Do3 - Glass Chair Chair Glass

[french frank]

I did think twice about using the phrase 'of limited talents', but decided that that wasn't quite the same as 'of limited talent'. I meant that his talents were restricted in kind rather than that his comedy talent was limited. But perhaps I'm wrong on that too. He seemed to want to perform in an Ionesco play but had walked into something which was a total puzzle (as it was for me a lot of the time).

Yes, perhaps also escaping from his complicated domestic situation.

[french frank]

Obviously she meant it to have a humour that transcended that grim reality, but it didn't work for me.

She says: "I saw a production of Ionesco’s Chairs and realised that not only was it funny, life was pretty much like that- people coming in and out talking nonsense, turning into animals and talking some more nonsense." Erm, sort of .

The cast seemed to think it was very funny. Much as I felt she did sometimes capture O'Nolan's humour, here there were moments of absurd chaos. But only moments. And I'd love someone who got more out of it to come and explain!

[aeolium]

I think the ending was intended to be redemptive, the character Ionesco's words "falling off the cliff into sunshine" perhaps a metaphor for the comedian who generates laughter despite - or indeed out of - his inability to cope with the chaos in the world and his own life. What weakened the play for me was that it was so anchored in Cooper's miserable reality (even though realistic drama was one of the things Ionesco opposed) and brought out so little of his gift for comedy. There have been lots of plays which delve into the flawed lives of comedians and it seems a fatal temptation for dramatists - it rarely illuminates what is unique in the comedy.

I am usually an admirer of Allan Corduner's radio work but he was wasted here. And those accents, especially of the women! It sounded like something out of Inspector Clouseau or 'Allo 'Allo....

Oh well, someone must have liked it.

[french frank]

And those accents, especially of the women! It sounded like something out of Inspector Clouseau or 'Allo 'Allo....

I did assume that that was part of the notion of the absurd - and funny in the way Clouseau was (absurdly) funny.

Oh well, someone must have liked it.

At least it's provoking discussion - much better than the plays that pass completely without comment.

I think there is a dramatic point to the intertwining of real and absurd, with Miff the voice of practicality forcing his way into the world of the intellectual absurd. On Cooper's comedy, doesn't it imply that his brand of comedy had the essence of the absurd and if taken further it could become indistinguishable from Ionesco's? It's the connection between Cooper's - almost sordid - real life and his comedy that I find it harder to see. Perhaps the meaninglessness and chaos of his private life, though, since he was a drunkard, some sort of chaos seems inevitable, even 'rational'.

[aeolium]

On Cooper's comedy, doesn't it imply that his brand of comedy had the essence of the absurd and if taken further it could become indistinguishable from Ionesco's?

Maybe, but I don't think Cooper's brand of comedy could ever have been taken further to the point where it became indistinguishable from Ionesco's (if indeed you can call Ionesco's comedy). The absurdity in Cooper's jokes was playful, often just playing on language and not inviting the spectator to think beyond the punchline; with Ionesco the sinisterly ludicrous situations are developed to the point where the audience is disturbed by what is happening or what may be about to happen. The two types of absurdity are imo irreconcilable.

[french frank]

Maybe, but I don't think Cooper's brand of comedy could ever have been taken further to the point where it became indistinguishable from Ionesco's (if indeed you can call Ionesco's comedy).

Perhaps it is worth listening again - because that was, I think, the point I was arguing: about Cooper's limitations, and/but the fact that he dreamt of taking part in 'drama' (have I misremembered? - I thought that was what he said). Not so much merging with Ionesco's absurd as participating in one of his plays? A bit more down to earth, but still beyond him.

[aeolium]

That's why I thought the play was misconceived. AFAIK Caulfield's idea that Cooper wished to perform in one of Ionesco's plays (which I think does crop up in GCCG) is not based on any evidence, but it is just something to support the play's conceit. As to his talents being restricted to a particular field, I think that's true of many outstanding performers or artists - very few in history have had exceptional talent in more than one field.

Cooper's final performance, in which he died of a heart attack during an act that was being broadcast live on TV, is perhaps more appropriate for the ending of a Ionesco play, especially as other performers and the audience thought that his collapse was part of the act.

[french frank]

Cooper's final performance, in which he died of a heart attack during an act that was being broadcast live on TV, is perhaps more appropriate for the ending of a Ionesco play, especially as other performers and the audience thought that his collapse was part of the act.

Yes, if it doesn't sound callous (I apologise if it does), that seems like a missed trick.

On the other hand, I may give it another llisten before the Corneille on Sunday. Who asks Radio 3 to be easy listening!?

[Lateralthinking1]

This thread has encouraged me to to listen to the play. On finding it hard to see a connection between difficulties in life and humour, surely the two are so closely connected - Tony Hancock, Kenneth Williams, Spike Milligan, John Cleese, John Le Mesurier, Phil Silvers, Peter Sellers......the list of comedians who have had significant problems in their lives is almost endless.

[Chris Newman]

This thread has encouraged me to to listen to the play. On finding it hard to see a connection between difficulties in life and humour, surely the two are so closely connected - Tony Hancock, Kenneth Williams, Spike Milligan, John Cleese, John Le Mesurier, Phil Silvers, Peter Sellers......the list of comedians who have had significant problems in their lives is almost endless.

Which is why Russ Abbott turned to acting as he prefers being other people to trying to look at himself too often. Funny, I heard him say that once.

[french frank]

I've listened to the first half hour again, but it sounded - astonishingly! - pretty much the same as it sounded first time. Aeolium made the point in Msg #18 about other plays dealing with the flawed lives of comedians, but where exactly is the focal point of this play? Ionesco invites him over to Paris: is it incidental that they discuss the 'plot' of The Chairs or does that connect more closely with what the play is saying?

[Lateralthinking1]

.........I found it easy to follow and quite enjoyed it. Russ Abbot's portrayal of Cooper was nothing less than brilliant. I did look for deep meaning but couldn't find it. That left me feeling a little hollow but relieved in a way that there wasn't more to it. This is probably how Cooper should have felt to have been happier and it is almost what his act did for his audience. It enabled them to escape from their serious concerns temporarily into a realm of the amusingly absurd.

This is not to say that I didn't have observations about the play. Critical comedy can be dark. Other comedy that revels in what some might view as unacceptable generally has a sinister element. It is always about division and often about a comedian's need for aggressive control. Generally it is a cop out from responsibility. Cooper was always acceptable to a family audience. That may not have been a conscious decision. Still, it meant that he was inclined to self-restraint in his profession. This shows a seriousness of intention. It was also probably a burden for him and others in his life.

I too thought that there was 'Allo 'Allo in the French setting. The more serious those characters became in aspiration, the more absurd they sounded. They were trapped in Cooper's own condition.

Given his background, the Ionescu figure was understandably attracted to Cooper's apparent lightness, particularly where it appeared that it could be accommodated in what might be termed serious absurdity. He found though that it couldn't be housed there fully because it had to be a counterpoint to something else. That, of course, was Cooper senior's fecklessness and then the comedian's domestic violence and aggression through drink against himself. Those were effectively the closed doors.

The agent Miff was the darkest character. He employed a moral voice to say to Cooper that he had responsibilities to him, his wife and his audience. He also knew that the comedian did as much as he could do without having the help, the time or the scope to sort himself out. The constraints he placed on him - that "don't go off on the seriously absurd" - were all about raking in money. He probably saw the jaunt as a gamble that would lead to financial ruin, thereby repeating the errors of Cooper's father, when Cooper generally viewed that history askew. The sadness is in the fact that Miff was right. It is that mechanism which made others happy while for Cooper it wasn't enough. At the end, the audience is encouraged to think fondly enough of Cooper but as light.

[aeolium]

On finding it hard to see a connection between difficulties in life and humour, surely the two are so closely connected - Tony Hancock, Kenneth Williams, Spike Milligan, John Cleese, John Le Mesurier, Phil Silvers, Peter Sellers......the list of comedians who have had significant problems in their lives is almost endless.

Lat, I'm sure they are closely connected - and you could add the great Peter Cook to that list. All I was saying was that plays or docudramas which focus on the problems in those comedians' lives are nearly always dull and unilluminating about what made their work so funny - I cannot recall one that was anything but a pale shadow of the real performances given by the comics.

where exactly is the focal point of this play? Ionesco invites him over to Paris: is it incidental that they discuss the 'plot' of The Chairs or does that connect more closely with what the play is saying?

IIRC, I didn't think in the play Ionesco did invite Cooper over at that time (possibly earlier) but Cooper was just fleeing one of his domestic situations. His agent expected him to be in one of the pub haunts near where he was living in England, and his wife clearly didn't expect him to be going anywhere far. Ionesco happened to be rehearsing Chairs and thought Cooper's absurd comedy would fit in well so it was tried out. As it happens, Cooper can't really work without a script or knowing what is supposed to happen and the rehearsal rather peters out.

Looking at the plot of Chairs, I can't really see any connection with Cooper's own life, and I'm a bit mystified as to why the playwright chose this particular play.

[french frank]

IIRC, I didn't think in the play Ionesco did invite Cooper over at that time (possibly earlier) but Cooper was just fleeing one of his domestic situations. His agent expected him to be in one of the pub haunts near where he was living in England, and his wife clearly didn't expect him to be going anywhere far.

Ionesco did write to him and perhaps I read too much into TC's comment that if Ionesco wasn't at home 'he could stay in a hotel'.

His wife did think it was something 'different' because she saw him packing his small black case and had concluded he wouldn't do that if he was just 'going out'. (That came in the first 30 minutes, so I heard it again last night!)

I wonder whether The Chairs was chosen to give a good title? Glass Rhinoceros Rhinoceros Glass? Not quite as catchy!

[Lateralthinking1]

Now, most dentist's chairs go up and down, don't they? The one I was in went back and forwards. I thought 'This is unusual'. And the dentist said to me 'Mr Cooper, get out of the filing cabinet.'

http://www.loadeddice.co.uk/features/tommycooperoneliners.htm