Elements Of The Theatre Of Absurd In Camus’ The Myth Of Sisyphus And Beckett’s Waiting For Godot

The expression ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ was introduced by the Hungarian-born critic Martin Esslin to refer to the dramatic works of certain European and even a few American dramatists of the middle of the last century who believed in Albert Camus’ assessment of human existence in his seminal essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. In this essay, Camus argued that human existence in the universe is devoid of any inherent purpose. It is important to note that there was no formal Absurdist Movement in Western theatre. Dramatists such as Jean Genet, Harold Pinter, Arthur Adamov and most importantly Samuel Beckett, who hailed from diverse backgrounds, were called absurdist dramatists as they shared a common pessimistic view of our existence. In their plays, humanity struggles vainly to find a purpose and to control its fate. Humankind in this view is left bewildered, hopeless and anxious. ‘Waiting for Godot’ ,Samuel Beckett’s unique play was arguably the greatest innovation in the history of the theatre and is widely considered the first absurdist play that achieved theatrical success. The play was initially written in French and later translated into English by the author himself. It cannot be denied that the play influenced later playwrights such as Tom Stoppard. An examination of the features of the play can serve to enlighten us as to why the play has become almost synonymous with the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’.

The central idea of the absurdist plays is the inherent meaninglessness of our existence in the universe and the resultant futility of communication. This idea also dictates the structure of these plays which do not have the strictly logical structure of traditional drama. ‘Waiting for Godot’, in this sense, is a typical absurdist play for it lacks plot, character development and most importantly a setting. A comparison of the stage direction of the play with that of any other contemporary play reveals that Beckett has provided very few details about the setting. It simply states: A country road, a tree, evening.

The scantiness of the setting is indicative of the insignificance of absolute locations in space. The place could be anywhere and hence, nowhere in particular. In the second act, the tree has four or five leaves. This however thwarts the expectations of the readers by not bringing about any kind of renewal in the plot. There is little dramatic action in the conventional sense. The characters perform ceaselessly but this activity serves to emphasize the fact that nothing happens that can infuse life with an intrinsic meaning. Throughout the play, the characters lament that there is “nothing to be done”. Although there is a paucity of conventional theatrical action, there is plenty of random physical action. Vladimir and Estragon fidget with boots and hats, beat up and get beaten, exchange hats and engage in music hall cross-talk. However, this random action does not serve in directing the characters towards any definite end. The meaningless dialogue or activities give the audience a sense of what it is like to live in a universe that doesn’t make sense. Another important feature of the play is the incoherence of dialogue. Language, in true absurdist fashion, is often dislocated, full of clichés, puns, repetitions and non-sequiturs (fallacies). This ridiculous aimless behavior and talk gives the plays a comic surface, but there is serious distress deep within. Logic and arguments give way to meaningless babble and to its ultimate conclusion, silence. The dialogue between Vladimir and Estragon is a kind of ‘game’ to evade the horrors of silence. When the tramps find nothing to converse about, they desperately attempt to fill the silence immediately.

When ordered by Pozzo to ‘think’, Lucky blurts out an apparently nonsensical rant. In his speech, there is a complete breakdown of syntax. This reflects Beckett’s inability to see “any trace of any system anywhere”. The audience, like the characters, confronts the ‘absurd’. Lucy’s speech suggests uncertainty about almost everything besides death and decay. Lucky has no fixed beliefs and his monologue mocks various religious and scientific ways of explaining the world. The spectator moves from textual questions pertaining to the identity of Godot to existential questions such as what he/she is doing in the theatre and why? It is impossible to connect with the characters one does not understand. Hence, the lack of communication among the characters is extended to the audience as well. Camus, in his Myth of Sisyphus holds that if life is essentially absurd, so is death. Indeed, Vladimir and Estragon talk nonchalantly and pleasantly about suicide. The audience is never sure how to react to this absurd mixture of comedy and tragedy. When Vladimir says, “one daren’t even laugh anymore”, his comment would apply to the audience of Beckett’s play. If the world is meaningless, it makes no sense to see it as good or bad, comic or tragic. Beckett has presented to us a play that sits right on the border between the comic and the tragic.

SOURCE