Page 134 [134]
OCR
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 communitas, 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 Turner, 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 Irodalmi 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., AutumnWinter, (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 +
