The Birthday Party

Hello friends,

Harold Pinter´s separation of the human condition is artfully embodied in his plays. His ability to bring on stage controversial issues as identity, absurdity of human actions and chaos of life along with the implementation of new theatrical techniques distinguish him from his contemporaries.

This blog tries to explore into and analyze one of Pinter´s twentieth century leading plays, The Birth Day Party and its film version. This takes an effort to study the ontological dilemma that has compelled these humans to resort to absolute isolation, dragging their life toward chaos, anxiety, distress, fear, threat and  absurdism.

The play “The Birthday Party” delineates the predicaments faced by the people in the second half of the 20th century. It represents the existential problems among the post-war generations who have given up life and stuck in utter seclusion. The elderly class has been living life by a normal means; however, they are made to suffer by younger class in ample ways. Life in post-war period is seen as a dark-phase in the history of England. The circumstances were completely unfavorable to sustain and lead a life in the certain optimistic mood. Pinter has portrayed this sense of being and existence in dramatic approach through his narratives giving the image of menace and suffering in post-war period.

 

It represents the youth who have given up the external hostile world. So, the characters presented in the play are idle, sleepy, and dirty most of the time. Stanley, the protagonist is given refuge by the elderly couple in the boarding house. He usually wakes up late in the day and reflects upon the post-war young London generation. Such individuals are filthy, messy and a blot on family and society. These individuals have dragged families towards terror and anxiety. The personal and family dignity of such individuals is devalued and lost. The play portrays the hard work done by elder generation in society, who leave their homes at dawn and work throughout the day until dusk. Such individuals strive a lot to keep their house running. The elderly couple Petey and Meg give the impression of being firmly moored in their daily life. Their poor meals represent the turmoil in their day-to-day life. 

This blog consequently highlights the following as contained in the play: Pinter’s bird-eye view, a mystery play, paranoiac protagonist, hopelessness and weirdness, aggression—an existential tool, identity and isolation, existential lingo, and strive to survive.

In the play, there are six characters and they constitute a microcosm of society. They mirror the economic division of the society and the division between exploiters and exploited. Goldberg and McCann are exploiters, managers, operators, and control the life as well as decision makers.

The modern individuals struggle for dominance over one another, and initiate their interaction in an aggressive fashion. This we detect in Stanley’s first encounter with Goldberg and McCann where he strives to achieve supremacy.

Thus, the play reflects the ridiculous state of the individuals in the second half of the 20th century. It presents the grimness and despair in man’s life. Pinter’s characters are bewildered. They have put themselves in utter darkness and are unable to recognize their true nature and purpose. The modern life at each and every instance shocked the general folk in the post-war Western society. The play declares the multidimensional chaos, arbitrariness and illogical episodes at their virtual facades. It reinforces the idea of discreet solution to the existing human predicaments that have ailed and crippled the societies. The socio-political factors render the individuals meaningless. Existence is questioned and yearning to seek self-identity remains unsatisfied as the search for identity remains inconclusive and elusive.

Post viewing task

(1)Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?

Lulu's character  has ambiguity. We can't define her character with  particular angle. According to me , it is difficult to justify her character and her behaviour which she did in The Birthday party. We can't say clearly whether she wanted or she was seduced by two strangers because she is consciously enjoy the party and also aware from the atmosphere of the party.   The scenes are performed behind the curtain and audiences has been informed what happened with her in the play. If Lulu is complaining , it means something is happened with her and she is not able to raise voice against the power. It looks like the dumbness of the society .  It describe that So many things  are happened around us and we are not able to stand against it and accept it as it is.

Means we see towards things that  There is nothing  going wrong .It is also the part of society. Lulu is important character in the play to describe artistic  inspiration of Stanley and therefore she gets much space in the play rather than The film.  And may be describe the real sense of society / Real mirror of the society two  scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie.

(3)What do you read in 'newspaper' in the movie? Petey is reading newspaper to Meg, it torn into pieces by McCain, pieces are hidden by Petey in last scene.

Newspaper is important in our daily life because it provides information from various parts of the world. A newspaper serves as an important medium to control corruption and scandal. The main topics of general interest in the newspaper include politics, social issues, sports, economy, films and the stock market.

Newspaper is the most important symbol of the play. 

Through the Newspaper what actually writer wants to indicate?

 

Why we read Newspaper daily?

 

To aware about reality. But in the play - writer uses the newspaper to hide the self because Petey can't able to face the reality of life. McCann who tore the newspaper that indicate that he destroys the spirit of Stanley as artist. Newspaper is torn into pieces by  McCain and hide by Petey that ascribe that Petey himself broken down through  heart by McCain and Goldberg  and he is unable to do anything. So, he hides that reality from everyone by hiding the piece of newspaper.

 

(4) Camera is positioned over the head of McCain when he is playing Blind Man's Buff and is positioned at the top with a view of room like a cage (trap) when Stanley is playing it. What interpretations can you give to these positioning of camera? 

Camera coverage is the additional footage the director and director of photography shoot so that later the director can make alternative creative choices in the way the scene is cut, in the way it is paced, and in the way the actor's performance is emphasized.  There are a lot of roles on a film set. And, while they all might be important in their own right, none is perhaps more critical than the camera operator. You know, the person who actually handles the camera for every shot and scene.

Camera Speaks with the different set up of scenes. And in the game of “Blind Man's Bluff"- it is used very well. Camera speaks with different angles and that we see clearly in that particular scene. When McCain plays camera is over the head that describes the mental condition and search for something.  While Stanley plays the game camera is over the top that indicates that he is bind up with confusion, the narrowness of the space is clearly visible to audiences that describe that as artist is not free and he is unable to escape from the society. His life is in full of danger and his inner aspiration also can't help him in his loneliness.

(4)"Pinter restored theater to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of one another and pretense crumbles." (Pinter, Art, Truth & Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture). Does this happen in the movie?

 

Yes, Certainly we can say that "Pinter restored theatre to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of one another and pretense crumbles" happen in both in movie as well as play also.  While watching movie we become thoughtless and have no any link to connect  but then even it somehow shows that ' pretense crumbles' is not always for audience.

 

(5)How does viewing movie help in better understanding of the play ‘The Birthday Party’ with its typical characteristics (like painteresque, pause, silence, menace, lurking danger)?

Movie is successful in giving us the effect of menace. The Birthday Party is a tragedy with a number of comic elements. it is a comedy, which also produces an overwhelming tragic effect in audience mind. Some indefinable and vague fear keeps our nerves on an edge. 

We feel uneasy all the time even when we are laughing or smiling with amusement. 

If we talk about setting and atmosphere which is used in the play -it is somehow terrible and fearful but surprisingly we don't know fear for what? 

By whom? 

And what is the reason behind the fear?

 and all such kind of questions always remains as unanswered.  In the play it seems like that all characters constantly try to ignore their past with laughter which is frightened and terrible for them. The play is already mention in category of  "Comedy of Menace" and I felt the effect of the menace, first in background setting which is described with grey shadow. The game - "Blind Man's Buff’ which is end darkness. The torrent of language/questions of McCann and Goldberg , and  dialogues like,...Force to sit Stanley and try to overpower among themselves.  Thus, though somehow it is comedy audience feel the effect of menace throughout the play.   

With which of the following observations you agree:

 

"It probably wasn't possible to make a satisfactory film of "The Birthday Party."

 “It's impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter's play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Friedkin”

 

The director takes freedom to direct the film and shows that angle only he wants to show. But when the writer and script writer is one there is only one point of view to describe so it is much faithful to play also. 

The visualization gives much impression to our mind and sometime seeing is more important rather than reading. While watching the  movie , we see and feel the expression and the background of sound ,and emotions and feelings of characters. We also feel each characteristic like.. 

Pause, silence and effect of menace during watching the movie which is not possible while reading the play.I agree with the second statement that “It's impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter's play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Friedkin”.

Thank you.

 

 References:

 

Deer, Harriet, and Irving Deer. “Pinter's ‘The Birthday Party’: The Film and the Play.” South Atlantic Bulletin, vol. 45, no. 2, 1980, pp. 26–30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3199140. Accessed 29 Nov. 2020.

Harold, Pinter. “THE BIRTHDAY PARTY.” The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Birthday Party, by Oliver Optic, www.gutenberg.org/files/21901/21901-h/21901-h.htm.

Lesser, Simon O. “Reflections on Pinter's ‘The Birthday Party.’” Contemporary Literature, vol. 13, no. 1, 1972, pp. 34–43. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1207418. Accessed 29 Nov. 2020.

Mohindra, Vinita. “Existential Chaos: Analysis of Harold Pinter's ‘The Birthday Party.’” Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences.

 

Waiting for Godot

 Hello friends,

Waiting! Waiting! Waiting!

To wait is awful!

We all are very hectic in our day-to-day life. We think that we are doing something very significant in our life.

Not only permanently but even temporarily what we are doing?

Does this really have any kind of meaning?

Waiting! We are just passing our time. We are waiting. We wait for our ultimate destination death as we have nothing to do. We think that we are doing something precious and worthy but life is itself absurd and thus, whatever we are doing becomes meaningless. Here, meaninglessness is itself becomes meaning and so,

‘Nothingness is something.’  

Existentialist Samuel Bucket gives ‘Existentialism’, ‘meaninglessness’, and ‘waiting’. Here, what Bucket tries to tell through waiting is not about something which comes to an end but is endless. Samuel Bucket interestingly differentiates the meaning of ‘waiting’ than ordinary meaning of the word- waiting as which comes to an end or gets cannot be define as waiting. Waiting means to stay or remain at one place until something happens and that is the death only.

This blog studies some of the interesting discussions from Bucket’s  play “Waiting for Godot”.

Watch Ruchi Joshi's video on waiting in waiting for Godot.

(1)What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?

Landscape is something very interesting frame to study. When landscape is portrayed with human and nature both, plays very significant role. Life is absurd. There is journey and this journey is towards the death only. Samuel Bucket is inspired from the Casper David Fredrick’s painting  ‘Longing’.  This painting suggests longing of life. Waiting and longing both remains throughout the play and it is endless.  Trees symbolizes hope and country road suggests that show must go on.

The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves - ?

Bucket uses trees as symbol and both setting of the play.  Nothing happens. This same thing is repeated into the ACT II. It doesn’t make any kind of difference.  There is a slight change into ACT II is there is 4 or 5 leaves on the barren tree. Thus, tree plays important role which signifies hope for tomorrow.   Valdimir looks at the tree and notice that and says that...."Yesterday evening all bare and black . Now it has leaves on it."  Symbols represents that the things are constantly changed in life also. All things are going to change through time and all days are not same .It constantly changed into gloomy or happiness . So, Tree represents both  the sides of life - and have hope for tomorrow.  Hope is endless and hope is the only thing through which human being is alive today. Hope never going to die. Hope supports us to avoid the meaninglessness of life .

In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

We can say that, ‘Nothing to be done’ is central idea of the play. This is exactly the central idea of the play.

" Nothing happens , nobody comes , nobody goes, it's awful."

Both the characters are suffering from uncertainties. They are equally afraid of too. It also suggests that things keep on changing in our life. Constant change! 

Estragon : Wait! I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't have been better off alone, each one for                 himself. We weren't made for the same road.

Valdimir : It's not certain.

Estragon : No, nothing is certain.

 

Evening turns into night. Light always not gives the  positive attitude in life. Somehow night is connected to Death. And  Valdimir said that ' Will Night never comes?' means they have questions that whether they get salvation or not from the life.

The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?

To which we can call heart?  Essence or core? Nothing happens throughout the play. In each and every scene and every action nothing is done!

Vladimir and Estragon both are doing nothing as such which is significant in life.  And Nothingness becomes the theme of the play. ' Nothingness'  is the central idea of the play. 

Both are waiting for "Godot" but they don't know  'Who is Godot? When does he come?, 

Where does he show up?, Why does he have to come?, 

the most fundamental question:  Why do they have to wait for Godot?'

Above all things are not only related to Estragon and Vladimir but through these characters writers represents humankind who are helpless and nothing have to do without killing time. We just pass our time on earth as we have nothing to do . All things are insignificant in life whether you are intelligent or physical strong . As one is master or slave , as one is blind or dumb , there are no any importance of anyone because all has to pass their time with same fate and such way there is no any differences among them . Nothingness is the centre is everything and  it becomes something in the play.

 

Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?

Hold fast to dreams,

For if dreams die,

Life is a broken-winged bird

That cannot fly.

Hold fast to dreams.

For if dreams go,

Life is a barren field

Covered with snow.

Langston Hughes

 

Existential depression is a depression that arises when an individual confronts certain basic issues of existence.  Death is an inevitable occurrence. Freedom, in an existential sense, refers to the absence of external structure. That is, humans do not enter a world which is inherently structured. We must give the world a structure which we ourselves create. Isolation recognizes that no matter how close we become to another person, a gap always remains, and we are nonetheless alone. Meaninglessness stems from the first three.

If we must die, if we construct our own world, and if each of us is ultimately alone, then what meaning does life have?

“Suicide is man's way of telling God, 'You can't fire me - I quit!”

― Bill Maher

How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?

I have highlighted some symbols throughout the play and will be explored deeply in-short: Tree, Lucky’s Baggage, Pozzo’s Rope, Night Fall, Hat, Names, The Boot, The Bone.

Estragon's boots, instead of symbolizing rational thought processes on the other hand symbolize the fact that there is nothing to be done for the two men in a less pensive and more active way. Estragon, who focuses more on boots than hats, is more earthy and realistic because he is more grounded than Vladimir.

In act two Estragon and Vladimir exchange their hats and Lucky's hat back and forth, trying different ones on. Given the importance of these hats to their individual owners, this scene can be seen as representing the fluidity and instability of individual identities in the play.

At the end of the first act, when Estragon puts his boots aside, this doer-thinker role seems to change for a while. Estragon starts philosophizing. He contemplates about the moon, and then when Vladimir asks him about his boots, he says that he can go barefoot because Christ did as well. 

“Vladimir: Christ! What’s Christ got to do with it? You’re not going to compare yourself to Christ! / Estragon: All my life I’ve compared myself to him” 

And Vladimir is the one who tries to act at this point. He is the one who wants to leave and find shelter for the night. However, in the second act Estragon takes his boots back and the roles switch back again.

Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?

What makes slave or master? 

Power or position?

This suggests that one is constructed to be happy even in slavery. Lucky has all that chances to run away but he is not going anywhere but lives in that only!

Yes, at first sight, it is seems that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nausea tic. Writer describes the slavery of Lucky to his Master. His entry is evidence  in the play.  The treatments of Lucky directly connected to animal - Horse.   When Lucky enters into the play, it heard like Horse is coming.  How one can to be the slave of others? When Pozzo is blind , Lucky is not able to walk himself without command of his master. Though he has chance to run way from such slavery , he happily accept his slavery and totally dependent on his master.

 

Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or  . . .

 

Many believe that Godot is really God. I think that Beckett initially wants us to believe he is God simply because of the name, but it's more involved than that. Godot is 'who' we are waiting for, and in the course of the play that can take on many meanings.

We all occasionally feel that something is missing in our lives, and Godot possesses traits of God in both the Old and New Testaments. There are many who 'wait' for God to change their lives and do nothing to change them on their own. Beckett uses parables from the Bible.

"At the end of Act I, when the boy arrives to say that Mr Godot " won’t come this evening but surely tomorrow " and Vladimir proceeds to question him about his "credentials", the boy reveals that he minds the goats and his brother minds the sheep. Placing these two words together is enough to suggest one of Jesus’s best-known parables, frequently used in art and sermon, the parable of the sheep and the goats.”

Godot constitutes the centre of their life though he does not arrive in the end of the play and there is no hint that he will, even after the play ends. So there is an implication that the tramps will go on waiting for this elusive being who is like a mirage in the desert. The title of the French original En attendant Godot meaning ‘while waiting for Godot’ is less ambiguous than the English one. Descriptive as it is, it gives an impression that the play is more about the act of waiting than about the arrival or identity of Godot. However, in a postmodernist context in which the idea of decentering is important, it would be relevant to critique the Godot-centric universe of Estragon and Vladimir.

When asked who or what Godot stands for, Beckett stated ‘If I knew, I would have said so in the play’. This Beckettian statement could be understood with reference to the play-text which does indicate who Godot might be, but only through diverse, unrelated references to Godot, references which do not help one arrive at any ultimate conclusion about the identity of Godot. In other words, when Beckett says ‘If I knew, I would have said so in the play’, this statement might indicate this inconclusiveness, plural connotations or ‘polysemy’ about the identity of Godot. The diverse textual references to the polysemy about the identity of Godot are instrumental in explaining that the idea of centre is an illusion in the Godot-centric universe of Waiting for Godot.

Truth about being is non-being as the goal of every life is death. Life in itself is meaningless; people give meaning to life in their own way. In other words, though life in itself is meaningless, in order for people to exist, life is ascribed diverse meanings. The idea of plurality could be understood also as an absence of any absolute meaning of life. Indeed, this is a point that Derrida himself emphasizes throughout the essay, and most evidently in the epigraph of the essay ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences’. The epigraph is taken from the French essayist Montaigne and it reads as ‘One needs to interpret the interpretations more than the things’. In other words, Derrida is indicating the need to interrogate the existing interpretations or philosophical systems (which have, for example, foregrounded the idea of ‘centre’) which is exactly what constitutes Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction. The idea plurality of centres, absence of any absolute centres, or the notion that centre is a myth are some of the observations that would, for Derrida, constitute the concepts of indeterminacy and inconclusiveness, the hallmarks of postmodernism. The critiquing of the idea of centre would also be the basis of Derrida’s interrogating of logocentrism and phallogocentrism.

Keeping this in mind, one could probably understand Godot not as ‘who’ but as ‘what’. 

Godot could be understood as an experience. Godot could be understood as the experience of waiting itself, or even life itself. If Godot has no existence outside the text of Waiting for Godot – as Beckett insisted whatever he had to say about Godot is there in the text- then Godot could be understood as a posited entity, any posited entity that helps one go on waiting, or for that matter, living. To live is to create the purpose of life, and Godot is such a purpose for which the tramps wait and thereby live on.

It is in this context that, in a Derridean sense, Godot can be understood as a required hypothesis. Godot is certainly a hypothesis which is yet to be proved. Even if Godot’s identity cannot be ascertained and there are multiple opinions about his possible identity, still Estragon and Vladimir need to posit Godot. Positing Godot gives a reason for them to wait, assuming the existence of somebody called Godot, gives them a sense of safety and security in an otherwise meaningless and therefore unsettling universe. Even if Godot does not exist, Godot is to be posited because Godot is a necessity in the life of the tramps.

 

“The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?

 

Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?

Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?

Yes, I feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie. Existentialists deals with such subjects like...Death, the meaning of the human existence, the place of God in human existence , the meaning of value , interpersonal relationship, the place of self - reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing. They are waiting for 'Godot' and in between they just killing their time. For passing the time they both play with Hat or Boot. Though both things stand for different symbols both Estragon and Vladimir are same place , and same fate also. Means.. there is no difference whether one is intellectual or not. What makes difference in between them 'Nothing'. At the end, there are tried and decide to committee suicide but they can't because our instinct of life is more powerful than the reason of the death.  

Vladimir says that " Shall we go? Let's go. but they don't go and readers have question " Where to go?"

Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism? 

The phenomenon of suicide is one of the primary concerns for mental health professions. The health-care literature is dominated by discussions that focus variously on local and national suicide prevention policies, on the assessment of those individuals judged to be at risk of committing suicide as well as the appropriateness and efficacy of interventions for those who express suicidal ideation and display suicidal behaviours. What appear less frequently in the literature, however, are critical analyses of the concept of suicide and, in particular, critical reflections on the manner in which the concept of suicide has been, and continues to be, understood or ‘framed’.

Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so because we have habit of living life. Our instinct of life is always more powerful than the reason of death. We have a habit of living before we acquire a habit of thinking and reason always goes to thinking. Thus, such instinct is over power over the thinking capacity. Thus, they can't do suicide because they have hope for tomorrow just like ' Act Of Eluding' .

Existentialism is not gloomy term it is an attitude to prove that man is maker of his own fate.Existentialism is positive term  to look life with different perspective. Its all about consciousness. It  don't driven by sensibility or emotionality or melodrama kind things. It is connected with lived experience.

So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in Broadway production). Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?

With the help of historical background, we can read this play with colonial and post colonial aspect. As we know that Irish  people are suffering from slavery of  English. Lucky himself can't free from this idea. Master - Slave relationship fully described here. After the blindness of his master ( Pozzo) Lucky can't be free because he doesn't want. So, Ireland always be slave of England and we read this with colonial perspective.  Master - Pozzo don't like to give the answers to others. With Furiousness Pozzo says that....

" Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! Whhen! One day , is that not enough for you , one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day , the same second , is that not enough for you? " None of My Business"

 

Thank you.

 

 References:

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting For Godot. Ed. G.J.V Prasad. India: Pearson Longman, 2006.

Bordewijk, Cobi. “THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAYTEXT: DISPUTED PERFORMANCES OF ‘WAITING FOR GODOT.’” Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd'hui, vol. 1, 1992, pp. 143–156. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41337887. Accessed 29 Nov. 2020.

Derrida, Jacques, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.”

 

Esslin, Martin. “Samuel Beckett: The Search for the self .” The Theatre of the Absurd. United States of America: Anchor Books, 1961. Print.

 

Adaption from Samuel Bucket's Breath

 

 Hello friends,

Life is meaningful,  but its value is made by us in our minds, and subject to change over time.  The meaning of life, or the answer to the question: "What is the meaning of life?", pertains to the significance of living or existence in general. Many other related questions include: "Why are we here?", "What is life all about?", or "What is the purpose of existence?" This all questions leads us to answer the question that it is ‘meaningless’

Now question raises…

What is meaninglessness?

This meaninglessness does not mean ‘lack of meaning’.  Here, nothingness itself becomes something.

Theatre of Absurd

The Theatre of the Absurd' is a term coined by the critic Martin Esslin for the work of a number of playwrights, mostly written in the 1950s and 1960s. The term is derived from an essay by the French philosopher Albert Camus.

In the Theater of the Absurd, multiple artistic features are used to express tragic theme with a comic form. The features include anti-character, anti-language, anti-drama and anti-plot. of the Absurd regard their own personalities as a formal case.

In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. ... In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".

 

Interpretation of 'Breathe'

Why should the breaths be recorded rather than live?

In his script, Beckett specifies that each breath should be an amplified recording. Recorded breath is different to live breath in two important ways: it is not directly connected to a body and it is not visible (only audible).

 But is live breath really connected to a body?

 And can we see it?

By using recorded breath, Beckett makes philosophical issues concerning live breath more apparent than they might have otherwise been – more apparent than if the breaths had been breathed by an on-stage actor. Whilst breath obviously exists in our lungs, it also exists outside of us, in the atmosphere. So breath is both embodied and disembodied, inside and outside. Also, by not tying the breaths to an individual, Beckett raises the point that breath is not the preserve of a single subject.

Despite its brevity, Breath is full with significance. Its simplicity allows room for readers of the script and viewers of the play to create their own meanings, to put flesh on Beckett’s bare bones. Given its title and content, the play provides an ideal starting point for explorations of the cultural meanings and philosophical dimensions of breath and breathing. Beckett’s script poses more questions than it answers; the queries thrown up by the text create fertile ground for investigation. This blog briefly considers a couple of these queries, raising, somewhat inevitably,  further questions along the way.

 

Ruchi Joshi’s Adaption

The Theatre of the Absurd ... can be seen as the reflection of what seems to be the attitude most genuinely representative of our own time.  The hallmark of this attitude is its sense that the certitudes and unshakable basic assumptions of former ages have been swept away, that they have been tested and found wanting, that they have been discredited as cheap and somewhat childish illusions.

Martin Esslin

The Theatre of the Absurd has renounced arguing about the absurdity of the human condition; it merely presents it in being - that is, in terms of concrete stage images. This is the difference between the approach of the philosopher and that of the poet; the difference, to take an example from another sphere,

‘To look’ is at the very heart of the play. Constantly it try to have a stand yet one is unable. Looking into the mirror is actually very trivial though does this have any purpose or is purposeless only?  One interesting this is, things looks quite better in mirror rather than their real places. There are two parts one can look at the same thing.

The camera angle helps the creator to establish different relationships between the subjects and even between the audience and the subjects. It's very important to master these techniques if you want to become a pro filmmaker!

“First the body. No. First the place. No. First both. Now either. Now the other. Sick of the either try the other. Sick of it back sick of the either. So on. Somehow on. Till sick of both. Throw up and go. Where neither. Till sick of there. Throw up and back. The body again. Where none. The place again. Where none. Try again. Fail again. Better again. Or better worse. Fail worse again. Still worse again. Till sick for good. Throw up for good. Go for good. Where neither for good. Good and all.”

Here in this video camera angle plays very significant role as first it suddenly enters into the room and flashes on first on wires and then other various fallen upon dressing table.

Scholar and other philosophers associated mirrors with thought because it is a mental instrument that is the reflection of the universe and enables you to observe yourself.

Closing of camera focuses on web cam and nail polish, suggests forceful representation of social language for women. There are a lot many things which helps us in looking the things yet plays very significant role as even barrier.

Ultimately it leads us to a question that,

What the use of these entire things?

Can’t we breathe if these are not there; does this creates any kind of difference?

Thus, it becomes quite true quoted by Esslin,

The dignity of man lies in his ability to face reality in all its meaninglessness.

Thank you.

 

Existentialism: Flipped learning

 

Hello friends,

The secret to a meaningful life is simpler than you think.

Some people seem to spend their whole lives dissatisfied, in search of a purpose. In other words, it needs to think that people who feel purposeless actually misunderstand what meaning is.

Here existentialism term is much relatable.

Existentialism

Existentialism is a movement in philosophy and literature that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It began in the mid-to-late 19th Century, but reached its highest in mid-20th Century France. It is based on the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It focuses on the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the core of existence.

It holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent force, the only way to counter this nothingness is by embracing existence.

This class is a part of Flipped learning task on existentialism assigned in Google Classroom by Pro. Dilip Barad.

Click here to view the task and video resources.

Click here

Let's have a brief introduction of Flipped learning classroom.

Flipped learning

Flipped Classroom brings in sweeter fruits of advantages for both teachers and students. One of the main advantages of Flipped Classroom is that it makes students move away from traditional learning. It gets them closer to active dynamic learning wherein both teachers and students can collaborate actively

One of the very interesting view point of this Flipped learning is that, homework is done into classroom (currently on virtual platforms due to COVID 19) and classwork is supposed to done at home. It helps student in self learning.

Now let's begin our discussion on videos resources:

“Man is a useless passion. It is meaningless that we live and it is meaningless that we die.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

Philosophers’ answers to this question are numerous and varied, and practical to different degrees. The 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, said the question itself was meaningless because in the midst of living, we’re in no position to discern whether our lives matter, and stepping outside of the process of existence to answer is impossible.

Both philosophers considered the role of making free choices on fundamental values and beliefs to be essential in the attempt to change the nature and identity of the chooser.

In Kierkegaard's case, this results in the "knight of faith", who puts complete faith in himself and in God, as described in his work "Fear and Trembling".

In Nietzsche's case, the much maligned "Übermensch" (or "Superman") attains superiority and transcendence without resorting to the "other-worldliness" of Christianity, in his books "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (1885).

“But here's how it works: when the world has told you once too often and once and for all that you are nothing nothing nothing then you come to the conclusion that others may be nothing too.”

― J.W. Horton, Angels of the Revolution

 

Which videoI liked the most?

Video 5

Existentialism as Gloomy Philosophy

This video explains very interestingly how and why existentialism is Gloomy Philosophy.

Anxiety, absurdity and despair.

If I say, I like this video then I must have reason behind my liking or disliking. It deals with energetic music which increases attachment and pushes to finish this video along with quality content. Tone of speaker is also polite and kindly smooth with good posing. Animation is also quite interesting.

My questions

Questioning is the key means by which teachers find out what pupils already know, identify gaps in knowledge and understanding and scaffold the development of their understanding to enable them to close the gap between what they currently know and the learning goals.

 

Question 1	(Video 1) Initially and centrally this video tries to explain feeling of absurd. If feeling itself is connected with having meaning then how it can be considered as ‘absurd’ or ‘feeling of absurd’?
Question 2	Albert Camus said, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy” When we study the myth of Sisyphus, it is full of pain and to give words to this pain is also very difficult. So, how can it be possible to enjoy pain happily? Does this wants to signify that there will always choice between not ‘one good and one bad’ but between ‘two bad’ or ‘what is lesser painful’ emphasizing on individuality?
Question 3	(Video 6) Which gives meaning or gives value is itself decreasing its importance at some point. Does this supports ‘જે પોષતું તે મારતું એ કર્મ દીસે છે કુદરતી?’ Is death an option or compulsion?
Question 4	We study in Existentialism; humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. Can it be possible that too much thinking can destroy thinking process in a rational way? If it does not destroy, can it damage? Question 4 Absurdity suggests meaninglessness. If we know there is no meaning, we actually know the meaning. Then how to consider it as an absurd?

It helps you uncover the challenges we are facing and generate better solutions to solve those problems. If we are asking a question, we are not rushing in to provide the answer, give the solution, or take on the challenge, but it is the process which makes us learning

Learning outcome of this activity

My learning outcome means that what I am working should achieve, know or be able to do by the end of the activity. Therefore, learning outcomes are set in discussion with the teacher and it is actually a kind of privilege.

Watching these video resources helped me a lot along with reading materials. It helped in remembering, understanding, evaluating, most importantly applying and significantly in creating.

Example of existential struggle in present Covid19 time is,

Thank you.

 

 References:

GLICKSBERG, CHARLES I. “The Literature of Existentialism.” Prairie Schooner, vol. 22, no. 3, 1948, pp. 231–237. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40624001. Accessed 21 Nov. 2020.

Warnock, Mary. Existentialism. Oxford University Press, 2005.