Rough for Theatre II

Play (Script), circa 1960

Premise - Two bureaucratic men debate whether a third man, standing on a ledge, should be allowed to kill himself. As if on trial, the two men review witness testimonies and documents before making their final ruling.


Review - I just reviewed a few other Beckett plays, Endgame and An Act Without Words, and wrote about how I am not traditionally a Beckett fan. I only read Endgame because Daniel Radcliffe recently starred in a production of it in London, and An Act Without Words because it came with my copy of Endgame. Similarly, Rough for Theatre II was recently in a double bill with Endgame, also starring Daniel Radcliffe, and so I had to dot all my i's and cross my t's. I found a pdf for free online because it is a very short play and not very well sought after.

But hello??? This is the best Beckett play I've ever read and one that I genuinely enjoy??? I would have loved to see this live?? Why is this not more popular?? I read through Waiting for Godot, and I'm like, I get the point about why this is such an important piece of theater but I don't care for it myself. Finally, I found a piece where I can say I am a Beckett fan.

So what changed? Was it simply the topic of suicide? Other Beckett plays less tangible topics - cyclical existence, free will, etc. But in this play you see a man, on stage in front of you, with his life at stake. There is a greater sense of urgency to the play. It's such an interesting idea to have two men who don't even know this man decide the fate of his life, but hey, it happens all the time in our justice system. It was also just clever comparing suicide to the justice system, as if a certain combination of right and wrong actions can be worth a death sentence. As the play alludes to, and as I firmly believe, no wrong behavior can make someone worthy of premature death. Anything you do or say does not make you more or less deserving of suicide because, quite frankly, no one deserves to die by suicide. It's also interesting though the implication that neither of these two men are sentencing this man to death indirectly. They are just deciding not to intervene and save the man, who will likely jump on his own accord. So then it begs the question of whether it's on society to save others, and do certain acts make society more or less willing to help someone.

Or was it not only the topic but the way in which it was written? The dialogue felt less abstract, and more direct. I could follow the story. There was still a heavy amount of symbolic stage direction, but there was also decent emphasis on telling a straightforward narrative in comparison to other Beckett plays.

Either way I will remember this play favorably. (73/100)

Quote - "To hear him talk about his life, after a glass or two, you would have thought he had never set foot outside hell."

What to read/watch for - Well anyone who got to see Daniel Radcliffe perform this live... I am extraordinarily jealous.

If you liked this play, I'd recommend Act Without Words!

Written by Samuel Beckett
Published by Grove Press