The Dumb Waiter (1 Viewer)

[SophieB2]

Hello..... Well yes, i am sitting up trying to write an essay on The Dumb Waiter, but i dont really understand how in the instruction section how 'suspence and comedy are combined.' I may be incredibly dumb, i just need some help, does anyone actually do this because there isnt and threads on it?
Thanks for your help if you have any.
Cheerios

 

[ritchwitch]

Well I don't know if this helps you anymore but in this play, as in many other absurd pieces, suspence and comedy are combined by a number of techniques, the main being pausing (usually depending on the director) and irony (eg, the irony of a hired hitman being disgusted by the slaughter of a cat). The characterisation also adds to it but this is usually subject to the performers/directors. My teacher gave me a number of articles about other professional performances (usually british) of the dumb waiter and these have bben very helpful, I think she found them on the web. Maybe you could google them? I hope I helped, I'm not sure I understood your question fully but I tried.

 

[SophieB2]

Thanks for that.

 

[lerrr]

comedy in absurdist theatre

juz askin for a bit of help here. ive got the whole meaninglessness of life, loss of identity and breakdown of communication thing with absurdism, but im struggling to define why the audience finds absurdist theatre "funny". it is because of the slapstick on stage or is there a subconscious understanding that what seems so ridiculous is actually true, and the audience laughs unnervingly?

if u dont get that, my apologies, but any help would be tops.

good luck class of 05

 

[ritchwitch]

juz askin for a bit of help here. ive got the whole meaninglessness of life, loss of identity and breakdown of communication thing with absurdism, but im struggling to define why the audience finds absurdist theatre "funny". it is because of the slapstick on stage or is there a subconscious understanding that what seems so ridiculous is actually true, and the audience laughs unnervingly?

if u dont get that, my apologies, but any help would be tops.

good luck class of 05

It seems to me that alot of audiences laugh not because they find a piece funny but because they don't quite know the right way to react to something that seems to take them out of their comfort zone. Having said that though most of the absurdist pieces I have read are quite witty in one way or another. Looking at it from an audience P.O.V (something we're supposed to do in order to talk about the plays properly) I think it's a mixture of
a) The plays do have lines that are quite amusing
b) The comments being made behind those witty remarks are quite dark
c) The rediculousness of the plot/lines/characters do actually posess some truths

In other words, the absurdist experience is different for each audience member but generally it could be said to be a mixture of wit and audience confrontation and general confusion created by the playwrights and directors of absurdist theatre.

That's my opinion anyway, I generally stay away from that discussion though because we really have enough to talk about with the rest of the argument.
I hope I helped though. Good luck!

P.S. Let me know if you want to discuss it some more

 

[gorgo31]

It seems to me that alot of audiences laugh not because they find a piece funny but because they don't quite know the right way to react to something that seems to take them out of their comfort zone

I'm no authority on absurdism as I don't do Drama, but I have read Hound from Extension 1 and a lot of absurd material, including this play, for early drafts of my EE2. From what I can gather, what you say in the above is the most correct reason why audiences would laugh. Although many younger responders often see slapstick comedy in Absurdist plays, which they appreciate on a purely superficial level (as I witnessed throughout "The Chairs" at Belvoir earlier this year), the majority of an older audience would laugh because they are being confronted with something so vastly different from traditional elements of theatricality. They don't really know how to respond. Try to remove yourself from your position as a Drama student, and think what you would expect if you were to go into a theatre before viewing an Absurdist play, and what you would think afterwards.

With that said, I would be tempted to wonder how many people who see Absurd plays these days would not have some vague idea that what they are seeing is going to be very different? The argument above is relevant for 50's and 60's responders, but today is a different ball game...

Anyway, sorry to ramble, I've got no idea about what your Drama syllabus says so excuse me for being nonsensical. Good luck with your study guys!

 

[ritchwitch]

With that said, I would be tempted to wonder how many people who see Absurd plays these days would not have some vague idea that what they are seeing is going to be very different? The argument above is relevant for 50's and 60's responders, but today is a different ball game...

I agree with this to certain degree but there are still a number of people who don't know what to expect when seeing a play. My response was made under the assumption that you were speaking about an audience who would not be experienced with the plays (which, coincidently were not written recently - at least not 'The Bald Prima Donna,' 'The Dumb Waiter' and 'Waiting for Godot'). It was written with the assumption that you were asking about the audience's first experience with the genre. I should not have made the assumption and was going to say that I shouldn't have said what I said but then I thought "Isn't part of the subject the intentions of the playwrights who could probably have guessed the reactions of the audiences that would not have seen what they were presenting before?"
Yes, we should consider the responses of current audiences but we should also remember that the plays were not written for that audience but for a much more conservative, less experienced audience who would probably have been very stunned and confused by what they were viewing as this helps us to understand the playwright's intentions.
Also, I 'm not sure if I made myself clear, gorgo13 seems to think that I was speaking about the techniques when speaking about the audiences being confronted. I wasn't. I was talking about the messages behind the techniques. The techniques make you think, but it's the messages that make you squirm.
I also believe that an audience which believes that it knows what's going to happen is one that needs to be told not to be so cocky, ie needs to be shocked into remembering that they did not write the piece which means that they cannot possibly know what to expect. I think that anyone who has ever seen a Butoh show would agree with me.
gorgo13's comment is valid and has some very good points, however the course requires us to look at the piece's as if we were an audience new to the genre and not a drama student who's been studying it for a year. Sorry its so long and fragmented but that's how my thought pattern is at the moment. Good luck and keep ing