jolantzanakis-blog - Tumblr blog

jolantzanakis-blog · 8 years ago

Text

The Theatre of the Absurd Samuel Beckett and the idea of emptiness

‘Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose… Cut off from his religious, metaphysical and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless.’ Ionesco

Post war Europe suffers an utter disorientation; the traumatic experience and chaos that followed Second World War had a deep impact in human lives and brought to the surface the collapse of values and the meaningless, arbitrary nature of mankind. Under the fear of precariousness that prevailed at the time, new forms of art sprung out to deal with the new status quo. Themes such as nothingness, absence and emptiness of human predicament became central in artistic practice, especially in drama. This constituted a determinant factor in the development of a new “anti-theatre”, The Theatre of the Absurd. The dramatists, having left behind the structure and norms of the past, moved forward to present an alternative reality and got involved in the current conditions of their time. A significant number of playwrights were interested in the new order and established the new theatre. Although a considerable number of dramatists can be characterized as absurdists, Beckett remains the leading figure of this unconventional change. His unique manipulation of language and his radical dramaturgical techniques make him one of the most renown and controversial playwrights of the twentieth century. In this study, an attempt is made to examine the methods employed by Beckett in order to explore and present the meaningless of existence and the emptiness of human psyche. The emptiness and absence that prevails in Beckett’s work will be discussed through his most prominent and representative plays, Waiting for Godot and Endgame.

In the years following World War II, several European playwrights, influenced by the movement of existentialism and the concept of the devastating awareness of meaninglessness, present works that do not reflect the rules of traditional drama. The starting point for the turn to this modern genre was The Myth of Sisyphus, an essay written by Albert Camus, in which the philosophy of the absurd is introduced. Camus argues that, in a world in decline, human condition is essentially meaningless. The newly introduced forms express the irrational and the unreasonable; they mirror the absurdity of the human condition. The mankind is trapped in a world without meaning striving to define their identity and find the self. In terms of structure of the plays, the traditional axioms seem to be completely ignored. The plays usually have a cyclical plot with several repetitions and clichés, meaningless and repetitive dialogues whereas the characters are presented as anti-heroes. The language, also, tends to be devaluated and is finally outreached by the action but still remains a crucial part. The term used to describe this new form of drama, The Theatre of the Absurd, was first coined by the critic Martin Esslin in the ‘60s:

‘…the Theatre of the Absurd does not reflect despair or a return to dark irrational forces but expresses modern man’s endeavor to come to terms with the world in which he lives. It attempts to make him face up to the human condition as it really is, to free him from illusions that are bound to cause constant maladjustment and disappointment.’

In many respects The Theatre of the Absurd signifies the beginning of a new, unconventional form of drama not only in terms of language and plot but also in the way playwrights explore and present the absurdity of the human condition. Although the plot, in many plays, is absent and the language seem to be nonsense and vague, the anguish to communicate the tragedy of the human state and to portray their meaningless existence becomes evident.

Some of the most representative playwrights of The Theatre of the Absurd, including Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugene Ionesco and Jean Genet, lived and worked in Paris. At the time, the French capital formed a magnet for artists from different countries eager to pursue freedom of expression and possibilities of experimentation. Paris was the most receptive place not only for unconventional artistic practice but also for the opportunity it provided for them to produce their work. It is broadly accepted that the Parisian theatre-going public was deeply intellectual and thoughtful as well as open to new ideas and artistic techniques although there were times when the criticism on the “new” was caustic. As for the absurdists, they shared common ground, originated their work on concepts influenced by existentialist philosophy and Camus’ approach but without having any restrictions in presenting their very own thoughts. Each of them acts individually without following regulations or specific norms, based on personal experiences and background which could justify the fact that The Theatre of the Absurd cannot be regarded as a movement. In fact, their works mirror their personal approach in terms of both the language and the form with each of them to try to establish a new dramatic perspective. However, Beckett remains the most renown absurdist playwright, with his famous Godot being the most controversial play of the nineteenth century.

Samuel Beckett is regarded, as mentioned above, one of the key figures of The Theatre of the Absurd. He was born in Dublin in 1906 in a Protestant Irish middle class family. Upon completion of his school studies, he entered the Trinity College, Dublin, where he studied French, Italian and English. In 1928, he was accepted at the École Normale in Paris as a lecteur d’ anglais for a two-year stint. During his stay there, he became acquainted with James Joyce, a modernist avant-garde Irish novelist. Joyce made a notable impact in Beckett’s life, with the latter working closely with the novelist and greatly contributing to Joyce’s work. In 1929, Beckett published a critical essay headed “Dante… Bruno. Vico… Joyce” which strongly supported Joyce’s ideas and procedures. Although Beckett was a cosmopolitan, wandering and travelling around Europe, he finally settled down in Paris (1937) where he spent the World War II and the post-war years. Beckett’s adventurous character and free thinking led him to join a Resistance group and lead dangerous and hazardous life, which eventually forced him to leave Paris and to resort to Vaucluse, a town near Avignon. The winter of 1945 found Beckett back in Paris, a period that signifies the beginning of his most fertile phase. There, overwhelmed by a ferocious creativity, he produced his most important works: namely, the plays Eleutheria, Waiting for Godot and Endgame; the novels Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable and the unpublished Mercier et Camier and Nouvelles et Textes pour Rien.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that all of the aforementioned works were written in French. Beckett himself claimed that he chose to write in French in order to avoid verbosity. Works like Beckett’s, with their enigmatic and complex nature, demand a serious effort with the medium of expression. He manipulates the language unorthodoxically, not to narrate a story but to create original stage images such as meaningless dialogues, pauses, repetitive verses. Through these unconventional dramaturgical strategies and techniques, Beckett manages to visually articulate emptiness and silence on stage. Central idea of Beckettian drama is failure. Beckett himself has claimed that ‘to be an artist is to fail, as no other dare fail,…’ His characters are unable to accomplish their goals, they are trapped in their own existence. However, the significance of Beckett’s failure is the failure to be, to exist in the outside world and to be a part of the society. His characters are often impotent people who, powerless as they are to make decisions and change their fate, they lead purposeless lives repeating the same actions and words. They are often placed in an empty, prison-like environment where time has no meaning as it barely moves forward. As Gilman suggests ‘His plays are built out of the most uncompromising themes and conditions for an enterprise of imagination: occluded movement or outright immobility.’ Beckett’s plays have often been denounced for their pessimistic nature, vagueness and lack of climax. However, the Beckettian universe is consciously meaningless; Beckett’s intention is not to create well-structured plays but to deal with the absurdity of the human condition. As Brian Finney points out, Beckett’s work is a ‘big search for an artistic means of portraying the nihilistic predicament of modern man.’ Such a delineation is apparent in Beckett’s notable Waiting for Godot and Endgame which will be thoroughly discussed below.

Waiting for Godot is considered by many one of the most representative and influential play of The Theatre of the Absurd as well as Beckett’s masterpiece. It is a tragicomedy in two acts, first written in French and then translated in English by Beckett himself. The premiere was held in the Théâtre de Babylone, Paris, in 1953. The play presents two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, being in an empty, abandoned place performing trivialities and repetitive routines while waiting for someone named Godot. Twice in the play, a pair of men appears, a master and a servant (Pozzo and Lucky), interrupting the main characters’ routine by interfering to their conversation. To all intents and purposes, Beckett does not tell a story but tries to create an ambience of emptiness and silence through artistic images and utterances. The two heroes, Didi and Gogo (the names they use for each other), are imprisoned in an environment of inaction in which nothing happens and nothing changes. Alienated from the society and trapped in passivity, they eternally wait for Godot. As Gilman points out ‘Didi and Gogo live in an atmosphere in which time barely moves forward and in which all values are flattened out under the arc of Godot’s possibility, the value whose absence empties all judgments.’ Beckett’s artistic method pays tribute to modern drama and especially to what is called the Theatre of the Absurd. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett deals not with a conventional story with some definite plot but with the concept of total deprivation and immobility. ‘It is a play of absence, a drama whose binding element is what does not take place.’ (Gilman)

This idea of absence and emptiness dominates the play. As the curtain goes up, the spectators are faced with the following setting: “A country road. A tree. Evening.” By its very nature, such a setting inclines towards an abandoned place in the middle of nowhere. Beckett himself does not specify neither the location not the characters’ origins. His ultimate goal is to increase the absurdity of the play and to place emphasis on the emptiness and meaningless of their existence. A bare setting with a tree is the place where the two tramps wait for Godot. As the play moves forward, this place resembles a prison with no possibility of escape. ‘Estragon and Vladimir are trapped (‘Imbecile! There is no way out there,’ Didi tells Gogo) within emptiness; and the inward turn that Beckett’s characters eventually take leads to entrapment within an inner empty space.’(Les Essif)

ESTRAGON: Let’s go.

VLADIMIR: We can’t.

ESTRAGON: Why not?

VLADIMIR: We’re waiting for Godot.

The above given short dialogue is repeated several times throughout the play. Beckett’s acclaimed method of repetitiveness contributes to the monotonous and meaningless atmosphere of the play by giving the impression of an eternal, purposeless continuity of visual images and utterances. Shortly after these verses are said, Estragon becomes aware that he and his partner are doomed to remain passive and static (‘They all change. We can’t.’). The two men are incompetent to move forward and to react to their fate; they remain in the same empty place, they perform the same things and speak the same words. Moreover, Beckett’s extensive use of pauses and silences increases the ambiguity of his work and puts emphasis on the “story’s” empty time. Another significant element in Waiting for Godot is the absence of memory. Didi and Gogo barely remember their past and especially Estragon does not even remember what happened the day before.

ESTRAGON: Was it not there yesterday?

VLADIMIR: Yes, of course it was there. Do you not remember? ..

ESTRAGON: You dreamt it.

VLADIMIR: Is it possible that you’ve forgotten already?

Memory constitutes a pivotal factor in order for someone to develop their personal identity and to retain knowledge over time so as to affect future action. By annihilating his characters’ memory, Beckett shapes empty figures on stage that are utterly deprived of past experiences and emotions and seem condemned to repeat themselves perpetually. The diptych of empty space-empty mind is one of the leading concepts in Beckettian drama and is also evident in his later plays, such as Endgame, enhancing thus the paradoxical and enigmatic nature of his art.

Endgame is a one-act play and, similarly to Waiting for Godot, was first written in French and then translated in English by Beckett himself. The first production of the play was held at the Royal Court Theatre in April 1957 in London. Central figure of the play is a blind, paraplegic man, Hamm, who appears seated in a wheelchair. The play starts with Hamm’s servant, Clov, who enters the stage, uncovers Hamm and announces: ‘Finished, it’s finished, nearly finished, it must be nearly finished.’ The action takes place in a room with a bare interior and two windows. On one side of the stage, we see two ashbins with Nag and Nell (Hamm’s legless parents inside them). The plot focuses mainly on the relationship between Hamm and Clov, the relationship between a master and his servant. Throughout the play, Hamm appears as a senseless, cruel and disrespectful creature towards Clov and his parents. The play ends with Clov standing and ready to leave and abandon his master to die. However, the final scene is extremely ambivalent as the spectators are left unable to realize whether this is the finale or not. The title of the play, Endgame (Fin de Partie in French), refers to the end of a game of chess and seems to function as a hint of the plot. In this play, Beckett employs the same techniques of repetition in language and action as in Waiting for Godot in order to create an ambiguous, meaningless environment which is open to multiple interpretations. In Endgame, Beckett uses once again the image of the alienated self, being trapped in a meaningless existence. The two characters, totally dependent on one another, live their lives in an empty “shelter”, as described by Hamm, doomed to repetition and immobility. It is a relationship based on mutual reliance (Hamm is unable to stand and Clov is unable to sit) and self-destruction. The dialogues between the two as well as Hamm’s long soliloquys unveil the empty psyche and the hunger to escape the chaos they are trapped in.

The idea of emptiness is pervasive throughout the play. In this play, contrasting with Godot, Beckett moves from an outdoor to an indoor setting in an attempt to increase the vagueness and create the image of a confined room. Deprived of objects and decoration, the setting in Endgame implies a sense of abandonment and decay. Visualized image forms a key element in Beckett’s universe rather than simply a supportive technique. From the very beginning, the spectator deals with the framework of an empty space; two windows separate the two worlds, the internal and the external one, creating a distance between them. The ambience of this abandoned space creates a feeling of alienation and solitude. The empty room, dominated by the presence of the seated and covered Hamm, reflects the deconstructed and fragmented theatrical figure in the centre of an absent world. Early in the play, Hamm is concerned the fact that both are left behind, isolated from the external world:

Hamm: Nature has forgotten us.

Clov: There’s no more nature.

Hamm: No more nature! You exaggerate.

Clov: In the vicinity.

Later in the play, we hear Hamm in a short prophetic monologue predicting an ominous future for his servant. Clov will be impotent and blind, as his master is now, condemned to live alone in nonsense. ‘Infinite emptiness will be all around you,..Yes, one day you’ll know what it is, you’ll be like me, except that you won’t have anyone with you,..’ Beckett’s intention is to create an atmosphere of total absence. What has been said or happened, if ever happened, is debris of old times. As the following dialogue aptly indicates, his characters are detached from the dramatic events:

Hamm: I was never there.

Hamm: Absent always. It all happened without me.

For Beckett, this absence is psychological rather than physical. His characters constitute a reflection of a purposeless existence and an empty psyche. As Essif claims ‘In Beckett’s work we see an increasing metadramatic focus on the empty space of the mind,…’ Beckett, through his artistic expression, focuses on the inner emptiness of the theatrical figure and the way this figure is received by the audience.

Undoubtedly, The Theatre of the Absurd or “anti-theatre” constitutes a significant aspect of modern drama that deeply influenced the development of the modern character. The turmoil of the post war era, in the middle of the twentieth century, triggered the relinquishment of the conservatism that eventually affected the artistic practice in the years that followed. The radical change introduced in terms of plot, language and structure led to a profound change of dramatic forms. Although Paris was the city where most of the modern artists worked and freely expressed their ideas, The Theatre of the Absurd is now viewed as a pan European phenomenon in theatre practice. Its representatives came from different European countries and all of them had the intention to produce a new theatre reality that would adequately reflect the situation at the time. Many of them became famous and contributed to modern drama in many ways but Beckett remains the playwright who is tightly linked with The Theatre of the Absurd. His drama is known as Beckettian and his most famous work Waiting for Godot has been characterized by many scholars as the epitome of absurdist drama. The way Beckett dealt with the human condition is unique. As it has been discussed above, regarding his two significant plays (Waiting for Godot and Endgame), Beckett’s virtuosity to convey the idea of emptiness and create an atmosphere of absence and silence make him one of the most recognizable absurdists of all time.

Bibliography

Beckett, S. Endgame. London: Faber and Faber, 2009

Beckett, S. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber and Faber, 2006

Essif, Les. Empty Figure on an Empty Stage: The Theatre of Samuel Beckett and His Generation. USA: Indiana University Press, 2001

Esslin, Martin. Theatre of the Absurd. 3rd ed. New York. Penguin, 1983

Gilman, Richard. The Making of Modern Drama. USA: Yale University Press, 1999

Lyons, Charles R. Samuel Beckett. London: The Macmillan Press, 1983

4 notes · View notes

jolantzanakis-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Medea_Rachel Cusk Set and Costume Design Collaborative Project (Designer_Director)

Medea is an ancient Greek tragedy, written by Euripides and first produced in 431BC, based on the myth of Medea and Jason. The play delineates Medea’s psychosynthesis and the disastrous consequences of her abandonment by Jason, who leaves her in order to marry the Corinthian princess Glauce. The present study examines Cusk’s Medea, an adaptation of Euripides’ original play. In Cusk’s version, the story is transferred in the modern society and is significantly differentiated from the original version in terms of language and plot. However, the play seems to preserve the main characteristics and power of the ancient Greek tragedy. As Cusk mentions herself, ‘Medea is about divorce…a couple fighting is an eternal predicament. Love turning to hate.’ Modern Medea is a married woman, abandoned by her husband for a younger woman and be driven away from their house. She is a writer, an intellectual and intelligent woman and devastated by the divorce, eventually abandons her kids that end up to commit suicide. The play centers mostly in Medea and Jason’s relationship and the catastrophic results a divorce could have.

The nature of this project was mainly of the setting and the costumes in collaboration with a director. Director and designer together should research and work on a specifically chosen play (Medea) and come to a final decision in order to deliver a successful design. In this case, I collaborated with Francisca Olivares, a student director from East15 Acting School. Together, we tried to approach the play in a clear view, having always in mind the sharp and symbolic language of the play as well as Euripides’ original drama. Our intention was to create a meaningful and highly symbolic environment in total harmony with the play’s significance. A theatre play like Medea is generally perceived as challenging and demanding for all participants; specifically, both the director and the designer need to understand and interpret the meaning beyond the lines and place emphasis on key elements, crucial and fundamental for the story. The director suggested the play be staged in one of The Vaults’ room, the Gas Bottle Room. The said space, characterized by a mysterious and powerful ambience, creates a feeling of abandonment and decay which coincides with the play’s meaning. Located underground, in central London, gives the sense of a hidden place where one expects to discover ruins of an old era. That was the main reason for this choice. The room is a long corridor with Victorian brick walls, quite old and destroyed though, which little reminds a theatre stage.

One of the challenges faced was the transformation of the aforementioned room to an actual theatre stage. Along with the director, we tried to seek for appropriate ways to serve the play and enhance its symbolism. We essentially decided to create a traverse stage, by placing the seats right and left along the long walls turning the empty space left in the middle to a theatre stage. The seats, made of stone and with a step-like shape, clearly remind us the ones used in ancient Greek amphitheatres. Our goal was for the chairs to play an integral role in the setting along with the already damaged walls. The whole setting is built upon the idea of an earthquake. Having studied carefully Cusk’s version, one could see the relation between the divorce’s disastrous consequences and a natural destruction. The play talks about the chronicle of the divorce between Jason and Medea and reveals its distressing implications. Similarly, an earthquake has analogous effects on nature. The stage is covered with soil, upon which the remnants of a destroyed house are placed. Across the stage, three broken wooden-floor platforms are placed in order to represent the house. The platforms, damaged and broken at the edges, are placed unevenly in the middle across the stage, in an attempt to highlight the earthquake/divorce’s impact. We managed to create the ambience of a domestic environment which has been afflicted by a disaster. On the one side of the stage a long rectangular concrete platform has been placed. At the beginning of the play, that platform is covered by soil whereas it is revealed later (scene 11, Jason-Medea dialogue).

The action mainly takes place on the wooden platforms. In the middle of which there is a marble altar. Its ambiguous nature contributes to the play’s symbolism. The altar serves the play in multiple ways. Medea uses it mainly as a desk; there are books, spirit bottles and lots of papers and envelopes scattered around showing her agitation and anxiety. On the other side, the altar foreshadows the imminent evil to come; the kids’ death. The altar is actually a place for sacrifice. A wooden bench is placed on another platform, used by the nurse and tutor in several scenes, representing the idea of a living room where most families usually gather. Another point which is worth mentioning is that between the seats there is an empty space, on both sides, where school gates are placed on the walls with piles of carton boxes in front of them. That space is used by the women of the Chorus who stand there during the play. The boxes have the inscription “leftovers” which have an active role in the play. Those boxes contain the family’s past which is now packed and ready to be removed of their place. The Chorus carries the boxes into the house (the wooden platforms) which the kids play with, in a couple of scenes, either taking out their toys or using them as places to hide. Additionally, on the side of the room, just opposite the main entrance, behind the seats there are two black window-like frames and the floor is covered with traditional kitchen square tiles. The main reason for this addition is to create an environment of action which is barely seen by the audience but gives the impression that the action continues backstage.

Regarding the costumes, they have been designed in such a way aiming at revealing the characters’ inner selves. They are contemporary clothes, most of which are characterized by straight lines and plain forms free from extravagant and superfluous characteristics. Starting with Medea, she first appears on stage in her pyjamas while later on she wears a two-piece suit. Although Medea appears as a devastated woman abandoned by her husband, she remains strong and powerful reminding the audience that she is a woman of extreme emotions. Throughout the play, it is obvious that Medea reflects a male aspect of her character trying to hold her family together and reminding Jason that she was the corner stone of their life/marriage. Her costume appears to be relevant to her actions. Thus, she wears a man’s suit, blazer and trousers in blue-black. The most significant thing is the blazer’s design; it is a classic, smoking collar blazer with the one side being frayed whereas the other one of different colour (off white). The second colour has been chosen to emphasize her double personality, the woman and the man, while the worn finish indicates her view towards life; she does not care anymore for anything. She is so desolated that she barely pays attention to minor things. On the other side of the pond there is Jason. He is dressed in a modern cut collarless straight jacket and trousers in blue and a light blue round-cut shirt. He is a man, at his forties, who fell in love with a young rich woman and decided to divorce his wife. He is no longer the intellectual bohemian that used to be. He has been transformed to a careless and indifferent husband/father who cares only about his career and his new status. His costume could not be a classic one. Regarding Creon, Jason’s father-in-law, he appears in a classic, modern colour though, costume. Instead of a shirt, he wears a plain T-shirt. Creon, at his sixties, is a quite rich and powerful man and at the same time a modern and open-minded person. His suit is red and he appears with a crown, indicating not only his financial situation but also the power he has upon others. However, he feels a little distressed towards Medea although he respects and admires her. It is obvious that the three main characters are dressed in bold colours (blue/black, red and blue) in an attempt to emphasize the difference between them and the Chorus, who represent the society, “the others”, the people that surround Medea but she does not belong to their group.

Nevertheless, Chorus plays a significant role in the play showing the difference between two worlds, the ordinary people and intelligentsia (represented by Medea). The Chorus consists of middle-class housewives, compromised women who care only about trivialities of daily living. There are six different characters that, at the same time, are similar in terms of their views. Inspired by Cindy Sherman’s photographs, the costumes are made of bright colours and printed colourful fabrics revealing their frivolous personalities and deepening the gap between them and Medea. What is worth mentioning is that all of the Chorus women wear a make-up mask deforming and exaggerate their facial expressions make them even more aloof and hypocrite. Last but not least, it is essential to focus on the kids, as they play a significant role and appear on stage several times. Paying close attention to the boys, we could see that they are not a typical example of kids; they appear to be unconventional and free-minded, quite bohemian and independent. Both kids wear long shorts and T-shirts. The difference is that the older one wears a logo T-shirt and jacket while the younger one wears an Arsenal T-shirt (it is mentioned in the play that they are planning to go to an Arsenal match). Concluding, we could say that the costumes are carefully designed to balance between the characters’ personality and their emotions.

After having permeated through the design process, it would be considerable to refer to the collaboration with the director and its outcome. Overall, working on this project was valuable for me in every aspect. It was the first time I had the opportunity to undertake a setting and costume design in a professional level. Although cooperating with a director proved to be quite challenging, it was extremely beneficial and contributed to my artistic practice in various ways. Additionally, I was taught how to act as a team member and take into consideration and respect my partner’s point of view. It is of high importance for the designer and the director to build a harmonious relationship in order to produce a successful performance. Through creative dialogue, exchange of opinions and experimentation, it is feasible to accomplish a project. Fortunately, I was quite privileged to cooperate with a director who was open-minded and friendly, willing to discuss her thoughts about the play instead of demanding a specific design for it. That made me feel more comfortable to express my own thoughts and ideas. We spent plenty of time discussing and experimenting on different ideas and materials regarding the setting and costumes. Equally, we endeavored and managed to solve different kinds of problems related to the set design and the play’s direction. I could say that the whole procedure was more than satisfying and helpful providing me with various knowledge which will be definitely an asset to my future career as a designer.On the whole, I strongly believe that the above project offered valuable knowledge and experience as well as made me feel more confident and prepared to fulfill my ambitions.

0 notes