“Our Skin is Trouble”

How does Athol Fugard utilize the conventions of avant-garde theater in his drama Sizwe Bansi is
Dead to convey the struggle for identity and equality for Black South Africans during Apartheid?

English A Higher Level Essay

Word Count: 1500

How does Athol Fugard utilize the conventions of avant-garde theater in his drama Sizwe Bansi is
Dead to convey the struggle for identity and equality for Black South Africans during Apartheid?

Outrageous circumstances sometimes inspire atypical art. Such is the case with Sizwe
Bansi is Dead, a play co-written by Athol Fugard, John Kani, and Winston Ntshona first performed
by the latter two in Cape Town, South Africa in 1972. The playwrights utilized avant-garde theater
techniques to communicate their ideas about the realities of Black South Africans struggling for an
identity under an oppressive Apartheid regime. In his 1960 journal article for the Tulane Drama
Review, American playwright Eugene Ionesco defined avant-garde theater “in terms of opposition
and rupture'' and that an avant-garde playwright “feels his running counter to his time” (Ionesco,
45). Starting in the late 19th century, avant-garde theater challenged the conventions of standard
Western theater in terms of structure, content, and the role of the audience. (Understanding
Avant-Garde) Set during Apartheid, Fugard’s play exposes the detrimental effects of
discriminatory systems on black identity. Fugard, Kani, and Ntshona utilize techniques of
avant-garde theater such as improvisation, minimal transitions and stagecraft, and exaggerated
storytelling for the purpose of conveying the struggle for identity and equality for Black South
Africans during Apartheid.
Improvisation, a feature foreign to conventional drama, was used to engage audiences in
social commentary and also help the playwrights avoid prosecution during the political censorship
in 1970s South Africa. The play opens with a monologue by Styles, who reads aloud and reacts to
stories in the newspaper. Using the newspaper as a prop, Styles reads aloud to the audience,
“American politics. Nixon and his votes. Means bugger-all to us” (Fugard 149). In performance, the
actor improvised much of his newspaper vignette using the most recent news (Wertheim 80).
Fugard thus integrates this avant-garde spontaneity and fluidity from the very beginning to ensure
that Styles's social commentary - and that of the entire play - is consistently relevant. Thus,
through this improvisation, the audience understands what the play is about right now. This serves
his aim to incite change against the focal point of the play–the current sufferings brought by
Apartheid. Styles clearly articulates the struggle for equality and identity as Black South Africans
have little say in politics. Live audiences cannot dismiss discrimination as an issue of the past. This
again is the new role of the audience that defines avant-garde theater. Fugard reminds audiences
that they are all stakeholders in the glaring oppression of black South Africans. Moreover,
improvisation served a second purpose of minimizing the writers’ accountability for candid
opinions presented on controversial topics. Indeed, in another loosely-scripted scene in front of
Sky’s place, the local speakeasy in the townships, a drunk Sizwe declares, “Ciskeian independence
is shit.” (Fugard 157) This allusion to the South African government’s cruel illusion of freedom and
quasi-independence for the black homeland of Ciskei, accompanied by expletives and harsh
diction led to the detention of the two actors (Fugard 178; 193). Both live and modern audiences
with an awareness of improvisation understand and feel the intimacy and immediacy created and
how it shows the struggle for identity in Apartheid South Africa.
In addition to improvisation, Sizwe Bansi is Dead also uses the avant-garde feature of
minimal scene transitions and limited props and set which again serve the purpose of displaying
the bleak realities of black South Africans. Styles’ exposition-packed monologue is delivered in its
entirety without a change in set or lighting and Styles transitions seamlessly from one vignette to
the next, from working at the Ford Factory to establishing a photo studio to witnessing the death
of his father. These ambiguous progressions between scenes mirror the eternal disorientation and
listlessness that haunts blacks under Apartheid laws. There is no escape as they struggle to find
their identity in a system that treats them as less than human. Specifically, the Pass Laws pushed
black South Africans out of major cities into poor living conditions and heavily restricted their
mobility for work and life. Butnu, a black character who acts as a mentor to Sizwe, summarizes
that “the only time we’ll find peace is when they….press our face into the earth” (Fugard 176). For
the duration of the play, Fugard immerses multiracial audiences in the same instability in order to
garner an empathetic resistance to the inhumanity of Apartheid. The minimal set and props also
help to symbolize barren black lives. Buntu’s house in New Brighton is characterized only by a
table and two chairs (169). The minimal set helps facilitate the quick transitions to other scenes.
These transitions are marked by three unique devices; a voice-over narration by Sizwe as he reads
aloud a letter to his wife Nowetu; the use of lighting that simulates a flashbulb; a display of a
photograph of Sizwe, presumably taken by Styles. These three markers, all unusual and
avant-garde, help to show Sizwe’s constant struggle for his own identity. With the minimalist set,
the actors communicate their settings through gestures instead, embodying Fugard’s message
that “we own nothing but ourselves.” (163). Audiences experience for themselves the lonely and
meaningless lives of black South Africans in an oppressive regime that has uprooted them and
stripped them of their identity.
While the minimalist plot and seamless transitions help to emphasize black lives and black
identity, the exaggerated storytelling techniques such as switching between characters help to
underscore the importance of “acting a role” for black South Africans’ survival. This also helps to
foster an intricate bond with the audience and not let them “off the hook” for their own role in
systemic oppression. In a flashback to the Ford Factory, Styles recounts his role as a translator
between his Africaner boss Bradley and Xhosa coworkers, simultaneously portraying himself,
Bradley, and the workers. Because all lines are spoken by one actor, the audience clearly identifies
the irony in Styles's cynical translations. Bradley announces, “This is a very big day in our lives”,
which Styles relays as “Gentlemen, this old fool says this is a hell of a big day in our lives.” (Fugard
153) Crude colloquial language demonstrates the black workers’ honesty when Bradley cannot
understand them. However, when a worker shouts, “He’s talking shit,” Styles extinguishes the
negativity and instead turns to Bradley “servile and full of smiles.” (154). Hence, switching
between characters highlights a duality of perspectives which in turn symbolizes black South
Africans’ need to rigorously compartmentalize private and public thoughts. This constant
role-playing throughout Styles’ monologue and extending into Buntu’s impersonations of a white
policeman or a black preacher helps to emphasize the various identities that black South Africans
must navigate as they struggle for their own identity during Apartheid.
Finally, the play’s arguably most avant-garde feature and one that fosters a powerful
connection between the performance and the audience is the breaking of the fourth wall. This
Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt (alienation effect) in essence alienates the audience from having a
passive role and instead directly involves them in the drama for black identity (Wertheim 80). In
the newspaper vignette, Styles remarks about China’s presence in South Africa, “China gets in
there…![Laugh] I’ll tell you what happens. No comment” (Fugard 149) By directly addressing the
audience, Fugard alienates them from their lives outside the theater and makes them
co-conspirators with Styles’ subversive ideas. In the climax of the play when Sizwe finds the
passbook of a dead man and realizes that the dead man has more rights than himself since his
passbook is valid, Sizwe “turns to the audience” and remarks, “What’s happening in the world good
people? Who cares for who in this world….What’s wrong with me? I’m a man.” This dramatic
address to the audience is full of pathos and reveals Sizwe’s moment of anagnorisis or
self-awareness when he realizes the truth about his own lack of identity and power. Like Oedipus
in Sophocles' Greek tragedy, Sizwe is stripped down to his bare humanity, exposed. The stage
directions make it clear as he “starts to tear off his clothes.” The clothes act as a metaphor for his
outer persona and the audience now sees his essence. This powerful moment and Fugard’s
breaking of the fourth wall clearly demonstrate his utilization of avant-garde theater to transmit a
clear message about the struggle for the black South African identity.
Sizwe Bansi is Dead echoes the absurdity of the political crisis it addresses by breaking the
rules of conventional drama. These choices immerse audiences in the grim realities of black South
Africans and provoke them to confront the consequences of Apartheid. In his final moment with
Buntu, Sizwe remarks, “Our skin is trouble.” Fugard’s politically-aware themes remain just as
relevant today even after the end of Apartheid in 1991 as they explore ways in which humans can
use superficial differences to justify inhumanity. From the recent Black Lives Matter movement to
the rights of Immigrants in Europe to the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, there is no shortage of
examples of the struggle for equality and identity. Modern audiences can thus learn a great deal
about this struggle through Fugard, Kani, and Ntshona’s play as it challenges the status quo and
“runs counter to its time.”

Word Count: 1500

 Works Cited

Fugard, Athol. Township Plays. Edited by Dennis Walder, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Ionesco, Eugène. “The Avant-Garde Theatre.” The Tulane Drama Review, vol. 5, no. 2, 1960,
pp. 44–53. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1124757. Accessed 23 May 2022.

“Understanding the Significance of Avant-Garde.” Widewalls,

https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/avant-garde-movement-theater-music-photo
graphy-contemporary-art.

Wertheim, Albert. The Dramatic Art of Athol Fugard: From South Africa to the World. Indiana
University Press, 2002.
How does Athol Fugard utilize the conventions of avant-garde theater in his drama Sizwe Bansi is
Dead to convey the struggle for identity and equality for Black South Africans during Apartheid?

Outrageous circumstances sometimes inspire atypical art. Such is the case with Sizwe
Bansi is Dead, a play co-written by Athol Fugard, John Kani, and Winson Nthona first performed by
the latter two in Cape Town, South Africa in 1972. The playwrights utilized avant-garde theater
techniques to communicate their ideas about the realities of Black South Africans struggling for an
identity under an oppressive Apartheid regime. In his 1960 journal article for the Tulane Drama
Review, American playwright Eugene Ionesco defined avant-garde theater “in terms of opposition
and rupture” and that an avant-garde playwright “feels his running counter to his time” (Ionesco,
45). Starting in the late 19th century, avant-garde theater challenged the conventions of standard
Western theater in terms of structure, content, and the role of the audience. (Understanding
Avant-Garde) Set during Apartheid, Fugard’s play exposes the detrimental effects of
discriminatory systems on black identity. Fugard, Kani, and Ntshona utilize techniques of
avant-garde theater such as improvisation, minimal transitions and stagecraft, and exaggerated
storytelling for the purpose of conveying the struggle for identity and equality for Black South
Africans during Apartheid.
Improvisation, a feature foreign to conventional drama, was used to engage audiences in
social commentary and also help the playwrights avoid prosecution during the political censorship
in 1970s South Africa. The play opens with a monologue by Styles, who reads aloud and reacts to
stories in the newspaper. Using the newspaper as a prop, Styles reads aloud to the audience,
“American politics. Nixon and his votes. Means bugger-all to us” (Fugard 149). In performance,
the actor improvised much of his newspaper vignette using the most recent news (Wertheim 80).
Fugard thus integrates this avant-garde spontaneity and fluidity from the very beginning to ensure
that Styles's social commentary - and that of the entire play - is consistently relevant. Thus,
through this improvisation, the audience understands what the play is about right now. There
serves his aim to incite change against the focal point of the play–the current sufferings brought
by Apartheid. Styles clearly articulates the struggle for equality and identity as Black South
Africans have little say in politics. Live audiences cannot dismiss discrimination as an issue of the
past. This again is the new role of the audience that defines avant-garde theater. Fugard reminds
audiences that they are all stakeholders in the glaring oppression of black South Africans.
Moreover, improvisation served a second purpose of minimizing the writers’ accountability for
candid opinions presented on controversial topics. Indeed, in another loosely-scripted scene in
front of Sky’s place, the local speakeasy in the townships, a drunk Sizwe declares, “Ciskeian
independence is shit.” (Fugard 157) This allusion to the South African government’s cruel illusion
of freedom and quasi-independence for the black homeland of Ciskei, accompanied by expletives
and harsh diction led to the detention of the two actors (Fugard 178; 193). Both live and modern
audiences with an awareness of improvisation understand and feel the intimacy and immediacy
created and how it shows the struggle for identity in Apartheid South Africa.
In addition to improvisation, Fugard also uses the avant-garde feature of minimal scene
transitions and limited props and set which again serve the purpose of displaying the bleak
realities of black South Africans. Styles’ exposition-packed monologue is delivered in its entirety
without a change in set or lighting and Styles transitions seamlessly from one vignette to the next,
from working at the Ford Factory to establishing a photo studio to witnessing the death of his
father. These ambiguous progressions between scenes mirror the eternal disorientation and
listlessness that haunts blacks under Apartheid laws. There is no escape as they struggle to find
their identity in a system that treats them as less than human. Specifically, the Pass Laws pushed
black South Africans out of major cities into poor living conditions and heavily restricted their
mobility for work and life. Buntu, a black character who acts as a mentor to Sizwe, summarizes
that “the only time we’ll find peace is when they….press our face into the earth” (Fugard 176). For
the duration of the play, Fugard immerses multiracial audiences in the same instability in order to
garner an empathetic resistance to the inhumanity of Apartheid. The minimal set and props also
help to symbolize barren black lives. Buntu’s house in New Brighton is characterized only by “a
table and two chairs” (169). The minimal set helps facilitate the quick transitions to other scenes.
These transitions are marked by three unique devices; a voice-over narration by Sizwe as he reads
aloud a letter to his wife Nowetu; the use of lighting that simulates a flashbulb; a display of a
photograph of Sizwe, presumably taken by Styles. These three markers, all unusual and
avant-garde help to show Sizwe’s constant struggle for his own identity. With the minimalist set,
the actors communicate their settings through gestures instead, embodying Fugard’s message
that “we own nothing but ourselves.” (163). Audiences experience for themselves the lonely and
meaningless lives of black South Africans in an oppressive regime that has uprooted them and
stripped them of their identity.
 While the minimalist plot and seamless transitions help to emphasize black lives and black
identity, the exaggerated storytelling techniques such as switching between characters help to
underscore the importance of “acting a role” for black South Africans’ survival. This also helps to
foster an intricate bond with the audience and not let them “off the hook” for their own role in
systemic oppression. In a flashback to the Ford Factory, Styles recounts his role as a translator
between his Africaner boss Bradley and Xhosa coworkers, simultaneously portraying himself,
Bradley, and the workers. Because all dialogue is spoken by one actor, the audience clearly
identifies the irony in Styles's cynical translations. Bradley announces, “This is a very big day in our
lives”, which Styles relays as “Gentlemen, this old fool says this is a hell of a big day in our lives.”
(Fugard 153) Crude colloquial language demonstrates the black workers’ honesty when Bradley
cannot understand them. However, when a worker shouts, “He’s talking shit,” Styles extinguishes
the negativity and instead turns to Bradley “servile and full of smiles.” (154). Hence, switching
between characters highlights a duality of perspectives which in turn symbolizes black South
Africans’ need to rigorously compartmentalize private and public thoughts. This constant
role-playing throughout Styles’ monologue and extending into Buntu’s impersonations of a white
policeman or a black preacher helps to emphasize the various identities that black South Africans
must navigate as they struggle for their own during Apartheid.
Finally, the play’s arguably most avant-garde feature and one that fosters a powerful
connection between the performance and the audience is Fugard’s clever breaking of the fourth
wall. This Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt (alienation effect) in essence alienates the audience from
having a passive role and instead directly involves them in the drama for black identity (Wertheim
80). In the newspaper vignette, Styles remarks about China’s presence in South Africa, “China gets
in there…![Laugh] I’ll tell you what happens. No comment” (Fugard 149) By directly having Styles
address the audience, Fugard alienates them from their lives outside the theater and makes them
co-conspirators with Styles’ subversive ideas. Furthermore, In the climax of the play when Sizwe
finds the passbook of a dead man and realizes that the dead man has more rights than himself
since his passbook is valid, Sizwe “turns to the audience” and remarks, “What’s happening in the
world good people? Who cares for who in this world….What’s wrong with me? I”m a man.” This
dramatic address to the audience is full of pathos and reveals Sizwe’s moment of anagnorisis or
self-awareness when he realizes the truth about his own lack of identity and power. Like Oedipus
in Sophocles' Greek tragedy, Sizwe is stripped down to his bare humanity, exposed. Fugard’s stage
directions make it clear as he “starts to tear off his clothes.” The clothes act as a metaphor for his
outer persona and the audience now sees his essence. This powerful moment and Fugard’s
breaking of the fourth wall clearly demonstrate his utilization of avant-garde theater to transmit a
clear message about the struggle for the black South African identity.
Sizwe Bansi is Dead echoes the absurdity of the political crisis it addresses by breaking the
rules of conventional drama. These choices immerse audiences in the grim realities of black South
Africans and provoke them to confront the consequences of Apartheid. In his final moment with
Buntu, Sizwe remarks, “Our skin is trouble.” Fugard’s politically-aware themes remain just as
relevant today even after the end of Apartheid in 1991 as they explore ways in which humans can
use superficial differences to justify inhumanity. From the recent Black Lives Matter movement to
the rights of Immigrants in Europe to the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, there is no shortage of
examples of the struggle for equality and identity. Modern audiences can thus learn a great deal
about this struggle through Fugard, Kani, and Ntshona’s play as it challenges the status quo and
“runs counter to its time.”

Word Count: 1500