Oldal 134 [134]
ANIKÓ LUKÁCS
obstacles are abolished in order to enter into the true center of life." Cruelty
is thus not for its own sake, and despite its destructive nature, it also has the
power of creation,“the rebirth [...] allows us to get to a pre-birth and post-death
life.”® — the purpose of Artaud’s theater is not destruction but creation. Arpad
Kun Kékesi also sees the question in a similar way: in his opinion, the theater
of Artaud treats man as raw material, which is then deconstructed and taken
to pieces to be re-built again; but this is not a reconstruction, but an overhaul
in which the individual becomes capable of overcoming life’s obstacles.®
With this in mind, it can be said that the cruelty of liminality and Artaud’s
cruelty can be defined in the act of destruction from which there is creation,
the fulfillment of which is in the climax of the play: George’s elimination of
their self-imposed deceptions separates them from their former roles but at
the same time facilitates the hope of rebirth. As Bigsby notes, the third act is
the finding of the path from inhumanity to humanity, which, following the
analysis so far, can be read as the moment of their communitas. As Turner
points out, the disintegration of the social order that causes liminality often
involves the possibility of communitas in which the participants can meet as
true human beings as persons of integrity who consciously share the same
humanity.® This is a transformative experience that penetrates the roots of
human consciousness to create something essentially communal and shared.
The communitas is, therefore, an essential — derivative of ancient times —
form of human contact, which speaks more directly to people because of its
extremely powerful emotional components and, hence, is often identified with
love.”
A passage through the purity of liminality is a prerequisite for the com¬
munitas, with all its suffering, pain, and cruelty. The “Cruel games” of Who’s
Afraid of Virginia Woolf? represent this process, leading the characters to the
moment ofgenuine understanding rooted in silence, which, accordingto Turn¬
er, is one of the main features of communitas.® In this sense, the linguistic
shift that defines the end of the drama, much of which focuses on silence and
the tenderness that can be observed between the couple — George puts his
61 Laszlo F. Foldényi: Antonin Artaud halalos szinhaza, in A tuls6 parton, Pécs, Jelenkor Irodal¬
mi és Művészeti Kiadó, 1990, 238.
Jacques Derrida: A Kegyetlenség Színháza és a reprezentáció bezáródása, in Theatron, Artaud
‘visszacsatoljuk a szavakat a fizikai mozgdsokhoz’, trans. Anikó Farkas, Vol. VI., Autumn¬
Winter, (2007), 23.
Árpád Kékesi Kun: "A színház is olyan válság, amely vagy halállal vagy teljes gyógyulással
végződik" — Antonin Artaud és a Kegyetlenség Színháza, in A rendezés színháza, Budapest,
Osiris, 2007, 237-238.
64 Bigsby: Ibid., 260.
% "Turner: Mérföldkövek, 692, 708.
66 Turner: A rituális folyamat, 152.
§7 "Turner: Mérföldkövek, 705.
68 Turner: A ritualis folyamat. Ibid., 120.
62
63
«132 +