Theater of the absurd is an idea that started gaining relevance in the 1950s. The concept is essentially informed by the ideas of absurdism and existentialism. Their prominent trait includes having irrational plots that feature characters who seem to lack peace with their existence. This new style in the playwrights came out as controversial and amazing. Authors embracing this style mainly present the human’s state as futile. This is in line with the philosophical perspectives such as the ones presented by Albert Camus that insisted human being can only be in the position of exploiting their full potential only when able to view the world as absurd. In this respect, promoters of this style view it as a tool that intends to bring clearly out some essential aspects distinct in most playwrights. Samuel Beckett’s work remains iconic piece in the history of the introduction and development of this style. His work, “Waiting for Godot” is still of high relevance in this field. Another prominent work embracing this aspect includes the historical Pinter’s Harold’s piece— “The Birthday Party.” Conducting a critical review of these two pieces would be essential in providing a clear insight of the idea of ‘theater of Absurd.’
Literary works in this category attempt to bring out their aspects of perplexity, anxiety and dilemma of a mysterious world. It is arguable that this idea dates back to 1920s; however, the concept started to become practical after the rise of the Greek drama. The popular Aristophanes’ humor works laid the foundation for the development of this idea. The concept developed further in the late classical period with the authorship of Apuleius and Petronius works. However, it is evident that the morality works of the Middle Ages are the antecedent for this style as they emphasized the idea of portraying characters who are struggling with the allegorical and often existential challenges. This further developed to the Baroque allegorical drama— authors attempted to present the world on the basis of mythological archetypes. The idea was eventually actualized by the World War II. The globalization of humanity view of things, the conflicts and the distress caused by the threat of technology and developments on humanity’s life, validated the dilemma that characterizes the nature of humanity. It became apparent that one needed not to essentially an abstract thinker to figure out about absurdity. The idea of absurdity became the part of a typical person’s daily undertakings (Becket 34).
Beckett’s work, “Waiting for Godot” presents a perfect example of this idea. Beckett shows characters who merely odd caricatures who have challenge in explaining the most obvious ideas to others. They often waste their time anticipating the appearance of Godot. They mainly use nonsensical language. Interestingly, they fail to attain much as the play terminates with them being at their initial state. Besides the effort, no reasonable change is seen to happen. This style is often in layman language is said to present the ‘unproductive plays.’ The challengers of this style often point out this weakness dismissing such plays as inadequate. They view them as prattle meaningless pranks. However, the proponent of this style emphasizes that they present a well-thought hypothesis on the human condition that they hardly change into anything substantially new as they identify change as an illusion (Beckett 29).
Beckett aggressively attacks the idea of the polarity of existence. This is evident in the play, where he presents polarities as sight vs. blindness, body vs. intellect and going vs. not going among others. In this view, the author presents the argument that the man’s existence is essentially based on these polarities. He practically shows the rationality of this assertion by categorizing his characters in various sub-categories. For instance, he talks of the Didi vs Gogo, Nagga and Nell, and Vladimir vs Estragon among others. His characters bring out their positions in pairs. Each people seem to stand in an isolated position in the society although they are exchanging idea. However, each of the character featured in the play remains a mystery that viewers attempt to understand individually. This is in contrast, with the typical way presenting characters who stand in solitary in an alien ground with little personal identity and no one to interact with. It is also worth acknowledging that the Beckett’s play happens on unique and alien landscapes. This is in contrast with the obvious way of setting the play against some customary elements in the society. In attempting to make his play coherent with the customary idea of play set-ups, Beckett initially presents traditional settings to lure the audience into his play. However, he often or eventually challenges them with surreal imagery, unique situation or fragmented language (Beckett 45).
The language used in the “Waiting for Godot” is also of high significance in understanding the idea of anti-theater. Beckett’s strategy attempts to give a recount of the disjointed hallucination of the dream world. This is in objection to the practice of basing the play’s language on elements such as platitude of each speech and clichés among others. The author utilizes language to explain a state in which man is isolated in the world. This implies that the man cannot communicate effectively since language presents as an obstacle to communication. The characters are painted a condition that makes us sympathetic to them. Characters are linked together by the worry of being entirely isolated from others. In consequence, they motivated and work hard in attempt to develop a strategy for communication. Evidently, Beckett presents a scenario where two derelicts are talking in a repetitive, weirdly fragmented conversation that is characterized with illusion as they waiting for Godot. The Godot is an ambiguous creature who will empower them with communication. In this way, the humanity will be aware of that characterizes concepts such as death and salvation. From a creative perspective, it is arguable that they are waiting for something that will motivate them to live or guide them on which is the right course of life to take. This gives an imprint that humanity is essentially lost in the crumbling society. Furthermore, Beckett highlights that individuals who hurry into searching for the meaning are likely to find it faster than ones that ignorantly sits—doing nothing about their condition (Beckett 56).
Similarly, Pinter brings out the idea of anti-theater creating absurdity through various instances where he is seen to object the society’s norm and beliefs. He identified the funny dimension of absurdity by embracing a funny way of human manifestation to laugh practically at every situation, including the sad aspect of existence. He argues that everything is funny with the inclusion of even tragic incidents. In his play, he, therefore, attempts to make the people understand and acknowledge this reality of absurdity that characterizes the people’s lifestyle, their habit and way of communication. He feels that fun does not just portraying the idea of laughing to mock (Pinter 28). In contrast, the absurdity of this fun entails laughing one the process learning something. In this context, in his play, he features funny incidents that are concurrently scaring and inhumane in the view of the experience that the characters are going through.
Furthermore, Pinter presents various instances where the language lacks the ability to unite individuals. This prompts situations where communication appears as an aspect that separate people in the context of a fearful void. This brings out the concern of the man and his position in the world as one attempts to figure out his nature and existence (Pinter 49). It becomes challenging to establish if man’s existence has any implication or whether he can determine the condition of his being in an environment where creating the association between being and nothingness is hard. The effort to address these concerns links the concept of Absurdity with a more metaphysical thinking of Existentialism that describes the humanity struggle to understand his being and establish his position in the universe (Pinter 30).
In conclusion, Beckett and Pinter’s works present the foundation for understanding the theater of absurd. This creative approach to theater employs a unique strategy that challenges the viewers to engage deductive reasoning to come up with a diverse interpretation of the plays. In this context, such plays present as rich works that the viewer can learn much from as they are not limited.
Works cited
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot [leaflet]. Manchester: Royal Exchange Theatre Co, 1980. Print.
Pinter, Harold. The Birthday Party. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Internet resource.
