Theatre of Absurd - Absurd Drama

Theatre of Absurd 

    Started in the early 20th Century by a group of dramatists who considered  themselves intellectuals and wanted to show their reaction to the realistic dramatists of the  19th Century who were very popular in their time. The Theatre of Absurd was a reaction against the  realistic drama of the 19th Century. Gradually this movement became very popular among the  audience of the time. Martin Esslin made the form popular. He wrote a book entitled Absurd Drama  which propagates the theory and principles of Absurd Drama. Many dramatists like Samuel Beckett,  Eugene O’ Neil, Arthur Adamov,and EdwardAlbee etc.Wrote many absurd plays which became very  popular among the audience. Although it declined in beginning of the 21st century but still even in  our age there are some dramatists like Harold Pinter, who wrote Absurd plays. In this paper we will  discuss the definition of Absurd plays, a brief history of Absurd Movement and chief characteristics  of the absurd Drama. Keywords: Absurd Drama, Absurd Movement. 

Features of absurd Drama 

Lack of Plot: 

     Another poetic aspect of absurdist plays is that they lack a plot or a clear beginning and end with a purposeful development in between. There is usually a great deal of repetition in both language and action, which suggests that the play isn't actually "going anywhere." In Waiting for Godot, the stage directions indicate that Vladimir and Estragon are constantly moving. however, that the audience begins to feel as if they are watching the same thing over and over again. They could even be called static actions as they contribute nothing to the flow of the play.

Form: 

    The form of a piece of art is often neglected in favor of its subject matter. More specifically, drama is often studied in terms of what it is saying rather than in how it is saying it. (At least this is so in most academic settings because students typically read a play rather than see it performed.) Form, however, is arguably the most important aspect of absurdist plays. It is what separates them from other similarly themed movements, mainly existential drama. Esslin claims that "the Theatre of the Absurd goes one step further [than existential drama] in trying to achieve a unity between its basic assumptions and the form in which these are expressed" (24). Essentially, these playwrights were reacting against realism because it did not align with their objectives. They did not want to show life as it really was, but rather, the inner-life of man--what was going on inside his head. Esslin explains that "the Theatre of the Absurd merely communicates one poet's most intimate and personal intuition of the human situation, his own sense of being, his individual vision of the world" (402-403). In order to portray this "personal intuition" the playwrights had to abandon conventional methods and adopt a more poetic, or lyrical, form.

Devaluation of Language: 

    One characteristic of this poetic form was the devaluation of language. The absurd dramatists felt that conventional language had failed man--it was an inadequate means of communication. As a result, the movement of the characters on stage often contradicts their words or dialogue. For example, both acts of Waiting for Godot conclude with the line "Yes, let's go," only to be followed by the stage direction, "They do not move" (Beckett 6). Essentially, the dramatists are trying to emphasize a disconnect between "word and object, meaning and reality.