A Critique of a Critiqe on the Dumb Waiter

A critique of Martin Esslin’s essay, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’, in relation to Harold Pinter’s style in his play, ‘The Dumb Waiter’.

2

Q

A critique of Martin Esslin’s essay, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’, in relation

to Harold Pinter’s style in his play, ‘The Dumb Waiter’. British scholar Martin Esslin in his critical analysis, ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’ enumerates several common characteristics pertaining to the theatrical tradition called the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ which came into being in mid 1940s in France. He discusses the unconventionality and radicalism in approach, of this extension of the theatre in relation to the works of its pioneers such as, Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov and Eugène Ionesco. This essay is a critique of how the British playwright, Harold Pinter, despite being excluded in Esslin’s (1960) treatment on Absurd Theatre, conforms to or transgresses what is held by Esslin as characteristics of the Theatre of the Absurd. The essay begins with Esslin dwelling on the reception of Absurd Drama by stating that the audience is usually encountered with “a bewildering experience... [and] ...widely irrational often nonsensical goings-on that seem to go counter to all accepted standards of stage convention”. (3) The above excerpt seems to dress Pinter’s play, ‘The Dumb Waiter’ well, as it presents the audience/reader with two potential hit men waiting to be instructed in a prison-like smothering room, which creates a menacing and perturbing atmosphere contagious to audience. Pinter’s play is set in a basement of a cafeteria within the post World War II London setting in Birmingham. Therefore this play rules out the possibility of being called an ‘anti-play’ as Esslin expresses that some plays run the risk of being labelled. What Pinter portrays in his play does not seem to be impossible, improbable or fantastical. All that is enacted on the stage are purely mundane in spite of having eccentricities and absurdities. Even though the playwright has chosen a rare specimen of the society, hired assassins are not aliens but human beings who do exist in the society. Therefore Pinter has adopted “real happenings” (Esslin, 3) instead of “a dream world of nightmares.” (Esslin, 3) He further shows how the nightmarish incidents can be found dormant even within the happenings of the real world.

3

Although the incidents of ‘The Dumb Waiter’ are probable they are unpredictable due to the inherent irrationalities. This aspect can be situated in Esslin’s essay where he states that in Absurd Drama, “everything that happens seems to be beyond rational motivation”. (3) The audience is seldom provided with an inkling of what awaits Gus until the curtain falls and yet they are still not entitled to an unambiguous finale. Ben and Gus occupying an almost empty space except for the two beds, fill that gap physically by their actions, language, silences and pauses. Esslin expresses that it is these “manifold mechanical interactions of human puppets in groupings that suggest tension, conflict.”(4) Gus : I must have fallen asleep again. What was all that about then? Why did you stop? Ben

:

(picking up the newspaper). We were too early.

(Pinter, 42)

The above instance shows how Ben reacts to Gus’s formidable questions by showing his pseudo occupation with the newspaper and providing irrelevant and evasive curt replies. It becomes evident how the irregular behavioural patterns and disjointed dialogues reflect the inner turmoil and conflict of Ben as well as Gus. Ben’s quasi attentiveness to the newspaper, polishing his revolver, lapsing into silences, pauses, queer responsiveness to the dumb waiter, etc and Gus’s putting on and taking off his shoes, indomitable questioning, aversion to silence and frequenting lavatory, suggest their desperate attempts to conceal the mental struggle to drown their feelings like fear, hostility, insecurity and uncertainty. These are some of the “basic issues and problems of our age” (4) experienced by the people globally in a post World War II era. According to Ionesco (1957), “absurd is that which has no purpose, or goal, or objective” (as cited in Esslin: 4) and ‘The Dumb Waiter’ asserts this fact when the audience identify themselves with Gus who questioned the intent of life and probably meets with an unbelievable, tragic and abrupt end without being answered. Pinter’s endeavour to establish the fact that people sometimes have to expect the unexpected by

4

showing “the world as an incomprehensible place” (Esslin, 5) marks Pinter as an ardent proponent of the Theatre of the Absurd. Esslin states regarding the audience of the Absurd Drama that, “it is impossible for them to share the aspirations and emotions depicted in the play” (5) due to the incomprehensibility of characters and happenings the audience is encountered with. Even though it is evident that a certain gap is created between “the public and the happenings on the stage” (Esslin, 5) it is difficult to state vehemently that empathising is impossible because without which the drama would have no impact on the audience. Esslin argues that this “emotional identification with the characters is replaced by a puzzled, critical attention”. (5) Nevertheless he seems to have ignored the fact that this “critical attention” per se could lead or prompt the audience to have certain emotional affinity with the characters and incidents. Esslin seems to self contradict when he admits that despite the absurdity, the happenings on the stage “remain recognizable as somehow related to real life with its absurdity”. (5) If the audience can perceive the relation of absurdity with the real life then it might not be impossible for them to identify with it. When traditional drama is contrasted with the Absurd Drama by Esslin it becomes evident that Pinter is representative of the latter. For the traditional audience “right and wrong were never in doubt” (6) but for the audience of Pinter it has been blurred. It is hard to predict whether the audience will sympathise with either Ben or Gus. In spite of the suggested physical agony of Gus, the implicit psychological agony of Ben having betrayed his companion, with which he has to spend the rest of his life, puts Ben also into a pathetic plight despite being a criminal. Thus Pinter aligns himself with people like Ionesco who believed that the theatre is an “outward projection onto the stage of an inward world”. (as cited in Esslin, 6) Silence. The box goes up. They turn quickly, their eyes meet. BEN turns to his paper. Slowly GUS goes back to his bed, and sits. Silence.

(Pinter, 69)

5

Pinter has been so meticulously precise in detailing to show how the behaviour of Ben and Gus, and silences can portray their inner worlds “to externalize and project outwards what is happening in the deeper recesses of the[ir] mind.” (Esslin, 8) The use of language by Pinter for “externalization of mental process” (Esslin, 10) clearly deviates from that of the traditional drama as he attempts to “smash limitations of conventional vocabulary and syntax.” (Esslin, 10) The use of fragments, repetition and questioning shows although how meaningless these clichés may be they are still used in the society. The following conversation shows how Pinter has skilfully used the fragmented sentences, and interchangeably repeated questions and responses. Gus : Well they‘ll come in handy. Ben

:

Yes.

Gus

:

Won’t they?

Ben

:

Yes, you’re always running out, aren’t you?

Gus

:

All the time.

Ben

:

Well they‘ll come in handy then.

Gus

:

Yes.

Ben

:

Won’t they?

(Pinter, 46)

Pinter’s language use show how mechanically Ben and Gus converse for the sake of conversation concealing the emotional undercurrent going through their minds. Thus they are likewise presented as dumb waiters or apparatuses, denied the voices and routinely execute the orders of their organisation. As Esslin says everything they say does not mean what they intend to mean. (11) Through this Pinter shows “opacity, the misleading nature of language and grammar.” (Esslin, 12) Gus : Now look here, Ben Ben

:

I’m not looking anywhere! (He addresses the room.) How many times have I - ! A bloody liberty!

(Pinter, 48)

The play ‘The Dumb Waiter’ provides such ample examples of the absurd limitations of human language which is “a mere conversational token of human intercourse, a mask for genuine meaning and emotion.” (Esslin, 11) The utterances of Ben are clearly indicative of how he asserts his authority over Gus using language. The

6

power dimension of language is extensively explored by Pinter and he further shows how Ben exerts physical violence when he discovers the atrophy of his language to assert his authority. Gus

:

What does the gas - ?

Ben

:

(grabbing him with two hands by the throat, at arm’s length). THE KETTLE, YOU FOOL!

(Pinter, 48)

Esslin expresses that, “the real content of the play lies in action. Language may be discarded altogether.” (12) This statement cannot be completely agreed upon in relation to Pinter’s drama because the language plays a pivotal role and cannot be divorced from the performance of his drama. In Absurd Drama the element of suspense according to Esslin is not maintained so much due to the ignorance of the audience of what their playwrights are doing. Ignorance can be a contributing factor that heightens the level of suspense for the audience of the Pinter’s play. Furthermore the meaning of word suspense is blurred by saying that the audience is “in suspense to what the play may mean” which remains even after the drama. (Esslin, 14) Due to this transcending suspense the Pinter’s audience is “spurred on to attempt their own interpretations” (Esslin, 13) thus forcing them “to a mental effort and evaluate” (Esslin, 14) the experience they undergo. The audience of ‘The Dumb Waiter’ even after the play is prompted to contemplate on the confounding experience. The more they comprehend the play the better will they come to terms with the incomprehensible nature of the world, on which the Theatre of the Absurd is all about. Thus Harold Pinter’s play ‘The Dumb Waiter’ exemplifies “the most demanding, the most intellectual theatre.” (Esslin, 14) which is the Theatre of the Absurd.

by I. K. K. C. Hematilake

*** Bibliography

7

•

Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, (May, 1960), The MIT Press. pp. 3-15 07 July 2008.

•

Pinter, Harold. The Dumb Waiter. np: nd.

***