Theatre of the Absurd

Theater of the Absurd refers to a literary movement in drama popular throughout European countries from the 1940s to approximately 1989. The phrase ‘Absurd Drama’ or ‘The Theatre of Absurd’ gained currency after Martin Esslin’s book ‘The Theatre of Absurd’ was published in 1961. Absurdist playwrights adhered to the theories of French-Algerian philosopher Albert Camus, in particular his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, published in 1942. In this essay, Camus introduced his Philosophy of the Absurd, in which he argues that man's quest for meaning and truth is a futile endeavor; he compares man's struggle to understand the world and the meaning of life to Sisyphus, a famous figure in Greek Mythology condemned to an existence of rolling a heavy stone up a mountain only to watch it roll to the bottom. By ‘Absurd’, Camus meant a life lived solely for its stake in a universe which no longer made sense because there was no God to resolve the contradictions. In other words, what Camus called ‘absurd’, Kierkegaard called ‘Despair’. And it is on this philosophy that Beckett created his famous play ‘Waiting for Godot’. Before the genre of Absurd Drama gained popularity in the hands of Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco and Gennet, plays were characterized by clearly constructed story and subtlety of characterization and motivation.Absurd dramas speak to a deeper level of the audience’s mind. It challenges the audience to make sense of non-sense, to face the situation consciously and perceive with laughter the fundamental absurdity. 

Plays categorized in this movement typically represent human existence as nonsensical and Plays categorized in this movement typically represent human existence as nonsensical and often chaotic. Absurdist works rarely follow a clear plot, and what action occurs serves only to heighten the sense that characters (and human beings in general) is mere victims of unknown, arbitrary forces beyond their control. Dialogue is often redundant, setting and passage of time within the play unclear, and characters express frustration with deep, philosophical questions, such as the meaning of life and death and the existence of Godoften chaotic. Absurdist works rarely follow a clear plot, and what action occurs serves only to heighten the sense that characters (and human beings in general) is mere victims of unknown, arbitrary forces beyond their control. Dialogue is often redundant, setting and passage of time within the play unclear, and characters express frustration with deep, philosophical questions, such as the meaning of life and death and the existence of God.

In Beckett's Waiting for Godot, for instance, the entire play consists of two characters waiting indefinitely for a so-called individual (Godot) to arrive, and their lack of information about who Godot is and when he will arrive supposedly comments upon human uncertainty about whether or not God exists. 

Waiting for Godot qualifies as one of Samuel Beckett's most famous works. Originally written in French in 1948, Beckett personally translated the play into English. The world premiere was held on January 5, 1953, in the Left Bank Theater of Babylon in Paris. The play's reputation spread slowly through word of mouth and it soon became quite famous. Beckett often focused on the idea of "the suffering of being." Most of the play deals with the fact that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for something to alleviate their boredom. Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for.

Beckett is believed to have said that the name Godot comes from the French "godillot" meaning a military boot. Beckett fought in the war and so spending long periods of time waiting for messages to arrive would have been commonplace for him. The more common interpretation that it might mean "God" is almost certainly wrong. Beckett apparently stated that if he had meant "God," he would have written "God". There are numerous interpretation of Waiting for Godot and a few are described here: 

 Religious interpretations posit Vladimir and Estragon as humanity waiting for the elusive return of a savior. An extension of this makes Pozzo into the Pope and Lucky into the faithful. The faithful are then viewed as a cipher of God cut short by human intolerance. The twisted tree can alternatively represent the tree of death, the tree of life, and the tree of Judas or the tree of knowledge. 

 Secondly Political interpretations also abound. Some reviewers hold that the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky is that of a capitalist to his labor. This Marxist interpretation is understandable given that in the second act Pozzo is blind to what is happening around him and Lucky is mute to protest his treatment. The play has also been understood as an allegory for Franco-German relations. 

An interesting interpretation argues that Lucky receives his name because he is lucky in the context of the play. Since most of the play is spent trying to find things to do to pass the time, Lucky is lucky because his actions are determined absolutely by Pozzo. Pozzo on the other hand is unlucky because he not only needs to pass his own time but must find things for Lucky to do. 

Now the second play of which I would like to talk about is The Bald Soprono. La Cantatrice Chauve —translated from French as The Bald Soprano or The Bald Prima Donna — is the first play written by Romanian-French playwright Eugène Ionesco. It holds the world record for the play that has beenby Romanian-French playwright Eugène Ionesco. It holds the world record for the play that has been staged continuously in the same theatre for the longest time. Although it went unnoticed at first, the play was eventually championed by a few established writers and critics and, in the end, won critical acclaim. By the 1960s, The Bald Soprano had already been recognized as a modern classic and an important seminal work in the Theatre of the Absurd. With a record number of interpretations, it has become one of the most performed plays in France. 

Like many plays in the theatre of the absurd genre, the underlying theme of The Bald Soprano is not immediately apparent. Many suggest that it expresses the futility of meaningful communication in modern society. The script is charged with non sequiturs that give the impression that the characters are not even listening to each other in their frantic efforts to make their own voices heard. There was speculation that it was parody around the time of its first performance, but Ionesco states in an essay written to his critics that he had no intention of parody, but if he were parodying anything, it would be everything. 

 The Bald Soprano appears to have been written as a continuous loop. The final scene contains stage instructions to start the performance over from the very beginning, with the Martin couple substituted for the Smith couple and vice versa. However, this decision was only added in after the show's hundredth performance, and it was originally the Smiths who restarted the show, in exactly the same manner as before. 

 According to Ionesco, he had several possible endings in mind, including a climax in which the "author" or "manager" antagonizes the audience, and even a version in which the audience is shot with machine guns. However, he ultimately settled for a cheaper solution, the cycle. Ionesco told Claude Bonnefoy in an interview, "I wanted to give a meaning to the play by having it begin all over again with two characters. In this way the end becomes a new beginning but, since there are two couples in the play, it begins the first time with the Smiths and the second time with the Martins, to suggest the interchangeable nature of the characters: the Smiths are the Martins and the Martins are the Smiths". Conclusion Habit, boredom, monotony, ignorance and impotence which enveloped the world after the wars and created an absurd existence, is recreated by Beckett in “Waiting for Godot.” Beckett captured this situation and depicted it through the deadening condition of the two tramps in a null and void state without any real action. The play has often been interpreted as a parable where Godot stands as God, or for a mythical human being or for the meaning of life, death or something eventful. 

 References:  Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot, New Delhi: Penguin Books India. Pvt. Ltd.1996. Print.  

•The Bold Soprano. 2016. Web. 4 Oct. 2018.  •Cuddon, J.A. Dictonary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory. New York: Penguin Group. 1998. Print.

•Hussain, Tazir. Theatre of Absurd and Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ as an Absurd Drama. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Impact Factor (2012): 3.358. Volume 3 Issue 11, November 2014. www.ijsr.net, Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 

•Wikipedia contributors. "The Bald Soprano." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 5 Oct. 2018. Web. 21 Nov. 2018. 

•J. Nick Smith. "Waiting for Godot Analysis of the Play". GradeSaver, 1 September 1999 Web. 21 November 2018