Samuel Beckett was born in Dublin in 1906. He
befriended the famous Irish novelist James Joyce,
and his first published work was an essay on Joyce.
In 1951 and 1953, Beckett wrote his most famous
novels, the trilogy Molloy, Malone Dies, and The
Unnameable.
Waiting for Godot, Beckett's first play, was written
originally in French in 1948 (Beckett subsequently
translated the play into English himself). It
premiered at a tiny theater in Paris in 1953. This
play began Beckett's association with the Theatre
of the Absurd, which influenced later playwrights
like Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard.
The most famous of Beckett's subsequent plays
include Endgame (1958) and Krapp's Last Tape
(1959). He also wrote several even more
experimental plays, like Breath (1969), a thirtysecond play. Beckett was awarded the Nobel Prize
in 1969 and died in 1989 in Paris.
Two men, Vladimir and Estragon, meet near a tree.
They converse on various topics and reveal that
they are waiting there for a man named Godot.
While they wait, two other men enter. Pozzo is on
his way to the market to sell his slave, Lucky. He
pauses for a while to converse with Vladimir and
Estragon. Lucky entertains them by dancing and
thinking, and Pozzo and Lucky leave.
After Pozzo and Lucky leave, a boy enters and tells
Vladimir that he is a messenger from Godot. He
tells Vladimir that Godot will not be coming
tonight, but that he will surely come tomorrow.
Vladimir asks him some questions about Godot and
the boy departs. After his departure, Vladimir and
Estragon decide to leave, but they do not move as
the curtain falls.
The next night, Vladimir and Estragon again meet
near the tree to wait for Godot. Lucky and Pozzo
enter again, but this time Pozzo is blind and Lucky
is dumb. Pozzo does not remember meeting the two
men the night before. They leave and Vladimir and
Estragon continue to wait.
Shortly after, the boy enters and once again tells
Vladimir that Godot will not be coming. He insists
that he did not speak to Vladimir yesterday. After
he leaves, Estragon and Vladimir decide to leave,
but again they do not move as the curtain falls,
ending the play.
Vladimir - One of the two main characters of the
play. Estragon calls him Didi, and the boy
addresses him as Mr. Albert. He seems to be the
more responsible and mature of the two main
characters.
Estragon - The second of the two main characters.
Vladimir calls him Gogo. He seems weak and
helpless, always looking for Vladimir's protection.
He also has a poor memory, as Vladimir has to
remind him in the second act of the events that
happened the previous night.
Pozzo - He passes by the spot where Vladimir and
Estragon are waiting and provides a diversion. In
the second act, he is blind and does not remember
meeting Vladimir and Estragon the night before.
Lucky - Pozzo's slave, who carries Pozzo's bags
and stool. In Act I, he entertains by dancing and
thinking. However, in Act II, he is dumb.
Boy - He appears at the end of each act to inform
Vladimir that Godot will not be coming that night.
In the second act, he insists that he was not there
the previous night.
Godot - The man for whom Vladimir and Estragon
wait unendingly. Godot never appears in the play.
His name and character are often thought to refer to
God.
Act I: Introduction & Pozzo and Lucky's Entrance
Summary
Estragon is trying to take off his boot when
Vladimir enters. The two men greet each other;
Vladimir examines his hat while Estragon struggles
with his boot. They discuss the versions of the
story of the two thieves in the Gospels, and
Vladimir wonders why one version of the story is
considered more accurate than the others.
Estragon wants to leave, but Vladimir tells him that
they cannot because they are waiting for Godot,
who they are supposed to meet by the tree. They
wonder if they are waiting in the correct spot, or if
it is even the correct day.
Estragon falls asleep, but Vladimir wakes him
because he feels lonely. Estragon starts to tell
Vladimir about the dream he was having, but
Vladimir does not want to hear his "private
nightmares." Estragon wonders if it would be better
for them to part, but Vladimir insists that Estragon
would not go far. They argue and Vladimir storms
off the stage, but Estragon convinces him to come
back and they make up.
They discuss what to do next while they wait, and
Estragon suggests hanging themselves from the
tree. However, after a discussion of the logistics,
they decide to wait and see what Godot says.
Estragon is hungry, and Vladimir gives him a
carrot. They discuss whether they are tied to Godot
when they hear a terrible cry nearby and huddle
together to await what is coming.
Commentary
The beginning of the play establishes Vladimir and
Estragon's relationship. Vladimir clearly realizes
that Estragon is dependent on him when he tells
Estragon that he would be "nothing more than a
little heap of bones" without him. Vladimir also
insists that Estragon would not go far if they
parted. This dependency extends even to minute,
everyday things, as Estragon cannot even take off
his boot without help from Vladimir.
The beginning of the play makes Vladimir and
Estragon seem interchangeable. For example, one
of the characters often repeats a line that the other
has previously said. This happens in the very
beginning when the two characters switch lines in
the dialogue, with each asking the other, "It hurts?"
and responding, "Hurts! He wants to know if it
hurts!" In addition to demonstrating the way that
the two characters can be seen as interchangeable,
this textual repetition will be found throughout the
play as an indicator of the repetitiveness of life in
general for Vladimir and Estragon.
Vladimir's discussion of the story of the two
thieves brings up the question of textual
uncertainty. He points out that the four gospels
present entirely different versions of this story, and
wonders why one of these versions is accepted as
definitive. This question about the reliability of
texts might cause the reader (or audience) of this
play to question the reliability of this particular
text. Also, the repetition of the story by the four
gospels might allude to the repetitiveness of the
action of the play.
The repetitiveness of the play is best illustrated by
Estragon's repeated requests to leave, which are
followed each time by Vladimir telling him that
they cannot leave because they are waiting for
Godot. The exact repetition of the lines each time
this dialogue appears, including the stage
directions, reinforces the idea that the same actions
occur over and over again and suggests that these
actions happen more times than the play presents.
In this beginning section we get the only clue of the
nature of Vladimir and Estragon's relationship with
Godot. They mention that they asked Godot for "a
kind of prayer...a vague supplication," which he is
currently considering. This creates a parallel
between Godot and God, also suggested by their
similar names, and it seems that Vladimir and
Estragon do consider Godot a kind of religious
figure when they mention coming in on their hands
and knees.
Act I: Pozzo and Lucky Scene
Summary
Pozzo enters, driving Lucky ahead of him by a rope
around his neck. Vladimir and Estragon wonder if
Pozzo is Godot, but he tells them that he is Pozzo
and asks if they have heard of him. They tell him
that they have not. Pozzo commands Lucky to put
down his stool, and sits down and begins to eat
some chicken. While he eats, Vladimir and
Estragon circle around Lucky, inspecting him.
They notice a sore on his neck and begin to ask him
a question, but Pozzo tells them to leave him alone.
Estragon asks Pozzo if he can have the bones from
his chicken, and Pozzo tells him that Lucky gets
priority over them. Estragon asks Lucky if he wants
the bones, but he does not reply, and Pozzo tells
Estragon that he can have the bones. He comments
that he has never known Lucky to refuse a bone
and hopes that he is not sick.
Vladimir suddenly explodes with anger at Pozzo's
treatment of Lucky, but then seems embarrassed at
his outburst. Pozzo decides to go, but then decides
to stay and smoke another pipe. Vladimir wants to
leave, but Pozzo reminds him of his appointment
with Godot.
Estragon begins to wonder aloud why Lucky does
not put down his bags. Pozzo begins to answer the
question, after much preparation involving his
vaporizer spray, but gives a convoluted and
contradictory response. Vladimir asks Pozzo if he
wants to get rid of Lucky; Pozzo responds that he
does and is taking him to the fair to sell him.
Lucky begins to cry, and Pozzo hands Estragon a
handkerchief to wipe away his tears. Estragon
approaches Lucky, but Lucky kicks him in the
shins. Pozzo tells Vladimir and Estragon that he
has learned a lot from Lucky, and that Lucky has
been serving him for nearly sixty years. Vladimir
becomes angry that Pozzo is going to get rid of
Lucky after so much time, and Pozzo gets upset.
Vladimir then gets angry at Lucky for mistreating
Pozzo.
Pozzo calms down, but he realizes that he has lost
his pipe and begins to get upset again. While
Estragon laughs at Pozzo, Vladimir exits,
apparently to go to the bathroom. He returns, in a
bad mood, but soon calms down. Pozzo sits down
again and begins to explain the twilight. When he
finishes, he asks them to evaluate his performance
and then offers to have Lucky perform for them.
Estragon wants to see Lucky dance, while Vladimir
wants to hear him think, so Pozzo commands him
to dance and then think.
Lucky dances, and Estragon is not very impressed.
Pozzo tells them that he used to dance much better.
Vladimir asks him to tell Lucky to think, but Pozzo
says that he cannot think without his hat. Vladimir
puts Lucky's hat on his head and he begins to think
aloud, spouting a long stream of words and phrases
that amount to gibberish. As he goes on, the other
three suffer more and more and finally throw
themselves on him and seize his hat to make him
stop. Pozzo tramples on the hat, and the men help
Lucky up and give him all the bags.
Pozzo is about to leave, but finds that he cannot.
He decides that he needs a running start, so he
starts from the opposite end of the stage and drives
Lucky across as they exchange good-byes.
Commentary
Pozzo's statement about his pipe, that the second
pipe is never as "sweet" as the first, can apply to
experience in general—it suggests that feelings and
events dull with repetition.
Repetition of events in the play is emphasized by
further textual repetition. When Vladimir and
Estragon alternate short lines back and forth,
Estragon often repeats himself at the end of a string
of lines. This occurs for the first time in this
exchange: "Estragon: The circus. Vladimir: The
music-hall. Estragon: The circus." This same trope
will recur several times in a row at the beginning of
the second act, always with Estragon repeating
himself.
We see here that Vladimir supports Estragon after
Estragon is kicked by Lucky: when he cries that he
cannot walk, Vladimir offers to carry him, if
necessary. This illustrates Vladimir's attempt to
protect and take care of Estragon.
Vladimir is often very quick to change his mind.
When he learns of Lucky's long term of service to
Pozzo, he becomes angry with Pozzo for
mistreating his servant. However, when Pozzo gets
upset and says that he cannot bear it any longer,
Vladimir quickly transfers his anger to Lucky,
whom he reproaches for mistreating his master
after so many years. This illustrates how Vladimir's
opinion can be easily swayed by a change in
circumstances.
In this section we see the first suggestions that
Vladimir and Estragon might represent all of
humanity. When Pozzo first enters, he notes that
Vladimir and Estragon are of the same species as
he is, "made in God's image." Later, when Pozzo
asks Estragon what his name is, he replies "Adam."
This comparison of Estragon to Adam, the first
man, suggests that he may represent all of
mankind; and this link between Estragon and Adam
also relates to the idea of Godot as God.
Pozzo's inquiry about how Vladimir and Estragon
found him suggests that Pozzo is giving a
performance. This notion is reinforced when he has
Lucky perform for them. It seems that Pozzo and
Lucky appear primarily to entertain Vladimir and
Estragon—after Pozzo and Luck leave, the other
two men comment that their presence helped the
time pass more rapidly.
Pozzo's failure to depart anticipates the way that
Vladimir and Estragon remain waiting at the end of
each of the acts, after saying they will depart.
However, even after saying, "I don't seem to be
able to depart," Pozzo does actually manage to
leave. Pozzo moves on while Vladimir and
Estragon remain fixed even as the curtain falls at
the end of each act.
It if took the Russian Revolution to drive theatre
into Realism, then it could be argued that the
dropping of the bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki -
the abdication of reason - brought Absurd theatre to
the fore. Absurd
Theatre presented life as meaningless, and one that
could simply end in casual slaughter.
This was reflected in the society of the time where:
a) the mechanical nature of many peoples lives,
lead them to question the purpose of their
existence.
b) time was recognised as a destructive force.
c) one had a sense of being left in an alien world.
[A world that can be explain even with bad
reasoning is a familiar world. But a world from
which logic and insight have been removed is a
strange world].
d) one sensed being isolated from other beings.
This sense of meaninglessness became a critical
insight in the philosophical movement of the era
"Existentialism"‫الوجودية‬
We, proclaimed the existentialists, are the sum of
our acts. The idea that we do something because
we are that sort of person, was replaced by the idea
that we make ourselves that sort of person by doing
such and such an act. As one of the high princes of
existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre said: "we are
nothing and in action become conscious of that
original nothingness".
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In order to begin an understanding of any artistic
movement it's always useful to try and locate it
historically.
Absurd Theatre emerged during a moment of crisis
in the literary and artistic movement of Modernism
-which itself began in the closing years of the last
century, becoming most prominent in the early
decades of this century, and going into decline in
the 30's and 40's. Economic and political upheaval,
lasting roughly from the rise of Hitler to the Death
of Stalin forced the movement to almost disappear.
However it was to re-emerge in the 50's through the
60's and even into the early 70's -at which time the
prosperity that developed countries had enjoyed
since the end of the Second World War was to be
threatened by another protracted era of strife that
was to have a profound impact on the arts. This
was to become know as post-modernism and was
probably responsible for the end of the second
phase of Modernism. It was during the 50's and
60's, with its drugs, sexual revolution, anti-war
protest, student up-risings, sit -ins, ban the bomb
marches, Oz Magazine, Feminism, Performance
Art, The Black Panther Movement, the Hippies,
and existentialism, that the Theatre of the Absurd
emerged.
If Elizabethan Theatre [Shakespeare] explored the
political and moral dilemmas of the Renaissance,
and Naturalism gave expression to the ghosts
which haunted the bourgeoisie of Capitalism, then
Absurdism found the means of exposing the
metaphysical doubts that tormented our existence.
Doubts that at first surprised us then began to seem
natural and inevitable.
At the beginning of Modernism, specifically in the
theatre of Hendrik Ibsen [ turn of the century "Hedda Gabbla", "The Wild Duck"] the plays were
performed just as if an audience were not watching;
indeed it needed to be so performed if the desired
tension was to be achieved; any hint of a gesture
towards the audience would destroy the illusion.
It is precisely this illusion that the political and
social theatre of Bertolt Brecht [30/40's] seeked to
destroy. However he did not attempt to make the
stage and auditorium one continuous space…this
would have simply created another illusion.
Brecht's innovations opened the way to the Theatre
of the Absurd [50/60's] which self-consciously
employed the auditorium as part of the
plays'ontology.[time and space]
The resulting theatre, ironically, produced the
effect desired by Brecht from his theatre:
ALIENATION. We find it difficult to identify with
the characters in Absurd Drama, but, where Brecht
hoped to "activate the audience's critical,
intellectual capacities, Absurd Drama spoke to a
deeper level of the audiences awareness -its staging
was usually very funny and very terrifying, pushing
the audience forward, then confusing them,
compelling a personal assessment of their
reactions, and offering opposites that multiply in
their minds -IT CHALLENGED THE AUDIENCE
TO MAKE SENSE OF NON-SENSE, TO FACE
THE PREDICAMENT OF LIFE CONSCIOUSLY
RATHER THE FEEL IT VAGUELY, AND
PERCEIVE, WITH LAUGHTER, ITS
FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY.
"Absurdity presents humanity "stripped of the
accidental circumstances of social position or
historical context, confronted with basic choices"
[Martin Esslin]
Such a theatre was involved in the relatively few
problems that remained:
LIFE, DEATH, and the ISOLATION we feel
through lack of COMMUNICATION.
….and presented them as only one person's
personal intuitive vision of the world.
We are born, and the one thing we know is that we
will die…everything else we do is just a diversion
from our "destiny" and since all our actions are
directed against the inevitable [death], they are
absurd, and because we sense this absurdity we
experience "irrationality. We, in the West,
hopelessly committed to making sense of the world
can not accept "irrationality"…the world does
make sense, "God does not play dice" [Einstein]
The absurd has as it's underlying premise the
irrationality of experience.
"You can't be rational in an irrational world, it's not
rational"
[Joe Orton ]
The Absurdist's response to Death is far from
nihilistic: it is a contented call for furious
action…once we accept the feeling of absurdity, it
becomes the springboard for action, giving us the
feeling of freedom and passion….the absurd is not
a beginning and not and end, it is the representation
of that which is in between. What can we do, given
the inescapable nature of death rendering
everything as unimportant??…we could do
nothing!![ not make any choices], under the
misguided belief that we have no choice, but that
would simply be what Jean Paul Sartre would
called "Bad Faith".
Bad Faith consists in pretending to ourselves and
others that things could not be otherwise, that we
are bound to our way of life, that there is no escape.
However we are free to choose to do all things and
to choose not to do them.
eg: a the man who, while trying to commit suicide
by drowning, is unfortunately at the scene of a
crime. He is arrested, tried, found guilty and
sentenced to death, despite his protestations -not of
his innocence but of being denied his right to
choose….suicide.
ABSURD THEATRE
1] The experience of this world [of the absurd] is
never debated, it is simply presented,
shown in action;
Eg: Ionesco: was once criticised because he had no
message -to which he replied "No, I am a writer, I
am not a postman"
2] it presents humans "stripped of the accidental
circumstances of social position or historical
context";
3] it satirises a society that is petty and dishonest;
4] it substitutes an internal [mental] landscape for
the outer world;
5] it deliberately lacks of any clear division
between fantasy and fact;
6] it has a healthy disrespect for the constraints of
time, which can expand, contract or back fold on
itself according to subjective requirements;
7] it constructs environment which can
depict/project mental conditions in the form
of visual metaphors;
8] it employs a precise use of language, constructed
by an writer as their only defence against the chaos
of the experience of living.
9] it uses meta-theatricality:
a) all the world a stage
b) life is a dream
-signifying a medium totally aware of itself and
involving the audience in a searching act of selfawareness.
eg: Samuel Beckett's "Endgame" Clov asks of
Hamm what there is to keep him there? Hamm,
while considering the audience replies: "the
dialogue".
Having been spoken to directly from the stage we,
as audience, are implicated in it and the metaphor
of the all the world's a stage is confirmed.
10] it has a preference for tragicomedy [black
comedy] rather than the classical genres of tragedy
or comedy….. this gives rise to a reality
distinguished by a sense of
knowingness shared with and by the spectator, who
becomes genuinely implicated in the construction
of the drama.
11] it uses silence as a metaphor…never before had
moments of the fragmentary, the
inarticulate, the incoherent and the non-verbal been
so extensively employed. Moments that not only
remained part of the play but commented upon it.
12] it deliberately employs ambiguity as a device.
What is reality, what is illusion….thus sucessfully
destroying of our confidence in familiar things and
places.
Eg: "Amedee"by Ionesco. He peopled a middle
class apartment with an expanding corspe and
covered its carpets in mushrooms until the real
occupants of the apartment chose to leave.
13] it explores antagonism and violence,
particularly on the psychological plane.
14] It tends towards a radical devaluation of
language, towards a poetry of images. What
happened on the stage often contradicted the words
spoken by the characters.
eg: the end of "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel
Beckett.
BECKETT
BORN [FRIDAY 13] 1906 - 1989
Beckett has consistently refuse to explain his work
-one of his rare utterances was the expression:
"nothing is more real than nothing" for to know
nothing is nothing, not to want to know anything
likewise, but to be beyond knowing anything, that
is when peace enters into the soul of the incurious
seeker.
The nature of his work could best be described as
enigmatic and pessimistic.
His plays exhibit a lack of plot and character
CHARACTER -presumes that personality and
individuality matter
PLOT -assumes that events in time have
significance
Beckett rejects learning and sees language as part
of the failure to know where and what we are.
Language has failed us. Thus, Beckett's heroes not
only deny that they are philosophers, they flaunt an
ignorance of philosophy while remaining transfixed
by philosophical questions that have troubled us
since Socrates: the nature of Self, the world, and
God.
Beckett is an agnostic. "Even if God were to exist",
says Beckett, "he would make no difference: he
would be as lonely and as enslaved, and as isolated
as man is, in a cold, silent, indifferent universe".
It is an undeniable fact that we must sooner or later
die, and many people are doubtful whether
anything lies behind death. Beckett's works are not
statements on this theme, but meditations upon it.
"I am not interested in any system. I can't see any
trace of any system anywhere"
"Waiting For Godot" is a play/poem about a world
without any divinity, a world in which man waits
and hopes for something to give a meaning to his
life, and relieve him of the absurdity of a death that
will terminate all. But he waits in vain, and so our
life is as meaningless as our deaths.
It is a monstrous paradox that an individual's life is
an eternity while it lasts, but it is less than an
instant in regard to cosmic time. Consciousness of
the paradox is all important-but the consciousness
by which we are aware of our individual existence
is continually at risk from heart failure or mental
breakdown. At best our consciousness is held in the
prison of "time". In the prison, only forward motion
is possible, and we delude ourselves that we
progress towards some sort of ultimate goal….this
ultimate goal [ in the case of "Waiting for Godot"]
becomes anything that helps us bear our existence.
Beckett's plays avoid any definition of these goals,
because he believes that "art has nothing to do with
clarity, does not dabble in the clear, and does not
make clear". All a writer can do is to attempt to
distil in words, however imperfect, an intuitive
vision or experience [rather than a systematic set of
beliefs] of the misery and desperation of life.
Desire is the source of our misery; such happiness
as is possible can only be obtained by the removal
of all desire
Beckett's people have collapsed under the burden
of choice, responsibility and anguish, as they
struggle to answer the questions:
What am I?
What are time and space?
What are mind and matter?
.….and they are determine to answer these
questions rationally [without taking refuse in
mysticism]…they drive reason to a point where
reason itself becomes irrational…and generally
very comical.
"Do not come down the ladder, I have taken it
away"
What Beckett is saying here is that one can only
affirm that meaning does not exist in terms that
imply that it does.
This idea is reflected in Beckett's heroes; they
believe that even in a meaningless situation life
must have meaning. Beckett's plays present an
inability in anyone to be nihilistic, not nihilism.
Beckett has left us with a final bleak image of life
in the universe: that of a woman giving birth astride
‫منفرج الساقين‬a grave.
AN ABSURD FEW
Albert Camus "The Outsider"
Jean Paul Sartre "In Camera"
Arthur Adamov "Professor Teranne"
Jean Genet 'The Maids"
Samuel Beckett "Waiting for Godot"
Harold Pinter "The Caretaker"
N.F.Simpson "A Resounding Tingle"
David Campton "The Lunatic View"
James Saunders "Next Time I'll Sing to You"
Tom Stoppard "Rosencrantz and Guilderstern Are
Dead"
Edward Albee "The Zoo Story"
Arthur Kopit "Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma Hung
You in the Closet, and
I'm Feeling So Sad"
Eugene Ionesco "The Bald Prima Donna"
Luigi Pirandello "Seven Characters in Search of
an Author"
Suggested Readings:
Esslin, Martin, The Theatre of the Absurd,
Penguin, New York, 1961.
Hinchliffe, Arnold, The Absurd -from a series The
Critical Idiom, Methuen, London, 1977.
Kenner, Hugh, A Reader's Guide to Samuel
Beckett, Thames and Hudson, London, 1973
Webb, Eugene, The Plays Of Samuel Beckett,
Peter Owen, London, 1972.
Abbot, H. Porter, The Fiction of Samuel Beckett:
Form and Effect, Methuen, Berkeley, 1973.
Abel, Lionel, Metatheatre: A New View of
Dramatic Form, Penguin, New York, 1963.
The Aesthetics of Noh and its reverberations
in "back to becket"
Noh is sometimes thought of as Japan's "most
classical" dramatic form and often compared with
Greek tragedy. And like Greek tragedy, had its
origins not in theatre, in the strict sense, but rather
in religious ritual. With Noh it was a ritual centred
on the miraculous appearance of old gods, who
could release the participants from the sufferings of
this life into the pure land of the spirit world.
Noh begins with the belief that drama must be
expressed in pure form.
The purpose of Noh is neither narrative nor
moral…but simply the expression of beauty.
The highest ideal or purpose of Noh is expressed in
the Zen term:
YUGEN = beauty that is felt.
The energising ingredient of Noh is the artistic
insight that true art is felt, not understood.
In the tradition of drama that we are probably most
familiar with….something happens [in order for the
story to be told]
In Noh something appears [in order for the story to
be told]
[reference to "Waiting for Godo" where nothing
happens twice, but things and people(!) appear]
In many theatre traditions dramatic climax is
sought in crescendo,
In Noh the climax is sought in
stillness/silence…not an empty space but a
dynamic one. [no physical movement BUT the
heart and mind is working at full capacity]
Noh emerged from its ritual beginnings around,
1380 and 1420, largely through the efforts of a
father and son, Kannami (1333-1384) and Zeami
(1363-1443). Both men came from a rural and
rustic environment but they brought Noh into the
palaces of Japan's civil, military and clerical
aristocracies. By the late fifteenth century Noh had
become a popular and at the same time
sophisticated form of entertainment enjoyed by all
social classes.
So Noh's recorded/historical roots are sunk six
hundred years into Japan's past -but it has even
deeper roots in the minds of its characters, and in
the
deepest levels of being itself.
BEING = a way of being present.
Let us consider a being that can only move in a
straight line. This world of the straight line is a
one-dimensional space and can be easily measured.
Lets us consider a being that can move in any
direction on a flat plane. This world of the flat
plane is a two-dimensional world and can be
measured by two straight lines that intersect at a
point.
The world in which human beings move is a three
dimensional world and can be measured by three
straight lines that intersect at a point.
Now if we limit the length of the straight line the
one-dimensional being will be trapped.
If we draw a circle around the two-dimensional
being, they cannot escape.
If human being are locked in a room we are also
trapped.
Let us consider a being that can freely move in and
out of an enclosed room -this is a being who lives
in the fourth dimension. We cannot actually see a
being that has this four-dimensional characteristic,
but we can imagine its existence.
This is the ontology of Noh.
THE NOH COSMOS
Noh recognises that the reality of the theatre is
entirely a matter of the mind and imagination of the
audience. In so doing retains its connection to ritual
by prioritising the role of the spectator. The
sparseness of the staging leaves the audience's
imagination to freely turn chairs, rocks, sticks and
pieces of cloth into palaces, jewels, swords and
costumes needed for their story.
Noh drama is often referred to as the drama of
dreams. Not simply because of its "symbolic"
structure or the surreal logic of its texts, or the
otherworldly music to which it is performed, but
because at the very centre of Noh is the dream.
The central figure in most Noh plays is not a living
person, but rather a ghost or spirit who appears to
other characters, as well as the audience in a dream
or vision or hallucination.
Their first appearance on the Noh stage will usually
be as an old man, for even as Noh is a theatre of
dreams, it is also a theatre of transformations. The
old man you see in the first part of a play may
become something altogether different in the last
part.