The Modernist Trajectory refers to the ideology of Modernism and thesubsequent artistic movements formulated within its time span. It was influencedby various social, political, technological and scientific advancements. TheIndustrial Revolution, the birth of a factory system of mass production, theatomic bomb, the prototype camera, as well as the works of various theoristswere pivotal to the development of the modernist ideology, as was war andviolence. The ideology reacted to all those that came before it. Thefollowing essay will focus on Theatre of the Absurd – a movement that was inspired byexistential philosophy and featured irrational, illogical plays, with anextreme, melodramatic acting style and a chaotic choice of words, intentionallychosen to startle viewers. Such conventions are evident in Alfred Jarry’s Ubu Roi, evidently classifying it as anabsurdist play. Samuel Beckett’s Waitingfor Godot holds itself to these same conventions, and the following essaywill interrogate Godot as an Ubu-like figure, paying particular focus tomorality from an existential viewpoint.

Itis imperative to begin an analysis of Alfred Jarry’s Ubu Roi within the Modernist Trajectory with an investigation ofthe term itself. Modernism is an ideology, described by Malcolm Bradbury andJames McFarlane as a “break with tradition,” (1991: 21). The ideology isfurther a system of values and beliefs, reacting to the past and glimpsing thefuture, that stretches over a century. Bradbury and McFarlane (1991: 21)further claim that, “it is not so much an evolution which implies a turningover, even a turning back, but rather a break-up, a devolution, some would saya dissolution. Its character is catastrophic.” Such characteristics aresymptomatic of the historical context of modernism. The turn of the centurycreated a catalyst for modernism to develop (Styan 2004: 201). With the Age ofImperialism, a time at which the European developments appeared progressive ina local context, at its end, those same conditions are juxtaposed with the endeavourof dominating territories abroad.  Againstthis backdrop, various revolutionary developments changed the lifestyles ofmany.

Onesuch revolution was the Industrial Revolution (Styan 2004: 211). Such arevolution was initiated by a gradual sequence of changes – beginning in themid 18th century – profoundly altering the conditions of life. This machine ageinitiated a shift from a rural and agricultural economy to an urban basedfactory system of mass production, thereby increasing the urban population.Among the era’s emerging revolutionary technologies was Louis Daguerre and NicephoreNiepce’s 1839 invention of the prototype camera. Its capacity to reproducevisually what the eye was capable of seeing was indicative of the desire for filteringways in which appearances are recorded and represented (Styan 2004: 3).Furthermore, the growth of a capitalist industrial economy led to a completetransformation of social relations upon expansion of the middle class. This newclass was one of leisure, with time and taste for recreation (Styan 2004: 6).They were eager to be seen as publicly active, and one of the many subsequentresults of this was the expansion of theatres and proliferation of suchbuildings in London. The Theatre became the dominant public forum in whichparticipation and visibility ensured prominence, and going to the theatre was asocial event that proclaimed emerging status. This new audience prompted theintroduction of new subject identities and narratives in the dramatic canon,which appealed to the interests of the middle-class citizen. The immediateresult of such conditions in the 19^th century dramatic canon was theemergence of the realist theatrical style (Styan 2004: 5). However, the genreproved disenchanting for a 20th century audience, as its focus on depicting thelife of a key character in an anthropological manner, doing so in a way thatmaximized the recognition on the part of the audience. In order to do this,real conditions were reproduced artificially in order to show what occurs belowthe surface. Such a process discouraged imagined or fantastical projectionsinto the past or future. The imagination was subject to the ruthlessconstraints of material circumstances (Styan 2004: 7).

Brieflyturning to Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s Houseas a case study to further this understanding of realism, it is evident thatthe characters are constructed with close reference to Sigmund Freud’s studiesof the human mind, with complex personalities and lives outside of the play.Human beings are biological creatures and are multi-faceted; thus, they behaveper their desires. Characters are made up of many factors that are sometimesconflicting, and the plot generally focuses on psychological struggles. InIbsen’s A Doll’s House, Nora isperceived as a doll, yet her personality is incredibly complex andmultidimensional. The theme of Nora being a doll is frequently mentioned. Sheclaims: “I have been your doll-wife,just as at home I was papa's doll-child,” and this communicates her position in amale-dominated society that she desperately wants to change. Determinismhighlights how social circumstances and Nora’s nature predetermine her choices.She is a doll and overplays this role: she is vulnerable when caught for fraudand wants Torvald to come and save her. However, environmental determinismlooks at how characters are products of their environment, and how thissituation eventually produces effects. This is made abundantly clear when Norarealizes that she has “dutiestowards [her]self,” and wishes to challenge her position in society. The characters are alsogenetically linked to their pasts, as evident in the case of Dr. Frank’smention of his fatal case of syphilis, which he contracted from his father. Notonly is this an example of how his father’s past mistakes are affecting Dr.Frank’s present, but it is also evidence of how biology and genetics have sucha large impact of the lives of individuals.  

Modernismis described as an ideology reacting to all those that came before it (Bradburyand McFarlane 1991: 21). As such, movements within modernism react to those ofthe past – but the inception of such movements was also largely due to thesocio-political context. Modernism was initially sparked by World War II, whichwas considered to be “The Great War.” Such a description painted a picture ofromance and patriotism, when, in reality, it was incredibly brutal andtraumatic. The aftermath of such destruction, as well as the aforementionedtechnological advancements that thrust the world into a time scarred by thegore of war. This had a significant impact of how art was made (Esslin 1968).Movements within the modernist trajectory saw the stage as a mirror, making theaudience aware of their place in the universe. Often this led to themes of mystery,isolation and disenchantment, fuelled by philosophers whose work marked a radicalbreak from the ideology of continuity.

Theatreof the Absurd was born in the mid 20^th century and was inspiredmainly by existential philosophy. It is a movement featuring irrational,illogical plays, with an extreme, melodramatic acting style and a chaoticchoice of words, intentionally chosen to startle viewers. Absurdism directlyreacted to realism by referencing its core theoretical tenants so as to subvertthe conventions and, subsequently, their implicit connotations. Once suchtheoretical tenant reflected in both the realist and Absurdist movement wasthat of determinism (Styan 2004: 11). The theory proposes that all livingbeings – as well as social structures and power relations – attain theiridentity from fundamental natural forces form which they cannot escape (Mautner2005: 386). Such a world view holdsthat autonomy is deceptive and impossible to attain, as the environment isreality form which no individual can escape. Every action has logicallypredictable consequences and those actions are seen to be inculcated throughtime and the experience of living in a specific context and the human being hasno agency during their life. Karl Marx’s later adaptation of determinism to asocio-economic context puts forward the view that unlike natural history, inwhich the environment is all controlling, the socio-political environmentserves the interests of the ruling class (Mautner 2005: 386). The order ofsociety can thus be challenged and overthrown by revolutionary as opposed toevolutionary means. Further emerging disciplines in the fields of sociology andpsychology evidently impacted the thematic treatment of specific issues by awide range of playwrights (Styan 2004: 11). The sociological focus is gearedtowards the study of individual subject and cultural formations. Sigmund Freud,prolific psychologist of the 19th century (Styan 1994), focused on the workingsof the human mind. His work investigated individual identity formation andsubjectivity, particularly within the context of sexual desire andsocialization, and such was reflected on stage in the realist tradition. TheTheatre of the Absurd subverts such conventions by rather focusing on existentialworld views. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his famed book Beyond Good and Evil (1886), writes “you want to live according tonature? … you have compelled yourselves for so long and with such persistenceto view nature falsely…” (2018: 39). Absurdism reflects such attributes in therecurring motif of the abandonment of rational linking of ideas and logicalconstruction. In a world in which man has no agency in determining his/her ownfate, the irrationality of experience is transferred to the stage as man confrontsthe basic facts of existence. Absurdist theatre poses that the social positionof man is irrelevant, rather aiming to make the audience aware of man'sprecarious position in the universe.

Alfred Jarry was born in 1873 in Laval. He moved toParis at the age of 18, where he ate up his inheritance. Subsequently, lifebecame anarchic and chaotic as he engaged in self-conscious buffoonery andalcoholism (London1997: 5). His ignominious death came early, but not before he wrote Ubu Roi, which was made as a parody ofone of his school teachers (London 1997: 5). Ubu outraged Parisian society inhis brutish appearance, and by opening the play with a profane cuss word.Perhaps unintentionally, Jarry’s Ubu became an emblem of the politicalleadership of the 20^th century, and the innate manner in which he isaesthetically represented horror disguised as ridiculousness. Despite precedingthe Absurdist movement, there is a definite existential influence in Jarry’s Ubu Roi – or at least a contemplation ofthe concepts and questions further elaborated on by later Absurdists andexistentialists alike. Ubu Roiponders the concept of morality in the amorphous character of Ubu, as he is anear-articulate monstrous creature, said to be symbolic of the politicalleadership of the 20^th century. Within theexistential philosophy, morality is questioned with the context of politicalpower (Kant1997: 11). The grounds of morality are questioned, particularly by ImanuelKant, as he poses the question as to whether we are obligated totreat humans as an end rather than just a means. Kant furtherstates that all rational creatures are obliged to act on the grounds ofmorality, as rationality is morality (1997: 11) – however Ubu’s amorphous depiction givesthe impression that he is inhuman. Kant views nonhuman animals asnon-subjective to the moral law. This causes colossal room for debate – we mustattempt to ponder whether Ubu is above the law – and if so, the subsequentimplication is that politicians also deem themselves “above the law”.

Theabsurdist aspects of Ubu Roi arefurther evident in the play’s attack of theatrical realism (London 1997: 6). Ubu Roi references the work of SigmundFreud as Ubu is called the “walking id,” (London 1997: 5). However, Jarry strains from therealist tradition of investigating individual identity formation andsubjectivity within a sociological context, to instead show how arbitraryreason provokes madness. The grotesque, immoral nature of Ubu’s character isportrayed clearly in the first word uttered by the character – “Merte!” –“shite” (London 1997: 5). By dramatizing theunutterable horror existing in everyday life, Jarry is said to have paved thepath for absurdists of the 20th century. Deveze (1997: 1) claims that instudying the character of Ubu, it is imperative to neither over-analyse norunder-analyse him. He is described as a murderer who thinks of himself as ahero, revealing ridiculousness hiding in horror. His character is not strong,but violent, showing the absurdity and madness in oppressive empires (Deveze1997: 1). This puts emphasis on the fact that ignorance will not afford excuse.Further absurdist motifs are evident in the performance style of Ubu Roi. The play features a singleactor, with the action portrayed using marionette puppets. The speech is clippedand robotic, furthering the attack on traditional theatrical conventions(London 1997: 5). In particular, Ubu Roicritiques theatre in the realistic tradition for its concern withverisimilitude, thus incomprehensible subjects clutter the stage (London 1997:5).

TheUbu motif is further said to be theseamy side of the tyrants’ rational discourse – he makes visible to atrocitiesdictators do in secret. Samuel Beckett’s Waitingfor Godot is a classic absurdist play, and is the result of asocio-political context that was in uncertain times because of war (Beckett1984: viii). Recurring motifs in Ubu Roi,such as childish, absurd humour, and violence concurrently return in Waiting for Godot. Such instancesinclude Pozzo’s – the pompous aristocrat – ruthless treatment of Lucky – whorepresents the proletarian (Beckett: 1984). Beckett writes from a primaryexpressive urge which tends towards abstraction, with the dialogue containingrhythms of not just pre-rational, but seemingly counter-rational, dramaticlanguage. He thus pushes his language to a ‘still point’ – a world of perpetualsolitude and the verbal equivalent of a ‘final desolation of solitude’ beyondthe tangible world. His characters never interact totally, and the playcomprises of fast-flowing fragments of speech that do not seem to coherentlyinterlock (Kennedy 1976: 130). Beckett considers language to be is irredeemablyprivate, as words are born in the depths of the speaker’s mind – isolated fromthings and other persons, motive and argument, local time and place (Kennedy1976: 130). Furthermore, the dramatic stasis in his work shows movement as asuccession of still points and a cyclic recurrence of verbal occasions.Dialogue is composed of subtly doubled monologues as Beckett creates wordsagainst the wreckage of words – the texture of the play’s language is createdout of his ever-renewed sense of the failure of language. Subsequently,language is equated with reality; language cannot be trusted and words can onlyfail. Verbal expression is self-defeating (Kennedy 1976: 134). In destroyinglanguage and words in this sense, Beckett accomplishes something that neitherNaturalists nor Expressionists could as he challenges the consequences of thedepth of psychology. The voice acts as a representation of the subconscious,which proves to be incomprehensible and alone (Kennedy 1976: 162-163), assimilarly to Ubu, “the walking id”, exemplifies the way irrationalrationalization provokes madness (London 1997: 5).

Assuch, Waiting for Godot differs from Ubu Roi as Beckett relies on language asthe primary element of the performance. The gesture, movements, and setting areimportant, but less so.

Thisfascination with words links to the allure of the shape of ideas in the shapeof a sentence, moving away from everyday speech and towards and internal andabstract purity. Furthermore, ‘Godot’ sounds like “lets go”, which are the last words ofboth acts(Beckett 1984: xv). This connotation of a full stop, indicated in therepetition and in the spelling of the word itself – “go-dot” – puts emphasis onimmobility and stagnation. This resonates with the contemporary political andsocial climate, and the absent protagonist seems set to evolve alongside us forunforeseeable future at a time of political turmoil (Beckett 1984: xvi). In this sense,Godot and Ubu are both metaphors for a society disenchanted by itssocio-political climate.

The play comments on the problematic nature of man's place in the worldand serves as an allegorical image of the human condition (Esslin 1968: 66). The play’s titularcharacter is absent throughout its entirety and may even be non-existent,creating a cause for debate when analysing the play in relation to absurdismand a societal context. Theatre of the Absurd breaks the rules of the canon ofdrama, which dictates that a story has a beginning, a middle and an end. Thusthe play is perhaps a modern morality tale of man’s search for god – or perhapsman’s trail away from order. This is an interesting manner in which tointerpret the character, as even the spelling – “God-ot” – infers a spiritual context. Ultimately, the deferredgratification is never resolved (Beckett 1984: vix). This perfectly embodiesNietzsche’s statement, “God is dead,” commenting on the existential struggle ofseeking an explanation as to why people where they are (Ciba 2013: 2). Such aninterpretation questions the idea of morality in a similar manner to Ubu Roi. The Ubu-like character ofGodot interrogates morality more from the perspective of existentialphilosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche claimed, “When one gives up theChristian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one'sfeet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, awhole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out ofit, the faith in God, one breaks the whole,” (1974: 1) showing a disenchantmentwith the notion of God. Nietzsche’s famous claim that “God is dead,” (1974: 38)refers to the sentiment that without a God and a sense of morality founded inreligious codes, the basic ethical system of Western Europe was injeopardy.

Subsequently,the “Ubu trope” is undeniably evident in Waitingfor Godot. Contemplating morality is a core theme, recurring in both plays,particularly in relation to political power. Attention must be given to theirrationality and absurdity evident thematically in both texts. Such issymptomatic of a socio-political context shaken from war, violence, andunfamiliar technological advancements.

‍

References:

Beckett, S. (1984). Waiting for Godot. Toronto, ON: Coles.

Bradbury, M. (1991). Modernism.London: Penguin Books.

Bradbury, M. and McFarlane, J.(1991). The Name and Nature of Modernism. London: Penguin Books.

Ciba, D. (2013). DeconstructingConsciousness: The Search for Meaning in Waiting for Godot. [online] Availableat: http://praxis.journals.villanova.edu [Accessed 8 Mar. 2018].

Deveze, L. (1997). The Ubu Phenomenon in Ubu +101: William Kentridge, Robert Hodgins,Deborah Bell, by Rory Deopel. University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg. pp.1.

Esslin,M. (1968). Beckett and Pinter.

Esslin,M. (1968). The Theatre of the Absurd.

Ibsen, H., (1965) ADoll’s House (London: Methuen) 154-161; 172-173; 224-23.

Jarry, A., Spiess, F. and Douphis, P.(2016). Ubu Roi. [Paris]:Gallimard.

Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork for the Metaphysics Of Morals. [S.L.]: Yale UniversityPress.

Kennedy, A. (1976). Six dramatistsin search of a language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.130-131.

London, T. (1997). The singularhallucination of Alfred Jarry in Ubu+101: William Kentridge, Robert Hodgins, Deborah Bell, by Rory Deopel.University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. pp. 5-8.

Macey, D. (2009). Dictionary ofCritical Theory. Vancouver: Crane Library at the University of BritishColumbia.

Mautner, T. (2005). The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. (London: Penguin).

Nietzsche, F. (2018). Beyond Good and Evil. [S.l.]: ArcutusPublishing LTD.

Nietzsche, F. and Nietzsche, F.(1974). Twilight of the idols.New York: Gordon Press.

Styan, J. (1994). Modern drama in theory and practice 2: Surrealism, Symbolism and theAbsurd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.1-11.

Styan, J. (2004). Modern drama in theory and practice. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Worth, K. (1972) Revolutions in Modern English Drama. (London: G. Bells and Sons).

‍