Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Exploring the Absurd

Jimmy Carey 17 December 2012 THEA 329

When referencing the term absurd, depictions of chaos, frustration, and non-traditional action play through the mind like a disorganized montage. But rarely is the term assumed as a thoughtful, provocative art form that expresses itself by simply unraveling before an audience. The realm of artistic expression is a double-edged knife that slashes old traditions while continuously slicing the creative geniuss finger. The difficulty in this two-sided existence is illustrated through the audience, who undoubtedly vocalize their interpretations. Historically, the radical movements in thought, science, religion, and art have always stirred controversy and have never failed to awaken those passions of prudence in people of the era. While some critics would argue that an uprising often signals a breakthrough in revolutionary terms, the response of society at that time is rarely an accurate reflection of the lasting impact. Audience reactions to the avant-garde come in mixed waves, which alone might testify to the success of the piece. Generally, hesitancies regarding the absurd arise from a lack of knowledge and familiarity with the word itself. A dictionary search would define absurd as having no rational or orderly relationship to human life; meaningless. This definition does not apply to this theatrical movement. Absurdist works are not simply thrown onstage, un-choreographed and without a purpose for the sake of taking up time. A purpose is there and a meaning exists it is just up to the audience to assign one. While some would readily argue about the lack of meaning, these theatrical works

incorporate devices to communicate any of the authors commentary. The symbolism and characters incorporated in these unconventional plays defines and makes unique this collection of artistry a collection commonly referred to as absurdism. There was never an organized or preconceived absurdist movement, created by authors from all over the world. Instead, it was a critic by the name of Martin Esslin who published a book that coined the term, Theatre of the Absurd. In his publication, Esslin tried to point out the basic characteristics common to a group of plays, written in different countries (Zarhy-Levo 12). By defining this collection of playwrights and their works under a unique name, Esslin confused readers into believing this was a movement of purposeful synchronicity between four main playwrights. The four playwrights, who all lived in Paris, were highlighted based on the large familiarity of their plays and lesser-known playwrights from all over were condensed into one chapter towards the end of the book. The Irishman Samuel Beckett, the Russian Communist Arthur Adamov, a Romanian Eugne Ionesco, and the native Parisian Jean Genet comprise the most widely recognized Theatre of the Absurd dramatists. This is to say that playwrights from around the world other than Beckett, Ionesco, Adamov, and Genet produced plays with attributes of absurdist theatre. Though it is necessary to point out that these authors do not necessarily accept their title of absurdist writer. Take Adamov, for instance, who rejected all his work that might be classified under that [Theatre of the Absurd] heading (Esslin 69). Passionate and clear in their intentions, it is not surprising that these authors, who so vividly break the theatrical conventions, refuse to be defined under a

common movement. Their dedication to conveying the obscurity of human existence transcends a term that, in their eyes, is a vague and undermining reduction of meaning. Esslins assessment of the absurd makes studying these plays a plausible task while also narrowing these works into a unified and misunderstood genre. But where he qualifies the term, another problematic assumption arises. Because Esslin published his book in 1961 and later editions in 1968 and 1973, the beginning of absurdist works have become associated with these dates. However, a more appropriate date would be 1950, when two of Esslins four major absurdists played in Paris two plays for Adamov, and The Bald Soprano for Ionesco (Cohn 1). Around this time, plays of the avant-garde started hitting the professional stages in Paris and were stirring up controversy; it wasnt until after World War II that these plays received notice outside of the French cultural center. And even these early absurdist debuts were not the first appearances of avant-garde elements in the theater. Absurdist characteristics appeared in plays from the Middle Ages, which presented everyman-type characters dealing with allegorical and sometimes existential problems (Crabb). From here, absurdist elements popped up in occasional plays, including Alfred Jarrys shocking Ubu Roi. However, it was Andr Gide and Jean-Louis Barraults The Trial that was the first play that fully represented the Theatre of the Absurd in its mid-twentieth-century form (Esslin 308). While this play undoubtedly stirred a reaction like any good play, it remains the four authors highlighted in Esslins book who have achieved the most widespread success.

In essence, the meaning of absurdist works can be found in the plays original form. Often times, audience members or readers will rack their brains to answer one of the most common questions: what was the meaning? But when it comes to absurdist drama, the play itself remains the clearest and most concise statement of its meaning and message. . . (Esslin 24). By this, Esslin asserts that absurdist authors reflect their feelings through their writing. Of course, the form in which the author writes is essential to the plots, themes, and messages in all genres of the theatre. However, Theatre of the Absurd relies on the abandonment of convention to relay confusion. This confusion establishes the basis for most absurdist dramas: the disorder of human existence. To manipulate the conventions of theatre, the conventions themselves must first be identified. Esslin mentions traditional qualities of theatre that the absurd incorporates or changes in fresh and new methods:

Pure theatre; i.e. abstract scenic effects as they are familiar in the circus or revue, in the work of jugglers, acrobats, bullfighters, or mimes Clowning, fooling, and mad-scenes Verbal nonsense The literature of dream and fantasy, which often has a strong allegorical component. (282)

While these factors are traditional, it is not too difficult to see these characteristics within absurdist pieces. In fact, it seems as if the Theatre of the

Absurd is more similar to common theatre than assumed. Take, for instance, the verbal nonsense. On the surface, Becketts Waiting for Godot exists as a frivolous dialogue that volleys between two characters, Estragon and Vladimir. But their discussion is merely a way to fill the void between waiting and Godots arrival. A messenger, who comes in both acts, relays the news that Godot will not arrive. The waiting seems to be a waste of time, but it reflects a major aspect of human life. Multiple times Godot is referred to but continuously fails to show up, elucidating how it is the waiting that defines life (Abbotson 3). It is in this period of waiting that we see the action unfold because Beckett mimics the relationship between life and waiting. Illustrating the act of waiting on stage is not irrelevant, disorganized, or meaningless; waiting is a simplified version of living. Godot is not a character, but instead a representation of our waiting an event, a thing, a person, death (Esslin 29). Space between events is merely space it purposefully lacks direction, leading characters in the play to create action until the next initiating event. In a similar vein, humans must create their existence just like audience members must interpret these absurdist plays from their own creativity. Through this, the absurdity of human existence becomes clear due to the vagueness of meaning. Like Beckett, Ionescos Rhinocros brings common human behavior to the forefront for interpretation. Berenger, a character Ionesco included in other plays, falls in love with a co-worker, Daisy. Through the play, the people living around the characters turn into rhinoceroses due to a disease called Rhinoceritis. As the citizens start transforming, a character comments on sighting a rhinoceros by stating, I shouldnt try to stroke it, its probably not tame. . . (Clurman 517). This surely is an awfully

casual reaction to witnessing a rhinoceros in public. Ionesco inserts moments like this to highlight how humorous the human existence is, and to question the presence of society. Daisy eventually transforms with the crowd, leaving Berenger the last human in town. Ionesco reveals the absurdity of defiance as much as the absurdity of conformism, the tragedy of the individualist who cannot join the happy throng of less sensitive people (Esslin 151). Daisy, representing conformity, and Berenger, the icon of individuality, both meet unfortunate ends due to their human behaviors. Towards the end, Daisy feels societal pressures and says, perhaps its we who need saving. Perhaps were the abnormal ones (Clurman 568). Daisys favor towards the new normal and Berengers firm individualistic stance creates criticism for both these actions, attributing an absurdity to the human existence. Two conflicting tendencies, both common in personalities, are both unrewarding and unproductive. Here, the purpose of human life becomes vague and distant; some support conformity while others praise individuality. Yet it is in each individual mind where people assign a purpose to the human life, much like audience members and the Theatre of the Absurd. It is not uncommon that two movements within the same realm be associated with each other, whether they are accurately similar or not. Existentialism and absurdist theatre overlap in some respects, but serve distinct purposes through their messages. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, in his essay on the existentialism movement, asserted, Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself (28). This suggests that ones birth is the beginning of existence, but the purpose of that life is still undetermined. Thus, it is solely an

individuals responsibility to establish their identity. However, conscious thought towards creating who one wants to be often occurs after we have made ourselves what we are (Sartre 28). Thus, a human has a responsibility to naturally be who they are rather than molding a desired product. In a broader sense, the purpose of humanity is uncertain since the responsibility of constructing a presence is unique to each individual. Further, the existentialist view argues for the opportunity to represent the entirety of man through the individuals existence. Sartre again adds, In fashioning myself I fashion man (30). Representing human existence comes along with living as an individual, for all people share the same life pattern: birth, existence, and arrival at the purpose. Themes of how delicate, uncertain, and confusing human life is relate to sentiments found behind absurdist plays. The two movements become drawn in a comparison:

Yet these [existentialist] writers differ from the dramatists of the Absurd in an important respect: they present their sense of the irrationality of the human condition in the form of highly lucid and logically constructed reasoning, while the Theatre of the Absurd strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought. (Esslin 7)

Esslins claim regarding the relationship of these two movements places existentialism upon a pedestal of critical understanding. Authors of absurdist plays,

on the other hand, move away from existentialism in that they instill an authentic sense of confusion into the spectators. Relying directly on the form in which they explore, these Theatre of the Absurd authors place their audience right amongst the illogical occurrences and allow the experience to convey the message. Theatre of the Absurd exists as one of the more unique movements in theatre due to its abandonment of form and difficulty in being defined. As previously stated, the absurdist playwrights often reject their association with the absurdist movement because they feel their work should speak on its own account. So when an umbrella term like Esslins Theatre of the Absurd comes about, generalization of vastly different playwrights into a single term is inevitable. However, there is simply no better word to describe this movement since absurd addresses the common messages in these plays: absurdity of life, humans, society, relationships, and everything in-between. But it is of great importance to remember that this was never a calculated movement among authors, unlike Dadaism. Instead, it arose independently and was then defined by an outside theatre critic who provided the argument for this new heading. By remembering this, readers have greater insight into these plays by understanding the essence of their individuality and manipulation of language or form. The success of these absurdist plays comes from the fact that, while there may exist a suitable title for these pieces to fall under, there is no correct word able to define the audience or readers interpretation. Like the plays themselves, what each person takes away from an absurdist piece is an individual experience a statement that perhaps Adamov and Ionesco would wholeheartedly invest in.

Bibliography Abbotson, Susan C. W. Thematic Guide to Modern Drama. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2003. The themes and symbols prevalent in noteworthy absurdist pieces are discussed with thorough explanation. Abbotson provides a small survey of the theatre of the absurd and how it relates to life. Brater, Enoch., and Ruby Cohn. Around the Absurd: Essays On Modern and Postmodern Drama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990. Around the Absurd compiles a variety of essays pertaining to the topic of absurdist theatre, including symbolic and thematic analyses, history, and comparison with other movements. Clurman, Harold. Nine Plays of the Modern Theater. 1st Evergreen ed. New York: Grove Press, 1981. Clurman compiles nine plays from the modern era, including four notable absurdist playwrights. Crabb, Jerome. "Theatre of the Absurd." Theatre Database. N.p., 3 Sept. 2006. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://www.theatredatabase.com/20th_century/theatre_of_the_absurd.html>. Presents a look at the overall movement, with definitions and commentary included from critics and scholars. Outlines the characteristics of absurdist plays and the impact it had on theatre. Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. Rev. updated ed. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1973. Esslin defines the theatre of the absurd in a clarifying, detailed way using concrete analysis of plays from notable authors. This book conveys the characteristics of absurdist plays and discusses where the movement finds its basis. Sartre, Jean-Paul, and Philip Mairet. Existentialism and Humanism. [1st English ed.]. London: Methuen, 1948. Sartre explores the movement of existentialism, defining the philosophy and making clear the purpose of this style of thought. Further, he explores humanism and how it differs fro the prior movement.

Zarhy-Levo, Yael. The Theatrical Critic As Cultural Agent: Constructing Pinter, Orton and Stoppard As Absurdist Playwrights. New York: Peter Lang Pub., 2001. The three most-recognized British Absurdist playwrights are studied through Zarhy-Levos analyses, with information regarding their reception from both the British theatre and the European Theatre of the Absurd authors.

10

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen