Last year, around this same time, I had posted an analysis of HL:TS as a play in 4 acts of which only 3 had yet to be shown with the 4th act being Season 6.  What was not made clear at that essay, and which had been discussed to some degree, were those elements of the series that would lead to the conclusion that this was either fantasy or science fiction with Duncan as the mythic hero.  In both genres, this was a reasonable possibility.  However, with the inception of the story line as presented AAA, and as further demonstrated in the remainder of season 6, it might seem more appropriate to determine that this is a play within the Theatre of the Absurd; an exercise is nihilistic existentialism or a Kafkaesque surrealism in which the viewer is alternately intimately involved and resolutely expunged from involvement.

There are several factors that appear to support this possibility.  To begin, the story presents a reasonable verisimilitude of the romantic style; i.e., a stable couple about to encounter the unknown in the form of a thief (The Gathering).  The immediate juxtaposition to a surrealistic view is seen from the eyes of the erstwhile thief when the true danger is presented in the form of a swordsman.  The supposed victim, and then several additional individuals are all introduced; all of whom whose weapon of choice is a sword.  The audience is immediately put on notice that all is not as originally expected and, in essence, at that point in time, all bets are off; i.e., anything is possible because nothing is exactly what it seems.  This beginning, however does not remove this plot from either science fiction or fantasy.  It is not until Family Tree, that the jump to Absurd is first indicated.

Two basic questions are asked in Family Tree; 1) “Who Am I?” and, 2) “Where Do I Come From”?  These are possibly the most elemental questions asked by an individual in the journey that is life - until these questions are broached, there is no seeking after knowledge or self-actualization as postulated by philosophers.  Within the context of this premise, without these questions, the “play” would not fall within the realm of the Absurd.  In Family Tree, the true beginnings of the story are presented.  An individual, one Duncan MacLeod intrepid protagonist, is raised and lives a “normal” life within the context of security and the knowledge of what the future will bring.  And just as suddenly as death comes, so does the ripping of reality.  The Highland barbarian is pulled from what he knows to be True and thrown back on the shores of the unknown.  While everything looks the same to him, he is forever changed and removed from the norm and all who know of him see him as changed and force him to be finally and irretrievably removed.  This is the essence of the existential dilemma, the absurdity and futility of life without context.  The direct result of this is the beginning of the quest (a hero’s journey if you will) and the articulation of these two fundamental questions on the nature of man, or the stating of the existential quandary.

Within this context, a parallel to the development of the human condition could be drawn.  Without the consideration of these issues, striving to better one’s present situation would not necessarily follow.  This is a philosophical striving, a desire to see what is on the other side of the mountain as it were, rather than a physical issue of betterment, though this also has an impact in the ability to achieve the “goal” of self-actualization.

Continuing within this supposition, the “first act” concludes with the death of Tessa and the rising of Richie as immortal.  While there was both complacency and stability during this time frame, there was minimal growth or striving to answer the questions posed at the inception of the story.  Existence was accepted within a standardized norm.  Therefore, DM is again torn from the status quo to be forced to continue on the path of actualization or, conversely acceptance of the meaninglessness of being.  What this “first act” demonstrates is the duality of love, both the powers inherent and the destructiveness in the lack thereof.

The “second act” posits the question as to the nature of evil and introduces the pivotal characters necessary for the continued growth of the protagonist.  While Richie was intrinsic to the “first act”, his nature as a Mortal was to again develop the issues as already indicated within the context of that beginning.  As the Immortal Richie is developed, the purpose of the character changes in much the same manner as mortal is changed to immortal.  Richie becomes the reflection of the impetuousness at the beginning of a journey.  Mistakes are made due to errors in judgment as well as simple lack of knowledge.  This does not reflect poorly on youthful exuberance or innocence, but rather decries the necessity for preparation in order to make the journey with anticipation for success.  Richie both impedes and speeds DM on the path as he forces both actions and reactions.  It is also within the context of these actions and reactions that the nature of evil is explored.  In order to teach, the teacher must learn.

The second major character that becomes pivotal during this act is Joe Dawson.  This individual provides several perspectives at once.  The historian/chronicler as well as the catalyst to action is one aspect while the existential purpose may be the antithesis of this characterization.  Joe represents the inexorable march of the days and the seeming callus disregard of the inevitability of destruction.  This is one of the most complex paradoxes within the play because of the multiple layers and the interactions caused.  Joe is the outsider on the inside, he is the face of choice regardless that choice makes no difference in the end.  He is the ultimate reminder that immortality is a misnomer and that mortals live forever.  It is also within the context of this character that the question to the meaning of  “There can be only One” takes shape.

This statement, accepted as fact by the immortals, is the ultimate juxtaposition of immortality and the quintessential declaration of the absurdity of forever.  The question then begs itself, is ONE an exclusivity or an inclusively.  In other words, does the meaning necessitate the elimination of all but ONE as appears to be the accepted interpretation, or does it imply that when time stops all will become a unity (with the converse equally possible that, when all become ONE, time will end).  Perhaps this is the journey of immortality, to determine this very issue.  The existential morass however is the willingness of the immortals to believe in the exclusive nature of ONE rather than the possibility that the prize is the actualization of inclusion.  The questions posed in “act one” force the examination of this premise as does the question as to the nature and, possibly the intent, of evil.

Also in the second act the character of Amanda becomes better defined.  While it appears that she is the ultimate temptress, it is also within the context of her interactions that DM begins to willingly continue on the path to determine the purpose of existence.  She brings love without complacency, she brings exuberance without innocence and temptation without evil.  She is both the Yin and the Yang; deviousness that is expected.

The final character introduced in the second act is Methos.  This character appears to fill the role of benevolent guardian.  Appearances can be deceptive; a basic premise of this genre, and this may be the true function of this player.  Within this premise, act two is the one in which the question of  “the nature of evil” is explored.  Evil is sometimes blatantly and obviously so, though in the course of nature, it can and often is otherwise innocuous rather than blatant or insidious and is thus unwittingly allowed in in the guise of friend; one which is rarely recognized until too late.  The second act ends with the Dark Quickening.

The third act does not appear to ask any question until virtually the end, but in retrospect, it is asking the question in many different forms and is only articulated specifically in The Valkyrie.  This act reflects the quest for acceptance within the context of the “right” and apparent willingness to judge and be judged.  DM was judged a demon (Family Tree), which began the fall from acceptance, but the lessons internalized still set the stage of the reality in which he moves through the absurdity of misconstrued immortality.  The third act further solidifies nihilistic existential aspects of this unreality when the “mild mannered” cynical Methos is revealed to be virtually the antihero; or is he?  If, as is posited in nihilist existentialism, one is the reflection of one’s actions, at what point in time do the actions define the person; in the midst of said action; at all times subsequent to said action; or until further action negates or supports prior actions?  And who judges, and when is judgement made?

The final act can not begin until the protagonist is confronted with the absurdity of alliances and is thereby freed to move forward in the quest.  In order to be free, there needs to be a break with innocence which colors hard truths, obscures the futility of seeking the answers to the questions posed, and supports a willingness to confront, accept and internalize those answers.  The death of Richie at the hands of DM is the representation of this break.  What follows is confusion engendered until there is an acceptance and internalization of these questions without which the answers are meaningless, without form or substance.  The resolution of AAA, within this context, is not a pacifist turning of the other cheek, or the banal “give peace a chance” but rather the ultimate challenge and recognition that the evil is within and is part and parcel of the very nature of existence.  This inclination to do evil (or Evil if you will) is the temptation with which each individual contends daily.  The acceptance of this inclination and the determination to resist allow the progress to answer the existential issues.  In the process of the “final act” the protagonist is confronted with parodies of himself and his “judgements”.  The further acceptance and understanding of these steps on the path that have already been transverses lead to the final confrontation of self.

At this point, the Kafkaesque nature of this play becomes the over-riding theme.  What if this protagonist had never begun the journey and had died quietly all those years ago as a Highland barbarian?  This question is clearly asked in the context of “Everyman” and, appears to be the only question that is actually answered, or is it?

This is the nature of Theatre of the Absurd; the purpose is not so much to answer the questions but to pose them in a way that they cannot be avoided and to provide the audience with fodder for self-examination.  While this analysis is not meant to imply that HL:TS is great drama; hopefully, this discussion presents an alternative possibility.