Page 120 [120]
OCR
ANIKÓ LUKÁCS he did not arrive at his findings in relation to Albee’s play, they are indirectly applicable in support of the above-mentioned relationship. In Brustein’s interpretation, the primary task of Artaud’s theater is to perform a kind of exorcism of fantasies? or, in Artaud’s words, the effect of the Theater of Cruelty is “impelling men to see themselves as they are, it causes the mask to fall, reveals the lie, the slackness, baseness, and hypocrisy of our world.”* The above, however, as well as being the core of Artaud’s thoughts, also includes the moral foundation of Albee’s play. In C. W. E. Bigsby’s study, it is concluded that Albee believes the most basic task of human existence is to face the truth and to live with it, as a true relationship with it can only be realized on a pure foundation deprived of self-deception.’ For Albee, the only sincere response — both for society and the individual — is open confrontation.® The story of Martha and George is actually a reflection of this process — in Bigsby’s view, the play is interpreted as a moral guide for the modern world, a gospel that teaches man to accept reality® — which means that this is where the objective of the Theater of Cruelty is most apparent as it is in line with the moral projection of the play: HONEY (Apologetically, holding up her brandy bottle) I peel labels. GEORGE We all peel labels, sweetie; and when you get through the skin, all three layers, through the muscle, slosh aside the organs [...] and get down to bone... you know what you do then? [...] When you get down to bone, you haven’t got all the way, yet. There’s something inside the bone... the marrow... and that’s what you gotta get at.’ As Jerzy Grotowski notes, cruelty should not be understood externally: the essence of cruelty is that we are not lying. If we do not want to lie, if we do not lie, we'll be cruel, inevitably.® Albee’s Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? leads its characters, readers, and viewers to the naked skin that emerges from beneath the fallen mask, which is to be penetrated, reaching deeper and deeper to eventually arrive at the point where the fragile “self” is revealed beyond the cover of illusions. In addition to the moral responsibility of facing ourselves, this act also has a practical function, which Artaud calls abscess drainage? — the episode of Robert Brustein: IX. Antonin Artaud és Jean Genet. A Kegyetlen Színház, in A lázadás színháza II., trans. László F. Földényi, Debrecen, Európa, 1982, 169. 3 Artaud: The Theater and the Plague, in The Theater and Its Double, Ibid., 31. 4 C. W.E. Bigsby: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Edward Albee’s Morality Play, Journal of American Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1967), 257, http://www.jstor.org/. Bigsby: Ibid., 262. Ibid., 264. Edward Albee: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, New York, New American Library, 212-213. Jerzy Grotowski: Szinhdz és Ritudlé, trans. Andras Pälyi, Budapest, Kalligram, 1999, 61. Artaud: The Theater and the Plague, in Ibid. Com un anu + 118 +
