The Zoo Story

In this play, Edward Albee explores the dynamic between two contrasting characters in order to bring up questions of our reality as societal humans and our realizations thereof. Initially, we are made to believe that Peter, the seemingly well-adjusted, unassuming character represents life without tragedy and that the wildly troubled Jerry represents a life solely composed of suffering - the object of audience pity and revulsion. 

However, as the dialogue unfolds, we learn that Peter's life, which is not unlike many of our own lives at least by comparison to Jerry's alleged experiences, is equally tragic if not moreso than Jerry's in its sheer lack of meaning or purpose.

Though this play deviates from the strict minimalism of earlier Absurdist plays by displaying two believable characters in a slightly unbelievable situation in a tangible setting, I would argue that The Zoo Story continues in the tradition of absurdist theatre through its central message that each of our lives is equally meaningless.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in Film

Further perplexing is the matter of Absurdist Theatre interpreted into film. The filmmaker can now make decisions regarding the visual storytelling of these minimalist plots, sometimes simply mimicking the play's theatrical staging, but at other times using more traditional cinematic techniques including elaborate sets and costumes, moving camera angles and editing. 

I plan to, in my own creative work for this class, develop a film adaptation of Absurdist Theatre myself, so the operative question here is does one adhere to the text as it is literally written or does one follow what is interpreted to be the spirit of the genre and continue the challenge of the presentation medium (in this case, stage performance) onto the more contemporary medium of cinema? Does one use the film medium in ways that refute traditional cinematic storytelling techniques like Beckett and Stoppard used the stage to challenge the stage, or is this a liberty one has no right to take?

This film version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1991) written and directed by Tom Stoppard himself seems to answer a few of these questions.

Waiting for Godot in performance

Absurdist Theatre creates an interesting literary situation by virtue of the fact that, though highly theoretical, it is meant to be performed. Because the audience does not have the advantage of the text to cross reference and refer back to in order to construct for themselves the meaning of the play, the audience's experience with the play is more direct, encountering these absurd situations for the first and last time just the same as they encounter the moments that make up their normal daily lives.

That being said, here is a video of an excerpt from a performance of Waiting for Godot:

The Bald Soprano

Eugene Ionesco is another of the Theatre of the Absurd's iconic playwrights. His play, The Bald Soprano exemplifies various key characteristics of the genre.

The banality of the dialogue and the concerns of the characters points to a general theme of the meaningless existence of man, while the generalized and moronic nature of the characters and situations provide the absurd element - which also points to this theme of meaningless existence.

The characters are largely one-dimensional, standing in for everyone else in humanity and asserting that any one of us is as meaningless as the next fellow. It is important to note, also, that the characters exist largely in a vague setting.

In general, the play disregards traditional dramatic story telling, alienating itself from the Realism of its predecessors. This creation of a dreamlike or incomplete reality brings up central philosophical questions of existence and meaning - what is our environment? Is what we see really what exists? Are we alive/real, or are we part of some dream world? Does it matter?

Speaking of Sisyphus...

In my Black Comedy blog in an entry about Living in Oblivion, I related the struggles of the film's characters to those of Sisyphus, doomed to roll a bolder up a hill for eternity. In my Absurdist Theatre research, I came across some information about Camus and how he applied this myth to humanity and created the basis for the theatre of the absurd.

In the beginning of absurdist theatre, there was Albert Camus.  In his seminal essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," (which can be viewed here) Camus asserts the utter pointlessness of man's existence - an assertion that virtually spawned the genre.

In the examples I've listed below, (Waiting for Godot, The Sandbox and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead) is a pervading attitude of man's relative lack of purpose and his attempts to apply a purpose of his own making to himself. Camus proclaims that "there is no higher destiny," and that "one always finds one's burden again."

In light of these findings, I would argue that the film Living in Oblivion serves as an example of precisely the hybrid that I am attempting to produce. Though it uses characteristic elements of black comedy through its creation of humor from misery, its basis is in the theatre of the absurd. Steve Busciemi's character IS the absurd hero, Sisyphus, constantly returning to his boulder.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

An important idea in absurdist theatre is that of the tragicomedy. The tragicomedy, of which Waiting for Godot is one, is a concept inspired by the work of William Shakespeare according to Martin Esslin, author of Absurd Drama. The most clear representation of this relationship is Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. 

This play, among many other potential themes, deals with the question of existence and whether it continues after death. To do this, like many absurdist dramas, the play contains a limited setting that functions fluidly between the living world and the afterlife without ever defining itself as one or the other. The characters, like in Godot and The Sandbox exist in sort of non-setting that isolates them, and in putting their humanity under a microscope, generalizes and distorts their defining characteristics in pursuit of the greater questions of the play.

The Sandbox

Edward Albee's one act about the passage from life to death of an American grandmother illustrates several of what I believe to be aspects of its genre.

The characters are slightly illogical, though grounded in Albee's observations about human behavior. They portray these observations in a very simplistic way -- the father is a wimp, the mother is a bitch and Grandma's just crazy. Or, so they appear. Through their somewhat illogical dialogue, snippets of the truths of these characters shine through.

Setting is also a key element in absurdist theatre. Using a humorously minimal set, Albee creates a world based on reality but more resembling that of dreams. The use of a sandbox as a beach as the grandmother's final resting place in itself sparks humor, questions and discomfort.

Paradox and the breaking of the fourth wall operate heavily in this play as well, most notably in the case of the "Angel of Death." The Angel of Death is a strapping young lad doing calisthenics on the beach - his head as empty as it is blond. It is ironic that the great equivocator is portrayed in such a vapid and ordinary way. Also, Albee breaks the fourth wall in the final dialogue between the Angel and the grandmother when he makes references to the boy simply being an actor playing a role, asking if he'd done his lines correctly.

The viewer is left with only a vague sense of understanding of the events that were captured in the play and an overwhelming feeling of disorientation.