The term ‘theatre of the absurd’ was first used by Martin Assilin, who defined absurdity as something which refers to the futility of existence and preposterousness of man in this immense universe. Some playwrights like Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter and others also share the view that the man is inhabiting a universe with which he is out of key. Interestingly, it seems as if meanings of these plays were not clear even to the writer himself, but he discussed man’s absurd position in this universe with relish. According to these playwrights the man is obscurely stationed in this world, and because of the uncertainty of his position and status he is bewildered and confused.
Taken in view the horrors of the Second World War this should come as no wonder. This war exposed many flaws in human existence. It uprooted the man completely and brought into light his blood-thirsty nature and shook the validity of many institutions, making the existence of man dubious. Thus what the war did was to highlight the arbitrariness and meaninglessness of everything for which the man strives.
Also the trauma of living under the threat and fear of nuclear annihilation played a vital role in contributing towards making the man aware of his queer but meaningless position in the world. It did not take him centuries to realise the vulnerability of his status in the universe which could come to an end in a second either by a fellow man or nature itself.
The disappearance of religion played an important role in the emergence of theatre of the absurd. Its creation can be perceived from another facet as an attempt to make the man realise the ultimate reality and to instill in him wonders of the cosmic orders. This could be done only with the help of religion and mythological concepts existing in pagan beliefs, ideals and notions. The biblical concepts imbued with life show the fragile nature of man’s life, and, may be, this was the main objective of the theatre of the absurd. The playwrights aimed at awakening the man from his deep slumber, making him aware of his limitations in confronting mystical experiences.
The result was really interesting and shocking as the plays urged the man to get out of his comfortable positions and placements and open his eyes to realities other than the daily circle of bread and butter, and to the hideous conventions and customs, which were likely to blur his vision and make him myopic. The major objective of this theatre was to produce distrust of language and to experience something new with far less words and hindrances, which one feels in communicating through language. The language then had become a tool of conventional, meaningless and stereotype exchanges. Words had failed to express the complexities of human existence and experiences, not being able to penetrate beyond surface. The whole scenario could get cleared if we take the whole phenomena of production and writing of the absurd plays as an onslaught on the language, which was taken the most unreliable and ineffective tool of communication. The absurd drama mocks the common form of language, the conventional jargon and oft-used words and cliches, and in this way, the need for going beyond the language of everyday experience arose, which subsequently resulted in the realisation to communicate more authentically. The dramatists made it clear to the contemporary audience that the conventional language serves only as a barrier between ourselves and what the world in reality is. To be specific to perceive, the universe in the extraordinary context by viewing it in its totality is the main purpose of the drama which was called absurd.
The most interesting quality of the theatre was that it subverted logic. It can be seen as a plain idea that we can enjoy immense freedom if we abandon the straitjacket of logic. Now the question arises what the dramatists wanted to achieve by breaking away from the walls of logic and language. The answer is simple. They aimed at shattering unrealistic ideas and notions which surround man and keep pursuing him throughout his life.
Most of the absurd plays are comic because there is no clash of personalities, necessary for tragedy. They are lyrical statements, very like music. They communicate an atmosphere, an experience of archetypal human situations. The theatre of the absurd is a theatre of situations, against the more conventional drama which narrates sequential events. As a lyrical drama, it presents a pattern of poetical images, and, in doing so, it uses elements like light and movement. Unlike the conventional drama, in which the language enjoys a supreme position, in the absurd theatre the language is only one of the multidimensional poetic images.
The theatre of the absurd is totally a lyrical drama which incorporates elements like abstract scenic effects, many of which have been taken over and modified from the popular drama: mime, ballet, acrobatics and conjuring. It had borrowed much of its tradition from verbal nonsense in the early talkies. Therefore it emphasises the importance of visual experience and in this reference the role of the language is quite secondary. Its main objective is to create an atmosphere of rituals like mythological, archetypal, allegorical— which are closely related to the world of dreams.
The term ‘theatre of the absurd’ was first used by Martin Assilin, who defined absurdity as something which refers to the futility of existence and preposterousness of man in this immense universe. Some playwrights like Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter and others also share the view that the man is inhabiting a universe with which he is out of key. Interestingly, it seems as if meanings of these plays were not clear even to the writer himself, but he discussed man’s absurd position in this universe with relish. According to these playwrights the man is obscurely stationed in this world, and because of the uncertainty of his position and status he is bewildered and confused.
