Even so, it is possible to imagine certain of Ionesco’s plays performed as pure pantomime; , for example, was originally written in the form of a ballet.
Certain critics, moreover, detected in Ionesco’s dramaturgy a strong cinematic influence, primarily from silent films and those of the Marx Brothers.
En ralit, j'ai surtout combattu pour sauvegarder ma libert d'esprit, ma libert d'crivain.
Il est vident qu'il s'est agi, en grande partie, d'un dialogue de sourds, car les murs n'ont pas d'oreilles et les gens sont devenus des murs les uns pour les autres : personne ne discute plus avec personne, chacun voulant de chacun faire son partisan ou l'craser [...].
L'uvre d'art doit contenir en elle-mme, et cristalliser, une plus grande complexit des dbats dont ...
Au travers de son travail Ionesco s’appuie sur un témoignage, celui de Denis de Rougemont, un écrivain essayiste qui se trouvait en 1938 à Nüremberg.Forsaking the convenience of rational expression still relied on by Camus, Jean Anouilh, and even Jean-Paul Sartre, Ionesco—in Esslin’s view—presents on the stage the absurd in its purest form, more true to life (if less “realistic”) by the mere fact of its apparent gratuity.Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more effective illustration of dehumanizing habit than is to be found among Ionesco’s peculiarly automated characters, whose aspirations (if any) have long since been separated from their lives.When death threatens (as it often does in the later plays), Ionesco’s habit-conditioned characters will often proceed as lambs to the slaughter in a manner even more credible than the “philosophical suicide” described by Camus in , 1955) as a characteristic human response to the absurd.Ionesco’s memories of puppetry may also account for the strong visual element in his plays, more dependent on gesture and blocking than on the stage set itself, which may range from elaborate to nonexistent.In a variation on the proliferation theme, for example, the characters of share the stage with a growing corpse that is about to crowd them out of house and home; what usually shows of this monstrosity is a man’s shoe, approximately three meters in length, with sock and trouser leg attached.In , similarly, the king’s throne must simply vanish from the stage while the curtain remains open.(The most elaborate of Ionesco’s stage sets are those that call for enormous quantities of objects, be they household furnishings or eggs, implying that humans are being crowded off the earth by the commodities used for their need or pleasure.) As noted, the spoken text itself is, as a rule, the least significant element of Ionesco’s dramaturgy, literally “upstaged” by the posturing and placement of its characters.Dramatically, Ionesco’s most effective use of language occurs in its deformation, with “normal” speech replaced either by incongruous banalities or by equally nonsensical monosyllables.Considered as a whole, Ionesco’s work exhibits a number of different styles, each of them uniquely his own.Although it may be tempting to consider those styles as evolutionary stages, such analysis founders on the simple evidence that the styles do not necessarily occur in chronological order.