The Bald Soprano

In The Bald Soprano, Ionesco uses farce, nonsense, and non-sequitur clichés to critique social conventions, the alienation of modern society, and the struggle to meaningfully communicate. The dialogue of the play reflects the stilted and artificial language of an English primer that famously inspired Ionesco’s writing, and in the context of “everyday life,” Ionesco illustrates just how meaningless such language is. As language is the primary way meaning is created and determines phenomena like social conventions, identity, and human connection, The Bald Soprano highlights just how tenuous and arbitrary such phenomena are, despite how meaningful they are purported to be.

The play begins as an over-the-top, clichéd depiction of a traditional, cozy, middle-class, English evening passed between husband and wife, which sets the tone for the parody of The Bourgeoisie and Social Conventions. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are both comfortably resting in their “English” armchairs partaking in a gender-normative domestic ritual where the wife chatters away about dinner and gossip while the husband silently grunts and reads the newspaper. The “Englishness” of this scene is emphasized by repetition of the word “English” in both the stage directions and opening lines, from the “English interior” of the Smiths’ home, to the “English clock” striking “17 English strokes,” and the “English water” consumed by the children. The Smiths have just enjoyed a satisfying dinner, a luxury afforded them because they “live in the suburbs of London and because our name is Smith” (8-9). Despite this hyper-specific English setting, Ionesco claimed his satire is not a direct statement on English society, but rather a universal parody of the bourgeois everywhere. The emphasis on “Englishness” here and throughout the play can therefore be seen as a comment on the formation of any specific cultural identity and conformity to their cultural norms—particularly those mindless niceties and social rituals practiced by the middle-class.

In these opening moments, there are some strange elements afoot that signal that things aren’t quite as straightforward as they appear—such as the clock striking 17 times to say it’s nine o’clock or Mrs. Smith informing Mr. Smith of banal details he should already know, like what they have just eaten, where they live, or what their surname is. Despite the dialogue focused on unimportant details, the play more or less starts out in a world that seems logical and familiar: A couple chats while they await the arrival of friends.  

The odd, but somewhat logical progression of the Smiths’ conversation shifts at the mention of Bobby Watson. Contradictory and nonsense facts—such as whether Bobby Watson’s death has just been announced or whether he died two, three, or four years ago—signal the play’s style as one following that of Absurdity and the Collapse of Language and Meaning. Facts and numbers don’t add up, including the illogical statement that Mr. and Mrs. Bobby Watson look similar due to their shared name: “Since they both had the same name, you could never tell one from the other when you saw them” (12). However, Mr. and Mrs. Smith never question the progression, repetition, or revision of their discussion and accept these contradictions. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are not just eccentric characters who defy logic; they explicitly define the world of the play as one both similar and yet notably dissimilar from that of the audience. In particular, the characters resist the logic of the Theatre of the Absurd which encourages a “willing suspension of disbelief” (“Suspense of Disbelief.” Oxford Reference) in audience members as they trust the logical boundaries of the world created on stage. By first rooting the audience in a world that seems somewhat logical and familiar, then gradually building in more and more moments of absurd logic, Ionesco creates a sense of disintegrating meaning and a growing disconnect in the way characters communicate that will continue throughout the play.

The arrival of the Martins shifts the play further into absurdity with a focus on Alienation, Identity, and Human Connection. Once the Martins come inside, their dialogue upends audience expectations for a couple as they claim to not know one another. This strange encounter where the Martins use deductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that they must be together is an exaggerated parody of social alienation and lack of true human connection. Despite being married, the Martins fail to recognize each other and the many memories and spaces they share—from the train ride from Manchester to London, to their apartment and bedroom, to even their own daughter. Despite going through day-to-day life together, they seem to fail to take in the other’s existence. And then, once they realize they are spouses, they are able to disregard their lack of shared memories and connection and comfortably settle into a nap together. It is enough for them to know they are, by definition rather than through a sense of personal identity, an intimate couple. They seem to have no need for connection beyond language and are content to forget “all that has not passed between us” (19). In this way, Ionesco comments on the surface-level nature of identity and relationships.

The surface-level nature of identity and human connection is further critiqued as Mary reveals that, unbeknownst to the Martins, they are not truly husband and wife. Despite their deductive logic, they have not come to some truth, which challenges the notion of logic as a solution to the world’s nonsense. This furthers the point that in this alienated society, shared experiences and connection matter less than social labels—here, the Martins are content believing themselves to be a married couple, even though this is a false assumption. Meaning seems to come from language rather than from any actual experience.

Such a significant reveal about the nature of the Martins’ relationship also continues the critique of The Bourgeoisie and Social Conventions as the politeness that initially defines their behavior becomes rather a sign of foolishness. The Martins will not announce their arrival until Mary the maid is present to let them in, but this decision causes them to be late and force the Smiths to wait. Importantly, the Martins’ dependence on Mary and Mary’s knowledge of the Martins’ real identities suggests that the bourgeoisie is dependent on the working class and unintelligent beneath the signs of class.