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".