The term "absurdist" is a silly catchall meant to cover all sorts of unrelated writers from Ionesco to Genet to Pinter. If Albee is to be included it's only in his very earliest work. Personally, I think it applies to Ionesco (maybe) and no one else.
I don't know - I know people disagree a lot on this one, but both times I saw The Goat, it seemed like a good old raucous comedy, with tragic undertones. Except for the odd ending, of course.
But then, I know some people who swear that the audience didn't laugh once when they saw it, and who are sure it was a tragedy. Both times I went, people were guffawing.
I've noticed audiences during "The Goat" laughing hysterically throughout the first half of the play but as we [the audience] find out more information and as the story continues we realize that this isn't funny. The laughter turns uncomfortable as we don't understand why we are laughing. By the end of the play we should be shocked and disgusted and no longer think what we are witnessing is funny.
I would argue that The Goat is not an example of theatre of cruelty. Nor of absurdism. And that Theatre of Cruelty did not branch from Theatre of the Absurd. It has more in common with surrealism than absurdism.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
joined:7/25/11
joined:
7/25/11
Posted: 9/23/11 at 12:25am