Amadahn's Theatre Resources

Antonin Artaud (1896-1948)

Nationality:       French

Occupation:      Actor / Poet

Influences:        Balinese Theatre / Circus

Key Words:      Mise-en-scene / Theatre of Cruelty

Texts:               The Theatre and its Double

Although later in his life Artaud was diagnosed as clinically insane, his ideas have nevertheless had a profound effect upon Western theatre.  He hated the importance that the theatre granted to words, and the fact that everything else connected with a performance - movement, music, costume, set, lighting, etc. - was viewed as somehow secondary.  Artaud wanted to free Western theatre from what he saw as the tyranny of the word.  He suggested that theatre should not necessarily by concerned with communicating meaning - any book could do that.  Instead, theatre should be about partial meanings, emotions, suggestions, and possibilities.  One of the crimes that words commit is to fix and petrify meaning, and by doing so deny the possibilities and alternatives that are an essential part of living theatre.

Artaud believed that the way to revive Western theatre was through a more integrated approach to performance.  By granting more significance to the supposedly neglected aspects of the stage - sound, lighting, costume, make-up, scenery, masks, etc. - and by incorporating music and dancing into the performance, theatre could become more spectacular and emotive.  It could begin to escape from the intellectual cul-de-sac in which it was trapped.

Artaud called this reinvented style of theatre ‘The Theatre of Cruelty’ - a phrase which has often been misunderstood.  Artaud did not use the word ‘cruelty’ in its contemporary sense to signify torture and sadism.  Instead, he employed it in its broader, original interpretation to mean, amongst other things, severity and absolute determination.  One possible translation of the phrase ‘Theatre of Cruelty’ might be ‘Theatre of Intensity’.  It is meant to utilise intense combinations of sound, image and movement in order to arouse intense emotions amongst the audience.

In one sense, the term cruelty does conform to its contemporary meaning.  If the audience was shocked or upset by anything that occurred on stage, then Artaud believed this to be quite acceptable.  In his view, the theatre ought not to be a safe, unthreatening place where the audience could be mildly entertained for an hour or two.  Instead, it should contain an element of potential danger that might arouse the audience from its intellectual complacency. 

Artaud is a key figure in the history of Western theatre and his influences can still be felt today.  He stands in opposition to the naturalistic trends that have preoccupied many Twentieth century actors and playwrights.  Some of the fundamentals of contemporary physical theatre can be traced back to Artaud, and his ideas can be seen reflected in the work of practitioners such as Peter Brook and Steven Berkoff.  Artaud serves as a reminder that the theatre is far more than just words on a page.  He viewed it as the most ‘complete’ of the art forms, in that it incorporates all art forms into a single yet multifaceted experience.  This experience ought to leave the audience with a sense of wonder that, in Artaud’s opinion, had long ago been forgotten in most areas of contemporary Western culture.