Sunday, June 7, 2020
Farce and the Mechanical Body in Beckettââ¬â¢s plays - Literature Essay Samples
Beckett is fundamentally anti-logocentric. Throughout his work, he rejects the view that there is an essential order that can be discovered through reason. This is nowhere more clear than in Three Dialogues (1949), in which he deplores centuries of artists who, whilst ââ¬Ëthrusting towards a more adequate expression of natural experienceââ¬â¢, exhibit a foolish and mechanical ââ¬Ëtropism towards the lightââ¬â¢ (towards some imagined, rational reality). For Beckett, the relationship between the artist and his object is doubly unstable, because both parties are in a continual state of flux: the occasion is ââ¬Ëan unstable term of relationââ¬â¢ and the artist is ââ¬Ëhardly less so, thanks to his warren of modes and attitudesââ¬â¢. However, Beckett struggled with the ââ¬Ëdilemma of expressionââ¬â¢. How was he meant to expose the Pythagorean cover-up to his audience through the expression which he felt was so inadequate? The importance of an audienceââ¬â¢s work is often overlooked by critics, but it is just this activity that allows Beckett to give his view, whilst avoiding expression as far as possible. He repeatedly defamiliarizes his audience through complex farcical situations and (which is entirely linked) through his conception of the mechanical body. In attending a Beckett play one should come to terms with continuously reemerging otherness in all things, and by extension with the non-essential nature of reality. One should be shocked out of ââ¬Ëestheticized automatismââ¬â¢. Much of the comedy in Beckettââ¬â¢s earlier plays revolves around simple farce. For example, in Waiting for Godot (1953), Estragon and Vladimir are constantly falling over each other, in the manner of circus clowns. One episode, in particular, displays high farce: ââ¬ËTogether make a sudden rush towards the wings. ESTRAGON stops half-way, runs back, picks up the carrot, stuffs it in his pocket, runs towards VLADIMIR, who is waiting for him, stops again, runs back, picks up his boot, runs to rejoin VLADIMIR.ââ¬â¢ Traditional farce is clearly present also in the hat-exchanging in Godot and Krappââ¬â¢s humorous encounters with bananas in Krappââ¬â¢s Last Tape (1958). However, this farce is never left just as it is. What appears to be farce in Beckettââ¬â¢s plays always assumes an important defamiliarizing character and transmutes into something far darker. At the beginning of Endgame (1957), for example, Beckett seems to be employing a simple form of farce through Clovââ¬â¢s actions. Beckett had read Bergsonââ¬â¢s Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the comic (1900) in about 1930, and at first Clov seems merely to be fulfilling the definition of the comic as set out in Laughter: ââ¬ËHe gets down, takes three steps towards window left, goes back for ladder, carries it over and sets it down under window left, gets up on it, looks out of windowââ¬â¢ These actions are repeated many times (part of Bergsonââ¬â¢s definition) and Clov has become more human than mechanical; he ââ¬Ënous donne lââ¬â¢impression dââ¬â¢une choseââ¬â¢ (gives us the impression of being a thing). However, Beckett very deliberately departs from Bergsonââ¬â¢s model by making Clov laugh at the same point as the audience. This exhibits a certain self-consciousness which breaks down ââ¬Ëthe difference between same and otherââ¬â¢, which Weller (2006) takes to be the uniting theme of Baudelaireââ¬â¢s, Bergsonââ¬â¢s and Freudââ¬â¢s conceptions of the comic. Elsewhere in the play, Clov exhibits the same self-consciousness, which contrasts to Bergsonââ¬â¢s notion that ââ¬Ëthe comic must be ââ¬â more precisely, it must give the impression of being ââ¬â completely unaware of its comicalityââ¬â¢ (Weller). Most strikingly when he drops the telescope (typical farce) and the states: ââ¬ËI did it on purpose.ââ¬â¢ The second time Clov laughs, his laughter is no longer spontaneous (he is looking at the same scene out of the window). This makes the audience question their own mechanism when watching comedy ââ¬â is their laughter really spontaneous or is it manufactured? The third ââ¬Ëbrief laughââ¬â¢ becomes very dark, and the audience is now entirely excluded from the joke. The final ââ¬Ëbrief laughââ¬â¢ seemingly arises from the ââ¬Ëblood-stained handkerchiefââ¬â¢ covering Hammââ¬â¢s face. Before any dialogue has begun, Beckett has collapsed the premise of expression upon which the theatre functions. The action on stage, traditionally, has the same (external) effect on everyone in the audience and clearly guides response. By deconstructing presumed sequences of cause-and-effect, Beckett is essentially shocking is audience out of their own mechanical ââ¬Ëtropismââ¬â¢. In this element, Beckettââ¬â¢s use of the comic is reunited with Bergsonââ¬â¢s. As paraphra sed by Weller (2006), Bergson saw ââ¬Ëlaughterââ¬â¢s functionââ¬â¢ as being ââ¬Ëto recall consciousness to itself, to save the living from the non-living, the human from the non-humanââ¬â¢. In a roundabout way, this is precisely what Beckett does. This mutation of farce to force the audience out of their ââ¬Ëautomatismââ¬â¢ and into some more active experience is present throughout Beckettââ¬â¢s plays. At the beginning of Godot, Vladimir enquires how ââ¬Ëhis Highnesss spent the night?ââ¬â¢ to which Estragon replies ââ¬ËIn a ditch.ââ¬â¢ This jarring of Estragonââ¬â¢s royal status and his sleeping arrangements produces a very straightforward comic effect. However, within a few lines the audience is lifted out of passive amusement: ââ¬ËVLADIMIR: And they didnââ¬â¢t beat you? ESTRAGON: Beat me? Certainly they beat me.ââ¬â¢ Throughout the play, the audience is made aware of their own reactions by a consistent suppression of laughter on stage (ââ¬ËVLADIMIR breaks into a hearty laugh which he immediately suppressesââ¬â¢) and by reminders that, within the world of the play, laughter is prohibited (ââ¬ËOne darenââ¬â¢t even laugh any more.ââ¬â¢). In Act Without Words I (1957) Beckettââ¬â¢s playful mutation of farce is pushed to its most extreme articulation. A man in a desert is subjected to slapstick farce at first: he tries to exit the stage and is ââ¬Ë[i]mmediately flung back on stageââ¬â¢. He attempts this twice in a row, befitting Bergsonââ¬â¢s conception of the comic. However, the farce becomes much darker. The dramatic space cruelly withholds the carafe of water from the man, who then thinks to hang himself, but the bough of the tree folds away. He then intends to stab himself with scissors, but these ââ¬Ëdisappear in fliesââ¬â¢. The audience are made complicit in the manââ¬â¢s torture. After all, this is a scene composed of comic tropes which they would usually laugh at. Beckett seems to be asking the audience: ââ¬ËAt what point does your simple farce become suffering? I dare you to laugh now.ââ¬â¢ Beckettââ¬â¢s most renowned play, Godot, ends in a cuttingly appropriate way: Estragonââ¬â¢s trousers have fallen down, and, after some stock-farce-miscommunication, Vladimir succeeds in making him pull them up again. This episode fulfils an archetypal farce form. The fact that a play which has been filled with so much suffering, restlessness and even mentions of suicide should end in this way leaves a bad taste in the audienceââ¬â¢s collective mouth. If Beckett were ever capable of being moralising, this is the point at which he is. He holds up the mirror to his audience, and shows them an ugly mechanical reflection. In contrast to these complex, interrogative (and wordless) scripts, is Beckettââ¬â¢s first play Eleutheria (1947 ââ¬â edition trans. Barbara Wright). The play was never performed, and Beckett did not want it to be published. The reasons for Beckettââ¬â¢s dissatisfaction with the script are clear, when assessed on the level of the comic. Simple farce is used throughout the play, especially manifesting in the character of Jacques (who punctuates the dialogue with his knocking on the door and obsequious replies), and in the comedy duo of the glazier and his son, Michel: ââ¬ËGLAZIER: Pass me the rule. MICEL: But youââ¬â¢ve already got it. GLAZIER: Monsieur. MICEL: Monsieur. GLAZIER: So I have.ââ¬â¢ Farce in Eleutheria, for the most part, works on the most basic level. The audience is sure that, regardless of how disturbing Victorââ¬â¢s situation may get, the glazier and his son will always be on hand to lighten the mood. Furthermore, Eleutheria fails to create the defamiliarizing effect of Beckettââ¬â¢s other, more successful plays. Whereas in Endgame there is a disconnect between the audienceââ¬â¢s response (repulsion and confusion at the sight of the bloody handkerchief) and the response on stage (Clovââ¬â¢s laughter), in Eleutheria there is a comforting alignment which creates a sense of security for the audience. For example, when Dr Piouk ââ¬Ëlaughs to himselfââ¬â¢ when Violette Krap discovers that her son knows his father is dead, he is reprimanded on stage (Madame Piouk: ââ¬ËAndrà ©!ââ¬â¢). For Beckett, Eleutheria fails to escape the conditional expressive conventions of the theatre, and therefore fails. Beckett also defamiliarizes his audience through a mechanical conception of humanity. In ââ¬ËDream of Fair to Middling Womenââ¬â¢, excerpt e., Beckett writes that ââ¬Ë[t]o read Balzac is to receive the impression of a chloroformed world [â⬠¦] he has turned all his creatures into clockwork cabbages and can rely on their staying put wherever needed or staying going at whatever speed in whatever direction he chooses.ââ¬â¢ The characters in Beckettââ¬â¢s plays, by contrast, cannot be relied on for any kind of logical continuity. Two exchanges from Endgame demonstrate this quality particularly well: ââ¬ËHAMM: The alarm, is it working? CLOV: Why wouldnââ¬â¢t it be working? HAMM: ââ¬ËBecause itââ¬â¢s worked too much.ââ¬â¢ ââ¬ËHAMM: â⬠¦itââ¬â¢s not worth while opening it [the window]? CLOV: No.HAMM: [Violently.] Then open it!ââ¬â¢ In Eleutheria, by comparison, human behavior is far more predictable. Indeed, the directions for the marginal action of Act I read: ââ¬Ë[Victorââ¬â¢s] movements, although vague, nevertheless follow a fixed rhythm and pattern, so that the audience finally become more or less aware of where he is without having to look at him.ââ¬â¢ This is yet another way the play fails by Beckettââ¬â¢s standards. Humans are not a familiar species in Beckettââ¬â¢s plays. They are seen covered in dustsheets (Endgame), reduced to urns (Play, 1964), and periodically show themselves to be ââ¬Ëunnaturalââ¬â¢ (e.g. when Violette Krap calls her own son a ââ¬Ëmonsterââ¬â¢). Beckettââ¬â¢s plays are, it seems entirely, set in some kind of dystopian future, in last last days of the human race. Humanity, rather than being a benevolent and loved species, becomes almost taboo: Mme. Krap: ââ¬ËMarguerite told us that you love humanity. Is that possible?ââ¬â¢ Mme. Piouk: ââ¬ËYouââ¬â¢re twisting my words.ââ¬â¢ Dr Piouk: ââ¬ËI donââ¬â¢t love it.ââ¬â¢ Mme. Piouk: ââ¬ËHeââ¬â¢s interested in it. Full stop.ââ¬â¢ Mme. Krap: ââ¬ËYouââ¬â¢re interested in humanity?ââ¬â¢ Dr Piouk: ââ¬ËIââ¬â¢m not indifferent to it.ââ¬â¢ By stepping outside of humanity in this way, and by eschewing all the rhetoric that is usually bound up with the human race, Beckett successfully creates a sense of ââ¬Ëothernessââ¬â¢. In doing so, he exposes the mechanical nature which underlies human activities. For example, in Happy Days (1961), Winnie methodically brushes her teeth, polishes her spectacles, files her nails etc. and within the intensified space of the theatre these actions begin to look like farce. This gains significance when Winnie highlights that such mindless actions have replaced effective language: ââ¬ËWhat is one to do then, until they [adequate words] come again? Brush and comb the hair if it has not been done, or if there is some doubt, trim the nails if they are in need of trimming, these things tide one over.ââ¬â¢ In this way, Beckett has made the audience aware of their own ââ¬Ëtropismââ¬â¢; their own hopelessly mechanical way of life. Beckettââ¬â¢s plays are uniquely concerned with the body. There is a ââ¬Ëheartââ¬â¢ that drips in Hammââ¬â¢s head and a ââ¬Ëbig soreââ¬â¢ inside his ââ¬Ëbreastââ¬â¢. Bodily fluids swill about all the plays (ââ¬Ëoozing pussââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ësaniesââ¬â¢ in Elutheria, perspiration in Happy Days, an allusion to semen in Godot). The strong emphasis on the body creates an othering effect. Like Dr Piouk, Beckett insists on his audience becoming aware that ââ¬ËYou are your organs [â⬠¦] and your organs are you.ââ¬â¢ This ââ¬Ëotheringââ¬â¢ of the human body, is arguably at its height in Eleutheria when Victor points out: ââ¬Ëââ¬ËIf I was dead, I wouldnââ¬â¢t know I was dead [â⬠¦] Thatââ¬â¢s where the liberty lies: to see oneself dead.ââ¬â¢ Beckett seems to see a complete awareness of the human body as a possible solution to the issue of expression not reflecting experience. In Not I (1973), Beckett explicitly connects the body to expression: ââ¬Ëher lips moving[â⬠¦]the cheeksâ⬠¦the jawsâ⬠¦the whole face [â⬠¦] the tongue in the mouthâ⬠¦ all those contortions without whichâ⬠¦no speech possibleâ⬠¦and yet in the ordinary wayâ⬠¦not felt at allâ⬠¦so intent one isâ⬠¦on what one is sayingâ⬠¦the whole beingâ⬠¦hanging on its wordsââ¬â¢ By focusing in words, Beckett says, we are distracted from our visceral experiences (which are, ironically, necessary to produce words!). Not I attempts to remedy this situation to some extent, with fragmentary, almost unintelligible words (as in Play) and a spotlight on the actressââ¬â¢ mouth (Stage in darkness but for MOUTH). Breath (1969) goes even further along this path, completely getting rid of words and replacing them instead with a single physiological action: a human breath. As Ulrika Maude highlights, much of ââ¬Ë[t]he humour [â⬠¦] begins to recede from Beckettââ¬â¢s writing after Happy Daysââ¬â¢. Whilst the comic element of the later plays is indeed lost, the foundation upon which this comic element was based (the mechanization of the body, in line with Bergsonââ¬â¢s theory) remains. For example, in Quad (1984) ââ¬Ëthe players [â⬠¦] pace the given area, each following his particular courseââ¬â¢ and in Footfalls (1975), May is also continuously pacing. Furthermore, in Rockaby (1980) and What Where (1983), both language and bodily actions reach an almost hypnotic level of mechanism. Such features of the later plays show the extreme impacts of ââ¬Ëtropismââ¬â¢. Humans in these plays ââ¬Ëseem to be losing species, regressing to the subhuman, trying to rehearse the figures of instinct but botching the jobââ¬â¢ (Allbright, 2003). In his correspondence with the director Alan Schneider, Beckett wrote that ââ¬Ëmy work is for the small theatreââ¬â¢, drawing a comparison between the performance of Endgame at the Royal Court (ââ¬Ëlike playing to mahogany, or rather teak) and that at the ââ¬Ëlittle Studio des Champs- Elysà ©esââ¬â¢ (where ââ¬Ëthe hooks went inââ¬â¢). This points towards the essential nature of the active audience in Beckettââ¬â¢s plays. Indeed, throughout his plays, Beckett reminds his audience that they are watching a play within a theatre. In Eleutheria, a ââ¬ËSpectatorââ¬â¢ even climbs on stage and takes part in the action, deploring the audience for being ââ¬Ëeven more of a moron than [the characters] are, rooted to the spot, disgusted, bored, tired, marvelling at so much stupidity.ââ¬â¢ In Endgame, Estragon surveys the audience (ââ¬ËInspiring prospectsââ¬â¢) and in Happy Days Winnie sees a man, representative of the audience ââ¬Ëstanding there gapin g at me [â⬠¦] Whatââ¬â¢s she doing? he says ââ¬â Whatââ¬â¢s the idea? he says ââ¬â stuck up to her diddies in the bleeding ground ââ¬â coarse fellow ââ¬â What does it mean? he says ââ¬â Whatââ¬â¢s it meant to mean?ââ¬â¢. Beckett sought to defamiliarize his audience, to shock them out of their automatism and to expose the greatest cover up of history: that there is any such thing as essential meaning. This is how he came closest to expressing the issue of expression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)