Prof. Dr. İsmail Ersevim

 

                                       IRISH DRAMA and the ABBEY THEATRE

               <Written and prepared by Barbara J. Sherry, student in the ‘Master’ program, Salve Regina College (Now University), Newport, R.I. and her professor of Pychology and supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ismail Ersevim, as a thesis for her graduate program, 1967 -USA>

                                                                    PREFACE

                        The Irish people have been a  people of song, legend and myth.  As all literature is a direct reflection of the people of a country, so are these old songs, legends and myths a direct reflection on the people of the tiny, emerald island. They are a people whose great sense of patriotism has had its roots in the ancient Gaelic tradition of the peasants, and it was in his ancient traditin that the true literature culture of the Irish people lay hidden for centuries under the domination of England.

                        During the seven centuries of English domination, the Irish culture was preserved mainly through the efforts of the peasants. They handed down the songs and legends orally from generation to generation, preseving much of their great heritage within their families. Shanachies, or “story-tellers” were prevalent during this time whose tales were generally characterized by tragedy. Eventually, poetry and short stories became popular and flourished among the peasants. Many of the so-called Irish novels were really English novels written about Ireland, but with the novelist Kickham, came the genuine Irish novel. The one literary form which had not blossomed during this period as a means of reflecting the Irish heritage was drama.

                      The so-called literary renaissance followed the political aftermath of 1848, when the patriotic literature of the Davis School made way for a literature whose patriotism in the old literature of Irish culture began once more to live in the songs and stories of the poets, instead of dying slowly in the folk-tales of the peasantry. Because the dramatic form was so little known it became necessary to create an atmosphere in which the people of Ireland could formulate and appreciate thier own drama.

                      There were three people immensely concerned with the creation of a genuine Irish drama: William Butler YEATS, Lady Augusta GREGORY and John Millington SYNGE. They initiated the movement through the creation of the Abbey Theatre, the purpose of which would be to produce plays by Irish authors, about Irish people, played by Irish players. The purpose of this thesis is to provide a brief background of Irish Literature, and trace the establishment of the Abbey with its initial problems, the flourishing Abbey in its prime, and a consideration of the Abbey in later years.

                                                                CHAPTER: I

                                           THE COMING OF THE ABBEY

                      For seven hundred years the old folk tales, myths and legends
of Ireland were hidden underground. During that period, the tiny Emerald Isle was under the control of the British Empire which had ona aim: to wipe out all traces of old Irish tradition. Their efforts were partially successful in the political sense, however, the Irish poeple possessed a great spirit of nationality that refused to be suppressed. The sould of the Irish people stood for freedom and they refused to relinquish their old traditions which stood for that freedom. By keeping their precious heritage alive through underground imaginative creativity the Irish were able to withstand the pressures of England. Until the end of the nineteenth century, Ireland had been without any national drama, either in Irish or English. In the  nineteenth century there came an awakening in Gaelic folklore and traditions. It eventually led to the establishment of the Gaelic League, the Irish National Society and the Irish Theatre Movement.

                      By the nineteenth century, Ireland was “ripe for deliverance” from the English. Writers began to take up the cause; among them were William Butler Yeats, Lady Gregory, George Moore, George Russell, John Millington Synge, and James Joyce. It was these men who kept the Irish spirit alive at this time. What the tiny country really needed was a strong leader.
�
                      William Butler Yeats realized the need for leadership especially for the peasants who were ready for deliverance. Yeats gave them their hero in the character of the legendary “Cuchulain“. This ancient Irish hero had grown out of Celtic legends not only provided the peasants with a weapon which further stimulated their Irish nationalistic spirit, but also provided Yeats with an ideal dramatic here for his ‘poetic theatre’. Cuchulain stood for the order and law, these people had been striving as long as for, and resulted in a great national response.

                        Yeats also realized that the Irish had naturally assumed much similarity with England during seven hundred years under the English rule. Much of the literature produced by Irıshman was being absorbed into England’s tradition leaving no individuality to Irish literature. as George Bernard Shaw had left Ireland for London to start his career so were many more of Ireland’s writers doing the same in order to gain stature in the literary world. By not producing a literature of its own, Ireland was in great danger of losing her individuality. There was one chance, however, for Irish literature, and that was through the old Gaelic literature of Ireland’s own tongue.

                        Although Ireland had had a theatre as early as 1637, when George Bernard Shaw left Ireland for London in 1876, there was still nothing could be called an Irish dramatic tradition. Because the theatre of 1637 had been created by the English, any local authors went to London to establish themselves. (1) Yeats had to overcome this domination of England over Irish literature. He was born in Ireland and had collected Irish fairy tales of the peasants which greatly enchanted him and he considered the peasants as very close to the spiritual world. As early as 1899, he wrote to a friend:
                        “I have worked at Irish Mythology and filled a gerat many pages of notes with a certain arrangement of it for my own purposes; now I find I have a rich background for whatever I want to do and endless symbols to my hands.” Even before Yeats systematized  that mythology, his mind had turned toward Ireland for subject matter and he commented:
                        “England is old… but Ireland, has still full tables. Here in Ireland the marble block iz waiting for us almost untouched, and the statues will come as soon as we have learned to use the chisel.” (3)

                        Yeats’ memory and imagination always took him back to the Irish countryside and especially to the wild beauty of the west country, hundred by its legends of the past and the events of the near present. He considered the Irish writers as people who should write of the familiar landscapes they love for they loved best what is nearest and most interwoven in their ordinary lives.

                        Yeats recognized that one writer alone could not create a literature. A group, united together in one aim and an audience educated to appreciate them were also necessary. He once said that one wants to write for one’s own people, who come to the playhouse with a knowledge of one’s subjects and with hearts ready to be moved. Having achieved this, literature will then once more become folk art.

                        Writers of Irish literature at that time could be regularly separated into three main parties:
(1) “West Britons” or ‘Literary Unionists’ whose residence in Ireland from a literary point of view seemed a mere accident;
(2) The true Anglo-Irish writers, who if not always writing for Ireland, wrote of it; and,
(3) The Gaelic, written in Ireland’s native tongue was unknown to the rest of the world. It was the latter that Yeats placed his faith in, eventually creating legendary past was to be found.

                         In 1891 Yeats founded the “Irish Literary Society” in London and in 1892, he founded the “National Literary Society” in Dublin. Later in the same year, he met with Lady Augusta Gregory and Edward Martyn and discussed the possibilities of the Irish plays and theatre. They drew up a manifesto in 1897 to illustrate their plans and to show that Ireland was not the home of “buffoonery and easy sentiment”, which read, “We propose to have performed in Dublin, in the spring of every year certain Celtic and Irish plays, which whatever be their degree of excellence will be written with a high anbition, and so build up a Celtic and Irish school of dramatic litera-ture.” (4)  They expressed their confidence in all the Irish people, who were “weary of misrepresentation” in carrying out a proposal that was outside all the political questions that devided them.

                         The Irish people had a long history in oratory – the only means they had had for centuries to hand down their heritage to other generations. Yeats, Lady Gregory and Martyn agreed that with this practice in listening for so many years, would come a natural interest in the plays they hoped to produce. They went ahead with their plans to establish an Irish theatre which would be noted for one characteristic that the English theatre lacked, and was experimentation. This was very definitely to be a theatre of experiment.

                         “A literary revival is necessarily more thana renovation, the restoration of an obsolete language, the refurbishing of outworn literary froms.” (5)  The Irish Literary Revival was the recovery of the ancient heritage of the Irish people. It was the recovery of even more than that because it went deeper to uncover the original spirit, the creative genius that produced this culture. The revival produced not just a mere imitation of the past but a fresh, new viewpoint toward literature, yet at the same time keeping what was the cherished ancient culture alive. This was especially true with the creation of a native drama, often referred to as the most important single contribution on the part of the Revival.

                         The great revival had to come in the field of ‘drama’, because as it was already pointed out, this was the one aspect of literature which Ireland lacked. Up to the nineteenth century, all the literature produced by Irishmen was considered English rather than Irish. Irish actors and actresses performed on the English stage, many of whom were Elizabeth O’Neill, George Ann Bellamy, James Quinn and Charles Nacklin. It was easy to note the ability of Irishmen in this field and the importance of it would have in the development of the Irish Theatre.  

                          There seems to be a question as to who the real initiator of the Irish Theatre really was. Some give credit entirely to Yeats and others to Edwand Martyn. In any case, the two men paid Lady Gregory a visit in 1898 at Coole. Lady Gregory evidently not known Yeats before this visit. It was on this day that the suggestion for an Irish Literary Theatre, out of which grew the  A b b e y   T h e a t r e , was first discussed.

                          MARTYN was one of those writers who came under the “gloomy
spell” of Ibsen. He had written two plays that were rejected in London and he hoped with the coming of an Irish theatre to get them produced. Yeats was also a dramatist, but his interest in drama had grown from his love for poetry. He had been a keen desire to implement the establishing of an Irish theatre for his homeland, a poetic theatre of ancient Irish heritage. Lady Gregory shared no great enthousiasm for the theatre with Yeats and Martyn. Her chief interest was in poetry but she developed such a keen liking for Yeats that she readily agreed to do research in old Irish folklore and Gaelic in order to contribute something toward their idea of an Irish National Theatre.

                          In the winter following the first meeting with Lady Gregory, Yeats wrote from London of a meeting arranged with Barry O’Brien, the President of the Irish Literary Society to discuss the “Celtic Theatre”. During the summer of 1898 a request for subscriptions amounting to three hundred pounds was circulated and with the help of W.E.H. Lecky they secured a license to open a theatre and in January 1899, the Irish Literary Theatre was founded under the auspecies of the National Literary Society.

                                              “As soon as the Irish Literary Theatre was assured
                                              of nationalist backing, is started to dissociate itself�
                                              from any political aim. One the one hand, support was
                                              required to achieve the avowed aim of establishing ‘a
                                              kind of racial festival.’ “  (6)
                                             �
                           Their work was to be for the countryman and the artisan and although they appealed to the minority, they were confident that Ireland
was on the verge of awakening. It was hoped that the Theatre itself would eventually furnish a vehicle for intellectual literary expression and national thought appealing to people of all sections who desired to aid in serving the higher intellectual and artistic interest of their country.

                          After securing the funds and a license, the group then faced the problem of finding a place. The Ancient Concert Rooms in Dublin were decided upon and a company of actors was acquired. The problem of a producer was solved in George Moore. Much of his career lay outside of Ireland. He had been living abroad for years and was thoroughly familiar with the stage from his working in Paris. In 1899 they began their work on the production, and two plays were presented during the week of May 8. The first was Yeats’ “The Countess Kathleen“, which tells the story of a noble woman who sells her soul to demons in order to save her people from famine. The Irish people protested and regarded it as blasphemy. However, Yeats was seeking to stir up his countrymen intellectually and he succeeded with his first play. He appealed to what they knew, from the folklore of their old culture. “The Countess Kathleen” uses as its material the convergence of pagan and Christian of pagan and Christian Irish tradition” (7), both of which they knew well. The second play, Martyn’s “Heather Field” was produced on the following evening and was much better received than Yeats’ had been. It is concerned with a wealthy idealist who has courted disaster by his marri-age. It reflects the influence of Ibsen although the scene and characters are Irish.

                          From the very beginning, there was a vast difference of opinion between the theories of these two men. This was mainly the result of Martyn’s great admiration for Ibsen, and it was eventually caused a lasting separation between the two men. Actually, there was no reason for the rupture because they could have joined together and worked for the new drama movement but the difference was too great in their temperaments. “Martyn’s was undoubtedly was the keener and more profound intellect, while Yeats’ literary gifts were of a higher order.”  (8)

                       When the first few plays of the Irish Literary Theatre were presented, it was necessary to employ English actors, even though the plays were were by Irishmen. In 1901 a theatrical group, under the leadership of W.G. Fay and F.J. Fay, impressed Yeats and when Martyn and Moore went their separate ways, be became associated with them, and the name was changed from the Irish National Theatre to the Irish National Drama Company. In the same year, the first Gaelic play ever produced, was staged with amateur actors under the direction of W.G. Fay. In the audience were John Millington Synge and F.J. Fay. The whole point was to determine whether or not Irish plays could be acted by professional actors. The results were negative and it was determined that actors as well as audiences would have to be trained. Through the efforts of the Fay brothers, who had become interested in drama from observing the efforts of the Irish Literary Theatre, produced Alice Milligan’s ” Deliverance of Red Hugh.” Present in this audience were Yeats, Lady Gregory A.E. who were all very much impressed. It was the first time in the literary movement that results were beginning to show. The people were accepting the challenge offered them by this group determined to preserve Ireland’s culture.

                                              “In these first three years of experiment, therefore,
                                              the principles were established and the dual aim
                                              acknowledged; the theatre would be ‘national’, but
                                              first it must be art.’ “  (9)

                       Yeats, felt sufficiently encouraged to write:

                                              “We have brought the literary drama to Ireland, and�
                                              it has become a reality… In Ireland, we had among�
                                              our audience almost everybody who is making �
                                              opinion in Ireland, who is part of his time, and num-
                                              bers went out playhouse thinking a little differently
                                              of that Ireland which their work is shaping; some went
                                              away angry, some delighted, but all had seen that
                                              upon the stage at which they could not look alto-     �
                                              gether unmoved….”  (10)

                        Yeats’ remaining plays fall into three categories:

(1)  Those with stress on the heroic age put to verse,
(2) Those with historical qualities – folklore,
(3) Those with experimentation of new stage and dramatic techniques.

                         Except for one play, “The Pot of Broth“, which he wrote with Lady Gregory, Yeats concentrated on “the activity of the souls of the characters”. He was more involved with poetry and art and became greatly influenced by the Japanese theatre – “Artificiality became the very essence of Yeats plays.”  (11)  He brought in the new dramatic technique with the use of masks in his aesthetic theory, and he said in his ‘Autobiographies’ that active virtue as distinguished from passive acceptance of a current code is therefore theatrical, consciously dramatic, the wearing of a mask. He disliked the contemporary theatre because he felt it did not deal with mas as man. He said playwrights were not concerned with structure and language. He felt that the language should be their own poetic, native language of the peasants which again was fond in their ancient culture. It was through these new ideas that Yeats hoped to replace the Irish Literary Theatre which after its three years had terminated. He considered the new theatre as one in which scenery was simple, language poetic, and very little explanation on the part of actors to the audience.

                         It has already been noted that in many of these first plays, English actors were employed. This was out of necessity – All Irishmen were going to England and Yeats himself left for England in 1901 to write and wait for the opportunity to begin work on the new theatre. During this time, Irish playwriting continued. George Russell who chose to go by initials “A.E.”, published two scenes of his one-act play “Deirdre” which was read by the Fays. They urged him to finish it  so they could produce what they had been anticipating for three years – an all Irish play.

                         In April of 1902 under the joint leadership of Yeats and the Fay brothers, the first performance of the Irish National Dramatic Company was given. The two plays presented in St. Teresa’s Hall were: Russell’s “Deirdre” and Yeats’ “Kathleen ni Houlihan”, the first to be written, acted and staged entirely by Irishmen, and they performed without pay.

                         In December of 1902 the National Irish Theatre Society secured a small hall in which to give their performances. A year later Molesworth Hall was acquired and proved to be much more accessible than the previous one. It was in Molesworth Hall that Lady Gregory’s play “Twenty Five” was presented. It was the first of her plays to be staged. They also featured Yeats’ “The Hour Glass.”

                       One of the best known of the Abbey Group was John Millington Synge, who joined them in 1903. He met Yeats in Paris and was persuaded by him to return to Ireland and study its racial types and utilize them as the basis of his contribution to the new Irish drama. He lived right in with the peasants of the Aran Islands and the Irish-speaking West and learned as much as possible about them. His first play produced in 1903 was “In the Shadow of the Glen“. It was considered an ‘insult to Irish womanhood’ in its portrayal of the conventions of society. The following year, “Riders to the Sea” was produced. It was directly influenced by Synge’s contact with the peasants of the Aran Islands in that it dealt not with social issues as his others did but with life as it was to these people. He was most influential and a valuable asset to the formation of the Abbey.

                         In May of 1903, the Irish National Theatre Company went to London and staged a few of their plays. They were seen by  Miss A. Elizabeth Horniman, a wealthy woman who had become very interested in the arts and had known Yeats for about ten years. She was completely taken taken in by the freshness and richness of the Irish plays. She began helping with the costumes for the Irish players and became so involved with the theatre group that she offered money for a hall to be made into a theatre. “I searched to see if there were any possible places in Dublin. Some money came to me quite unexpectedly – enough for me to hire the halls of a derelict Mechanics’ Institute in Marlborough Street. There was no space for a vestibule, but the deserted morgue of the city was adjoining, so I hired that from the corpora-tion.”  (12)  The building eventually was to be called the “Abbey Theatre“.

                                            FOOTNOTES   of   CHAPTER  I

(1)    Sylaan Barnet, “The Genius of the Irish Theatre”, p.1.
(2)    Ann Saddlemyer, “The World of William Butler Yeats: The Cult of the
          Celt”, p.24.
(3)    Saddlemyer, p.24.
(4)    Saddlemyer, p.19.
(5)    Blance Kelly, “The Voice of the Irish”, p.253.
(6)    Saddlemyer, “Worn Out with Dreams”, p.108.
(7)    David R. Clark, “The World of William Butler Yeats”, p.159.
(8)    As same in (5), p.258.
(9)    As same in (2), p.109.
(10)  As same in (6), p.109.
(11)   William Butler Yeats, “Plays and Contraversies”, p.334.

                                                                CHAPTER   II

                                                                The ABBEY

                          It seemed ironic that the hall Frank Ray advocated the Theatre group build it 1901 materalized due to help from England,   “….. Not for  nationalist reasons, but for cosmopolitan ideals, and not to the society itself but to William Butler Yeats.”  (1)  The donor of course was Miss Hornimann who stressed the Samhain principles which had previously been advocated by Yeats. In her personal letters to the Directors of the Irish National Theatre Society, she made even more clear her own high ambitions and intense dislikes:

                                                 “The theatre is a means for carrying out a
                                                 certain theatrical scheme and as long as
                                                 you continue in the same path, the theatre
                                                 is at the disposal of you and your friends -
                                                 under whatever title you may choose to use.”  (2)

                          She stressed that her main interest in art, not Yeats when she said:
                                                  “I wanted to make the nucleus of an Art Theatre,
                                                  not for your work particular, but a theatre where
                                                  such work would be done and other good work
                                                  too of all kinds. The Dublin theatre was to be the
                                                  nucleus – the factory – the school – for an interna-
                                                  tional theatre.”  (3)

                          In 1904, Willie Eay was chosen as stage director and general manager of the new theatre. In December of that year the Abbey Theatre opened, named after the street on which it was located. The two plays presented were Yeats’ “On Baile’s Strand” and, Lady Gregory’s “Spreading the News.” The following year it was decided that changes must be made. The Society could not continue to exist under such “chaotic conditions.” During three years of the dramatic movement Yeats had always been considered one of the leaders, but as in every group or society, there was trouble over the balance of power. For several years it had been Yeats, Lady Gregory and eventually Synge on one side and on the other, A.E. and the nationalists as the opposition. The theatre was considered a politiclal group and many actors had backed A.E. for President because he was conscious of their feelings and sympathetic toward them. Yeats had become forceful in determining policies and theories both in England and Ireland but A.E. had become just as forceful. In 1904 the actors objected to the way in which they were completely ignored concerning decisions on which plays were accepted or rejected. A.E. suggested that actors be given a note on the decision and since there were more of them they would have control of the situation. Following this dispute came trouble concerning a tour to the
United States. A.E. opposed saying that he had no interest in work outside Ireland and if it was hopeless to expect success by working in Ireland with occasional tours in England, then he thought it was useless to continue taking any interest in the Society. With this opinion in mind he resigned a few days later, explaining that the Society was fully dependent upon Yeats and his work and since the two men varied so much in opinion, he felt it “…unfitting to retain an official position…” in the Society.

                          During that same year plans were begun to make the theatre group a professional society. A.E. offered to help draft a constitution and Miss Hornimann generously produced eight hundred pounds to meet with expense. There was a great deal of discussion and meetings but finally they agreed to appoint a Board of Directors who would be in charge of hiring and firing all employees, including the stage manager and business manager. The theatre was developing more than ever into Yeats’ idea of a ‘literary theatre.’ The nationalist group led by Marie Nic Shuibhlaigh felt the Society too far from a national theatre, and, they severed their connection with the Society.
Now the Directors were, who were Yeats, Lady Gregory and Synge were finally left to develop their idea the way they had intended to all along. However, they soon found there was difficulty even between them for each said his own thoughts of how the theatre was to be developed. Yeats’ idea was of course that the drama should be poetic and romantic while Lady Gregory and Synge differed.

                                                  “From the beginning, Lady Gregory made use of the
                                                  Anglo-Irish idiom which she has termed ‘Kiltartan’
                                                  after the district in which she heard it spoken and its
                                                  more obvious quaintness has given special quaint-
                                                  ness to her comedies. She did not secure the beauti-
                                                  ful effects of Synge; his ear for the harmonics of lan-
                                                  guage and his sense of poetic and dramatic style
                                                  were part of his genius.”  (5)

                         Both Lady Gregory and Synge required a different treatment for their peasant plays. Lady Gregory considered the theatre one in which beauty was what the writer should strive for an yet at the same time, he should be realistic. here was a “naturalist’ tradition evident with new playwrights such as William Boyle and Seuman O’Kelly, and in the “Arrow” of 1906, Yeats assured the Society that the “building of our theatre” took years of hard work and spoke of the representation of country life in future plays.

                         In August of 1905, W.A. Henderson was appointed business secretary to the National Literary Society to take care of the land of business transactions going on at the time. This gave the rest of the theatre group more time to devote to the artistic side of their work, but still there were more problems to face.

                                                  “In December of that year, Yeats addressed a
                                                  lenghty memorandum to his fellow directors,
                                                  elaborating the problem and suggesting a solution.
                                                  The popularity of the theatre at the moment depen-
                                                  ded he felt, on Lady Gregory and William Boyle who
                                                  would eventually tire the audience or create a
                                                  school of ‘bad imitators.’ On the other hand, no
                                                  second verse writer had appeared, and his own
                                                  work would not draw large audiences for a conside-
                                                  rable time.” (6)

                         Yeats offered a solution to the problem through the training of actors, audience and future dramatists as well as adding more capital in order to acquire more actors, who could express themselves in other aspects of the work. Also he suggested that Willi Fay be freed from all activities in order to improve and work on his own comedies. Since Yeats was the only writer of verse drama, he felt he should be allowed to choose his own players. His proposals resulted in much agitation from Synge and Lady Gregory. Synge felt that to turn their efforts to a dramatic literature in which the interest was in “the novelty of the new work” rather than the “quality of execution” and where the main interest would be in the inter-pretation of works “already received as classics” would be against the whole idea of the Irish Theatre and Ireland herself. Miss Hornimann who was dis-
satisfied with the Fay’s, offered to pay a new man to replace Willie Fay who she termed as ‘incapable.’ Lady Gregory was against the proposals especially in the changes of the Fays. She saw it inevitable that they would be dropped from the group were these ideas approved. She proposed that the Society continue for another six months and at the end of that period if the public does not appear pleased with what they have done, then a meeting would be held concerning any new decisions. It was offered for Yeats’ consideration and Synge and Lady Gregory agreed to accept a new man on certain terms: that Willie Fay be given a raise of one hudred pounds a year and a contract;
that writers be allowed to withdraw their plays if they want to at the end of six months; that Synge’s suggestions for a national theatre be agreed upon; and that a new man be a thoroughly theatrical businessman and preferably Irish.
                                                                                               �
                          When the new men was finally hired, in the form of Ben Iden Payne, he produced Lady Gregory’s translation of Maeterlick’s “L’İnterieur“  nd Wilfred Blunt’s “Fand”. But after all the discussion and trouble caused over the problem, he left in October. Because Synge and Lady Gregory employed much realism in their plays, they knew that the Fays were actors first, and producers second. The trouble reached a climax with the “Playboy”. Fay objected to the Directors’ interference with actors and demnded the right to choose the plays. The Directors rejected their requests and by rejecting it, lost their last oportunity to join the traditional theatre.

                          One last break was to occur between the Society and Miss Hornimann who finally recognized that the theatre she and Yeats had been dreaming about was not materializing, and she had seen his waisting his time. Miss Hornimann told them she did not intend to renew her subsidy and prepared to establish her reportory theatre in Manchester. She invited Yeats to join her but he refused, determined to continue to strive for his poetic ideal in the theatre.

                          In 1907 Synge’s “Playboy of the Western World” was produced and on its appearance all the antagonisms were aroused to a pitch of unusual violence, a veritable cult of hostility arose. He found himself , after four years, famous. The charm of the play lies uniquely with its verbal and imaginative qualities. During the play, there was constant noise and yelling on the part of the audience. The play continued despite of the fact that the players could not be heard. The press issued statements condemning the scandal of Synge’s play on the grounds that it portrayed murder as the country’s greatest tendency. The audience missed the whole point of Synge’s play. The first night of the play brought objections to the bad language used throughout the play on that occasion. Previously, Lady Gregory and Yeats who had objected to it also, directed that it be deleted and this order was overlooked by accident. Most of his work did at first provoke violence from the Irish public, especially “The Playboy”, but understandably so. These people, who after so many years of being treated by the English as shiftless, childlike people, were overly self-conscious about anything that might be construed as a slur on the Irish character. It now seems hardf to believe that the opening week of ‘Playboy’ in 1907 was marred by nightly rioting in the Abbey, despite of all Yeats’ pleas. This demonstration was repeated again in 1911 on the Abbey Players’ first American tour, when the Irish residents of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and other cities alerted by their relatives in the old country, greeted the play with hurled vegetables and cat-calls. What was meant as a comedy was taken as a vicious attack on the Irish. The people were quite obviously not ready for this type of play. The arguments against Synge’s ‘Playboy’ were most definitely emotional attacks with emotional reasons that no “amount of logic could refute.” It was the opinion of Lady Gregory that these demonstrations against Synge’s work contributed to the shortening of his life. (7)  “Deirdre of Sorrows” is filled with pathos supposedly of Synge’s state of mind at this time, but it still has a beauty all his own and a tragedy which goes back to the songs of the Shanachies in ancient Irish tradition. There is no question of his importance as an early Abbey Playwright, and his death in 1909 marked the greatest loss the Abbey experienced.

                         When Payne resigned after only about five months with the Abbey, Willie Ray assumed his old job. The old “pet peve” that the Directors should not have all the say in choosing of the plays was once again brought up. Willi Fay demanded the power of choosing the plays and controlling the actors. He received a negative reply and both Willie and Frank left the Abbey for good taking with them a good part of the theatre group. The Abbey was saved however through the development of new talent, including men such as Fred O’Donovan, a yoıng actor; Seuman O’Kelley a new author of several plays, including “The Matchmakers” presented in 1907 and “The Homecoming” in 1910. And, Lennox Robinson who became manager of Abbey in 1910.

                          Among the more important playwrites of the early Abbey were William Boyle and George Fitzmaurice. Their plays made the Abbey history and were considered quite successful. Among Boyle’s plays were “The Mineral Workers” (1906) and “The Family Failing” (1912). Fitzmaurice’s “The Country Dressmaker” (1907) presents some excellent character studies and dream motif. It owed much to Synge both in spirit and structure. His realism was a blend of the colorful fantasy of Synge’s and Lady Gregory’s world. His reality was considered harsher than any other playwright before him. “The Pie-Dish” was completely beyond the audience who could not understand the “Faustian fable”. His next play, “The Magic Glasses” wasn’t produced until 1913 and shortly thereafter he left the Abbey. He never succeeded in breaking through the barrier of misunderstanding, and overshadowed by Synge’s “Playboy“, his plays were not well received during the American tour of 1911, and Yeast lost in him, a force with which he could have harnessed in his battle against the “traditionalists” of the Abbey.

                           Following the American tour, Yeats gave Lady Fregory full control of the Abbey and left for England where he continued to write plays with much Japanese influence on them. He remained the Abbey underwriter but had given up his idea of ever making it entirely a poetic theatre. The theatre continued to remain a “storm center” but it developed its internatio- nal reputation. “The outbreak of the First World War and the controversies over conscription in Ireland, precipitated several crises, the climax coming with the Easter Rebellion of 1916.”  (8)  None of these developments helped the Abbey and it was forced to lessen its productions due to the small audience at this time. However, the Abbey continued on to uphold what was stated of the Samhine Principles: “We must name and number the passions and motives of men… There is no laughter too bitter; no irony too harsh for utterance, no passion is too terrible to be set before the minds of men…”  (9).

                                                      CHAPTER  II  FOOTNOTES

(1)   Ann Saddlemyer, “Worn Out with Dreams”, p.115.
(2)   Saddlemyer, p.115.
(3)   Blanchhe Kelly, “The Voice of the Irish”, p.116.
(4)   Saddlemyer, p.114.
(5)   Kelly, p.269.
(6)   Saddlemyer, p.119.
(7)   Kelly, p.267.
(8)   Kelly, p.234.
                                                   

                                                    The Abbey in Later Years

                            The coming of World War I and the Easter Rebellion did nothing to help the Abbey as it has already been pointed out. Trouble began breaking out in the Dublin slums with the Easter Rebellion in 1916 and it was during this time that a new name came upon the scene-that of Sean O’Casey
. He actually made his name between 1923 and 1928 and in certain ways he is considered closely related to Irish dramatists who had gone before him. At first glance, he appears quite different from the founders of the Abbey, but upon closer examination, one finds that even though his subjects and scenes are different, his reading of life, like that of all Irish dramatists, is at heart’s poet’s, even when his method and treatment are clear-cut and satiric. His work brings Irish drama well past another milestone in its history especially by reason of the fact that he has made contraversial use of a phase of current history. This is well illustrated in the “The Plough and the Stars” with its disillusioned and and embittered portrayal of the Easter Rebellion of 1916. Many other of his plays are filled with bitterness which is evident even though there are various scenes of comedy.

                O’Casey was born on March 30, 1891 into a world he describes as “… filled up with needs, ambitions, desires and ignorance of others, to be showed aside, pressed back, beaten down by priviledges carrying godwar-rants of superiority because they had dropped into a world a couple of hours earlier.” (1)  He was brought up in the Dublin slums and knew the life there well. He suffered ulcers of the eye as a child because his family was impower-
ished and couldn’t afford the proper treatment. He knew well what the slums of Ireland were like and and with his pen he vividly portrayed them. He began writing short stories while quite young but eventually took to play-writing. In 1919, he supposedly sent “The Frost and the Flower” to the Abbey but it was returned with a comment that the central characters stood out too dominantly, “dwarfing the others.” He corrected this but the play was returned again with the comment that the stature of the characters had been reduced ‘too much’. A long-time friend of Lady Gregory, O’Casey knew more than his share of playwriting not from an education in drama but to his observation of the plays presented in the Abbey Theatre. He was a frequent visitor to the theatre and learned a great deal from mere observation.

                 It was Yeats who advised him “to write of life as he knew it – it chanced to be the life in Dublin slums.”  (2)  He obviously listened to Yeats’ advice from the realism of his plays produced at the Abbey and his gratitude to Yeats is found in the words inscribed in a copy of “Juno and the Paycock” which he gave him:  “The man who by the criticism of a bad play of mine, made me write a good one.”  (3)

                  The immediate result of Yeats’ advice to O’Casey was “The Shadow of a Gunman“. There is a bit of mystery surrounding the early history of this play. One story is that Yeats came to him and asked him to change the name of the play “On the Run” since it was the title of another play in existence. As the story goes, O’Casey fell asleep and dreamt he saw a “gunman in a mirror” which reminded him of another name for his play. It is true that the play was first named “On the Run” and that the name was changed to ” The Shadow of a Gunman“, but that is all we know for certain. Another story is, Lady Gregory declared that they were “putting on the play for three nights, to let the poor fellow see how bed it was is fantastic.”  (4)

                  There seems to be many reasons for these stories but the most logical is the fact that the Abbey was  “facing bad days.” Synge was no longer appealing to the audience nor was Yeats writing many plays; he was more involved in poetry. The theatre was near bankruptcy, the plays were un-
exciting to the audience and there were no new dramatists to interest anyone. Then came O’Casey’s “Shadow of Gunman“;  his success was so sudden and unexpected that some actually were convinced that Sean O’-Casey was a “myth” and that one of the Directors had adopted the pen name.  (5)  The play was first presented at the Abbey on April 12, 1923. The reac-tion of the Irish press was a good indication of how the play was received:

                                                        “It was indeed a welcome and wholesome sign
                                                        to sit last nght in he Abbey Theatre and listen
                                                        to an audience squirming with laughter and�
                                                        revealing boisterously in the satire which Mr.
                                                        Sean O’Casey has put into his two-act play. Not
                                                        for a very long time has such a good play come
                                                        our way. It was brillant… truthful… decisive…
                                                        His characters were as perfect as his photogra-                                                        phy, for one really felt his men and women were
                                                        photographs, was nothing less than the work of
                                                        a genius.”

                 “The Plough and the Stars” was written in 1929. The title symbolized the flag that the short-lived Irish government set up during the rising. The main criticism of this play was that the characters were unrealistic and that the plot was not very strong. The reason it was so successful was apparently due to O’casey giving each character such an interesting part. The main character, Davoren has often been considered a picture of the author him-self – Davoren is portrayed as poetical and uses poetry to escape reality.
Through the conversations of Seumas and Davoren, O’Casey speaks his own mind concerning the state to which Ireland has been reduced through the Anglo-Irish wars.

                  The poetic theatre which Yeats had hoped for had not been realized by the time O’Casey became established as a playwrite. In fact it had become a realistic theatre and with O’Casey, this point was emphasized even further.
He had grown up in the slums and knew that tenement life was like. In telling this, he portrayed a very objective view, although personally involved. These early experiences became the basis for his plays.

                It is interesting to note the importance O’Casey places on the women in his plays. This could be due to his strong feelings for his mother, a poor, very hardworking Irishwoman whom he loved dearly. There is a bit of her portrayed in each oof his famous women characters: the brave but rash Minni Powell in the “Shadow of a Gunman”, in the nagging but heroic Juno in “Juno and the Paycock”; and the weak but affectionate Nora Clitheroe in “The�
Plow and the Stars.” In Mrs. Mrs. Grigson of the “Shadow of a Gunman”, O’-
Casey describes the typical woman of the slums:

                                                        “She is a woman about forty, but oooks much
                                                        older. She is one of the cave-dweller of Dublin,
                                                        living as she does in a tenement kitchen, to which
                                                        only an occasional sunlight filters through a gra-
                                                        ting in the yard; the consequent general dimness
                                                        of her abode has given her a habit of peering
                                                        through half-closed eyes. She is slovenly dressed
                                                        in an old skirt and bodice; her face is grimy; her
                                                        hair is constantly falling over her face, which she
                                                        is as frequently removing by rapid movements of
                                                        her right hand.”  (7)

                “The Shadow of a Gunman” brought a great amount of praise from the critics, and “Juno and the Paycock” became instantly popular in Dublin as well as in England. The Shadow and Juno had approximately the same theme, even though Juno is sonsidered in the long run to be a much better play, that of the tragedy of poor people were the only signs of courage are in the women. The men are portrayed as evading reality through drink.

                “The Plough and the Stars“  was presented for the first time in February of 1926, and the action took place during the Easter Week of 1916. The audience became as violent as the night Synge’s “Playboy” was presented
. The play had aroused trouble in the Abbey even before its performance due to the introduction of a prostitute. “It was denounced by rioters for bringing shame of the fair name of Ireland. They objected to the flag being shown in a public house, to certain of Rosie Redmond’s utterances, to the characterization of Clitheroe, Nora and Langon and in general to the ridiculing of the men, who had laid down their lives in Easter Week.”  How-ever, with all the trouble that he aroused, O’Casey remains a realist of the most uncompromising kind; one who has sympathy in abundance for his characters, but little for the audience; a dramatist who places life before us just as he sees it, without any preconceived motions or ideas.”  (9)

                Sean O’Casey brought throngs to the Abbey which had never happened before. It was fortunate for the Abbey that he turned up when he did because the state of the theatre had reached a very low ebb and he menaged to raise it up. He had developed a very strong friendship with Lady Gregory that lasted until her death in 1932. With the “Plough and Stars” came the end the of O’Casey’s career at the Abbey. His next play was the “Silver Tassie” which he sent to the Abbey because he wanted to remain an Abbey playright. However, with its rejection, the theatre lost O’Casey. He was very bitter toward the whole theatre group, although not much is known concer- ning exactly what happened. What is known is that he left Ireland for England <where he died at Devon, on April 18, 1964>.

                 The Abbey continueed with the works of such writers as Tutherford Mayne in the north, and, Lennox Robinson and T.C. Murray in the south, of the nineteen-thirties and forties. The most recent drama in Ireland includes
Rutherford Mayne’s “Bridgehead“(1934), Lennon Robinson’s “Church Street“  (1934); and,  “Killycraggs in Twilight” (1937);  T.C. Murray’s “Michaelmas Eve“  (1934). In 1939, William Butler Yeats died and with him, passed all the order of the Abbey Theatre. Even though it has managed to survive, it needs once more, a leader that is found in Yeats.

                In 1951, the original Abbey was destroyed by fire. Since then plans have been in process for a modern, very elaborate theatre to be erected on the same spot that the original once stood. Until the new Abbey is complet-ed, the plays have been presented at a temporary theatre called “Queen‘s Theatre“.  The plays continue in quite an active schedule and perhaps with the new Abbey, will come a new Yeats, a man who will give new vitality to the old so that once again the Abbey’s fame will rise above its home in the Emerald Isle.

                                              CHAPTER  III    FOOTNOTES

(1)   Saros, Cowasjee; “Sean O’Casey, The Man Behind the Plays”, p.1.
(2)   Lennox Robinson, “The Irish Theatre”, p.138.
(3)   Robinson, p.139.
(4)   Gabriel Fallon, “The Irish Digest”, p.25.
(5)   Cowasjee, p.29.
(6)   Cowasjee, p.30.
(7)   Sean O’Casey, “Shadow of a Gunman”, Act:II, p.138.
(8)   Cowasjee, p.81.
(9)   Robinson, p.150.

                                                                 CONCLUSION

                 The Irish poeple have struggled for many centuries to preserve what they possess in a pure, rich, Gaelic heritage. During the many years under English domination, their culture grew and was enhanced through the efforts of the simple Irish peasants. The Irish literature, poetry and drama therefore, has more than a touch of simplicity and this simplicity gives it the rich flavor it has been known for.

               The Abbey Theatre was the greatest instrumental force in strength-ening and unifying the Irish people to produce a literature of its own. The Abbey represents a long struggle for the preservation of Irish literature for which William Butler Yeats provided the necessary leader ship for its production. His efforts, combined with those of Lady Gregory and John Millington Synge, brought the Abbey its national fame. Under him, the Abbey flourished and thrived. For the first time Irish plays were written by Irish playwrites and played by Irish players. Ireland finally had a theatre of its own.

               With the death of William Butler Yeats came the temporary end of the Abbey’s thriving life. The Irish people once again faced the problem of find-ing a strong leader, and with the fire that destroyed it in 1952, they also faced the necessity of constructing a new Abbey. Although it has lessened its productions, Irish writers have never ceased their writing. Within the next few years the world of literature and drama will await the rebirth of the Abbey and the coming of a new leader. Perhaps the present lull is a signifi-cant “calm before the storm”. The Irish people are not a people to allow their heritage to lie dormant for long. It remains only a matter of time before the tiny, emerald isle will once more bring forth its contributions to the world of literature and drama.

                                                           BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnet, Sylaan;   “The Genius of the Irish Theatre”, Barnes & Noble, New York
                                  1955.
Cowasjee, Saros;   “Sean O’Casey: The Man Behind the Plays”, Oliver & Boyd,
                                  London, 1963.
Ellis-Fermor, Una.:   “The Irish Dramatic Movement”, Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
                                  London, 1939.
Fallon, Gabriel:   “The Irish Digest”, Dublin, November 1946.
Fay, Gerard:   “The Abbey Theatre: Cradle of Genius”, The Macmillan Comp.,
                                  New York, 1958.
Gerstenberger, Donna:  “John Millington Synge, Twayne Publ. Inc.;
                                  New York, 1964.
Gregory, Lady Isabella Augusta:  “Our Irish Theatre: A Chapter of Autobiog-
                                  raphy”, G.P. Putnam’s Sons; New York, 1939.
Jeffers, Norman:   “In Excited Reverie: A Century Tribute to William Butler
                                  Yeats”, MacMillan Co., New York, 1965.
Kelly, Blanche:   “The Voice of the Irish”, Sheed & Ward; New York, 1952.
Kurtoyne, Alice:   “The Irish Story”, P.J. Kennedy & Sons; N.Y,. 1960.
Loftus, Richard:   “Nationalism in Modern Anglo-Irish Poetry”, University of
                                  Wisconsin Press; 1949.
Nathan, George Jean, Ed.:   “Five Great Modern Irish Plays”, The Modern
                                  Library; New York, 1941.
Robinson, Lennox, Ed.,:   “The Irish Theatre”, Macmillan & Co.. Ltd.,
                                  London, 1942.
Skelton, Robin & Ann Saddlemyer, Eds.:   “The World of William Butler Yeats:
                                  Essays in Perspective”, Univ. of Washington Press;
                                  Seatle, 1965.
Synge, John Millington :   “The Complete Plays of John M. Synge”, Vintage
                                 Books; New York, 1980.
Yeats, William Butler : “Plays and Contraversies”, The Macmillan Company;
                                 New York, 1924.
Zwerdling, Alex.  :  “Yeats and Heroic Ideal”, University Press,
                                 New York, 1965.

                                                                     —————-

 

                                                   THEATRE OF THE ABSURD

(Prepared and written by: Christopher LACEY, student in the Master Program; Salve Regina College, Newport, R.I., & Psychology Professor and his Supervisor: Prof. Dr. İsmail Ersevim, M.D.; 1968, Spring Semester, as a base for his graduation thesis.)                                                      

(Not: Tekst”in sonunda da yazdığım gibi, Türkiye dönüşümden sonraki Tiyatro çalışmalarımda, bu konuda bir makale yazmıştım. Türkçe olarak yazılmış o kısa çalışmayı, 50 yıl evvel yazdığımdan farklı bir açıyı temsil etmesi ve ek bilgiler vermesi dolayısıyla, okuyucularıma tavsiye ederim. O makaleyi, İngilizce tekst’in sonunda bulacaksınız. Saygılarla. İ.E.

                                                                        -1-

                                                                      *      *

                                             PREFACE

                                 Who may tell the tale
                                 of the old man?
                                 weigh absence in a scale?
                                  mete want with a span?
                                  the sum assess
                                  of the world’s woe?
                                  nothingness in words enclose

                                                       Samuel BECKETT, addenda to Watt.

                                   The authors comprizing the ‘new’ theatre, the Theatre of the Absurd, are men attempting to tell this tale of nothingness in life. Through scrambled words and abrupt thoughts have the Absurdists depicted the sum, despairing, painful woe of worldly existence. However, the audience must be open to the cause of this new dramatic movement, as well as its future course. Once the spector comprehends the Absurdist message, he can discover for himself the validity of such a message; if he understands the new beliefs and their origins, only then can he begin to appreciate and perhaps to adapt in his own life (in any degree desired) the innate problems which the Absurdist playwright actualizes in decaying terms. The value of the contemporary “truthful” drama only then can begin to be evaluated.

                          We purpose in this paper to give a short history of the Theatre of the Absurd, thereby alowing the reader to be open to a discussion of Waiting for Godot, the masterpiece in two acts of the Theatre’s champion, Samuel Beckett. Upun realizing the literary skill utilized by a great author, the author is less inclined to ignore or ignorantly cendemn the Absurdist and his work. Rather, he can apply the message to his own existence and hopefully benefit. Perhaps for this ultimate benefitting, do the “Babel-writers” create their dark dramatic worlds: out of darkness comes light; out of dispair, hope…

                                                                    *    *    *

                                                                         -2-

                                          CHAPTER   I

                                          A world that can be explained by reasoning,
                                      however faulty, is a familiar world. But in a uni-
                                      verse that is suddenly deprived of illusions and
                                      of light, man feels a stranger. His is an irremedi-
                                      able exile, because he is deprived of memories of
                                      a lost homeland as much as lacks the hope of a
                                      promised land to come. This divorce between man
                                      and his life, the actor and his setting, truly
                                      constitutes the feeling of Absurdity.

                      The metaphysical anguish that Albert CAMUS is describing is explained farther by Eugene IONESCO, in an essay on KAFKA: “A b s u r d  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 (2). Hence, the Theatre of the Absurd is more than a theatre of the ‘ridiculous’, as an ordinary dictionary would interpret it to be.”

                      A burning knowledge of the senselessness of life, of the devaluation of ideals, purity, and purpose infiltrate the “absurd”, plays which demonstrate the inadequacy of rational approach by open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought. Hence, the play belonging to the Absurdist stream, actually presents it’s creator ideolojy rather than just preach it. Indeed, GIRADOUX, ANOUILH, SARTRE and CAMUS, while sharing the Absurdist theories, fail to put such ideals into practice: their plays are highly lucid and logically constructed. Camus tells the world that it fails to “make senese”, but he does so in well-constructed, polished dramas that have the ring of an elegant, rationalistic, eighteenth century moralist. Sartre defeats his principles of a changing essence and existence in his portrayals of brillantly-drawn characters who remain consistent despite their situations. Thus, while preaching a philosophy where man has the freedom to constantly create himself anew; Jean-Paul Sartre reflects the conventional idea that man has, at his core, an unchanging essence (i.e. an immortal soul.)

                                                                        -3-

                      Hence, it is this contradiction between thought and deed the dramatists of the Absurd are attempting to overcome. The Theatre of the Absurd presents man in his depravity rather than preaches such. However, the Absurdists do differ from their brothers. the French “avant-garde” poets, such as Michel de Ghekderode, Jacques Audiberti, Georges Neveux, and Henri Pichette. Both schools rely on fantasy and dream reality; both disregard the basic dramatic unities and dramatic “necessities”, such as character and plot consistencies. The “poetic avant-garde, however, aspires to consciously poetic speech — their plays are actually poems rich in images. The Absurdist theatre tends toward a rational devaluation of language: while language is important, the action of the characters ‘transcend’ and even ‘contradict’ the superficial speech of the characters.

                                                                    -4-

                         “Nothing changes less than the avant-garde-.(3)”  The so -called “radicalism” which strikes the audience viewing the Absurdist Theatre is not new in its essentials. Granted, the mere idea of a plot-less drama swamped with irrational statements is rather novel to the stage. But the plays of Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Harold Pinter, Arrabal, and Edward Albee reveal an ancient quest: the true picture of man in his everlasting confusion. Life is faced in its ultimate, stark reality. Man is stripped of the accidental qualities of social position or historical context and then confronted with his basic choices, the basic situations of mere existence. He is waiting and waiting — forever passed between the unavoidable forces of birth and death. Like the Greek tragedies and the medieval mystery plays, the Theatre of the Absurd is intent on making the audience fully aware of man’s mysterious and precarious place in the universe.

                         Born in France during post-war days, the new theatre is the product of World War II, Hitler, Freud and the atom bomb. While in ancient classical drama and in the medieval allegories, the ultimate realities concerned with man were generally known and universally believed, the ways of God to man neither explained nor pretended to be explained by the Absurdities. The theatre of today merely presents the individual’s intuition ofultimates as he experiences them in a confused time. Unfortunately, twentieth century society and its established conventions and dictates which show and pull men unmercifully has completely crusted man in an almost inevitable conformity. The individual has no time nor desire who he really is. Thus, a young man in this theatre can now approach a window, put a telescope to his eye, and truthfully agree with the statement that “There’s nothing out there to see.(4)” But such an action occur only in the Absurdist play — and even in such a play, truth is not well-received.

                                                                       -5-

                        Although society refuses to view itself if the picture is not complimentary, the innate curiosity of the contemporary drama is not a new development — only the discoveries are different. Neither Shakespeare nor his critics could decide if Hamlet was a man of action or a man of inaction. Whose fault was is that Lear’s children treat him as they do? Was Alceste, the misanthrope of Moliere, right or ridiculous — or both — for demanding a more honorable behavior by society? Indeed, man has always probed his basic nature in search of answers to “Who am I?” and “Where am I going?” and “Why do I act so?” Dictators have pushed man against his will; philosophers tell him he is free. Money solves any problem the world can offer, but death still sulks at each man’s doorstep. Where he can go? What can he do? The contemporary theatre offers an answer in the sole word,”nausea”. Man stumbles down the road of life for years in search of he knows not what, and in the end finds only nothing. Nihilism is indeed “nausea”.

                       The Theatre of the Absurd is a theatre of shock. It is like a child who suddenly notices the obvious and is shrilly shouting it to the world in brief, agitated, repetitious rhythms. But, like the child, it is shunned as uttering meaningless, immature babble. The shocking message is unheeded by the busy world who has no time for such “nonsense”.

                                                                         6-

                       Hence, the Absurdist play is short for the theme is simple to convey. To announce that man is nothing in a nothing-world does not require the conventional five acts: one or two acts are sufficient for an audience which will not stay to listen. The audience of the twentieth century is not ready to hear anyone’s persistent cries of ambiguity. He does not understand since no longer does he actually think past the weekly pay check or the situation comedies of televison. The “modern” man wonders why the Absurdist characters communicate, unmindful of the fact that his own communication with and understanding of other man is extremely limited. Indeed, the amount of self-knowledge is slight for man today: “You don’t know who you are until you’re dead (5)”.

                        We must admit that man has fallen into a sad state and must be jolted out of it. The crusted habits holding him to conventional molds of thought must be broken before the world breaks down completely. However, while the Theatre of the Absurd is shocking man into thinking, the ideas and conclusions it draws are not happy ones, for, to the Absurdist, the world has completedly collapsed. Can anything be done to correct the situation? Communication is impossible — how can man even attempt it with with pitiable tools? Encrustation is inevitable; identity exists on a driver’s license, but what if the wallet, and hence, the license are lost? Can anyone recitify this deplorable situation? Probably not, but man can recognize it. In the plays of the Absurd, the situation is recognized:only nothingness exists.

                                                                        -7-

                          Since nothingmess exists, now even stage directions can be concrete. How bare is a bare interior? The producer is confused by such vague directions as “He either kisses or does not kiss Winnie(6). Since the clock may ring as often it wishes. no two productions are certain to be alike. Niether is audience reaction concrete. Does the viewer grow angry or is he amused: Why do one or two people twitter in bewildered while the remainder sit somberly? Was the line meant to be funny or not? The answer cannot be a definite one. There is no established anchor pinning the theatre down to a specific mooring –the only significance of an Absurdist play is that life is meaningless. Hence, any method of production and any reactions are acceptable so long as the nothingness of man and this universe is understood.

                                                                          -8-

                      Thus, to comprehend the non-existence of reality is the sole task of the listener who is actually incapable of understanding. Nevertheless, regardless of his comprehensive ability, the tenets of the Theatre of the Absurd, the tenets of the every man in this world remain the same:
(1) Absurdity is the underlying principle of man’s existence. If he looks at himself honestly, man must admit that he lives in a void.
(2) Man is but a bogged pattern .. he ceases to change as he dwells in set cenventions and ideas. He is turning into automation, a machine, a thing.
(3) As man becones dead through a lack of change, his language becomes dead also. With such a tool, no communication is possible and each person is left alone in the world.
(4) There is no solidarity in man — he is but what he makes of himself. He is only an existent in a situation (7).

                       “There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false (8). The dramatists of the Absurd are not preaching the truth of this life. They are only attempting to show a perception of man which is more total and more merciless that man can bear readily. The Absurdist’s vision is meaningless to those for whom money and material can manipulate a Utopia which heals all. The new playwright sears the ordinary human being with the futility of life — but without any attempt to solace or advice. He only ‘describes what exists as an interior reality for some — and hence, for all’ (9). The sole problem of the Absurdist is for all to recognize the problem of life.

                                                                       -9-

                        We must be careful not to conceive of the Theatre of the Absurd as a school or a movement, however. Eash dramatist is an individual who deems himself as outsider who is totally isolated in his own private world. Each approaches his subject matter and form in an individual manner often dependent upon his own roots and background. They appear to have much in common, but this is because their works mirror the preoccupations, emotions, anxieties, and thoughts of a modern Western civilization. This transitory age, which they are all depicting, is actually a conglomeration of prehistoric cults and fanaticisims, mediavel beliefs, eighteenth century rationalism, and nineteen century Marxism. However, within this twentieth century, formerly-unshakable beliefs have been tested and found to be wanting. Faith in progress, nationalism, and other political fallacies, which once replaced religious faith, was completely shattered by the Second World War. Of this forsaken civilization, the Absurdist writes:
                        “All degenerates, all crumbles, all dims; the relationships and their questions remain.”(19) Man is doomed to continue through everything is actually nothing.

                                                                       -10-

                                                       Ch. 1  Footnotes;

                       (1) Albert Camus, “Le Mythe de Sisyphe”, as quoted by Martin Esslin inThe Theatre of the Absurd; xıx.
                       (2) Eugene Ionesco, “Dans les Armes de le Ville”, as quoted by Esslin,Theatre, xıx.
                       (3) Anouilh, “Du Chapitre des Chaises”, as quoted by  Leonard Fronko in Avant-Garde: The Experimental Theatre in France, p.197;
                       (4) Arthur L. Kopit, Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma’s Hung You in the Closet and I’m Feelin’ So Sad, p.492;
                       (5) Walter Kerr, “The Theatre in Spite of Itself”, p.198.
                       (6) Samuel Beckett, “Happy Days”, p.64.
                       (7) Pronko, p.19. These four principles of the Theatre of the Absurd do not necessarily exist in every play by every Absurdist. However, each play in this genre exhibits at least one tenet of the four.
                       (8) Harold Pinter, program note for the performance of of The Room> and The Dumb Walter, as quoted by Esslin, Theatre, p.206.
                       (9) Josephine Jacobsen and William Mueller, The Testament of Samuel Beckett, p.167.
                     (10) Ibid., p.159. 

                                                                        -11-

     CHAPTER    II

                     Waiting for Godot, the generally unappreciated tragicomedy written by Samuel Beckett, an Irishman who writes mainly in French, is the “masterpiece” of the Absurdist plays. Off all the dramas in the Absurdist vein, it is the most perfect in form and the most complete in anguish and desolation (1). The existentialism of modern thinkers, the horror of the Second World War, his isolation in Paris following years of lonely wanderings in search of life and love, all unite to form in Beckett the crippling despair which fills ‘every’ earthly existence.

                              It was an expression, symbolic in order to avoid
                              all personal error, by an author who expected
                              each member of his audience to draw his conclu-
                              sions, make his own errors. It asked nothing in
                              point, it forced no dramatized moral on the vie-
                              wer, it held out no specific hope. We’re still wai-
                              ting for Godot, and shall continue to wait. When
                              the scenery gets too drab and the action too slow,
                              we’ll call each other names and swear to part for-
                              ever—but then, there is no place to go! (2)

                     Such was the reaction of the audience for whom Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot was presented on November 19,1957. Fourteen hundred convicts “listened and looked two minutes too long” –the prisoners at San Quentin penitentiary stayed for the entire drama. Why did the Absurdist play succeed so? It did not preach to these depraved men; neither did it proffer any hope. However, it related life as they knew it only too well. Those convicts were not seeing Vladimir and Estragon as a sophisticated Broadway audience would: they viewed the play simply and hence, by them, its simple truth was perceived. No complex plot or characterization was necessary for the detached, “unencrusted” man to comprehend reality.

                                                                      -12-

                     Philosophy must be expressed in language. However, if the philosophy states that confusion and chaos from the human condition, then the play expressing the philosophy must make use of incongruity, interruptions, discontinuity, senseless logic and senseless repetition. While Godot is composed of such philosophical products, it maintains a remarkably strict form which is highly expressive of its meaning. Within each of the two acts, the form is the same — a series of movements that begin an assertion, a plan, a hope but quickly dissipate it. Throughout each days, the two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon (Didi and Gogo), wait for Godot, their savor-to-be. Each night they decide to leave, but the minute failing hope ties them down.

                     ESTRAGON :   What do we do now?
                     VLADIMIR :   I don’t know.
                     ESTRAGON :   Let’s go.
                     VLADIMIR :   We can’t.
                     ESTRAGON :   Why not?
                     VLADIMIR :   We’re waiting for Godot.
                     ESTRAGON :   (despairingly) Ah! (3)

                     The outcome is pitiable, pathetic, tragic; the entire situation is comic, however, but not in the tramps’ inability to help themselves. The meeting of tramps at the crossroads has always been the occasion in drama for laughter — and Vladimir and Estragon are not mere tramps but outrageously childish tramps. Herein lies the incongruity of the tragicomedy. On the shoulders of two “men” who cannot even think coherently, rest the essential problems of every man.

                                                                       -13-

                      VLADIMIR :  Charming every we’re having.
                      ESTRAGON :  Unforgettable.
                      VLADIMIR :  And it’s not over.
                      ESTRAGON :  Apparently not.
                      VLADIMIR :  It’s only the beginning.
                      ESTRAGON :  It’s awful.
                      VLADIMIR :  Worse than the pantomine. <Pandomim?>
                      ESTRAGON :  The circus.
                      VLADIMIR :  The music-hall.
                      ESTRAGON :  The circus.

                      As in any music-hall or circus, there is here within the tragedy, an element of crudely physical humor: Estragon loses his trousers and fails to notice any difference; there is a gag involving three hats which are put on and off and then handed on in a seemngly unending, confused sequence.

                      While most people think of freedom as a delight or a challenge, the tramps’ notion of freedom mirrors that of Faust:

                      But to new horror I awake each morn,
                      And I could weep hot tears, to see the sun
                      Down on another day…
                      Death fondly I desire, and life I hate.(5) 

                      Didi and Gogo have no inner resources, no friends, no recollections, no orientation in either time or space. They cannot remember even the preceeding twenty-four hours.

                                                                        -14-

                      ESTRAGON :   We came here yesterday.
                      VLADIMIR :   Ah no, there you’re mistaken.
                      ESTRAGON :   What did we do yesterday?
                      VLADIMIR :   What did we do yesterday?
                      ESTRAGON :   Yes.
                      VLADIMIR :   Why.(Angrily) Nothing is certain when you’re about
                      ESTRAGON :   In my opinion we were here.
                      VLADIMIR :   (looking around) : You recognize the place?
                      ESTRAGON :   I didn’t say that.
                      VLADIMIR :   Well?
                      ESTRAGON :   That makes no difference.
                                                                     ………………..
                      ESTRAGON :   You’re sure it was this evening?
                      VLADIMIR :   What?
                      ESTRAGON :   That we were to wait.
                      VLADIMIR :   He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think.
                                      ………………..
                      ESTRAGON :   (very insidious) :  But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? It is not rather Sunday? (Pause.) or Monday? (Pause.) or Friday?

                      Since the events of yesterday are dim, the experiences of prior years are lost completely. Nothing exists but the present and that is but a hell. Unfortunately, this hell is constantly reoccuring — over and over until death presents an end. This idea is evident in the similarity of Act II to Act I. The static situation opens with the two tramps waiting on a country road, by an old tree. At the end of the first act, they are informed that Mr. Godot, with whom they believe they have an appointment, cannot come but will surely come tomorrow. Act II repeats the same pattern: the same boy comes and delivers the same message. Act I ends with:

                                                                      -15-

                      ESTRAGON :  Well, shall we go?
                      VLADIMIR :  Yes, let’s go. (7)

                      But they do not move. Act II concludes with the very same lines of dialogue, but they are spoken by the same characters in reversed order.

                      Hence, all that changes is expressed in the three or four leaves embellishing the hither-to barren scrub of a tree. But the green leaves bring no hope; Spring is not a season of encouragement, joy, revitalization for the tramps, but only a time of continuing deterioratioın. This decay is explicit in the blindness of Bozzo, who had possessed sight only the day before. Death is always coming, but complete death never arrives (8).

                       The spark speech of the two waiting tramps reflects the desolation which inhibits their souls — and the confusion which floods their minds. Unable to concentrate upon their problems, the two futilely attempt to express themselves. Neither can say what he means, however; and what each utters is not comprehended by the other. Interruptions predominating the verbal portrayals of self stem not so much from any basic lack of respect, but from burning efforts to communicate. (9)

                      When one is alone, life is long. In the simple, monotonous song of Vladimir, the problem is evident.

                                                                        -16-

                       A dog came in the kitchen
                       And stole a crust of bread.
                       Then cook up with a ladle
                       And beat him till he was dead.

                       Then all the dogs came running
                       And dug the dog a tomb
                       And wrote upon the tombstone
                       For the eyes of the dog to come:

                       A dog came in the kitchen
                       And stole a crust of bread.
                       Then cook up with a ladle
                       And beat him till he was dead.

                       Then all the dogs came running
                       And dog the dog the tomb
                       And wrote upon the tombstone
                       For the eyes of dogs to come:

                       A dog came in the kitchen…(10)

                       Yet his companion in misery cannot reach out in solace, for Estragon does not understand Vladimir. Indeed, he does not even know himself. The Beckett hero can only try. But in their attempts, they talk incessantly.

                        ESTRAGON :  In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent.
                        VLADIMIR :  You’re right, we’re inexhaustible.
                        ESTRAGON :  It’s so we won’t think.
                        VLADIMIR :  We have that excuse.
                        ESTRAGON :  It’s so we won’t hear.
                        VLADIMIR :  We have our resons.
                        ESTRAGON :  All the dead voices.
                        VLADIMIR :  They make a noise like wings.
                        ESTRAGON :  Like leaves.
                        VLADIMIR :  Like sand.
                        ESTRAGON :  Like leaves (11)

                        A long silence follows this simple, repetitious tirade; finally, in anguish, Vladimir cries. ‘Say anything at all.’ (12)

                                                                       -17-

                        Thought is at the root of communication. Supreme thought is supposedly uttered by the abused Lucky, the harnessed employee of Pozzo, the merciful master. However, he can no longer dance or think as he once could. Pozzo recollects that “He even used to think very prettily once. I could listen to him for hours. Now… (he shudders.) So much the worse for me. (13)

                        Explaining the history of the world, Lucky includes in his farrage of words, a burlesque of the traditional arguments favoring the existence of a caring God. However, a lack of knowledge regarding history, religion, and science as characteristic of the tramps is exposed strongly in this ‘intelligent’ tirade of the ‘thinker’. Lucky:

                        “…it appears what is more much more grave that in the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the pains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume but not so fast I resume the skull fading fading fading and concurrently similtaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of tennis on on the beard of flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas..” (14)

                                                                          -18-

                         Such illogical, incoherent speech is reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s nonsense world. However, the satire, the entire meaning in Beckett’s lines can bring, not honest laughter and joy, but only compassionate tears, for this is not nonsense as much as it is genuine non-sense. It is a spurious irrationality, the uprooting of a rational mind, obtained by a careful system of inverting both letters within the word and words within the sentence (15). The abandonment of punctuation marks openly declares that language has lost its ability as a tool of effective communication. Language is just a gabble of a deteriorating society. Hence, through senseless logic, inarticulate words, and incoherency. Beckett is sketching a world devoid of purpose or meaning. The peoples of this world can join with Lucky in crying, “Alas! Alas!” ‘                                    

                                   There is no escape from the hours and the days.
                                   Neither from tomorrow nor from yesterday because
                                   yesterday has deformed us, or been deformed by
                                   us…. Yesterday is not a milestone that has been
                                   passed, but a daystone on the beaten truck of the
                                   years, and irremediably part of us, within us, heavy
                                   and dangerous. We are not merely more weary
                                   becasue of yesterday, we are other, no longer
                                   what we were before the calamity of yesterday.16.

                        No one can be sure of life, of others, of himself. With time in such a constant flux, doubt overcomes the individual who cannot even ‘know’ himself. Vladimir and Estragon, not sure of the savior Godot, are not even sure of the messenger boy who comes each night to confirm ‘tomorrow’ appointment(17). The boy is not recognized and his silence to Vladimir’s question, ‘You’re sure you saw me, eh, you won’t come and tell me tomorrow that you never saw me before?” (18) acknowledges a future failure to recall the tramps. Neither are Pozzo and Lucky recalled despite the fact that less than twenty-four hours passed since their first appearance. Is anyone the same today as he was yesterday? After the master and slave depart, Vladimir comments upon a change in them since yesterday. Estragon, who at first mistook Pozzo for Godot, professes that he didn’t konow them at all.

                                                                         -19-

                      VLADIMIR :   Yes you do know them.
                      ESTRAGON :    No I don’t know them.
                      VLADIMIR :    We know them, I tell you. You forget everything. (Pause. To himself) Unless they’re not the same.
                       ESTRAGON :    Why didn’t they recognize us, then?
                       VLADIMIR :    That means nothing. I too pretended not to recognize them. And then nobody ever recognizes us (19).

                        To experience the action of time is to wait; however, since nothing real ever happens, that experience of time (which is change) is in itself an allusion. Time’s ceaseless activity is self-defeating, purposeless. All is null and void. ‘One day is like another, and when we die, we might never have existed’(20). Indeed, Beckett says that since man cannot remember his beginnings, he cannot be sure he even had a beginning. While relying on hearsay, man must trust that, if we did have any commencement at all, it is both arbitrary and abrupt. Life is an exile, a punishment for the crime of being born, a crime which no man chooses to commit. Death is needed for these Beckett heroes who suffer deep “angoise” -anxiety- from life; but either, (1) Death ends the problems of life without actually solving them, or
       (2) Life continues beyond death, thereby leaving the problems still unsolved. What is the end desired so badly? Death does not solve anything; furthermore, the characters, though alive, are not certain that they are not actually dead. In fact, they wonder if they are actually existing, or if life is a dream. All the Beckett character can do is wait and wait — for what he does not know. He must escape from this endless time, but such an escape is impossible.

                        However, man will never completely give up in spite of his depravity; he will always continue to wait, to hope. For what does man wait? For what does he hope? ‘Tonight perhaps we shall sleep in his place, in the warmth, dry, our bellies full, on the straw. It is worth waiting for that, it is not? (21)’  A haven miraculously provided by a loving, watchful master is the longed-for goal of the waiting tramps. They desire a peace and permanence which lies outside the fleeing illusion of time. They want a real home.

                          Thus, the play can be classified as a symbolical and even as a religious one, although the religious overtones are perhaps are perhaps just an extraneous accident. Man is searching for salvation; indeed, this is the subject of the drama. However, no particular creed is declared or even proposed either as a means to a final goal or as a solace. Actually, according to Beckett, no faith can be verified since doubt, not belief, results from the ‘sheer accidents’ surrounding the roots of religion.

                           VLADIMIR :   And yet… (Pause)… how it is — this is not
                           boring you I hope — how is it that of the four Evan-
                           gelists only one speaks of a thief being saved. The
                           four of them were there — or thereabouts — and
                           only one speaks of a thief being saved. (Pause.) Come
                           on, Gogo, return the ball, can’t you, once in a way?
                           ESTRAGON :   (with exaggerated enthusiasm) : I find this
                           really most extraordinarily interesting.
                           VLADIMIR :   One out of four. Of the other three two
                           don’t mention any thieves at all and the third says
both of them abused him.
                     ……………………………………………………………………….
                            ESTRAGON :   Well? They don’t agree and that’s all
there is to it.
                            VLADIMIR :   But all four were there. And only one
speaks of  a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the others?
                             ESTRAGON :  Who believes him?
                             VLADIMIR :   Everybody. It’s the only version they know
                             (22).

                                                                        -20-

                             The crucification was witnessed by many, but only four men consigned it to written history. Millions believe in the saving of one thief, but why should one of four Evangelists be believed above the others? It is a reasonable percentage to trust that one of the two thieves was saved at the final moment, but is this actually true since the percentage of recorders mentioning the salvation is much less? The skeptical Estragon sneers,  ‘People are bloody ignorant apes’ (23). Chance, doubt, and despair bloats the lonely bodies existing on an unfriendly earth. Definitely, ‘It’s too much for one man’(24).

                         Vladimir and Estragon deliberate upon such common creeds
while awaiting their own earthly savior — the vague, misty, white-bearded Godot whose very name is reminiscent of the Almighty’s title (25).  This Godot, who has promised only to think over the supplication of the tramps, treats the messenger boy, who is a goatherd, well. The boy’s brother, a shepherd, is beaten by Godot. ‘And why doesn’t beat you?’ The child replies, ‘I don’t know, sir’ (26).

                             Overlooking the fact that Abel deserved preference because of his goodness, formed by the acts of his free will, Beckett continues an evident liking to Cain and Abel in the master’s ‘irrational’ preference of one lad over the other. The idea that Godot cherishes the minders of goats while beating the minders of sheep is contrary to the Lord’s action at the final judgment where ‘He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left’ (27). This somewhat imaginary god of Vladimir and Estragon is totally irrational and unpredictable. Although God’s final coming will bring both joy and damnation, Godot’s coming could bring either — and the tramps have no idea which befall them. In the second act, when Estragon thinks Godot is approaching, his first thought is, ‘I’m accursed!’ While Vladimir exclaims, ‘It’s Godot! At last! Let’s go and meet him,’  Estragon runs away, shouting, ‘I’m in hell’ (28). Indeed, a religious flavor even colors the view of Godot which the tramps fear and yet yearn for. They asked help of him in ‘a kind of prayer’ (29); they will gather their courage, squelch their fears, and approach Godot ‘on our hands and knees’ (30).

                        But Godot, with his haven of hay and warmth, never comes. Vladimir and Estragon wait and wait unknowing of what Godot will look like or what he will do. They will never despair completely.

                                                                       -21-

                        The “timelessness” pattern of the play is evident particularly in Estragon whose memory is useless since each day is not only endless, but meaningless, since it resembles its predecessors so closely that it can not be distinguished readily from even the most immediate. To kill this eternity of hellish time, Vladimir and Estragon play games — ‘Let’s contradict each other, ‘Let’s abuse each other’(31).

                        Waiting for Godot, then, is the ‘angoisse’ of the individual who is at grips with time. The finite clutches madly at the infinite. But nothing ever ends — neither story nor song, neither argument nor Godot.

                         In the play, there is no peak or climax; however, there is a lowest depth, a “nadir”. This occurs in Act II when Pozzo, Lucky, Didi and Gogo are all lying in the road. None are upright until Didi pulls himself up and with great satisfaction announces: “We are men!” (32).

                         Indeed, Vladimir and Estragon are more than the flightly scribbles of Beckett’s pen; they are not simply tossed off thoughtlessly as ‘bloody, ignorant apes’ (33) which populace the earth. Representative of all men living in this world, they are friendless and yet commplimentary, alone and yet dependent. They belong to a category of Parisians known as “clochards” — poeple who have known better times and who often (as here) have originally been cultured and educated. They are living rejects of destiny and love their own position as outsiders (34). Out of their love of helplessness and of dreams which they make no attempt to realize, they form an inability that no love of helplessness and solitude, but only the human condition, afflicts Vladimir and Estragon, they do experience the frustrations and resentment which accompany a mixture of affection and interdependence.

                        The two tramps possesss complementary personalities which enable them to exist in their twilight state. Vladimir is the more practical and the more aware of the two; Estragon claims to have been a poet. As he eats his carrot, Estragon feels that the more he eats of it, the less he likes it; Vladimir is persistent; Estragon, volatile. Estragon dreams; Vladimir cannot bear to hear about dreams. Stinking breath has Vladimir, while Estragon acknowledges his stinking feet. Although Vladimir remembers past events and beliefs, Estragon cannot recal even the most prominent or the simplest. Vladimir is upset by the funny stories that Estragon delights in telling. Vladimir mainly keeps and voices the hope that Godot will bring salvation to them; the skeptical Estragon cannot even retain Godot’s name. Vladimir, the leader, converses with the messenger boy; Estragon, the weaker the two, is beaten by unknown strangers every night. Hence, Vladimir assumes the role of protector of Estragon whom he sings to sleep and covers like a baby. Since they are diametrically opposed, Vladimir and Estragon naturally tend toward endless bickering; however, since they have complementary natures, they are interdependent and have to stay together.

                                                                       -22-

                        Upon the simpler level are the equally complementary, Pozzo (the sadistic, merciless master) and Lucky (the submissive slave). Unlike Vladimir and Estragon, however, there is a definite chamge in these two. In Act I, Pozzo is a rich and powerful man, certain of himself; he represents wordly men in their illusive optimism and imaginary visions of power and permanence. Carrying not only Pozzo’s language, but also the whip with which he is beaten, Lucky dances and thinks for Pozzo, although not nearly as well as he could years prior. Since Lucky taught Pozzo all the higher values of life, Lucky and Pozzo represent the relationship between ‘mind’ and ‘body’, between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’. However, Lucky’s enslavement depicts the subordination of the intellect to the bodily appetites. In the second act, Pozzo is still tied to Lucky; he has failed to sell him as he wanted to do, since Lucky’s powers were fading. But the change is obvious: Pozzo is now blind, Lucky is physically dumb.

                      Both master and servant, however, are still driven on by a desperate attempt to avoid the panic which would seize them if they lost their belief in what Pozzo stands for. Pozzo’s monosyllabic orders for Lucky are the end for both “men”. No other will but Pozzo’s exists: The whole universe for both is actually Pozzo. He destroys any growth by not listening to others and he ignores any urgency by fiddling with either his pipe or his mouth spray. Directly from this selfishness grows the pessimism which normally would not afflict a master free from want.

                                                                       -23-

                      Lucky earns his name for his life is organized by a master (be he cruel or not), who was actually extinguished any spark of spontaneity. His dancing is but a totter; his thought is nothing more than an endless repetition of meaningless words and phrases. While Lucky is the destroyed contact with man’s creative powers, Pozzo, a gruesome product of modern times, is a “small bundle of subjective feeling and responses” (36) which sometimes wallows in self pity but which represses its fears with narcissistic pretence.

                      Pozzo’s blindness and Lucky’s dumbness in Act II of Waiting for Godot fully manifest the inability to meet others. Despite this lack of understanding, of communication, of friendliness, neither Pozzo nor Lucky, Vladimir nor Estragon ever acknowledge defeat. There is no climax, but they do rise up, if only to an inexhaustible wait for nothing.

                                                               Ch.2 Footnotes

            (1) George R. Kernodle, “Invitation to the Theatre”, p.315;
            (2) “San Quentin News”, as quoted by Esslin, “Theatre”, xvı;
            (3) Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”, pp.:38-9;
            (4) Ibid., p.26;
            (5) Goethe,  “Faust”, Edwin Everett, Calvin Brown and John Wade, editors, in “Masterworks of World Literature”, p.596;
            (6) Beckett, “Godot”, p.8;
            (7) Ibid., p.45;
            (8) Ibid., p.69;

                              VLADIMIR :  All I know is that the hours are long, under these conditions, and constrain us to beguile them with proceedings with — how shall I say — which may at first sight seem reasonable, until they become a habit. You may say it to prevent our reason from foundering. No doubt. But has it not long been straying in the night without end of the abyssal depths?

                                                                       -24-

            (9) Indeed, if one cannnot communicate, one cannot understand and hence, one cannot hold any respect for another human being. However, this lack of respect would flow from the incapability to communicate, rather than be the cause of such a vice. Respect, nevertheless, is definitely lost as the dignity of man is destroyed. Beckett has no less than forty-five directions in which at least one of the characters loses his upright position, which already symbolizes the dignity of man;
         (10) Beckett, Godot, p.46;
         (11)  Ibid., p.51;
         (12)  Ibid., p.52;
         (13)  Ibid., p.30;
         (14)  Ibid., p.35;
         (15)  Richard Coe, “Samuel Beckett”,, p.53;
         (16)  Beckett, “Proust”, pp:2-3;
         (17)  In the original work, “En Attendant Godot”, Beckett save explicitly that the boy who came the second night is the same that come the first night.
         (18)  Beckett, “Godot”, p.80;
         (19)  Ibid., p.39;
         (20)  Esslin, “Theatre”, p.19;
         (21)  Beckett, “En Attendant Godot”, as quoted by Esslin, “Theatre”, p.19;
         (22)  Beckett, “Godot”, pp:6-7;
         (23)  Ibid., p.7;
         (24)  Ibid., p.4;
         (25)  While the name “Godot” is similar to the English name for the ‘Supreme Ruler’ of the universe, there are other logical origins for Beckett’s choosing of the earthly savior’s name. GODEAU was the name of the veteran French racing-cyclist, the “man on a bicycle”. In Russian, “god” means a ‘year’, or, quite frequently, ‘Father Time’. However, “ot” at the end of a word can denote a clown: “charl-ot”, “pierre-ot”. (Coe, “Beckett”, p.93);
         (26) Beckett, “Godot”, p.62;
         (27) Matthew, “The Gospel According to Saint Mathew”, pp.25-33;
         (28) Beckett, “Godot”, p.62;
         (29) Ibid., p.11;
         (30) Ibid., p.12;
         (31) Ibid.,  p.64;
         (32) Ibid.,  p.70;
         (33) Ibid.,  p.7;
         (34) Eva Matman, “Reflections on Samuel Beckett’s Plays” in Esslin, “Samuel Beckett: A Collection of Critical Essays”, p.121;
         (35) Esslin, “Theatre”, p.15;
         (36) D. Scott, as quoted by Eva Matman, “Reflections”, p.122.

                                                                     -25-

      CHAPTER III

                                     Out, out, brief candle!
                                     Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
                                     That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
                                     And then is heard no more. It is a tale
                                     Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
                                     Signifying nothing.

                Are the plays of the Theatre of the Absurd merely absurd tales which have no meaning? Is the theatre of the Absurd really absurd? Was Samuel Beckett a deranged author who scribbled his so-called ‘masterpiece’ Waiting for Godot, without any thought?  To discover the truth, the Theatre and its products must be investigated and then evaluated on two levels:
 (1) the artistic, and  (2) the philosophical.

                Ezra POUND once said, “Good writing is writing that is perfectly controlled, the writer says just what he means…” (2)  Hence, if the Absurdist playwright has expressed what he actually meant to express, then he Absurdist play is ‘good writing.’ However, can we call his work ‘great?’ Can we dare compare it to the works of Shakespeare and the other accepted masters? The ordinary critic would hasten to say no, for on quick examination, the Absurdist play does not conform to the five basic questions asked for a claim to greatness:

                Does the play:
                — possess universality of the appelal in time and space?
                — create living characters in convincing situations?
                — stir, move, enrich, or transfor us?
                — express its thought in beautiful or appropriate language?
                — teach life’s meaning and strengthen our own hand in facing life’s
                      problems?

                On closer examination, however, the new type of drama does conform to Mersand’s basic requirements for greatness. In regard to the first question, the critic immediately connects the stark stage and dialogue with the twentieth century’s forlorn attitude that God is dead and man is alone in an unfriendly world. However, in former ages, did religious beliefs and rituals give meaning to the life of every single person? Where there none who floundered in a sea of doubt? Were there no pagans, atheists, Epicurians or materialists who doubted the existence of a god, and hence, the meaning of their own lives? We hardly think so. Hence, the lost validity -at least for some members of every society and age- of standards and concepts is beginning to be presented on stage.

                  Though unbelievable to the masses, though doubtful of their own vitality, the characters of the dramas in the Absurdist vein are actually living people. Not in a story do they portray various parts, but within a situation, a reoccuring yet static situation representing life on earth. No marvelously constructed intrigues, no devices, no climax glorify their roles. Rather, they are merely confused brethren who are stripped of the

                                                                     -26-

accidental circumstances of historical and social position, who are hounded by the basic situations of human existence, who are confronted with the basic choices in life. Man is faced ultimately with the absurdity of time itself; hence, he waits and waits — hating birth, confused of life, fearing death. Caught between birth and death, he views life as a series of misty illusions in a mirror which will never reflect ultimate reality.

                 The Theatre of the Absurd is not concerned with portraying the problems and lives of the pseudo-realistic characters which exist apart from the author’s inner world. It is not bothered with the representation of events, the narration of fate, or the adventures of characters. It does present the basic situation of one individual existence on earth. Hence, it is a “theatre of situation” rather than a “theatre of sequential events.”  Therefore, the language of the theatre is based upon concrete images, not upon argumentative or discursive speech. Since the Theatre of the Absurd is attempting to simply present a sense of being which inflicts all of mankind, it cannot investigate or solve the problems of conduct or morals”(4).

                                                                     -27-

                 The great classical drama will depict human emotions locked in conflict or opposing temperaments in clash. Projecting the author’s private world, such ‘valid’ characters are missing in the new genre; hence, the Theatre of the Absurd aims at concentration and depth. Naturally, dramatic, narrative and lyrical elements are necessary in every play; but the Absurdist play strives to avoid over-emphasis on such elements which tend to promote plot, characterization, psychology. The sole thing the new drama wishes to portray is the “intuition in depth” that nothing ever really happens. Such a complex idea cannot be presented in one single moment; the events conveying the thought must be spread out and repeated over and over again in an extension of time. But time s not necessary to any unfolding of plot.

                 The work of an Absurdist author can stir an audience in one of two directions: (1) Like the San Quentin inmates, the audiance can be held in suspence, for it comprehends the absurdity of life, or (2) like the countless Broadway ‘sophisticates’, The audience can leave the theatre, nauseous at the idea of such ‘trash’ infiltrating the great stages. However, no one can watch an Absurdist play without experiencing some kind of reaction.

                  For the audience who stays for the entire Absurdist drama, the customary identification with characters is difficult, especially if the audience can appreciate but cannot partake in the views and emotions of the author. Such views and emotions, motives and actions remain largely incomprehensible the characters, separated from the rest of humanity, become less than human. This inability to identify with the portrayed, hastens an audience acceptance of the play as “comical”. Thus, the sombre, bitter and violent theatre becomes a “comic theatre” where horror is combined with laughter.

                                                                      -28-

                  In the Theatre of the Absurd, the audience sees actions with lack obvious motivation, characters who are in constant flux, happenings that extend beyond the ordinary realm of rational experience. While the audience viewing a ‘normal’ play can guess what will happen next, the audience at an Absurdist play cannot work out an answer to the question of how the play will proceed. Rules of ordinary probability based upon fixed motives and characterizations are foreign to the  “new” play. “What is happening?” is a more vital question than “What will happen next?” Hence, dramatic suspense is not actually eliminated from the play. The spectator must formulate the questions necessarily to understand basic meaning of the drama, rather than search for a solution. Instead of proceeding from A to B to C -as is customary in most stories and plays-, the Absurdist works build up a complex pattern of images which will convey the essential meaning of life. The dramatic suspense rests in the endless wait for the complete pattern image, the complete nihilistic image.

                                  VLADIMIR:  After having sucked all the good out of
                                   him you chuck him away like a… like a banana skin.
                                   Really…

                                                                        -29-

                  While the language of the Absurdist play generally is poetic, being rich in images, the language simultaneously is extremely ugly. Stark and often vulgar, the lines reflect the meaningless anguish that wrenches man daily. As the tool of man who is constantly living and dying in miserable solitude, the language is also despairing and dying. Thus, the illegible, unpunctuated lines such as those composing Pozzo’s speech depicting the creation of the universe are more than a childish scrambling of letters on a blank page. Yet, at the same time, language is but the tokens in a game designed to pass eternal time: “…bable, bable, words like the solitary child who turns himself into children, two, three, so as to be together and whisper together in the dark… moment upon moment, patterng down (7).”  In a purposeless world devoid of ultimate objectives, it is time itself that drains even language of meaning and life.

                  Hence, although the language is not always beautiful, it is appropriate. Although speech communicates the absurdity in life, Beckett feels compelled to inform others of his bleak philosophy: ‘I’m obliged to speak…. I shall never be silent (8).” In Molloy he defines exactly what he must communicate:

                  I listen, and the voice is of a world collapsing endlessly, a frozen world, under a faint untroubled sky,… enough to see by, yes, and frozen too… only these leaning things, forever lapsing and crumbling away, beneath a sky without memory of morning or hope of night (9).

                   But does the Absurdist drama actually teach mankind anything of life? Does it solve any of the man’s problems? Does the audience benefit from three hours of attentive listening? Certainly, the play of the Absurdist cannot solve any problems. It is a play meant to portray man’s helplessness on earth; it can neither eliminate nor ease man’s misery. In Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the tramps are left in their endless wait, still hoping, still despairing. Vladimir and Estragon’s greatest trial is not and cannot be resolved. However, the “new” drama does present man with a definite philosophy, a philosophy, which if true, has been deliberately ignored by men and dramatists alike. The Theatre of the Absurd openly and satirically castigates the stupidity of life lived unconsciously. In the Absurdist works is a sense of living death, of the mechanical senselessness of “half-unconscious lives”, and of the feeling of “human beings secreting inhumanity”(10).

                      In certain hours of lucidity, the mechanical aspect of
                      their gestures, their senseless pantomime, makes stupid ev-
                      erything around them. A man speaking on the telephone
                      behind a glass partition — one cannot hear him but observes
                      trivial gesturing. One asks oneself, why is he alive? This ma-
                      laise in front of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable let-
                      down when faced with the image of what we are this ‘nausea’-
                      as a contemporary writer calls it also is the Absurd (11).

                                                                     -30-

                  Lou Bruder has described the plays of the Babel-writers as the
“swansong of bourgeois society” (12). Voicing the horror of a pseudo-society, the avant-garde theatre has survived the continual censure of almost two decades — and neither swansong nor society seems to be vanishing. As artificial people continue their masquerade in the world, the Theatre will continue to thrive in violent rebellion.

                 However, critics (whom Beckett has placed lowest on the social ladder — below moron, vermin, abortion, morpion, sewer-rat, curate and cretin (13) hasten to ridicule these contemporary dramas on the basis of the philosophy which forms the backbone and fiber of the plays. Ironically, Christian critics are split over  the question of the philosophical worth of the dramas. Many deride the entire Absurdist output which concretizes the Absurdist principles of futility, for they believe God gives meaning and order to life in this universe. The Redemptive act eliminates the hopelessness that inflates the lost souls. Lumley perhaps the best represents the combined criticism of these Christians who refuse to believe that man can, at times, doubt and be lost:

                         Even at the risk of a sounding like a second Clement Scott
                         writing on a new Ghosts, it seems to this writer that this
                         play is more akin to a cesspool of the degradations of
                         human souls than a tragedy of misfortune. Is there no limit
                         to the depths to which man may descend and is there so
                         little faith left in man that he must lie here forgotten? Will
                         he never be given a resurrection, will we never again have
                         new horizons opened to us through the nobility of man and
                         be able to enter a world not altogether unlike our own where
                         there is no exploitations of facile optimism or morbid
                         despair? (14).

                                                                       -31-

                 However, there are those other Christian critics who, overlooking the frequent phrases of despair uttered by Vladimir and Estragon, wish to adapt the Absurdist plays top a modern Christian life. Though the name “Godot” is similar to the English title “God”, though the tree does not turn green, though perhaps Lucky and Pozzo do afford Vladimir and Estragon the one opportunity to give of themselves in a Christian manner — I am sure that Samuel  Beckett never meant his drama to be a Christian morality play. However, the scraggily tree will be pronounced again and again to be the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life, the Cross, or the Tree of Judas. Again and again over-enthusiastic, but rather blind, critics will proclaim Waiting for Godot(and the other Absurdist dramas) to be a “modern morality play on permanent Christian themes” which represents the “tension and uncertainity in which the average Christian must live in this world” (15). Unfortunately, the statement of Beckett himself regarding who or what is meant by Godot is either ignored or rejected: “If I knew, I would have said so in the play(16)”.

                 To attempt to arrive at any clear-cut interpretation of Waiting for Godot by establishing the identity of Godot through critical analysis is as foolish as trying to discover the sketch lines behind one of Rembrant’s paintings by scraping away the layers of paint. In Waiting for Godot, the ebb and flow of uncertainty (from the hope of discovering Godot to its repeated disappointments felt by both trramps and audience) are in themselves the essence of the play.

                  Uncertainty! But according to the metaphysics of Gorgias of Lentini and his followers, the Absurdist play cannot even exist, nevermind be of one or another school:

                  (1) There is nothing which has any real existence;
                  (2) That even if anything did exist, it could not be known;
                  (3) That supposing real existence to be knowable, the knowled-
                       ge would be incommunicable (17). 

                  In arguing the third of these propositions, Gorgias states that language is inadequate to convey ideas and that it is impossible for any idea to be the same in even two different minds. It is with this third proposition that Beckett wrestles. Speech is his medium and yet it is inadequate to convey the haunting misery which fills him and the men whom he urges to
think regarding their situations. Easy is it to inspire men to joy and glory; most difficult, to have them acknowledged, even privately, the gloom that overshadows every second of life according to the existential philosophy. Pozzo mirrors the impatience which frustrates the man driven by Beckett and his comrades: “Have you not done tormenting me…” (18). 

                                                                     -32-

                  Be Beckett’s nihilistic, nauseous philosophy a real philosophy buried deep in the breast of men or a fanciful product of his restless imagination, his plays and those of the other Absurdists do actually exist. The Greeks produced works which continue to be acclaimed centuries later: The truth or falsity of the Greek culture with its realms of intervening gods does not affect the value of the plays as much. Be the philosophies enhancing the Grecian dramas the product of the author’s private beliefs or the generally accepted ideas of the people, be the philosophies true or false — the plays remain the same. Their work is decided according to the criteria which Ezra Pound exhorts:

                “All is still. No living soul in sight. There is no one to ask. The world is feeding. The wind scarcely stirs the leaves and the birds are tired singing. The cows and sheep ruminate in silence. The dogs are hushed and the hens sprawl torpid in the dust. We are alone. There is no one to ask. (19).”

                 Perhaps Beckett’in lines pertain not only to humanity as humanity — perhaps they pertain also to the individuals watching the avant-garde theatre. Let the individual spectator view the play, retire in solitude and dwell upon how much Beckett’s philosophy pertain to his own life. How alone is he? Can he hope to achieve any happiness? What is the purpose, the meaning of life? The individual in the audience must question himself. There is no one to ask, no authority to explain. Even if there were someone to quiz about the innermost questions of life, there would be no reply — “pas de reponse!” (20) While man can perhaps agree with Pozzo’s appraisal of the world, he cannot agree with Pozzo’s response:

                   “The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors. Let us not speak well of it either. Let us not speak of it at all (21).”

                    The observor of the Absurd must go and decide for himself the meaning of life “on this bitch of an earth” (22).

                                                                     -33-

                                                        Ch. ııı  Footnotes;

                (1)  Shakespeare, “Macbeth”, vol.1, pp:24-8, as printed in G.B. Harrison, Shakespeare: Major Plays and the Sonnets, p.860;
                (2)  Ezra Pound, “Literary Essays”, p.50;
                (3)  Joseph Mersand, “The Play’s the Thing”, as quoted by Edward Wright, ‘Understanding Today’s Theatre, p.65;
                (4)  Esslin, Theatre, pp.293-4;
                (5)  Ibid., p.294;
                (6)  Beckett, Godot, p.25;
                (7)  Beckett, Endgame, p.70;
                (8)  Beckett, as quoted by Jean-Jacques Mayous, Samuel Beckett and Universal Parady; in Esslin, Samuel Beckett, p.81;
                (9)  Beckett, Molloy, p.53;
                (10)Esslin,Theatre, p.291;
                (11)Albert Camus, “Le Mythe de Sisyphe”, as quoted by Esslin, Theatre, pp.291-2;
                (12)Lou Bruder, as quoted by Pronko, Avant-Garde, p.206;
                (13)Beckett, Godot, p.64;
                (14)Frederick Lumley, Trends in Twentieth Century Drama, p.142;
                (15)George Wellwarth, The Theatre of Protest and Paradox: Developments in the Avant-Garde Drama, p.40;
                (16)Beckett,as quoted by Alan Schueider,in Esslin,Theatre, p.12;
                (17)Gorgias’ Philosophy, as summarized in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is quoted by A.J. Leventhal, “The Beckett Hero”; in Esslin’s “Samuel Beckett”, p.46.
                (18)Beckett, <Godot, p.77;
                (19)Beckett, “All That Fall”, as quoted by Leventhal,The Beckett Hero, p.51;
               (20)Beckett, “Comment C’est”, as quoted by Pronko, Avant-Garde, p.51;
               (21)Beckett, Godot, pp.24-5;
               (22)Ibid., p.29.

                                                                     -34-

                                                ——-CONCLUSION——

                            There is nothing to express, nothing with which
                            to express, nothing from which to express, no
                            power to express, no desire to express, together
                            with an obligation to express. –
                                                                       J. Mitchall Morse

                 The technically honest but spiritually nauseating works of Absurdists have been similtaneously ignored, rejected and acclaimed. As literary creations portraying well the nihilism of the Absurdist existential philosophy, they are good, perhaps even truly great works. As the exposition of the soul who continually flounders in a dark and murky sea, the dramas of the Theatre of the Absurd must be accepted or rejected by the individual in accordance with his own beliefs. But these new dramas cannot be ignored any longer by the intelligent human being who lives consciously in this twentieth century. Samuel Beckett and his companions in this developing, degenerating Theatre of the Absurd have paved the way for those who are searing for the secrets of not only their inner, essential beings, but also life upon earth. The door to life is ajar; now the individual human being can open it fully and then step beyond it into either chosen darkness or brillant light.

                                                                      -35-

                                              ——–BIBLIOGRAPHY——-

ABEL, Lionel. “Metathatre: A New View of Dramatic Form”. Hill and Wang,
        New York, 1963.
BECKETT, Samuel. “Endgame followed by act Without Words”, Grove Press,
        New York, 1958.
          “                 “     “Happy Days.”, Grove Press, New York, 1961.
          “                 “     “Molloy.”, Grove Press, New York, 1955.
          “                 “     “Proust.”, Grove Press, New York,  no date.
          “                 “     “Waiting for Godot.”, Grove Press, New York 1954.
 COE, Richard. “Samuel Beckett.”, Grove Press, New York, 1964.
 ESSLIN, Martin. Ed. “Samuel Beckett: A Collection of Critical Essays.”
        Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1965.
 ESSLIN, Martin. “The Theatre of the Absurd.”, Doubleday & Comp.,
        New York, 1961.
 EVERETT, Edwin M.; BROWN, Calvin S.; WADE, John D.; Editors, “Master-
        works of World Literature.”, Vol.II; Holt, Rinhart and Winston,
        New York, 1962.
 GASGOIGNE, Bamber. “Twentieth-Century Drama.”, Barrie & Rockliff,
       London, 1960.
 HARRISON, G.B. “Shakespeare: Major Plays and the Sonnets.”, Harcourt,
       Brace & World, Inc., New York, 1948.
 HOFFMAN, Frederick J. “Samuel Beckett: The Language of Self.”, E.P. Dutton
       & Co., Inc., New York, 1964.
 JACOBSEN, Josephine; MUELLER, William R. “The Testament of Samuel
       Beckett.”, Hill and Wang, New York, 1967.
 KERNODLE, George R.; “Invitation to the Theatre.”, Harcourt, Brace &
       World Inc., New York, 1967.
 KERR, Walter; “The Theatre in Spite of Itself.”,  Simon and Schuster,
       New York, 1963.
 KOPIT, Arthur L.; “Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma’s Hung You in the Closet and
       I’m Feeling So Sad.”, Hill and Wang, New York, 1960.
 LUMLEY, Frederick. “Trends in Twentieth Century Drama.” Barry and
       Rockcliff, London, 1960.
 The NEW CATHOLIC EDITION of the BIBLE.”, Catholic Book Publishing
       Company, New York, 1952.
 POUND, Ezra. “Literary Essays.” New Directions, Norfolk, Conn., 1954.
 PRONKO, Leonard Cabell. “Avant-Garde: The Experimental Theater in
       France.” University of California Press, Los Angeles, Calif., 1964.
 WELLWARTH, George. “The Theater of Protest and Paradox: Developments
       in the Avant-Garde Drama.” New York University Press, New York,
       1964.
 WRIGHT, Edward A.; “Understanding Today’s Theater.” Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
        Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1959.

                                                                    ————

         Aşağı yukarı 50 yıl sonra, Türkiye-İstanbul’da,  Tiyatro çalışmalarımız esnasında, esinlenerek “Uyumsuz Tiyatro-Absurd Theatre” hakkında düşün-
düklerimi aşağıya kaydediyorum. Lisan bilmeyen ya da bildiği halde konuya başka açıdan bakma fırsatı verecek bu yazım için, okuyanlara şimdiden teşekkür ederim.

                                                                                                Dr. İsmail Ersevim

                                            A b s ü r d  (Uyumsuz)  T i y a t r o

            Brecht klasik tiyatrodan ayrılım stilini empoze ederken, özellikle Varoluşçuluk felsefesinin (existentialism) ve onun bayrağını taşıyanların, örneğin Jean-Paul Sartre  ve Camus, felsefi görüş ve yazışmalar, roman ve piyeslerinin etkisi altında da, yeni bir akım tiyatroyu da içine alacak şekilde Avrupanın kültür sahnelerini işgal etmeye başlamıştı. Bu da, A b s ü r d (Esasında saçma, anlamsız, fakat Edebiyat dilinde ‘Uyumsuz’) T i y a t r o  akımıdır.

            J.Paul Sartre’ın Exit’ini hep hatırlarız. ‘No exit’ – Çıkış Yok diye sahnelenmişti özellikle; Boston’da Fransızcasını, İstanbul’da Türkçesini izledim. Sahne açılır, izbe, mahzen gibi yerde üç dört tutuklu diye nitelendirebileceğimiz kişiler ‘ne suçlar’ işlediklerinden bahsederler, örneğin bir hırsız, bir sokak kadını vb. Arada bir kapı açılır ve içeriye bir başkası tıkılır. Bir az sonra anlarız ki, burası ‘öteki dünya’dır ve insanlar, hayatta iken yaptıklarının muhasebesini tartışmakla meşguldürler. Bunda, hiç olmazsa toparlanmış bir konu vardır, ‘absürd’ olaylar ardarda gelmez, ne de olsa, gelenek dışı bir zaman ve mekanda, bir sonuca varmak istenmeksizin anımsamalar devam eder. Bir gerçek, “varoluşun anlamsızlığı” (absurdity) ana tema’dır. Bilindiği gibi sözcük olarak ‘absurd’, Camus’nun hediyesidir ve hayatın anlamsızlığını ve ‘kendi’ yabancılaşmasını “Yabancı” (L’étranger) da ebedileştirmiştir.

            1880’lerde Nietzsche’nin “tanrının ölümü’ kuramının ortaya atmasından sonra dini inanışın çöküşü, Stalin’in baskıcı diktatörlüğü, Hitler’in uygarlığa yaptığı barbarlık ve en sonunda, Atom Bombası’nın insanlığın ‘yaşam ümidi’ni yitirmesi, ABD’nin zengin toplumlarında gözlemlenen ahlak çöküntüsü, yaşamın anlamsızlığını perçinleştiren sosyal gelişimler oldu.

            “Absürd Tiyatro”nun liderlerinden Beckett ve Adamov’un oyunları ilk kez sahnelendiğinde, izleyici ve eleştirmenler, alışılmışın dışında birşeylerin ‘tiyatro’ adı altında takdim edilmesinden çok rahatsız olup tepki göstermişlerdi. Yüzyıllardanberi tiyatroyu tiyatro yapan ölçütler yerle bir edilmiş gibi görünüyordu.

            Bu tür tiyatroda; iyi tasarlanmış bir tiyatro oyunundan, iyi gözlemlenmiş, karakterleri iyi çizilmiş bir takım aktörlerin, konuları iyi sınırlanmış oyunları sunmaları yerine, bu oyunlarda çoğunlukla tanımlanması güç karakterler ve anlamsız eylemler gözlenir. Diyalog’lar, anlamsız ve gayesiz birtakım ‘söz salataları’dır. Klasik bir oyunda gözlediğimiz ‘başı, gelişimi ve sonu belli’ bir oyun yerine, ‘rasgele’ bir başlayış ve ‘rasgele’ bir bitiş var gibidir. Yazarlar, bir öykü anlatmak niyetinde değillerdi. Peki bunlar bizlere ne vermek istiyorlardı? Bizlere, içlerindeki dürtüye uyarak, bir sanatçı olarak,  d ü n y a y ı   a n l a y ı ş   b i ç i m l e r i n i  sergilemek isitiyorlardı.

Yukarda da belirtildiği gibi, bu yazarların tiyatro felsefeleriyle Heidegger, Sartre ve Camus’nun ‘Varoluşçu Felsefesi’ ile birçok ortak noktalara sahiptirler. Mamafih, bir bakımdan o kadar da devrimci sayılmayabilirler. Bazı kritik’ler, bu cereyana, antik-arkaik tiyatro ve edebiyat geleneklerinin yeni bir bileşimi olarak bakarlar.

A b s ü r d  Tiyatro’nun başını, yazılarının çoğunu Fransızca yazan –mamafih Dante’yi orijinal İtalyancadan da okuyabilen- Samuel Beckett çeker. 1906 Dublin, İrlanda doğumlu, protestan inançlı ve varlıklı bir ailenin oğlu olan bu büyük yazar Tüm Düşenler, Oyun Sonu, Sözsüz Oyun gibi eserlerinin yanında, Godot’yu Beklerken, onun en meşhur yapıtı ve bu ekolün en tipik bir örneği sayılır. 19 Kasım 1957’de San Quentin Hapishanesinde takdim edildiği zaman, tüm mahkumlar huşu içersinde onu izlemişlerdi. ‘Şekil’ (form) bakımından en mükemmeli sayılan bu eser; yanında Varoluşçu yazarlar, ardında İkinci Dünya Savaşının dehşeti”, yazarın kendisinin yıllarca hayat ve sevgi arayışından sonra, bu dünya yüzünde yaşayan hemen herkesin varlığını dolduran, insanı felce uğratabilecek ümitsizliğin bir ifadesi olarak saygınlık görmüştür.

            Prof. Ayşegül Yüksel’in çevirdiği şu satırlar, Beckett’in şairliğinin derecesini göstermektedir:

            ‘Nasıl da bilirdi
            hiçbir sözün
            biçim veremediğini
            yaşamın karmaşasına.’

             Beckett, “post-modern modernist” olarak tanındı. Düşüncelerini, dünya görüşlerini benimsemeksizin kullanırdı. Yapıtları, zaman ve mekan (uzam) sınırlarını aşarak bir özgürlük arama yolundadırlar. Prens Hamlet’in son sözleri “..gerisi, sessizliktir!” olmuştu. Dünyanın bütün okyanuslarının parmaklarındaki kanları silemeyeceği Lady Macbeth için yaşam “..yürüyen bir gölge ve hiçbir anlamı olmayan bir masal..”dı.

            Beckett, insanoğlunun ‘altın çağı’ olarak nitelendirilmesi gereken bu asırda, altın çağın yüzeysel parıltılarının altındaki ‘çıplak gerçeği’ görebilmiştir. İnsan uygarlığının çözüşmeye başladığı, Batı uygarlığının ‘kişisellik-bireycilik’ anlayışının iflas ettiği; geçmiş değerlerle ilişkisini koparmış, geleceğin değerlerini yaratamayan, hem dünyanın vazgeçilmez ‘varlığı’ ve hem de ‘ölüme yazgılı’ varoluşa başkaldıran bir kişidir.

            Şimdi sizlere, önemi dolayısıyla, “Godot’yu Beklerken”in kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Kimsenin gelmediği, kimsenin gitmediği, hiçbir şeyin olmadığı, bir ıssız yol kenarında, “bilinç”in sesine, karşılıklı konuşma şeklinde işitsellik kazandıran VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, sanki atom bombasının herşeyi yok ettiği dünyada kalmış son iki canlıdır. Bir “umut” olarak, gördükleri ya da görmedikleri GODOT’nun onlarla buluşmaya gelmesini, ya da gelmemesini beklerken, sıradan bir şekilde çok yavaş akan zamanı doldurmak için durmadan konuşurlar ve oyun oynarlar.

            VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, yüzlerce yıl biryerlere gitmezler. Konuşmaları artık ritüel’e dönmüştür. Onlar, birey olma özelliklerini yitirmişlerdir, onları kimse tanımaz, kimse anımsamaz. Oyunun iki perdesi de aynı biçimde başlar ve aynı biçimde sonlanır. 

 

            Onlarla karşılaşan POZZO ve LUCKY, bir başka gerçeklik düzeyinde yer alırlar. Varoluşları ‘zaman’ ve ‘uzam’ın belirleyiciliği ile sınırlanmış olan, “eşit” konumdaki VLADIMIR-ESTRAGON ikilisi karşısında, efendi-köle ilişkisini simgeleyen bu ‘hareketli’ ikili, “toplumsal insan”ın örneğini verirler; ama, iki perde arasında çökerler, zira zaman hızla akmaktadır. POZZO kör olur, LUCKY ise dilsizleşir ve diğer ikiliyle anlamsızlık çizgisi içinde buluşurlar. POZZO der: “..bize, mezar taşının yanı başında yaşam vermişler. Bir gün ışıyor, sonra yine gece…”

            B e c k e t t,  Aralık 1989 da bu dünyadan göçtü. Tüm insanlık hala Godot’nun gelişini bekliyor ve bekleyecek de.

            Bu ekol’ün diğer bellibaşlı yazarlarından da kısa örnekler verelim:

            Eugene Ionesco. 1953 Romanya doğumlu. En meşhur eseri: Amédée. Konusu özet olarak şu:

            Orta yaşlı bir karı koca, gerçek yaşamla ilgisi olmayan bir şekilde sunulurlar. Adam, bir oyun yazarıdır; kadın ise bir telefon santralı işletir.

            Karı-kocanın yatak odalarında, yıllardanberi orada kalan, olası kadının sevgilisine ait bir ceset vardır. Kocası mı onu öldürdü, yoksa o bir soyguncu mu idi, belli değildir. Diğer acayip bir nokta da, bu kimliği belirsiz ceset, “geometrik büyüme”ye yakalanmış olarak gitgide büyümektedir. Sonunda, dev bir ayak, yatak odasından oturma odasına yürür, neredeyse karı kocayı evden dışarı atma konumuna gelir.

            Ionesco, gerçekte gördüğü bir düşü sahnelemiştir ve insanlar, arada bir böyle saçma görünen ‘metamorfozik’ düşler görebilirler. (Kafka’nın Metamorphosis’ini nasıl unutabiliriz?)

            Önemli nokta, “büyüyen ceset” imgesinin ne olduğunu düşünmektir. ‘Hayat geçicidir, yaşayanlardan fazla, ‘büyüyen bir ölü sayısı var!” mı demek istiyor? bilmiyoruz. Fakat yazar, bu gibi çağrışımlarla, konunun altında saklı şiirsel gücü pekiştirmektedir. T.A.L. de, Dramaturg ve şair Haluk Şevket Ataseven’in her zaman tekrarladığı gibi, “Tiyatro topluma, kişinin toplum ve yaşamla olan çatışması sonucu oluşan bir üst düzeydeki şiir dilini, şiirsel bir boyutta veriyor.”

             Oyunda, cesedin büyümesinden dolayı bir devinim vardır, ama oyun yine de durağan’dır. Tanık olduğumuz devinim, şiirsel imgenin giderek belirginleşmesinin bir sonucudur. Bu imge ne kadar belirsiz ve karmaşıksa, onu ortaya çıkarma süreci de o kadar karmaşık ve şaşırtıcı olur.    

            Ionesco’nun diğer önemli bir yapıtı da:  “Kiracı” dır. Kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Bir çatı katını kiralamak isteyen bir adam vardır. Adam, katı ölçer, biçer ve gereksinimine uygun bulur ve odaya eşyalarını taşır. Odaya eşya yığılır. Adam, yığılan eşyaların yanında bir masaya uzanmıştır. Eşya, sonunda adamın yanına, üstüne yığılarak etrafını bir koza gibi örer. Sonuçta adam, orada hapsolmuş olarak kalır.

            Oyundaki tek devinim, eşyanın taşınmasıdır. Eşya yığını bir meskeni mi, yoksa bir mezarı mı temsil ediyor? Dünya gibi tehlikeli bir ortamda, kendisini ancak ‘koza’sında, giderek mezarında güvencede hisseden insanın dramını yansıtan bir kara mizah mı? Bilmiyoruz.

            Fernando Arrabal, 1932’de İspanya’da doğdu. La Tri-cicleta (1953) oyunu sansüre uğrayınca, Paris’e gelerek Fransızca yazmaya başladı. Pique-nique en campagne (1951) ve Orchestration Théatrale (1959) eserlerinin yanında  İ k i   İ ş k e n c e c i  en popüler soyut tiyatro eserleridir.

            “İki İşkenceci”de, annesinin babasına uyguladığı işkencelere karşı çıkan asi oğlan, ahlak yasalarının yarattığı i k i l e m’le karşı karşıyadır. Ya babasının yanını tutup, acı çeken kurbanı işkenceden kurtarmayı gerektiren insancıl bir iyilik yapacak, ya da annesini onore etmek için ona boyun eğecektir.
            Anne, babasına işkence yaptırdığı için, burada ahlak yasaları, dolayısıyla da tüm sistem bir çekişme içinde bulunmaktadır.  Arrabal, yalnızca bu duruma dikkati çekip bunun kendi algı sisteminin ötesinde birşey olduğunu vurgular ama, bu durumu yargılamayı yadsır.

            Edward Albee, 1928 U.S.A. doğumlu olup, bu alandaki en belirli eseri Hayvanat Bahçesi Masalı’dır.

            Bu romanda, birçok boyutlar vardır. Bir yandan, gerçek anlamda bir kişiliğin bölünmesi çalışması, diğerinde de, törensel, ritüelistik ve sembolik bir düzeyde, İsa dirilmekte ve garip koşulları bulunan bir törende kişi, kendini kurban etmektedir.

                                                                                  *

            Özet olarak  A b s ü r d   T i y a t r o  F e l s e f e s i  şöylece özetlenebilir:

            Yazarlar, artık, bu sıkıntı asrında, derli toplu psiko-sosyal çözümlerin bulunabileceğine inanmıyorlar. Onlar; insan yaşamında gözlemledikleri tutarsızlık ve anlamsızlığı endişe, belirsizlik, ve çaresizlik duygularını ifade edebilme peşindedirler (Tıpkı Egzistansiyalistler gibi!) Ama onların, akılcı bir şekilde düzenleyip yöneltilen bir  e v r e n’in varlığına inançları yok. Yazarlar; insanın yok oluş sürecinin yarattığı şaşkınlığı, kesin çizgileri çizilmiş ve gerçekten iyi bilinen inanç ve değer sistemlerinin yitirilmesini işlerler. Bunları, bir az ilerde, Modern Tiyatro görüşleri ile karşılaştıracağız.

                                                                          * 

 

           ‘Modern Tiyatro” ve  Grotowski’ye geçmeden, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinin 19 Haziran 1997 tarihli sayısında yayınlanan, Richard Sennett’ın yazdığı ve Serpil Durak, Abdurrahman Yılmaz’ın çevirdiği gerçekten çok değerli bir makaleyi burada tekrarlamaktan kendimi alamayacağım. Başlık :  KAMUSAL İNSANIN ÇÖKÜŞÜ : Benliğine gömülen çağdaş insanın tarihsel öyküsü.

            18. Yüzyılda Londra ve Paris’e büyük bir göç vardı. Yeni gelen insanlar hemen iş bulabiliyorlardı, çünkü işgücü açığı vardı. Kente gelen insanların henüz kimliği oluşmamıştı. Bu nedenle herkes birbirine yabancıydı. O yıllarda bu büyük kentler, insanların birbirlerini tanımak için büyük çabalar harcadıkları yerlerdi. Kamusal alan, yabancıların kendilerini birbirlerine ifade edebilecekleri alanı yansıtmaktaydı.

            İ f a d e  eylemi, konuşma, giyim ve davranışla gerçekleşmektedir. Bu eylem içinde, herkesin rolü vardır.R o l, duruma uygun, o ana özgü ve beklenen  d a v r a n ı ş  b i ç i m i’dir. Roller, aynı zamanda, kendimizi ve karşımızdakileri ne kadar ciddiye aldığımızın ipuçlarını da içinde barındırır.

            T e a t r a l l ı ğ ı n  kamusal yaşamla kendine özgü, dostça bir ilişkisi vardır. Kamusal roller, tıpkı tiyatroda olduğu gibi; seyirci, inanırlığın kalıcı olması, kamusal bir coğrafya yaratması ve rol yapan kişinin ifadesini yapılandırmasını gerekli kılar. Kendi benliğimize kapanıp kalmamızın önünü açar. 18. yüzyıl insanı, bu ilişkileri, bir  a k t ö r  tavrında kuruyordu. Kendi kişiliğini sergilemeye gerek duymadan rolünü yapıyor, kahvehanelerde, kafelerde, parklarda, ya da kentte öteki kamusal alanlarda, “öteki”lerle ilişkiye geçiyordu. Burada, tıpkı bir aktör gibi, kendi benliğini öne çıkarmak yerine, duyguların takdimini yapıyordu. Bir café’de gördüğü kazayı anlatan insan, buna kendi benliğini katmadan ortaya çıkan trajik sonucu anlatıyordu. Yani günümüz insanı gibi, bu kazayı, kendi derin duygularını, bu acı olay karşısında benliğinin gösterdiği yüceliği ifade etmek yerine, o olayı bir o y u n c u   g i b i  aktarıyor, kişileştirmiyordu. Kişisel yaşam, teatrallikle iç içeydi. Oysa özel alanın teatrallikle ilişkisi düşmancaydı. Mahremiyetin sergilenmesi, kişiyi ürkütüyordu. Bu nedenle konuşma, davranış ve giysilerin bir ifade aracından olmasından kaçınma gündeme geliyordu. Bu açıdan da, 18. yüzyıla baktığımızda, sahne ile sokak arasında yakınlaşma görürüz. 1750’lerde Paris’te sokakta giyilen giysiler, sahnedekilerle benzerlik taşıyordu. 18. yüzyıl insanı bir aktör, bir icracıydı. Ancak, bir sonraki yüzyıl, herşey ferahlaşmıştı.

              19. yüzyıl tarihe s a n a y i   k a p i t a l i z m i’ni armağan etti. Bu da toplumsal yaşamda büyük değişikliklere neden oldu. 18. yüzyılda kamusal olanla özel olan arasında oluşan denge, sanayi kapitalizminin toplumun her alanında yarattığı değişiklik ve köklü düzenlemelere direnir gibi direnir gibi görünmesine, hatta konulara kimi kurallarla sağlamlaşmış gibi durmasına karşın, içten içe bozulmaya başlamıştı. Gerçekte kazananlara bile çok şey yitirdiği bir sistem olan ‘kapitalizm’, insan varlığını fiziksel ve tinsel olarak tehdit etmeye başladı. İşsizlik, açlık, patlayan suç dalgaları sosyal yaşamda ağırlığını hissettirmeye başladı. İnsani değerler, kapitalist rekabetin zorunlu yasalarının uygulanmasıyla yıkılmaya, üretilen mal ve hizmetler, en büyük değer haline geldi. Günümüzün de en büyük sorunu olan yabancılaşmanın ekonomik nedeni böylece oluştu. İnsanlar, korunmak için, özel alanın en sağlam kalesi gibi görünen  a i l e’yi seçtiler kendilerine. Ve ailelerine kapandılar. Çünkü kamusal olan artık güvenilmez, ahlaki bakımdan düşük bir ilişkiler yumağıydı.

            19. yüzyılda kamusal alandan kaçışın ilk belirtileri,  s a h n e  i l e  s o k a k  a r a s ı n d a k i  b e n z e r l i k l e r i n   o r t a d a n   k a l k m a s ı y l a  başladı. Artık sahnedeki oyuncular, canlandırdığı kişiliğe uygun kostümlerle sahneye çıkmaya özen gösteriyorlardı. Sahneyle izleyici arasında kalan, çizgilerle çizilmiş bir mesafe oluşmaya başlıyordu. Tiyatro salonlarına sessizlik ve karartmalar ilk kez 1870 yılında gerçekleştirildi. İzleyici artık pasif bir hale gelmişti. Sokaktaki durum da buna uygundu. Yabancılardan korkan insanlar, onlarla konuşmaktan, ilişki kurmaktan korkuyorlardı. T i y a t r o’da olduğu gibi insanlar kamusal yaşamda pasif izleyiciler durumuna geliyorlardı. Kendilerini açıklamak gereği duymadıkları için , r o l  de yapmıyorlardı. Böylece, teatrallik ile sokaktaki davranış birbirinden kesin olarak kopuyordu. Sosyal yaşama egemen olan aldatma, gizemlilik ve yanılsama, açıklığın, yabancılarla ilşki kurmanın yanlış olduğunu her gün yeni olaylarla kanıtlıyordu. Bu durumda  tiyatro, insanlar için başka anlamlar kazanıyordu.

            Özetle, “hiçbir şifre çözme çabası gerektirmeyen sahici yaşam, ancak  s a h n e  s a n a t ı n ı n  himayesi altında ortaya çıkıyordu.”

 

 

                                                                        ———-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A b s ü r d  (Uyumsuz)  T i y a t r o

 

 

            Brecht klasik tiyatrodan ayrılım stilini empoze ederken, özellikle Varoluşçuluk felsefesinin (existentialism) ve onun bayrağını taşıyanların, örneğin Jean-Paul Sartre  ve Camus, felsefi görüş ve yazışmalar, roman ve piyeslerinin etkisi altında da, yeni bir akım tiyatroyu da içine alacak şekilde Avrupanın kültür sahnelerini işgal etmeye başlamıştı. Bu da, A b s ü r d (Esasında saçma, anlamsız, fakat Edebiyat dilinde ‘Uyumsuz’) T i y a t r o  akımıdır.

            J.Paul Sartre’ın Exit’ini hep hatırlarız. ‘No exit’ – Çıkış Yok diye sahnelenmişti özellikle; Boston’da Fransızcasını, İstanbul’da Türkçesini izledim. Sahne açılır, izbe, mahzen gibi yerde üç dört tutuklu diye nitelendirebileceğimiz kişiler ‘ne suçlar’ işlediklerinden bahsederler, örneğin bir hırsız, bir sokak kadını vb. Arada bir kapı açılır ve içeriye bir başkası tıkılır. Bir az sonra anlarız ki, burası ‘öteki dünya’dır ve insanlar, hayatta iken yaptıklarının muhasebesini tartışmakla meşguldürler. Bunda, hiç olmazsa toparlanmış bir konu vardır, ‘absürd’ olaylar ardarda gelmez, ne de olsa, gelenek dışı bir zaman ve mekanda, bir sonuca varmak istenmeksizin anımsamalar devam eder. Bir gerçek, “varoluşun anlamsızlığı” (absurdity) ana tema’dır. Bilindiği gibi sözcük olarak ‘absurd’, Camus’nun hediyesidir ve hayatın anlamsızlığını ve ‘kendi’ yabancılaşmasını “Yabancı” (L’étranger) da ebedileştirmiştir.

            1880’lerde Nietzsche’nin “tanrının ölümü’ kuramının ortaya atmasından sonra dini inanışın çöküşü, Stalin’in baskıcı diktatörlüğü, Hitler’in uygarlığa yaptığı barbarlık ve en sonunda, Atom Bombası’nın insanlığın ‘yaşam ümidi’ni yitirmesi, ABD’nin zengin toplumlarında gözlemlenen ahlak çöküntüsü, yaşamın anlamsızlığını perçinleştiren sosyal gelişimler oldu.

            “Absürd Tiyatro”nun liderlerinden Beckett ve Adamov’un oyunları ilk kez sahnelendiğinde, izleyici ve eleştirmenler, alışılmışın dışında birşeylerin ‘tiyatro’ adı altında takdim edilmesinden çok rahatsız olup tepki göstermişlerdi. Yüzyıllardanberi tiyatroyu tiyatro yapan ölçütler yerle bir edilmiş gibi görünüyordu.

            Bu tür tiyatroda; iyi tasarlanmış bir tiyatro oyunundan, iyi gözlemlenmiş, karakterleri iyi çizilmiş bir takım aktörlerin, konuları iyi sınırlanmış oyunları sunmaları yerine, bu oyunlarda çoğunlukla tanımlanması güç karakterler ve anlamsız eylemler gözlenir. Diyalog’lar, anlamsız ve gayesiz birtakım ‘söz salataları’dır. Klasik bir oyunda gözlediğimiz ‘başı, gelişimi ve sonu belli’ bir oyun yerine, ‘rasgele’ bir başlayış ve ‘rasgele’ bir bitiş var gibidir. Yazarlar, bir öykü anlatmak niyetinde değillerdi. Peki bunlar bizlere ne vermek istiyorlardı? Bizlere, içlerindeki dürtüye uyarak, bir sanatçı olarak,  d ü n y a y ı   a n l a y ı ş   b i ç i m l e r i n i  sergilemek isitiyorlardı.

Yukarda da belirtildiği gibi, bu yazarların tiyatro felsefeleriyle Heidegger, Sartre ve Camus’nun ‘Varoluşçu Felsefesi’ ile birçok ortak noktalara sahiptirler. Mamafih, bir bakımdan o kadar da devrimci sayılmayabilirler. Bazı kritik’ler, bu cereyana, antik-arkaik tiyatro ve edebiyat geleneklerinin yeni bir bileşimi olarak bakarlar.

A b s ü r d  Tiyatro’nun başını, yazılarının çoğunu Fransızca yazan –mamafih Dante’yi orijinal İtalyancadan da okuyabilen- Samuel Beckett çeker. 1906 Dublin, İrlanda doğumlu, protestan inançlı ve varlıklı bir ailenin oğlu olan bu büyük yazar Tüm Düşenler, Oyun Sonu, Sözsüz Oyun gibi eserlerinin yanında, Godot’yu Beklerken, onun en meşhur yapıtı ve bu ekolün en tipik bir örneği sayılır. 19 Kasım 1957’de San Quentin Hapishanesinde takdim edildiği zaman, tüm mahkumlar huşu içersinde onu izlemişlerdi. ‘Şekil’ (form) bakımından en mükemmeli sayılan bu eser; yanında Varoluşçu yazarlar, ardında İkinci Dünya Savaşının dehşeti”, yazarın kendisinin yıllarca hayat ve sevgi arayışından sonra, bu dünya yüzünde yaşayan hemen herkesin varlığını dolduran, insanı felce uğratabilecek ümitsizliğin bir ifadesi olarak saygınlık görmüştür.

            Prof. Ayşegül Yüksel’in çevirdiği şu satırlar, Beckett’in şairliğinin derecesini göstermektedir:

            ‘Nasıl da bilirdi

            hiçbir sözün

            biçim veremediğini

            yaşamın karmaşasına.’

 

            Beckett, “post-modern modernist” olarak tanındı. Düşüncelerini, dünya görüşlerini benimsemeksizin kullanırdı. Yapıtları, zaman ve mekan (uzam) sınırlarını aşarak bir özgürlük arama yolundadırlar. Prens Hamlet’in son sözleri “..gerisi, sessizliktir!” olmuştu. Dünyanın bütün okyanuslarının parmaklarındaki kanları silemeyeceği Lady Macbeth için yaşam “..yürüyen bir gölge ve hiçbir anlamı olmayan bir masal..”dı.

            Beckett, insanoğlunun ‘altın çağı’ olarak nitelendirilmesi gereken bu asırda, altın çağın yüzeysel parıltılarının altındaki ‘çıplak gerçeği’ görebilmiştir. İnsan uygarlığının çözüşmeye başladığı, Batı uygarlığının ‘kişisellik-bireycilik’ anlayışının iflas ettiği; geçmiş değerlerle ilişkisini koparmış, geleceğin değerlerini yaratamayan, hem dünyanın vazgeçilmez ‘varlığı’ ve hem de ‘ölüme yazgılı’ varoluşa başkaldıran bir kişidir.

            Şimdi sizlere, önemi dolayısıyla, “Godot’yu Beklerken”in kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Kimsenin gelmediği, kimsenin gitmediği, hiçbir şeyin olmadığı, bir ıssız yol kenarında, “bilinç”in sesine, karşılıklı konuşma şeklinde işitsellik kazandıran VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, sanki atom bombasının herşeyi yok ettiği dünyada kalmış son iki canlıdır. Bir “umut” olarak, gördükleri ya da görmedikleri GODOT’nun onlarla buluşmaya gelmesini, ya da gelmemesini beklerken, sıradan bir şekilde çok yavaş akan zamanı doldurmak için durmadan konuşurlar ve oyun oynarlar.

 

            VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, yüzlerce yıl biryerlere gitmezler. Konuşmaları artık ritüel’e dönmüştür. Onlar, birey olma özelliklerini yitirmişlerdir, onları kimse tanımaz, kimse anımsamaz. Oyunun iki perdesi de aynı biçimde başlar ve aynı biçimde sonlanır.

 

            Onlarla karşılaşan POZZO ve LUCKY, bir başka gerçeklik düzeyinde yer alırlar. Varoluşları ‘zaman’ ve ‘uzam’ın belirleyiciliği ile sınırlanmış olan, “eşit” konumdaki VLADIMIR-ESTRAGON ikilisi karşısında, efendi-köle ilişkisini simgeleyen bu ‘hareketli’ ikili, “toplumsal insan”ın örneğini verirler; ama, iki perde arasında çökerler, zira zaman hızla akmaktadır. POZZO kör olur, LUCKY ise dilsizleşir ve diğer ikiliyle anlamsızlık çizgisi içinde buluşurlar. POZZO der: “..bize, mezar taşının yanı başında yaşam vermişler. Bir gün ışıyor, sonra yine gece…”

            B e c k e t t,  Aralık 1989 da bu dünyadan göçtü. Tüm insanlık hala Godot’nun gelişini bekliyor ve bekleyecek de.

            Bu ekol’ün diğer bellibaşlı yazarlarından da kısa örnekler verelim:

            Eugene Ionesco. 1953 Romanya doğumlu. En meşhur eseri: Amédée

 

            Orta yaşlı bir karı koca, gerçek yaşamla ilgisi olmayan bir şekilde sunulurlar. Adam, bir oyun yazarıdır; kadın ise bir telefon santralı işletir.

            Karı-kocanın yatak odalarında, yıllardanberi orada kalan, olası kadının sevgilisine ait bir ceset vardır. Kocası mı onu öldürdü, yoksa o bir soyguncu mu idi, belli değildir. Diğer acayip bir nokta da, bu kimliği belirsiz ceset, “geometrik büyüme”ye yakalanmış olarak gitgide büyümektedir. Sonunda, dev bir ayak, yatak odasından oturma odasına yürür, neredeyse karı kocayı evden dışarı atma konumuna gelir.

            Ionesco, gerçekte gördüğü bir düşü sahnelemiştir ve insanlar, arada bir böyle saçma görünen ‘metamorfozik’ düşler görebilirler. (Kafka’nın Metamorphosis’ini nasıl unutabiliriz?)

Önemli nokta, “büyüyen ceset” imgesinin ne olduğunu düşünmektir. ‘Hayat geçicidir, yaşayanlardan fazla, ‘büyüyen bir ölü sayısı var!” mı demek istiyor? bilmiyoruz. Fakat yazar, bu gibi çağrışımlarla, konunun altında saklı şiirsel gücü pekiştirmektedir. T.A.L. de, Dramaturg ve şair Haluk Şevket Ataseven’in her zaman tekrarladığı gibi, “Tiyatro topluma, kişinin toplum ve yaşamla olan çatışması sonucu oluşan bir üst düzeydeki şiir dilini, şiirsel bir boyutta veriyor.”

Oyunda, cesedin büyümesinden dolayı bir devinim vardır, ama oyun yine de durağan’dır. Tanık olduğumuz devinim, şiirsel imgenin giderek belirginleşmesinin bir sonucudur. Bu imge ne kadar belirsiz ve karmaşıksa, onu ortaya çıkarma süreci de o kadar karmaşık ve şaşırtıcı olur.    

 

 

            Ionesco’nun diğer önemli bir yapıtı da:  “Kiracı” dır. Kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Bir çatı katını kiralamak isteyen bir adam vardır. Adam, katı ölçer, biçer ve gereksinimine uygun bulur ve odaya eşyalarını taşır. Odaya eşya yığılır. Adam, yığılan eşyaların yanında bir masaya uzanmıştır. Eşya, sonunda adamın yanına, üstüne yığılarak etrafını bir koza gibi örer. Sonuçta adam, orada hapsolmuş olarak kalır.

            Oyundaki tek devinim, eşyanın taşınmasıdır. Eşya yığını bir meskeni mi, yoksa bir mezarı mı temsil ediyor? Dünya gibi tehlikeli bir ortamda, kendisini ancak ‘koza’sında, giderek mezarında güvencede hisseden insanın dramını yansıtan bir kara mizah mı? Bilmiyoruz.

 

            Fernando Arrabal, 1932’de İspanya’da doğdu. La Tri-cicleta (1953) oyunu sansüre uğrayınca, Paris’e gelerek Fransızca yazmaya başladı. Pique-nique en campagne (1951) ve Orchestration Théatrale (1959) eserlerinin yanında  İ k i   İ ş k e n c e c i  en popüler soyut tiyatro eserleridir.

            “İki İşkenceci”de, annesinin babasına uyguladığı işkencelere karşı çıkan asi oğlan, ahlak yasalarının yarattığı i k i l e m’le karşı karşıyadır. Ya babasının yanını tutup, acı çeken kurbanı işkenceden kurtarmayı gerektiren insancıl bir iyilik yapacak, ya da annesini onore etmek için ona boyun eğecektir.

            Anne, babasına işkence yaptırdığı için, burada ahlak yasaları, dolayısıyla da tüm sistem bir çekişme içinde bulunmaktadır.

            Arrabal, yalnızca bu duruma dikkati çekip bunun kendi algı sisteminin ötesinde birşey olduğunu vurgular ama, bu durumu yargılamayı yadsır.

            Edward Albee, 1928 U.S.A. doğumlu olup, bu alandaki en belirli eseri Hayvanat Bahçesi Masalı’dır.

            Bu romanda, birçok boyutlar vardır. Bir yandan, gerçek anlamda bir kişiliğin bölünmesi çalışması, diğerinde de, törensel, ritüelistik ve sembolik bir düzeyde, İsa dirilmekte ve garip koşulları bulunan bir törende kişi, kendini kurban etmektedir.

                                                                                  *

            Özet olarak  A b s ü r d   T i y a t r o  F e l s e f e s i  şöylece özetlenebilir:

            Yazarlar, artık, bu sıkıntı asrında, derli toplu psiko-sosyal çözümlerin bulunabileceğine inanmıyorlar. Onlar; insan yaşamında gözlemledikleri tutarsızlık ve anlamsızlığı endişe, belirsizlik, ve çaresizlik duygularını ifade edebilme peşindedirler (Tıpkı Egzistansiyalistler gibi!) Ama onların, akılcı bir şekilde düzenleyip yöneltilen bir  e v r e n’in varlığına inançları yok. Yazarlar; insanın yok oluş sürecinin yarattığı şaşkınlığı, kesin çizgileri çizilmiş ve gerçekten iyi bilinen inanç ve değer sistemlerinin yitirilmesini işlerler. Bunları, bir az ilerde, Modern Tiyatro görüşleri ile karşılaştıracağız.

*

 

           ‘Modern Tiyatro” ve  Grotowski’ye geçmeden, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinin 19 Haziran 1997 tarihli sayısında yayınlanan, Richard Sennett’ın yazdığı ve Serpil Durak, Abdurrahman Yılmaz’ın çevirdiği gerçekten çok değerli bir makaleyi burada tekrarlamaktan kendimi alamayacağım. Başlık :  KAMUSAL İNSANIN ÇÖKÜŞÜ : Benliğine gömülen çağdaş insanın tarihsel öyküsü.

            18. Yüzyılda Londra ve Paris’e büyük bir göç vardı. Yeni gelen insanlar hemen iş bulabiliyorlardı, çünkü işgücü açığı vardı. Kente gelen insanların henüz kimliği oluşmamıştı. Bu nedenle herkes birbirine yabancıydı. O yıllarda bu büyük kentler, insanların birbirlerini tanımak için büyük çabalar harcadıkları yerlerdi. Kamusal alan, yabancıların kendilerini birbirlerine ifade edebilecekleri alanı yansıtmaktaydı.

            İ f a d e  eylemi, konuşma, giyim ve davranışla gerçekleşmektedir. Bu eylem içinde, herkesin rolü vardır.R o l, duruma uygun, o ana özgü ve beklenen  d a v r a n ı ş  b i ç i m i’dir. Roller, aynı zamanda, kendimizi ve karşımızdakileri ne kadar ciddiye aldığımızın ipuçlarını da içinde barındırır.

            T e a t r a l l ı ğ ı n  kamusal yaşamla kendine özgü, dostça bir ilişkisi vardır. Kamusal roller, tıpkı tiyatroda olduğu gibi; seyirci, inanırlığın kalıcı olması, kamusal bir coğrafya yaratması ve rol yapan kişinin ifadesini yapılandırmasını gerekli kılar. Kendi benliğimize kapanıp kalmamızın önünü açar. 18. yüzyıl insanı, bu ilişkileri, bir  a k t ö r  tavrında kuruyordu. Kendi kişiliğini sergilemeye gerek duymadan rolünü yapıyor, kahvehanelerde, kafelerde, parklarda, ya da kentte öteki kamusal alanlarda, “öteki”lerle ilişkiye geçiyordu. Burada, tıpkı bir aktör gibi, kendi benliğini öne çıkarmak yerine, duyguların takdimini yapıyordu. Bir café’de gördüğü kazayı anlatan insan, buna kendi benliğini katmadan ortaya çıkan trajik sonucu anlatıyordu. Yani günümüz insanı gibi, bu kazayı, kendi derin duygularını, bu acı olay karşısında benliğinin gösterdiği yüceliği ifade etmek yerine, o olayı bir o y u n c u   g i b i  aktarıyor, kişileştirmiyordu. Kişisel yaşam, teatrallikle iç içeydi. Oysa özel alanın teatrallikle ilişkisi düşmancaydı. Mahremiyetin sergilenmesi, kişiyi ürkütüyordu. Bu nedenle konuşma, davranış ve giysilerin bir ifade aracından olmasından kaçınma gündeme geliyordu. Bu açıdan da, 18. yüzyıla baktığımızda, sahne ile sokak arasında yakınlaşma görürüz. 1750’lerde Paris’te sokakta giyilen giysiler, sahnedekilerle benzerlik taşıyordu. 18. yüzyıl insanı bir aktör, bir icracıydı. Ancak, bir sonraki yüzyıl, herşey ferahlaşmıştı.

19. yüzyıl tarihe s a n a y i   k a p i t a l i z m i’ni armağan etti. Bu da toplumsal yaşamda büyük değişikliklere neden oldu. 18. yüzyılda kamusal olanla özel olan arasında oluşan denge, sanayi kapitalizminin toplumun her alanında yarattığı değişiklik ve köklü düzenlemelere direnir gibi direnir gibi görünmesine, hatta konulara kimi kurallarla sağlamlaşmış gibi durmasına karşın, içten içe bozulmaya başlamıştı. Gerçekte kazananlara bile çok şey yitirdiği bir sistem olan ‘kapitalizm’, insan varlığını fiziksel ve tinsel olarak tehdit etmeye başladı. İşsizlik, açlık, patlayan suç dalgaları sosyal yaşamda ağırlığını hissettirmeye başladı. İnsani değerler, kapitalist rekabetin zorunlu yasalarının uygulanmasıyla yıkılmaya,

üretilen mal ve hizmetler, en büyük değer haline geldi. Günümüzün de en büyük sorunu olan yabancılaşmanın ekonomik nedeni böylece oluştu. İnsanlar, korunmak için, özel alanın en sağlam kalesi gibi görünen  a i l e’yi seçtiler kendilerine. Ve ailelerine kapandılar. Çünkü kamusal olan artık güvenilmez, ahlaki bakımdan düşük bir ilişkiler yumağıydı.

            19. yüzyılda kamusal alandan kaçışın ilk belirtileri,  s a h n e  i l e  s o k a k  a r a s ı n d a k i  b e n z e r l i k l e r i n   o r t a d a n   k a l k m a s ı y l a  başladı. Artık sahnedeki oyuncular, canlandırdığı kişiliğe uygun kostümlerle sahneye çıkmaya özen gösteriyorlardı. Sahneyle izleyici arasında kalan, çizgilerle çizilmiş bir mesafe oluşmaya başlıyordu. Tiyatro salonlarına sessizlik ve karartmalar ilk kez 1870 yılında gerçekleştirildi. İzleyici artık pasif bir hale gelmişti. Sokaktaki durum da buna uygundu. Yabancılardan korkan insanlar, onlarla konuşmaktan, ilişki kurmaktan korkuyorlardı. T i y a t r o’da olduğu gibi insanlar kamusal yaşamda pasif izleyiciler durumuna geliyorlardı. Kendilerini açıklamak gereği duymadıkları için , r o l  de yapmıyorlardı. Böylece, teatrallik ile sokaktaki davranış birbirinden kesin olarak kopuyordu. Sosyal yaşama egemen olan aldatma, gizemlilik ve yanılsama, açıklığın, yabancılarla ilşki kurmanın yanlış olduğunu her gün yeni olaylarla kanıtlıyordu. Bu durumda  tiyatro, insanlar için başka anlamlar kazanıyordu.

            Özetle, “hiçbir şifre çözme çabası gerektirmeyen sahici yaşam, ancak  s a h n e  s a n a t ı n ı n  himayesi altında ortaya çıkıyordu.”

 

 

*        *

 

 

 

 

 

 

A b s ü r d  (Uyumsuz)  T i y a t r o

 

 

            Brecht klasik tiyatrodan ayrılım stilini empoze ederken, özellikle Varoluşçuluk felsefesinin (existentialism) ve onun bayrağını taşıyanların, örneğin Jean-Paul Sartre  ve Camus, felsefi görüş ve yazışmalar, roman ve piyeslerinin etkisi altında da, yeni bir akım tiyatroyu da içine alacak şekilde Avrupanın kültür sahnelerini işgal etmeye başlamıştı. Bu da, A b s ü r d (Esasında saçma, anlamsız, fakat Edebiyat dilinde ‘Uyumsuz’) T i y a t r o  akımıdır.

            J.Paul Sartre’ın Exit’ini hep hatırlarız. ‘No exit’ – Çıkış Yok diye sahnelenmişti özellikle; Boston’da Fransızcasını, İstanbul’da Türkçesini izledim. Sahne açılır, izbe, mahzen gibi yerde üç dört tutuklu diye nitelendirebileceğimiz kişiler ‘ne suçlar’ işlediklerinden bahsederler, örneğin bir hırsız, bir sokak kadını vb. Arada bir kapı açılır ve içeriye bir başkası tıkılır. Bir az sonra anlarız ki, burası ‘öteki dünya’dır ve insanlar, hayatta iken yaptıklarının muhasebesini tartışmakla meşguldürler. Bunda, hiç olmazsa toparlanmış bir konu vardır, ‘absürd’ olaylar ardarda gelmez, ne de olsa, gelenek dışı bir zaman ve mekanda, bir sonuca varmak istenmeksizin anımsamalar devam eder. Bir gerçek, “varoluşun anlamsızlığı” (absurdity) ana tema’dır. Bilindiği gibi sözcük olarak ‘absurd’, Camus’nun hediyesidir ve hayatın anlamsızlığını ve ‘kendi’ yabancılaşmasını “Yabancı” (L’étranger) da ebedileştirmiştir.

            1880’lerde Nietzsche’nin “tanrının ölümü’ kuramının ortaya atmasından sonra dini inanışın çöküşü, Stalin’in baskıcı diktatörlüğü, Hitler’in uygarlığa yaptığı barbarlık ve en sonunda, Atom Bombası’nın insanlığın ‘yaşam ümidi’ni yitirmesi, ABD’nin zengin toplumlarında gözlemlenen ahlak çöküntüsü, yaşamın anlamsızlığını perçinleştiren sosyal gelişimler oldu.

            “Absürd Tiyatro”nun liderlerinden Beckett ve Adamov’un oyunları ilk kez sahnelendiğinde, izleyici ve eleştirmenler, alışılmışın dışında birşeylerin ‘tiyatro’ adı altında takdim edilmesinden çok rahatsız olup tepki göstermişlerdi. Yüzyıllardanberi tiyatroyu tiyatro yapan ölçütler yerle bir edilmiş gibi görünüyordu.

            Bu tür tiyatroda; iyi tasarlanmış bir tiyatro oyunundan, iyi gözlemlenmiş, karakterleri iyi çizilmiş bir takım aktörlerin, konuları iyi sınırlanmış oyunları sunmaları yerine, bu oyunlarda çoğunlukla tanımlanması güç karakterler ve anlamsız eylemler gözlenir. Diyalog’lar, anlamsız ve gayesiz birtakım ‘söz salataları’dır. Klasik bir oyunda gözlediğimiz ‘başı, gelişimi ve sonu belli’ bir oyun yerine, ‘rasgele’ bir başlayış ve ‘rasgele’ bir bitiş var gibidir. Yazarlar, bir öykü anlatmak niyetinde değillerdi. Peki bunlar bizlere ne vermek istiyorlardı? Bizlere, içlerindeki dürtüye uyarak, bir sanatçı olarak,  d ü n y a y ı   a n l a y ı ş   b i ç i m l e r i n i  sergilemek isitiyorlardı.

Yukarda da belirtildiği gibi, bu yazarların tiyatro felsefeleriyle Heidegger, Sartre ve Camus’nun ‘Varoluşçu Felsefesi’ ile birçok ortak noktalara sahiptirler. Mamafih, bir bakımdan o kadar da devrimci sayılmayabilirler. Bazı kritik’ler, bu cereyana, antik-arkaik tiyatro ve edebiyat geleneklerinin yeni bir bileşimi olarak bakarlar.

A b s ü r d  Tiyatro’nun başını, yazılarının çoğunu Fransızca yazan –mamafih Dante’yi orijinal İtalyancadan da okuyabilen- Samuel Beckett çeker. 1906 Dublin, İrlanda doğumlu, protestan inançlı ve varlıklı bir ailenin oğlu olan bu büyük yazar Tüm Düşenler, Oyun Sonu, Sözsüz Oyun gibi eserlerinin yanında, Godot’yu Beklerken, onun en meşhur yapıtı ve bu ekolün en tipik bir örneği sayılır. 19 Kasım 1957’de San Quentin Hapishanesinde takdim edildiği zaman, tüm mahkumlar huşu içersinde onu izlemişlerdi. ‘Şekil’ (form) bakımından en mükemmeli sayılan bu eser; yanında Varoluşçu yazarlar, ardında İkinci Dünya Savaşının dehşeti”, yazarın kendisinin yıllarca hayat ve sevgi arayışından sonra, bu dünya yüzünde yaşayan hemen herkesin varlığını dolduran, insanı felce uğratabilecek ümitsizliğin bir ifadesi olarak saygınlık görmüştür.

            Prof. Ayşegül Yüksel’in çevirdiği şu satırlar, Beckett’in şairliğinin derecesini göstermektedir:

            ‘Nasıl da bilirdi

            hiçbir sözün

            biçim veremediğini

            yaşamın karmaşasına.’

 

            Beckett, “post-modern modernist” olarak tanındı. Düşüncelerini, dünya görüşlerini benimsemeksizin kullanırdı. Yapıtları, zaman ve mekan (uzam) sınırlarını aşarak bir özgürlük arama yolundadırlar. Prens Hamlet’in son sözleri “..gerisi, sessizliktir!” olmuştu. Dünyanın bütün okyanuslarının parmaklarındaki kanları silemeyeceği Lady Macbeth için yaşam “..yürüyen bir gölge ve hiçbir anlamı olmayan bir masal..”dı.

            Beckett, insanoğlunun ‘altın çağı’ olarak nitelendirilmesi gereken bu asırda, altın çağın yüzeysel parıltılarının altındaki ‘çıplak gerçeği’ görebilmiştir. İnsan uygarlığının çözüşmeye başladığı, Batı uygarlığının ‘kişisellik-bireycilik’ anlayışının iflas ettiği; geçmiş değerlerle ilişkisini koparmış, geleceğin değerlerini yaratamayan, hem dünyanın vazgeçilmez ‘varlığı’ ve hem de ‘ölüme yazgılı’ varoluşa başkaldıran bir kişidir.

            Şimdi sizlere, önemi dolayısıyla, “Godot’yu Beklerken”in kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Kimsenin gelmediği, kimsenin gitmediği, hiçbir şeyin olmadığı, bir ıssız yol kenarında, “bilinç”in sesine, karşılıklı konuşma şeklinde işitsellik kazandıran VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, sanki atom bombasının herşeyi yok ettiği dünyada kalmış son iki canlıdır. Bir “umut” olarak, gördükleri ya da görmedikleri GODOT’nun onlarla buluşmaya gelmesini, ya da gelmemesini beklerken, sıradan bir şekilde çok yavaş akan zamanı doldurmak için durmadan konuşurlar ve oyun oynarlar.

 

            VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, yüzlerce yıl biryerlere gitmezler. Konuşmaları artık ritüel’e dönmüştür. Onlar, birey olma özelliklerini yitirmişlerdir, onları kimse tanımaz, kimse anımsamaz. Oyunun iki perdesi de aynı biçimde başlar ve aynı biçimde sonlanır.

 

            Onlarla karşılaşan POZZO ve LUCKY, bir başka gerçeklik düzeyinde yer alırlar. Varoluşları ‘zaman’ ve ‘uzam’ın belirleyiciliği ile sınırlanmış olan, “eşit” konumdaki VLADIMIR-ESTRAGON ikilisi karşısında, efendi-köle ilişkisini simgeleyen bu ‘hareketli’ ikili, “toplumsal insan”ın örneğini verirler; ama, iki perde arasında çökerler, zira zaman hızla akmaktadır. POZZO kör olur, LUCKY ise dilsizleşir ve diğer ikiliyle anlamsızlık çizgisi içinde buluşurlar. POZZO der: “..bize, mezar taşının yanı başında yaşam vermişler. Bir gün ışıyor, sonra yine gece…”

            B e c k e t t,  Aralık 1989 da bu dünyadan göçtü. Tüm insanlık hala Godot’nun gelişini bekliyor ve bekleyecek de.

            Bu ekol’ün diğer bellibaşlı yazarlarından da kısa örnekler verelim:

            Eugene Ionesco. 1953 Romanya doğumlu. En meşhur eseri: Amédée

 

            Orta yaşlı bir karı koca, gerçek yaşamla ilgisi olmayan bir şekilde sunulurlar. Adam, bir oyun yazarıdır; kadın ise bir telefon santralı işletir.

            Karı-kocanın yatak odalarında, yıllardanberi orada kalan, olası kadının sevgilisine ait bir ceset vardır. Kocası mı onu öldürdü, yoksa o bir soyguncu mu idi, belli değildir. Diğer acayip bir nokta da, bu kimliği belirsiz ceset, “geometrik büyüme”ye yakalanmış olarak gitgide büyümektedir. Sonunda, dev bir ayak, yatak odasından oturma odasına yürür, neredeyse karı kocayı evden dışarı atma konumuna gelir.

            Ionesco, gerçekte gördüğü bir düşü sahnelemiştir ve insanlar, arada bir böyle saçma görünen ‘metamorfozik’ düşler görebilirler. (Kafka’nın Metamorphosis’ini nasıl unutabiliriz?)

Önemli nokta, “büyüyen ceset” imgesinin ne olduğunu düşünmektir. ‘Hayat geçicidir, yaşayanlardan fazla, ‘büyüyen bir ölü sayısı var!” mı demek istiyor? bilmiyoruz. Fakat yazar, bu gibi çağrışımlarla, konunun altında saklı şiirsel gücü pekiştirmektedir. T.A.L. de, Dramaturg ve şair Haluk Şevket Ataseven’in her zaman tekrarladığı gibi, “Tiyatro topluma, kişinin toplum ve yaşamla olan çatışması sonucu oluşan bir üst düzeydeki şiir dilini, şiirsel bir boyutta veriyor.”

Oyunda, cesedin büyümesinden dolayı bir devinim vardır, ama oyun yine de durağan’dır. Tanık olduğumuz devinim, şiirsel imgenin giderek belirginleşmesinin bir sonucudur. Bu imge ne kadar belirsiz ve karmaşıksa, onu ortaya çıkarma süreci de o kadar karmaşık ve şaşırtıcı olur.    

 

 

            Ionesco’nun diğer önemli bir yapıtı da:  “Kiracı” dır. Kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Bir çatı katını kiralamak isteyen bir adam vardır. Adam, katı ölçer, biçer ve gereksinimine uygun bulur ve odaya eşyalarını taşır. Odaya eşya yığılır. Adam, yığılan eşyaların yanında bir masaya uzanmıştır. Eşya, sonunda adamın yanına, üstüne yığılarak etrafını bir koza gibi örer. Sonuçta adam, orada hapsolmuş olarak kalır.

            Oyundaki tek devinim, eşyanın taşınmasıdır. Eşya yığını bir meskeni mi, yoksa bir mezarı mı temsil ediyor? Dünya gibi tehlikeli bir ortamda, kendisini ancak ‘koza’sında, giderek mezarında güvencede hisseden insanın dramını yansıtan bir kara mizah mı? Bilmiyoruz.

 

            Fernando Arrabal, 1932’de İspanya’da doğdu. La Tri-cicleta (1953) oyunu sansüre uğrayınca, Paris’e gelerek Fransızca yazmaya başladı. Pique-nique en campagne (1951) ve Orchestration Théatrale (1959) eserlerinin yanında  İ k i   İ ş k e n c e c i  en popüler soyut tiyatro eserleridir.

            “İki İşkenceci”de, annesinin babasına uyguladığı işkencelere karşı çıkan asi oğlan, ahlak yasalarının yarattığı i k i l e m’le karşı karşıyadır. Ya babasının yanını tutup, acı çeken kurbanı işkenceden kurtarmayı gerektiren insancıl bir iyilik yapacak, ya da annesini onore etmek için ona boyun eğecektir.

            Anne, babasına işkence yaptırdığı için, burada ahlak yasaları, dolayısıyla da tüm sistem bir çekişme içinde bulunmaktadır.

            Arrabal, yalnızca bu duruma dikkati çekip bunun kendi algı sisteminin ötesinde birşey olduğunu vurgular ama, bu durumu yargılamayı yadsır.

            Edward Albee, 1928 U.S.A. doğumlu olup, bu alandaki en belirli eseri Hayvanat Bahçesi Masalı’dır.

            Bu romanda, birçok boyutlar vardır. Bir yandan, gerçek anlamda bir kişiliğin bölünmesi çalışması, diğerinde de, törensel, ritüelistik ve sembolik bir düzeyde, İsa dirilmekte ve garip koşulları bulunan bir törende kişi, kendini kurban etmektedir.

                                                                                  *

            Özet olarak  A b s ü r d   T i y a t r o  F e l s e f e s i  şöylece özetlenebilir:

            Yazarlar, artık, bu sıkıntı asrında, derli toplu psiko-sosyal çözümlerin bulunabileceğine inanmıyorlar. Onlar; insan yaşamında gözlemledikleri tutarsızlık ve anlamsızlığı endişe, belirsizlik, ve çaresizlik duygularını ifade edebilme peşindedirler (Tıpkı Egzistansiyalistler gibi!) Ama onların, akılcı bir şekilde düzenleyip yöneltilen bir  e v r e n’in varlığına inançları yok. Yazarlar; insanın yok oluş sürecinin yarattığı şaşkınlığı, kesin çizgileri çizilmiş ve gerçekten iyi bilinen inanç ve değer sistemlerinin yitirilmesini işlerler. Bunları, bir az ilerde, Modern Tiyatro görüşleri ile karşılaştıracağız.

*

 

           ‘Modern Tiyatro” ve  Grotowski’ye geçmeden, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinin 19 Haziran 1997 tarihli sayısında yayınlanan, Richard Sennett’ın yazdığı ve Serpil Durak, Abdurrahman Yılmaz’ın çevirdiği gerçekten çok değerli bir makaleyi burada tekrarlamaktan kendimi alamayacağım. Başlık :  KAMUSAL İNSANIN ÇÖKÜŞÜ : Benliğine gömülen çağdaş insanın tarihsel öyküsü.

            18. Yüzyılda Londra ve Paris’e büyük bir göç vardı. Yeni gelen insanlar hemen iş bulabiliyorlardı, çünkü işgücü açığı vardı. Kente gelen insanların henüz kimliği oluşmamıştı. Bu nedenle herkes birbirine yabancıydı. O yıllarda bu büyük kentler, insanların birbirlerini tanımak için büyük çabalar harcadıkları yerlerdi. Kamusal alan, yabancıların kendilerini birbirlerine ifade edebilecekleri alanı yansıtmaktaydı.

            İ f a d e  eylemi, konuşma, giyim ve davranışla gerçekleşmektedir. Bu eylem içinde, herkesin rolü vardır.R o l, duruma uygun, o ana özgü ve beklenen  d a v r a n ı ş  b i ç i m i’dir. Roller, aynı zamanda, kendimizi ve karşımızdakileri ne kadar ciddiye aldığımızın ipuçlarını da içinde barındırır.

            T e a t r a l l ı ğ ı n  kamusal yaşamla kendine özgü, dostça bir ilişkisi vardır. Kamusal roller, tıpkı tiyatroda olduğu gibi; seyirci, inanırlığın kalıcı olması, kamusal bir coğrafya yaratması ve rol yapan kişinin ifadesini yapılandırmasını gerekli kılar. Kendi benliğimize kapanıp kalmamızın önünü açar. 18. yüzyıl insanı, bu ilişkileri, bir  a k t ö r  tavrında kuruyordu. Kendi kişiliğini sergilemeye gerek duymadan rolünü yapıyor, kahvehanelerde, kafelerde, parklarda, ya da kentte öteki kamusal alanlarda, “öteki”lerle ilişkiye geçiyordu. Burada, tıpkı bir aktör gibi, kendi benliğini öne çıkarmak yerine, duyguların takdimini yapıyordu. Bir café’de gördüğü kazayı anlatan insan, buna kendi benliğini katmadan ortaya çıkan trajik sonucu anlatıyordu. Yani günümüz insanı gibi, bu kazayı, kendi derin duygularını, bu acı olay karşısında benliğinin gösterdiği yüceliği ifade etmek yerine, o olayı bir o y u n c u   g i b i  aktarıyor, kişileştirmiyordu. Kişisel yaşam, teatrallikle iç içeydi. Oysa özel alanın teatrallikle ilişkisi düşmancaydı. Mahremiyetin sergilenmesi, kişiyi ürkütüyordu. Bu nedenle konuşma, davranış ve giysilerin bir ifade aracından olmasından kaçınma gündeme geliyordu. Bu açıdan da, 18. yüzyıla baktığımızda, sahne ile sokak arasında yakınlaşma görürüz. 1750’lerde Paris’te sokakta giyilen giysiler, sahnedekilerle benzerlik taşıyordu. 18. yüzyıl insanı bir aktör, bir icracıydı. Ancak, bir sonraki yüzyıl, herşey ferahlaşmıştı.

19. yüzyıl tarihe s a n a y i   k a p i t a l i z m i’ni armağan etti. Bu da toplumsal yaşamda büyük değişikliklere neden oldu. 18. yüzyılda kamusal olanla özel olan arasında oluşan denge, sanayi kapitalizminin toplumun her alanında yarattığı değişiklik ve köklü düzenlemelere direnir gibi direnir gibi görünmesine, hatta konulara kimi kurallarla sağlamlaşmış gibi durmasına karşın, içten içe bozulmaya başlamıştı. Gerçekte kazananlara bile çok şey yitirdiği bir sistem olan ‘kapitalizm’, insan varlığını fiziksel ve tinsel olarak tehdit etmeye başladı. İşsizlik, açlık, patlayan suç dalgaları sosyal yaşamda ağırlığını hissettirmeye başladı. İnsani değerler, kapitalist rekabetin zorunlu yasalarının uygulanmasıyla yıkılmaya,

üretilen mal ve hizmetler, en büyük değer haline geldi. Günümüzün de en büyük sorunu olan yabancılaşmanın ekonomik nedeni böylece oluştu. İnsanlar, korunmak için, özel alanın en sağlam kalesi gibi görünen  a i l e’yi seçtiler kendilerine. Ve ailelerine kapandılar. Çünkü kamusal olan artık güvenilmez, ahlaki bakımdan düşük bir ilişkiler yumağıydı.

            19. yüzyılda kamusal alandan kaçışın ilk belirtileri,  s a h n e  i l e  s o k a k  a r a s ı n d a k i  b e n z e r l i k l e r i n   o r t a d a n   k a l k m a s ı y l a  başladı. Artık sahnedeki oyuncular, canlandırdığı kişiliğe uygun kostümlerle sahneye çıkmaya özen gösteriyorlardı. Sahneyle izleyici arasında kalan, çizgilerle çizilmiş bir mesafe oluşmaya başlıyordu. Tiyatro salonlarına sessizlik ve karartmalar ilk kez 1870 yılında gerçekleştirildi. İzleyici artık pasif bir hale gelmişti. Sokaktaki durum da buna uygundu. Yabancılardan korkan insanlar, onlarla konuşmaktan, ilişki kurmaktan korkuyorlardı. T i y a t r o’da olduğu gibi insanlar kamusal yaşamda pasif izleyiciler durumuna geliyorlardı. Kendilerini açıklamak gereği duymadıkları için , r o l  de yapmıyorlardı. Böylece, teatrallik ile sokaktaki davranış birbirinden kesin olarak kopuyordu. Sosyal yaşama egemen olan aldatma, gizemlilik ve yanılsama, açıklığın, yabancılarla ilşki kurmanın yanlış olduğunu her gün yeni olaylarla kanıtlıyordu. Bu durumda  tiyatro, insanlar için başka anlamlar kazanıyordu.

            Özetle, “hiçbir şifre çözme çabası gerektirmeyen sahici yaşam, ancak  s a h n e  s a n a t ı n ı n  himayesi altında ortaya çıkıyordu.”

 

 

*        *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A b s ü r d  (Uyumsuz)  T i y a t r o

 

 

            Brecht klasik tiyatrodan ayrılım stilini empoze ederken, özellikle Varoluşçuluk felsefesinin (existentialism) ve onun bayrağını taşıyanların, örneğin Jean-Paul Sartre  ve Camus, felsefi görüş ve yazışmalar, roman ve piyeslerinin etkisi altında da, yeni bir akım tiyatroyu da içine alacak şekilde Avrupanın kültür sahnelerini işgal etmeye başlamıştı. Bu da, A b s ü r d (Esasında saçma, anlamsız, fakat Edebiyat dilinde ‘Uyumsuz’) T i y a t r o  akımıdır.

            J.Paul Sartre’ın Exit’ini hep hatırlarız. ‘No exit’ – Çıkış Yok diye sahnelenmişti özellikle; Boston’da Fransızcasını, İstanbul’da Türkçesini izledim. Sahne açılır, izbe, mahzen gibi yerde üç dört tutuklu diye nitelendirebileceğimiz kişiler ‘ne suçlar’ işlediklerinden bahsederler, örneğin bir hırsız, bir sokak kadını vb. Arada bir kapı açılır ve içeriye bir başkası tıkılır. Bir az sonra anlarız ki, burası ‘öteki dünya’dır ve insanlar, hayatta iken yaptıklarının muhasebesini tartışmakla meşguldürler. Bunda, hiç olmazsa toparlanmış bir konu vardır, ‘absürd’ olaylar ardarda gelmez, ne de olsa, gelenek dışı bir zaman ve mekanda, bir sonuca varmak istenmeksizin anımsamalar devam eder. Bir gerçek, “varoluşun anlamsızlığı” (absurdity) ana tema’dır. Bilindiği gibi sözcük olarak ‘absurd’, Camus’nun hediyesidir ve hayatın anlamsızlığını ve ‘kendi’ yabancılaşmasını “Yabancı” (L’étranger) da ebedileştirmiştir.

            1880’lerde Nietzsche’nin “tanrının ölümü’ kuramının ortaya atmasından sonra dini inanışın çöküşü, Stalin’in baskıcı diktatörlüğü, Hitler’in uygarlığa yaptığı barbarlık ve en sonunda, Atom Bombası’nın insanlığın ‘yaşam ümidi’ni yitirmesi, ABD’nin zengin toplumlarında gözlemlenen ahlak çöküntüsü, yaşamın anlamsızlığını perçinleştiren sosyal gelişimler oldu.

            “Absürd Tiyatro”nun liderlerinden Beckett ve Adamov’un oyunları ilk kez sahnelendiğinde, izleyici ve eleştirmenler, alışılmışın dışında birşeylerin ‘tiyatro’ adı altında takdim edilmesinden çok rahatsız olup tepki göstermişlerdi. Yüzyıllardanberi tiyatroyu tiyatro yapan ölçütler yerle bir edilmiş gibi görünüyordu.

            Bu tür tiyatroda; iyi tasarlanmış bir tiyatro oyunundan, iyi gözlemlenmiş, karakterleri iyi çizilmiş bir takım aktörlerin, konuları iyi sınırlanmış oyunları sunmaları yerine, bu oyunlarda çoğunlukla tanımlanması güç karakterler ve anlamsız eylemler gözlenir. Diyalog’lar, anlamsız ve gayesiz birtakım ‘söz salataları’dır. Klasik bir oyunda gözlediğimiz ‘başı, gelişimi ve sonu belli’ bir oyun yerine, ‘rasgele’ bir başlayış ve ‘rasgele’ bir bitiş var gibidir. Yazarlar, bir öykü anlatmak niyetinde değillerdi. Peki bunlar bizlere ne vermek istiyorlardı? Bizlere, içlerindeki dürtüye uyarak, bir sanatçı olarak,  d ü n y a y ı   a n l a y ı ş   b i ç i m l e r i n i  sergilemek isitiyorlardı.

Yukarda da belirtildiği gibi, bu yazarların tiyatro felsefeleriyle Heidegger, Sartre ve Camus’nun ‘Varoluşçu Felsefesi’ ile birçok ortak noktalara sahiptirler. Mamafih, bir bakımdan o kadar da devrimci sayılmayabilirler. Bazı kritik’ler, bu cereyana, antik-arkaik tiyatro ve edebiyat geleneklerinin yeni bir bileşimi olarak bakarlar.

A b s ü r d  Tiyatro’nun başını, yazılarının çoğunu Fransızca yazan –mamafih Dante’yi orijinal İtalyancadan da okuyabilen- Samuel Beckett çeker. 1906 Dublin, İrlanda doğumlu, protestan inançlı ve varlıklı bir ailenin oğlu olan bu büyük yazar Tüm Düşenler, Oyun Sonu, Sözsüz Oyun gibi eserlerinin yanında, Godot’yu Beklerken, onun en meşhur yapıtı ve bu ekolün en tipik bir örneği sayılır. 19 Kasım 1957’de San Quentin Hapishanesinde takdim edildiği zaman, tüm mahkumlar huşu içersinde onu izlemişlerdi. ‘Şekil’ (form) bakımından en mükemmeli sayılan bu eser; yanında Varoluşçu yazarlar, ardında İkinci Dünya Savaşının dehşeti”, yazarın kendisinin yıllarca hayat ve sevgi arayışından sonra, bu dünya yüzünde yaşayan hemen herkesin varlığını dolduran, insanı felce uğratabilecek ümitsizliğin bir ifadesi olarak saygınlık görmüştür.

            Prof. Ayşegül Yüksel’in çevirdiği şu satırlar, Beckett’in şairliğinin derecesini göstermektedir:

            ‘Nasıl da bilirdi

            hiçbir sözün

            biçim veremediğini

            yaşamın karmaşasına.’

 

            Beckett, “post-modern modernist” olarak tanındı. Düşüncelerini, dünya görüşlerini benimsemeksizin kullanırdı. Yapıtları, zaman ve mekan (uzam) sınırlarını aşarak bir özgürlük arama yolundadırlar. Prens Hamlet’in son sözleri “..gerisi, sessizliktir!” olmuştu. Dünyanın bütün okyanuslarının parmaklarındaki kanları silemeyeceği Lady Macbeth için yaşam “..yürüyen bir gölge ve hiçbir anlamı olmayan bir masal..”dı.

            Beckett, insanoğlunun ‘altın çağı’ olarak nitelendirilmesi gereken bu asırda, altın çağın yüzeysel parıltılarının altındaki ‘çıplak gerçeği’ görebilmiştir. İnsan uygarlığının çözüşmeye başladığı, Batı uygarlığının ‘kişisellik-bireycilik’ anlayışının iflas ettiği; geçmiş değerlerle ilişkisini koparmış, geleceğin değerlerini yaratamayan, hem dünyanın vazgeçilmez ‘varlığı’ ve hem de ‘ölüme yazgılı’ varoluşa başkaldıran bir kişidir.

            Şimdi sizlere, önemi dolayısıyla, “Godot’yu Beklerken”in kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Kimsenin gelmediği, kimsenin gitmediği, hiçbir şeyin olmadığı, bir ıssız yol kenarında, “bilinç”in sesine, karşılıklı konuşma şeklinde işitsellik kazandıran VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, sanki atom bombasının herşeyi yok ettiği dünyada kalmış son iki canlıdır. Bir “umut” olarak, gördükleri ya da görmedikleri GODOT’nun onlarla buluşmaya gelmesini, ya da gelmemesini beklerken, sıradan bir şekilde çok yavaş akan zamanı doldurmak için durmadan konuşurlar ve oyun oynarlar.

 

            VLADIMIR ve ESTRAGON, yüzlerce yıl biryerlere gitmezler. Konuşmaları artık ritüel’e dönmüştür. Onlar, birey olma özelliklerini yitirmişlerdir, onları kimse tanımaz, kimse anımsamaz. Oyunun iki perdesi de aynı biçimde başlar ve aynı biçimde sonlanır.

 

            Onlarla karşılaşan POZZO ve LUCKY, bir başka gerçeklik düzeyinde yer alırlar. Varoluşları ‘zaman’ ve ‘uzam’ın belirleyiciliği ile sınırlanmış olan, “eşit” konumdaki VLADIMIR-ESTRAGON ikilisi karşısında, efendi-köle ilişkisini simgeleyen bu ‘hareketli’ ikili, “toplumsal insan”ın örneğini verirler; ama, iki perde arasında çökerler, zira zaman hızla akmaktadır. POZZO kör olur, LUCKY ise dilsizleşir ve diğer ikiliyle anlamsızlık çizgisi içinde buluşurlar. POZZO der: “..bize, mezar taşının yanı başında yaşam vermişler. Bir gün ışıyor, sonra yine gece…”

            B e c k e t t,  Aralık 1989 da bu dünyadan göçtü. Tüm insanlık hala Godot’nun gelişini bekliyor ve bekleyecek de.

            Bu ekol’ün diğer bellibaşlı yazarlarından da kısa örnekler verelim:

            Eugene Ionesco. 1953 Romanya doğumlu. En meşhur eseri: Amédée

 

            Orta yaşlı bir karı koca, gerçek yaşamla ilgisi olmayan bir şekilde sunulurlar. Adam, bir oyun yazarıdır; kadın ise bir telefon santralı işletir.

            Karı-kocanın yatak odalarında, yıllardanberi orada kalan, olası kadının sevgilisine ait bir ceset vardır. Kocası mı onu öldürdü, yoksa o bir soyguncu mu idi, belli değildir. Diğer acayip bir nokta da, bu kimliği belirsiz ceset, “geometrik büyüme”ye yakalanmış olarak gitgide büyümektedir. Sonunda, dev bir ayak, yatak odasından oturma odasına yürür, neredeyse karı kocayı evden dışarı atma konumuna gelir.

            Ionesco, gerçekte gördüğü bir düşü sahnelemiştir ve insanlar, arada bir böyle saçma görünen ‘metamorfozik’ düşler görebilirler. (Kafka’nın Metamorphosis’ini nasıl unutabiliriz?)

Önemli nokta, “büyüyen ceset” imgesinin ne olduğunu düşünmektir. ‘Hayat geçicidir, yaşayanlardan fazla, ‘büyüyen bir ölü sayısı var!” mı demek istiyor? bilmiyoruz. Fakat yazar, bu gibi çağrışımlarla, konunun altında saklı şiirsel gücü pekiştirmektedir. T.A.L. de, Dramaturg ve şair Haluk Şevket Ataseven’in her zaman tekrarladığı gibi, “Tiyatro topluma, kişinin toplum ve yaşamla olan çatışması sonucu oluşan bir üst düzeydeki şiir dilini, şiirsel bir boyutta veriyor.”

Oyunda, cesedin büyümesinden dolayı bir devinim vardır, ama oyun yine de durağan’dır. Tanık olduğumuz devinim, şiirsel imgenin giderek belirginleşmesinin bir sonucudur. Bu imge ne kadar belirsiz ve karmaşıksa, onu ortaya çıkarma süreci de o kadar karmaşık ve şaşırtıcı olur.    

 

 

            Ionesco’nun diğer önemli bir yapıtı da:  “Kiracı” dır. Kısa bir özetini verelim.

            Bir çatı katını kiralamak isteyen bir adam vardır. Adam, katı ölçer, biçer ve gereksinimine uygun bulur ve odaya eşyalarını taşır. Odaya eşya yığılır. Adam, yığılan eşyaların yanında bir masaya uzanmıştır. Eşya, sonunda adamın yanına, üstüne yığılarak etrafını bir koza gibi örer. Sonuçta adam, orada hapsolmuş olarak kalır.

            Oyundaki tek devinim, eşyanın taşınmasıdır. Eşya yığını bir meskeni mi, yoksa bir mezarı mı temsil ediyor? Dünya gibi tehlikeli bir ortamda, kendisini ancak ‘koza’sında, giderek mezarında güvencede hisseden insanın dramını yansıtan bir kara mizah mı? Bilmiyoruz.

 

            Fernando Arrabal, 1932’de İspanya’da doğdu. La Tri-cicleta (1953) oyunu sansüre uğrayınca, Paris’e gelerek Fransızca yazmaya başladı. Pique-nique en campagne (1951) ve Orchestration Théatrale (1959) eserlerinin yanında  İ k i   İ ş k e n c e c i  en popüler soyut tiyatro eserleridir.

            “İki İşkenceci”de, annesinin babasına uyguladığı işkencelere karşı çıkan asi oğlan, ahlak yasalarının yarattığı i k i l e m’le karşı karşıyadır. Ya babasının yanını tutup, acı çeken kurbanı işkenceden kurtarmayı gerektiren insancıl bir iyilik yapacak, ya da annesini onore etmek için ona boyun eğecektir.

            Anne, babasına işkence yaptırdığı için, burada ahlak yasaları, dolayısıyla da tüm sistem bir çekişme içinde bulunmaktadır.

            Arrabal, yalnızca bu duruma dikkati çekip bunun kendi algı sisteminin ötesinde birşey olduğunu vurgular ama, bu durumu yargılamayı yadsır.

            Edward Albee, 1928 U.S.A. doğumlu olup, bu alandaki en belirli eseri Hayvanat Bahçesi Masalı’dır.

            Bu romanda, birçok boyutlar vardır. Bir yandan, gerçek anlamda bir kişiliğin bölünmesi çalışması, diğerinde de, törensel, ritüelistik ve sembolik bir düzeyde, İsa dirilmekte ve garip koşulları bulunan bir törende kişi, kendini kurban etmektedir.

                                                                                  *

            Özet olarak  A b s ü r d   T i y a t r o  F e l s e f e s i  şöylece özetlenebilir:

            Yazarlar, artık, bu sıkıntı asrında, derli toplu psiko-sosyal çözümlerin bulunabileceğine inanmıyorlar. Onlar; insan yaşamında gözlemledikleri tutarsızlık ve anlamsızlığı endişe, belirsizlik, ve çaresizlik duygularını ifade edebilme peşindedirler (Tıpkı Egzistansiyalistler gibi!) Ama onların, akılcı bir şekilde düzenleyip yöneltilen bir  e v r e n’in varlığına inançları yok. Yazarlar; insanın yok oluş sürecinin yarattığı şaşkınlığı, kesin çizgileri çizilmiş ve gerçekten iyi bilinen inanç ve değer sistemlerinin yitirilmesini işlerler. Bunları, bir az ilerde, Modern Tiyatro görüşleri ile karşılaştıracağız.

*

 

           ‘Modern Tiyatro” ve  Grotowski’ye geçmeden, Cumhuriyet Gazetesinin 19 Haziran 1997 tarihli sayısında yayınlanan, Richard Sennett’ın yazdığı ve Serpil Durak, Abdurrahman Yılmaz’ın çevirdiği gerçekten çok değerli bir makaleyi burada tekrarlamaktan kendimi alamayacağım. Başlık :  KAMUSAL İNSANIN ÇÖKÜŞÜ : Benliğine gömülen çağdaş insanın tarihsel öyküsü.

            18. Yüzyılda Londra ve Paris’e büyük bir göç vardı. Yeni gelen insanlar hemen iş bulabiliyorlardı, çünkü işgücü açığı vardı. Kente gelen insanların henüz kimliği oluşmamıştı. Bu nedenle herkes birbirine yabancıydı. O yıllarda bu büyük kentler, insanların birbirlerini tanımak için büyük çabalar harcadıkları yerlerdi. Kamusal alan, yabancıların kendilerini birbirlerine ifade edebilecekleri alanı yansıtmaktaydı.

            İ f a d e  eylemi, konuşma, giyim ve davranışla gerçekleşmektedir. Bu eylem içinde, herkesin rolü vardır.R o l, duruma uygun, o ana özgü ve beklenen  d a v r a n ı ş  b i ç i m i’dir. Roller, aynı zamanda, kendimizi ve karşımızdakileri ne kadar ciddiye aldığımızın ipuçlarını da içinde barındırır.

            T e a t r a l l ı ğ ı n  kamusal yaşamla kendine özgü, dostça bir ilişkisi vardır. Kamusal roller, tıpkı tiyatroda olduğu gibi; seyirci, inanırlığın kalıcı olması, kamusal bir coğrafya yaratması ve rol yapan kişinin ifadesini yapılandırmasını gerekli kılar. Kendi benliğimize kapanıp kalmamızın önünü açar. 18. yüzyıl insanı, bu ilişkileri, bir  a k t ö r  tavrında kuruyordu. Kendi kişiliğini sergilemeye gerek duymadan rolünü yapıyor, kahvehanelerde, kafelerde, parklarda, ya da kentte öteki kamusal alanlarda, “öteki”lerle ilişkiye geçiyordu. Burada, tıpkı bir aktör gibi, kendi benliğini öne çıkarmak yerine, duyguların takdimini yapıyordu. Bir café’de gördüğü kazayı anlatan insan, buna kendi benliğini katmadan ortaya çıkan trajik sonucu anlatıyordu. Yani günümüz insanı gibi, bu kazayı, kendi derin duygularını, bu acı olay karşısında benliğinin gösterdiği yüceliği ifade etmek yerine, o olayı bir o y u n c u   g i b i  aktarıyor, kişileştirmiyordu. Kişisel yaşam, teatrallikle iç içeydi. Oysa özel alanın teatrallikle ilişkisi düşmancaydı. Mahremiyetin sergilenmesi, kişiyi ürkütüyordu. Bu nedenle konuşma, davranış ve giysilerin bir ifade aracından olmasından kaçınma gündeme geliyordu. Bu açıdan da, 18. yüzyıla baktığımızda, sahne ile sokak arasında yakınlaşma görürüz. 1750’lerde Paris’te sokakta giyilen giysiler, sahnedekilerle benzerlik taşıyordu. 18. yüzyıl insanı bir aktör, bir icracıydı. Ancak, bir sonraki yüzyıl, herşey ferahlaşmıştı.

19. yüzyıl tarihe s a n a y i   k a p i t a l i z m i’ni armağan etti. Bu da toplumsal yaşamda büyük değişikliklere neden oldu. 18. yüzyılda kamusal olanla özel olan arasında oluşan denge, sanayi kapitalizminin toplumun her alanında yarattığı değişiklik ve köklü düzenlemelere direnir gibi direnir gibi görünmesine, hatta konulara kimi kurallarla sağlamlaşmış gibi durmasına karşın, içten içe bozulmaya başlamıştı. Gerçekte kazananlara bile çok şey yitirdiği bir sistem olan ‘kapitalizm’, insan varlığını fiziksel ve tinsel olarak tehdit etmeye başladı. İşsizlik, açlık, patlayan suç dalgaları sosyal yaşamda ağırlığını hissettirmeye başladı. İnsani değerler, kapitalist rekabetin zorunlu yasalarının uygulanmasıyla yıkılmaya, üretilen mal ve hizmetler, en büyük değer haline geldi. Günümüzün de en büyük sorunu olan yabancılaşmanın ekonomik nedeni böylece oluştu. İnsanlar, korunmak için, özel alanın en sağlam kalesi gibi görünen  a i l e’yi seçtiler kendilerine. Ve ailelerine kapandılar. Çünkü kamusal olan artık güvenilmez, ahlaki bakımdan düşük bir ilişkiler yumağıydı.

            19. yüzyılda kamusal alandan kaçışın ilk belirtileri,  s a h n e  i l e  s o k a k  a r a s ı n d a k i  b e n z e r l i k l e r i n   o r t a d a n   k a l k m a s ı y l a  başladı. Artık sahnedeki oyuncular, canlandırdığı kişiliğe uygun kostümlerle sahneye çıkmaya özen gösteriyorlardı. Sahneyle izleyici arasında kalan, çizgilerle çizilmiş bir mesafe oluşmaya başlıyordu. Tiyatro salonlarına sessizlik ve karartmalar ilk kez 1870 yılında gerçekleştirildi. İzleyici artık pasif bir hale gelmişti. Sokaktaki durum da buna uygundu. Yabancılardan korkan insanlar, onlarla konuşmaktan, ilişki kurmaktan korkuyorlardı. T i y a t r o’da olduğu gibi insanlar kamusal yaşamda pasif izleyiciler durumuna geliyorlardı. Kendilerini açıklamak gereği duymadıkları için , r o l  de yapmıyorlardı. Böylece, teatrallik ile sokaktaki davranış birbirinden kesin olarak kopuyordu. Sosyal yaşama egemen olan aldatma, gizemlilik ve yanılsama, açıklığın, yabancılarla ilşki kurmanın yanlış olduğunu her gün yeni olaylarla kanıtlıyordu. Bu durumda  tiyatro, insanlar için başka anlamlar kazanıyordu.

            Özetle, “hiçbir şifre çözme çabası gerektirmeyen sahici yaşam, ancak  s a h n e  s a n a t ı n ı n  himayesi altında ortaya çıkıyordu.”