Rhinoceros
* Many of these notes on
the play have been adapted
from SPARK NOTES online
Rhinoceros
Act I
Philosophy in Act I

Jean’s reference to himself as the "superior man"
borrows from Friedrich Nietzsche’s vision of a "superman" (in Beyond Good & Evil) who is beyond
conventional human morality. This super-man, Nietzsche
believed, would lead the world. Adolf Hitler exploited and
abused Nietzsche’s ideas, which he largely took from
Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth’s posthumous collections of
his "works" consisting of discarded notes, such as The
Will to Power (1901), to convince Germans that the
Aryans were a master race whose destiny was to control
the world.
Philosophy in Act I

Ionesco attempts to explain how millions were swayed
by fascism in his dissection of a collective consciousness
(later referred to in the play as "collective psychosis")

He posits the existence of a universal mentality that
compromises the individual mind.
The Absurdity of Logic
The Logician is parodied for his comic missteps in
proving even a simple syllogism; when the Old
Gentleman asks if, according to the syllogism, his dog
must be a cat, the Logician replies: "Logically, yes. But
the contrary is also true."
 Ionesco further demonstrates the inapplicability of logic
to human emotion as he cross-cuts dialogue between
the Logician’s proof and Bérenger’s fumbling attempts to
provide some coherent reason for his unhappiness.
 Several key lines assail the inconsistency of logic, its very
foundation parodied as the Logician’s efforts do nothing
to clarify the absurd world.

More Philosophy in Act I
Bérenger: "Life is a dream"

If life is an absurd undertaking that follows the fractured
logic of a dream, one can lead an unconscious existence
with no responsibility (for one has no conscious control
over a dream).
Bérenger: "I sometimes wonder if I exist myself"

This statement contradicts the well-known philosophical
premise of 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes: "I
think, therefore I am." For Descartes, the ability to think
is the only proof of existence. For Berenger, thought not
only fails to certify existence, it even casts doubt upon
existence.
Existentialism

Bérenger’s doubt about existence
articulates the foundation of existentialist
philosophy, the formula "existence
precedes essence." This important dictum
of Søren Kierkegaard’s states that humans
are born ("existence") before they gain
any soul or meaning in life ("essence").
An Existentialist Everyman hero?
As Bérenger (and Ionesco) sees it, neither
physical nor even mental existence is enough to
count for true existence.
 Although he does not yet know it, Bérenger
needs a wilful life of responsibility committed to
something significant (this will become apparent
later in the play). Bérenger’s ’character arc’ thus
becomes an ironic parallel to the metamorphosis
of every other character into a rhinoceros…

More Absurdity of Logic

Bérenger unleashes a key word to trigger his fight with
Jean: "nonsense." The world does not merely lack
sense; it is nonsensical, illogical in every way. Yet, as the
Logician’s ridiculous inversions show (especially in his
use of reductio ad absurdum, or pushing logic to absurd
or contradictory limits), total illogic does not provide
meaning either, as some readers might assume
existentialist authors propose. Rather, Ionesco shows
that even the most conventional use of logic can be
flawed. Instead of trying to figure out what has caused
(and what can remedy) the presence of the rhinos, the
supposedly logical citizens are more concerned with how
many horns the rhinos have.
Even More Philosophy

The escalation of violence and its relationship to fascism



Early in Act 1, the Logician and Jean bump into each other and
both men say: "No harm done." Later, a cat is trampled. Ionesco
subtly examines John Stuart Mill’s proposition of the "harm
principle" (a variation on his ethic of utilitarianism) from On
Liberty: individual freedom should be preserved at all costs
unless it harms someone else.
While the first rhino caused no harm to anyone else (mirrored in
Jean’s and the Logician’s polite dialogue), the second one does.
Ionesco suggests that any mentality, fascism included, should be
permitted so long as it does not violate the harm principle (the
first rhino), but such mentalities inevitably do harm others (the
second rhino).
In parallel, the housewife’s concern for her cat when she drops
her groceries not only echoes the absurdly polite etiquette of the
opening scene, but itself represents a conventionalised ethics
which will be literally trampled like the cat later on in the play.
Act I stagecraft

Off-stage introduction of the first rhino


Slow amplification of noises off piques audience
interest & keeps its existence (or stage existence) in
doubt
Dialogue devices:


Choral effects – idea of a collective consciousness
introduced through characters delivering lines in
unison ("Oh, a rhinoceros!" or "Well, of all things!")
Parallel dialogue – the exchanges between Jean /
Bérenger and the Logician / the Old Gentleman use
identical language to discuss similar ideas, parodying
the power of logic to explain reality, life & emotions
Act I stagecraft

Foreshadowing, Irony and Character Foils –
the conflict of wills between Bérenger & Jean



Jean points out Bérenger does care about at least one
thing: Daisy; his love of her foreshadowing Bérenger’s
decision to save humanity at the end of the play
Jean’s slur about Bérenger’s willingness to surrender
is a tremendous irony, since by the end of the play it
is Jean who has given-in to the rhinos
Bérenger remaining a passive individual for now,
eschewing his prior cultural development plan in
favour of another escapist drink, underlines by
contrast with Jean his ’character arc’ of heroic
transformation.
Act I stagecraft

Absurdist comedy
 examines
profound ideas in a comic light
e.g.:
 the
Logician’s proof examines the limits of logic
and its inversions while pleasing the audience with
its low comedy of misunderstanding
 a suggestion by Jean to Bérenger for his cultural
exercises (a satire of Nietzschean selfimprovement) is to see one of Ionesco’s plays.
Act I stagecraft

Breaking the ’Fourth Wall’


addressing the audience directly forces its members to recognize
the production before them as a play. Unlike Bérenger’s recourse
to alcohol, Ionesco does not allow his audience to forget itself in
the play.
A new dramatic technique of post-war theatre was for the actor
to be aware of himself as an actor, to draw attention to the
artifice of the play. This self-consciousness was introduced by
German playwright Bertolt Brecht with his Verfremdungseffekt or
defamiliarisation. It had the political purpose of ’alienating’
audiences to distance them emotionally from problems that
demanded intellectual solutions. Extended to entire productions
the style became known as Brechtian theatre.
Act I stagecraft

Breaking the ’Fourth Wall’ of the Imagination

In Rhinoceros, Ionesco clearly discards conventional reality, both
in the absurdist subject matter and in the stagecraft that relies
on imagination. The rhinos never appear on stage in full form,
and when they do show up, it is as back-lit projections of rhinoheads. These non-realistic touches force the audience to
recognize the play as a performed piece, but not as an escapist
spectacle that shuts out the external world.

In the same vein, Ionesco’s self-referential joke helps the
audience affirm its commitment to the play’s ideas after they
leave the theatre. The collapse of the fourth wall (not to mention
the fact that numerous stage walls actually fall in the play)
implies that there should be no "before" or "after" the play, but
that the play is as much a part of their "real lives" as their posttheatre dinner will be.
Rhinoceros
Act II
"I don’t like Mondays…"


Act II begins with a first impression of chronological
realism – after a strange Sunday afternoon of
stampeding rhinos we find ourselves in a workaday
world. However, despite moving from a surreally dazzling
noontime town square to an interior, uncanny echoes
abound. The set is crowded with furniture, signs and
objects, with actors making a frozen ’tableau vivant’ like
marionettes who suddenly leap magically into life.
The space itself is a weird reversal of Act I’s town square
– the centre of action moving upstairs, while 1st floor
window interruptions of the grocer’s wife become down
stair disruptions and entrances. This upstairs relocation
of the play’s action is one of many physical signs of the
town’s retreat from humanity.
"I don’t like Mondays…"

Ionesco condemns the workplace with its insignificant
busywork and gossip, bringing Bérenger’s previous
comments in Act I about his dreary office life to fruition
in this scene.




Bérenger and Dudard have a petty rivalry for Daisy’s affections
Botard and Dudard compete for Papillon’s good graces
Papillon’s view of Boeuf’s metamorphosis as a mere labour
shortage is part of Ionesco’s denunciation of privileging work
over people. Ironically, "papillon" means "butterfly" in French,
contrasting sharply with his indelicate nature (more on names
later).
The alienating influences of the workplace help explain
why Bérenger shows up late, and why his stale
bourgeois existence is wracked with ennui – an emotion
of extreme boredom or world-weariness.
"I don’t like Mondays…"

Rhinoceros is generally viewed as an indictment of man’s intrinsic
savagery, his latent capacity for evil. Ionesco highlights this here by
actually humanizing the metamorphosis of Mr. Boeuf. His is the first
transformation that is not anonymous and shows the rhino’s (Mr.
Boeuf’s) "tender" trumpeting to his wife.

"Boeuf" means "beef" in French, and Daisy calls the rhinoceros an
"ugly animal", but it is made to seem here as though transforming
into a rhino enhances his humanity, in contrast to the more savage
personalities of the men who crassly dispense pragmatic advice to
the shocked Mrs. Boeuf ("you’d be perfectly justified [in divorcing
him]"); or to Botard, who jealously (and bizarrely) tries to assign
responsibility for the rhino’s existence to Dudard.
"A rose by any other name…"


Even more than Papillon, the names of Botard and Dudard have a
range of allusions that contribute to Act II’s mockery of the
bourgeois workplace:

together they sound like a pair of nursery rhyme characters
(Tweedledum / Tweedledee; Bill & Ben);

separately, ’Dudard’ sounds like ’dada’ (the French equivalent of ’geegee’ – juvenile for horse – and Dada, the famous post-WW1 protoabsurdist art movement) and ’Botard’ is like ’botte’ (French for boot),
appropriate for his putting-the-boot-in (or foot-in-mouth) style of
argument

More darkly, ’dard’ = dart or sting; ’batarde’ = bastard
Daisy’s name highlights her stereotypical role of unmarried office girl
and potential love-interest ("a young blonde", according to the
sexist stage direction), even more so as the English version of
Marguerite – the French name for the same flower, but less childlike and quaint in its sound than ’daisy’ would be to a French ear.
"After you, after you"

Botard hints at one of the play’s major themes when he labels the
appearance of rhinos as a "collective psychosis". His hyperbolic
accusation of a conspiracy is not to be dismissed: those who join
the herd now are considered traitors, while later those who don’t
are the renegades. As Ionesco gauges it in the play, morality shifts
to accommodate any political movement; the majority of progress is
always the good side, and the minority of resistance is always the
bad side.

At this point in the play, those who turn into rhinos are resisting
humanity and are therefore, in Botard’s eyes, bad. Yet Ionesco
foreshadows Botard’s future hypocritical transformation. Like Jean,
Botard rationalizes his inconsistent behaviour after the fact when he
first denies the rhinos and then denies his previous denial.
"It’s all a lot of made-up nonsense"

Botard’s opening line – where the stage directions indicate that he
"starts the attack" which brings the still-life frieze into action –
echoes Bérenger’s use of "nonsense" which triggered his Act I
conflict with Jean. But the tension absurdly dissipates into another
parody of logical argument, climaxing instead with another
rhinoceros charge (which should scuttle Botard’s doubting
philosopher’s act but ironically fails to do so)

Ionesco still refrains from showing the rhinoceros in Scene 1 of Act
II, drumming up excitement for a possible glimpse (and curiosity as
to how the production will present the creatures on-stage). Other
effects abound, however, as they did in the previous act, including
the collapse of the staircase. As plays from the often-static Theatre
of the Absurd go (see Beckett’s Waiting for Godot), Rhinoceros
exhibits a wealth of action and dynamic stagecraft.
"It’s all a lot of made-up nonsense"

Instead of parallel dialogue, a hallmark of the previous act, Ionesco
deploys coincidence in scene 2 as Jean and the old man share the
same first name (not "Old Man," but "Jean"). This coincidence is
further evidence of collective consciousness in that both men can be
called Jean, and neither man distinguishes or affirms his human
identity before turning into a rhino.

The coincidence of names also attests to the increasing oddity of
logic in the play. Bérenger tries to make sense of the rhinos: he
decides that it doesn’t matter where the rhinos come from, but the
"important thing, as I see it, is the fact that they’re there at all,
because…" He doesn’t finish the sentence, which speaks volumes:
the rhinoceroses are there both because

there isn’t a rational explanation

absurd and apathetic humans don’t take responsibility for making a life
meaningful – or finishing a sentence, for that matter.
"It’s all a lot of made-up nonsense"

The most prominent feature of scene 2 is Jean’s gradual
transformation into a rhinoceros. Ionesco manages to
make it plausible by having Jean disappear for moments
into the bathroom, where he can alter his visage and
body off-stage. His green pyjamas serve a double use as
a prop, foreshadowing his change in pigmentation and
becoming a human nuisance to the emerging rhino.

But the simplest of effects, and most powerful, is Jean’s
changing voice. The unique inflection of the individual
voice is essential to humanity, and the subsequent loss
of language seems nearly secondary to the ability to
sound like a human.
"I sometimes wonder if you’re
capable of noticing anything"

Jean’s strength of will comes under fire in scene 2, but
he tries to appropriate his own meaning of will, one that
constantly shifts. He claims that he never dreams, a
sharp contrast to Bérenger in Act I, who wondered if life
is all a dream. Jean believes he is "master" of his own
thoughts, but his mastery of his own body is in doubt.
Just as he rationalized hypocritical behaviour in Act I,
Jean again makes excuses for his transformation to
reclaim a sense of free will: he claims he simply "felt
like" making a growling sound and that it indicates
nothing. For him, will becomes a mark purely of physical
power, not individual freedom. His call for a reduction of
morality to the savage laws of nature works off of his
prior belief in a Nietzschean super-man who can
circumvent morality.
"I sometimes wonder if you’re
capable of noticing anything"

Jean’s transformation is more plausible than we might
think: from the start, Jean’s interest in making himself
more cultured only seemed like a means to increase his
power and respect, and not as an exploration of his
humanity.

On the other hand, Bérenger foreshadows his future
status as the truer ’super-man’ attempting to save the
world with morality. He makes a wilful decision to try
and save Jean, though he flees at the end of the scene,
maintaining the play’s suspense over the inevitable
question: will Bérenger commit to something significant
and remain human, or will he evade responsibility and
become a rhinoceros?
"I sometimes wonder if you’re
capable of noticing anything"


Jean hints at the fascist underpinnings of the metamorphoses,
alluding to Mr. Boeuf’s Jekyll and Hyde-like "secret" life. Ionesco
implies that savagery lurks under bourgeois propriety. It is Jean,
who held up fascist ideals of human perfection and efficiency as a
human, who turns into a far more savage rhino than Boeuf was. He
even tries to convince Bérenger that Bérenger’s voice is actually
changing, exhibiting paranoia as Botard did in the previous scene
when he charged conspiracy.
Bérenger says that the traditional view of the rhino as a solitary
animal is outdated, suggesting a possible reason for Ionesco’s
choice of the rhino as his symbol of a fascist beast: humans, with
their fear of individualistic thought, turn the otherwise solitary
rhinos into faceless hordes. Bérenger continues Ionesco’s defence of
the fascists’ right to live so long as they do not harm anyone.
However, Jean’s horn does pierce Bérenger, showing fascism’s
inevitable turn to violence.
Rhinoceros
Act III
The meta[mor]phor[sis] of disease
Act Three introduces the metamorphosis as a "disease",
and "rhinoceritis" becomes a central metaphor for
fascism as a contagious, half-rational, half-absurd
infection of mind and morality. Ionesco provides
possible, even humane reasons for why rhinoceritis
spreads so rapidly, refusing to settle on the generally
acknowledged claim of human savagery.
 Bérenger posits that those who have changed are
"temporarily unbalanced". This intimates that fascist
appeal is linked less to permanent and corrupt human
nature but more to a society out of joint. Likewise, many
historians account for the rise of Nazism by pointing to
the shattered world of a post-World War I Germany that
was willing to submit to a strong leader who promised a
return to glory.

Dudard the Existentialist

Dudard’s accusation, that by turning to suicide Bérenger is trying to
rationalize his cowardice, affirms the existential view that confrontation with
death is a constant, lifelong struggle, not a temporary one like the
momentary act of suicide.

Unlike the metamorphosis of Jean’s will-to-power into the most spectacular
case of "rhinoceritis" so far (becoming a rhino before our eyes), Bérenger’s
strength of will vacillates, symbolised by his struggle with alcohol. Claiming
his decision to drink is a premeditated one, he exposes a complex, circular
dilemma:


is the conscious decision to remove rational decision-making abilities (here, to
choose consciously to escape into unconsciousness through drinking) a conscious
choice after all?

Or is suicide a cowardly act that removes true commitment and recognition of
absurdity, avoids the nobler confrontation of death while still alive?
Extended to the extreme, this sentiment asks whether suicide is a viable
form of confronting death. This was the ultimate preoccupation of
existentialist philosophers, especially Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul
Sartre.
Or Bérenger the Existentialist?


Unlike Jean, who says he never dreams, Bérenger
concedes the occasional loss of control over thought in
his dreams — yet he has a greater ability to exercise
mental control while awake, as his staunch refusals to
metamorphose indicate.
His dream life versus his conscious life fits the
existentialist formula "existence precedes essence" —



he is an irrational, absurd, irresponsible being in his sleep
(where he has only "existence"),
but he controls his destiny in consciousness (where his
"essence" emerges).
His Act One statement that life is a dream helps to
explain the surrounding metamorphoses: everyone else
is living out an unconscious dream-life, an existence
without essence.
Bérenger the anti-Existentialist
Nevertheless, Bérenger’s drinking in this scene
corresponds to hearing the rhinos outside and
acquiescing to the herd instinct, his own status as a
victim of collective consciousness seeming to be an
indirect cause.
 His creeping tendency towards a mass, rather than an
individual, consciousness is exposed when he and
Dudard, while speaking through the closed door, parrot
the dialogue from Bérenger’s similar visit to Jean. While
Bérenger does not speak in simultaneous dialogue, as
characters in Act One often did, his paralleled dialogue is
simply a delayed form of collective consciousness.
 In Bérenger’s behaviour, existentialist "essence" turns
back on itself into mere "existence".

Rational absurdity in extremis

Bérenger’s and Dudard’s debates in this scene come
under a different kind of pressure than Act Two’s
sociology of the work-place or Jean’s wilful
transformation. From paralleling past dialogue, the two
men go on to see-saw in their positions:




Bérenger explains that when one is not in the midst of conflict, it
is easy to be a detached observer
Dudard, the most productive, dutiful worker, ironically tries to
assuage Bérenger’s own sense of duty and guilt for the rhinos
Bérenger’s apathy towards life has contributed to the overall lack
of will that makes the epidemic possible
Yet Bérenger’s original indifference, that grew out of his
awareness of the absurd universe, galvanizes his own
metamorphosis into a being committed to free will
Rational absurdity in extremis

Dudard’s assertion that Bérenger lacks the "vocation" to become
a rhino is a pun on Bérenger’s lack of will, which will prevent him
from attaining the powerful status of the rhino, and a petty
insult that criticizes Berenger’s apathy towards his job (and
boosts Dudard’s ego as a reminder of his superior position in the
office)

Bérenger’s indifference to his job is probably the greatest
immunization against the metamorphosis, as he recognizes the
absurdity of his boring, insignificant job in an absurd, often
insignificant world

Dudard observes that "the absurd" is a grey area: he speaks of
the impossibility of distinguishing between the normal and
abnormal, but he denies philosophy’s ability to answer this.

Bérenger agrees philosophy is of little help in resolution, but he
believes that common sense can explain these issues.
Absurdity 1 – Existentialism 0
Underlying reasons reveal true character…

Dudard’s belief in the superiority of the scientific and the theoretical
over "mass opinion" is an ironic return to his regular detachment
and a surrender to forces beyond his control. Taking the
existentialist viewpoint, he believes the mystery of the rhinos is
insoluble. In his refusal to try and think about it in a constructive
way he foreshadows his eventual surrender to the mass opinion (by
metamorphosis) that he denigrates.

Bérenger’s view attempts to reaffirm human will and the ability to
make meaning in an absurd universe, but both men ignore common
sense in everyday life, neither making the obvious conclusion as to
why the workmen disappear after a few days.
Ionesco’s attack on the bourgeoisie

Bérenger is flabbergasted at Papillon’s metamorphoses
only because Bérenger notes that Papillon had such a
good job to live for. This shock exposes another
contradiction in Bérenger’s character, pointing to
capitalism’s power to brainwash even the most sceptical
and disenchanted member of the workplace.

The stagecraft amplifies Ionesco’s attitude with a
physical similarity between Bérenger’s and Jean’s rooms
implying that bourgeois life is homogenous, and that
collective consciousness is a predictable result. Both men
evidently live alone, and both rooms seem little more
than prisons, suitable for housing their occupants in
between work-shifts.
Retreat from Humanity

Bérenger’s and Daisy’s dual desires to fight the rhinos
and to surrender vacillate wildly in the action-packed
section that begins Act Three’s second half – amplifying
in an absurd parallel the prior alternating currents of
Bérenger’s & Dudard’s rationalisations.

Inactive at the start, Bérenger fails to hear Daisy’s knock
at the door. This is the third delay in opening the door
for someone else in the play (Jean for Bérenger in scene
two of Act Two; Berenger for Dudard in the first part of
Act Three), and each occasion seems to indicate a
physical disconnection from humanity, which the
occupant of the house is in no hurry to remedy.
Retreat from Humanity

While resistant at first to Daisy’s and Dudard’s idea of
acclimatizing himself to the rhinos and not worrying over
it, Bérenger later lets Daisy coax him into believing that
he should lead a guiltless life

Bérenger goes a step further in blaming guilt (and other
emotions that show a lack of "purity", as Daisy says) as
a cause of the metamorphoses.

Daisy’s reversals turn to an even more staccato rhythm;
she alternates her devotion to Berenger and to the
rhinos so quickly, the effect would be comic were the
outcome not so grave.
Guilt, Love, & Other Absurdist Emotions
Daisy’s and Bérenger’s ideas of guilt and love clash in profound ways:

The "happy" guiltless life Daisy seeks detaches itself from humanity. The
love she expresses for Bérenger, then, is simply a love for another
individual, not for all humanity; as Bérenger expresses it, "Happiness is
such an egotistical thing!"

Bérenger is at first manipulated by Daisy into accepting this guiltless life. He
greedily misinterprets her distinction between her interference in Dudard’s
life and his own, not comprehending Daisy’s belief that love allows you to
act on behalf of someone else.

However, Bérenger renews his guilt, later choosing to absorb the guilt for
Daisy’s own departure, even though she probably would have done it
anyway. That he still feels concerned for someone who just abandoned him
in the worst way shows that Bérenger holds unconditional love not only for
Daisy, but also for humanity.

Ionesco implies through his parody of a new Adam & Eve that the
conventional romance of private love for one human is not enough for a life
of significance: one must love and be willing to take responsibility for all
humanity, leaving Bérenger to interfere on behalf of the world.
Dedicated Followers of Fascism
The metaphor of fascism grows more overt towards the
end:

The firemen have turned into an organized militia,
showing that authority is just as susceptible to
corruption as anyone else.

Papillon’s earlier transformation and the metamorphoses
of the aristocracy and media ram the point home.

Dudard’s desire to belong to the "universal family" of
rhinos suggests an underlying genetic component to the
transformations, a movement to Aryan-style racial
cleansing (as well as calling attention to the scarcity of
family in Rhinoceros; none of the major characters
seeming to have any relatives whatsoever).
The Hidden Violence of Compliance

The rhinos not only become more beautiful to Daisy, but to the
audience as well. Their trumpeting is melodic to our ears, too, and
we can understand why she would be seduced by them, especially
when compared to the pictures of ugly humans alongside.

Yet Bérenger’s observation about the indirect nature of harm is
Ionesco’s final critique of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle:
"Sometimes one does harm without meaning to, or rather one
allows it to go unchecked."

Seemingly innocuous action can, in fact, be violent. Worse yet,
remaining passive, without commitment or choices, can cause harm
and makes the passive individual as culpable as the violent one. In
the proverbial expression, evil prospers when good men do nothing.
Why are you wearing that stupid
man suit?

The play ends with repetitions on the theme that the universe is
absurd, and that logic cannot explain everything:

Daisy makes the comment that one can predict things only after they
have happened, but this is not even true.

Bérenger unsuccessfully attempts to justify Botard’s absurd
transformation:


that it was a disguise, which copies Jean’s earlier statement about Mr. Boeuf,

and that it was a foreseeable collapse of Botard’s false stubbornness, which
echoes Dudard’s earlier words.
Both are, in fact, completely wrong: the true “disguise” is the human
skin the savage characters were wearing all along, and Botard’s
stubbornness was not at all a pose. Botard may have held out initially
because he was obstinate, but once he was presented with proof of the
rhinos in Act Two, his stubbornness did not relent, but switched sides to
account for the rhinos. One can reasonably imagine that later on, when
he realized he was one of the few humans left, Botard would have
stubbornly insisted that being a rhino is right.
• In Western theatre, where we read from L to R, the LH
side of the stage from the audience’s view (Stage Right
for the onstage actor) is the most ’powerful’ space.
’POWER’ LINES
UPSTAGE
OPPOSITE PROMPT
(O.P.)
PROMPT
(P.)
DOWN STAGE