By Hanaan Fuad
Have you ever watched a movie or a video and felt like you barely understood anything that happened in the movie? Sometimes, it’s a deliberate choice by the writer to make it indiscernible for the audience. This writing style can be owed to a certain genre of writing – specifically, theatre writing – called the Theatre of the Absurd.
Theatre of the Absurd was born post-World War II. It was a time of devastation and loss. People witnessed the greatest tragedy in history during this time due to men’s own doing. The belief in scientific progress suddenly does not seem so promising anymore. But ultimately, for the West, this event marked the ‘death of God’. It was hard for them to believe that God would let this happen if he truly existed. Hence, they are now fully turning on the existential mode. If God does not exist, why do we exist? Does life even have a meaning? Why are we on this earth? One of the answers they come up with is that life is just absurd. Meaning that life simply makes no sense, and yet here we are anyway. Life is full of weird events, and we should not try to make sense of anything that happens around us as it is purely nonsensical.
This outlook on life bleeds into all aspects of life, including the performing art of theatre. From then, emerged the genre known as Theatre of the Absurd. The Theatre of the Absurd features a non-traditional style of writing. Its main characteristics include but are not limited to, a non-linear plot, lack of character development, and repeating dialogues. However, it is important to note that these characteristics are not universal to every play within this genre. Some playwrights might choose to approach it using their own style. Other than that, Theatre of the Absurd focuses mainly on existential ideas and is supposed to reflect the absurdity of human life. Usually, the plays of this genre end the same way they start, depicting the circular structure of life and its recurrences.
The term first appeared in 1960 in Martin Esslin’s essay, titled "The Theatre of the Absurd” and people credit Esslin as the one who coined and popularised it. A few names often popped up when discussing this term, and they are the playwrights Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, and Arthur Adamov. However, the most renowned among them three must have been Beckett, as his name never fails to come up when discussing the Theatre of the Absurd. Hence, my intention today is to focus on him.
One of Beckett’s acclaimed absurd plays is 'Waiting for Godot'. The play consists of two acts and is known as the play where nothing happens twice. In the play, two characters, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for the arrival of Godot under a tree. The tree is the one and only backdrop of the play. While waiting for Godot, the two engage in various activities to keep them occupied and to chase off their boredom. Godot however, until the end of the play, never arrives, hence ending the play the same way it started.
Before furthering our discussion on Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, let us talk about Albert Camus’ influential work called ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. In this book, Camus talked about, among other things, the absurdity of life and ways that people can do as a reaction to this ‘fact’. The first one is that one can simply commit suicide. Unable to face the ‘reality’ that life is meaningless and absurd, Camus said that some people might opt for this route to escape this arbitrary life. The other reaction is by denying this ‘fact’ and continuing to live in the pretence that life does indeed hold a purpose. However, for Camus, the third way is the way everyone should choose to react to the absurdity of life. It is by acknowledging the fact that life is meaningless but to still live in spite of that. It is facing life head-on.
In Waiting for Godot, as mentioned earlier, the two characters wait for Godot who never arrives, and engage in various acts and discussions while doing so. One of their discussions revolves around whether they should commit suicide or not. Estragon proposes to Vladimir that they should hang themselves. Had it not been for the fact that they do not have proper ropes or belts to hang themselves, they would have successfully done so. This alludes to the first way of reaction that Camus mentioned in his essay. The second way of reaction is reflected also through the two main characters. It is clear as the play progresses that the two continue to believe that Godot is coming, despite the situation indicating that Godot is not in fact, coming. The third and the ideal way (at least ideal for Camus) might be reflected in the character of Lucky. It is not without a reason that he is named so. Lucky is a servant of another character named Pozzo who comes across Vladimir and Estragon during their travel to the market, where Pozzo intends to sell Lucky.
Lucky is then instructed by Pozzo to entertain our two main characters by acting out whatever they tell him to do. One of the commands is for Lucky to think. This leads to the iconic scene of the play where Lucky starts having a monologue that no one can understand. His monologue, despite being incomprehensible, fragmented, and confusing as a whole, contains some references to the futility of life and its absurdity. It is almost as if he understands something the others did not. Therefore, we can view him as the manifestation of Camus’ third way of reacting to the absurdity of life, where he lives willingly despite being Pozzo’s servant. However, it is important to note that this is only one of the interpretations of his character and the play in general.
Looking back at Beckett’s 'Waiting for Godot', it is clear how it is considered the epitome of Theatre of the Absurd. It contains repeating dialogues, such as when the two characters often ask themselves when Godot will come, and a non-linear plot as presented in a scene where Pozzo did not remember meeting Vladimir and Estragon despite having met the two in the previous act, confusing the audience about what is happening in the play. There is also the obvious lack of character development, as the two appear to still believe that they should wait for Godot even until the end of the play. All these elements reflect the belief in the absurdity of life and its repetitive nature.
I would like to conclude my writing by posing these questions, if the world is indeed absurd and meaningless, just how long can a human hold on living with that ‘revelation’ in mind, supposedly living in spite of it, and facing it on? Can a mere human really live that long like that? Are they not lying to themselves? Experience Beckett's depiction of absurdism in Waiting for Godot and explore more of the Theatre of the Absurd through Harold Pinter's The Dumb Waiter. Watch the play here and explore the analysis here.
Comments