THEATRE OF THE ABSURD

What is meant by absurd?

• The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1965) defines
‘absurd’ as follows: Absurd:
1. Mus. Inharmonious (P.1617).
2. Out of harmony with reason or propriety; in
mod. use, plainly opposed to reason, and hence
ridiculous, silly.
 Background
• not a conscious movement
• exponents of the form were a disconnected group of playwrights
• the term theatre of the absurd was first coined by scholar Martin Esslin in
his 1961 text The Theatre of the Absurd
• true absurdist playwrights are few in number: Samuel Beckett, Eugene
Ionesco and Jean Genet (with some scholars including Arthur Adamov).
• other playwrights whose selected works have been labeled absurdist by
others include Harold Pinter, Edward Albee, Tom Stoppard, Fernando
Arrabal, and Peter Weiss (though most deny the label of absurdist
playwright)
• the beginnings of Absurdism lie in avant-garde experiments of the 1920s
and 30s, while some argue absurdist elements exist in plays such as Alfred
Jarry’s Ubu Roi (1896) and even in ancient Greek dramas
 Theory

• theatre of the absurd is otherwise referred to as absurdism

• absurd originally means “out of harmony” (in a musical context) – its meaning in the theatre of the
absurd is different to the everyday meaning of the word as “ridiculous”
• absurd in the context of absurdism can mean:
• without purpose
• illogical
• out of harmony
• useless
• devoid of reason
• meaningless
• hopeless
• chaotic
• lacking order
• Uncertain
• The "absurd", a word that Esslin defines with an extract from Ionesco: "absurd is that which has
not purpose, or goal, or objective."
• lying in the background to absurdism is the notion of existentialism
• existentialist philosophers who influenced absurdist playwrights were Frenchmen Jean -Paul Sartre
(1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960) – both also playwrights themselves
 Martin Esslin: The theatre of the
Absurd
1. The Theatre of the Absurd attacks the comfortable certainties of
religious or political orthodoxy.
2. It aims to shock its audience out of complacency, to bring it face to face
with the harsh facts of the human situation as these writers see it.
3. But the challenge behind this message is anything but one of despair.
4. It is a challenge to accept the human condition as it is, in all its mystery
and absurdity, and to bear it with dignity, nobly, responsibly; precisely
5. No easy solutions to the mysteries of existence, because ultimately
man is alone in a meaningless world.
6. The shedding of easy solutions, of comforting illusions, may be painful,
7. it leaves behind it a sense of freedom and relief. And that is why, in the
last resort, the Theatre of the Absurd does not provoke tears of despair
but the laughter of liberation.
 Existentialism
✓ refers to a particular view of the nature of man’s existence.
✓ The existentialist believes that man starts life with nothing.
✓ His life is made up of acts; through the process of acting man becomes conscious
of his original nothingness.
✓ By choosing to act, man passes into the arena of human responsibility which
makes him the creator of his own existence.
✓ However, the existence inevitably ends with death.
✓ Man returns to his original state of nothingness.
✓ This existential notion eliminates the Western concept of man’s exalted nature.
✓ Life becomes meaningless and useless – a condition which is in essence “absurd”.
✓ Man’s only freedom in this condition is the exercise of his conscious mind.
✓ However, consciousness means conflict – between man’s awareness of the
absurdity of his existence and his need for justification (rationality-logicality-
purpose) of his human action.
(J. L Crawford: Acting In Person and in Style)
 Theory
• the atrocities of World War II are considered
influential events to the movement,
highlighting the precariousness of human
existence
• Sartre denied the existence of a God, seeing
humans with no choice but to create their
own standards and moral code in life (instead
of accepting standards offered by the Church,
the State, or society)
 The Myth of Sisyphus
• Camus’ book-length essay The Myth of Sisyphus sees
Sisyphus endlessly pushing a boulder to the top of a
mountain, only to see it roll to the bottom again. He
has to endure his punishment in the underworld
• What fascinates Camus is Sisyphus's state of mind in
that moment after the rock rolls away from him at the
top of the mountain. As he heads down the mountain,
briefly free from his labor, he is conscious, aware of
the absurdity of his fate. His fate can only be
considered tragic because he understands it and has
no hope for forgiveness– this futile labor is an analogy
for man’s meaningless existence, a quality seen in
many characters and plots of absurdist plays.
 Camus and The Myth of Sisyphus
• For Camus, the legendary figure of Sisyphus was the prototype of an
‘absurd’ hero, condemned by the gods forever to roll a rock to the top of a
mountain, only to have it roll back down again by its own weight.
• He represented the epitome of futile labor and pointless existence.
• Although Camus denied any connection with Sartre’s existentialism, the
book (Sartre’s The Myth of Sisyphus) became a manifesto for the new
existentialist drama, and later for the theatre of the absurd.
• In it, Camus asserted that it was legitimate and necessary to wonder
whether life had any meaning.
• He described how man felt himself to be a stranger in an alien world [ a
sense of alienation]
• and believed that this divorce between man and life was properly ‘le
sentiment de l’absurdite’, the feeling of absurdity.
(J. L. Styan: Modern Drama in Theory and Practice 2)
Implications: The Myth of Sisyphus

• Camus suggests that Sisyphus might even approach his

task with joy. The moments of sorrow or melancholy
come when he looks back at the world he's left behind,
or when he hopes or wishes for happiness.
• When Sisyphus accepts his fate, however, the sorrow
and melancholy of it vanish. Camus suggests that
acknowledging "crushing truths" like the eternity and
futility of his fate is enough to render them less
crushing.
• He refers to Oedipus, who, having suffered so much, is
able to "conclude that all is well."
 Plot and Structure

• anti-realistic, going against many of the accepted norms of

conventional theatre
• labeled by some critics as ‘anti-theatre’
• often characterized by a deliberate absence of the cause
and effect relationship between scenes. Non-linear plot
developments, sometimes cyclical – ending where they
began. occasionally appearing as though there is no plot at
all to speak of.
• deliberate lack of conflict
• … a play in which nothing happens, that yet keeps
audiences glued to their seats. What’s more, since the
second act is a subtly different reprise of the first, he has
written a play in which nothing happens, twice.
 Acting and Characterization

• both presentational and representational modes of

acting
• sometimes stereotypical
• often an absence of character development
• absurd characters lack the motivation found in
characters of realistic dramas, highlighting their
purposelessness
• time, place and identity are frequently blurred with
characters often unsure about who or where they are
• characters are often out of harmony or out of sync with
the world in which they live
 Movement
• mixture of realistic and non-realistic
• elements of circus, vaudeville and acrobatics
• ritualistic
• slow
• illogical
• repetitive
• action sometimes defies logic or easy understanding
• one extreme to the other without notice
• often sombre and serious, then highly comical
• … the absurdists, while for the most part accepting Sartre’s philosophical outlook,
tended to concentrate upon the irrationality of human experience without suggesting
any path beyond. By employing a succession of episodes unified merely by theme or
mood instead of a cause-to-effect arrangement, they arrived at a structure parallelling
the chaos which was their usual dramatic subject. The sense of absurdity was
heightened by the juxtaposition of incongruous events producing seriocomic and ironic
effects.
Oscar G. Brockett: History of the Theatre
 Language
• language was devalued as a communication tool (unreliable and
distrusted)
• often illogical
• sometimes telegraphic and clipped
• long pauses
• clichéd
• repetitive
• rhythmical
• frequent use of silence
• monotone
• slow dialogue sometimes accompanied by a frenzied, fast-paced
monologue (extremes)
• Stagecraft: often simple and minimalist use of stagecraft
• barren set pieces barely denoting a location (e.g. a tree and a country road
in Waiting for Godot
The most surprising thing about these plays is that in spite of breaking all the
rules, they are successful:
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 characterization and
motivation, these are often without recognizable 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 the 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 of incoherent babblings.
 SO!
• in The Penguin Dictionary of Theatre (1966) John Russell Taylor writes:
• Absurd, Theatre of the. Term applied to a group of dramatists in the 1950s who did
not regard themselves as a school but who all seemed to share certain attitudes
towards the predicament of man in the universe: essentially those summarized by
ALBERT CAMUS in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942).
• This diagnoses humanity’s plight as purposelessness in an existence out of
harmony with its surroundings (absurd literally means out of harmony).
• Awareness of this lack of purpose in all we do … produces a state of metaphysical
anguish which is the central theme of the writers in the Theatre of the Absurd,
most notably SAMUEL BECKETT, EUGENE IONESCO, ARTHUR ADAMOV, JEAN
GENET, and HAROLD PINTER. What distinguishes these and other, lesser figures
(ROBERT PINGET, N. F. SIMPSON, EDWARD ALBEE, FERNANDO ARRABAL, GUNTER
GRASS) from earlier dramatists who have mirrored a similar concern in their work
is that the ideas are allowed to shape the form as well as the content:
• all semblance of logical construction, of the rational linking of idea with idea in an
intellectually viable argument, is abandoned, and instead the irrationality of
experience is transferred to the stage.