The question of whether and how to combine left-wing political commitment
and writing for the stage has been causing considerable doubt among radical
playwrights for some time. Radical Marxists tend to point out that writing for a
predominantly bourgeois audience of playgoers is incompatible with the Marxist
claim to address the proletariat and form a class consciousness that, for them, is
the necessary precursor to revolutionary change, while others support an
“interventionist” position of Marxists in bourgeois cultures.1 This dilemma has
led the playwright Trevor Griffiths away from writing for the stage. Instead, he
has focused his output on television productions that are supposed to be watched
by a mass audience rather than an elitist one, although it has to be conceded that
productions like these are often scheduled at late-night times where workingclass
audiences are likely to miss them, while prime-time entertainment, which
usually works against the interests of the proletariat, is rendered more easily
accessible.2 Nevertheless Griffiths has produced a number of plays for the stage,
the most notable of which, Comedians (1976), will be discussed in this paper.
In his introduction to Plays One, Griffiths remarks about this drama that it
eschews political theory, professional ideologues and historically sourced discourse on
political revolution […] in favour of a more or less unmediated address on a range of
particular contemporary issues including class, gender, race and society in modern
Britain.3
Unlike in his earlier plays, Griffiths tries to present an analysis of the way
repressive ideologies work not merely by filtering them through the ideas and
theories of sophisticated and educated characters, but instead by exposing the
way these ideologies function in contemporary British society. This society is
represented by a class of aspiring comedians in an evening school in a
Manchester suburb. [...]
1 Cf. Catherine Itzin, Stages in the Revolution: Political Theatre in Britain Since 1968 (London:
Eyre Methuen, 1980), pp. 165, 169f.
2 Griffiths points out that he “chose to work in those modes because … I have to work with the
popular imagination … I am not interested in talking to thirty-eight university graduates in a
cellar in Soho.” Quoted after Itzin, Stages in the Revolution (cit. note 1), p. 169.
3 Trevor Griffiths, Plays One (London: Faber and Faber, 1996), p. viii.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A Marxist reading of Comedians
2.1 The defectiveness of the socio-economic system
2.1.1 The concrete material circumstances
2.1.2 The defectiveness of the socio-economic system
2.1.3 The defectiveness of the educational system
2.1.4 The defectiveness of marriage and the family
2.1.5 Conclusion
2.2 Capitalist repression and its challengers
2.2.1 Bert Challenor: Comedy as escape
2.2.2 Eddie Waters: Comedy as remedy
2.2.3 Gethin Price: Comedy as refusal
3. Conclusion: Repressive Tolerance or Revolutionary Commitment?
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a Marxist analysis of Trevor Griffiths’ play Comedians (1976), examining how the work critiques the capitalist socio-economic system and its associated repressive ideologies. The research investigates how different comic theories presented in the play—represented by the characters Challenor, Waters, and Price—reflect varying responses to systemic oppression, ultimately arguing that the play promotes a revolutionary perspective over reformist approaches.
- Marxist critique of the capitalist socio-economic structure.
- The role of repressive ideologies (classism, racism, sexism) in British society.
- Comparative analysis of comic theories: escapism vs. therapeutic education vs. revolutionary refusal.
- The impact of material-historical conditions on individual identity and family dynamics.
- Evaluation of revolutionary commitment versus liberal "repressive tolerance."
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 The concrete material circumstances
Trevor Griffiths’ play Comedians is an instructive illustration of the Marxist postulate that literature does not exist in some timeless aesthetic realm, as was claimed by the New Critics in the first half of the twentieth century; rather, like all other cultural manifestations, all literature is the product of socio-economic and hence ideological conditions of the time and place in which it was written. This concern can be illustrated by the fact that Comedians is extremely context-bound:
Apart from the caretaker and the club secretary, all characters in the play are rendered as individuals with full names that help to identify important characteristics of their appearance and socio-economic status in the play’s reality. Thus Mick Connor can be identified as having (Catholic) Irish roots, while George McBrain’s name hints at a Protestant or Presbyterian Ulster counterpart. Likewise Sammy Samuels carries his Jewishness in his name. This method serves to show that the characters themselves are an apparent embodiment of the stereotypes that are explored in the play. The exceptions to this rule – the caretaker and the club secretary - are noteworthy, since their lack of individuality suggests that they stand for abstract structures like the capitalist educational and socio-economic systems, respectively.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the tension between left-wing political commitment and stage writing, introducing Trevor Griffiths and his play Comedians as a focal point for analyzing the critique of repressive ideologies.
2. A Marxist reading of Comedians: This section establishes the theoretical framework, arguing that the play depicts the systemic failure of the capitalist order in Britain through the lenses of education, family, and socio-economic conditions.
2.1 The defectiveness of the socio-economic system: This chapter details how the play’s setting and characters reflect the material conditions of 1970s Britain and how these conditions influence frustration and aggression.
2.1.1 The concrete material circumstances: An analysis of how specific character names and the play's setting illustrate the inescapable nature of class-based reality.
2.1.2 The defectiveness of the socio-economic system: This chapter examines the evening school and other institutions as insufficient gestures that fail to address the systemic defects of capitalist society.
2.1.3 The defectiveness of the educational system: This section highlights the physical and pedagogical neglect of the school setting, symbolizing the broader failure of educational institutions to aid the proletariat.
2.1.4 The defectiveness of marriage and the family: An exploration of how capitalism damages human psychology and interpersonal relationships, leading to the breakdown of traditional family ties.
2.1.5 Conclusion: A summary of how material conditions in the play breed discontent, reinforcing the need to analyze repressive ideologies and potential responses to them.
2.2 Capitalist repression and its challengers: This chapter introduces the role of ideology and assesses the different theories of comedy proposed by the main characters.
2.2.1 Bert Challenor: Comedy as escape: A study of Challenor's capitalist, commodified approach to comedy which exploits audience prejudice and maintains the status quo.
2.2.2 Eddie Waters: Comedy as remedy: This chapter analyzes Waters' egalitarian, therapeutic view of comedy, which aims to liberate the will and encourage social change.
2.2.3 Gethin Price: Comedy as systemic refusal: This chapter focuses on Price’s radical comic theory based on individual self-expression and the necessity of rejecting the capitalist system.
3. Conclusion: Repressive Tolerance or Revolutionary Commitment?: This final chapter synthesizes the play's arguments, contrasting liberal humanitarian reformism with the revolutionary path represented by Gethin Price.
Keywords
Marxism, Trevor Griffiths, Comedians, Capitalist system, Repressive ideologies, Class struggle, Proletariat, Bert Challenor, Eddie Waters, Gethin Price, Social change, Commodity, Ideology, Repressive tolerance, Revolutionary commitment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper provides a Marxist analysis of Trevor Griffiths' play Comedians, exploring how the play critiques the capitalist socio-economic system and exposes the repressive ideologies inherent in contemporary British society.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The central themes include the impact of material and historical conditions on the individual, the role of education and family as bourgeois institutions, the commodification of culture, and the debate regarding the social role of the comedian.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The author aims to demonstrate that Comedians promotes a revolutionary Marxist agenda by attacking the flaws of capitalist society and favoring Gethin Price’s radical rejection of the system over reformist or escapist views.
Which scientific method is employed?
The paper utilizes a Marxist literary criticism approach, focusing on the relationship between cultural production and socio-economic reality, including the examination of ideology as defined by thinkers like Herbert Marcuse.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body examines the systemic defects of the socio-economic, educational, and family institutions as portrayed in the play, followed by a comparative analysis of three comic theories: Challenor’s escapism, Waters’ liberalism, and Price’s radical revolutionary stance.
Which keywords best characterize the analysis?
Key terms include Marxism, repression, commodification, classism, revolutionary commitment, and repressive tolerance.
How does Gethin Price’s performance serve as a critique?
Price’s act, characterized by the inclusion of a dumb show and a dummy act, serves as a rejection of bourgeois norms. By highlighting the inability of the proletariat to bridge the gap with the bourgeoisie, he exposes the necessity of complete opposition to the capitalist system.
Why does the author contrast Eddie Waters and Gethin Price?
The contrast serves to illustrate the tension between liberal reformism—which the author identifies as "repressive tolerance"—and revolutionary action. While Waters represents an altruistic but ultimately limited perspective, Price embodies the realization that the system cannot be cured from within and must be destroyed.
- Quote paper
- Karsten Runge (Author), 1998, it's just a bad system: A Marxist reading of Trevor Griffiths Comedians, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13947
