DOMINANT GAZES: THEATRE OF THE ABSURD, AUTEURISM, AND MISE-EN-SCENE IN JERZY GROTOWSKI S AKROPOLIS AND STANLEY KUBRICK S DR. STRANGELOVE.

Transcription

1 DOMINANT GAZES: THEATRE OF THE ABSURD, AUTEURISM, AND MISE-EN-SCENE IN JERZY GROTOWSKI S AKROPOLIS AND STANLEY KUBRICK S DR. STRANGELOVE A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Theatre Arts California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Theatre Arts by Ann Marie Muehlenbruch SPRING 2014

2 2014 Ann Marie Muehlenbruch ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii

3 DOMINANT GAZES: THEATRE OF THE ABSURD, AUTEURISM, AND MISE-EN-SCENE IN JERZY GROTOWSKI S AKROPOLIS AND STANLEY KUBRICK S DR. STRANGELOVE A Thesis by Ann Marie Muehlenbruch Approved by:, Committee Chair Roberto Pomo, Ph.D., Second Reader Jason Gieger, Ph.D. Date iii

4 Student: Ann Marie Muehlenbruch I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis., Department Chair Melinda Wilson-Ramey, Ph.D. Date Department of Theatre and Dance iv

5 Abstract of DOMINANT GAZES: THEATRE OF THE ABSURD, AUTEURISM, AND MISE-EN-SCENE IN JERZY GROTOWSKI S AKROPOLIS AND STANLEY KUBRICK S DR. STRANGELOVE by Ann Marie Muehlenbruch This thesis focuses on examining director and theatre method innovator Jerzy Grotowski s argument that theatre can do what film cannot: involve the spectator permitting a connection. By comparing the methods and theories of film director Stanley Kubrick and Jerzy Grotowski, I introduce a new analysis and comparison of theatre and film. This thesis is the first to challenge Grotowski s view and show the similarities between theatre and film by studying Grotowski s Akropolis and Kubrick s Dr. Strangelove. I argue that Kubrick can involve the audience by using similar methods, techniques, and theories as Grotowski. In my analysis, I am suggesting that these similarities can be seen through Theatre of the Absurd, auteurism, and mise-en-scene., Committee Chair Roberto Pomo, Ph.D. Date v

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that helped me along this writing journey. To Dr. Roberto Pomo: I give you my sincerest and biggest thank you for your time, advice, guidance, believing in this thesis, and being a tremendous mentor. To Anita Scharf: a heartfelt thank you, I could not have done this without you. To Dr. Jason Gieger: my sincere thanks for your advice and understanding. To my cousin, Diane: a special thank you for your encouragement at the end of my process and reminding me of the word perseverance. To my parents and Roy: a loving thanks for giving me a kick and consoling me whenever I needed it. Also, to Dr. Melinda Wilson-Ramey: thank you for letting me finish what I started. You all were important in helping me and I am so grateful to have you all as part of my life. vi

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements... vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION THEATRE OF THE ABSURD AUTEURISM MISE-EN-SCENE CONCLUSION Work Cited vii

8 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Jerzy Grotowski, a theatrical method innovator, expressed that theatre should not try to compete with film or television. He writes in his book Towards a Poor Theatre, no matter how much theatre expands and exploits its mechanical resources, it will remain technologically inferior to film and television (31). Since he felt theatre could not compete with what he called the spectacle of film, he created his method of poor theatre, poor not being meant in the literal sense. Grotowski believed that theatre could still exist without superfluous elements, such as lighting, sound, and costumes. Grotowski s idea of Via Negativa states that precision and quality, dealing mainly with the actors, was more important than any unnecessary technical aspects. Poor theatre then focused on what Grotowski felt theatre could do that film could not, such as, what Grotowski states, involve the spectator permitting a connection. This meant he felt that theatre could engage audiences better since there is a live aspect. As a graduate student at Sacramento State, I was sitting in a film class watching Stanley Kubrick s Dr. Strangelove or How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, after having just presented on Jerzy Grotowski s methods in a theatre class the day before, and I was analyzing Kubrick s use of camera angles and shots. I then thought to myself, film can involve an audience permitting a connection just as well as film. What is Grotowski talking about? This sparked my interest in researching Grotowski s and Kubrick s ideas and theories further. As I discovered, this research was, as a whole, new territory as I could not find one lengthy literary piece that covered how two directors from separate

9 2 mediums, such as theatre and film, could present similar concepts and philosophies. What I was able to piece together was the fact that Kubrick achieves similar effects on his audiences as Grotowski by using related ideas and methods since he too wanted to create his own type of cinema that did not need to compete with mainstream films. After much research, I found that Grotowski and Kubrick have similar theories, attitudes, and results. This thesis will discuss these similarities. The first chapter will cover how elements of Theatre of the Absurd can be seen in both of their works. By analyzing absurdism, we see how they similarly use language, texts with a lack of plot and no resolution, and unique characters placed in a difficult situation to connect their audiences. Chapter two will discuss auteur theory and the similar characteristics that make each of them auteurs. This will help clarify how they similarly engage their audiences and how Grotowski and Kubrick use a comparable minimalist approach. Chapter three will discuss Grotowski s and Kubrick s similar use of mise-en-scene and will clarify how it also assists in involving their audiences and the idea of poor theatre, or film, philosophy. For the purpose of this thesis, I will only examine in detail using the productions of Grotowski s Akropolis and Kubrick s Dr. Strangelove or How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which I will refer to as just Dr. Strangelove from this point. Akropolis is based on Stanislaw Wyspianski s poem where statues and figures in tapestries come to life and enact religious scenes. Grotowski adapted Wyspianski s poem and composed a new work where Holocaust prisoners act the same religious scenes in a concentration camp. Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy that satirizes the Cold War. Insane general,

10 3 Jack D. Ripper, single-handedly activates a nuclear holocaust and a room full of childish military men and politicians, such as President Muffley and General Turgidson, try to stop the bombs carried by four B-52 planes, one of them commanded by Major King Kong. There will be more description and details as I discuss each work and idea throughout the thesis.

11 4 Chapter 2 THEATRE OF THE ABSURD Jerzy Grotowski and Stanley Kubrick presented their audiences with innovative and controversial works. Both of these directors works leave their audience with similar reactions and unresolved emotions. They both addressed similar historical, political, and social themes as well as had similar visions of the world and humanity. As directors, they intended their works to confront the horrifying truth of the human condition. Grotowski s and Kubrick s use of these themes and their vision give their work the characteristics to categorize them under a unique style of theatre, Theatre of the Absurd. To understand how and especially why Kubrick can fall under a theatrical term, one must understand how they view the human condition since it is a basis of Theatre of the Absurd. What is the human condition? Australian biologist, Jeremy Griffith, states: The truth is the human condition is the agonizing, underlying, core, real question in all of human life, of are humans good or are we possibly the terrible mistake that all the evidence seems to unequivocally indicate we might be? While it is undeniable that humans are capable of great love, we also have an unspeakable history of brutality, rape, torture, murder, and war. Despite our marvelous accomplishments, we humans have been the most ferocious and destructive force that has ever lived on Earth-and the eternal question has been why? ( The Human Condition ) The study of the human condition examines the elemental questions about humanity such

12 5 as what is the ultimate truth and meaning of life and are humans inherently good or evil? Grotowski and Kubrick dare the spectator to face the human condition and ask these questions about the world and ourselves. As directors of stage and film, they are committed to interpreting their worldview and to show the spectator that one must, as Grotowski states, avoid the beautiful if it doesn t foster the truth. Theatre of the Absurd embraced this philosophy, and these two director s works demonstrate the truth of human relationships and situations. The ultimate truth in Grotowski s Akropolis and Kubrick s Dr. Strangelove is that humans are a danger to themselves and will be their destruction. This destruction can be seen in events that have occurred in the last century: two World Wars, the Holocaust, and the impending nuclear holocaust that might have resulted due to the Cold War, which are referenced in Akropolis and Dr. Strangelove. Three elements Kubrick saw within these historical events are used to present his view on the human condition and can be used interchangeably with Grotowski s Akropolis: Dr. Strangelove [Akropolis] is one example of a tripartite taxonomy of phenomena Kubrick s [Grotowski s] films [theatre] portray as fundamental to the human condition, particularly to the modern age and even more particularly in the twentieth century: 1) violence, 2) systems of control, and 3) inherent human evil. (Cocks 36) These two works can be considered studies on how institutions, or collective minds, face the annihilation of the entire human race (Abrams 10). Grotowski and Kubrick ultimately ask, What happens to human nature when faced with total violence? (Grotowski 62). Answers we may see to this question are fear of total control, loss of

13 6 individuality, and awareness of one's own mortality. Grotowski s and Kubrick s characters demonstrate fear of one s own mortality as they try to find peace, meaning, and resolve in Akropolis and Dr. Strangelove. In Akropolis, the prisoners fear their imminent death as they build the crematorium, but as they build they enact religious scenes, such as Christ s resurrection, to conjure meaning and hope. In Dr. Strangelove, the characters in the war room fear impending nuclear holocaust and try to stop humanity s annihilation by attempting to recall the planes from dropping bombs. Kubrick states in an interview with journalist Eric Norden: Man is the only creature aware of his own mortality and is at the same time generally incapable of coming to grips with this awareness and all its implications. Millions of people thus, to a greater or lesser degree, experience emotional anxieties, tensions and unresolved conflicts that frequently express themselves in the form of neuroses and a general joylessness that permeates their lives with frustration and bitterness and increase as they grow older and see the grave yawning before them. (Phillips 69) Unfortunately, because Grotowski and Kubrick s vision of the human condition asserts that life is meaningless and there is not enough good in the world, there is no positive resolution and they do not get saved. Author Gene Phillips states: Dr. Strangelove [and Akropolis] depict[s] the plight of fallible man putting himself at the mercy of his infallible machines and bringing about by this abdication of moral responsibility his own destruction. These sentiments

14 7 are very close to those which Chaplin expressed in his closing speech in The Great Dictator: We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity, More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. (Phillips 151) The violence and evil cause the good to lose their individuality, which eventually leads to their own insanity. The characters do not have private selves. More than that, individuals are lost in the machine, their inner lives gone (Abrams 29). Since Grotowski s and Kubrick s characters have lost their individuality, they have become slaves to their situation and to the human condition. these men are not really individuals because they do not face the absurd as individuals. They are merely products of their institutions, and this is ultimately the cause of their insanity and the war. This is also the underlying existential message: when the individual is lost, we are all lost Individuals dissolve into a machine of bureaucracy and mindless chain of command. In the end, a rational individual can do nothing to make a bit of difference; humans have become slaves to a larger machine we no longer control. And this might just mean that everyone involved is insane. (Abrams 10) Grotowski and Kubrick believed that the human condition is essentially and ineradicably absurd (M.H. Abrams), and with this viewpoint on the human condition, along with their directorial style, they display the characteristics of a type theatre and film

15 8 called Theatre of the Absurd. Theatre of the Absurd was coined by critic Martin Esslin to categorize a style of play that became popular in the 1950s and 1960s. According to Esslin, Absurd originally means out of harmony, in a musical context. In common usage absurd may simply mean ridiculous, In an essay on Kafka, Ionesco defined his understanding of the term as follows: Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose Cut from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless (Theatre of the Absurd 23). Absurdist theatre aimed to show the writer or director s worldview, which usually commented on the human condition and reflected on the meaningless of human existence. One of the sources of Esslin s theories regarding this specific style of performance originates from the 1942 essay of French philosopher Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. In this essay, he defines the human condition as basically meaningless. Camus argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a full satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd (Crabb). Absurdism related man to the universe by bringing to communal consciousness the primal forces at work in human experience (Jones 26). Esslin states: The Theatre of the Absurd aims to shock its audience out of complacency, to bring it face to face with the harsh facts of the human situation as [the] writers see it It is a challenge to accept the human condition as it is, in all its mystery and absurdity, and to bear it with dignity, nobly,

16 9 responsibly, precisely because there are no easy solutions to the mysteries of existence, because ultimately man is alone in meaningless world. The shedding of easy solutions, of comforting illusions, may be painful, but it leaves behind it a sense of freedom and relief. (Absurd Drama 11) Many consider absurdist theatre a movement along with many of the isms that came before; however, theatre and film directors/writers did not produce their work based around the idea of Theatre of the Absurd. Instead, It was only after the idea became assimilated into the culture that the mode of drama could be transformed in the light of it (Jones 25). There are certain characteristics, besides the exploration of the human condition, that place a play or film into the category of absurdism. The first characteristic is the use of language, both verbal and physical. Absurdist dialogue typically does not make sense or is full of cliché, wordplay, and may take poetic form. According to David E. Jones, a former University of Utah Theatre Arts professor, the dialogue is a direct satire of common usage with its clichés, truisms, etc., i.e. of language used as a barrier to our evasion of reality, and breaking down of language into its rhythmic elements in an attempt to communicate at a deeper level than the logical (25). The physical language in Theatre of the Absurd includes facial expression and gesture, and both are used to strengthen the verbal language. Physical language is an important part of human communication and experience. Jones states, While doubting the possibility of communication all, Theatre of the Absurd seeks to reinforce words by every possible means including gesture. But it sees in gesture more than a decorative supplement to words: gesture would seem to be the physical root of language- e.g. our first impulse it to

17 10 point rather than to say there is a chair (26). Absurdist gestures and expressions tend to be exaggerated or unnatural and may become a ritualistic pattern: Theatre of the Absurd sometimes makes positive use of ritualistic patterns as a means of expressing the deepest forces at work in human experience, especially our need to create order in the chaos of experience, and at other times it parodies the debasement of ritual in everyday routines, where it is an attempt to evade the insecurity of our situation, the flux of experience, by imposing forms upon it. (26) The second characteristic of absurdism is the establishing of a situation rather than a plot, as well as an ending that is cyclical and offers no real resolution: Theatre of the Absurd presents a situation rather than a plot, i.e., it rejects logical sequence of events, the chain of cause and effect. The situation is explored in its profundity or complexity. There is little or no suspense about what is going to happen next (although the most unexpected this often do happen) but rather about how the next event will add to our understanding of what is happening, i.e., it is suspense about meaning, which will continue after the play [film] is over. No final or simple answer is given to any of the perplexities raised. The power of the play lies largely in the impossibility of ever reaching a conclusive answer, for this leaves interpretation wide open to the individual, he can fill in the blank out of his own experience, which is likely to make it more meaningful to him rather than less. (25)

18 11 The third characteristic is unique characters that are in crisis with a world around them. They are caught in their hopeless or nightmarish situation and have either lost or will be losing their individuality. The characters move beyond psychology and accept the mystery of human existence (25) while presenting their own inner world as they struggle in dealing with their crisis. Absurdist characters shape their experience into manageable units, and then wear blinders to the rest of the experience because it threatens to disrupt the false security thus built up (25). These blinders help the characters escape reality and briefly restore their dignity and individuality. Grotowski and Kubrick use verbal and physical language, create a situation rather than a plot, offer an ending with no real resolution, and introduce the viewer to unique characters that are stuck in a predicament in Akropolis and Dr. Strangelove. A scene in Akropolis that shows the unique characters and language elements of Theatre of the Absurd is the prologue. Robert Findlay describes: [a prisoner] begins to play on his violin the grating, raspy, sentimental melody that henceforth will almost always signal a period of work for the prisoners. Their grotesque, bent figures hasten about as the being the assemblage of rusty stovepipes that eventually will become the crematorium. In the process, the corpselike dummy is tossed aside, and the chorus of prisoners begins to chant, taken from the actual prologue of Wyspianski, but distinguished by the repeated addition of the phrases on the cemetery of tribes and our Akropolis : CHORUS: On the cemetery of tribes,

19 12 They come here on the day of sacrifice, On the cemetery of tribes. SINGLE VOICE: CHORUS: Our Akropolis. Only once a year, They come only once a year On the cemetery of tribes. SINGLE VOICE: CHORUS: Our Akropolis. They read the words of judgment On the cemetery of tribes SINGLE VOICE: Our Akropolis. CHORUS: They re gone and the smoke lingers on. (9) In this scene the language is poetic and, yet, sounds like nonsense. Prisoners and a dummy, used as a representation of a prisoner, enter the concentration camp to build the crematorium, which is their nightmare and crisis. They are aware of their death when they say the smoke lingers on, but they still try to find hope by enacting religious scenes and develop relationships with each other. There is also an overly physical language as they move about the space by walking hunched over and as some pose with their legs are arms out. In Dr. Strangelove, the initial phone conversation between President Muffley and Russian Premier Dimitri Kisov, who is never heard or seen, has all of the characteristics of absurdism. President Muffley sits at the war room round table after Plan R, the nuclear bombing of the Soviet, had been initiated by the insane General Jack D. Ripper,

20 13 without permission. Among the President and his aides in the war room is General Turgidson, an over the top military officer that helped design Plan R, and the Russian Ambassador. The President s phone conversation with the Russian Premier is as follows: PRESIDENT MUFFLEY. Hello? Hello, Dimitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well it's good that you're fine and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. (Laughs). During this section of the conversation, the viewer sees physical language as exaggerated expressions from characters. There is a close-up shot of the President talking to the Premier almost expressionless, except for a little smile, while the Russian Ambassador is stone faced with a sour look and a phone listening in the background next to the President. The viewer also sees a close-up shot of General Turgidson listening in on the phone while at the war room table with a silly smile. The verbal language is nonsensical as the viewer sees the President talking to the Russian Premier as if they were old friends and as if there were no serious situation at hand, instead the President seems amused, which is an absurdist reaction. General Turgidson seems to be amused by the conversation as well. The conversation continues: PRESIDENT MUFFLEY: Now, then Dimitri. You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with

21 14 the bomb. The bomb, Dimitri. The hydrogen bomb. Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes... to attack your country. Through this part of the conversation the President continues to be expressionless and casual as he is about to break the horrifying news to the Russian Premier. President Muffley also revealing that the commander went a little funny in the head while laughing relates directly back to absurdist language in that it belittles the situation. It is not until he tells them the planes are ordered to attack the Soviet that he shows a little emotion in his voice. The President s tone then becomes just a little more emotional, but still calm: PRESIDENT MUFFLEY: Well let me finish, Dimitri. Let me finish, Dimitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Not now, but any time, Dimitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly,... you probably wouldn't have even got it. They will not reach their targets for at least another hour. I am... I am positive, Dimitri. Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick. Well I'll tell you. We'd

22 15 like to give your air staff a complete run down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes. Yes! I mean, if we're unable to recall the planes, then I'd say that, uh, well, we're just going to have to help you destroy them, Dimitri. I know they're our boys. During the previous dialogue there is a close-up shot of General Turgidson giving an exaggerated look of disgust and disapproval towards the President when he discusses shooting down our men and giving up military information. This look of disgust shows the physical language of absurdism by the facial mugging displaying the character s inside thought. Adding to the absurdity, it also shows General Turgidson as patriotic in a scene where such patriotism has led to madness and their situation. The phone conversation remains informal: PRESIDENT MUFFLEY: Alright, well, listen... who should we call? Who should we call, Dimitri? The people...? Sorry, you faded away there. The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters. Where is that, Dimitri? In Omsk. Right. Yes. Oh, you'll call them first, will you? Uh huh. Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dimitri? What? I see, just ask for Omsk Information. I'm sorry too, Dimitri. I'm very sorry. Alright! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are, Dimitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, alright? Alright. Yes he's right here.

23 16 Yes, he wants to talk to you. Just a second. In this scene the language is conversational nonsense and full of wordplay. The dialogue gives the viewer the impression that the president is trying to smooth and ease tensions as if he were talking to a child. The president also descends into child-like conversation with the sorry competition and this childish argument dismisses the reality of his position. President Muffley s position of having to tell Premier Kisov that his country is in the face of death because a hydrogen bomb will be dropped on his country is his crisis. After the President tells the Premier what has happened, the nightmare of a situation of impending human annihilation becomes worse when the Premier says the Doomsday Machine will be activated if a bomb hits Russian land. General Turgidson is acting like a child as he is chewing gum with over the top facial expressions in response to the dialogue adds to the physical language in this scene. These expressions resemble mugging comparable to a child making faces. The Russian Ambassador through the whole conversation remains stone faced with no emotion, the exact opposite of General Turgidson to show how most Soviets were viewed at the time. The mugging of these two characters adds to the absurdity of the verbal language. In Akropolis, another scene representing the Theatre of the Absurd is described as followed: Two prisoners, [as] a woman and an angel in Wyspianski s text, are seen caressing sensually a large piece of plastic wrapping. They are sorting the hair of the corpses. The woman begins to chant: Hair hair hair hair. The other prisoner speaks of silvery, braided

24 17 hair. I can hear the fields of wheat, says the woman. Let s forget. Let s not weep. Let s not complain. Let s no curse-but love. To love. To love. The woman moves away laughing and performs what looks like an awkward and angular dance. Where is my bridegroom, she asks. The bridegroom will come to me. The veil will shelter us. (Findlay 10) The dialogue in this scene is broken, as if the viewer is only getting fragments of the scene. Through sorting the hair and speaking of love they are trying to find meaning and hope among the faces of death. It is almost as if the woman is in a daydream, dreaming of love and that love will shelter them from their horrifying situation. The strange exaggerated angular dance is similar to how a child would dance; she takes steps, rocking back and forth with her arms down rigid at her side. As she laughs, she puts her hands on her hips and leans her head back. The dance and the laugh add to the absurd feeling because, as a viewer, it is comedic to watch and it is comparable to the childlike conversation President Muffley has in Dr. Strangelove since it shows a form of enjoyment in a hostile environment. Another scene with different characteristics of Theatre of the Absurd is the death of Major King Kong. The scene begins with the crew of the remaining B-52 plane that is severely damaged from United States authorized Russian enemy fire. The plane was fired upon to try to stop the mission from being carried out since all communication systems with the plane were disabled. The plane is now losing fuel fast but still continuing with the bomb run. There is then a sequence of twenty six jump cuts between Major Kong and Lt. Zogg aboard the B-52 checking and double checking systems. Major

25 18 Kong then gives the command to drop the bomb and the switch is flipped, but there is an electrical problem and the bomb cannot drop. Major King Kong decides to check the problem out for himself, so he climbs down to the bomb bay where the viewer then sees two atomic bombs that are each named, one Hi there! and the other Dear John. The small details in the scene, for example the names of the bombs and the label Nuclear Weapons. Handle With Care, add to the absurdity by giving it a satirical and less serious tone towards the destruction of humanity since the label would not be needed to know to handle nuclear weapons with care. Major Kong then examines the electric circuits above the bombs which has shorted out and is smoking He climbs onto the warhead named Hi there and straddles it to look at the circuitry closer as the action cuts back to the crew in the plane that are continuing with the mission as ordered. Major Kong continues to work on the wiring as action cuts back and forth between Kong and the crew. As the scene progresses, the song that has been playing in the background, When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again, increases in volume. A crew member announces they are three minutes from their target and the target is in view out front of the cockpit. There is a close shot of Major Kong and the circuits suddenly begin working. The bomb doors open and Major Kong grabs ahold of his cowboy hat and the bomb drops as he is still straddling the bomb. The film then cuts to Lt. Zogg in the cockpit and he says, What about Major Kong? Action then cuts back to Major Kong riding the bomb down to earth yelling yahoo and flipping his hat around, as if he were riding a bull, all the way down. In this scene the characteristics of the Theatre of the Absurd are seen through

26 19 Major King Kong. He gets trapped in the hellish nightmare of being dropped with the atomic bomb which is his situation and crisis. The dialogue is simple as the crew conducts the mission as normal with no one aiding Major Kong. As he takes the trip down to earth with the bomb, Major Kong makes it a joyous journey down to annihilation, which his joy is also absurd He finds meaning and hope by believing his actions are for America in retaliation against the Russians and as a result accepts his fate of imminent death which restores his individuality since it is his choice to make. In true absurdist fashion, Kubrick chose to avoid the beautiful and happy ending for Major Kong by offering him no solution to avoid his death. The final scene in Akropolis is when the crematorium is complete and is the last descent to the prisoner s imminent death. They ritualistically parade around the stage with the dummy cheerfully singing a carol and pile into the crematorium one right after another with no hesitation. As the crematorium is completed the viewer sees change in the prisoners through the singing of a Polish Christmas carol, Findlay describes in his article: It is at this point that Molik [a prisoner] becomes King David the Harpist, and in a long, frenetic speech addresses God. Climbing onto the shoulders of his fellow prisoners, who still stand at pitiful attention on the black box, King David recites the glorious past of his tribe. He tells God how he fought Goliath, how he endured the hatred of Saul, how he obeyed God's laws and waited for God's salvation for his people. "When will God come?" asks King David. His voice rises to a mad intensity until it

27 20 eventually breaks into song. There is wild vocal and physical frenzy among the prisoners for a moment, then almost silence as they quietly bid farewell to one another. (15) The dialogue and singing represents the prisoners religious hope that God will come for them and they have accepted their grim fate of their nightmarish situation, similarly to how Major King Kong in Dr. Strangelove accepts his. They have created their own blinders to the situation at hand; their death. Grotowski gave no solutions to avoid a beautiful ending since that would not offer the truth of what happened at the concentration camps. The final scene continues: Just as suddenly, the frantic almost delirious procession begins of prisoners to their deaths. The whole group sings hysterically while Molik raises the figure of the headless dummy as a talisman to heaven. This is not the resurrected Christ of Wyspianski's original, but simply the symbol of a starved corpse of the death camps. The procession evokes the image of ecstatic, self-abusing medieval flagellants. [Then] Each of the singing prisoners following Molik and the headless dummy leaps in frenzied fashion into this pit. Mirecka [a female prisoner] is the last, and she pulls the cover closed. There is sudden silence, and a voice from the box says simply the words from Wyspianski's prologue: "They're gone and the smoke lingers on." The performance is over. The audience typically does not applaud; it simply leaves the theatre. (16) This ending is anti-climactic as there is no suspense with the absurdist imagery of excited

28 21 prisoners flinging the dummy into the crematorium and hurriedly climbing in one by one. The physical language of the prisoners tells the viewer that they welcome their death with no wretched emotion. Instead, we see a sense of joy during, what can be considered, the buildup of the finale. In the final scene of Dr. Strangelove, the viewer sees a similar use of physical and verbal language as the finale in Akropolis. The character of Dr. Strangelove along with the President, General Turgidson, and others in the war room, discuss what can be done to save the human race. Dr. Strangelove presents a Master Race type solution by selecting certain men and women, a higher percentage of women, to live underground in a mineshaft for 100 years. There they would reproduce while they waited for the radioactive fallout to dissipate. With his recurring alien hand syndrome, Dr. Strangelove s right arm snaps into a Nazi salute then pulls it down and beats it. The alien hand then attempts to strangle him. Meanwhile, Turgidson is intrigued by Dr. Strangelove s ideas of more women to men ratio, Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned? Strangelove replies, Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. Russian Ambassador interjects, I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor. Dr. Strangelove is suggesting loveless but sex-filled relationships, to the male

29 22 gender s advantage, in a world where everyone can stop worrying and love the bomb. In this section of the final scene, the absurdist physical language is seen through the character of Dr. Strangelove. His alien syndrome hand randomly exposes his true thoughts as the Nazi beliefs will always be within him. The absurdist verbal language is heard through the each of the characters that show joy in the thought of creating an underground world where men can have more than one woman. The characters are creating a false reality because it is too late to create such a world since the Doomsday Bomb will go off before that would happen. The final scene continues: While time is ticking, General Turgidson is paranoid of a hostile Russian take over after the 100 years of living underground is over and suggests storing nuclear weapons. He states, Supposing the Russkies stashed away some big bombs, see, and we didn't. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over!" Another General agrees with Turgidson: "...In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space." General Turgidson then suggests that they must increase their alertness against Soviet conspiracy as he states, We must be...increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! Mr. President, we must not allow...a mine shaft gap! Dr. Strangelove suddenly becomes overjoyed over the total annihilation of humanity as he stands and miraculously gains his ability to walk as he says, Sir! I have a plan. Heh. (He realizes he is standing up) Mein Fuehrer, I can walk! Immediately there is a jump cut to images of atomic bombs being detonated as the mellow World War II song We ll

30 23 Meet Again Some Sunny Day plays in the background. In this final scene the dialogue is hilarious as well as full of hostile and crude jokes that are perpetuating obsessions of self as the world s end approaches. The crisis continues to be the impending obliteration of the human race but the characters in the war room, particularly the President, General Turgidson, Russian Ambassador, and Dr. Strangelove, seem to go in circles caring only about the superfluous, such as the men to women ratio in the underground mineshaft. The President is also faced with the hellish choice of who gets saved and who does not, which represents the absurdity of the progress of the nuclear age. All four of these characters are breaking their situation up into manageable units, wearing blinders to the real concern of the situation. Their dialogue contains no real logic in handling their dilemma; instead it directs them into an entirely different situation. The character of Dr. Strangelove himself represents the absurd as the viewer sees and hears many odd features about him. The first feature the viewer notices is the high pitched strange voice with German accent that can be hard to understand. The second is the alien hand syndrome that he struggles to control and that represents his identity as part American and part Nazi. As the alien hand goes to strangle himself, one can only see aspects of the absurd. The thought of the end of the world energizes Dr. Strangelove again which unites his fractured identity, resulting in him being able to walk in the finale. The ending is anti-climactic and cyclical as they ended up exactly where they were when their nightmare of a situation started and there is no resolution as the Doomsday Machine is detonated and humanity ends. Like Akropolis, there is relief that the

31 24 situation is over but there is no true resolution. Instead, at the end, there is just the stunning images video of nuclear bombs detonating as Vera Lynn s sweet World War II song, Till We Meet Again, plays in the background. Through Theatre of the Absurd, Grotowski and Kubrick point towards an art that is creative, challenging, and intellectual and they achieve similar objectives in how the audience perceives the action. It also shows these two directors were masters in philosophical paradox and exaggeration. This is recognizable in many other of their works. To do this, Grotowski and Kubrick had to be extremely knowledgeable in everything that it takes to produce their works, as well as show a unique style and worldview.

32 25 Chapter 3 AUTEURISM Jerzy Grotowski and Stanley Kubrick, believing strongly in their own artistic freedom, and developing their own distinctive styles, became recognizable directors in the theatre and film worlds. Grotowski and Kubrick had many areas of expertise, paid extreme attention to detail, and followed patterns that are consistent in all of their works, which makes both of them auteur directors. Stanley Kubrick is arguably one of the best auteurs to come out of cinema, even though some may argue he was not a true auteur since he was not the author of the works he directed. The same can be argued about Jerzy Grotowski. Both were adaptors of their works; Grotowski s Akropolis is an adaptation of Stanislaw Wyspianski s Akropolis and Kubrick s Dr. Strangelove is an adaptation of Peter George s Red Alert. Since they are adaptors, can these two directors really be auteurs? It is, in fact, through their adaptations that they become auteurs. The word auteur is French for author, and the auteur theory was created by French filmmaker, Francois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s. An auteur is an artist or filmmaker who has a strong personal style that is recognizable from work to work and who has complete creative control over their work. A film or theatrical auteur director has such a pronounced influence that they become considered the author of the film or play. James Naremore states in his book, On Kubrick, The principles of the auteur theory are based on the given-whether true or false-that the director is the controlling force in the structure of a film (136). As an author, holding the pen is the controlling force, and all of the tools available to a director are equivalent to the pen, such

33 26 as script/book, camera, and mise-en-scene. Kubrick argued that just because his films were adaptations, it does not mean he did not make the story his own. He took the book Red Alert, which is considered to be a drama, and retold the story as a satirical comedy to portray the absurdity of politics and a corrupt government during nuclear holocaust. Grotowski did something similar. He took the text of Wyspianski s Akropolis, which has an optimistic view of civilization, and created a satirical comedy/drama to present a low point of Polish history, World War II and the Holocaust. When Grotowski and Kubrick adapted texts, they added either humor or more horror, creating a new, distinct work. This process of adaptation clearly shows that they are auteurs. The first characteristic of an auteur is knowledge, expertise, and technical competence in many areas of theatre or film. Film Critic, Andrew Sarris, states in his article Notes On the Auteur Theory in 1962 : The first premise of the auteur theory is the technical competence of a director as a criterion value. A badly directed or undirected film has no importance in a critical scale of values, but one can make interesting conversation about the subject, the script, the acting, the color, the photography, the editing, the music, the costumes, the décor, and so forth. That is the nature of the medium. You always get more for your money than mere art. (562) One way this element of auteurism can be seen through Grotowski and Kubrick s control of their productions and their attention to detail. Kubrick oversaw every phase of his films, never relinquishing control. Gene D. Phillips states, Kubrick oversees every

34 27 aspect of production when he makes a film: script writing, casting, shooting (often operating the camera himself), editing and choosing musical score (140). This process became Kubrick s ritual, which contributed to his unique style and reputation. He was an obsessive perfectionist, supervising every aspect, as well as every person, working on the production. Gene Siskel states, The stories about Stanley Kubrick s fierce, some say compulsive, attention to detail are legion (Phillips 116). Kubrick s associate producer for Dr. Strangelove states in an interview, he delegates power by only on the noncreative side of the film and even then he checks and double checks. The creative side is entirely in his hands.a most stimulating man to work with (Phillips 11). Kubrick had the experience and knowledge of every aspect of film to be able to do everything himself, and since his vision is precise, he knew others would not be able to get the results he pictured. For Kubrick, film production was a ritual that he took very seriously. Elaine Dundy states on Kubrick, For him, filmmaking is a war and war he intends to win against laziness, goofing off, passing the buck, playing at Who s in Charge, wasting time, wasting energy-anything, in short, that prevents him from getting the best working conditions for himself and his actors (Phillips 10). It was important for Kubrick to have a professional work atmosphere so that no phase of the production or his artistic freedom would suffer. Like Kubrick, Grotowski was detail oriented and had control over every phase of his productions and what went into, or the lack of what went into, them. He believed that quality work could not be conducted without discipline and attention to detail. All training and rehearsals were taken seriously, and socialization was not tolerated. When

35 28 an actor was in the building, training exercises were the only actions accepted, and participants were to be silent during training, unless they were expressing an idea. All of these demands allowed the actors to concentrate on themselves and helped discourage them from trying to impress each other Grotowski discusses in Towards a Poor Theatre how this environment was important to his idea in training actors so that the actors could contribute more by letting all inhibitions go which then added to every phase of the rehearsal process. Another way the first characteristic of auteurism can be seen is in how Grotowski and Kubrick, as directors, possessed a skill in creating works and using, or not using, techniques that broke away from the theatrical and cinematic trends of the time. Theatre was trying to compete with film s special effects by incorporating more elaborate sets, costumes, and lighting. Grotowski s work defied the social norm of theatre by taking risks in how he presented his works. He did this through his idea of his poor theatre by minimalizing what he called the spectacle of rich theatre, which included sets, costumes, and lighting. He scoffed at the idea of elaborate and multiple sets, flashy costumes, and mechanical lighting, such as spot lights. Grotowski did this so that all action is centered on his actors/characters since theatre, at the time, became more concerned with fascinating the audience and not the importance of the actors or the interior meaning of the play. The cinematic trend at the time was making films as a technical exhibition of special effects. Kubrick s work defied the social norm similarly to Grotowski since he also believed in centering the action around the actor telling the story. He did not believe

36 29 that he needed special effects to engage his audiences. Instead, he relied on his direction and his actors to bring his audiences into the action. The second characteristic of an auteur is a recognizable, distinct style and design of a film or play that is consistent with the director s other works. Sarris states: The second premise of the auteur theory is the distinguishable personality of the director as a criterion of value. Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurrent characteristics of style, which serve as his signature. The way a film looks and moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels. (562) Grotowski and Kubrick have a personal style that makes each of their works identifiable as their own. Kubrick s films have slow paced, protracted scenes, like many of the war room scenes in Dr. Strangelove, that are often filmed with either tracking shots or extreme camera angle shots, such as close-ups, wide-angle, low angle, and full back. Kubrick also used political and social themes in his films, such as a foolish and corrupt government in Dr. Strangelove, and mocks them to create a reaction of shock or disbelief reaction in his audiences. This mockery presents a coldness to the overall tone to his films, whether it is eerie or comedic. Kubrick created this tone through four different elements: 1) irrational characters that the audience cannot warm to, for example General Jack D. Ripper, 2) the use of satire and irony, which is seen in the characters actions and dialogue, 3) the absence of the typical happy ending, for example, the abrupt jump cut to detonated nuclear bombs signifying the end of the world, and 4) the aversion of censorship, realism, and traditional narrative, which is seen through Kubrick s use of a

37 30 situation rather than a plot. James Naremore states in his book, On Kubrick: Kubrick forged a distractive style, which evolved, as all styles do [He] showed a concern for media-specific form, a resistance to censorship, and preference for satire and irony over sentiment, a dislike of conventional narrative realism, a reluctance to allow the audience to identify with leading characters and an interest in the relationship between instrumental rationality and it s ever present shadow, the irrational consciousness. (3) These elements were important to Kubrick since they contributed to the active intellectual thought and the reaction from the audience. Grotowski s Poor Theatre also sets up all the elements for consistency of style from production to production. The poor notion stripped the play down, using minimal costumes, sets, and lighting, leaving the actor exposed, and this also can be seen in his other Laboratory productions. With the practice of his poor theatre and with the actors vocals and movements, Grotowski creates a coldness in his plays, similar to Kubrick s, that makes it difficult to warm up to the characters. In Akropolis, this coldness is created through the exaggerated movements and haunting vocals to produce an unnerving atmosphere making the viewer unsure how to react. Another aspect concerning the distinct style of an auteur is how Grotowski and Kubrick form a relationship between the film or play through the use of their actors and characters. As writers and directors, they wanted to create a psychological journey for their audiences, and this journey includes taking the audience out of their comfort zone.