Return to the main page Copyright © 1995 by Michael Guest. (Originally published in Reports of the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Shizuoka University (Japan), Vol. 31 (September 1995). Reproduced here with the permission of the author.)
Catastrophe, one of the last plays Beckett wrote, exemplifies thecomplex polysemy and overlaying of dramatic significance and texture that heachieved through his minimalist approach to theatre. The play is only fourpages long and can be performed in twenty to thirty minutes at the outside, yetit generates a reflexivity that reaches to the essence of theatricalmeaning-production, and elicits a powerful emotional response to its politicalthemes. The play's dedication to Vaclav Havel - its occasion being Havel'sAvignon benefit night - perhaps amplifies the play's uncharacteristically overtpolitics. [1] A reviewer saw the play as a "parody of agit prop plays as wellas a statement of the similarity between a dictatorship . . . and the way inwhich a director treats his actors." Another thought she heard in the recordedapplause at the end, "hoofbeats and the turning wheels of a tumbrel - but . .. maybe that was only an aural hallucination from my own spellbound imagination. . ." [2]
While acknowledging the play's social politics, my reading in the presentessay tends to a rather less extravagant view of its emotionalism. I lean moretoward the description of a third reviewer, who thought of Catastropheas a "political miracle play," [3] but even so, with an emphasis upon apolitics of the self. The present reading focuses upon the equally overt themeof aesthetic creation, tracing the dramatic mechanisms by which Beckett soprecisely configures a tragicomic theatrical metaphor for the production ofmeaning and significance in general - a metaphor in which we identify thecoincidence of tragic catastrophe with miraculous creation (as the comic pole).
Counterpoint in Catastrophe is between the action, dialogue andlighting effects generated by Director, Assistant and Luke, and the staticfigure of Protagonist. The rehearsal setting of the play presents a complex ofrelations amongst the characters and a complex of meanings for the changesimposed upon Protagonist. At face value, the rehearsal is simply as indicatedby the introductory stage-direction: "Final touches to the last scene." [4] One might read at this level a comment upon theatre politics, in thehierarchical scheme of theatre personae, from the chauvinistic Director to theabject actor, Protagonist. If we were able to trace this theme beyond thedramatic and textual bounds of the play itself, we might, indeed be tempted toobserve Beckett fall into the unenviable position of unintended object of hisown satire, to the extent that Catastrophe satirizes the egotisticalwill to control what one has created, whether one is God or the artist. In1984 Beckett unsuccessfully "tried to bring an injunction" against JoAnneAkalaitis's American Repertory Theatre production of Endgame because of thestaging. [5] Again in 1988, he objected to Gildas Bourdet's Comèdie Françaiseproduction of Fin de partie on a similar count and intervened legally:
True respect for the theatrical text one brings to the stage necessitates, fromthe actors, the use of a creative freedom without which the worst can beexpected, by which I mean platitude and convention. It is this freedom that wasfinally forbidden us, obliging us to retreat with, at heart, the certainty of awaste and, like one who has been judged without evidence, a feeling of sadnessand injustice. [6]
Bourdet's statement rebounds somewhat uncomfortably against the themes of thetheatre and freedom that Beckett presents so explicitly in Catastrophe.Beckett's own actions in the "real world" were perceived as limiting thecreative potential of his play, as choking its autonomy and "life," andfalling into the same trap of aesthetic over-determination that he satirizes inCatastrophe.
Catastrophe's depiction of the process of theatrical creation servesas a model for divine creation, in a variation upon the theatre metaphor. Here,the theatre hierarchy becomes a metaphysical scheme that includes an angelicAssistant and the evangelist Luke as agents of the Creator's will. Humanexistence is created as an iconic object of art, complementing the arrogantcreative will, and literally "For God's Sake" (300). Ultimately, its purposeis no more than for the trivial amusement of the bogus angelic hosts,applauding from the stalls in a heavenly theatre.
One aspect of the creative process portrayed can be illustrated withreference to the incident in Endgame involving Hamm's toy dog.Catastrophe focuses significantly upon this detail:
HAMM: [impatiently]. Well?CLOV: He's standing.HAMM: [groping for the dog]. Where? Where is he? Clov holds up the dog in a standing position.CLOV: There. He takes Hamm's hand and guides it towards the dog's head.HAMM: [his hand on the dog's head]. Is he gazing at me?CLOV: Yes.HAMM: [proudly]. As if he were asking me to take him for a walk?CLOV: If you like.HAMM: [as before]. Or as if he were begging me for a bone. [He withdraws his hand.] Leave him like that, standing there imploring me. [7]
The toy is made by Clov, but as an extension of Hamm's egotism. It has nointrinsic meaning, except that it resembles a dog. Hamm, however, imposessignificance: the dog stands imploring because Hamm likes to think it does. Hehas the dog exist to affirm his own empty existence, and thus the dog reflectshis emptiness to us.
Clov's non-committal "If you like" is reiterated by Assistant in responseto Director's loaded inquiry about the condition of Protagonist's hands ("Clawlike?" [298]). Protagonist, like the dog, assumes for Director whateversignificance Director wishes and, at the same time, reflects the inanity of thecreative will. Clov and Assistant mediate between their respective masters andthe object of creation. Clov is engaged in the practical procedures of artisticcreation, the rational and physical means by which the will is transferred tothe object: "But he isn't finished, I tell you! First you finish your dog andthen you put on his ribbon!" (Endgame 30). Similarly, Assistant effectsphysical changes upon Protagonist by removing his garments and altering theposition of his body to conform to Director's intuition. The nature of thisintuition is revealed, of course, in the posture that Protagonist is made toassume: head bowed and hands clasped in supplication and prayer.
Like Hamm's and Clov's toy, Protagonist is invested with animalcharacteristics: his hair is "moulting" (298), his hands are like "claws" (298), he will not utter a "squeak" (299). (Similarly, in Krapp's Last Tapehuman language is reduced to a plane of animal utterance, ultimately devoid ofmeaning: "Nothing to say, not a squeak.") [8] Underpinning the animal motifare considerations of animal consumption and suffering. We can assume that ifHamm's dog were a real animal then its existence would be consumed insatisfying Hamm's egoistic needs to be gazed at, begged and implored. Thecatastrophic Protagonist is created as a "poor, bare, forked animal" so as toprovide a trivial aesthetic gratification for the intended audience, and anegoistic gratification for Director, for the creative will. [9] Director's furcoat and matching toque are not only indications of bourgeois luxury andelegance, but also suggest the comforts afforded by the consumption of animals.As well, Protagonist is associated with the Director's cigar, an object createdand consumed for trivial gratification. Beneath the hat and gown, he is thecolour of "ash" (297-8).
Protagonist is "created" by a method of subtraction, in the way that astature is created (hence, the black box on which he stands is referred to as a"plinth" [297] and a "pedestal" [299]). The play is organized into threemajor sections by the predominant use of language, action and lighting insubtracting from the initially undefined human form. First, Director'sappraisal constructs a poetic image of the animal, Man - the dialogue betweenhim and Assistant removes any elevated conception of Man that might be elicitedby the form. In the second section, Assistant takes away the hat and gown, andperforms a set of operations upon Protagonist that further diminish conceptionsof stature and dignity. Finally, Luke's lighting-effects eliminateProtagonist's entire body, leaving only the head. On the first occasion thisimage is attained, Director remarks, "Good. There's our catastrophe. In thebag" (300). Seemingly, the lit head is the very "Catastrophe" of the title:the object of the rehearsal, the finishing of the final scene in Director'splay, is accomplished in this one image. However, upon his direction, "Oncemore and I'm off" (300), Luke repeats the lighting operation, indicating thatthe catastrophe extends through that procedure as well. And as this requiresthat the lights are first turned on in reverse order, it is conceivable thatthe catastrophe is delineated by the lighting pattern, and thus extends backthrough the entire rehearsal: the lights must have been turned on in such afashion at least once before we began our observation.
The method of creative subtraction employed here coincides with the classicdramatic paradigm of the catastrophe, wherein an arrogant protagonist is thrustdown by the gods, stripped of assumed power, humiliated and destroyed. Theparadigm is isolated from the tragic form and identified with the creativeprocess and the myth of creation. Creation is catastrophe. While Shakespeare'sKing Lear has been alluded to in reference to the animal imagery inCatastrophe, several strong resonances suggest Macbeth to be a modelfrom which Beckett has drawn the catastrophic paradigm. In Macbeth, the themeof stripping away all vestiges of power and dignity is given explicitmetaphorical voice. From within the walls of the castle at Dunsinane, Macbethvainly attempts to resist the course of inevitable retribution: "I'll fighttill from my bones my flesh be hack'd. Give me my armour" (5: 3). LikeProtagonist's garments, the futile layers of protection fall away - the fleshis but one of them. Macbeth is immobilized in battle, metaphorically reduced toan animal. "They have tied me to a stake: I cannot fly, But, bear-like I mustfight the course (5: 7) - anticipating the figure of Protagonist, who at mostpassively resists the onslaught of theatrical Creation. Macbeth is finallyreduced to his disembodied head, like Protagonist: this is the least humanremain that would identify him as the once Macbeth. The head is borne in at theend of the last scene as an emblem of Macbeth's profound humiliation, and ofthe efficacy of fate.
Catastrophe contains a Macbeth-like theme of white becoming blackand vice-versa, but one directly perceived as a visual effect. Protagonist'sbody is first lightened by shades as his garments are removed and his fleshbared, and then darkened as the lighting contracts. In this regard, the end ofthe play is an inversion of the opening: a black, anonymous Protagonist ingeneral lighting becomes a lit face removed from all relations, in otherwisegeneral darkness. One effect of isolating the paradigm of the catastrophe,however, is to confound the idea of absolute morality inherent in the tragicform. Director judges Protagonist, but his judgements are aesthetic one basedupon appearance rather that upon action. Nor are there any acts to be judged,for Protagonist remains inert. The judgements are a part of the creativeprocess, steering the image of Protagonist toward Director's desired result.All Protagonist's flesh "needs whitening" (299): he is to be created in theimage of death. (One irony in Macbeth is that its protagonist "blackMacbeth" does become as "white as snow" [4: 3], in death.) The process ofCreation is the process of Catastrophe, the instant of birth the instant ofdeath; hence, the complex of on-and-off lighting cycles are overlays ofBreath-like instants in which no act worthy of judgement could conceivably beperformed. [10] The isolated catastrophe ironically affirms Macbeth's explicitreference to the theatre metaphor:
Out, out, brief candle!Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing. (5: 5)
Catastrophe, however, implies only the aesthetic form of tragedy(Director's unseen play) and not a universal moral scheme. By containing agross caricature of the metaphysical hierarchy, the conception of divine moraljudgement is denied. Director's judgements are perceived in terms of theireffect upon Protagonist, who evolves into a nihilistic image of mankind, forcedinto a position of humiliation and supplication by the inane Creator. The finalrevelation of the lit face, an image that may be conceived of as an abstractpoint of intersection with Macbeth, is a direct contradiction of thesignificance Director would impose, thus in terms of whatever his intention,logically "signifying nothing."
An effect of the contrast between the action and the tableau is to suggesta reality within illusion. Director displays the histrionic theatricality of astereotyped theatre impresario, engaged in forming what should be stageillusion. Yet Protagonist's predicament is perceived to be "real," and withinthe stage illusion that ensues from the action and dialogue of Director andAssistant. Protagonist functions as a stage signifier in very much the same wayas Hamm's toy dog. That is, as the toy has no intrinsic capacity to signify anymore than its resemblance to a dog, existing as a sign at Saussure's firstorder of signification, so Protagonist, by his very inactivity, conveys no morethan an essential human presence. [11] We become less aware of our relationshipwith the character and more of that with the actor, a relationship that is "notwithin the fiction, but located on the level of a concrete and socialsituation." [12] The play's dramatic dynamic, drawing on the significance of aparadoxically non-acting Protagonist (by definition a contradiction in terms),refers us to a meta-commentary on the generation of significance by thetheatrical medium itself. Patrice Pavis, for instance, speaks of a "basiccontradiction" in theatre semiotics "between the actor as material body thatis visible and iconized, and the text as symbolic system that requires themediation of the mental staging of performance." [13] Here Protagonist isdetermined and simultaneously constrained and repressed, by co-ordinated agentsof the textual system (and of course, it was through the regulated action oftext in the world - copyright and the legalities of injunction - that Beckettexpressed his will in the Fin de partie/Endgame incidents).
Director's self-conscious acting produces an emphatic character andpersona. Protagonist's non-acting allows symbolic meaning to be imposed fromwithout, through an alienated mechanism of semiosis:
A: [Finally.] Like the look of him?D: So so. [Pause.] Why the plinth?A: To let the stalls see the feet. [Pause.] D: Why the hat?A: To help hide the face. [Pause.]D: Why the gown?A: To have him all black.D: What has he on underneath:? [A moves towards P.] Say it. [A halts.]A: His night attire.D: Colour?A: Ash. (297)
Protagonist's initial costume resembles that in Ohio Impromptu, except thatthe wide-brimmed hat is on the head, and the coat, which suggested protectionagainst environmental elements, is replaced by a dressing-gown, lending agreater sense of vulnerability. [14] A somewhat ironic luxury, consideringProtagonist's otherwise abject state, the dressing-gown is also a garment oftransition, worn prior to dressing for the day or retiring at night.Protagonist is the epitome of transience, for his existence, while it lasts, isno more than a process of "becoming." He is an unfinished statue, beneath thesculptor's drape. Birth and death are identified to the same degree as inWaiting for Godot ("They give birth astride a grave, the light gleams aninstant, then it's night once more" ) and A Piece of Monologue (" Birth wasthe death of him" ), thus complementing the fusion of the two forms, Creationand Catastrophe. [15] Protagonist is attired in the vestiges of an unconsciousoblivion, prior to invigoration. Unperceiving, he is perceived as an anonymoushuman form. The process of his disrobing is an assault of perception, asincreasing light, along with the removal of layers of costume, facilitates thegreater definition of his bodily form. Director and Assistant display a tacitunderstanding that Protagonist will not move: their creature is unable toperform any significant action. His aesthetic value is purely iconic.
One would expect Director to have been aware of the details about which hequeries Assistant, this rehearsal comprising the "Final touches to the lastscene" (297) and indeed, his lack of memory is twice announced explicitly ("Iforget" [298]). Thus the creative process is renewed and isolated in time.Assistant contains a mnemonic function that enables her to describeProtagonist. Dramatic pauses are contemplative, directing attention toProtagonist, as he becomes imbued with "significance" by virtue of thesedescriptions. In the first instance, he is simply a theatrical icon, hisappearance conceived in terms of theatre pragmatics. Director halts Assistantin her move to reveal Protagonist, compelling further description anddisplaying an absolute, mechanistic control.
The words chosen by Director and Assistant in reference to aspects of theicon, Protagonist, precede the unveiling of their visual correspondents. Artoriginates with an idea, and the initial transformation is from the conceptinto the word; thus, language prepares for the emergence of the symbolicProtagonist. The spectator first receives the concept, formed by the word,which then accommodates the visual component in a complex theatrical sign; heor she is thus engaged in a self-conscious process of art, an art conscious ofassuming symbolic meaning.
D: . . . How's the skull?A: You've seen it.D: I forget. [A moves towards P.] Say it.A: Moulting. A few tufts.D: Colour?A: Ash. (298)
Assistant is not to act upon Protagonist before his linguistic, poeticconstruction is complete. This preparatory process involves selection of theterms of reference by which the cloaked (and therefore general or archetypal)human form is to be conceived, and incorporates the negation of anyassociations of stature or dignity that may be evoked by the form. The choiceof "skull" evinces a concern for the skeletal structure, a further instanceof Director's will to see "underneath" (297), into the intrinsic structure ofMan, as animal and as symbol. Furthermore, the skull is, as the night-gown,emblematic of death-in-life: the living human bears the death's-head, revealedin its whiteness upon the degeneration of more transient tissue, or when "ash" returns to "ash."
Similarly, the poetic image of the hands is one of degeneration and becomesa further metonymic animal image:
D: . . . The hands, how are the hands?A: You've seen them.D: I forget.A: Crippled. Fibrous degeneration.D: Clawlike?A: If you like.D: Two claws?A: Unless he clench his fists.D: He mustn't.A: I make a note. [She takes out pad, takes pencil, notes.] Hands limp. [She puts back pad and pencil] (298)
The fists might be interpreted as a sign of defiance and so are not to becountenanced. Director's judgements reveal qualities of the intuition to whichProtagonist's image is to conform. The intuition is not a fully formed concept,but such evolves as Protagonist evolves (" It's coming" [299]). Assistant'snote-taking exemplifies her mnemonic function and the precise, operationalnature of the artistic process: the conceptual element is transformed into theword, then into the written word, and will become a visual quality ofProtagonist at some time in the future.
The word is pre-eminent, of course, in the Biblical account of Creation: "In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1: 1). The book of Genesis speaks of a world "without form, and void,and darkness . . . upon the face of the deep" (1: 2); "And God said, Letthere be light; and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good:and God divided the light from the darkness (1: 3-4). Thus, the source ofdivine moral judgement is aesthetic and arbitrary, God's unexplained liking forthe light. His division of light and darkness is equivalent to the distinctionbetween good and evil, and is thereby the archetype for the Shakespearianimagery discussed. The cigar-smoking Director's first command is also for "Light" (298); further such demands and repetitions of the phase "For God'ssake" (299, 300) help to build a conception of the Director as God, whilesustaining his theatrical gestus of a bourgeois and chauvinistic impresario.His identity with the Creator is further effected by his command over languageand light, determining the structure of the play so as to conform to the orderof Creation, and by the inclusion of a lighting technician named Luke.
For Schopenhauer, art "plucks the object of its contemplation out of thestream of the world's course . . . the relations vanish for it," [16] including its relation to the creative subject, as object and subject are fusedin the contemplation. The creative process may be envisage, if from a somewhatartificial remove, as a transference of consciousness from the subject to theobject, as the object assumes conscious definition and the subject relinquishesself-consciousness. Assistant's initial composure and the efficiency of herresponse to Director's questions and commands suffer increasingly as she actsupon Protagonist. She is directed (by Beckett) to remove Protagonist's blackgarments, but not to put them down, and so she is encumbered in her tasks ofnote-making and in her physical operations upon Protagonist. As well, hercostume, "White overall" (297), is partially obscured by her acquisition ofProtagonist's black hat and gown. She is simultaneously darkened as he islightened. As the stage-lights reduce, increasing their focus uponProtagonist's head, she is simultaneously covered in shadow. When Protagonistapproaches his final form, Director shifts his own perspective to that of theintended percipient ("I'll go and see how it looks from the house" ) and exitsfrom the stage, "not to appear again" (299).
A complex set of relations exists between Assistant's removal ofProtagonist's dressing-gown and her observation that "He's shivering" (298).The proximity of the events invites an inference that Protagonist shiversbecause he is cold, having lost the quality of protection afforded by the gown.However, the gown served also to darken him ("To have him all black" [297])and to obscure him from view. His shivering may, therefore, be due to theremoval of any or all of these qualities of the gown, or indeed, to none ofthem, for he may have been shivering already, unseen beneath the gown. Neitherdoes the text indicate that the action is to be visible, but the spectator,like Director, might depend upon Assistant's perception, which is enabled byher close contact with Protagonist. The possibilities combine in the precept,to be seen is to be seen to suffer, the same that allows Hamm to conclude, whenClov observes Nagg crying inside his ashbin, "Then he's living" (Endgame41). The manifestations of suffering appear as the idea of individual existenceemerges from the artistic medium. A deepening perception into the art object,Protagonist, at once reveals and augments an intrinsic suffering. In view ofhis clenched fists and the indignity to which he is subjected, his singleinnate means of expression, the "shivering" understates a profound aversionto coming into being, or into perception. Director's response, to ignoreAssistant's comment and immediately demand further disrobing, the removal ofthe hat, demonstrates and absence of compassion, extending to hischaracterization as the Creator; as well, a suggestion that Assistant iscompassionate in pointing out the shivering is later negated when she clarifiesher wish to apply "a little gag" so as to ensure that Protagonist will not "utter" (299).
Director's dictum that Protagonist "mustn't" clench his fists requiresphysical enforcement: Assistant unclenches them, forcing the hands to become "clawlike" (298-9). The creative procedure is at the stage of physicallyconforming the object to the concept; Assistant is no longer to "Say it" (298), but must act with a greater frequency if she is to avoid Director'sdispleasure. Her inability to divine Director's intention from his tersecommands stimulates his further irritation, which compounds the disruption ofher functioning. The rational means she embodies are thoroughly subjugated tothe power of the creative will:
D: [Finally.] Something wrong. [Distraught.] What is it?A: [Timidly.] What if we were ... were to ... join them?D: No harm trying. [A advances, joins the hands, steps back.] Higher. [Aadvances, raises waist high the joined hands, steps back] A touch more. [Aadvances, raises breast high the joined hands.] Stop! [A steps back.]Better. It's coming. Light. (299)
To allay Director's distraction, Assistant states the most obvious structuralmodification suggested by the figure of Protagonist, the joining of the hands.As an aesthetic possibility, the suggestion is extraneous to the criteria ofwhiteness and "nudity" (300) that have governed his judgements to date. Hiscompliance is in the spirit of trial and error' the suggestion possesses anintuitive appeal, unlike those concerning the "gag" (" This craze forexplicitation! Every i dotted to death!" [299]) and the raising of the head ("What next! .... Where do you think we are? In Patagonia?" [300]). There is noindication that Director possesses, and is having Protagonist express, aconcept of prayer. The position is essentially arbitrary and meaningless:Director simply says "Stop!" when the hands reach the position of maximumintuitive and aesthetic appeal. The section exemplifies the manner in which theplay simultaneously constructs and confounds symbolic meaning. The position "means" prayer only to the spectator, not necessarily to the characters.Moreover, the way in which the symbol has been constructed undercuts its usualassociations, such as Man's adoration of a benevolent Creator. Rather, theaction suggests an absurd God, who creates Man only in order to become theobject of an empty gesture of adoration and supplication. At the level ofsemiotic meta-commentary, Beckett's theatre becomes a technology that enablesus to observe as though under magnification to the nth degree, "one of the keyproblems of theatre semiology: the link between iconic system (gesture) basedon the resemblance between the sign and its object, and the symbolic systemwhich is based on the arbitrariness of the sign." [17]
Director continues "from the house" to increase the intensity of hisscrutiny, attending to the finer details of the "toes" he is unable and the "trace of face" he does not wish to see (299). Assistant solves the firstproblem rationally, by recourse to her note-making operation ("Raise pedestal"). However,her attempt to do so a second time is thwarted by Director, hisdisruptive effect upon her having grown so extreme as to short-circuit herprocedure:
A: I make a note. [She takes out pad, takes pencil, makes to note.]D: Down the head. [A at a loss. Irritably.] Get going. Down his head. [Aputs back pad and pencil, goes to P, bows his head further, steps back.] Ashade more. [A advances, bows the head further.] Stop! [A steps back.]Fine. It's coming. [Pause.] Could do with more nudity.A: I make a note. [She takes out pad, makes to take her pencil.]D: Get going! Get going! (299-300)
The operation of bowing the head involves a finer "tuning" of Protagonist'sbody than that of raising the joined hands, is carried out with Directoroffstage, and Assistant's functioning at a greater degree of disruption.However, the dramatic structure of the events is identical: two separatemotions create three distinct positions for the head and hands; the secondmotion is undertaken of Director's order, "A touch more" or "A shade more," and is halted at the appropriate point by "Stop!" Hence, the linear motion inboth cases is divided into three static stages for the contemplation ofProtagonist by Director, Assistant, and the spectator, recalling the basicstructural scheme in Breath. Like the props in Breath, Protagonist remainsessentially static: he is moved, rather than moves by his own volition. He is,like the props, a static presence to be considered in different lights, orunder the various conditions brought on by external change. Therefore, he doesnot contribute meaning, only presence. His meaning is construed in terms of hisrelation to the others: if Director is perceived as God, then he is Man; ifDirector is the creative will, he is the art object. The play is a study "about"this acquisition of meaning or significance. The contrast of the bowingof the head with the raising of the hands illustrates the arbitrary nature ofsignificance. The symbol of prayer is not a logical development from theprocess of raising the hands, but a spontaneous and arbitrary association withthe final position. Reduction of the action to systematic series of discretebodily gestures and the question of their relation to a semiotic code refers usagain to meta-commentary on theatrical meaning, and in particular, to thepursuit of precise control over and comprehension of dramatic codes,reminiscent of Meyerhold's bio-mechanic exercises. Assistant behaves like atheatre semiologist, seeking through her notation to reconstruct the specificcode dictated by Director, but we see that this necessity is part of thecreative process of the theatre itself. [18]
Luke's introduction has the ring of a burlesque angelic visitation:
D: It's coming. Is Luke around?A: [Calling.] Luke! [Pause. Louder.] Luke!L: [Off, distant.] I hear you. [Pause. Nearer.] What's the trouble now? (300)
Saint Luke is the evangelist who "speaks of a thief being saved" because ofhis attitude to Christ on the cross, and whose version of the crucifixion isbelieved before the other three because "People are bloody ignorant apes,"grasping at the hope of salvation that is made thus contingent on the moralprobity of behaviour (Godot 13). The presence of Luke, like an inspiredevangelist, receiving the will of Director-Creator, translated intointelligible terms by Assistant-angel, completes the absurd metaphysical motif.His lighting operations correspond to the technical application of a divinemorality; the gospel is implied to be an aesthetic solution to a theologicalproblem (hence, "What's the trouble now?" ) Director's terms of appraisal havebeen moral terms ("Good" [298], "Better" [299], "Something wrong" [299])and his approval associated with increasing whiteness, intensity of light, and"nudity," augmentations of suffering for Protagonist. They become purelythose of a banal aestheticism ("Lovely" [300] and "Terrific" [301] when thefigure most exemplifies the paradigm of the catastrophic protagonist, the finaleffect of Luke's focusing of the light.
Protagonist raises his head, a contradiction of Director's express wish andthus a form of hubris: a catastrophe of catastrophe, the applause falters andthe light expires. This is the one single act of volition by Protagonist, andby itself it constitutes a succinct dramatic image of life's single,contemplative instant, recalling Pozzo's "The light gleams an instant" andMacbeth's "Out, out, brief candle!" His act of perception occurs with hisbody in total darkness: he has no reference by which to ascertain his ownexistence. The action occurs in a form of cadenza, supposed to be the time ofperformance, yet associated with Director's statement, "I can hear it fromhere" (301), fusing the art and its occasion in the Creator's omniscience. Thetheatrical occasion of Catastrophe becomes an evident dramatic componentas the spectator is made aware of Luke behind the scenes, operating thestage-lights according to instructions from Assistant. The pretended "house" into which Director exits becomes the theatre at the time of performance; theintended audience, mortal or angelic, becomes the audience of the realperformance, when they are "fixe[d]" by Protagonist's gaze. Thus thedramatic structure resolves in the phenomenon of the percipient perceived,recalling the final tableau in Ohio Impromptu. [19] Structures of meaningimposed by the spectator by way of his or her role in the creative process aremet with the revelation of an individual's face, an identity which is in asense irrelevant to the preceding action, refuting any general, symbolicinterpretation, and one of whose essential significances is to "signifynothing."
The balance is delicate: perhaps the merest hint of "hoofbeats and theturning wheels of a tumbrel" might send the drama tumbling over the brink intoa parody of itself as agit prop play. The drama of significance immanent inBeckett's theatre metaphor is more akin to reflection upon the significance ofthe self and the construction of the subject, as outlined generally fromNietzsche through Foucault. [20] That is to say, in the absence of a rationalgod, without the possibility of meaningful action external to the instant ofcreation-catastrophe, what possibility remains but the aesthetic creation ofoneself? Such an action, like Protagonist's single gesture, may perhaps onlyever be mute - like Beckett's text, an art of passivity and resignation to thepossibility only ever to "fail better." [21] Or do we need, likeEndgame/Fin de partie, to be redeemed by the interventions of our author?
An earlier version of this article was selected by an international boardof editors for publication in the Journal of Beckett Studies, but the journalceased publication before the article appeared. (It has subsequently resumedpublication.)
1. See Beryl S. and John Fletcher, Student's Guide to the Plays of Samuel Beckett 2d ed.(London: Faber, 1985) 265.2. Richard Roud, Manchester Guardian Weekly, 21 Aug. 1983 (20) and Edith Oliver, The New Yorker, 27 June 1983 (75), qtd. in Virginia Cook ed., Beckett On File (London: Methuen, 1985) 63.3. Alisa Solomon, Village Voice, 28 June 1983, 100, qtd. in Cook, 63.4. Catastrophe, in Collected Shorter plays of Samuel Beckett (London: Faber, 1984) 295-301).5. "JoAnne Akalaitis" (interview), in Lois Oppenheim ed., Directing Beckett (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1994) 135-40 (137).6. Gildas Bourdet, "Fizzle," in Oppenheim155-60 (159). The quotation is from a statement distributed to audiences of the production.7. Endgame (2nd ed., London: Faber, 1964) 30-31.8. Krapp's Last Tape, in Collected Shorter Plays 55-63 (62).9. King Lear 3: 4.10. Breath, in Collected Shorter Plays 209-211.11. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers (London: Paladin-Granada, 1973) 89.12. Patice Pavis, Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of the Theatre (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982) 82.13. Pavis 18.14. Ohio Impromptu, in Collected Shorter Plays 283-88).15. Waiting for Godot (2nd ed., London: Faber, 1965) 89; A Piece of Monologue, in Collected Shorter Plays, 263-69 (265).16. Qtd. in Steven J. Rosen, Samuel Beckett and the Pessimistic Tradition (New Jersey: Rutjers UP, 1976). Rosen quotes from Schopenhauer' s The World as Will and Idea, Vol. 1, trans. R. B. Haldane and J. Kemp (London: Trubner, 1883) 239.17. Pavis 47.18. Pavis 30-31.19. See Michael Guest, "Beckett' s Ohio Impromptu: Narrative and Dramatic Functions," in Reports of Faculty of Liberal Arts, Shizuoka University, Vol. 30 (1994), No. 2, 43-57.20. See for example, Anna MacMullan' s discussion of Catastrophe as a revelation of Beckett's "preoccupation with power in its relationship to representation" and its focus upon "the act of looking and the power relations inherent in this act," in Samuel Beckett's later drama (New York: Routledge, 1993) 25-33.21. See Beckett, Worstward Ho (London: Calder, 1983) 7, and Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit, Arts of Impoverishment: Beckett, Rothko, Resnais (Cambridge: Harvard, 1993) passim.
Return to Samuel Beckett Return to the main page