Eugene Ionesco, the great rebel

Interviewed by: Branka Bogavac
Translated by: Nikolla Sudar

The great rebel and anti-conformist of this century (20th), Eugène Ionesco, due to his popularity, that is, his world fame, has himself become an institution. He has been made a lifelong member of the French Academy and his plays have been published in the famous edition “Pleiade”. Ionesco’s works have been included in the curriculum of schools, universities, and this year also in the Agrégation, where only exceptionally great writers are studied. While when they were alive, “Pleiade” has published only Monterlan and Jules Gracq to this day. A French critic writes: “The Pleiadization of Ionesco”: “The shadows of those who have minimized Ionesco during the years of his appearance in the theater will fade from embarrassment. Moreover, before this edition is a new Ionesco scene, to a considerable extent he himself is a theatrical piece. It could be titled: 'How to embellish with the essence of knowledge Ionesco, who from morning till night has been playing with the logic of the professor of his work'? "Plejada" has published about twenty-eight of his theatrical works.

I went to Ionesco only for a friendly visit, to meet him and tell him that the Romanians had invited me as a friend, based on the conversation I had had with him. I went to him with my daughter, Milena, to see the author of his program up close, because she had studied it at the Aggregation (this should have been a special qualification, if it existed in our country). This premeditated visit suddenly turned into a serious conversation, into a dialogue and a “trialogue”. It could not have been otherwise with Ionesco, because he already began to ask Milena how the professors analyzed his work and what she had noticed in the explanation of the works The lecture and The bald singer. Meanwhile, he asked me what that “absurd situation in Yugoslavia” was and whether there was “real democracy” there. As for democracy, I told him that it was an “understandable term, at least where there is war.” When I noticed how in shape the kind but unhealthy gentleman, Ionesco, was, and how willing he seemed to talk, I decided to improvise a spontaneous conversation. I did it for my great friends, for the very smart and resourceful young people of the “Literary Review” of Sarajevo. They deserved an Ionesco, thanks to their zeal and desire to protect culture.

Read also:

- THE LEADER - The tragedy of discourse

Mr. Ionesco, a few days ago, again after twenty-five years, I saw in the theater The bald singer and lecture. But, since I was a student at the time and knew much less French, I think I have now experienced these pieces closer to the intentions you had when you wrote the work. I was surprised by their topicality. These pieces have been performed in the same theater without interruption since 1950. How do you explain such a phenomenon?

This is a mystery to me too; it is simply a miracle that has not yet existed. But now these plays are being performed almost all over the world. I can only tell you that this fact surpasses what a writer hopes to achieve.

Perhaps people feel the need to see more of the absurd in order to purify and free themselves from it?

The bald singer, also, is a criticism of the petty bourgeoisie, a criticism of micro-bourgeois speech and convention in the theater. Speech in it does not exist, it is worn out, fragmented into small, unrelated parts. I did this on purpose to show its comic side. I wrote the part in question with great pleasure.

The bald singer is my amazement before people and before existence. This part was not understood: it was talked about as a parody, an allegory, when in fact it is the absurdity of the human attitude and then my amazement, when I see that people move, live. So, amazement before existence. Like many others, I have asked what the world is, why does something exist instead of nothing. But, if we accept existence, another problem appears to us: if everything exists, if we cannot eliminate the existence of being, why then does evil exist? And I have fought against this evil all the time, although for my eighty-two years old I am tired, I continue to fight. How is it possible that people have bombed the most beautiful city in the world, Dubrovnik? I was there with Miro Trailović. What a wonderful time we had!

This comic aspect is increasingly lost, so that in the later parts...

Yes, in my latest play the difficulties in speaking are no longer comic, but dramatic. This is noticeable in the part “Journey to the Dead”, in which at the end a monologue is inserted that an artist makes with invented words and expresses it in a tragic way. Here I try to find a kind of crossing of the boundary of speech. This means that I started with comic speech to end with dramatic.

Just as you started with the part The lecture, where there are neither text interruptions nor acts, you have gradually moved on to figures suitable for the stage, where the author's interventions are very important.

Yes, at first it was an anti-theater, as a reaction to the existing theater, which I didn't like, and the first parts were given names like dramatic comedies or comic dramas. And while The lecture takes place without interruption, like a drama behind closed doors, at Rhinos Some characteristic scenes are already created, such as the divisions into acts, an unprecedented space appears, and various forests make noise.

The maids are too authoritarian. This happens in The bald singer, while in the part The lecture we have a kind of governess who is like a mother, while the professor is like a child who is a little confused at first. Then, he becomes more and more confident and no longer listens to anyone. He gets lost in the sea of ​​words, falls into a rut, tyrannizes the student, who at first seems careless and the blunder increases more and more, until it turns into a crime. So this is the parody of speech, which ends with a kind of erotic murder. In other parts of speech, speech is no longer amusing, as in Macbeth.

How did you arrive at the tragic speech? Why is it tragic?

This happened because it is empty, and even speaking can be destructive. I wrote the part Macbeth because to the one who must avenge King Duncan, the future king repeated: “I will become a criminal, I will become a criminal!”, and then he says: “Don't be afraid, it's not true”. I have said the opposite, that this is true, that power is evil and that evil will make everything worse. Also, I think this is quite current, based on what is happening in the world.

You are a professor and in the section The lecture we have "illustrated" a lesson. It seems to me that you were under pressure from words, that they were flooding out and that you had a great need to express yourself.

As you yourself are saying, this has been a fervent request to express myself, an absurd request to show what I had in my soul, to speak out against politics and politicians, because politics, as it is being implemented, is domination, a struggle for power. Meanwhile, there are so many things that politicians can deal with: they should think about the great danger that threatens the planet from ozone depletion and atmospheric pollution. But, they do not deal with these serious problems, with people's livelihoods; they deal with their own small problems and political affairs. In the comedy series "Le Bébête Show" they ask Mitterrand: "What is the most dramatic event in the world, is it the war in Yugoslavia, the destruction of Dubrovnik, etc."? He answers: "No, no, for me it is Rokari"! (his political competitor). Instead of politics being a means to make life easier for citizens, it is dominating everything.

Which of your heroes do you love the most?

I love Beranghen more. He is the man who opposes the attitude of Rhinos or uniformization and is a spokesperson in other theatrical pieces, such as Free killer.

Can we identify his ideas with the author's ideas?

Po. Rhinos in a large part of it, it is my story, my personal history. I wrote this part at the time when the “Iron Guard” law was being passed in Romania. And we who opposed the fascist madness in its entirety and who aspired to democracy were very, very few. So few were we that we only asked whether we were right or not and whether it was possible for one person to oppose the majority. I almost succumbed to the disease of totalitarianism. I was so afraid that I would not be able to oppose it that I came to Paris. In other words, I fled from that disaster only so that it would not infect me. I did not succumb to it, and that is why I never returned to Romania.

So, then, Rhinos It spread throughout the world and has definitely helped people to oppose various totalitarianisms themselves.

As you know, Rhinos was staged here in Paris as well. Meanwhile, some people “remembered” and said: maybe this is not the “Iron Guard”, maybe these are not just Nazis, they could be communists! And, indeed, they were communists. When the play was performed, it was initially very well received, since, of course, it was thought that it was about Nazis, but when they “remembered” that maybe they could be communists, I and the theater group suffered. At that time, French intellectuals had great sympathy for communists, since they themselves were leftists, as they were called then. From that moment on, the play was not liked, so I and the drama were severely criticized. But now that everyone declares themselves anti-communists, the play is very successful.

Rhinos it has other critical goals, it is universal.

You are absolutely right, it contains not only criticism against Nazis and communists, but also criticism against intellectuals who spread hysterical ideas and totalitarian ideas in general. Because of my ideas, at first I was alone and isolated in Romania. Then, when I arrived in France, I met people who had the same ideas. But, in the period when people loved Stalin and Mao Zedong, even in France I was very lonely and attacked because of Rhinos. But this play was performed in many countries, probably all over the world. During the Franco period, in Spain, the communists were considered rhinoceroses, while in Argentina, the Peronists. Each adapted the play to the conditions that corresponded to the situation and the conceptions of the moment. When I saw the play in Austria, I addressed the young intellectuals: "You have not experienced either communism or fascism, what does it represent for you Rhinos"? They told me that he was fashionable and indeed he was, they were right, because fashion is diverse, starting from literature to the way of dressing and in fact fashion is conformism. Meanwhile, my theatrical part, in the true sense of the word, was a bomb against conformism, but it will exist at all times. A person must be strong to oppose conformism. Average people, politicians and those similar to them, are very subject to it, because in that word there is the word conform, in other words, stagnation, so that nothing changes. Most people are inert, therefore there are few in number those who pull them forward and who want change and progress. Conformism has now become democratic.

You have always understood things before others.

I am not French, but I have managed to get a lot of information from Romania. The French like to play the role of Maoists and have no time to deal with serious things. Therefore, they have treated me as a right-winger, as a petty bourgeois, when in fact I am not for the bourgeoisie. I have always been against totalitarianism and against the misfortunes that the peoples of the East endure. In Romania I hated conformism and I was lucky to have understood things in time.

I was particularly impressed by the work Chairs.

Chairs symbolize people. This is the story about old age. Chairs are the invisible friends, the feeling of nothingness, of emptiness, while the light that catches the eye and represents the king, is the God who will perhaps come, whom they are waiting for. This is a piece with metaphysical ambitions. My work is half spontaneous and half enlightened. For example, in The bald singer There are many conscious elements, such as parody, wordplay, etc., but through all of this, a certain pressure penetrates that is unknown from where it comes, and what proves that it is not entirely a conscious work is fate, because even you yourself do not know what will come.

One of the most important aspects of your theater is humor, which can also be "black".

What is humor? We have humor when a person laughs at misfortune, even at their own misfortune, while we have a comic aspect when people or characters in the theatrical part find themselves in unpleasant or unexpected situations. Humor transmits the humorist's impressions that everything is a mistake, ridiculous, and that we are in an inexplicable situation from birth. Through humor we feel love and pain. We have theater when a person prepares a spectacle for themselves. Perhaps it is the discovery of something that was previously hidden. Theater is something unexpected that is shown, it is a surprise. But it should not be an illustration of something that has not been shown, on the contrary, it is an investigation. It is made up of a multitude of states and situations that move towards an ever greater densification (compression). Theater is the inclusion of unknown realities, of which even the author himself is not aware at the moment he begins the work. But, every writing is conscious and the main characteristic of a work of art is to make the unconscious conscious. Some critics have pointed out that my theater is the lament of a lonely man, who cannot communicate with others. But this is not true at all, on the contrary, communication is easy. Today, man is never lonely, even when he is unfortunate, this is because he is never alone. I am for loneliness. In my theater, people talk, they agree among themselves and this is what amazes you, so I write theatrical pieces to express this amazement, this bewilderment. This is because the unusual for me is found everywhere: in speech, in the movements when we take the glass and immediately drink what is inside, that is, in existence and being. As long as we have already accepted that we exist, then we communicate and nothing seems either surprising or absurd anymore. But if we step out of it, then we no longer communicate. For me, and certainly for you too, sometimes existence is unbearable, heavy and overwhelming, while at other times it seems to me like a divine manifestation, full of light. Theater should not be philosophy, but since poetry is philosophy, theater, indirectly, to some extent, is philosophy. As soon as the question is asked: “What is this?”, we are dealing with philosophy. Even theater itself asks such questions, therefore, to some extent, everything is philosophy. Art is philosophy insofar as philosophy is research, a problem, an issue, an attitude. Meanwhile, ideology is a closed system that gives “cliché” explanations, and absurd I call my helplessness before the mystery, absurdity is a lack of logic, a fallacy.

In our meetings you have mentioned Kafka and Borges. What aspect of affinity has connected you to them?

In Borges, it is the labyrinth or infinity, while that labyrinth, in fact, is hell consisting of time and space. While Metamorphosis Kafka's story simply surprised me and I thought it was something that could happen to anyone. But what seemed more terrifying to me was the realization that we can all become monsters. This means that what is monstrous in us can surpass all the horrors that can follow. Wars, murders, collective crimes, tyranny, persecutions, are actually the dehumanization of holiness. While reading Kafka I was in a state of perversion, because I was constantly afraid of the monster that could awaken within us. I was more influenced by poets and novelists, for example, Dostoevsky, than by playwrights.

It happens to me that, carried away by enthusiasm, that is, by words, the discourse takes me far from what I had in mind. This is why we get lost among words when they completely carry us away. Therefore, the most difficult thing is to resist them, to not allow them to carry us away, that is, to express them and not allow them to speak for us. Words must express peace, light. This is why poetic technique resembles mystical knowledge, which initially requires the creation of emptiness, the removal of images, so that the divine light and the word can be found again among the darkness, behind and outside it. So, to write, to create means to be reborn. This means to feel and create sensations, therefore, to experience. To imagine being is the same as to create it. Literature is the deciphering of the unsaid, and to write is to invent, to imagine, to invent and to construct. It is fantasy, but to imagine it is to rediscover, to rediscover, to recreate what has been, because what has been is and will be. To write is to discover.

You have been subjected to a wide variety of criticisms, some of which have exalted you and others have dismissed your creativity. You speak of your critics in a very enthusiastic manner.

When there were still differences between poetic literature and literary criticism, the issue of fantasy was raised very high and critics often asked the author for additional explanations. Today, critics, especially university professors, have megalomaniacal ambitions. Criticism has superiority over the work, and the author may be some unconscious dreamer. Perhaps he does not exist, he may not even be a professional, while the critic is much more. He is the one who constructs the work, gives it the idea, the meaning, the importance. The work is nothing, everything is in the hands of criticism! But even if the writer is asked about something, this is done to illustrate his naivety, similarity and weakened consciousness. The writer is the man who must be demystified all the time. We are all prisoners of our own darkness, shackled by our instincts and complexes, but the critic is above all this. He knows how to explain everything, except perhaps himself, because the demythologizer has not yet been demystified. So, we have believed, like Plato, that the poet is crazy, that he is either a superman or a "great man", whose intuition is above average. Together with Rimbaud and the surrealists, we have believed that he is a "predictor", because we thought that he had to be indoctrinated, so that he himself could indoctrinate "the people", because, as we said, intellectually he is somewhat undeveloped. But now, with good reason, we can think that the writer is like the others, an intellectual among intellectuals, neither a superman nor a small man, but simply a man.

Since you expressed how critics see you, more precisely how they see your works, what is a work of art for you?

The work is not a series of answers, but a series of questions; it is not an explanation, but simply seeks answers. The poet is the one who knows how to see problems, who distinguishes them where people cannot ascertain them. So, the work is a series of questions, but if it were possible to explain them all, speech would not exist. Every work must be a questioning, as they say, a staging. Ultimately, there is no need to give an answer. There is no final answer. The question is what shines, not the answer.

What are you writing now?

I am writing. Intimate diary.

What is the difference between this diary and your last book? Temporary research?

Yes, there are changes. In the book Temporary research I asked God to Intimate diary there is even less. Diary I write about the difficulties of life in old age, while Temporary research it is a search for the absolute, a search for the divine. I have called it “temporary”, because sometimes I think about this very important problem, the problem of the absolute, which sometimes I forget and then I write literature. Sometimes I think about God, I search for him, but sometimes I forget him. I think that I can live neither with God nor without him. While Diary consists of short notes about what I do, about old age, about life. There you also find the fear of death, also there I ask if reality is really real. This is the theme of the last book. I now believe less than before and I am afraid that forgetfulness will overtake me, but I feel that I am clear and if I have any quality, it is originality. When it was too difficult, I refused to be like others and then I asked myself if I had the right to think the opposite. Today I know that I was right, and I would even add that we are right only when we reason for ourselves and when we do not reason like the rest of the world.

How is the situation in Romania today?

Bad enough, although better than in the time of Ceausescu. But the state apparatus continues to exist and has not been able to change, because the people who have led Romania for forty years are still in power. Therefore, it is difficult to change the functionaries who have remained in their places and who have preserved the same customs, but, however, with less power. These people do not have a democratic mentality.

Do you have any advice for your fellow citizens, writers and intellectuals, since I will soon be moving to Romania?

First of all, I wish you good health, I wish you courage and freedom from fear of security. Long live the New Romania, provided that it truly becomes democratic! Long live democracy in Romania!

Why don't you go to Romania to see your homeland, your people, your friends?

First, because I am old and I would feel bad to see democracy unfinished, because Chief Iljesku has not yet lost his communist, totalitarian streak.

Are you pessimistic about the human race?

I fear that the human race is already doomed, because people are killing each other, they are wandering aimlessly, they have gone astray, and I think that it is close to the apocalypse. That empty speech that I have already spoken of, a speech without meaning and without significance, has been my way of predicting the tragic end.