Le théâtre de l'absurde; un bon choix des mots?

Depuis 3 ans que je fais du théâtre, et bien plus longtemps que j'en vois, j'ai souvent entendu parler du théâtre de l'absurde, sans y avoir réellement affaire. Cependant, j'ai eu cette année un aperçut de ce pan du théâtre, lors d'un stage en milieu d'année, et deux choses m'ont parut intéressantes: la manière de jouer le théâtre de l'absurde, assez développée et complexe en vérité, et le sens qui transparaissait de ce théâtre qui, d'après son nom n'a pas le moindre sens. En effet, c'est le sens premier du mot absurde, tel que l'est la phrase suivante;

Quand on pense au théâtre de l'absurde, les premiers auteurs qui nous viennent en tête sont généralement Beckett et Ionesco, et pourtant cette dernière elle même refusait l'appellation de  théâtre de l'absurde, ce qui est bien normal: dans ce théâtre plus que dans la comédie ou la tragédie, chaque détail doit être pensé afin que le message ne se perde pas dans une mise en scène qui donne une impression de confusion au milieux d'une histoire dont l'intérêt n'est pas d'être une histoire, mais un vecteur. Si le tragique à pour but la catharsis, et le comique le rire, doublé souvent de critique, le but du théâtre de l'absurde est la transmission d'un message. Ainsi, dans la pièce "En attendant Godot" de Samuel Beckett, le Godot en question n'arrive jamais, et c'est son absence qui entraîne des réflexions et des doutes chez les deux protagonistes de la pièce, Vladimir et Estragon. C'est donc une situation fixe et sans fin qui donne le contexte de la transmission du message.

De même dans "La Cantatrice Chauve", de Ionesco: ce personnage qui fait le titre de la pièce est mentionné deux fois, et n'apparait jamais!

Eugène Ionesco: "Qu'importe que la cantatrice soit chauve, puisqu'elle n'existe pas"


Au niveau des thèmes, le théâtre de l'absurde est très cohérent, une fois placé dans son contexte:
la solitude de l'Homme, le tragique de l'existence, l'impossibilité à communiquer ou encore l'angoisse des Hommes face à la mort. En réalité, le théâtre de l'absurde est cohérent par rapport à son époque. 

Après la première guerre mondiale, qui à représenté pour beaucoup la victoire de la barbarie sur la culture, la tendance principale à été à l'existentialisme, soit la philosophie de:---------------------------->
Le contexte général était au pessimisme, ce qui peut expliquer l'utilisation du terme "théâtre de l'absurde" par Martin Esslin dans l'un de ses essais, ce terme s'adapte au thèmes de ce théâtre auparavant inclassable dans la ligné de la croyance existentialiste. C'est donc le premier à englober sous ce terme les univers de Ionesco et de Beckett, qui partagent en plus des thèmes plusieurs caractéristiques communes: En premier une déstructuration du langage, par l'enchaînement de phrases dénués de logique, mais qui est en fait purger de ses transitions et fait majoritairement de phrases simples. Dans un dialogue, entre Vladimir et Estragon dans la pièce de Beckett "En attendant Godot",on voit la logique de ce dialogue: une idée exprimée, le dialogue ne revient pas dessus et se poursuit directement:

"Estragon -Qu'est ce que tu as?

Vladimir -Je n'ai rien.

Estragon - Moi je m'en vais.

Vladimir -Moi aussi."

Les codes de l'absurde à ses débuts ne suivent donc pas de conventions, qui deviennent pour une société une sorte de logique pré-établit, mais se plie tout de même à des codes que l'on peut identifier par l'analyse, tant des thèmes que des textes et des mouvements anarchiques se déroulant sur scène.
On pourrait résumé une partie des codes du théâtre de l'absurde à un unique code "briser les codes pré-établit"; ainsi, les thèmes sont nouveaux, les dialogues déstructurés, et il devient fréquent que le quatrième mur soit brisé.

Par exemple, dans la pièce de Ionesco Scène à quatre, qui est celle que nous avons joué lors de notre stage sur le théâtre de l'absurde, les différents personnages finissent par se disputés la place de partenaire amoureux de la "Jolie Dame", un autre personnage. Cependant, celle-ci fait les frais de cette rivalité, se retrouvant dépossédée de plusieurs membres. Elle se tourne alors vers le public et dit "Mesdames et Messieurs, je suis parfaitement d'accord avec vous. Ceci est tout à fait idiot."

Chez Beckett, cette suppression du mur est plus subtil, elle tient au nom de la pièce: En attendant Godot. Les personnages ne sont pas les seuls  à attendre ce Godot; le public attend avec lui l'arrivée de celui que le titre annonce comme le personnage principal, ce qui se voit très bien dans la mise en scène de Yann-Joël Collin, qui éclaire également le public et la scène. Ainsi, non seulement le public se sent être dans la pièce, attendant le dénommé Godot, mais cette mise en scène souligne également une autre question: Godot serait-il dans l'assistance? Cependant, comme Ionesco l'avait dit pour la cantatrice chauve, peut-importe ou se trouve ce Godot, puisqu'il n'existe pas.

Yann-Joël Collin et Cyril Bothorel

POST 14: Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie (2003)

1) What struck you more in the film?

What struck me more in this movie is the choices taken concerning showing and hiding violence. The first girl who gets shot is shown being killed, as a symbol of innocence being killed as the movie starts, but Van Sant chose not to show the death of the group of girls who were in the bathroom. In fact, as we see the second angel, the black guy wearing a yellow shirt, being shot, it could mean that we only see the death of hope through important characters, but eventhough it came to my mind during the movie that it looked an irregular construction because of this.

2) What also impressed you?

An impressive thing was the poetical touch that Van Sant introduced in the movie in the middle of the overwhelming violence. For exemple the black guy, the second angel, who is trying to help people but still walks slowly towards an agressor wielding a gun, to show he actually cannot do anything, emphasizing the fatalism of this event.

3) Did you find anything more particularly upsetting?

The fact that the director introduced some cliches and personal ideas he seemed to have about the shooters was quite upsetting, such as the fact that they are shown as video-game addicts, or the fact that they are suggested to be homosexual, experiencing a sensual experience in a shower before the shooting.

4) What did you find very disturbing?

I found quite disturbing to see how easy it is for anyone to get a gun in USA, the two boys who look barely grown up are receiveing it as a normal delivery, as if they were receiveing a bunch of books. While seeing it, I had to tell myself this was really how it was in USA and that it was not only a convenient way of making the scenario take a step forward.

5) What was most shocking?

I think that the most shocking was people's passivity during the attack. About what happened inside the building I can think of it as something true, but John reaction is the first that shocks me: he sees the two shooters entering, but instead of calling the police he only tell people not to get in without insisting that much and goes look for his father. The second unbelivable reaction is the one of the second angel, walking carelessly toward a shooter still wielding his gun. Eventhough I know this is part of the poetical touch that I find great in this movie, I think it is a petty to give this reality based movie such a unreal aspect at this point.

6) What does the film suggest about the two school shooters?

The film suggest multiple things about the school shooters. Some elements are taken from the real shooters this movie is inspired by, such as the fact that they were in a group admirating nazis, and the fact that they were bullied at school, eventhough it does not justify their acts. Though it also suggests a few things that have been made up by the film director; the fact that the two boys were addicts to violent video games, which would have made them insensitive to the fact of killing. It also suggests the two shooters were having homosexual experiences, which is entirely made up and, would it not, out of the point.

7) What's more, what does the film director make clear about the two killers?

The film director makes clear that, eventhough they went through much, the two killers are not to be pitied. They show no mercy, and are only willing to "have fun" as says alexi. In addition, if Eric is to be hated as a cold blood killer, who even plays with his victims, telling a teacher he lets him go just to shoot him in the back, Alex is the one shown as the worst of the two. Indeed, he enjoyed killing so much that he even kills his friend in the end, friend and potential lover in the movie. He is not only a hartless human, he becomes worst than an savage animal.

8) What kind of approach to the school shooting itself did Gus Van Sant opt for?

Van Sant is building his movie like a fictional story, with a setting of the scene showing us a normal day in Columbine High school, and then piling up in front of our eyes the different problems taking place in this world, through the students view points. After making us understand that things cannot be considered normal, and that it will not stay this way, the shooting scene is a climax, but shot as a very cold scene. It is a silent explosion of violence, resulting of the multiple problems and putting them an end in an almost journalistic way, staying quite netral at first sight, but placing a lot of details remiding the horror of the situation. Though, the poetical touchs still seem to emphasize the unrealistic vision of this event, by distording reality to send messages, mostely the fact that everyone is powerless against this sudden storm.

9) Moreover, what's the main consequence of the realistic treatment he uses? What about the 'poetic' touches he instills throughout the film?

The realistic treatment the film director uses has two main consequences: first, it gives a cold look on the events, which is quite shocking considering the horror this school is living, but it also places him as a witness of every problem the school has by giving a realistic look on the different students.
Though, this realistic view is tempered by the poetic touch Van Sant added to his movie. By focusing more on some characters who are stereotyped, he gives the feel that this could potentally happen in any school, for a lot of high schools have nerds, jocks, or girls obsessed by their look and relations. Showing the same scenes from different points of view, he leaves clues for those who have the will to spot them out.

10) As a conclusion, what must we admit about the way in which the killing and the killers are perceived by the film viewers?

We could think people might feel sorry for the two killers, as it looks at first that they are only taking revenge on those who bullyied them, but the film director made it clear this was no revenge, only a will to spread death for distraction, with both Eric and Alex, but especially with Alex, who after taking his revenge ends up killing his friend and potential lover. They are seen as monsters, not students, which is a problem for it places them over the other students; no one can think another normal student, a normal looking boy could be such a monster, it seem an isolated case. Still today, it is considered a tragedy, but a tragedy that no one can think will happen to him, for how could such monsters not be noticed before they act? The killing is perceived cruel and, after they said "have fun", meaningless for it looses all aspect of revenge to become a simple hunt. The reallity shown in the movie is shocking, but it is not an easy task making people think "this could happen again", and even less "this could happen to someone close to me". It is almost impossible making think "this could happen to me".

Post 13: The US Gun Culture

The Founding Fathers : 

The Founding Fathers of the United States are the individuals of the Thirteen British Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown and established the United States of America. The term is also used more narrowly, referring specifically to those who either signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or who were delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and took part in drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States. A further subset includes those who signed the Continental Association or the Articles of Confederation. During much of the 19th century, they were referred to as either the "Founders" or the "Fathers". Some historians apply the term "Founding Fathers" to a larger group of people, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America. Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.

National Rifle Association: The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975. It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.

Founded to advance rifle marksmanship, the modern NRA continues to teach firearm competency and safety. It instructs civilians and law enforcement, youths and adults, in various programs. The organization also publishes several magazines and sponsors competitive marksmanship events. Membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013^.
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington

Steve SACK, on www.startribune.com,

Gun Lobby and Congress (2010)

This Steve Sack cartoon published on the website startribune is a criticism of how influenced the congress is regarding lobbies. The fat politician in a nice blue suit, with a wallet identifying him as a member of the congress, receiving a bag full of money from a men in a businessman suit, with a brown wallet identifying him as a member of the gun lobby. we understand that the politician is being bribed, we can think it is to keep the same legislation about gun possession and business, and this criticizes corruption, for no protest against the possession of guns will get a result if the validity of the laws is bought. There is a double criticize, with a blood streak flowing down from the capitol, placed right above the two characters. The member of the lobby saying "Now, where were we before we were so rudely interrupted", we understand that they are probably responsible of this blood streak, which criticize how the gun lobby and the authorization about the use of guns in USA can drive to violence, bringing people encouraging this state of things in a place such as the Capitol. Also, as the congress member is turning his back on the blood trail, it shows that the government is voluntarily ignoring the n,egative aspects of the gun culture un USA.

Dave GRANDLUND, on www.davegranlund.com, 

Second Amendment and NRA (2013)

 The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.


This document is a caricature from Dave Grandlund, made in 2013, and showing the vision of the second amendment about gun possession first from the founding father's point of view, and then from the National rifle association's point of view. The first one, being the founding father's point of view, shows a noble american, very dignified, carrying a rifle as a hunt weapon. 
The side of the NRA shows a big American in a military suit, carrying an assault rifle and having two others in his back, and while the other is standing on a column, this american is standing on five boxes of munitions.
This caricature is criticizing the excessive vision about gun possession the NRA is conveying through America, in contradiction with the vision of the founding fathers that the NRA is perverting. It is criticizing the fact that gun are too easily possessible and the NRA, turning it into a business, without caring about the negative aspects that could result of it. If the founding fathers thought this law for people's protection, it is not it's real purpose these days.

POST 11: Individual document on Exchanges in Real and Virtual Spaces

As a third document to show how blurred the line between real and virtual spaces can become, this animated serie is perfect. In this story, the first virtual reality headset has been created, and the first game using this technology is released. But as people are starting to play, a problem appears; there is no way to disconnect from the game. As the headset is intercepting the brain's signal and simulating sensations by electric impulse, it was easy for the one who created this system to fry people's brain if someone tries to take it of manually, and to implement the rule that if someone dies in the game, he dies in real life. As the first virtual reality headsets are being created nowadays, people started to work on reproducing this kind of device, and it is not unrealistic to think it will be created in the future, and by recreating the five senses inside an online game, it will basically become like real life. It raises the problem of addiction to this hyper-realistic virtual space, but also the problem of a bad use of this technology.

Just in case, for potential readers, the post on life is strange is started, It'll probably be released soon, and I'll make another post later on sword art online.

The Mad Hatter