A CLOSED LOOP
PICTURES IN ROOMS
FIELD WORK
ARRIVE BY MAGIC
2022/09/01
I was first prompted to visit Eugène Ionesco's Rhinoceros by a snapshot of its set, where a large, horned head emerges from the void and casts an imposing shadow on the empty stage. And as it turns out, the play calls for an even more dramatic display, which contains a multitude of rhinoceros heads increasingly crowding the stage while more and more citizens are converted to the cult of beasts. I was a little disappointed that the transformations weren't depicted with more grit. Most of them happens without a witness. One moment there was an old couple living in the apartment next door, and the next emerge from behind the door two rhinoceroses. And even for the one that happens before our eyes, it's almost entirely supplemented by the protagonist's confounded descriptions, not capable of fully grasping (maybe nor was he given time to) what his friend is undergoing until the transformation is complete.
Over the years, Rhinoceros has become Ionesco's most famous play for the very literal allegory of "Rhinoceritis" to the rise of Nazi Germany, which in many ways has limited the play's reading by subjecting the events to an irrefutable moral code. The narrative then becomes simple as the hero of the story choosing not to succumb to the prevailing evil. Funnily enough, the arbitrariness of the rhinoceros as the face of evil allows anyone to slot in what they deem appropriate in their believe system, and embody the tortured hero in the story. In YouTube, if you search for the 1973 film adaptation of the same name, in the comment section, you will find evidences of anti-vaxxers identifying with the protagonist, and lamenting the "consequences of holding onto your individuality" (in a time of global pandemic).
However, if you take a more literal approach to the text, what's Berenger's reasons for being against rhinoceroses? He seems to have a hard time articulating it other than something of a gut feeling. What makes a rhinoceros an agent of evil other than it seemingly replaces and therefore erases the human that once was? In fact, the argument no longer stands once you see the beast's subjectivity as a continuation of the human pre-transformation (like Mrs Boeuf did), or regard the act as a conscious choice (like Dudard did). Characters on the verge of transformation, even Berenger himself to an extent, experience a shift in perspective and express desires to be made a rhinoceros. As Nasrullah Mambrol articulated in their analysis, the story really is about the inability to change, and not of the battle of two diametrically opposing sides.
Over the years, Rhinoceros has become Ionesco's most famous play for the very literal allegory of "Rhinoceritis" to the rise of Nazi Germany, which in many ways has limited the play's reading by subjecting the events to an irrefutable moral code. The narrative then becomes simple as the hero of the story choosing not to succumb to the prevailing evil. Funnily enough, the arbitrariness of the rhinoceros as the face of evil allows anyone to slot in what they deem appropriate in their believe system, and embody the tortured hero in the story. In YouTube, if you search for the 1973 film adaptation of the same name, in the comment section, you will find evidences of anti-vaxxers identifying with the protagonist, and lamenting the "consequences of holding onto your individuality" (in a time of global pandemic).
However, if you take a more literal approach to the text, what's Berenger's reasons for being against rhinoceroses? He seems to have a hard time articulating it other than something of a gut feeling. What makes a rhinoceros an agent of evil other than it seemingly replaces and therefore erases the human that once was? In fact, the argument no longer stands once you see the beast's subjectivity as a continuation of the human pre-transformation (like Mrs Boeuf did), or regard the act as a conscious choice (like Dudard did). Characters on the verge of transformation, even Berenger himself to an extent, experience a shift in perspective and express desires to be made a rhinoceros. As Nasrullah Mambrol articulated in their analysis, the story really is about the inability to change, and not of the battle of two diametrically opposing sides.