Several modern dramas have had a strong social impact shortly after production and/or publication. Discuss the reasons for this in TWO cases.
Several modern dramas have had a strong social impact shortly after production and/or publication. Discuss the reasons for this in TWO cases.
November 2003
Submitted by: - 0163330/1
Submitted to: - Keverne Smith
Word Count: - 2000 Words
Several modern dramas have had a strong social impact shortly after production and/or publication. Discuss the reasons for this in TWO cases.
In this essay I am going to study what social impact both Look Back in Anger by John Osborne and Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett had shortly after their production and publication. I will consider what theatrical conventions are or are not in each play, which could explain why people were drawn to the plays; as well as considering why the plays may be seen as controversial by some. Look Back in Anger and Waiting for Godot are unarguably placed at the beginning of a revolution in the British theatre. Both plays introduced new ideas and concepts into the world of drama. However they were both influenced by playwright Bertolt Brecht. Brecht's plays used a bare stage, placards to indicate location and non-atmospheric lighting. In Brecht's plays he is keen for his audience to think about what is happening and question things, which are happening rather than switching off. John Osborne's Look Back in Anger represented not a revolution in form but instead a revolution in content. The Brechtian influence encouraged Osborne and Beckett to experiment with style.
Waiting for Godot is termed a play in the 'Theatre of the Absurd'. Martin Esslin made up the term 'Theatre of the Absurd' for a number of playwrights. Beckett's absurd play like other absurd plays has the view that man inhabits a universe with which he is out of key with. The plays meaning is indecipherable and man's place within it is without purpose. The absurd play is undoubtedly strongly influenced by the traumatic experiences of the Second World War. As a result, absurd plays assume a highly unusual, innovative form, directly aiming to startle the audience, shaking them out of their comfortable, conventional life of everyday concerns. The 'Theatre of the Absurd' openly rebelled against conventional theatre. It was surreal, illogical, conflict less and plot less. These are all conventions used in Waiting for Godot; the audience were certainly shocked by its sense of nothingness.
Beckett did have problems finding someone to produce his play, the first half-dozen producers, which he approached, turned his play down for various reasons. The whole play only consists of two acts, which are set on two consecutive days; the second act repeats the activities of the first day but in a different order. The play opens on a barren scene: a country road, a tree and a near sunset. Estragon is sitting on a low mound repeatedly trying to remove his boot. He is left exhausted and when Vladimir enters Estragon proclaims that there is 'Nothing to be done', although he continues to struggle with his boot. The two men appear to be waiting for something to happen, as is the audience; the men are 'waiting for Godot'. (Beckett, 1954, P2)
The identity of Godot is deliberately never revealed much to the annoyance of the audience. The opening act features a single tree as a parody of stage set. In the second act the previously bare tree has sprouted a few leaves, which reiterates the idea the Waiting for Godot is a play in which nothing happens. Vladimir and Estragon consider leaving and doing other things to pass the time but they are always drawn back to the same situation. This is a recurring theme in Beckett's work-the idea that life is something you live and there is no ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The identity of Godot is deliberately never revealed much to the annoyance of the audience. The opening act features a single tree as a parody of stage set. In the second act the previously bare tree has sprouted a few leaves, which reiterates the idea the Waiting for Godot is a play in which nothing happens. Vladimir and Estragon consider leaving and doing other things to pass the time but they are always drawn back to the same situation. This is a recurring theme in Beckett's work-the idea that life is something you live and there is no alternative to your existence. The two main characters discuss death and suicide and the play ends with the two men considering hanging themselves, but they have no rope. However the play closes with a feeling of suspense. The lack of a beginning, middle and end to the play set it apart from almost every other play that had been produced on the British stage. The play did however bore some people acutely; others found it witty and thought provoking. However due to the lack of traditional dramatic conventions the producers argued that Waiting for Godot 'had no plot to speak of. Without a storyline or characters with whom to identify, the play was unlikely to interest enough people to make money.' (Graver, 1996, P9)
Two years went by before sufficient money was raised to fund the play. Most of the funding came from a government grant. On 5th January 1953 the play opened in Paris. However critics responded in two ways to Beckett's play and his use of the 'Theatre of the Absurd'. Some dismissed the play as trivial nonsense others saw it as a 'profoundly challenging dramatic development that required critics and dramatists alike to rethink conventions that had sustained the theatre.'(Boxall, 2000, P6)
In the spring of 1955 the play came to London. However the play had been delayed due to actors and one producer losing interest. The production also ran into trouble from the Lord Chamberlain, the official censor of plays. He objected to some of Beckett's language. The London production finally opened at a Private Arts Theatre Club on 3rd August 1955. Hobson wrote a review of the play for the Sunday Times on 7th August 1955. The article provided Hobson with the opportunity to convince the English public that 'at last there was an absurdist play that merited close attention' Hobson said that the play was neither boring nor baffling, he described it as simply 'a remarkable play.' Critic Kenneth Tynan also agreed with Hobson's review of the play. Tynan opened his review of the play with ' a special virtue attaches to plays which remind the drama of how much it can do without and still exist.' (Shellard, 2000, P44-45)
In contrast playwright Jean Anouilh said that ''Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful.' This line is spoken by one of the characters in the play, and it provides one of the best summaries for the play. The critical uproar that Waiting For Godot created ensured that the play was able to transfer to the Criterion theatre in London on 12th September 1955. When Waiting for Godot opened in London it had almost an immediate impact; it was a monumental flop as far as the reviews were concerned, but Hobson played a large part in ensuring that the play would come to be regarded as a significant influence on twentieth century British drama. (Graver, 1996, P12)
Although Look Back in Anger is not termed an absurd play like Waiting for Godot it does contain some conventions of an absurd play. When the curtain opened to an 'unfamiliar scene of cramped, suburban shabbiness, with Alison Porter performing the most mundane of task-the ironing', it provided the first shock of the play to the audience. John Osborne depends on speeches rather than action and scenery to keep the play afloat. (Shellard, 2000, P51)
Look Back in Anger made its controversial entrance to the theatrical scene on 8th May 1956, at the time of the Suez Crisis, the Hungarian uprising and a British housing shortage, and the fact, that the two major political parties in Britain appeared to be moving closer together. It had the result of disillusioning many who had formerly been active in politics. It seemed to many young men and women that it was no longer realistic to suppose that everything would be different if only one party were out of power and the other in, they were in the situation which Jimmy Porter outlines in Look Back in Anger when he says 'I suppose people of our generation aren't able to die for good causes any longer. We had all that done for us, in the thirties and the forties, when we were still kids. There aren't any good, brave causes left'. (Osborne, 1957, P89)
Look Back in Anger is considered to be one of the first 'kitchen-sink' dramas. The term 'kitchen-sink' originated in the literature of the 1950's and 1960's. It aims to provide a vivid picture of working class life in all its often-unpleasant reality. A 'kitchen-sink' drama has the following characteristics: - it is always set in a working-class environment; usually a bed-sit or flat. It always deals with domestic issues, with conflicts that take place between people who are poor and live in cramped conditions. The genre uses everyday language in an attempt to provide the audience with an accurate picture of one section of society.
The play is about ordinary people locked into a relationship. They do mundane things like reading papers, making tea and ironing. The setting of the play- in the Porters' one-room flat- is a theatrical revolution in itself. The morning after the first performance critics and commentators described it in various ways such as 'the appearance of John Osborne's Look Back in Anger...was to the new move in British theatre as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was to the initiation of World War One: it triggered the action, but in itself was more effect than cause.' (Banham, 1969, P1)
John Osborne is dubbed the 'Angry Young Man' for dramatically highlighting his perception of class distinctions and social injustice. Osborne's Jimmy Porter is lost in a world that seems to offer him no clear status and which he certainly does not find funny. Jimmy Porter hits out in anger and frustration. The play expressed a youthful frustration at the post-war establishment, which had never been seen before on a London stage. The youth were frustrated at the establishment because they expected changed after World War Two and did not get it. A critic argued that Look Back in Anger 'marks the real break-through of "the new drama" into the British theatre, and Osborne himself remains... the first of the angry young men and arguably the biggest shock to the system of British theatre since the advent of Shaw'. (Banham, 1969, P1)
Look Back in Anger got a good deal of criticism on its opening. The play did not immediately establish itself as a hit; it played a little below break-even figures until the English Stage Company agreed to let an act of it be shown on television. Audiences no longer had to rely entirely on what the critics said in order to decide whether to go to see a play or not. Look Back in Anger was one of the first plays to demonstrate that television might be a valuable form of advertising to get people to go to the theatre. At once the takings increased to nearly double in two weeks.
Look Back in Anger is a piece of straightforward dramatic realism, but with a particular emphasis on people rather than plot. Jimmy Porter was clearly recognised both by his parent's generation-who were shocked by him- and by his own generation who acclaimed him, not as a hero, but as fact. To some Jimmy Porter seemed merely a rebel, but what Osborne is trying to show is a nonconformist. Jimmy is an objectionable young man who abuses his friends, insults his wife, attacks his parents and engages in self-pity. Yet he is loved by Alison, Helena, Cliff and also by some of the audience. Jimmy is intelligent, sensitive, energetic and willing to offer passion and energy to society, but he finds no one wants what he has to offer. His life with Alison is dominated by his consciousness of her middle-class upbringing. Jimmy attacks Alison for being what she is, and yet wishes that he could treat her as her upbringing might lead her to expect.
The ending of the play-with the image of the bear and squirrel is in many ways an unsatisfactory ending to the play. However critic Bamber Gascoigne said that 'this seemed a painfully good ending, admirable in its irony. The pattern of the play was clearly a circle; we were back where we started and tomorrow the agony would begin all over again. This is like Beckett's Waiting for Godot were the play ends where it begun, with a repetition that forbids action. In the case of Waiting For Godot Vladimir and Estragon are still 'waiting for Godot' and will continue to wait until Godot arrives. (Banham, 1969, P18)
Both Look Back in Anger and Waiting for Godot had a strong social impact for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons for them being so controversial is because they both undermined the traditional conventions of the theatre in various ways. In the case of both plays audiences were so shocked by what they were seeing and showed their disapproval by walking out of the performance; it almost became the fashionable thing to do with Waiting for Godot. In Waiting for Godot members of the audience who did sit it out until the end were completely stunned by the ending. The play had been an entirely new experience; it had taken the audience into a new broadening of their imagination. The play ends without any real conclusion. The audience tends to leave the play in a state of total ignorance. Nothing makes sense. Beckett has told you nothing about how to resolve man's plight; he has merely presented you with a snapshot of how his characters react to their plight. Look Back in Anger, on the other hand, was merely stimulating. The characters, story and the plot were unexceptional.
Bibliography
Books
Banham, M. (1969). Osborne. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd Ltd.
Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot. USA: Grove Press.
Boxall, P. (2000). Samuel Beckett Waiting For Godot/Endgame: A Reader's Guide to Essential Criticism. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.
Gillman, L. (2002). John Osborne: Vituperative Artist. London: Routledge.
Graver, L. (1996). Waiting For Godot. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayman, R. (1968). John Osborne. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Hayman, R. (1970). Samuel Beckett. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Innes, C. (2001). Modern British Drama 1890-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, J. (1957). Look Back in Anger. London: Faber & Faber Ltd.
Shellard, D. (2000). British Theatre Since the War. London: Yale University Press.
Taylor, J.R.(Ed.).(1968). John Osborne: Look Back In Anger Casebook. Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Trussler, S. (1969). John Osborne. Essex: Longman.
Articles
Coupe, L. (1994). Presence of the Past In 'Waiting For Godot'. The English Review. 5(1), 19-22
Dixon, G.A. (1994). Still Looking Back: The Deconstruction of the Angry Young Man in Look Back In Anger and Dejavu. Modern Drama. 37, 521-529
Parfitt, D. (2000). Approaching Waiting For Godot. The English Review. 10(4), 14-16