tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post6899233002187244900..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: Rhinoceros - Royal CourtAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-47142418912157207672008-04-13T06:20:00.000+02:002008-04-13T06:20:00.000+02:00I don't agree. Sure, Ionesco didn't think he was ...I don't agree. Sure, Ionesco didn't think he was expressing a prejudice. But he was. Ionesco had his politics as surely as the Nazi party had theirs. It is a categorical mistake to think that the assertion of individualism over a collective will isn't a political statement. It is. Quite a big one, really. To argue that humans are asocial is also a massive political statement. <BR/><BR/>Was Ionesco really suggesting that by turning into Rhinocheri, what the humans of the play are denying themselves is their alienation? It's a fascinating thesis, and (given the Frenchness of the author, quite a plausible one) and I look forward to your production (do give times, venue and dates). <BR/><BR/>That said, this was a review of a very specific production, which - as far as I could make out - was making the points on which I pick it up. In this respect, I'm not reviewing *the play*, so much as the-play-as-it-was-presented-in-this-production. I think that's an important part of theatre reviewing – talking about the play as it is presented is vital. <BR/><BR/>Yes, there's an amount of performance history one can bring to bear, but really it's about what's in front of you, and how that operates. Because theatre is live and ongoing, yes, it night sometimes stamp on the intentions of its progenitors, by the same token. I think Ionesco's antic spirit would have been pleased that his work was still causing trouble well beyond its sell-by date.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-49736996636539443002008-04-13T04:40:00.000+02:002008-04-13T04:40:00.000+02:00"...couldn’t Berenger’s objection that 'it isn’t n..."...couldn’t Berenger’s objection that 'it isn’t natural' for a human to turn into a rhino simply be seen as so much prejudice and bigotry?"<BR/><BR/>Ionesco is rolling over in his grave.<BR/><BR/>I am about to direct a production of this play and have been reading Ionesco's theoretical writings on the theatre--as much philosophy as they are dramaturgy. What Berenger is reacting to when he says "it's not natural," he is not expressing any kind of prejudice. Rather, he's expressing a disgust, the same disgust that Ionesco felt, at the transformation of human beings into puppets who identify themselves not as individuals, but as members of a group. Ionesco believed that humans are essentially asocial. We form societies because of the need to coexist, but our social selves are only a tiny part of who we are. Our true nature emerges in solitude. What he saw, though, was a world of people who defined themselves by the society they belonged to: its values, its politics, its ideologies. They ceased to think for themselves. <I>This</I> is indeed unnatural--it contradicts man's fundamental nature as an individual.<BR/><BR/>If you're breaking it down to a metaphor, Berenger isn't rejecting the content of any particular ideology. This isn't about Marxism, Nazism, Liberalism, Conservatism--it's about conformity. That's what's unnatural.<BR/><BR/>But this is all beside the point. Take the statement at face value: it <I>is</I> pretty fucking unnatural for a man to turn into a rhinoceros. Read some of Ionesco's writing, and you'll realize that, on one level, that is exactly what that line means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com