The Enquiry Office: theatre of the absurd

“The term refers to a particular type of play which first became popular during the 1950s and 1960s and which presented on stage the philosophy articulated by French philosopher Albert Camus in his 1942 essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, in which he defines the human condition as basically meaningless. Camus argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd.”  — Jerome P. Crabb

The Enquiry Office is considered an example of absurdist theatre, yet it certainly asks questions of us (the audience) that we should find inspirational. This production is inspirational for several reasons. Firstly, because I want to brush up on my French. Then I’d be able to read the play in its original language. Secondly, I’d like to track down a copy of the translation by Commandeur dans l’Ordre des Palmes academiques, Professor Colin Duckworth. I want to see the American vs. European -isms of the Man’s and Woman’s lines, respectively. Finally, I’d love to sit down with director Assen Gadjalouv and the cast to ask, “why?”

The play takes place in an Enquiry Office at a train station. There is a Man and a Woman: “HE” works there, “SHE” does not. That’s the framework Jean Tardieu’s script sets out before it goes off to examine the conditions of human life. While I was able to extract a few themes (the translator’s note gave me an idea of what to listen for), seeking them out was easier done with eyes closed. 1st Theme:  The Man who has attained “top of the ladder” status vs. the Woman who is simply “cut out for dreaming.” This idea of having achieved a level of success seems to be HIS prime motivating aspect. HE has a steady job as the Enquiry Officer, HE knows what is going on, HE is in charge. SHE, on the opposite side, is lost, unsure how to proceed and unable to make any decisions pertaining to herself. Through their conversations we are supposed to recognize this struggle within ourselves.  2nd Theme: fear of death (the unknown) vs. love of life (the familiar). When SHE asks about the future, HE replies that SHE “will die when she leaves” the office. SHE seeks to stay, thus avoiding her impending doom. What should be a discussion about the desperation of humans trying to cling to that which they know, is lost in a staging device that plays on a 3rd theme: alienation vs. inclusion. There was an interesting moment when SHE broke the fourth wall and sat among the audience; but then SHE was right back in the play and the moment…well, maybe it worked. I’m still thinking about it obviously.   

Yes I know the play is absurdist. And yes, I know I’ll have to look for my own answers. I also know the performers must already have theirs. If they do, then the director must find a way to clarify them for us. Even though it looked great visually, and the physical aspects intrigued me, this production creates more confusion than contemplation.

For more information make enquires here and also start debating while you're there.