Should theatre be enjoyable? To most people, this is a simple question. After all, the theatre is a haven for escape – it is a place where audiences can find comfort in temporarily breaking away from reality. Antonin Artaud – French avant-garde practitioner born in 1896 – did not view theatre through this lens. He believed that audiences should be confronted with the base and harrowing elements of existence, of which he was acutely aware.
It was from his life experiences and his fascination with the human condition that Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty was born. Artaud did not have an easy life, and his suffering permeated his work. He struggled with depression, paranoia, and a lifelong addiction to opiates, meaning he spent much of his adulthood in psychiatric care. Whilst institutionalised, he was subjected to electric shock therapy, which was excruciating and traumatising.
The word ‘cruelty’ was redefined by Artaud, and does not denote pain and violence. It refers to an endeavour to shatter a false reality, and a commitment to exposing the raw truths of life. He viewed naturalistic theatre as too gentle and polite, and worked to dismantle the solace it offered. In his 1938 book The Theatre and its Double, Artaud critiques Western theatre-making, pushing for a rejection of the reliance on scripts and plots. He did not want the audience to have a cerebral response to theatre and thought that dialogue made it too psychological. Instead, Artaud intended to rouse an emotional and visceral response, assaulting the audience’s senses and driving them almost to madness. He sought to achieve this by combining guttural screaming, unintelligible cries, bright lighting, and extreme physicality.
The audience were entirely engulfed in the action. The fourth wall was broken and they were seated in the middle of the performance space, surrounded by the actors. It was an overwhelming experience from which the audience could not escape. For Artaud, this was all in the name of awakening them from a sleepwalk of complacency. He wanted to remind humanity of its capabilities, particularly the ones it sought to ignore.
I admit that nothing about Theatre of Cruelty sounds pleasant. It was not widely embraced during Artaud’s lifetime, as people viewed it as incredibly intense and disturbing. I too would have chosen to attend a comedy or musical instead of a quasi-torture ritual. Artaud only managed to produce one play showcasing the methods of Theatre of Cruelty. This was Les Cenci, which was not a success and only ran for 17 performances.
Despite Artaud’s initial failure, the influence of Theatre of Cruelty is evident across the work of many different artists, all of whom aim to shock viewers out of ignorance. Artaud’s lasting legacy can be seen in the theatre of Jean Genet and Peter Brooks, the films of Lars von Trier and Darren Aronofsky, and the art of Marina Abramović. This increased engagement with Theatre of Cruelty shows our promising willingness to face the more sinister and taboo aspects of the human condition.
“Plaque Rue Antonin Artaud – Rosny-sous-Bois (FR93) – 2021-04-15 – 1” by Chabe01 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.