Superfluities Redux

On culture and theatre, by George Hunka

A new journal for theatre minima and organum posts exclusively can now be found here.

Monday, 05 May 2008

Play by Samuel Beckett

According to Ruby Cohn, Samuel Beckett's 1963, 15-minute Play was the first of his own theatre pieces that he personally directed, stepping in for the unreliable Jean-Marie Serreau to oversee rehearsals for a 1964 Paris production (French title: Comédie). As Cohn notes, it's a key dramatic text in Beckett's body of work. Abandoned now are the vaudevillian gestures of Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Krapp's Last Tape and Happy Days; for the final 25 years of his career, Beckett would work in more seemingly hermetic lyrical forms, disdaining not only vaudeville but also the gestures to conventional theatrical time. No longer was Beckett concerned with the length of his pieces (whether a play would go a full evening, or as half of an evening of one-act plays). Beckett had written to director Alan Schneider that Endgame's intended reception depended on "the power of the text to claw." Beckett increasingly saw burlesque and comedy as a manicure upon those nails, and although the later plays and prose have their comic moments, they can no longer be mistaken for poignant (not with the old woman's curse "Fuck life" in Rockaby or the unsuccessful torturers of What Where), or hysterically funny. (I wonder sometimes about this need to turn Beckett into some kind of hail-fellow-well-met who'd be delightful to share a few drinks with at a local pub, or to think that the trio of Play is some version of an existential Three Stooges, as if he never really intended the darker implications of his work. To each his own, of course, and I find the stones of Molloy's pockets and the Lynch family of Watt funny too, but not rolling-on-the-ground, screaming-with-laughter funny.) Instead, they resemble more the fictions after The Unnamable, reaching a nadir of blackness with How It Is before the gentler but still torturous remembrances of Company.

Play, as its title indicates, is ironically self-conscious as to its form (the story itself is a melodrama about adultery), and it was, to date, the most technically ambitious and demanding of Beckett's career. Anthony Minghella's film adaptation, too, is profoundly self-conscious as to its medium, and because Roy Walker's production design and Hauke Richter's art direction helpfully locate the setting in a gray expanse reminiscent of Gustave Doré's illustrations for Dante's Inferno and Purgatorio, they are justifiable if unnecessary graftings onto what is a very plain theatrical vision.

I disagree with Cohn, though, when she asserts, "For all the brilliance of performers who have to subdue their theatricality, only readers can appreciate Beckett's dramatic skill in Play. ... Play is not only to be looked at and listened to, but it is also to be read." Of course this play, as well as Not I, makes extreme demands upon both performer and audience when it comes to the communicability of the text, but this demand is a necessary and sufficient part of the theatrical experience here, however helpful a familiarity with the text might be. The demand is a component of the work's urgency. Gone are the pratfalls, falling trousers and banana peels of Beckett's middle career plays and novels. We're left now with the use of a can opener (and not the electric or rotary-style can opener either) in performance of an anal rape (How It Is) and the impulse to human expression itself as a device of torture (Not I). Semi-paralyzed bodies that do not or cannot move cannot comically fall; instead they embody souls for whom the fall into damnation is far from comic.


More on Samuel Beckett here.

Posted at 9.01 am in /Videos

Permanent link to this story