The Pillowman Martin McDonagh

In the play, The Pillowman Martin McDonagh poses a key question about the purpose of art: can it be borne through natural abilities of the mind? Or is all creativity another anecdote of human experience? Set in an unknown totalitarian state, The Pillowman surrounds author Katurian K. Katurian, whose stories seem to have inspired a new wave of murders. Children are discovered slain identical to his tales and he is the primary suspect. This is all an inevitable result of an artistic experiment in which Katurian and his brother were the subjects. The experiment--consisting of the torture of his older brother Michal for several years --enhances Katurian as a writer violently, creatively and intellectually. A complex tale, The Pillowman shows the distinct difference between art and life; it is drawn vividly and Katurian's perception of a storyteller dominates the tone of the play.

Tupolski and Ariel disregard Katurian as a creative mind. They view him and his art as real world violence that has reproduced itself onto society. While interrogating him, both cops tells Katurian that his stories are the cause of the murders, without considering a single word the prisoner offers them. They not only immediately blame Katurian for the crimes, but they also brush off his perspective on art. To them, art and life are intertwined like a cycle that cannot be broken; violence, no matter the form will always result in an unfortunate fate. Tupolski and Ariel automatically infer that Katurian's stories have a reoccurring theme and that reoccurring theme must stem from self expression and personal experience:

TUPOLSKI. Y'know, your theme, "Some poor little kid gets fucked up." Your theme.

KATURIAN. That isn't a theme. Some of them have come out that way. That isn't a theme.

TUPOLSKI. Although maybe in an oblique way, it does have your theme.

KATURIAN. I don't have themes. I've written, what four hundred stories,and maybe ten or twenty have children in?

TUPOLSKI. Have murdered children in. (Pillowman act 1)

There is no evidence to prove this is accurate, but they are so caught up in pinning him down for the murders that they cannot see past their ignorance.

In their efforts to prove that art and life are directly correlated, Tupolski and Ariel put on a conflicting façade. The pair begins as a good cop bad cop. Tupolski opens as the good cop, calmer of the two. Ariel opens as the bad cop: a tough guy who wants to get straight to business. Tupolski "mucks around" with Katurian, constantly telling him things that aren't true or making him do pointless tasks to shake him up. Michal's torture is a mere hoax by Ariel to make Katurian feel responsible. In the cops' eyes, Katurian's art resulted in the deaths of innocent children. Ironically, everything they do is pretend with hopes that he recognizes what his stories caused in the end. As the play ends it obvious that the roles have switched. Though Ariel roughs up Katurian, we see that Tupolski is more cynical of the two. He shows no sympathy nor emotion towards Katurian, even when it's discovered that Katurian is innocent from killing the children. Tupolski's view of art and life never change throughout the play. The line that is supposed to separate them is in a constant blur. Ariel differs. The complexity of his past makes him sympathetic to the situation. He realizes that Katurian's art is just that--art. It is not a devious scheme; it is not a hidden message of violent nuance; it is art. Perhaps that is why Ariel saved Katurian's work in the end. Perhaps he recognized art as it's own entity and not as

...