What Was That, Anyway?

A few days ago, I was reminded of my old high school days.  Our teacher in Honors English (yes, I was once in the upper echelon of the study of English--I even had a close brush with majoring in English...but that's another story) our teacher introduced us to modern theater.  We listened to Luigi Pirandello describe the world where man has only himself as a guide, no principles of philosophy or dogma, just our own experience; in a word--Existentialism.
  
We met Jean Paul Sartre, who told us, "However, again, I am first and foremost not my situation. Thus, at every moment I choose whether to continue on that life path, or to be something else. Thus, my existence (the mere fact that I am) is prior to my essence (what I make of myself through my free choices). I am thus utterly responsible for myself. If my act is not simply whatever happens to come to mind, then my action may embody a more general principle of action. This principle too is one that I must have freely chosen and committed myself to."

Father Ryan also gave  us a nodding acquaintance with Albert Camus.  Camus introduced us to the absurd, "Perhaps we should clarify from the very beginning what the absurd is not. The absurd is not nihilism."  For Camus the acceptance of the absurd does not lead to nihilism (according to Nietzsche nihilism denotes the state in which the highest values devalue themselves) or to inertia, but rather to their opposite: to action and participation. The notion of the absurd signifies the space which opens up between, on the one hand, man’s need for intelligibility and, on the other hand, 'the unreasonable silence of the world' as he beautifully puts it.

The absurd man, like an astronaut looking at the earth from above, wonders whether a philosophical system, a religion or a political ideology is able to make the world respond to the questioning of man, or rather whether all human constructions are nothing but the excessive face-paint of a clown which is there to cover his sadness.

Scorn is the appropriate response in the face of the absurd; another name for this 'scorn' though would be artistic creation. When Camus says: “One does not discover the absurd without being tempted to write a manual of happiness” (Camus 2000:110).

The so-called manual of happiness manifested itself in the "Theater of the Absurd."  Critic Martin Esslin coined the term in his 1960 essay "Theatre of the Absurd." He related the plays he was discussing as plays based on a broad theme of the Absurd, similar to the way Albert Camus uses the term in his 1942 essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus".  The Absurd in these plays takes the form of man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning, and/or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by invisible outside forces. Though the term is applied to a wide range of plays, some characteristics coincide in many of the plays: broad comedy, often similar to Vaudeville, mixed with horrific or tragic images; characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; plots that are cyclical or absurdly expansive; either a parody or dismissal of realism and the concept of the "well-made play".  I wouldn't call Whiskey Tango Foxtrot as quite so absurd as what Esslin describes above, but there are situations that make you reflect a bit.

The mode of most "absurdist" plays is tragicomedy. As Nell says in Endgame, "Nothing is funnier than unhappiness … it's the most comical thing in the world".  Esslin cites William Shakespeare as an influence on this aspect of the "Absurd drama."  Friedrich Dürrenmatt says in his essay "Problems of the Theatre", "Comedy alone is suitable for us … But the tragic is still possible even if pure tragedy is not. We can achieve the tragic out of comedy. We can bring it forth as a frightening moment, as an abyss that opens suddenly; indeed, many of Shakespeare's tragedies are already really comedies out of which the tragic arises."  

This all came drifting back as I walked out of the theater after watching Tina Fey in Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Here's how one reviewer, Matt Donato (wegotthiscovered.com) puts it, "As a legless veteran (Evan Jonigkeit) tells Baker, all you can do is “embrace the suck, and move the fuck on.” This very notion is what Fey does a splendid job wrestling with for WTF‘s entirety, ensuring that Baker isn’t just some sassy, rookie-phenom reporter who takes the world by storm. Fey establishes depth, and evolves in the most hopeless of locations.

Donato captures the feeling that filled my head and heart as I left the theater. This is no small comedy, but a comedy that lives up to Camus and Sartre, facing man's (and woman's) existence and its absurdities and triumphs. Tina Fey must have had a hand in the writing here, it is laced with her wry wit and observations on life amid a very real tragicomedy.  WTF, go see it, see what you think it's all about.