Words and Images: Tom Stoppard’s After Magritte

A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S

F O L IA L IT T E R A R IA A N G L IC A 3, 1999

Jadwiga Uchman

WORDS AND IMAGES: TOM STOPPARD’S AFTER MAGRITTE

A fte r M agritte, first perform ed in the A m biance L u n ch -H o u r T h e a tre

C lub a t th e G re e n B an an a on 9 A pril 1970, h as been d escrib ed by R a n d o lp h R yan as “ a clever and funny look at the prob lem o f d eterm ining reality, reduced from philosophic term s to those o f farce.” 1 W hile, u n d o u b ­ tedly, the play is hilariously funny, nevertheless, even th o u g h th e farce d o m in ates, the philosophical problem still rem ains valid. T he play deals all th e tim e long w ith the questions o f defining reality, m ysteries o f p erception, slippery elusiveness o f em pirical an d logical tru th , the n a tu re o f p o in t o f view, the reliability o f w itnesses and testim ony an d , finally, th e conflict betw een ap p e ara n ce and reality. S to p p ard him self, in an interview w ith H u d so n has referred to th e possibility o f viewing the play differently: “ I f you are thinking o f a situ atio n as being a m e ta p h o r for a m o re general confusion then o f course th a t ’s tru e o f A fte r Magritte', b u t th a t ’s n o t an intellectual play, it’s a n u ts-an d -b o lts com edy.” 2 W hile co m p arin g this play w ith his o th e r plays in w hich he is trying “ to m a rry the play o f ideas w ith com edy o r farce” , he rem arks: “ A fte r M ag ritte an d The R ea l Inspector

H ound are sh o rt plays and they are really an attem p t to bring o ff a so rt

o f com ic coup in p ure m echanical term s. T hey are conceived as sh o rt play s.” 3 T h e startin g p o in t o f the play is a bizarre, surrealistic stage im age connected w ith S to p p a rd ’s a b so rp tio n w ith the m ysteries o f reality and perception. T h e play itself, how ever, pokes “ fun a t th e logic o f linguistic a n d visual re p resen ta tio n o f experience,” 4 an d the end o f this “ n u ts and

1 Randolph R yan, “Theatre Checklist N o 2” , Theatrefacts I (1974): 5.

2 Roger H udson, Catherine Itzin and Sim on Trussler, “A m bushes for the Audience: T ow ards a High C om edy o f Ideas” (Interview with T om Stoppard), Theatre Q uarterly 14 (1974): 7.

3 Ibid., p. 8.

4 K atherine E. K elly, Tom Stoppard and the C raft o f Com edy: M edium and Genre a t P la y (Ann Arbor: The University o f M ichigan Press, 1991), p. 90.

b olts com edy” provides a logical explan ation for the m o st asto nish in g, a b su rd appearances. T h u s the play m oves from a seem ing ch ao s to a kind o f ord er, the m ysteries being solved sim ultaneously on tw o levels: the visual, connected w ith images an d the linguistic, associated w ith w ords.

In nearly all o f his pieces T o m S to p p ard sets, w hat he him self calls, am bush es fo r the audience. In the interview for Theatre Q uarterly, entitled “ A m bushes for the A udience: T o w a rd s a H igh C om edy o f Id e a s,” T o m S to p p a rd said:

I tend to write through a series o f small, large and m icroscopic am bushes - which m ight consist o f a body falling out o f a cupboard, or simply an unexpected word in a senten­ ce. But my preoccupation as a writer, which possibly betokens a degree o f insecurity, takes the form o f contriving to inject some sort o f interest and colour into every line, rather than counting on the general situation having a general interest which will hold an audien ce.5

T h e play m ak es use o f tw o m ysteries, am bushes set up fo r th e th eatre audience an d the characters o f the play alike. T h e first o f these is the visual riddle o f the opening stage im age presenting th e H a rrise s’ ro o m w hich ap p ears at least strange an d inexplicable b o th to us an d to C on stab le H olm es w atching it th ro u g h the w indow from the outside. T h e second one, also connected w ith visual p erception, concerns the id en tity o f th e m an w ho m o st o f the characters o f the play saw earlier. It is presented n o t in visual b u t in verbal term s as he is described by th e ch a rac te rs in a n u m b e r o f divergent, som etim es c o n tra d icto ry ways. T h u s, th en , th e second m y stery co n tain s an elem ent ch aracteristic o f the first one yet develops it fu rth e r a n d new com plications ap p ear. In the case o f the first m ystery the problem consists o f the individual percep tio n and u n d ersta n d in g o f th e im age o f reality perceived. In the case o f the second one a q u estio n is added co ncerning a p ro p er, ad e q u ate description o f the individually perceived reality in linguistic term s an d thus an originally visual im age is evoked by m ean s o f w ords.

T h e tw o m ysteries presented in the play seem to have traceab le origins. T h e initial stage im age is rem iniscent b o th o f R ené M a g ritte ’s p ain tin g

L ’assassin m enacé6 and o f th e beginning o f Sław om ir M ro ż ek ’s Tango,

5 H udson, op. cit., p. 6.

6 The similarity between the tw o is m entioned by: Tim Brassell, Tom S toppard. An A ssessm ent (London: M acm illan Press, 1987), p. 279; Lucina Paquet G abbard, The S toppard P lays (T ro y -N ew York: The W hitston Publishing C o., 1982), p. 78; A n th on y Jenkins, The Theatre o f Tom Stoppard (C am bridge-N ew York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 55;

Felicia H. Londre, Tom S toppard (N ew York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1981), p. 120; N eil Sammells, Tom Stoppard. The A rtist as C ritic (London: M acm illan Press, 1988), p. 60 and Hersh Zeifm an, “Tom foolery: Stoppard’s Theatrical Puns,” in: John Russel Brow n, ed.,

a play w hich S to p p a rd tran slated in 1966. T h e story o f th e stran g e m an in the street, as S to p p a rd says

was based on fact for a start - som ebody I know had a couple o f peacock s in the garden, and one escaped while he was shaving. He chased it and he had to cross a main road to catch it, and he was standing in his pyjamas with shaving cream on his face holding a peacock when the traffic started going by.7

A fte r M a g ritte opens w ith a b izarre stage p icture. T h e ro o m w ith “m o st

o f fu rn itu re . . . stacked up against the street d o o r in a so rt o f b a rric a d e ,” 8 is occupied by three people:

M O T H E R is lying on her hack on the ironing hoard. . . . her downstage f o o t up against

the f la t o f the iron. A white hath tow el covers her fro m ankle to chin. H er head and part o f fa c e are concealed in a tight-fitting black rubber bathing cap. . . . She could be dead; hut is not. . . . T H E L M A H A R R IS . . ., dressed in a fu ll length ballgown. . . . Li discovered on her hands and knees, staring at the flo o r ahead and giving vent to an occasional sniff. R E G IN A L D H A R R IS is standing on the wooden chair. H is torso Li bare, but underneath hLi thigh-length green rubber fishing waders he wears his black evening dress trousers. (10)

F ro m the ceiling h an g the central light with a lam p sh ad e w hich is a “ heavy m etal hem isphere” and “ a fru it basket attractiv ely overflow ing w ith apples, oranges, b an an as, pineapple, an d g rapes.” B ehind th e w indow , “ ab so lu tely m o tio n le ss,” gazing a t th e scene, is “ a u n ifo rm ed Police C o n sta b le (H O L M E S ).” (10)

D u rin g the initial m om ents o f the play the audience, ju s t like H olm es ou tsid e th e w indow , keep w ondering w h a t all this could possibly m ean . As the dialogue o f the ch aracters progresses, how ever, all the m ysteries are grad u ally explained to us b u t n o t to H olm es w ho c a n n o t h ear the dialogue an d th u s is com pletely unaw are o f all the explanatio ns provided by it. T h e fu rn itu re has been rem oved to leave space for T h elm a and R eg in ald ’s dance, the final rehearsal before a professional app earan ce. T h e fact th a t th ey are getting ready fo r a ball acco u n ts for a n u m b er o f o th e r strange details: her evening dress, his naked to rso and the iro ning b o ard (she is a b o u t to iron his shirt). T h e m o th er, who h as ju s t tak en a b a th , is lying on the iron in g b o a rd w aiting fo r a m assage. She c a n n o t be o n th e settee w hich is am o n g the piled furn itu re. R eginald is w earing w aders because he has ju st replaced a bulb in the b ath ro o m while the tu b was still full. N ow he is replacing the bulb in the room . D uring this o peration the counterbalance o f the lam p consisting o f a porcelain co n tain e r w ith slugs from a .22 calibre pistol, has been dam aged and the slugs have scattered ro u n d th e ro o m .

7 H udson, op. cit., p. 17.

8 T om Stoppard, A fter M a gritte (L ond on-B oston: Faber and Faber, 1978), p. 9. A il references in the text will be to this edition.

T h a t is why T h elm a is on h er fours tryin g to find them an d the fru it b ask e t is hang in g dow n from the ceiling acting as a replacem ent c o u n te r­ balance. She is sniffing because, as she explains later, she h as a cold and does n o t have tim e to wipe her nose (31-32). As the co nv ersatio n progresses, providing in fo rm atio n a b o u t the present situ atio n and also a b o u t th eir earlier enco u n ter in the street with a strange m an , th e bizarre elem ents slowly re tu rn to norm al. T h elm a quits her search and irons R eg in ald ’s shirt, he gets dressed and the fu rn itu re is p u t in its p ro p e r place. “T h e only surviving oddity is the fru it b ask e t” (24). It is n o longer m y sterio us to us as we have been given a logical ex p lan atio n for its h ang in g d o w n from th e ceiling.

Ju st then C o n stab le H olm es and In spector F o o t en ter, p u rsuing the investigation o f a crim e supposedly com m itted at V ictoria P alace earlier th a t day. A s H a rris ’s car was seen nearb y they are suspected o f having ta k e n p a rt in the a fte rn o o n ’s rob b ery , which, in tu rn , explains H o lm es’s earlier presence outside their w indow. T h e m an n er o f th e en tra n ce o f th e tw o m en deserves som e atten tio n here. H olm es has rep o rted to his su p erio r the earlier strange ap p earan ce o f the ro o m , w hich m ak es the In sp e cto r charge in to it and a ttac k th e H arrises saying: “ W h a t is the m ean in g o f this bizarre spectacle?!!” , w hereupo n he is in form ed a b o u t th e b ro k e n co u n terw eig h t. N o ticin g th a t the ro o m do es n o t resem ble th e strange spectacle earlier described by H olm es, F o o t seems to realise th a t there m ight be som e kind o f m istake an d asks him a b o u t w h ether it is the rig h t house, accusing him o f never having m en tion ed the fru it b ask et. H olm es, o n th e o th e r h a n d , surp rised by th e ch a n g es w hich th e ro o m h as u n d erg o n e, insists th a t th e add ress is co rrec t. H e also explains th a t the reason o f his n o t having m en tion ed the bask et was th a t “ th ere was so m u ch else” (24-26). B oth the m en en ter th e room expecting to face the bizarre reality o f the initial stage im age, which stren g th en ed th eir suspicion o f som ething ex tra o rd in ary going on. F acin g th e a ltered , n o rm al s ta te o f affairs, th ey are u n ab le to accep t it as it is a n d still try to follow th e ir earlier p re co n ce p tio n s w hich fitted th e ir schem e o f investigation. T h a t is why F o o t says:

I have reason to believe that within the last hour in this room you performed w ithout anaesthetic an illegal operation on a bold nigger minstrel about five-foot-tw o or Pakistani and that is only the beginning. (31)

T his shocking accusation soon finds exp lan atio n w hen b o th th e H arrises an d the audience gradually u n d erstan d th e m istakes com m itted first by H olm es in giving his acco u n t o f w hat he had seen h ap p e n in g in th e ro o m an d th en by the In spector in the process o f pro vidin g his ow n ex p lan a tio n fo r the situ atio n described to him by the C onstable.

T h e a b su rd ity o f In sp e c to r F o o t’s a c cu satio n sprin gs fro m several sources. O n the one h an d , it was difficult to m ak e sense o f w h a t w as going on in th e ro o m at the beginning o f the play. T h e audience w ere soon provided with a logical exp lan atio n , yet H olm es did n o t h e a r it and did n o t get any ad d itio n al in fo rm atio n . W hen the In sp ecto r was d ra w in g his conclusions he based them on an eye-w itness’s acco u n t, in o th e r w ords, n o t on the reality o f the events them selves b u t on its d escriptio n, d isto rted b o th by the individual p erception o f the w itness (H olm es) an d by th e fact th a t visual sensations h ad been tran sfo rm ed into a verbal d escrip tion . F u rth e rm o re , the In sp e cto r’s conclusions were also affected by a n o th e r eye-w itness’s acco u n t (th a t o f the elderly lady re p o rtin g th e events in P o n so n b y Place), as well as by his ow n prejudices, sho rtco m in g s and expectations. T he p re sen tatio n o f In sp ecto r F o o t’s in vestigatio n show s th e in ep titu d e o f the m eth o d s o f detection applied by him . W h a t results is a com edy o f errors caused by differences betw een consecutive d escrip tio n s o f the stran g e m an in the street given by the ch aracters. In each case th e descrip tio n is tinted by elem ents o f individual perceptio n, o b serv atio n , in te rp re ta tio n and finally by description itself, by the use o f im precise language. E ach o f these elem ents, o r consecutive stages, creates a b arrier betw een the original phen o m en o n and its im age presented by m ean s o f the description.

A ll the m isu n d erstan d in g s concerning the ho p p in g figure in P o n so n b y P lace are caused by an ab su rd incident yet find a logical ex p lan a tio n , discovered by In sp e cto r F o o t to w ard s the end o f the play. E arlier th a t d ay, he had left his car outside his house h oping he w ould be able to m o v e it to a p ark in g m eter before the traffic w arden cam e ro u n d . L ate in the evening, w hen he w oke up and started shaving, he looked o u t o f the w indow and saw H a rris’s “ ca r pulling aw ay from the only p a rk in g space in the ro a d .” H e then ra n o u t into the street, tak in g his w ife’s “ h an d b a g co n tain in g th e sm all change and her p araso l to keep o ff the rain. Being in great h aste he p u t b o th his feet into the sam e leg o f his pyjam as tro u sers. (45-46)

T h e spectacle which In sp e cto r F o o t m ad e was so e x tra o rd in a ry and unu su al th a t it attra cted the atte n tio n o f th e H arrises an d the elderly lady. T o each o f them , how ever, it represented som ething else. I he elderly lady,

according to F o o t’s acco u n t, saw

a bizarre and desperate figure. Being herself an old devotee o f minstrel show s she recognised him at once for what he was. She was even able to glimpse his broken crutch, the sort o f detail that speaks volum es to an experienced detective. (34)

I am now inclined to m odify the details inasmuch as the culprit may have been a genuine coloured man impersonating a minstrel in order to insinuate him self into the side door to the b ox office. (35)

T h e h o p p in g figure is described and sim u ltan eo u sly in te rp re te d in a n u m b er o f different, c o n tra d icto ry ways in th e course o f th e play. Som e o f the fun th u s arising is d u e to o u r tendency to classify w h at we see acco rd in g to o u r unconscious precon ception s and th u s to delud e ourselves.

T h e questio n concerning the m a n ’s iden tity causes a q u arrel betw een T h e lm a an d R eginald which takes place before the In sp e c to r’s arriv al (12-14 an d 18-21) and continues d u rin g F o o t’s investigation:

FOOT: Can you describe him?

M O TH ER : Yes. He was playing hopscotch on the corner, a man in the loose-fitting striped gabardine o f a convicted felon. H e carried a handbag under one arm, and with the other he waved at me with a cricket bat.

(FOOT reels.)

FOOT: W ould you kn ow him again?

M O T H E R : I dou bt it. H e was wearing dark glasses, and a surgical mask. (H A R R IS comes fo rw a rd to restore sanity.)

H A R R IS: M y m other is a bit confused, Inspector. It was a tortoise under his arm, and he w asn’t so much playing hopscotch as one-legged.

T H E L M A : (deftly slipping the dress over H A R R IS) A tortoise or a football - he was a young man in a football shirt

-H A R R IS: I f I m ight just stick m y oar in here, he could hardly have been a youn g man since he had a full white beard, and, if I ’m n ot m istaken, side-whiskers. . . . FOOT: So the best witness we can com e up with is a blind, w hite bearded, one-legged

footballer with a tortoise . . . (39-40)

In sp e cto r F o o t’s final sum m ing up is a co m b in atio n o f the re p o rts. It m ak es use o f details chosen at ran d o m and does n o t tak e in to ac co u n t the fact th a t they are co n tra d icto ry , presenting different d escriptio ns o f the event and th a t any o f them (o r none, as it ap p ears in th e en d) m ig h t be correct. T he differences in the descriptions result from a n u m b er o f things. O n th e one h an d , being faced w ith a bizarre, strange figure, the sp ectato rs perceive it differently. T he physical reality is tinted by subjective, p erso nal elem ents. It is som ething different to different o nloo kers. O n th e o th er h a n d , while pro viding a d escription o f it, the people try to in terp re t it, to find a logical exp lan atio n o f the seemingly ab su rd elem ents. In d o in g so, th ey m a k e use o f th e ir in d iv id u al, subjective im pression s an d em ploy lan g uage as a m eans o f describing them . S to p p a rd seems to pro v e th a t langu age can som etim es cause big m isunderstand in gs. W hile reality is open to different in terp re tatio n s (especially if it is such a stran ge, b izarre reality of the hop p in g figure), the language itself, to o , is very o ften am b ig u o u s a n d im precise. I h erefo re a sentence m ay som etim es also be o p e n to a n u m b er of different in terp retatio n s. In S to p p a rd ’s play, the am b ig u ity o f

the visual im age is accom panied by the am biguity o f verbal im ages describing it, visual puns a p p e ar side by side with verbal ones.

S to p p ard w ittily em ploys language to create confu sio n, m ak in g it clear th a t it is an im perfect tool for describing reality. Several critics have noticed the specific q u ality o f language in the play, the use o f pun s an d the fact th a t language is an in ad eq u a te m eans o f describing re ality .9 Tw ice in the play T h elm a says: “T h ere is no need to use lan g u ag e” (pp. 11 and 15). O n the on e han d , she m ay be referring to the coarse o r abusive vo cab u lary she suspects is being used (n o t ju stifiably, though). O n the o th e r h a n d , she m ig h t also be w arning against relying on language o f an y s o rt.10 T h e play repeatedly m ak es the audience aw are o f the unreliability o f language. V ery often, instead o f explaining reality, language creates a still greater confusion.

Som etim es the m isund erstan d in g s arise w hen a h o m o p h o n e p un is used as, for instance, in the sentence repeated twice by R eginald w hen he is talk in g ab o u t the strange m a n carry ing a lute w hich is m isu n d ersto o d first by T h elm a and then by In sp e cto r F o o t as “ lo o t” (20 and 40). A sim ilar play on the sou nd quality o f the w ords brings ab o u t a com ic effect w hen H a rris asks: “ Is som ething the m a tte r w ith yo u r fo o t, F o o t? In sp e c to r F o o t. . . . Y ou wish to inspect your foot, Inspecto r?” (42-43). T h e nam es o f the ch aracters also serve as a m eans o f bringing ab o u t h u m o u r an d confusion. B rian C rossley has w ritten: “ we have, in F o o t o f th e Y a rd , a school-boy pun w hich n om inally implies a ‘fla t-fo o t’ an d a sm aller u nit o f m easu rem en t w ithin a larger o n e.” 11 Police C o n sta b le’s n am e, H olm es, th ro u g h the evocation o f the fam ous S herlock H olm es, is also charged with com ic overtones. A nd, finally, T h e lm a ’s m en tio n in g o f M aig ret, the fam ou s detective o f G eo rge S im enon’s novels instead o f M ag ritte, th e p ain ter, also adds to the general confusion (36).

O n o th er occasions a given w ord or sentence is u n d ersto o d by the ch aracters as belonging to different contexts an d th u s it has different m eanings. Such is the case w ith M o th e r’s qu estio n “ Is it all rig h t lo r m e to practice?” and the answ er given by In spector F o o t: “ N o , it is n o t all right! M inistry stan d ard s m ay be lax b u t we draw the line at H o m e S urgery to bring in the little luxuries o f life” (33). W hile she is follow ing h er ow n obsession w ith playing the tu b a (she keeps asking for perm ission to d o so several tim es in the course o f the play: pp. 16, 25, 26, 27, 33 and 46), he is follow ing his tra in o f th o u g h t connected w ith the investigation and

9 Zeifm an, op. cit., pp. 89-92; Sammells, op. cit., p. 61; G abbard, op. cit., p. 3; Jenkins,

op. cit., p. 56 and K elly, op. cit., p. 88.

10 For yet another interpretation, arguing that “there is in fact n o need to use language because the sam e point has already been m ade visually" see: Zeifm an, op. cit., p. 91.

11 Brian M . Crossley, “The Investigation o f Stoppard’s ‘H ou n d ’ and ‘F o o t’,” M odern

referrin g to the surgical o p eratio n he suspects h as tak en place in th eir house before his arrival. A sim ilar situ atio n occurs w hen th e In sp e cto r asks them a b o u t th eir alibi and hears M o th e r say “ It was ru b b ish ” (37). H e ju m p s to the conclusion th a t he has finally cornered them . It so on ap p ears, how ever, th a t, again, they are talking a b o u t tw o different thing s an d th a t h er sentence does n o t refer to the alibi bu t is an ev alu atio n o f M a g ritte ’s paintings. In these cases, the tw o ch aracters are speaking as if side by side. W h a t we h ear is n o t really a co nversation b u t tw o parallel m o n olog ues w ith certain overlappings betw een them . T h e abo ve con versatio n s are, in fact, exam ples o f w hat the sem iotician K e ir E lam calls th e

flagrant contravention o f co-referential rules which is a frequent source o f com ic business, as when tw o speakers believe them selves to be referring to a single object while the audience is aware that there are distinct referents in p la y .12

Som etim es it ap p ears th a t th e choice o f p h rasin g is o f crucial im p o rtan ce fo r the m eaning. T his becom es evident w hen H a rris insists th a t the m an h ad “ a w hite stick ” and T h elm a argues it was “ an ivory c a n e ” to w hich H a rris shouts: “ A n ivory cane IS a w hite stick ” (19). P u rsu ing th eir ow n logic, the characters try to convince them selves and the o th ers th a t th eir ow n descriptions and in terp re tatio n s are the only correct ones. In this case, R eginald insists o n the thing being a w hite stick because he has argued earlier th a t the m an was blind. A n ivory cane does n o t d en o te an y th in g special w hile a w hite stick sym bolically indicates the blindness o f the person carry in g it. A s In sp ecto r F o o t’s re p o rt o f the events o f the evening m ak es clear, the thin g the m a n h ad in his han d was really w hite b u t it was n either a stick n o r a cane bu t his wife’s um brella. H e was n o t blind, either. R eg in ald ’s a tte m p t to apply logic w hen describing th e perceived reality h as b ro u g h t a b o u t com pletely w rong conclusions.

A great m an y o f th e m isund erstan d in g s which occur in the co urse o f the play result from the characters being “ victim s o f their ow n logical ab so lu tism ,” 13 o f their being en tra p p ed by th eir in terp re tativ e logic.” 14 As In sp e c to r F o o t co n tin u es his in v estig atio n he c o n sta n tly d ra w s w ro n g conclusions. I helm a, having noticed his incorrect reso lu tio n arising from his deductive m eth o d , says: “ I am prepared to defend m y self again st any logician you care to p ro d u c e ” (30). Logic m ay be useful yet it does n o t alw ays provide a convincing acco u n t o f reality. T h elm a seems to have fo rg o tten now her earlier appeal to logic w hen she argued th a t “ there

12 Keir Elam , The Sem iotics o f Theatre and D ram a (L o n d o n -N ew York: M ethuen, 1980) p. 151.

13 Keir Elam, “After M agritte, A fter Carroll, A fter W ittgenstein. W hat T om Stoppard’s T ortoise Taught Us?” , M odern Dram a 4 (1984): 476.

w ould be m o re fo o tb a lls th a n to rto ises in a b u ilt-u p a r e a ,” (19) an a rg u m e n t she used while trying to p ersuade her h u sb an d th a t th e m a n was carry in g a foo tb all and n o t a to rto ise .15

T h e p lay ’s m ain interest, then, centres on en d eav ou ring to give a logical ex p lan a tio n o f the m ysteries o f th e bizarre opening and th e inciden t in P o n so n b y Place. As the n arrativ e o f the d ra m a develops, g radu ally all the m ysteries are solved and provided with a convincing ex p lan atio n . T o w a rd s the end o f the play, In spector F o o t gives an excuse for his failure as an efficient detective: “ B ut b ear in m ind th a t m y e rro r w as m erely one o f in te rp re ta tio n ” (44). H is ju stificatio n is only p artly tru e - he was m istaken in draw in g conclusions. T h e o th er characters were also w rong w hen try ing to in terp re t the perceived reality. R eality is no t som ething fixed and defined forever. E ach o n lo o k er, viewing it from his ow n perspective, will afterw ard s define it differently. T h e final d escription o f reality, th en , is affected by the on lo o k er. In the process it m a tte rs w hat he is, w h a t he pays a tte n tio n to, w hat he notices, and w hat language he em ploys for his description . M o reo v er, the listener him self m ay have his ow n in te rp re ta tio n o f the given p h en o m en o n . E ach p erson m ay react to a d escriptio n in a slightly differen t way, ju st as actual onlo o k ers react differently to con crete reality w hich they see with th eir ow n eyes. T his could m ean, one m ig ht argue, th a t th ere is n o possibility o f defining reality at all. T h e conclusion o f the play, how ever, seems to be different. T h e final stage im age is explicable, logical and self-evident. T h e play ends w ith a bizarre scene, a n o th e r version o f the opening pose, yet the audience now are fully aw are o f th e m eaning o f each detail. W h a t m ig h t ap p e ar to be an ab su rd , bizarre spectacle is, in fact, an intelligible scene o f dom estic activity, or to p u t it in R eg in ald ’s w ords “ T h e activities in this room to d ay have broadly speaking been o f a m u n d a n e a n d dom estic n a tu re bo rd erin g on cliché” (44). E verything, also the in ter­ p re ta tio n o f reality, d epends on the a m o u n t and kind o f in fo rm atio n one is provided w ith. T hings w hich seem to be irra tio n a l m igh t have som e ra tio n a le after all.

O ne thing m o re should be discussed here, nam ely the title o f th e play. It m ay be interp reted in a n u m b er o f different, yet n o t c o n tra d ic to ry ways. F irstly, the events o f the play tak e place after the H a rrise s’s visit to an exhibition o f R ené M a g ritte ’s paintings. In this sense, the w ord “ afte r has a strictly chronological m eaning in connection w ith the events o f the day. Secondly, the play com es “ after M a g ritte ” in an ico n o g rap h ie sense, by the w ay o f pseud o-painterly q u o ta tio n (as in ‘after L eo n ard o ) 16, w hich is

15 A gain both o f them are mistaken because what he actually had w as his w ife’s purse with change for the parking meter.

clearly visible in the opening stage im age rem iniscent o f L ’assassin menacé an d also in the re p ro d u ctio n on the stage o f certain m o tifs from M a g ritte ’s p a in tin g s.11 T h ird ly , the play m ay be also treated as a kind o f response to surrealism . A nd finally, the d ra m a was w ritten after M a g ritte ’s w ork was established in the collective im agination. It m ay be arg ued , th a t while S to p p a rd ’s play starts with a surrealistic stage im age, later o n all the surrealism dissolves while the audience is provided w ith a logical and re aso n ab le ex p la n a tio n .18

R ené M ag ritte, a Belgian p ain ter (1898-1967), w hose w o rk is c h a ra c ­ terised by fidelity o f real detail bu t unreality o f th e scene depicted, kep t q uestio n in g b o th the n a tu re o f reality as such and its percep tio n and re p resen ta tio n . H e used everyday, fam iliar objects in such a w ay as to evoke som eth ing unfam iliar, m ysterious. Suzi G a b lik writes: “ F o r M ag ritte, p ain tin g was a m eans to evoke a m eta-reality w hich w ould tran scen d o u r know ledge o f the phenom enal w orld. H e referred to it contin u ally as ‘th e m y stery ’ a b o u t w hich it is im possible to speak, since on e can be only seized by it.” 19 T h e question o f reality is strictly connected w ith th a t o f perception. I f reality is a m ystery in itself it is even m o re so while being perceived. T h u s, then, M ag ritte tries to revise o u r sense o f reality an d the reliability o f o u r perceptions concerning it. T h e objective reality can be perceived only in a subjective way. In th e process o f p ercep tio n reality loses its ob jectiv ity an d becom es d o m in a te d by o u r su bjectiv ity. T h e im possibility o f know ing objective reality, the fact th a t it presents a dif­ ferent im age to different people is a recu rrent them e o f S to p p a rd ’s plays. A lso in A fte r M agritte the fact th a t the ch aracters give d ifferent d escrip ­ tio n s an d in terp re tatio n s o f perceived reality results from th eir individual, subjective bias, from d iffe ren t perspectives fro m w hich th ey view th e s u rro u n d in g w orld.

A n o th e r set o f problem s discussed by M ag ritte concerns th e qu estio n o f representing the reality by m ean s o f iconic painting. O ne o f his fa v o u rite them es is a picture w ithin a picture expressing in visual term s th e re p resen ­

17 For a discussion o f these see: ibid/, Leonard G oldstein, “A N o te on T om Stoppard’s

A fter M agritte," Z eitschrift fu r A nglistik und Am erikanistic 23 (1975): 19 and Stephen H u, Tom Stoppard's Stagecraft (N ew York: Peter Lang, 1989), p. 77.

18 The difference between the disorderly, illogical im ages presented in M agritte’s paintings and the rationality o f the ones in Stoppard’s play has been stressed by: Richard Corballis,

M y ste ry and the C lockw ork (Oxford: Amber Lane Press Ltd, 1984), p. 57; Joan Fitzpatrick

D ea n , Tom Stoppard. Com edy as a M oral M a trix (C olum bia-L ondon: U niversity o f M issouri Press, 1981), pp. 51-53; G oldstein, op. cit., pp. 20-21; H u, op. cit., p. 69; Jenkins, op. cit., p. 54; K elly, op. cit., pp. 89-90; Sam m ells, op. cit., p. 60 and T hom as R. W hitaker, Tom

S to p p a rd (London: M acm illan Press, 1986), p. 78.

ta tio n a l statu s o f a rt and the tension betw een reality and illusion. In several paintings M ag ritte has explored the relationship betw een a real object and the pain ted illusion. The H um an Condition I, for instance, is the p a in te r’s a tte m p t to d em o n strate the relationsh ip betw een a three-dim en sion al space and its tw o-dim ensional represen tatio n on a canvas. M a g ritte h im self has com m ented on the picture:

I placed in front o f a w indow , seen from inside a room , a painting representing that part o f the landscape which was hidden from view by the painting. Therefore, the tree represented in the painting hid from view the tree situated behind it, outside the room . It existed for the spectator, as it were, as both inside the room in the painting, and outside in the real landscape.20

In a n o th e r p a in tin g o f th e sam e kind, The W a terfa ll, th e p ic tu re show s a forest w ith a canvas on an easel placed am o n g the trees. In this case the re p resen ta tio n is n o t superim posed o n reality b u t is situated w ithin it. T h e ju x ta p o sitio n brings ab o u t th e sam e n otio n: the im age is n o t the sam e as the thing, an illusion o f reality is d ifferent from the reality itself. In stressing th e presen tatio n al ch aracter o f his paintin gs, in m a k in g th em self-reflexive by m ean s o f p resen tin g a p a in tin g w ith in a painting, M a g ritte ’s a rt is sim ilar to th a t o f S to p p a rd w ho co n stan tly stresses the m etath ea trical q u ality o f his plays by using a play w ithin a play.

R ené M ag ritte has dealt w ith the rep resen tatio n al ch a rac te r n o t only o f iconic signs bu t also o f linguistic ones. H e has rem arked th a t “ N o object is so attached to its nam e th a t a n o th e r c a n n o t be fo un d w hich suits it b e tte r.” 21 H e has pain ted a series concerned w ith relatio n sh ip s betw een iconic and linguistic represen tatio n s o f objects, The K ey o f D ream s, which presents fo u r pictures o f objects accom panied by labels. T h e th ree first icons have incorrect labels beneath them , only in the case o f th e fo u rth the icon and the n am e co rrespon d. In The Use o f W ords I M ag ritte presents an icon o f a pipe u n d er which th ere is an in scrip tio n saying: “T h is is n o t a p ip e.” T h is pain tin g is d ou bly paradoxical - everyone lo o k in g at the p icture sees th a t it presents a pipe so there is no need for labelling. F u rth e rm o re , the label denies w hat the viewer perceives as a pipe is actu ally a pipe, p o in tin g o u t th a t it is only an illusion, a re p resen ta tio n o f reality an d n o t re ality itself. In these pictu res M a g ritte h a s in v estig ated th e im perfect and im precise attem p ts o f rendering reality in b o th p icto rial term s (im ages) an d linguistic ones (words). H e has discussed the sam e prob lem

20 R ené M agritte quoted in G ablik, op. cit., p. 97.

21 The Catalogue o f an Exhibition o f Paintings b y René M agritte, The Arts Council and the T ate G allery, 1969, publ.: London: The Arts CouncU, 1969, p. 28, quoted in: G oldstein,

in an essay dealing w ith problem s o f b o th picto rial an d linguistic system s o f re p resen ta tio n , L es m o ts et les im ages.22

Sum m ing up, one m ust adm it th a t the play fully deserves its title. S to p p a rd , ju s t like M a g ritte , deals w ith reality as such , th e view er’s p erceptions o f it, the confusion b ro u g h t ab o u t by an im p ro p er u n d e r­ stan d in g o f an iconic o r linguistic sign. J o h n F itz p a tric k D e an h as a r ­ gued the possibility o f the play being a reaction ag ain st su rre alism .23 I t is tru e th a t w hile fo r M a g ritte th e w orld is m y sterio u s an d inex ­ plicable and the m eaning o f sim ple things is foreshadow ed by their in ­ h eren t m ystery, fo r S to p p a rd , at least in this play, everything finds its logical and ra tio n a l ex p lan a tio n . Y et fo r b o th o f th em , even th o u g h they lo o k a t the m a tte r from o p p o site poles, as it w ere, th in g s are n o t w hat they ap p ear to be. S to p p ard shares still a n o th e r fe atu re w ith M ag ritte. B oth o f them create a specific kind o f visual and verbal jo ke. S to p p a rd him self m entioned his fascination w ith the w ork o f R en é M a ­ g ritte w hen he said: “ W h en I en c o u n te red his p a in tin g s I re sp o n d e d to their h u m o u r im m ediately and I enjoyed his jo k es and I also liked th e fact th a t he pain ted things very carefully.” H e has also com m ented on the q u ality o f M a g ritte ’s h u m o u r speaking a b o u t “ his jok es a b o u t m irro rs, his jo k es ab o u t scale.” 24 In O ctob er 1970, so a few m o n th s afte r the first p ro d u c tio n o f A fte r M a gritte, he w rote a review o f Suzi G a b lik ’s m o n o g ra p h on th e Belgian painter. In this review, entitled Jo k er

as A rtist, he wrote:

But the one om ission which I find incom prehensible is any acknow ledgem ent o f the fact that the m an’s technically perfect execution is crucial to the im pact o f his ideas. . . . [when M agritte] wished to remind us that you can’t sm oke a painting o f a pipe, [he] was able to paint one so sm ooth, so w ood y, so rounded, so perfect that you could, as they say, sm oke it; and thus made the idea work.25

S to p p a rd , th en , perceives M ag ritte as a g reat artist w ho plays w ith the rules o f reality/illusion b u t can also be successfully m im etic. A n d this is finally w here R ené M ag ritte and T o m S to p p a rd m eet. B oth o f them are n o t only jo k ers b u t also tru e artists.

D epartm ent o f Studies in English D ram a and Poetry U niversity o f Ł ódź

22 G ablik, op. tit., qu otes the essay in full, pp. 138-140. 23 D ean , op. tit., p. 53.

24 Joost K uurm an, “A n Interview with T om Stoppard,” Dutch Q u arterly Review o f Anglo-

American L etters 10 (1980): 55-56.

25 T om Stoppard, “Joker as Artist. Review o f M a g ritte by Suzi G ablik ,” The Sunday

Jadwiga Uchman

SŁ O W A I O BRAZY : A F TE R M A G R IT T E T O M A STO PPA I* I)A

N ie jest sprawą przypadkową, iż T om Stoppard zainteresował się m alarstwem René M agritte’a i że nadał jednem u ze sw oich dram atów tytuł A fter M agritte. Belgijski artysta zajm ow ał się zagadnieniam i dotyczącym i m ożliwości artystycznego przedstawienia konkretnej rzeczywistości przy p om ocy słów i obrazów. Problemy te są również jednym z przewodnich m otyw ów twórczości Stopparda.

A fter M a gritte rozpoczyna się z pozoru surrealistycznym obrazem scenicznym , który

ew okuje skojarzenia z obrazem M agritte’a L'assassin menacé, jak również z początkiem Tanga Sławom ira M rożka, sztuki, którą Stoppard tłum aczył na język angielski. W miarę rozwoju akcji i informacji płynących z dialogu postaci scenicznych p oczątkow y surrealistyczny obraz przekształca się w zrozum iałą scenkę z życia rodziny Harrisów. Sytuacja sceniczna zamykająca dram at osob ie niewtajemniczonej m ogłaby się wydawać rówm e nierealna. Tym razem jednak w idzow ie byli naocznym i świadkam i jej tw orzenia i dokładnie znają przyczyny pow stania niecodziennego, surrealistycznego obrazu.

Sztuka zajmuje się rów nież innym obrazem, który ukazał się oczom kilku św iadków wcześniej, tego sam ego dnia. W tym przypadku ważny jest nie tylko sam obraz (surrealistyczny jak towarzysząca mu sytuacja), ale również jego przekształcenie poprzez interpretacje in­ dyw idualnych odbiorców i użycie języka jako niedoskonałego, jak się okazuje, narzędzia służącego opisow i postrzeganej rzeczywistości.