4, 3, 2, 1. As the cast members of his plays diminished in number, Samuel Beckett only grew in stature. And so, although it's in many ways a minimalist play, with just two principal characters and a brief visit from two others, one might say that his Waiting for Godot falls in the middle of Beckett's range. From the start -- it premiered in Paris in 1953 -- it's been his most frequently performed play, bringing together a strange range of actors, from Bert Lahr and E.G. Marshall (shown above), Zero Mostel and Burgess Meredith, to (most recently) Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, it has, like a rubbery cartoon character, been run over again and again and still holds its shape.
At my alternative high school in the 1970's, we put on a production that I still very vividly recall. Given its long strings of seemingly non-sequitur lines, we built in a back-up: if anyone realized they didn't know the next line, the actor was to say "What time is it?" -- and the other to reply "Why beleaguer the obvious?" -- at this cue, nonchalantly walking 'round to the back of the tree (then, as ever, the only prop on stage) and consulting a copy of the script concealed there.
The old reading was always that "Godot" was a stand-in for "God" -- and then, of course, the tree for the Cross, and so on. It's a reading that Becket rejected (although, hey, he's dead, so what matter?), but in any case, it's hardly the only way to see it. We have all waited -- in lines at state offices, for our lives to turn 'round, for babies to be born and old folks to die. What of it? There is something in the mere flow of language, the putting of one word -- any word -- after another -- that speaks to the bare essence of our human condition.
Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” was confusing in a way for me while reading the script and seeing how the characters react to each other and their outbursts of odd behaviors. However, when I watched the Zero Mostel and Burgess Meredith performance it helped me interpret that both Estragon and Vladimir are relying on Godot to help them work as circus performers in order to survive and clearly their behavior shows they may be well suited for it. However as they are waiting (Godot will not be coming that evening) they meet another showman Pozzo, and his performer called “Lucky.” The two men are afraid of Pozzo due to how he treats Lucky, how he calls him “pig” and orders his every move. Lucky also refuses to put his bags down as Pozzo explains it’s because, “He imagines that when I see how well he carries I'll be tempted to keep him on in that capacity” (Beckett 25). Despite how poorly Pozzo treats Lucky, he is still determined to impress Pozzo as he is his only way for survival. Lucky also seems so dehumanizes that he also pants like a dog. For Estragon and Vladimir, Lucky is a possible result of entering the circus, that someone can be so desperate to survive that their humanity seems to be stripped away. After all, ESTRAGON. We’ve lost our rights? VLADIMIR. (distinctly). We got rid of them (Beckett 13). At the end of the play, a boy who works for Godot delivers a message that Godot will not be coming that evening to which Vladimir asks him a series of questions. He asks how well Godot treats the boy and while the answers are optimistic in a way, the boy does mention how Godot treats his brother: “He beats my brother, Sir” as the boy answers (Beckett 46). This also gives an idea of who Godot is and what kind of life The men can expect after Godot finally comes to get them. Despite the possibility of how Estragon and Vladimir could be mistreated, they still wait for Godot as they really have no other choice but to take the offer as if there are no other options left.
ReplyDeleteAgustin Custer
As an Absurdist play, Waiting for Godot obviously reminded me of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The playfulness between Vladimir and Estragon reminds me of the playfulness between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, though Vladimir is much more put together than any of the others. Vladimir is -almost- the voice of reason, almost bordering on the line of breaking the absurdist play. Vladimir makes the note at the end of the play starting with "Was I sleeping, while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now? To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today?" (Beckett 104). This speech is almost making sense-- almost breaking Vladimir out of the "waiting for Godot" phase, but then pulling him back in. Vladimir is afraid that his life is not real, that he is meaningless, and that he is the only one who knows anything. He is the only character (other than Lucky, who we do not hear from) that remembers anyone else after meeting them. The boy does not remember coming to talk to Vladimir about Godot, Estragon does not remember Pozzo and Lucky, and Pozzo does not remember Vladimir and Estragon. Vladimir almost wants to believe he is dreaming so that he can make sense of the world. He can't believe that, though, because then this life he has created in the cyclical waiting for Godot and being with Estragon is fake.
ReplyDeleteBringing it back to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, not only does Rosencrantz sometimes question what is happening, but, as the title TELLS us, the two are already dead. Their lives are no longer truly being lived, but rather just moving through whatever is happening. Vladimir is afraid of this, but Estragon seems to have no idea that it is even a possibility. I really enjoyed reading this play and now want to read it again to see what I missed in the beginning!
Waiting for Godot is one of the most important plays of the twentieth century. But analyzing its significance is not easy, because Beckett’s play represents a major departure from many conventions and audience expectations regarding the theatre. Beginning life as a French play which Beckett wrote in the late 1940s, Waiting for Godot premiered in London in 1955, initially to negative reviews, although the support of the influential theatre critic Kenneth Tynan soon transformed its fortunes. Curiously, one of Beckett’s motives for writing the play was financial need: he needed money and so made the decision to turn from novel-writing to writing for the stage. Indeed, Beckett considered Waiting for Godot a ‘bad play’, but posterity has begged to differ, and it is now viewed as perhaps the greatest English-language play of the entire twentieth century. One of the key messages of Waiting for Godot is strikingly similar to what we find in Camus: an ability to see the comic absurdity amidst the tragedy of living, and to ‘go on’ despite everything.
ReplyDeleteIn my senior year of high school, we read Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot for a part of our drama unit, as well as Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead. They are both existential plays that come after all of the hardships of living in America in the mid twentieth century: the aftermath of two World Wars and the Great Depression. Of course, Waiting for Godot is different from Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead since Vladimir and Estragon are not passing time in a confused haze until their inevitable demise. No, I much rather like Sir Ian McKellen’s interpretation of Waiting for Godot: “...turns out to be a slice of life… an optimistic play.”
ReplyDeleteAs for the apparent religious undertones of Waiting for (God)ot, that is what I was taught in high school and it did make sense for me then. However, since Beckett did not intend such symbolism, it does sort of create a barrier. Of course, New Criticism Formalists would disregard Beckett and his claims in order to really interpret the work as it is. After all, what a writer puts into a text could be consciously or unconsciously done, no matter the original intentions.
- Spock Nardone
I suppose I’ll try and answer the obvious question: who is Godot?
ReplyDeleteI read this play through a primarily Marxist and Lacanian lens, and I think it is very timely in a sort of Baudrillardian manner. The blog post mentioned that the traditional interpretation places him as God. I think that is a close, but not precisely correct reading. It is not God as much as what a god represents—meaning, purpose, ideals, etc. The play is absurd and lacks superficial meaning because the characters themselves see no meaning in their existence. Time seems to dilate because Vladimir and Estragon continuously rely on an unknowable force to free them from their suffering—a force that is unknowable because it does not exist. As much as they seem, or at least Estragon seems, to despise their circumstances, they never attempt to alter them nor even conceive of why they should be altered.
But that conception is the first step in altering one’s circumstances. And they know what needs to be done—they continuously talk about how they should separate. They acknowledge that doing so would make them happier and yet they refuse to do it. They cling to the familiar: both to each other and this fantasy of some all powerful thing coming to uplift them instead of doing the difficult thing and accepting their place. I say that not as a superficial servitude-encouraging platitude, but as agents of their own will. They choose to come back to this place every day, to continue to waste away and allow the other to do the same. Yet in doing so, in rationalizing to themselves the certainty of Godot coming they have “given up their rights.”
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett reminds me of a popular story called “The Drowning Man.” Now “The Drowning Man” is a religious story, but the overall message is the same. To surmise, the story of “The Drowning Man” is about a man who is stuck in a flood, praying to God to save him. A rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter came by to save him consecutively, but each time the man refused, stating ““No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.” The man inevitably drowns and goes to heaven, where he confronts God asking why He didn’t save him? God replied “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?” Putting the religious aspect aside, if we are reading “Waiting for Godot” from a secular standpoint, the message rings loud and clear. While Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for Godot - they could’ve been helping themselves the entire time. They were even shown how badly Lucky is treated, but they continued to stay and wait for this mystery man. Although Beckett was not intentionally being religious, I cannot ignore the striking similarities between the two stories. It is a marvelous take on how humans ignore their own well-being because they are doing what they think they are “supposed” to do.
ReplyDeleteJess Panichas
The story itself I feel as has a deep message that many can relate to their own lives. It reminds me of a saying my mother would always say that If you ask for a cake and only get the ingredients don't complain. The two men were standing by the tree awaiting "Godot" whom they believed would solve their problems and put their worries to an end. While they were doing that, more things could've been done to help themselves instead they stood there and complained to each other instead of helping their situation. As a religious person, I can attest that not always will things go your way, but you may be blessed with something right in front of you in your wait for what you think is the perfect thing.
ReplyDelete