Thinking Activity on Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot"
This blog is a part of my academic activity.CLICK HERE to get the task link.
"Waiting for Godot"
The waiting for godot is well known absurd play written in 20th century by Samuel Beckett who is known as Irish novelist, playwright, short story writer, theatr director, poet, literary translator and winner of the Noble Prize for literature in 1969. He wrote in both French and English and is widely known for his plays, especially Waiting for Godot which was published in 1949. This play was translated by Buckett himself. The play was originally written French language and called as ‘En attendant Godot.
The plot of the story revolves around two seemingly homeless men who are waiting for something or someone named Godot. Vladimir and Estragon wait near a tree, inhabiting a drama spun of their own consciousness. They both are waiting for arrival of Godot who never arrives. While they have been waiting for godot, they engage themselves in a variety of discussion and encounter three other characters; Pozzo, Lucky and a boy(a messenger of god).
Above mentioned painting- “Longing” is of Casper David Fredrich. The major connection between this painting and the Samuel Beckett's “Waiting for Godot” is that, this absurd play was inspired by this painting. There is a sameness in both images’ background rather the nature is at the centre which keeps on moving. Though play was inspired from David Fredrich’s painting, the intention of Samuel Beckett is entirely indifferent. David Fredrich was allied to romanticism in Germany that’s why he embraced the Romantic notion of nature through his sensitive depictions of fog, mist, darkness and light as well. Being an romanticist he seeks to capture the infinite experience of nature. While there is nothing like these in Samuel Beckett’s play, he depicts nature as it always remains indifferent, time keeps on moving the night comes after the day but the characters have stayed as it is. In a way nature has to do nothing with characters of play, it keeps on moving without waiting for anybody.
In both acts Samuel Beckett has made use of tree as a part of our natural phenomenon.
But there is little bit different in portrayal of tree in both acts. In the first act it is entirely barren while in the second act there are some two or three leaves flourishing on tree. We always see nature as a supportive of human kind but by depicting slight difference in tree Samuel Beckett tries to break down this human belief. In this play nature has to do nothing with humans, it keeps on growing without taking into consideration human being. In both acts Estragon and Vladimir have been waiting for Godot, but did the tree also wait along with them? Nature never waits for anyone. The growing of leaves may also interpret as it gives a hope to Vladimir and Estragon that, god may come. But it is a meaningless hope, a kind of illusion for them.
3) In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?
In both acts evening falls into night and moon rises that may be connected with hope of Estragon and Vladimir. With the ending of the day they have disappointed but they have again hopeful that god may come on the next day as the night passes ones. But the god never comes and they have wasted their day by doing disparate activities. Both of them are wasted their time in waiting for Godot but moon and son as part of nature never waits for them. They keeps of growing and setting as per its routine. On one side Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot, but this act couldn’t make any difference in the natural process of nature.
4) The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?
The director feels the setting with some debris which have certain meanings, its not useless or a kind of waste. Each and every debris which has been used in background carry out a certain meanings. The use of debris may symbolize that, the things which we are considered as useless or meaningless they can give a meaning as well if we put it in proper way. This is symbolized in the movie by putting broken pieces of rocks in the background setting of the movie. It put emphasizes on the fact that, meaninglessness has also its own meaning.
5) The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?
"Nothing to be done” the beginning line of the play gives idea of theme of the play that is nothingness which may seem in entire play through the act of Vladimir and Estragon.
Both are waiting for Godot who never comes, this act itself speaks about there is nothingness in waiting for someone or somebody. In the hope of God may come they pass their day by doing certain activities. But do it have any meaning? It may be said that this act of nothingness has also a meaning while doing certain activities. But ultimately at last it is proven as meaningless. Whatever they do are meaningless.
6) Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?
Yes, I am agree that, the play is positive and pessimistic play. What the play portrays is the actuality of human life. Whether we do something or not, it never affects our life. It is personal choice to do something or not, but life never waits if we don’t do something. It is moving without waiting of our act to do something. This idea is reflected through the theme of play which is waiting not Godot. In the play Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot and then falls down into depression which may symbolize that there is nothing like god. It also helps in breaking down our notion that god is alive figure and may come someday. If we are wasting our life by waiting or rather by killing ourselves, it doesn’t matter to others, they keeps on living either with happiness or with sadness.
8) Do you think that the
obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master
Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that
such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?
Yes, of course the obedience of Luck is extremely irritating and
nauseatic. The master slave relation is reflected through the relation between
Pozzo and Lucky. Lucky is a slave who started to love himself as being slave
and gives rope(tied in his neck) in his master’s hand through which Pozzo
treats lucky as he is an slavish animal. Even when Pozzo becomes blind Lucky
keeps on doing what his master says him, he doesn’t even think about to go away
and leaves his master. It becomes dangerous when as a slave we start to love
our master rather he obediently hands the whip in his blind master’s hand.
Through this we can say that Lucky’s such a capacity of slavishness in
unbelievable. Even when Estragon tries to help him he hurts him by kicking
which shows that he is habituated with slavishness.
9) Who according to you
is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or . . .
According to me Godot is an object of our desire. Desire for something
or someone is never ending notion. If one desire is being fulfilled, certainly
the other may arise in our mind. To fulfill these desire we rely on certain
object. This is reflected in play, Vladimir and Estragon keeps on waiting for
Godot in between this act they also met with some other characters but they do
not care about it. In a same way our life is full of desire, in between to
fulfill our desire there are lots of things come in our life but we do not care
about them. The ultimately end of life is death then why there is a need of
desire? Desire is something through which we keeps on living no matter whatever
difficulties come in our path, we always think for better tomorrow than today.
10) “The subject of the
play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you
agree? How can you justify your answer?
The
subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’, yes, I am agree with what
Martin Esslin pointed out. In the play Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot,
but did Godot come? No Godot did not even appeared at ones in the play. If the
subject of the play is Godot than certainly we find a glimpse of Godot in the
play. But it isn’t which shows that Godot is not the subject of the play.
Through this waiting we can also interpret that, though waiting is
meaningless, it has its own meaning as well.
11) Do you think
that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of
thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does
not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help
in better understanding of the play?
Yes, the play like “Waiting for Godot”
requires a lot of thinking. What I think is that this kind of play requires
both reading of the play and film viewing of the play. Certain things which can
not understand in reading, we may understand while watching it in a movie form.
Visualization in a form of using of lighting and use of sound may help in
understanding in the certain things which may not understand by reading the
play. Firstly read the play and than watch the movie is best way to understand
the absurd play like “Waiting for Godot”. Because it helps in understanding the
background of the play. The deep thinking is not possible while viewing it but
it can be done while reading it allows us to ponder on some philosophical idea.
12) Which of the following
sequence you liked the most:
~Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting
~Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
~Converstion of Vladimir with the boy
~Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting
~Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
~Converstion of Vladimir with the boy
I liked the conversations between Estragon and Vladimir when they killing time
while waiting for Godot. Though these tramps do many trivial things in order to
kill time, they give a certain meanings and philosophical ideas also. When the
Vladimir plays with his hat or Estragon tries to make himself comfortable with
Boots. This humorous act is full of meaning as Vladimir presents mind as an
important part of body while Estragon represents body who always in search of
how to make himself comfortable.
13) Did you feel the effect
of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and
indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when
exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?
Yes, I did feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of
human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of
movie. This could be felt at the ending of both play when the boy as a
messenger of God came and Vladimir have a small conversation with him. Vladimir
and Estragon wait for Godot and ask,
when Godot will come?
But boy said that,
Godot
would not able to come today, but surely he will come tomorrow.
This happens in
both acts at the end. Their waiting for Godot is meaningless which only makes
them disappoint at the end. This showcases that waiting is meaningless. To wait
for godly figure is also meaningless which should not never come.
14) Vladimir and Estragon
talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How
do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?
As a human being we always tries to find a meaning
of our life. When life becomes meaninglessness, Do there anything leave for living?
Vladimir and Estragon’s act for waiting for Godot is also a meaningless and
after realizing that or out of getting disappointment at last they decides to hang
themselves. It is the act of waiting which leads them towards this idea of
suicide. They didn’t do this because they would not have equipment. But what I
believe is that this act of not dying showcases existentialist idea, suicide is
not a solution of any problem. If the life is meaningless yet it is for living
because meaningless has also meaning.
15)Can
we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented
by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo -
Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from
the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for
'Godot'.
We
can do the political reading of “Waiting for Godot”, through all the names of
characters European countries are presented in the play. The play was written
in 1949 that’s why it also reflects the post war effect also. Politically
Vladimir represents Russia and Estragon represents France. In order to get political power benifits, there were many Russians who favored France while some didn’t.
Though they have different understanding and point of view, they live together
as Vladimir and Estragon stay. Pozzo represents Italy and Lucky stand for
England. Same as a master slave relation between Pozzo and Lucky, after world
war Italy ruled over England by imposing its power and encroached the power of
Italy. Germany reminds us about Hitler. Who remove the Jews territory. In a
same way Vladimir and Estragon were eliminated from their nations and waited
for Godot in a hopeful manner as well.
16)So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and
slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce
and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky
to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in Broadway production).
Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?
17) The more the things
change, the more it remains similar. There seems to have no change in Act I and
Act II of the play. Even the conversation between Vladimir and the Boy sounds
almost similar. But there is one major change. In Act I, in reply to Boy;s question,
Vladimir says:
"BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
"BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
VLADIMIR:
Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . .
. tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?
How does this
conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and
conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify?
Though the
conversation almost seems the same, there is a very much significant change in
the conversation of act I and act II. In the ending of very first I act when boy as a messenger of
God arrives, Vladimir says that tell the god that we(Vladimir himself and
Estragon) are waiting for Godot. Here he refers the word ‘WE’.
BOY: What am
I to tell Mr.Godot, sir?
VLADIMIR:
Tell him...(he hesitate)..tell him you saw me and that…(he hesitate)..that you
saw me.
In the
second act Vladimir turns out as selfish man. He refers the word ‘I’ only. From
this we also can get idea of one thief was saved and the other was damned.
Vladimir wants to live his life, may be because of this he says that tells the
god you see me. So that he could be saved.
Well interpreted dear 💕
ReplyDeleteKudos! Great job
ReplyDeleteThanks for your words..
DeleteWell justified all the questions
ReplyDelete