VI. The
Theatre of the Absurd as the World of the Absurd Character
In
this chapter I am interested in the form of the Theatre of the Absurd,
which I see as an optimal form for expressing Absurdity. In addition I
will make some comparison with epic theatre, which I consider important
in reaching a better understanding of Beckett's dramatic intentions and
his plays in general.
Theatre, in its original ancient
meaning THEAacute;pTRON (place of watching, auditorium), is a special artistic
form, one of the three literary modes, narrative, lyric, dramatic, which
is constituted not only of words, but also by exclusively dramatic visual
components such as movement, physical gestures, scenes,...etc. It does
not occur inside the human soul as other forms do (novel, poem, essay),
but it happens in an outside world. In consequence, drama is a rather spectacular
genre, more a visible than a literary one, the means of which is a multidimensional
picture.
At
the same time, drama is composed of two different spaces, which are in
a mutual relationship - the stage and the auditorium. Both components,
being in mutual polarity (the audience watches and the actors are watched),
can exist only through communication with each other. This communication
can only work if both sides are aware of their roles.
The
actors can move and speak in different ways, tragic, comic, etc.; but always
with the necessary precondition that nothing they speak about and do is
really true. Their acts and speeches are mere fiction, and that is the
main actor's activity - to play fiction. The spectators' passivity consists
of accepting the fiction, in leaving real life and entering the world of
fiction. Theatre becomes theatre only if both sides (actors and spectators)
play their roles, which makes the fundamental principle of theatre in general.
If
the general form of theatre is a fictive picture, the Theatre of the Absurd
is a "picture in a picture", because its content is, at the same time,
also a picture - an image, the author' subjective vision. He transforms
his vision through the symbolic language of theatre (dramatic pictures)
into the symbolic life situation of fictional characters. Therefore, a
"picture in picture" is a picture of the author's vision, this is content,
expressed in a dramatic picture, as a formal component of a dramatic play.
In
times when dramatic art has shown man as protected, guided, and sometimes
punished by superhuman powers, theatre held a basic religious function:
the confrontation of man with the spheres of myth and religious reality,
which reflected some generally known and universally accepted cosmic system.
The Theatre of the Absurd has a similar function; it makes man aware of
his position in the Universe, which although precarious and mysterious,
expresses the absence of any such generally accepted cosmic system of values.
While the previous attempts to confront man with the world reflected a
coherent and generally familiar version of truth, the absurd theatre communicates
and offers, as I have already sketched, the author's most intimate vision
of the human situation, the meaning of existence itself, the author's own
vision of the world. This is the proper subject of absurd theatre, determining
its specific form, which is naturally different from the epic theatre form.
The
Theatre of the Absurd does not show man in a historical, social, or cultural
context, it does not communicate any general views of human life. It is
not concerned with conveying information or presenting the problems or
destinies of characters that exist outside the author's world (they are
created by author, but have their own created life). It is not concerned
with the representation of events, the narration of fates, or the adventures
of characters. It is instead interested in the presentation of an individual's
basic situation. "It presents individual human being's intuition of his
basic situation as he experiences it".
Since
the epic character is situated in a historical and social context, he is
influenced and formed by the world he lives in. He is surrounded by successive
events that create his story in time and place which is within reach of
the events around him. This chain of events surrounds the epic character
who becomes the likeness of the world he lives in, and so tells the story.
This concept of the human position in the Universe opens up questions looking
into the nature of the world. Human nature is being understood through
the knowledge of the nature of the world.
The
absurd character is in an absolutely different position. He is not formed
by his surroundings in its own image, he is not tossing about in the flood
of life events and processes. On the contrary, he is isolated, static,
and motionless (See chapter IV.), and thus appears and illustrates himself
from inside; he is recognised through his own picture of the world he puts
before us. The whole stage is a symbol showing the inside mental world
of the characters, who are organic parts of it. The reality of the situation
in which the absurd character appears, is a psychological reality expressed
in images that are the outward projection of states of his mind. That is
why the Theatre of the Absurd can be considered an image of the human being's
inner world. It presents a truer picture of reality itself, reality as
apprehended by an individual. "If a good play must have a cleverly constructed
story, these have no story or plot to speak of; if a good play is judged
by subtlety of characterisation and motivation, these are often without
recognisable characters and present the audience with almost mechanical
puppets; if a good play has to have a fully explained theme, which is neatly
exposed and finally solved, these often have neither a beginning nor an
end; if a good play is to hold a mirror up to nature and portray the manners
and mannerisms of the age in finely observed sketches, these seem often
to be reflections of dreams and nightmares; if a good play relies on witty
repartee and pointed dialogue, these often consist in incoherent babblings".(Although
Esslin marks the plays which are oppositions to the absurd ones "good",
he does not express their artistic value, but points out by the truthful
and essential comparisons the specificity and singularity of the plays
of absurdity.)
While
the epic character remains in the centre of the active, forming world;
the absurd one stays in centre of the world picture he creates himself.
Pantvn crhmatvn metron antJrvpoV (PrvtagoraV). In other words: the world
exists according to man. "It means that the existence of man is not determined
by anything external, lying outside of him, e.g. surroundings, history,
God's order, etc.; but he is only himself, he is exclusively his own work,
the result of his own decisions and behaviour".
In
this sense, it is possible to understand the Theatre of the Absurd as a
return to what was, for the first time in Greek philosophy formulated by
the Sophists. They diverted human interest from nature and directed it
at man and his thinking. This interest in a subject, individual human thinking,
and the individual's situation corresponds with the philosophy of existentialism
(Heidegger, Jaspers, Camus, Sartre...), which is focused on the subjective,
individual's experience in a concrete fatal situation. While the philosophers
deal with the absurdity of human existence rationally, using philosophical
language; the absurd dramatists express it in concrete dramatic pictures.
They offer us the opportunity to not only think about absurdity, but to
feel it and experience it simultaneously with the actors and the author,
who transforms his mind into a symbolic dramatic language.
|