant tragicfarcesand farcicaltragedies,althoughtheyhave sufferedtheir
3
4
The Tulane Drama Review
share of protestsand scandals,do arouse interestand are receivedwith
laughterand thoughtfulrespect.What is the explanation forthiscurious
phenomenon?
The most obvious, but perhaps too facile answer that suggestsitself
is that theseplaysare primeexamples of "pure theatre."They are living
proof that the magic of the stage can persisteven outside,and divorced
from,any frameworkof conceptual rationality.They prove that exits
and entrances,light and shadow, contrastsin costume,voice, gait and
behavior, pratfallsand embraces,all the manifold mechanical interactionsof human puppetsin groupingsthatsuggesttension,conflict,or the
relaxation of tensions,can arouse laughteror gloom and conjure up an
atmosphereof poetryeven if devoid of logical motivationand unrelated
to recognizablehuman characters,emotions,and objectives.
But this is only a partial explarlation.While the element of "pure
theatre" and abstractstagecraftis certainlyat work in the plays concerned, theyalso have a much more substantialcontent and meaning.
Not only do all these plays make sense, thoughperhaps not obvious or
conventionalsense, theyalso give expressionto some of the basic issues
and problemsof our age, in a uniquely efficient
and meaningfulmanner,
so thattheymeetsomeof the deepestneeds and unexpressedyearningsof
their audience.
The three dramatiststhat have been grouped togetherhere would
probably most energeticallydeny that theyformanythinglike a school
or movement.Each of them,in fact,has his own roots and sources,his
own verypersonal approach to both formand subject matter.Yet they
also clearly have a good deal in common. This common denominator
that characterizestheirworksmightwell be describedas the elementof
the absurd. "Est absurdece qui n'a pas de but.. ." ("Absurdis thatwhich
has no purpose,or goal, or objective"), the definitiongiven by Ionesco
in a note on Kafka,1certainlyapplies to the playsof Beckettand Ionesco
as well as thoseof ArthurAdamovup to his latestplay,Paolo Paoli, when
he returnedto a more traditionalformof social drama.
Each of thesewriters,however,has his own special typeof absurdity:
in Beckettit is melancholic,colored by a feelingof futilityborn fromthe
disillusionmentof old age and chronichopelessness;Adamov's is more
active,aggressive,earthy,and tingedwith social and political overtones;
whileIonesco's absurdityhas itsown fantasticknock-aboutflavorof tragical clowning.But theyall share the same deep sense of human isolation
and of the irremediablecharacterof the human condition.
As ArthurAdamov put it in describinghow he came to writehis first
play, La Parodie (1947):
I began to discoverstagescenesin the mostcommon-place
everyday
events.[One day I saw] a blindman begging;twogirlswentby without
This gave me
seeinghim,singing:"I closedmyeyes;it was marvelo-us!"
the idea of showingon stage,as crudelyand as visiblyas possible,the
lonelinessof man,theabsenceofcommunication
amonghumanbeings.2
MARTIN ESSLIN
5
Looking back at his earliesteffort(whichhe now regardsas unsuccessful)
Adamov defineshis basic idea in it, and a numberof subsequent plays,
as the idea "that the destiniesof all human beings are of equal futility,
that the refusalto live (of the charactercalled N.) and the joyfulacceptance of life (by the employee)both lead, by the same path, to inevitable
failure,total destruction." It is the same futilityand pointlessnessof
human effort,the same impossibilityof human communicationwhich
Ionesco expressesin ever new and ingenious variations.The two old
people making conversationwith the emptyair and living in the expectationof an orator who is to pronounce profoundtruthsabout life,
but turnsout to be deaf and dumb (The Chairs), are as sardonically
cruel a symbolof this fundamentallytragicview of human existenceas
Jack (Jackor the Submission),who stubbornlyresiststhe concertedurgings of his entirefamilyto subscribeto the most sacred principle of his
clan-which, when his resistancefinallyyields to theirentreaties,turns
out to be the profoundtruth:"I love potatoeswith bacon" ("J'adore les
pommesde terreau lard").
The Theatre of the Absurd shows the world as an incomprehensible
place. The spectatorssee the happeningson the stage entirelyfromthe
outside, withoutever understandingthe full meaning of these strange
patternsof events,as newlyarrivedvisitorsmightwatchlife in a country
of which theyhave not yet masteredthe language.' The confrontation
of the audience withcharactersand happeningswhichtheyare not quite
able to comprehendmakesit impossibleforthemto share the aspirations
and emotionsdepicted in the play.Brecht'sfamous"Verfremdungseffekt"
(alienation effect),the inhibitionof any identificationbetweenspectator
and actor, which Brecht could never successfullyachieve in his own
highlyrational theatre,reallycomes into its own in the Theatre of the
Absurd.It is impossibleto identifyoneselfwith charactersone does not
understandor whose motivesremain a closed book, and so the distance
betweenthe public and the happeningson the stagecan be maintained.
Emotional identificationwith the charactersis replaced by a puzzled,
criticalattention.For while the happeningson the stageare absurd,they
yetremainrecognizableas somehowrelatedto real lifewithits absurdity,
so that eventuallythe spectatorsare broughtface to face with the irrational side of theirexistence.Thus, the absurd and fantasticgoings-on
of the Theatre of the Absurd will, in the end, be found to reveal the
of thehuman conditionand the illusionof whatwe thought
irrationality
was its apparent logical structure.
If the dialogue in these plays consistsof meaninglessclich6sand the
mechanical,circularrepetitionof stereotypedphrases--howmany meaninglessclichesand stereotypedphrasesdo we use in our day-to-dayconversation?If the characterschange theirpersonalityhalfwaythroughthe
action,how consistentand trulyintegratedare the people we meet in our
real life?And if people in theseplays appear as mere marionettes,helplesspuppetswithoutanywill of theirown, passivelyat themercyof blind
6
fate and meaninglesscircumstance,do we, in fact,in our overorganized
world, still possess any genuine initiativeor power to decide our own
destiny?The spectatorsof theTheatre of theAbsurdare thusconfronted
with a grotesquelyheightenedpictureof theirown world: a world without faith,meaning, and genuine freedom of will. In this sense, the
Theatre of the Absurd is the true theatreof our time.
The theatreof mostpreviousepochsreflectedan acceptedmoral order,
a world whose aims and objectiveswere clearlypresentto the minds of
all its public, whetherit was the audience of the medieval mystery
plays
withtheirsolidlyacceptedfaithin the Christianworldorderor the audience of thedramaof Ibsen, Shaw,or Hauptmann withtheirunquestioned
belief in evolution and progress.To such audiences, right and wrong
were never in doubt, nor did theyquestion the then accepted goals of
human endeavor. Our own time,at least in the Westernworld,wholly
lacks such a generallyaccepted and completelyintegratedworld picture.
The decline of religiousfaith,the destructionof the belief in automatic
social and biological progress,the discoveryof vast areas of irrational
and unconsciousforceswithinthe human psyche,the loss of a sense of
control over rational human developmentin an age of totalitarianism
and weapons of mass destruction,have all contributedto the erosion of
the basis fora dramaticconventionin whichtheaction proceedswithina
fixedand self-evident
of generallyacceptedvalues. Faced with
framework
the vacuum leftby the destructionof a universallyaccepted and unified
set of beliefs,mostseriousplaywrights
have feltthe need to fittheirwork
into the frameof values and objectivesexpressedin one of the contemaestheticism,or nature worporaryideologies: Marxism,psychoanalysis,
ship. But these,in the eyes of a writerlike Adamov, are nothing but
superficialrationalizationswhich tryto hide the depth of man's predicament,his lonelinessand his anxiety.Or, as Ionesco puts it:
As faras I am concerned,
I believesincerely
in thepoverty
of thepoor,
I deploreit; it is real;it can becomea subjectforthetheatre;I also believe
in the anxietiesand serioustroublesthe richmaysuffer
from;but it is
neitherin the miseryof the former
nor in the melancholiaof the latter,
thatI, forone, findmydramaticsubjectmatter.Theatreis forme the
outwardprojection
ontothestageofan innerworld;it is in mydreams,in
thatI,
myanxieties,in myobscuredesires,in myinternalcontradictions
forone,reserveformyself
therightoffinding
mydramaticsubjectmatter.
As I am not alone in theworld,as each of us, in the depthof his being,
is at thesame timepartand parcelof all others,mydreams,mydesires,
do notbelongto me alone.They formpartof
myanxieties,myobsessions
an ancestralheritage,a veryancientstorehouse
whichis a portionof the
commonproperty
of all mankind.It is this,which,transcending
theiroutward diversity,
reunitesall human beingsand constitutes
our profound
commonpatrimony,
the universallanguage....5
In otherwords,the commonlyacceptable frameworkof beliefsand values of formerepochs whichhas now been shatteredis to be replaced by
MARTIN ESSLIN
7
thecommunityof dreamsand desiresof a collectiveunconscious.And, to
quote lonesco again:
the new dramatistis one... who triesto linkup withwhatis most
...
ancient:
new languageand subjectmatterin a dramaticstructure
which
aimsat beingclearer,morestrippedofinessentials
and morepurelytheatrito rediscover
cal; the rejectionof traditionalism
tradition;a synthesis
of
and invention,
of thereal and imaginary,
of theparticularand
knowledge
or as theysaynow,of theindividualand thecollective...By
theuniversal,
I expressmydeepesthumanity.
I become
expressing
mydeepestobsessions,
one withall others,spontaneously,
overand aboveall thebarriersof caste
and different
I expressmysolitudeand becomeone withall
psychologies.
other solitudes....."
What is the traditionwith which the Theatre of the Absurd-at first
sightthe most revolutionaryand radically new movement-is tryingto
link itself?It is in facta veryancientand a veryrichtradition,nourished
frommany and varied sources: the verbal exuberance and extravagant
inventionsof Rabelais, the age-old clowningof the Roman mimes and
the Italian Commedia dell'Arte,the knock-abouthumorof circusclowns
like Grock; the wild,archetypalsymbolismof Englishnonsenseverse,the
baroque horrorof Jacobean dramatistslike Webster or Tourneur, the
harsh,incisiveand often brutal tones of the German drama of Grabbe,
Biichner,Kleist,and Wedekind withitsdeliriouslanguage and grotesque
inventiveness;and the Nordic paranoia of the dreams and persecution
fantasiesof Strindberg.
All these streams,however,firstcame togetherand crystallizedin the
more direct ancestorsof the presentTheatre of the Absurd. Of these,
undoubtedlythe firstand foremostis AlfredJarry(1873-1907), the creator of Ubu Roi, the firstplay which clearly belongs in the categoryof
the Theatre of the Absurd. Ubu Roi, firstperformedin Paris on December 10, 1896,is a Rabelaisian nonsensedrama about the fantasticadventuresof a fat,cowardly,and brutal figure,le pare Ubu, who makes himself King of Poland, fightsa series of Falstaffianbattles,and is finally
routed.As if to challengeall acceptedcodes of proprietyand thusto open
a new era of irreverence,the play opens with the defiant expletive,
"Merdre!" which immediatelyprovokeda scandal. This, of course,was
what Jarryhad intended. Ubu, in its rollickingRabelaisian parody of a
Shakespeareanhistoryplay,was meant to confrontthe Parisian bourgeois
witha monstrousportraitof his own greed,selfishness,
and philistinism:
"As the curtainwent up I wanted to confrontthe public with a theatre
in which,as in the magic mirror.. . of the fairytales... the vicious man
sees his reflectionwith bulls' hornsand the body of a dragon,the projections of his viciousness...." But Ubu is more than a mere monstrous
exaggerationof the selfishnessand crude sensualityof the French bourof the grossnessof hugeois. He is at the same time the personification
man nature,an enormousbelly walkingon two legs. That is whyJarry
8
put him on the stageas a monstrouspotbellied figurein a highlystylized
costume and mask-a mythical,archetypalexternalizationof human
instinctsof the lowest kind. Thus, Ubu, the false king of Poland, pretended doctorof the pseudoscienceof Pataphysics,clearlyanticipatesone
of the Theatre of the Absurd,its tendencyto
of the main characteristics
externalize and project outwardswhat is happening in the deeper recesses of the mind. Examples of this tendencyare: the disembodied
voices of "monitors"shoutingcommands at the hero of Adamov's La
Grande et la Petite Manoeuvre which concretizeshis neurotic compulsions; the mutilatedtrunksof the parentsin Beckett'sEndgame emerging fromashcans-the ashcans of the main character'ssubconsciousto
which he has banished his past and his conscience;or the proliferations
of fungithatinvade the marriedcouple's apartmentin Ionesco's Amid~e
and expressthe rottennessand decay of theirrelationship.All thesepsychological factorsare not only projected outwards,they are also, as in
Jarry'sUbu Roi, grotesquelymagnifiedand exaggerated.This scornful
rejectionof all subtletiesis a reactionagainstthe supposed finesseof the
psychologyof the naturalistictheatrein which everythingwas to be inferredbetween the lines. The Theatre of the Absurd, fromJarryonwards,stands forexplicitnessas against implicitpsychology,and in this
resemblesthe highlyexplicittheatreof the Expressionistsor the political
theatreof Piscator or Brecht.
To be larger and more real than life was also the aim of Guillaume
Apollinaire (1880-1918),the greatpoet who was one of the seminal forces
in the rise of Cubism and who had close personal and artisticlinkswith
Jarry.If Apollinaire labeled his play Les Mamelles de Tiresias a "drame
surrealiste,"he did not intendthatterm,of whichhe was one of the earliest users,in the sense in which it later became famous.He wanted it to
was largerthan life,forhe believed
describea play in whicheverything
in an art whichwas to be "modern,simple,rapid, with the shortcutsand
enlargementsthatare needed to shockthe spectator."'In the prologue to
Les Mamelles de Tiresias,a grotesquepamphlet purportedlyadvocating
an immenserise in the Frenchbirthrate,Apollinaire makes the Director
of the Company of Actorswho performthe play,definehis ideas:
ofreality
For thetheatreshouldnotbe an imitation
shoulduse
It is rightthatthedramatist
All theillusionsat his disposal...
It is rightthathe shouldletcrowdsspeak,or inanimateobjects
If he so pleases
And thathe no longerhas to reckon
With timeand space
His universeis the play
Withinwhichhe is God theCreator
Who disposesat will
Of soundsgestures
massescolors
movements
Not merelyin order
MARTINESSLIN
9
whatis calleda sliceof life
To photograph
But to bringforthlifeitselfand all its truth...
Accordingly,in Les Mamelles de Tiresias the whole population of Zanzibar, where the scene is laid, is representedby a single actor; and the
heroine,Thrsr6e,changesherselfinto a man by lettingher breastsfloat
upwardslike a pair of toyballoons. AlthoughLes Mamelles de Tiresias
was not a surrealistworkin the strictestsenseof the term,it clearlyforeshadowed the ideas of the movementled by Andr6Breton.Surrealismin
that narrower,technical sense found little expression in the theatre.
But Antonin Artaud (1896-1948), anothermajor influencein the developmentof the Theatre of the Absurd,did at one timebelong to the Surrealistgroup, althoughhis main activityin the theatretook place after
he had broken with Breton.Artaud was one of the most unhappy men
ofgeniusofhis age, an artistconsumedby themostintensepassions; poet,
actor,director,designer,immenselyfertileand originalin his inventions
and ideas, yet always living on the bordersof sanityand never able to
realize his ambitions,plans, and projects.
Artaud, who had been an actor in Charles Dullin's company at the
Atelier,began his ventureinto the realm of experimentaltheatrein a
seriesof productionscharacteristically
sailing under the label ThUdtre
AlfredJarry(1927-29). But his theoriesof a new and revolutionarytheatreonly crystallizedafterhe had been deeplystirredby a performanceof
Balinese dancers at the Colonial Exhibition of 1931. He formulatedhis
ideas in a seriesof impassionedmanifestoeslater collectedin the volume
The Theatre and Its Double (1938), which continuesto exercisean imFrenchtheatre.Artaudnamed the
portantinfluenceon thecontemporary
theatreof his dreams Thidtre de la Cruautd,a theatreof cruelty,which,
and cruel above all formyself.""Everyhe said, "means a theatredifficult
is
It is around this idea of action carthat
is
active
really
cruelty.
thing
ried to the extremethatthe theatremustrenewitself."Here too the idea
of action largerand more real than life is the dominant theme. "Every
performancewill contain a physicaland objective element that will be
feltby all. Cries,Wails, Apparitions,Surprises,Coups de Thidtre of all
kinds,the magical beauty of costumesinspired by the model of certain
rituals...." The language of the drama must also undergo a change:
"It is not a matterof suppressingarticulatespeech but of giving to the
wordssomethinglike the importancetheyhave in dreams."In Artaud's
new theatre"not only the obverseside of man will appear but also the
reverseside of the coin: the realityof imaginationand of dreams will
here be seen on an equal footingwitheverydaylife."
Artaud'sonly attemptat puttingthesetheoriesto the teston the stage
took place on May 6, 1935 at the Folies-Wagram.Artaud had made his
own adaptation ("afterShelleyand Stendhal") of the storyof the Cenci,
that sombre Renaissance storyof incest and patricide.It was in many
waysa beautifuland memorableperformance,but full of imperfections
10
and a financialdisasterwhichmarkedthe beginningof Artaud'seventual
descent into despair, insanity,and abject poverty.Jean-Louis Barrault
had some small part in thisventureand Roger Blin, the actorand director who later played an importantpart in bringingAdamov, Beckett,
and Ionesco to the stage,appeared in the small role of one of the hired
assassins.
Jean-Louis Barrault,one of the mostcreativefiguresin the theatreof
our time,was in turn,responsibleforanotherventurewhich played an
importantpart in the developmentof the Theatre of the Absurd. He
stagedAndr6Gide's adaptationof Franz Kafka'snovel,The Trial, in 1947
and played the part of the hero K. himself.Undoubtedlythis performance whichbroughtthe dreamworldof Kafka to a triumphantunfolding
of thisparticularbrand of
on the stageand demonstratedthe effectiveness
fantasyin practical theatricaltermsexerciseda profoundinfluenceon
saw the exterthe practitionersof the new movement.For here,too, they,
nalization of mental processes,the acting out of nightmarishdreamsby
schematizedfiguresin a world of tormentand absurdity.
The dreamelementin the Theatre of theAbsurdcan also be traced,in
the case of Adamov, to Strindberg,acknowledgedby him as his inspiration at the timewhen he began to thinkof writingforthe theatre.This
is the Strindbergof The Ghost Sonata, The Dream Play and of To Damascus.(Adamovis theauthorof an excellentbriefmonographon Strindberg.)
But if Jarry,Artaud,Kafka,and Strindbergcan be regardedas the decisive influencesin the developmentof the Theatre of the Absurd,there
is another giant of European literaturethat must not be omittedfrom
the list-James Joyce,forwhom Beckettat one timeis supposed to have
acted as helper and secretary.Not only is the Nighttownepisode of
Ulyssesone of the earliestexamples of the Theatre of the Absurd-with
its exuberant minglingof the real and the nightmarish,its wild fantasies and externalizationsof subconscious yearningsand fears, but
Joyce'sexperimentationwith language,his attemptto smashthe limitations of conventionalvocabularyand syntaxhas probablyexercisedan
even more powerfulimpacton all the writersconcerned.
It is in its attitudeto language that the Theatre of the Absurd is most
revolutionary.It deliberatelyattemptsto renew the language of drama
and to expose the barrennessof conventional stage dialogue. Ionesco
once describedhow he came to writehis firstplay. (Cf. his "The Tragedy
of Language," TDR, Spring,1960.) He had decided to take English lessons and began to studyat the Berlitzschool.When he read and repeated
the sentencesin his phrase book, those petrifiedcorpsesof once living
speech,he was suddenlyovercomeby theirtragicquality.From themhe
composed his firstplay, The Bald Soprano. The absurdityof its dialogue
and its fantasticquality springsdirectlyfromits basic ordinariness.It
exposes the emptinessof stereotypedlanguage; "what is sometimesla-
MARTIN ESSLIN
11
beled the absurd,"Ionesco says,"is only the denunciationof the ridiculous natureof a languagewhichis emptyof substance,made up of cliches
and slogans ."' Such a language has atrophied;it has ceased to be the
expressionof...anythingalive or vital and has been degraded into a mere
conventionaltoken of human intercourse,a mask forgenuine meaning
and emotion. That is why so often in the Theatre of the Absurd the
dialogue becomesdivorced fromthe real happeningsin the play and is
even put into direct contradictionwith the action. The Professorand
thePupil in Ionesco's The Lesson "seem" to be goingthrougha repetition
of conventionalschool book phrases,but behind this smoke screen of
course
language the real action of the play pursuesan entirelydifferent
with the Professor,,
vampire-like,draining the vitalityfromthe young
girl up to the finalmomentwhen he plungeshis knifeinto her body. In
Beckett'sWaitingforGodot Lucky'smuchvauntedphilosophicalwisdom
is revealedto be a floodof completelymeaninglessgibberishthatvaguely
resemblesthe language of philosophicalargument.And in Adamov's remarkableplay,Ping-Pong,a good deal of the dramaticpower lies in the
contrapuntalcontrastbetweenthe trivialityof the theme-the improvement of pinball machines-and the almost religiousfervorwith which
it is discussed.Here, in order to bringout the full meaningof the play,
the actorshave to act againstthe dialogue ratherthan withit, the fervor
of the deliverymust stand in a dialectical contrastto the pointlessness
of the meaning of the lines. In the same way, the author implies that
mostof the ferventand passionatediscussionof real life (of political conto give but one example) also turnsaround emptyand meaningtroversy,
less clich6s.Or, as Ionesco saysin an essayon AntoninArtaud:
As our knowledge
becomesincreasingly
divorcedfromreal life,our cultureno longercontainsourselves(or onlycontainsan insignificant
partof
and forms
a "social"contextin whichwearenotintegrated.
The
ourselves)
ourculturewithour lifeby
problemthusbecomesthatofagainreconciling
makingour culturea livingcultureoncemore.But to achievethisend we
shallfirst
have to killthe"respectforthatwhichis written"...it becomes
tobreakup our languageso thatit maybecomepossibleto put it
necessary
contactwiththeabsolute,or as I should
together
againand to reestablish
preferto call it,withmultiplereality.
This quest for the multiplerealityof the world which is real because
it exists on many planes simultaneouslyand is more than a mere unidirectionalabstractionis not only in itselfa search for a reestablished
poetical reality(poetryin its essence expressingrealityin its ambiguity
and multidimensionaldepth); it is also in close accord with important
movementsof our age in what appear to be entirelydifferent
fields:psychologyand philosophy.The dissolution,devaluation,and relativization
of language is, afterall, also the theme of much of present-daydepthpsychology,which has shown what in formertimeswas regarded as a
rational expressionof logically arrived at conclusions to be the mere
12
rationalizationof subconsciousemotional impulses. Not everythingwe
say means what we intend it to mean. And likewise,in present-dayLogical Positivisma large proportionof all statementsis regardedas devoid
of conceptual meaning and merelyemotive.A philosopherlike Ludwig
Wittgenstein,in his later phases, even tried to break throughwhat he
regardedas the opacity,the misleadingnatureof language and grammar;
forif all our thinkingis in termsof language,and language obeyswhat
after all are the arbitraryconventionsof grammar,we must striveto
penetrateto the real contentof thoughtthat is masked by grammatical
rules and conventions.Here, too, then is a matterof gettingbehind the
surfaceof linguisticclich6sand of findingrealitythroughthe break-up
of language.
In the Theatre of the Absurd,therefore,the real contentof the play
lies in the action. Language may be discardedaltogether,as in Beckett's
Act WithoutWordsor in Ionesco's The New Tenant, in whichthe whole
sense of the play is contained in the incessantarrivalof more and more
furnitureso that the occupant of the room is, in the end, literally
drowned in it. Here the movementof objects alone carriesthe dramatic
action, the language has become purelyincidental,less importantthan
the contributionof the propertydepartment.In this,the Theatre of the
Absurd also reveals its anti-literary
character,its endeavor to link up
strataof stagehistory:the circus,the performances
with the pre-literary
of itinerantjugglersand mountebanks,the music hall, fairgroundbarkers,acrobats,and also the robustworldof the silentfilm.Ionesco, in particular,clearlyowes a greatdeal to Chaplin, BusterKeaton, the Keystone
Cops, Laurel and Hardy, and the Marx Brothers.And it is surelysignificantthat so much of successfulpopular entertainmentin our age
with the subject matterand preoccupationof the avantshowsaffinities
garde Theatre of the Absurd. A sophisticated,but neverthelesshighly
popular, filmcomedianlike JacquesTati uses dialogue merelyas a barely
comprehensiblebabble of noises, and also dwells on the loneliness of
man in our age, the horrorof overmechanizationand overorganization
gone mad. Danny Kaye excels in streamsof gibberishclosely akin to
Lucky's oration in Waiting for Godot. The brilliantand greatlyliked
team of Britishradio (and occasionallytelevision)comedians,the Goons,
have a sense of the absurd thatresemblesKafka'sor Ionesco's and a team
of grotesquesingerslike "Les FreresJacques" seemsmore closelyin line
with the Theatre of the Absurdthan with the conventionalcabaret.
Yet the defiantrejectionof language as the main vehicle of the dramatic action, the onslaught on conventional logic and unilinear conceptual thinkingin the Theatre of the Absurdis by no means equivalent
to a total rejection of all meaning. On the contrary,it constitutesan
earnestendeavor to penetrateto deeper layersof meaningand to give a
truer,because more complex, picture of realityin avoiding the simplificationwhichresultsfromleavingout all the undertones,overtones,and
MARTIN ESSLIN
13
inherentabsurditiesand contradictionsof any human situation.In the
conventionaldrama everyword means what it says,the situationsare
clearcut,and at the end all conflictsare tidilyresolved.But reality,as
Ionesco pointsout in the passage we have quoted, is neverlike that; it is
and existson a numberof different
multiple,complex,many-dimensional
levels at one and the same time. Language is fartoo straightforward
an
instrumentto expressall this by itself.Reality can only be conveyedby
being acted out in all its complexity.Hence, it is the theatre,which is
multidimensionaland more than merelylanguage or literature,which is
the only instrumentto expressthe bewilderingcomplexityof the human
condition.The human conditionbeing what it is, withman small,helpless,insecure,and unable ever to fathomtheworld in all its hopelessness,
death, and absurdity,the theatrehas to confronthim with the bitter
truththat most human endeavor is irrationaland senseless,that communicationbetweenhuman beings is well-nighimpossible,and that the
world will foreverremain an impenetrablemystery.
At the same time,
the recognitionof all these bittertruthswill have a liberatingeffect:if
we realize the basic absurdityof mostof our objectiveswe are freedfrom
being obsessedwith them and thisrelease expressesitselfin laughter.
Moreover,while the world is being shown as complex,harsh,and absurd and as difficultto interpretas reality itself,the audience is yet
to wonderwhat it is all
spurredon to attempttheirown interpretation,
about. In that sense theyare being invitedto school theircriticalfaculties, to train themselvesin adjusting to reality.As the world is being
representedas highlycomplex and devoid of a clear-cutpurpose or design,therewill alwaysbe an infinitenumberof possible interpretations.
As Apollinaire points out in his Preface to Les Mamelles de Tiresias:
"None of the symbolsin myplay is veryclear,but one is at libertyto see
in it all the symbolsone desiresand to findin it a thousandsenses-as in
the Sybilline oracles." Thus, it may be that the pinball machines in
Adamov's Ping-Pongand the ideologywhich is developed around them
stand forthe futilityof political or religiousideologies thatare pursued
with equal fervorand equal futilityin the finalresult.Othershave interpretedthe play as a parable on the greed and sordidnessof the profit
motive.Othersagain may give it quite different
meanings.The mysteriof human beings into rhinosin Ionesco's latest play,
ous transformation
The Rhinoceros,was feltby the audience of its world premiereat Duesseldorf(November6, 1959) to depict the transformation
of human beings
into Nazis. It is knownthatIonesco himselfintendedthe play to express
his feelingsat the timewhen more and more of his friendsin Rumania
joined the Fascist Iron Guard and, in effect,left the ranks of thinskinnedhumans to turnthemselvesinto moral pachyderms.But to spectatorsless intimatelyaware of the moral climateof such a situationthan
the German audience, other interpretationsmight impose themselves:
if the hero,Bdrenger,is at theend leftalone as the onlyhuman being in
14
his native town,now entirelyinhabitedby rhinos,theymightregardthis
as a poetic symbolof the gradual isolation of man growingold and imprisonedin the straitjacket of his own habitsand memories.Does Godot,
so fervently
and vainlyawaited byVladimirand Estragon,stand forGod?
Or does he merelyrepresentthe ever elusive tomorrow,man's hope that
one day somethingwill happen thatwill renderhis existencemeaningful?
The forceand poetic powerof the play lie preciselyin the impossibility
of ever reaching a conclusiveanswer to this question.
Here we touch the essential point of differencebetween the conventional theatreand the Theatre of the Absurd.The former,based as it is
of accepted values and a rational view of life,alon a known framework
ways startsout by indicatinga fixedobjective towardswhich the action
will be movingor by posinga definiteproblemto whichit will supplyan
answer. Will Hamlet revengethe murderof his father?Will lago succeed in destroyingOthello? Will Nora leave her husband? In the conventional theatre the action always proceeds towardsa definableend.
The spectatorsdo not know whetherthat end will be reached and how
it will be reached. Hence, theyare in suspense,eager to findout what
will happen. In theTheatre of the Absurd,on the otherhand, the action
does not proceed in the manner of a logical syllogism.It does not go
fromA to B but travelsfroman unknown premiseX towardsan unknowable conclusionY. The spectators,not knowingwhat theirauthor
is drivingat, cannot be in suspense as to how or whetheran expected
objective is going to be reached. They are not, therefore,so much in
suspense as to what is going to happen next (although the most unexpected and unpredictablethingsdo happen) as theyare in suspenseabout
what the next event to take place will add to their understandingof
what is happening.The action supplies an increasingnumberof contradictoryand bewilderingclues on a number of differentlevels, but the
finalquestion is never wholly answered.Thus, instead of being in suspense as to what will happen next,the spectatorsare, in the Theatre of
the Absurd, put into suspense as to what the play may mean. This suspense continueseven afterthe curtain has come down. Here again the
Theatre of the Absurd fulfillsBrecht'spostulateof a critical,detached
audience, who will have to sharpentheirwitson the play and be stimulated by it to thinkforthemselves,farmoreeffectively
than Brecht'sown
theatre.Not only are the membersof the audience unable to identify
with the characters,they are compelled to puzzle out the meaning of
what theyhave seen. Each of themwill probablyfindhis own, personal
meaning,which will differfromthe solution found by mostothers.But
he will have been forcedto make a mental effortand to evaluate an experience he has undergone.In this sense, the Theatre of the Absurd is
the most demanding,the most intellectualtheatre.It may be riotously
funny,wildly exaggeratedand oversimplified,
vulgar and garish,but it
will alwaysconfrontthe spectatorwith a genuine intellectualproblem,a
philosophical paradox, which he will have to try to solve even if he
knowsthat it is most probablyinsoluble.
MARTIN ESSLIN
15
In this respect,the Theatre of the Absurd links up with an older
traditionwhich has almost completelydisappeared fromWestern culture: the traditionof allegoryand the symbolicalrepresentationof abstractconcepts personifiedby characterswhose costumesand accoutrementssubtlysuggestedwhethertheyrepresentedTime, Chastity,Winter,
Fortune,the World, etc. This is the traditionwhich stretchesfromthe
Italian Trionfoof the Renaissance to the English Masque, the elaborate
allegoricalconstructionsof the Spanish Auto sacramentaldown to Goethe'sallegoricalprocessionsand masqueswrittenforthe courtof Weimar
at the turn of the eighteenthcentury.Although the living riddles the
charactersrepresentedin these entertainmentswere by no means difficult to solve, as everyoneknew that a characterwith a scytheand an
hourglassrepresentedTime, and although the characterssoon revealed
their identityand explained their attributes,therewas an element of
intellectualchallengewhichstimulatedthe audience in the momentsbetween the appearance of the riddle and its solutionand whichprovided
themwith the pleasure of having solved a puzzle. And what is more,in
the elaborate allegorical dramas like Calder6n's El Gran Teatro del
Mundo the subtle interplayof allegoricalcharactersitselfpresentedthe
audience with a great deal to thinkout forthemselves.They had, as it
were, to translatethe abstractlypresented action into termsof their
everydayexperience; theycould ponder on the deeper meaning of such
factsas death having takenthe charactersrepresentingRiches or Poverty
in a Dance of Death equally quicklyand equally harshly,or that Mammon had desertedhis masterEverymanin the hour of death. The dramaticriddlesof our timepresentno suchclear-cutsolutions.All theycan
show is that while the solutionshave evaporatedthe riddle of our existence remains-complex, unfathomable,and paradoxical.
NOTES
"Dans les Armes de la Ville," Cahiers de la Compagnie Madeleine
Renaud-Jean-Louis Barrault, No. 20 (October, 1957).
2Adamov, "Note Pr6liminaire,"Thddtre II, Paris, 1955.
3 Ibid.
1 Ionesco,
thatthe threewriters
concerned,
4It maybe significant
althoughtheynow all
live in Franceand writein Frenchhave all cometo live therefromoutside
and musthave experienceda periodof adjustmentto the countryand its
language.SamuelBeckett(b. 1906)came fromIreland;ArthurAdamov(b.
1908)fromRussia,and EugeneIonesco(b. 1912)fromRumania.
de l'Alma,"ThddtreII, Paris,1958.
5 Ionesco,"L'Impromptu
6Ionesco,"The Avant-Garde
Theatre,"WorldTheatre,VIII, No. 3 (Autumn,
1959).
in Ubu Roi, Ubu Enchaind,and otherUbu"Questionsde Th6Atre,"
SJarry,
Ed. Rene Massat,Lausanne,1948.
esque writings.
8Apollinaire, Les Mamelles de Tiresias, Preface.
Theatre."
9Ionesco,"The Avant-Garde
10Ionesco,"Ni un Dieu, ni un Demon,"Cahiers de la Compagnie Madeleine
Renaud-Jean-Louis Barrault, No. 22-23 (May, 1958).

The Theatre of the Absurd

Transcription

Similar documents

STEVEN SATER Music by DUNCAN SHEIK

Culture

Limelighters Newsletter - Northbrook Park District

1167096_1182921-centerstage jacket.indd

Touch

Life-affirming bedroom confessions

brochure inner

Zootopia-City Lights

Fall 2014 power2give update – one year later

View Sample PDF - IRMA

The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays