Spirital Atelier

A brief summary: In honor of an upcoming production of Samuel Beckett’s “Fragments,” (opening today), Sid Smith describes the playwright’s resonance with the mood of modern audiences.

 
(Click the picture to see the article)

Reaction: Once again, the disussion of voice drew me to read an article. The three pioneers of the Theatre of the Absurd – Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter – have captivated me; the power of their writing transcends much of the literature, making it seem futuristic even today. Interestingly, they wrote in a very similar voice despite their geographical differences (Irish, Romanian/French, and British, respectively). The main segregation that I find between the three is: Ionesco is defined by what he said; Pinter is defined by what he didn’t say; Becket is defined by how he said what he said.

Beckett truly is stylistically singular. Others can use repetition, others can write compelling stage directions, others can even debate the world. But Beckett does all three. Waiting for Godot is among the greatest plays written, but it is possible that no action ever occurs - we are left with no resolution, no sense of accomplishment, nothing. While Pinter pioneered the modern use of meaningful silence and Ionesco established the skeleton of the anti-play, Beckett left us with an existential darkness that means echoes our growing discontent.

The main reason I chose to post this story was that the mood consistenty referred to in the article is ever-present in the production I’m involved in at the moment, Far Away. Caryl Churchill manifests a great deal of Absurdist practices in this play – politically charged, surreal realism mirrors Ionesco’s Rhinocerous, and the workshop vignettes feature the haunting paucity of words that gets labeled Pinter silences today. Most important, however, is that this work offers us a discussion of what happens if what we fear is true. Beckett was obsessed with the presence of God or lack thereof; for Churchill, God is hope and the question remains.