Theatre of the Absurd - Essay Example

Theatre of the Absurd Antonin Artaud is considered to be a foundator of so-called Theatre of Absurd, which flourished in 50-60s years of 20th century. He was a person who changed the whole view of theatre, having created a unique concept followed nowadays by many play directors. In order to understand his worldview let’s look briefly through his biography, underlining the moments which influenced Artaud in his literary life. Antoine Marie Joseph Artaud was born in Marseille on September 4th, 1896. It was his mother who called him ‘Antonin’, since it was a diminutive form of ‘Antoine’ (or ‘Anthony’). Even though his mother gave birth to many children, only Antonin, his brother and sister survived childhood. At the age of four, Antonin fell ill with meningitis. This disease made Antonin a nervous and bad-tempered person throughout teenage years. Furthermore, he suffered from neuralgia, stammering and strong periods of depression. His parents arranged a long series of sanatorium treatment for their troublemaking son, which continued five years, with a two-month break, when Antonin was conscripted into the army. He was not accepted there because of his habit of sleepwalking, stimulated by himself. For the period of Artauds "rest cures" at the clinics he read Rimbaud, Baudelaire and Poe. In May 1919 the chief doctor of the sanatorium, Dr. Dardel, recommended opium for Artaud, ‘prescribing’ a lifelong addiction to different kinds of drugs. Artaud came to Paris in 1920, and in 1926 he was expelled from the Paris surrealist group. In November 1926 he created his Manifesto for an Abortive Theatre. Starting from 1930, Artaud scrutinized theatre in order to create his own concept. The Theatre and Its Double was one of his most famous literary works in this field. His theatrical play, The Cenci, did not bring any commercial success, as the audience ignored his newly-created Theatre of Cruelty. The performance featured an extravagant mixture of sound effects and at one play; Artaud took a role of Count Cenci as a dog, coming on stage on all fours, barking his lines. After the failure of his performance, Artaud got an opportunity to travel to Mexico where he taught literature at the university. He also worked on his study of the Tarahumara and experimented with the drug peyote, writing carefully all his experiences which were published in future in a book titled "The Peyote Dance". The content of this book is close-knit with the poems of that days, related mainly to the supernatural. ‘In 1937, Artaud returned to France where he obtained a walking stick of knotted wood that he believed belonged to St. Patrick. Artaud sought to return the staff to the Irish. It must be noted that he spoke very little English and he was unable to make himself understood’ (answers.com, 2005, par.15). The greater part of his journey was spent in a hotel room that Artaud was not able to pay for. ‘On the return trip from Ireland, Artaud was arrested and put in a straight-jacket’ (ibid). For the period of Second World War Artaud was placed into a hospital, where he was treated with an electroshock and other barbaric methods. Finally, his health got even worse and on March 4th, 1948 Artaud passed away, alone in his room, seated at the foot of his bed, holding his shoe. He was considered to take a lethal dose of the drug chloral, but no-one knows the real conditions of his death. In his book ‘Theatre and its double’, Artaud demonstrated his respect to Easternn types of theatre, and the Balinese Theatre in particular. He appreciated Eastern theatre due to the codified physicality of Balinese dance shows, which are full of rituals, and promoted what he named a "Theatre of Cruelty". By cruelty, he implied not sadism or hurting, but rather a brutal, physical determination to break the artificial reality which, he said, ‘lies like a shroud over our perceptins’ (Artaud, 1954, p.38). He stated that text had been a tyrant over the significance of the word, and supported, as an alternative, an idea for a theatre comprised by exceptinal language halfway-between thought andbody language. He also affirmed that sexual activity was dangerous to the creative process and should be evaded if one intended to reach clarity in their pieces of art. Antonin Artaud depicted spirituality in physical phrases, and said that all expression is expression of body in space. Even though he supported a system of "social therapy" related to theatre, Artaud was institutionalized for some time because he was believed mentally and psychically ill. The Theatre of Cruelty has been theorized to re-create for the theatre a ardent and bursting vision of life, and it is in this idea of violent firmness and great concentration of scenic elements that the violence on which it is based must be realized. This cruelty, which will be bloody when needed but not steadily so, can therefore be associated with a type of austere “moral purity which is not afraid to pay life the price it must be paid." (Artaud, 1968, p.66) Artaus’d main position concerning the theatre and life, which were for him synonims to some extent. Artaud had a pessimistic attitude towards the world, but he thought that theatre could cause some changes. He believed that theatre can correct mistakes made by the world. In his plays he hoped to take the audience away from the routine and apply symbolic objects to work with the feelings and spiritual aspect of the audience. Then he hoped to ‘attack the audiences senses through an array of technical methods and acting so that the audience would be brought out of their desensitisation and have to confront themselve and use the grotesque, the ugly and pain in order to confront an audience, thereby being cruel to them’ (wikipedia, par.3). Furthermore, there is major motive in all his pieces of art in spite of the number of forms and ways he used to convey it. What he is talking about - and considering who he was and what he had been through it is hardly surprising that this should be his theme - is a secular resurrection, a resurrection in this life and a radical change of the body. I will never again have anything to do with the Radio. I will from now on concentrate exclusively on theatre as I conceive of it, a theatre of blood, a theatre where every performance will be made to win something as much for the player as for the spectator, whats more it isnt playing, it is action (on ne joue pas, on agit). (Artaud, 1946, p.146) The purpose of Artaud’s pieces of art, then, is opposition to culture and to the common types of culture. Their working-out is in standard disintegrative of these forms. These are not thoughts that can merely be transferred into a theoretical empty space. Like some new barbarian crowd, they put themselves against both fullness and bareness. Artaud considered common principles of culture to be an empty space which must be filled with his vigorous and passionate ideas if theatre which would take spectators away from ‘neverending routine’ and put them into the world where scientific axioms simply do not work, and make them believe that this ‘absurd universe’ is more real than the world they live in. Artaud’s theories became a basis of the Theatre of the Absurd. The Theatre of the Absurd is an expression invented by the critic Martin Esslin for the work of numerous playwrights, generally written in the 1950s and 1960s. The term originated from an work by the French philosopher Albert Camus. In his Myth of Sisyphus, created in 1942, he first figured the human conditions as essentially empty and absurd. The absurd plays by Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter and others all agree with the opinion that man is inhabiting a world with which he is out of key. Its meaning difficult for understanding and his place within it ispointless. He is bewildered, worried and obviously intimidated . The background of absurd drama is following: Within the field of verbal nonsense: François Rabelais, Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear. Many serious poets from time to time created nonsense poetry (Johnson, Charles Lamb, Keats, Hugo, Byron, Thomas Hood). The universe of myth, allegory and dream: The view of the world as a step of human development and life as a dream is referred to Elizabethan times. Baroque allegorical drama shows the world in terms of mythological archetypes: John Webster, Cyril Tourneur, Calderon, Jakob Biederman. With the motives of allegory, the features of fantasy are more common in such works(Swift, Hugh Walpole). In many 18th and 19th century works of literature we observe unexpected alteration of protagonists and terrifying shifts of time and place (Hoffman, Nerval, Aurevilly). Motives of dream are used in many theatrical plays, but it had to wait for Strindberg to produce the talented transcriptions of dreams and nightmares that have become an exact background of the Absurd Theatre. Strindberg, Dostoyevsky, Joyce and Kafka built archetypes: by looking into into their own subconscious, they found the universal, collective vitality of their own private passions. The Absurd Theatre looked forward to expressing personal longing for a single myth of general srength. 20th Century European avant-garde. According to the teaching of French avant-garde, myth and dream was of extreme significance: artistic theories of the surrealists were influnced a lot by Freud and his stress on the importance of the subconscious. The purpose of the avant-garde was to deal with art as a simple reproduction of appearances and human activities. Apollinaire requsted that art is to be more real than reality and do away with fundamental, real nature rather than appearances. ‘One of the more extreme manifestations of the avant-garde was the Dadaist movement, which took the desire to do away with obsolete artistic conventions to the extreme. Some Dadaist plays were written, but these were mostly nonsense poems in dialogue form, the aim of which was primarily to shock the bourgeois audience (Culik, 2000). There appeared some more movements, such as constructivism, cubism, futurism , acmeism and many others. All of them had their own teaching and representatives, but the core of their ideas was similar: making reality more real than that world, in which human-being lives. Alfred Jarry is a significant precursor of the Absurd Theatre. His Papa Ubu, protagonist of UBU ROI (1896) is a mythical personality, set among the grotesque archetypal characters . Ubu Roi is a caricature, a horrifying image of the brutal nature of human and his ruthlessness. (Ubu Roi announces himself King of Poland and murders and tortures his allies and servants. The piece of art is a puppet play and its décor of childish naivety reinforces the terror.) Jarry demonstrated mans psychological states by exposing them on the stage. Ubu embodies the gross stupidity and materialism of the bourgeoisie as his longing power makes him offend his authority and commit acts of violence in the name of questionable ideas . The level of humor varies widely from slapstick and simple farce to sincere satire.Jarry took a lot from Shakespeare and used some of his techniques of portrayal. Wenceslas is probably even dressed to resemble Duncan, and Ma Ubus catchphrases during the talks with her husband is more than a little similar to Lady Macbeth. Wenceslas wife has prophetic visions which looked like those of Caesars wife. ‘A bear right out of The Winters Tale eats most of Ubus army near the end. In a parody of the parade of ghostly apparitions in Act V of Richard III, Pa Ubu has a similar vision’ (Zelenak, 1987. par.5) . "Why have you come?" (Jarry, 1968, p.147) he asks the spirits of his victims. "Because the show is going badly"(Jarry, 1968, p.147) they answer. It is astonishing that the performance holds together, as the audience is addressed directly so frequently. One scene is stopped halfway through because Ubu considers two scenes to have been skipped. When the old Nobility ask King Ubu to save their lives, he gives them a chance by creating a ridiculous "quiz show" where the category is "Reagan Fuck-ups: The nobility are punished for the incorrect answer. Similarly, ‘the "Financial advisors," an identically costumed chorus of mustached, cigar-chomping Groucho Marxes who move in unison, get a similar opportunity to play charades for their lives. They get the right answer, but are executed for not getting a laugh’ (Zelenak, 1987, par.7). The hen-pecked Pere Ubu is driven by his wife into leading a rebellion to overthow King Wenceslas of Poland and win the crown for himself. He is supported by Manure, Duke of Lithuania. Ubu shares the welth not fairly - "Ninety per cent of the wealth for me!"(Jarry, 1968, p.23), double-crosses everyone converts from "a skinny little runt"(Jarry, 1968, p.25) to a hedonist resembling a balloon, with pillows padding his stomach. But Ubu is still the Master of Ceremonies, the clown managing the performance, also doubling as narrator and interpreter. He becomes more cruel and intolerant, since the author intended to show how power and wealth pervert the human personality and convert weak individual into a tyran. ‘The most interesting incorporation of the audience into the performance is a series of abrupt interruptions of the plays action, modeled on the Aristophanic parabasis. Sometimes Ubu steps out of the play to explain some aspect of improvisational theater or the companys work’ (Zelenak, 1989, par,11) : ’Those of you whove seen our plays before know that were a political company. You may be wondering why is this political company doing a play about shit? Not only about shit, but shit for shits sake’ (Jarry, 1968, p.67). In spite of the number of contemporary references, the performance is clearly or obviously political. Exact political jokes and slapsticks all look like part of the general comedic momentum, not its point. But Ma and Pa Ubu probably embody a more profound attack on middle class outlook, habits and ethics. Pa Ubu is so likable not because he is a contradiction to bourgeois values, but their higher point. Ubu knows no ‘golden middle’-- he is bourgeois values, which are extremely exagrerated. He is theconvenced epicure, miser, sadist and egocentric maniac. Ubu is an embodiment of cold and pure bourgeois nature with bad manners and without any tolerance. Ubu is the bourgeoisie observed from the belly down. The Ubu roi applies an alternative model model ofperception. This performnce lives, moment-to-moment, only by the direct and dynamic involvement of its audience. The "low comedy" methods which mark clowning are probably anti-authoritarian by their very essence, and this kind of satire is itself a revolution. Obviously, Jarrys creative work is a revolt against bourgeois outlook, ethics and "good taste." Lawlessness, corruption, dishonesty, and cowardice all play important roles in Ubu Roi. Pere Ubu tries to destroy anything he touches; there is nothing sacred for him. Jarry created the model mostly of what would be further considered a “Brechtian” or "estrangement effect." Pere Ubu may speak en Francais, but only a part of his associates are from this country. This ‘cosmopolitism’ and alienation from one’s patria was one of the main features of that society, where French was a ‘fashionable’ language and it was possible to speak about ‘French globalization’. Nevertheless, the relevance of the play is not exactly its plot but its rebellious production in the theatre. A predecessor of Dada and Surrealism, Jarry further influenced Picasso, Apollinaire, Satie, Cocteau, and as a critic noted "almost everyone has seen in Jarry — and especially Ubu — an intimation, if only a shadow, of the future... His spirit… can be seen in all the Absurd Art, Anti-Art and so forth, which has obsessed the art of this century" (Themerson, 2004, par.7). Extravagant meaninglessness became the ‘brand’ of Jarry’s manner of writing. Known as the creator of the Theatre of the Absurd, he wrote to his associate that "talking about things that are understandable only weighs down the mind and falsifies the memory, but the absurd exercises the mind and makes the memory work" (Jarry, 1968, p.346) After writing his play Alfred Jarry became an inventor of the art of Pataphysics, theory of absurd, and "study of imaginary decisions", presented in 1948 in the Collège de Pataphysique. Jarry struggled not only against the existing traditions and principles of fin de siecle ("end of the epoch") theater, but against everything related to conservative outlook of his times. He was reluctant to recognize the world of reality and had nothing to do but alter it in his immortal play. The play ‘Rhinoceros’, written by absurdist playwright Eugene Ionesco (1912-1994), reproduces a view that considers the universe to be ultimately meaningless, illogical, and absurd. In his play Rhinoceros, Ionesco shares his fears concerning the savagery latent in the human soul and also, through the character of Berenger, projects himself and his own collapses into his drama. To get a clear highlighting of his themes, Ionesco applies many eccentric dramatic techniques. Using such techniques, Ionesco renders a visual description of the underlying existential struggle of the play. it had to go beyond language. One method by which Ionesco expresses his ideas is through the ridiculousness of the characters (except Berenger) in the first and second acts. This senselessness can be seen particularly through their reactions to the two rhinoceroses that run past the café in the first act. The people say, almostat the same time, "Oh, a rhinoceros!" and then "Well, of all things!"(Ionesco, 1961, p.7) Their comments sound very similar, and they look loke people who lack the capacity to make original assumptions. ‘Even at this early point in the play we see something of a "mass mind" at work, in which each person unthinkingly repeats the actions and words of someone else. As the dialogue progresses it becomes clear that no one sees the rhinoceroses as portents of a future trend or understands the meaning behind their appearance at all’ (Dunson, 1993, par.2). After having seen the first rhinoceros, the housewife cries, runs onto the stage, and drops her basket of food. The grocers wife sees letting out rhinoceros only as an method of vengeance upon the housewife who didn’t want to buy food from the grocer (Ionesco, 1961,p.11). The old gentleman pays very slight attention to the rhinoceros. He is simply interested in winning the friendliness of the housewife by helping her put together the scattered fruit. She shows little attention seeing the second rhinoceros running pass her cat. Besides laughing at the narrowness of the characters outlook, Ionesco ridicules the characters that want to seem rational and sensible. Their consideration is nothing but a mocking farce, which is in some cases made more funny by an egotistical belief in their own intellectual dominance . This group of characters is comprised first and foremost by Botard and the logician. ‘The logician is considered to be the wisest and most reasonable person among the characters in the first act, and they look to him to resolve their dispute about the rhinoceros. His answers to their questions, along with his earlier "proof" that Socrates was a cat, reveal his logical propositions to be nonsense. Botard, although not so highly regarded by his colleagues, prides himself on his "methodical mind," and he holds a precise, scientific view of life’ (Dunson, 1993, par.4). He laughs at the reports concerning the rhinoceroses and associates them with the fantasy of journalists. Even after having seen a rhinoceros, Botard says, "I cant see a thing. Its an illusion." (Ionesco,1961, p.48). After it becomes completely clear that Botard had a wrong opinion, he rejects ever having had any doubts concerning the existence of the rhinoceroses. The only character of the play who is more or less mentally healthy is Berenger, who believes his eyes and tries to think of the causes and results of letting out rhinoceroses. Finally, he assumes that humans convert into the animals exposing their savafge nature, but he struggles with this up to the end. In addition to the basic aspects of plot, Ionesco applies many unconventional dramatic techniques to demonstrate the meaninglessness of life visually on stage. Most apparent is his use of the rhinoceros as a poetic metaphor of the natural cruelty of humans and also of the absurdity of the world. To demonstrate it let’s look at the final scene of the play. The most remarkable part of this scene is Jeans steady conversion into a rhinoceros. Ionesco easily make it possible by having Jean leave the scene for several minutes, where he can modify his appearance and body off-stage. His green nightdress has a double use as a prop, demonstrating more clearly his alteration in pigmentation and becoming extremely irritable to the appearing rhino. But the simplest of effects, and most powerful, is Jeans changing voice. That is to say, his voice also changes and he can no longer speak like a human, but only roar. ‘Instead of parallel dialogue, a hallmark of the previous act, Ionesco deploys coincidence here as Jean and the old man share the same first name .This coincidence is further verification of collective consciousness in that both men can be called Jean, and neither man distinguishes or affirms his human individuality before turning into a rhino’ (sparknotes, 2004, par.7). Such coincidence also shows the increasing idiosyncrasy of judgments in the literary work. Berenger tries to confirm the existence of the rhinos; he comes to a decision that it it’s not important where the rhinoceroses emerged from, but the "important thing, as I see it, is the fact that theyre there at all, because…." (Ionesco, 1961, p.131). Nevertheles, he is not able to finish the sentence, whichcan be finished with the volumes: the rhinos are coming both because there is no logical explanation, and as ridiculous and indifferent human-beings dont take responsibility for making their lives important and giving them meaning. Jeans willpower comes is completely burned in this scene, but he makes some efforts to appropriate his own understanding of will, one that all the time shifts. He asserts that he never has fantasies, a vivid contrast to Jean in Act One, who considered life to be someone’s fantasy. Jean thinks he is a manager of his own judgments, but his ‘self-management’ related to his own body is an arguable question. Just as he tried to explain deceitful behavior in Act One, Jean once more apologizes for his alteration to regain a sense of willpower; he states he merely "felt like" making a roaring sound and that it doesn’t point to anything. In his opinion, will becomes an indicator only of physical power, not personal independence. ‘His call for a reduction of morality to the savage laws of nature works off of his prior belief in a Nietzschean super-man who can circumvent morality. This transformation is plausible; from the start, Jeans interest in culturing himself only seemed like a means to increase his power and respect, and not as an exploration of his humanity’ (sparknotes, 2004, par.9). Berenger, conversely, foretells his future position as the real super-man who protects the world with ethical principles of goodness. Ionesco tries to save Berenger, although he vanishes at the end of the act, keeping the plays suspense over the unavoidable problem: will Jean make a significant decision and remain an individual, or will he escape from his own conscientiousness and become a rhino? Jean makes a cue hint at the fascist reinforcement of the metamorphoses; according to Mr. Boeufs Jekyll and Hyde-like "underground" life. Under bourgeois ‘correctness’, Ionesco conveys that savagery is in blossom, but carefully hidden. ‘It is Jean, who held up fascist ideals of human perfection and efficiency as a human, who turns into a far more savage rhino than Boeuf was’ (ibid, par.10). Furthermore, he tries to persuade Berenger that Jean’s tone of voice is really changing, exhibiting suspicion and even some kind of obsession –just like fascists did in 1920s searching for Jews and murdering them. Ionesco depicted rhinoceroses as a crowd with collective consciousness and intellect. ‘Berenger continues Ionescos defense of the fascists right to live so long as they do not harm anyone. However, Jeans horn does pierce Berenger, showing fascisms inevitable turn to violence’ (ibid). As we can see, the motives of ‘Rhinoceros’ are rendered by using dramatic and rhetorical methods, the ridiculousness of the characters, and the life conflicts of the protagonist, Berenger. Inescapably, Berengers point of view and hopes for self-improvement are shattered, and thus there is nothing left for him to do but shout his disobedience against a hostile universe. He is not capable to find significance in this life because, in Ionesco’s opinion, there is no meaning in life to be seen. As for me, ‘Ubu Roi’ and ‘Rhinoceros’ are very similar, since both of them mock narrow-mindness of those who are extremely concerned about ‘good taste’ and thus forget their real nature and convert into the brutes. Bibliography 1) Antonin Artaud, 2005. http://www.answers.com/topic/antonin-artaud 2) Artaud A., Letter to Paule Thévenin. Oeuvres complètes vol. l3, 1946 3) Artaud A.,The Theatre of Cruelty, in The Theory of the Modern Stage. Edited by E. Bentley. Penguin, 1968 4) Culik, I., The theatre of the Absurd. The West and the East. http://honors.montana.edu/~oelks/TC/Absurd.html, 2001 5) Dunson D., The meaning of life in Ionesco’s Rhinoceros. http://french.about.com/library/quotes/bl_quote_i.htm, 1993 6) Ionesco E., Rhinoceros. Penguin, 1961. 7) Jarry A., Ubu Roi. Oxford, 1968 8) Rhinoceros, Scene Two Act Two, 2004. http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/rhinoceros/section6.rhtml 9) Themerson, S, 2004. Ubu Roi. http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/exhibits/gaberbocchus-press/uburoi.html 10) Wikipedia. Antonin Artaud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Artaud , 2005 11) Zelenak M. Ubu rides again: the Irondale project and the politics of clowning. http://www.irondale.org/press/articles/ubu.htm ,1989 Read More