Experiencing The Big Picture

Experiencing The Big Picture
         The worlds of Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi and Peter Weiss's Marat/Sade are both wonderfully twisted and thought provoking, as well as extremely provocative and upsetting to many theater goers.  These plays, although many years apart, show some sort of insight into how human society works as well as the possible futility of certain ways of thinking, as well as how easy it is to upset the established order of things.  These plays raise many interesting questions including; why is their order and disorder? What is the meaning of life? Is change necessarily good?  Where does rationalism end and madness begin?  And what is interesting is that the answers to these questions are not always present.  Ubu Roi is a prime example of a precursor to the Absurdist drama of the 1950's and 60's, showing vulgar language and outlandish situations that seem to hold no moral or logical relevance to what was commonly accepted as "real" theater of the time, yet the simple outlandishness of it all was what brought it into the spotlight and made it a landmark in theater history.  This play seemingly laughs in the face of the Well Made Play that the French Neoclassicists love so much.  Peter Weiss's Marat/Sade on the other hand has its hands dipped more into the metaphorical and disturbing art of the Theater of Cruelty; it stages a brutal murder of a French revolutionary journalist and bringing up the lasting impacts of the political and social climate of the French Revolution.  This play poses societal questions to the audience as well as showing historical truths that may have been hidden from them for many years, truths that are brought out into light in the only way that is going to leave a lasting impact, by being bold, disturbing and violent. Both of these plays seem to echo their respective play styles, yet that isn't to say that there aren't elements of the other style within each play.  This paper shall examine both Ubu Roi and Marat/Sade through the lenses of the Theater of the Absurd and the Theater of Cruelty and in doing so understand how they relate to each other.
         One of the most interesting and iconic elements of Absurdist Theater is that there is a distinct lack of closure, of things simply not making sense in the end.  The universes in Absurdist plays are most often incomprehensible and aimless.  When a story leaves its roots and delves into nonsense halfway through, the viewer can become jarred and taken out of the context of the play, a specific tactic used by Absurdist Theater to upset and/or entertain the audience.  Ubu Roi has a strong link to such a tactic as the story seems to give the viewer no satisfaction at the end.  Why must a mass murderer get away with his crimes? When there is nothing left to go on then there is simply that, nothing.  The nihilism of Absurdist theater then becomes more apparent in this play as Ubu, who has seemingly conquered a kingdom, killed his servants, started a war, and lost a war escapes for France leaving more plot holes than one can comprehend.  In fact the play seems to emphasize this with a logical opening, a scheme, specifically a half hazard one concocted by Ubu and his mother "If I were you, I'd try to get that bum sitting on a throne.  You could become enormously rich, eat as many bangers as you liked, and roll through the streets in a fine carriage." (Ubu Roi I.1.30-32) And eventually this scheme works as Ubu conquers his kingdom, yet unlike many classical tragedies there is a rise but not necessarily a fall.  Ubu does lose his kingdom as a war breaks out with Russia but he never learns anything in the end, there is no epiphany or growth of the character, he doesn't even die.  There is no poetic justice, no divine intervention.  The play becomes stagnant and silly and in the end his escape to France leaves nothing but emptiness and inconsequential death in his wake "I'll be off to Paris to get myself appointed Master of Phynances." (Ubu Roi V.4.41-42)  After everything that happened Ubu simply moves on without a care in the world, nothing is gained and nothing is lost, the grungy order of the beginning of this play turns into a chaotic mess by the end.  It as if human life itself is treated as nothing more than a toy, completely absent of morality.  This is the true face of the Nihilistic quality of the theater of the Absurd.  It will present you with a seemingly open ended scenario and/or problem, which could beg for the audience to try to find a meaning in it, yet when there is no meaning to be found the joke is planted on the viewer, it shows the futility in trying to find the meaning in the meaningless.
         Another element of Absurdist Drama that can be seen in Ubu Roi is the utter and complete mockery of almost anything and everything under the sun.  Absurdist theater often makes a mockery of society, people, ideas and metaphorical concepts by turning them on their head and making them all seem inconsequential or silly.  And silliness is indeed the strength of this play as Alfred Jarry specifically wrote Ubu to be the epitome of the wealthy elite, as well as the gluttonous pigs of society.  Ubu also encompasses envy, greed, evil, wrath, impulsiveness, and the tendency towards instant gratification by any means that is a characteristic of children; a truly despicable character.  These traits are clearly emphasized from the beginning of the play as he plots to kill the king of Poland "I'm of the opinion that we should simply poison the King by stuffing his lunch with arsenic.  When he starts the browsing and scoffing, he'll drop dead, and I shall be king." (Ubu Roi I.6.5-8) and it is not only Ubu who is played to be a mockery of society but many of the other characters as well.  The war that breaks out between the Ubist's and the Russians leaves a land in wake but is played out in such a silly manner that none of it can be taken seriously; Ubu's men fight a bear with a knife "I've got it.  I've got a half-nelson on it."(Ubu Roi IV.6.12) Mama Ubu references Shakespearean plot devices that leads the audience into believing that an eloquent feel to the scene is going to be made yet makes a mockery of classical theater itself "Yes, Mister Ubu, someone is indeed speaking, and with the tongue of the archangel's trumpet that shall summon the dead from their graves to meet their judgment!  Listen to that terrible voice.  It is the voice of the archangel Gabriel who is incapable of giving anything but good advice." (Ubu Roi V.1.55-60) and the utterly comical depiction of mass death and destruction makes the seriousness of war seem like play time.  It seems like satire, but much of satire uses wit to make a mockery of things, whereas this type of humor is as base as campfire jokes, yet Absurdist drama includes both satire and mockery in its field.  Another way to look at its elements of mockery is its relation to the postmodern anti joke "the Aristocrats".  The premise is that someone performs a show in front of an audience that is filled with nothing but disgusting debased humor and when the audience asks what the act is at the end they call out "The Aristocrats!" The punch line is that it satirizes the lifestyle of decadence of the nobility.  This mockery of nobility was a key force behind Jarry's writing in this play.
         Yet deviating away from familiar territory of Absurdist theater in Ubu Roi, we see more to the play through the lens of the Theater of Cruelty.  One distinct aspect of the Theater of Cruelty is the discomfort factor, the ability of the play to present such material to the audience in such a way that they may feel violated, upset, disturbed and/or aroused.  Ubu Roi does this in its very language, which is base and crass.  The play itself opens with the word Pschitt (shit), and takes no remorse in depicting slaughter, scatological scenarios, as well as crass and insulting comments to shock the viewer out of their comfort zone and into the zany world of this play "And now I shall fuck off." (Ubu Roi I.6.19)  But language is only a part of what makes Ubu such an unnerving experience, when looked at a whole the lack of structure in this play seems to be delivering a message of chaos, the pure joy of chaos incarnate and the rejection of order, politeness and rationalism in the world.  This is depicted in the fact that after all the dead have fallen, after all the filthy words have been spilt and the order of Poland is restored there is still no logical message to be found in the play.  Thus it is sort of a meta message, a message that there is no message, and when looked at it that way the chaos makes viewers who are used to more structured plays (such as those that the Neoclassicists like) feel very unnerved and unwanted.  The play makes no attempt to cater to the literary needs or moral foundations of the audience members and thus makes it an experience that is upsetting, jarring, and provocative for the sake of being provocative.  And although the idea of the theater of Cruelty does not necessarily involve actual pain and suffering in its exposition, it does not have to shy away from it either, a fact that Ubu exploits; it finds pleasure in the pain of death and destruction by turning it all into a cartoon where there are no ramifications for anything that happens "Those who are condemned to death, I shall push through this trap door.  They will fall down into the bleed-pig chambers, and will then proceed to the cash-room where they will be debrained.  What's your name, you slob?" (Ubu Roi  III. 2.9-14) Viscerally this play lines up with the theatrical ideas of Cruelty quite well in the regard to discomfort.
         Interestingly enough, even though there is an emphasis on showing a strong message to the audience (through an assault on the senses) in order to teach a lesson of some sort, Antonin Artaud's theory on the Theater of Cruelty is inherently vague and deals with metaphorical elements and questions that are often still open to interpretation.  It shouldn't be surprising then that Ubu Roi tends to exploit the latter point of Artaud's theory.  The fact that there is no concrete message to be found in the play, despite its inclination for upsetting the audience with twisted and bizarre subject matter, should not necessarily remove it from the realm of Cruelty by that fact alone.  The fact that nothing is accomplished, that the nihilistic overtones are present, and that the audience is left possibly upset leaves much room for devising different theories on why this play is what it is.  It allows people to engage in numerous dialogues about what meaning is and why we give meaning to certain plays and why do we leave meaning and lessons out of other plays.  This interpretative element in fact links Cruelty with the Absurd very closely because being overtly philosophical and interpretative about certain texts with little to no meaning reinforces the futility of understanding the impossible that the Theater of the Absurd tries so hard to press on the viewer.  The Theater of the Absurd seems to relate quite intimately to the second part of Artaud's theory with Ubu Roi being the prime example.  With such a link in place it's hard not to see the Absurdist Ubu Roi in the light of Cruelty at this point.
         In sticking with Cruelty, Peter Weiss's socio political play Marat/Sade seems to fit nicely in this category, and with good reason.  As was referenced earlier, a key element of the theater of Cruelty is to shock the viewer into listening to what you have to say, and the most obvious element of this play is indeed shock value, but this shock value is of a different nature than the crass and bumbling humor and violence of Ubu Roi.  Staged in an insane asylum in France 1808, the initial play within the play is directed by an infamous character in history, the Marquis de Sade.  Sade was a libertine, someone who is completely unrestrained by morality, and was known for writing some of the most provocative and vile works in the history of literature, the most infamous being the 120 Days of Sodom.  The very fact that his reputation is so infamous and his nature so provocative, makes his fictional presence in this play makes deadly serious and unnerving.  Yet this is contrasted with the wild and often humorous antics of the inmates themselves throughout the piece " Unfortunately the girl who plays the role here has sleeping sickness also melancholia. Our hope must be for this afflicted soul that she does not forget her role" (Marat/Sade I.4.49-52) Thus the feeling the audience gets at the initial start of the play is a conflicting one, nihilistic and perverse undertones mixed with chaotic and abrasive action.  The key fact to note here is that the content of this play intends to be abrasive and shocking, but not crass and childish, the key distinction between Marat's shock value and Ubu's shock value.  The reason for this is because Marat's content is bolstering a definite dialogue and message to the audience, where's Ubu leaves its shock in the void of complete meaninglessness.
         The most important aspect of Marat/Sade is obviously its message and the legitimate dialogue it brings up in the viewer, as opposed to the more abstract dialogue of meaning brought up in Ubu.  This is the hallmark of  plays tied to the Theater of Cruelty. In the play Sade is frustrated by society's violent urges as well as his own and thus decides to open a dialogue about the nature of violence and society by showing a play about Jean Paul Marat who was a revolutionary Journalist during the French Revolution who's martyrdom had a large impact in the reign of terror from September 1973 to July 1974 "Our intent in creating such dialogues as these was to experiment with various antitheses to oppose each to each so that we might upon our many doubts shed some light In my mind I keep turning things over and over but I can't seem to bring the play to neat closure" (Marat/Sade II. 33. 69-74) The idea is that Marat was a strong fighter of the nobility of the time and influenced many revolutionary ideas such as tearing down the old establishment to make way for the new through violence "Four years he fought and he fought unafraid sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed Marat in the courtroom Marat underground sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest businessman the bourgeois the military beast Marat always ready to stifle every scheme of the sons of the arse-licking dying regime" (Marat/Sade  I.5 28-35) his influence attracted a royalist named Charlotte Corday who was disillusioned at the state of affairs during the revolution and of Marat's influence over the violent revolution "We've got new generals our leaders are new They sit and they argue and all that they do is sell their own colleagues and ride on their backs and jail them and break them or give them all the axe Screaming in language no man understands" (Marat/Sade I.5.36-40)  She ends up murdering Marat and his Martyrdom inspires the nation to greater acts of extremism.  This incident is brought up in the light of the cause and effects of violent revolution and their implications on society as a whole, this idea is what is being toyed with here in this play and it is a clear and brutal idea using the raw truth of past events that lends its nature to the theater of Cruelty by opening up a legitimate dialogue.
         Yet as much as Marat/Sade fits nicely through the lens of the theater of Cruelty, the nihilistic and chaotic elements of the Absurd are also present in this play as well.  A key factor being the question that the play poses itself, can humankind really change their nature?  The play makes references to many violent revolutions in the past that were supposed to be beneficial to mankind yet many of them ended up in the same position of power ready to abuse and oppress the next generation, it then references the current reign of Napoleon in a pseudo mocking manner making him out to be another good revolutionary in a sort of this time it will work for sure sort of attitude. "And though we're locked up we're no longer enslaved and the honor of France is eternally saved The useless debate the political brawl are over there's one man to speak for us all
For he helps us in sickness and destitution he's the one who completed the Revolution everyone knows who we're cheering for Napoleon our mighty Emperor" (Marat/Sade II.33.95-102) By giving power to a new autocrat to help free oneself from a previous autocrat the people of France make the whole effort of violent revolution seem a bit futile in the end "And if most have a little and few have a lot you can see how much nearer our goal we have got" (Marat/Sade II.33.91-92)  And where there is futility there is a link to meaninglessness and therefore to the chaos of nihilism that is present in ideas surrounding the plays of the Absurd.  Marat/Sade seems to bring up the aimlessness of the violent nature of man, giving more questions than answers. In this regard it is very similar to the Absurdist qualities in Ubu Roi in that the chaos of the world may not have a logical answer or perhaps no answer at all if you look at the patterns of history.
         And like Ubu Roi the attitude of the writing in Marat/Sade also seems to have strong elements of satire and mockery that is present in many Absurdist plays.  Indeed the inmates rehearse slanderous chants against the French nobility during the revolution; a more literal approach to satire compared to the more metaphorical mockery of the gluttonous elite in Ubu Roi through exaggerated characters.  If we were to look at aesthetics the main difference between the two would obviously be the language, Marat/Sade is written in poetic verse with a beat and flow to its perverse mockery "Down with all of the ruling class Throw all the generals out an their arse" (Marat/Sade I.5.11-12)  as opposed to the hilariously crass language that Ubu presents "My wife's a lazy slut and you're a great booby!" (Ubu Roi V.1.104-105) Weiss leaves no stone unturned though as he not only mocks the nobility but the revolutionaries as well, making the atmosphere extremely hostile to all important figures during that time, the play is very critical of both Marat and his murderer Charlotte, each have their own justifications for doing what they do yet both of their actions in history seemed to cause harm around them even if they believed they were doing the right thing.  The irony of these characters actions lets the author play with the language a lot; dancing between favor and disfavor, mockery and backhanded compliments and weaving a masterfully crafted satire on class warfare, control, and violent change, and ultimately the ambiguity of the human condition.  "On the one hand the urge with axes and knives
to change the whole world and improve people's lives On the other hand the individual lost in thought caught in the throes of the calamity he's wrought Thus the question formulated in this play remains open in the light of things today" (Marat/Sade II.33.78-84)  In this regard Marat/Sade's language of mockery is very unique yet quite similar to the elements of Absurdist satire.
         Although these plays have been written far apart in terms of years, and although they both concern different worlds of fantasy and reality, these plays seem to have much in common.  Nay they seem to relate as well as the Theater of the Absurd relates to the Theater of Cruelty.  Both have elements of one in the other, yet both are distinctly unique at the same time.  At first glance Ubu Roi is the epitome of the precursor to the theater of the Absurd; its lack of closure is as nihilistic as any other Absurdist play, it mocks royal society as well as everything else about the world, but it also shocks the viewer with its content and offers up a vague and metaphorical atmosphere that is characteristic of Artaud's theory of Cruelty.  And while Marat/Sade distinctly falls in place with the ideas of the Theater of Cruelty by using subversive and disturbing shock value to effect the audience and delivers a more concrete message concerning certain truths about mankind, its message of the futility of change is as chaotic and nihilistic as Ubu Roi. It also mocks and satirizes society as well, albeit in a more poetical and well crafted manner.  These two plays form a package of sorts, an experience that is meant to entertain, disturb, and get you to really question the big picture.  The fundamental issues being brought up between both plays are timeless; the relevance of meaning, the significance of mockery, the idea of change as either a positive or a negative.  I feel that by examining these plays and showing their similarities through the lenses of both theaters of thought that the viewer can get a more rousing experience of what life can be, or not be, about.  They break the social norms, make you feel uncomfortable and therefore make one act and really think outside the box, the greatest thing in life is to constantly think and to challenge what's right, wrong, and real. Complacency in thought leads to mental stagnation.  These two plays, no matter how weird or bizarre, help us come alive.