As we finish with Waiting for Godot this week, we need to see it beyond the page and part of a genre. There are questions that we have as to its structure, its point, its purpose. I would like you to read this explanation of Theater of the Absurd. Apply the ideas to Waiting for Godot, beyond what the paper says. Then I would like you to watch this video of Sir Ian McKellen discussing Godot. In your post, I would like for you to discuss how these two resources impact your understanding of the play. Be specific. What has shifted, changed, been brought to fruition, blown your mind?
Cite specific examples and how they have shaped your thinking. Quotes are needed. Your response should be about two to three paragraphs in length. You may reply to others statements as long as you do so respectfully.
From point of purchase Beckett’s play Waiting For Godot reeked of allegory. Whether it was from the back cover’s proclamation of this or first few pages seeming so empty of substance that there had to be more, some meaning I was supposed to find, the term came to mind almost in tandem with the manuscript. At completion, I interpreted the piece to be one of a backhanded call-to-action, a depiction of how things are going and therefore how they need to change, a dystopia in reverse. Furthermore, the “Theatre of the Absurd” and actor Ian Mckellen’s explanation of the work have allowed varied perspectives on what exactly Beckett was going for.
ReplyDeleteThe first document being a historical and contextual explanation for Godot allowed more evidence for claims I had previously made on the piece, that the bleakness and unimportance of the character’s actions show “There is no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen” (Theatre of the Absurd 1). Although I think the author of the document may be linking absurdism and nihilism a bit too closely for my liking, perhaps this is just my bias, but all the same. Little on this document surprised me or changed how I viewed Beckett’s play, if anything just allowed me further understanding of the historical place in which the play was written.
Ian McKellen’s understanding of the work, however, was quite the change of pace from what I had been thinking. McKellen explains how Beckett was a part of the resistance movement in France during the time of the occupation, and how he was once sent to wait for a messenger in the woods. If the messenger did not come, they waited until the next night, and the next and so on. McKellen claims this could be where Beckett got his idea for the play from, which I agree with, but goes on to assert that the play is highly literal and is not about God. This is where Mckellen’s role as an actor must be considered. Of course he finds the play literal because it has to be literal for him, in order to embody the character to his fullest ability McKellen must believe the character not to represent a large part of post war Europe, but rather just a lad who was given a task. As the gentlemen are depicted in the script, normal, blank slates of characters so too must McKellen interpret them and become one of them. This blankness is a key aspect of what Beckett was going for, and served as a method of him achieving what I believe to be his purpose. The fact that McKellen in-turn sees the play as extremely literal therefore does not surprise me. Another lens is offered into the understanding of the work, but where I ended with the work is where I remain.
Sir Ian McKellen’s analysis of Waiting for Godot presents a varied, but unique perspective on the play. McKellen’s acting lens drastically counters my viewpoint regarding the play as a whole. He possesses a rather superficial understanding. McKellen believes Beckett’s intentions were to demonstrate the events the everyday person experiences: “Waiting for college, waiting to meet the right person, or at my age, waiting for death” (3:50). McKellen also references common aging struggles, dementia and memory loss. These battles the everyday person faces are represented through Vladimir and Estragon’s memory failure and signs of aging. McKellen does not take into consideration Beckett’s intention of perhaps portraying a world in which repetition is prevalent due to lack of purpose. He references the potential viewpoints of the existentialist as an “obscure” reality of the play. McKellen contradicts my understanding by claiming that Godot is not a representation of God, rather a metaphor for life. Beckett was a war messenger and waited for information day after day. McKellen reflects on this story and believes Beckett expounded on his World War II experiences when writing Waiting for Godot. Although I may not fully agree with McKellen’s literal lens, it is logical considering his need to manifest a character of his own on stage.
ReplyDeleteThe Theater of the Absurd essay enhances my previous conclusions that Beckett’s purpose was to portray the characters with a lack of meaning and a negative life outlook. One of the main characteristics the Absurd Theater presents is that “Absurd drama is not purposeful and specific as it solves no problem. It is like an abstract painting which is supposed not to convey a definite meaning” (Theater of the Absurd 1). Beckett reinforces this through the endless cycle of events the characters experience as well as their recurring desire to hang themselves. The basic idea of absurdism in the theater was brought to fruition after World War II. The essay describes how society was traumatized “and highlighted the precariousness of human life and its fundamental meaninglessness and arbitrariness” (Theater of the Absurd 1). The characters find no purpose and live in a futile world. My opinion on the meaning and symbolism of the play has not changed, however the essay did reinforce my conclusions by relating history to society today.
Beckett’s goal of forming an open ended interpretation is clear when comparing the outside sources of Sir Ian McKellen’s analysis and the Theater of the Absurd essay to my viewpoint on the play.
The time period in which Waiting for Godot was published accounts for the genre and therefore thematic elements throughout the play. Beckett was writing in a post World War II time. Ashraf Ahmed’s Basic Concept of the Theatre of the Absurd provides clarity of Beckett’s purposes. One of the biggest statements he made was that, “there is no hope because of the inevitable futility of man’s efforts,” (Ahmed 1). This means that Vladimir and Estragon are living a life in which they have no hope for anything, and nothing they do matters. This is a hard idea to comprehend when we live in a time in which we are convinced that we have purpose, where we use hope as a means to continue forward with our lives. I had considered Godot a source of hope for Vladimir and Estragon, but that is not true. The two men do not use any energy to imagine a new life, or what will happen once Godot comes. They are not even convinced entirely that Godot will come, as shown by frequent mention of leaving and lack of surprise when Godot does not come. Godot is not hope, he is a distraction. Ahmed clearly defines this: “Reality is unbearable unless relieved by dreams and illusions,” (1). Godot is not a source of hope, but an illusion that the men complacently believe so that they can endure the life that they are living. Another mechanism that Vladimir and Estragon use to deal with life is a constant banter. Their language throughout the entire play is repetitious and meaningless. Our class spent time trying to decipher this language, but after reading this essay, my view on this language has changed. There is no meaning to be found in it, “the Theatre of the Absurd constituted...an onslaught on language, showing it as a very unreliable and insufficient tool of communication,” (Ahmed 2). Beckett is making a point in his work to show that language and verbal communication is pointless. Beckett therefore places an emphasis on objects and symbols, such as the tree representing change and the passage of time, and the bowler hats representing thought. There is meaning to be found in Beckett’s work, we were just looking in the wrong places. This has changed my view on hope and language, while enforcing my views on objects and symbolism.
ReplyDeleteSir Ian McKellen provides a different perspective on the play, one from the actor’s point of view. McKellen also puts an emphasis on the time period, but he has other statements that challenge my previously held views. The first of which is, “Godot is a well-known, ordinary name in French. Godot is not God,” (McKellen 1:21). Godot is not God or some higher being that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for in hopes that he may save them. This is contrary to what I initially interpreted as Beckett’s example of man waiting for a higher being to come save him.Vladimir and Estragon are essentially waiting for nothing, according to McKellen. Godot is an ordinary man, a nobody, who can not save others. This idea also ties into the absurdist point of view that life is without hope and purpose. McKellen also changes my perspective on Beckett’s purpose when it comes to “waiting”. I had believed that Beckett intended this waiting to be a statement that man waits for outside forces to determine his fate. However, McKellen states, “Beckett was that first to realize that an awful lot of life is about waiting,” (3:37). Beckett is simply saying that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting because humans wait our entire lives for various things. We can still control what we wait for, but we must wait nonetheless. McKellen’s point of view changed my perspective on Godot’s purpose, and Beckett’s meaning when it comes to waiting.
It becomes evident that Beckett intended to create an absurdist work which is open to many different interpretations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThough Theatre of the Absurd didn’t necessarily change my perspective on Waiting for Godot, it did reinforce the conclusions that I had already drawn from the piece. While reading Waiting for Godot, I saw it as an allegory for the meaninglessness of life. Theatre of the Absurd states that, “man inhabits a universe with which he is out of key. It’s meaning is indecipherable and his place within it is without purpose” (Theatre of the Absurd 1). In his play, Beckett places two men in a barren wasteland with nothing in sight except a single tree. In such empty terrain, Estragon, Vladimir, and the tree seem out of place; this enforces the idea that mankind itself is out of place in the universe. This idea can also be seen in the symbolic language of the play. According to Theatre of the Absurd, “Words fail to express the essence of human experience, not being able to penetrate beyond its surface” (Theatre of the Absurd 2). The dialogue between Estragon and Vladimir seems pointless at times; however, their discussions contain a deeper meaning that symbolizes the meaningless, cyclical nature of life. For example, the idea of indefinite waiting is expressed when Vladimir tells Estragon that they cannot leave until Godot comes to meet them. Though these thoughts on the absurdism of the piece were conveyed in Theatre of the Absurd, it only added on to what I already understood about the play.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the thoughts of Sir Ian McKellen introduced a new and enlightening perspective on Waiting for Godot. McKellen sheds some light on the reasoning behind the play by discussing Beckett’s past. He believes that Beckett was inspired to create the piece while he was in the French resistance. During this time, Beckett was forced to wait every night for a message that rarely came, similar to how Estragon and Vladimir constantly wait for Godot. McKellen also talks about how Estragon and Vladimir are, in fact, real people. When I first read Waiting for Godot, I saw the two men as symbols for humanity and little more. McKellen explains that yes, they are symbols, but they’re still only human. He states that this is reflected in the old men when their feet hurt or they can’t remember due to dementia. Seeing Estragon and Vladimir through the eyes of an actor was definitely a change of pace. The way McKellen depicted the characters as simply ordinary humans made Waiting for Godot much more relatable to the constant waiting of everyday life.
The ideas in the essay on “Theatre of the Absurd” have both cleared up and solidified some of my thoughts on Beckett’s play and brought new ideas to my attention. Towards the beginning of the essay it is stated that absurdist plays hold “the view that man inhabits a universe with which he is out of key.” Vladimir and Estragon are outcasts, living homeless in a vast, bare area. They live in isolation, and other than suffering from beatings from others, visits from Pozzo and Lucky and the delivery of the message from the Boy, they have little communication from anyone outside of themselves, and therefore have little idea of the ways of the rest of society. They are also older men, but still behave as young boys, having nicknames such as “DiDi” and “GoGo” for each other, demonstrating behavior that is “out of key” with the rest of the universe. The tree, holding a constant place on the stage, serves as a reminder of the escape they could have. The essay states that “Objects are much more important than language in absurd theatre: what happens transcends what is being said about it.” This interpretation on objects from the essay is a new viewpoint that had never before crossed my mind while I read the play. Vladimir and Estragon contemplate suicide a couple times throughout the play and yet never do it. Not much is said about the tree, however it shows the lack of control the two men have over their own fates: they are not able to commit the act that would permanently remove them from their miserable situation.
ReplyDeleteSir Ian Mckellen's perspective varies much from mine but still he provides the perspective of a common reader, not bound by the rules of a genre, such as absurdism, to form his ideas on the work. A common interpretation of Godot is that he is God, and Mckellan refutes that, stating that he believes Godot is a farmer. As a farmer Godot would entail sustenance and work for Vladimir and Estragon and as God Godot would provide deliverance from their harsh reality. Both interpretations paint Godot as a picture of hope for the two men, though varying in exactly what that hope would be. Through this idea of hope, Mckellan states that we’re “all waiting” and that the play is “real life.” While most people don’t have the tragic situation of being homeless with one companion, there is still an element of waiting for something to happen in life that will possibly improve the quality of it and persevering through the waiting. Mckellen also provides a more radical viewpoint that Pozzo and Lucky “live in the attic of the theatre.” He believes that the two are a duo that come out to perform, often the same routine. Mckellen goes deeper with his interpretations of Pozzo and Lucky. When asked who has power of who, Mckellan answers with a question, stating “who’s on the end of whose rope?” This perspective can also be applied to Vladimir and Estragon as an explanation of the power these pairs of people have over each other, showing the dependency within and the inability to be separated.
I appreciate learning of the new perspectives on Waiting for Godot that were offered by “Theatre of the Absurd” and Ian Mckellan’s discussion, however, my personal viewpoints of the play stayed constant through my exploration of these two perspectives. The essay served to classify some of my thoughts as absurdist, and Ian Mckellan’s viewpoints gave me some new ideas about the characters without necessarily changing what I had already thought about them.
Frank Tusick
ReplyDeleteThe revealing of absurdism in the excerpt "The Theatre of the Absurd," as well as Sir Ian McKellen’s commentary, help explain Waiting for Godot’s ideas. Out of the seven main characteristics of the absurd, Godot is expressed most with number five: there is no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen. In the play there is no substance to the characters, with their actions are meaningless or stopped in their tracks. Vladimir and Estragon trade hats for a total of eight times before they finally break their repetitive chain, and time is wasted with nothing good to come of it. There is no meaning or merit coming from these actions, and like characteristic number five says, it is not possible for them to do so. They are stuck in repetition and choose not to change or advance in their current situation. Vladimir and Estragon would rather wait and let fate choose for them than taking responsibility in their own hands. While the other characteristics apply to Godot, the fifth one solidifies Godot’s genre as an absurd play.
McKellen used the history of Godot’s author, Beckett, to bring evidence to an argument I at first disagreed on. Personally I believed that Vladimir and Estragon’s fate would bring them to Godot eventually, but McKellen brings a sound point. Beckett himself was in a similar situation as Didi and Gogo; in unfamiliar territory, waiting for a specific person to come night after night. Beckett himself here is powerless, and just a pawn in the grand scheme of the French army, and has to follow his orders and wait. McKellen argues this waiting is worthless and ends with dissatisfaction. I believed that the two would find Godot, possibly when it’s too late, but with some satisfaction. Ending each act with the stage direction of “they do not move” supports McKellen’s argument that their waiting is fruitless because of how static they remain. There is no change, and it would not matter how many days or acts that pass by, they still will end up in the same position. The play only needs two acts as to show the repetition, and the uselessness of waiting around compared to taking action.
As far as my general impression of the text goes, it pretty much hasn't changed. In Theatre of the Absurd it just explained pretty much what could already have been inferred from the play Waiting for Godot. The fact that it is an insane play that has an indirect message throughout speaking of how we as humans continue to live on our pointless, meaningless lives passing the time. Ian Mckellen goes over this in his speech. How basically the whole play is empty text from the characters to pass the time while they wait for Godot. The one part that gave me a revelation though is the part in the speech where McKellen states that in a sense we are the exact same way. We wait for things to happen: we wait for our birthdays, holidays, that special someone, priorities that are important to us. We wait for all these things, meanwhile we are just passing time.
ReplyDeleteI'd had never really considered that point directly in our own lives. The reason the play became so popular and became a hit was because Beckett had the genius idea of writing a play where it addresses the sense of how we are always waiting for something to happen. Basically, the article restates exactly what was already inferred throughout the play in Waiting for Godot. In the article it states that absurd theatre has characteristics of "Life is essentially meaningless, hence miserable. . . Man is fascinated by death. . . There is no action or plot . . . the final situation is absurd or comic" (Ahmed 1). All of these occur throughout the play. Everything throughout the book is meaningless and has no purpose; it is all a waiting game for Godot. Didi and Gogo are fascinated by death throughout the book because it would put an end to the never ending wait for Godot which is causing their insanity. There is no action or plot throughout the play because from start to finish the outcome is always the same. Then the final situation is absurd because it always ends with Didi and Gogo arguing over whether they should hang themselves or not but they always end up doing nothing then arguing the exact same topic the next day. In the end the article Theatre of the Absurd just reaffirms the opinions already analyzed throughout the play. Ian McKellen however managed to give a somewhat new idea with his assumption that we are all waiting for something and in our lives we are all just passing time until we reach the moment of time we are waiting for.
The addition of an absurdest context to Waiting for Godot pulls the play into a specific realm of existentialism that, within my thought process, it was not a part of before. The introduction of a historical trend, i.e. the roots of Absurdest Theater of the early 1900's, connects the play to the ideas of Camus more fluidly (Ahmed 1). When the concepts of the Absurd Theater are applied Beckett’s play becomes clearly absurd.
ReplyDelete“1.Life is essentially meaningless, hence miserable.2.There is no hope because of the inevitable futility of man’s efforts.3.Reality is unbearable unless relieved by dreams and illusions.4.Man is fascinated by death which permanently replaces dreams and illusions.5.There is no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen.6.The final situation is absurd or comic.7.Absurd drama is not purposeful and specific as it solves no problem. It is like an abstract painting which is supposed not to convey a definite meaning.”
These rules mirror the plot and themes of the play with a stunning exactitude. For the characters lives are: meaningless and miserable, unbearable except when dreaming, ruled by an obsession with suicide, plot-less, comical, and lack, as a whole any concrete form of meaning in relation to the message of the text.
This theory is undermined, however by one thespian's interpretation of the play. Sir Ian McKellan proclaims that the characters are not absurd and deeply rooted in reality. For example, he says something along the lines of, “the characters must surely be real”, but I would argue that in the mind's eye of an actor the characters must be as real as possible in order to do their incarnation upon a stage properly.
Overall the two sources failed to give an insight into the play that would dissolve my current interpretation of Beckett’s work or add any view that would “blow my mind” other than a small shift within the existential context of the play.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTogether Sir Ian McKellen and “Theatre of the Absurd” have clarified my ideas connecting Waiting for Godot to the meaning of life, and more importantly how to find it. Beckett used Waiting for Godot to show how meaningless and absurd life can appear to be. Just as most absurd plays, Waiting for Godot seemed to be without a plot, but it was not until reading the explanation of “Theatre of the Absurd” that I came to truly comprehend the lack of a plot that can also be present in life. Life always ends in death, no matter what we as humans do, so the question of life’s meaning is posed. In his discussion about Godot, Sir Ian McKellen stated that “an awful amount of life is about waiting . . . waiting to go to college, waiting to meet the right person . . . waiting for death”. People try to pass time until these big moments, thinking and hoping that those moments will give them some satisfaction; but ultimately, those moments are also just a means of passing time. Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot, their hope of a better life, and in doing so they wait for death. Essentially all people wait for death, just like Vladimir and Godot. Sir Ian McKellen points out how the actions in Godot are “rooted in that reality getting through the day”. Vladimir and Estragon are constantly trying to get through the day until Godot comes and rescues them, hopefully giving them something that will make their lives more bearable until their death. People fall into routines for the same reason, to get through until the event that they wait for has arrived. People try to get through the morning so they can go to work, get through work to come home, get through the chores at home to have free time, and then their free time is just a means to pass time until they need to do work again.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with McKellen that there is a lot of waiting in life and that there is a lot of passing time, I do not believe that life is about waiting. As I have grown up, I have been taught that the purpose behind life is making the most out of it that you possibly can. “Theatre of the Absurd” supports my belief: “the Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age . . . Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that had become trite, mechanical and complacent” (Ahmed 1). The “Theatre of the Absurd” essay suggests that man’s existence has become routine in regards to waiting and passing time. Absurd Theatre wanted to make man aware of how he is wasting his time waiting, and by doing so it hoped to return man to the importance of ritual and living out a religious life. I took the lack of religion in “absurdity” as an attempt to show the audience that a life without God is pointless; and although God can give meaning to one’s life, each person is responsible for taking hold of his or her own fate, and this is what Beckett conveyed to his audience through Waiting for Godot. The audience saw Vladimir and Estragon wasting their lives away by putting their fate in someone else’s hands. Although Beckett did not explicitly state what the meaning of life is, he made it very clear that finding it on one’s own is crucial and he thus used Godot as a walk-up call for humanity to stop waiting, to stop passing time, and instead to find one’s own meaning. Ultimately, waiting for a meaningful life is pointless, because when one waits, death awaits them.
“The Theatre of the Absurd” and Sir Ian McKellen’s discussion of Samuel Beckett’s existentialist play “Waiting for Godot” give a greater insight towards Beckett’s overall purpose of the play. Written in the post-Second War era, “Waiting for Godot” is categorized as “absurd theatre” because of the stagnant plot and importance of the characters’ hope.
ReplyDeleteThe coined term, “Theatre of the Absurd,” runs directly parallel to the lives of Vladimir and Estragon. In the “Theatre of the Absurd” article, the author states that one of the characteristics of absurd theatre is that “reality is unbearable unless relieved by dreams and illusions (1)”. Vladimir as well as Estragon throughout “Waiting for Godot,” are often relieved by their dream: their dream that Godot will come and rescue them from their pitiful lives. The characters’ hope and reassurance that Godot will come motivates the characters to continue to wait even when their lives are repeating a daily cycle. Though Vladimir and Estragon are stuck in this cycle, the men often are content with waiting because they believe that Godot will eventually help change their lives. The presence of hope in Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” emphasizes the existentialist idea that a conscious mind is a torturous one. Within the play, Vladimir and Estragon do whatever they are able to do to pass the time. Distraction is an important mechanism used by the two characters because it diverts their attention away from the suffering they are enduring while they are waiting their lives away for Godot.
On the other hand, Sir Ian McKellen interestingly interprets the symbolism of Godot based on the background of Beckett. While discussing Godot, McKellen states that Beckett did not intend for Godot to symbolize God. Instead, McKellen recalls that Beckett used to work for the resistance against the occupied forces of the Germans and would have to wait for days for someone to come with a message (:35-1:08). With this history of Beckett’s life in mind, the idea of religion being a main focus behind Beckett writing “Waiting for Godot” is not as accurate as I originally thought. However, even if the play was not originally intended to have religious allusions, the plot does not change and the principles of existentialism are still present and important to the overall theme of “Waiting for Godot.” If McKellen’s prediction was accurate and Godot were to symbolize this messenger during World War II, the audience of the play is still able to question the purpose of Vladimir and Estragon waiting instead of doing something more productive, such as planning a strategy against the German forces.
Both the explanation of the “Theatre of the Absurd” and Sir Ian McKellen’s discussion both add depth and a unique perception to Beckett’s purpose for writing “Waiting for Godot.” Whether “Waiting for Godot” was originally written from a religious perspective or inspired by Beckett’s personal military experience, the concepts of existentialism are still dominant throughout the play because of the characters’ choices to give up the rest of their lives to wait.
Sir Ian McKellan and the explanation of the “Theater of the Absurd” attempt to extend the understanding of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. However, McKellan disagreed with the interpretation of the absurd and Godot. Seeing these contrasting points allowed me to see the play from different points of view unique to separate individuals. That the literary analysis is so different from the actor’s testimonial goes to show that Godot cannot be defined and there is no correct way to define what the meaning of it is, just as the lives we lead are meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThe “Theater of the Absurd” brings up and expands upon points that have been discussed in class. The essay elaborates on the idea that, “man inhabits a universe with which he is out of key. Its meaning is indecipherable and his place within it is without purpose. He is bewildered, troubled and obscurely threatened” (Theater of the Absurd 1). As I analyzed the play during class, I came to the conclusion that Estragon and Vladimir’s lives were meaningless and that the pointlessness they faced was practically inevitable. These sentiments were confirmed in the essay of the absurd. However, Sir Ian McKellan and I would disagree about the meaning and Beckett’s intentions for Godot. Whereas I approached the play with a more absurd mindset, McKellan believes that Estragon and Vladimir are real people living in an unfortunate world. McKellan supported this thesis by recounting Beckett’s experiences in the war which reflect Vladimir and Estragon’s existence and by claiming many of the problems faced by the characters are what elderly people experience every day. I had not explored the possibility of Vladimir and Estragon being rooted in reality and the possible brings up questions that are far different from what I originally thought. The difference in the ideas about the theme of Godot in the essay and McKellan’s opinion are stark. McKellan believes that Godot is not a symbol of God, but a simple farmer that really represents hope and opportunity. McKellan believes that Estragon and Vladimir are just passing time, just as everyone is. However, the “Theater of the Absurd” essay maintains that, “Waiting for Godot is an absurd play for not only its plot is loose but its characters are also just mechanical puppets with their incoherent discussion. And above than all, its theme is unexplained” (Theater of the Absurd 5). The essay has determined that Godot has no theme, that it is an absurd play and only serves to demonstrate the meaninglessness of life.
Living through the cracks of broken dreams, Estragon and Vladimir wait for hope to come crawling through the gaps. Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett is an allegory that shows how we all hold onto heaven if we are only hanging by a thread. This allegorical nature of the play that I have developed is challenged through the Theater of the Absurd and made clear through Sir Ian McKellen's discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe consistently monotonous life of Estragon and Vladimir provided a familiar structure to the play that I was easily able to grasp. The Theater of the Absurd explains this as being of “...no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen.” I did not interpret the play as devoid of meaning or of action as the Absurdist argue, just that the repetitious nature of the play cancels out the meaning of purpose. To view the play as strictly absurd and without meaning defeats the allegorical view I developed on the play and forces a strange, hopeless outlook on the characters and their life. The text also describes absurd drama as “...not purposeful and specific as it solves no problems.” However, when I read the text I thought that it solved a very big problem I had with my life; I couldn’t accept the idea of life without meaning. Waiting for Godot, for me, made me feel as if i lived in the Garden of Eden my entire life and as the hunger set in I decided to take a bite of fruit, disregarding that I’ll be out on my ass come morning. The text made me disregard my guilt for satiating my hunger. The answer was personal, but it still provided reason.
It is Sir Ian McKellen that made me rethink my evaluation of the play. The simple examination and comparisons that were made between Godot and a farmer, Estragron and Vladimir and grandparents, and Pozzo and Lucky with stage performers made the play much more tangible for me. The allegory was strengthened through the idea that the character are no more than ordinary humans such as all of us are. As McKellen describes acting out the character he states, “you have to believe that they are inside yourself.” and I think you must do the same while reading. The characters must be visible within yourself to understand the theme and meaning (or lack there of). To understand that life doesn't give a damn about reasons, and the bible doesn't give a damn about who is reading, the reader must understand the nondiscriminatory nature and how Waiting for Godot may be applied equally to you or to anyone. The themes would be meaningless without the ability to apply the text to ones life.
Resource one (Theatre of the Absurd explanation) impacted my understanding of the play Waiting For Godot by allaying some of my confusion studying language. As this was my study topic for the piece, picking it apart was difficult because the deeper meaning, I felt, was all in the allegory. I am pleased to know it was intended to be read this way! “The Theatre of the Absurd constituted first and foremost an onslaught on language, showing it as a very unreliable and insufficient tool of communication. “ (P. 2) “Words failed to portray the essence” -makes sense because of LACK of essence, existentialism this was not developed yet. No outside force powerful enough.
ReplyDeleteThe video resource or response by Sir Ian McKellen rekindled a certain idea that takes turns gnawing at me with the rest. His take on the success of the piece was that it stemmed from Beckett’s focus, that Beckett originally brought to the table the idea that we in life are doing an unfortunate amount of waiting. “Just getting through” as McKellen says. This is scary to me because I suppose the idea of stagnancy is just so unappealing. How can it be that the majority of the human race just waits for something better when they are in a less than favorable position instead of charging for it full force? That cannot possibly be living to the fullest and I believe that is a statement Godot was meant to make. The people cannot be satisfied waiting around for another person or power to dictate when their life gets better or worse; it is up to them to catalyze the change and want it bad enough to make a difference in the dull and disenfranchised existence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(PART ONE)
ReplyDeleteBoth Ian McKellan’s dictation and the essay regarding “Theater of the Absurd” shed a new light upon my understanding of Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”, which at first seemed blasé and rather pointless. However, my sisters, both freshman, reminded me of why it was necessary not to take the work for face value; having read Dandelion Wine first at age 6, I immediately loved it, and never understood exactly why my peers all found it boring. It was a text about life itself, and faced with complaints that nothing ever happened, I vehemently argued in Bradbury’s favor, always maintaining that it was a treatise on appreciation of the splendor and beauty of the world and an essay on the human condition within it. Thus, when reflecting on my experience with Beckett’s play, I was forced to reevaluate my initial assumptions about its meaning and frame its purpose within the human condition itself and how this was reflected within myself, the consumer.
Admittedly, as an artist and performer myself, I am ashamed that I judged the piece; as the essay on “Theater of the Absurd” states, “absurd dramas are lyrical statements, very much like music: they communicate an atmosphere, an experience of archetypal human situations” (page 2). Rather than taking the work for face value, I forgot that, for this medium, language is secondary and performance and the consumption of the performance are most meaningful. Without a production in plain sight, simply reading the text could never expose me, nor any other reader, to its true magnitude. The play was meant to evoke an ambience, revealing an emotional tie within its individual patrons; quickly skimming through the words of what is not a book, but a play, is something which will never illicit the intended effect. Even so, different interpretations and allegorical prescriptions of the work will always provide a different context and canvas upon which the audience paints their elucidation.
(PART TWO)
ReplyDeleteSir Ian McKellan’s thoughts were also provocative, but not for the reasons one would predict; I had thought that, as an actor (and in view of the aforementioned revelation that only a theatrical production could do the work justice), he would not speak in such absolutes. Firstly, his research appears to have mostly consisted of reading the play’s highly popular Wikipedia page, from which quotes about the cyclist Godeau, the French translation of the words “God” and “willow,” and other tidbits he mentions are thrown around. In spite of this, he does deliberate on such things as the symbolism of Godot, very definitively stating that “Godot is not God. Life is mostly waiting, and Godot is a little bit of hope.” Although this may be true for him specifically, I do not necessarily believed that this can be stated in such concrete terms, and that everyone viewing the work would be casting its pointless notions against their own background, histories, and stories, forming a view of their own. Godot may not represent God for McKellan, or even Beckett, yet another may harbor strong convictions regarding his presence in their life and reconcile his actions (or lack thereof) with a held truth.
Both the essay and McKellan deliberate on the state of the characters, and regardless of whether or not they exist in real life or are meant to do so, I now realize that their relationships with themselves, each other, and with the world around them are inexorably intertwined. The essayist writes, “the mixture of comedy and near tragedy proves baffling”, and one can conclude the worst outcome is, perhaps, not that Estragon and Vladimir might perish, but that they are forced to continue onward and are “lucky” enough to persist in their pointless and absurd plight. Their ultimate punishment, inescapable in a life with neither a homeland or a promised land, is to stay somewhere in between, on the plane of the unfortunate living, and suffer through the long days to come one by one. McKellan also states that he “likes all of his characters, except those characters that hate themselves”; he preaches that he likes Estragon, but I question whether he nor his partner genuinely think their lives are worthwhile and that they have produced something worth continuing or not. Thusly, “Waiting for Godot’s” markedly existentialist and absurdist meanings, relating them to a state of worthlessness within the larger universe, are blurred by the inherent importance of the character’s relationships with their own selves.
Through reading the explanation of the Theatre of the Absurd, my concluding ideas of Waiting for Godot were reinforced and supported. While reading, I interpreted Waiting for Godot as a reflective piece on those who waste their lives away by living everyday the same. Beckett creates two men who travel the same road, while waiting for the same person. They live their lives in a meaningless fashion and make no attempt to change their downward spiraling fate. Two rules stated in Theatre of the Absurd that extremely enhance these ideas are rule number one, “Life is essentially meaningless, hence miserable,” and rule number five, “There is no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen.” Vladimir and Estragon take no action in their lives, creating a dull plot line and an unhappy life for the both of them. I interpreted these concepts as a call to action for a majority of society who live their life in the same pattern everyday. Although many of these people may not be in a situation as extreme as Vladimir and Estragon’s, Beckett is warning them that their future is bleak if a change is not made.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Theatre of the Absurd enhanced my ideas, Ian McKellen’s discussion gave me a refreshing, new outlook on the piece. McKellen shows his extensive knowledge of Beckett’s past and establishes the inference that Beckett’s piece was less of an interpretation, and more of a reflection of Beckett’s past. One story told by McKellen that stood out to me was the telling of a time of Beckett which seems undoubtedly similar to the plotline of Waiting for Godot. “During the second World War he [Beckett] used to work for the resistance against the occupying forces of the Germans...one of his assignments was to go in the forest and wait for a message. They didn’t know who it was going to come from...if the message didn’t come they had to come back the next day and the next day until he came.” McKellen believes this to be where Beckett received his story idea from, which would make Waiting for Godot a telling of Beckett’s past events, not a refectory piece or call to action for society.
Whether viewing Waiting for Godot from the Theatre of the Absurd perspective or from Ian McKellen’s perspective, there is still a lack of theme throughout the piece. This plotless work means many people will develop different theories of the writing. Only Beckett knew his intent for writing this play, which we will never know. This leaves Waiting for Godot an open ended piece that encourages personal interpretation, adding to the beauty of the piece.
“Theater of the Absurd” provided some background information about absurdism that I found helpful in explaining why “Waiting for Godot” was the way it was, with its lack of plot and meaningless dialogue. It offers a simple explanation for these two attributes by pointing out two goals of absurdism: to illustrate that actions are futile, and that modern language lacks depth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one point in “Theater of the Absurd” seemed to conflict with my view of Waiting for Godot. “Theater of the Absurd” claims that “Absurd Theater can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish” (Ahmed 1). Having held the belief that Godot represented the Christian “God,” it seemed to me that Waiting for Godot was criticizing faith more than encouraging a return to it. I interpreted the play as poking fun at religious people for clinging to entities of dubious existence. I also found it odd that “Theater of the Absurd” later claimed that “there is no concept of religion” in Waiting for Godot (Ahmed 4), although this may mean that religion is only implied in the play, and not mentioned explicitly.
Sir Ian McKellen’s take on Waiting for Godot contrasted with both “Theater of the Absurd” and my interpretation of the play. “Theater of the Absurd” and my own view of Waiting for Godot both considered a religious element, albeit in different ways, but McKellen dismisses the idea that Godot may represent “God.” He says, “Godot isn’t God, I don’t think. I think he’s a farmer.” I found this to be interesting, given that our interpretations of Godot in class—that of Godot being “God” or “Death”—were supernatural. Yet Sir Ian McKellen takes a more literal view of Godot, citing the characters’ hope for food, as well as the mention of a hayloft as support for his theory that Godot is a farmer.
I found it odd that absurdism promoted a return to religious practices, especially after having believed that Waiting for Godot expressed the opposite regarding religion. It was also interesting that while our class generally interpreted Godot as “God,” Sir Ian McKellen pointed out that Godot could be a person as well—namely a farmer. This is especially unusual because I failed to find a literal meaning of Godot, when usually I struggle to find non-literal meaning behind literary characters and symbols.
-Hannah Hasan
Christopher Spartano
ReplyDeleteThe essay, “The Theater of the Absurd” and the video of Ian McKellen discussing Waiting for Godot, acted as the last piece of the puzzle for my own personal understanding of the text. The background information provided by, “The Theater of the Absurd”, yields insight and offers a unique look into Beckett’s purpose for writing the play. This information, specially the emphasis (or lack thereof) placed on religion, combined with McKellen’s own interpretation of the text helped me achieve a more complete understanding of the text.
In regards to “The Theater of the Absurd”, the incorporation of God and its meaning in absurdist plays is something that totally shifted my viewpoint. The lines, “The Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish.” (Basic Concept of the Theater of the Absurd paragraph four) I found this to be eye-opening because it goes against what i originally thought. I always, very strongly, felt that the play was a religious allegory. Godot symbolized God and Estragon and Vladimir’s endless waiting was referencing society’s belief in God. However, because a goal of the absurdism is to restore God’s place in post World War II society, Beckett is trying to show God’s importance. Not underscore it. This goes completely against what I thought the entire purpose of the play was. I now look at the play very differently and interpret it in a new way. Now I realize that the play is not a religious allegory. Instead, Beckett is trying to show the uselessness in waiting, which brings me to my second point.
While the essay, “The Theater of the Absurd”, helped me understand one of Beckett’s goals, the video with Ian McKellen helped me understand another one. Something McKellen said that really was mind-blowing to me, is that we spend the majority of our time waiting. While reading, I understood that the play was centered around Vladimir and Estragon’s lack of action and that even while they understood they could move on, they consciously decided against it. What shocked me about this, was that Beckett was using our society as inspiration. Vladimir and Estragon’s inability to act is a representation of what we do everyday. As individuals and as a society, we wait for events and not the moment. We wait for graduation, or our first day of college or anything else. The point is, we are no different from Vladimir and Estrogen. We read the play and think, “Why don’t they just move on?”, but at the same time, we chose to live for future events. I did not think of this until I watched Ian McKellen explain it. While the idea is not complicated, nor elusive, it did help me understand Waiting for Godot as a whole.
To understand Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot, was at first a challenge but through discussions of the play, the ideas that were being brought out seemed to become comprehensible. When reading “Theater of the Absurd” the essay helped to cement those ideas. Especially when the essay states that, “And above that all, its theme is unexplained”, because in the play the theme is very unclear to the reader. As any absurd piece should be, it is nonsensical. We as readers can not comprehend why the characters are waiting around for nothing and the possible meanings of this waiting could be interpreted in several different ways. When the essay stated “Man is fascinated by death which permanently replaces dreams and illusions”, it made me think about how the two characters are always fascinated by the thought of hanging themselves and also how Vladimir has nightmares all the time. The essay pulled those two thoughts together and made me start to understand why it was added into the play. However this piece still kept the idea that the play was meaningful and was meant to wake up humanity to their constant repetition in life. It also kept with the idea that the objects and props were meaningful and meant to deepen the play.
ReplyDeleteHowever when watching Sir Ian McKellen’s presentation on Waiting for Godot, the idea that the play was a meaningful wake up call was disagreed with. According to McKellen the play is of normal life. He mentions that he thinks “Godot is a farmer” which is a different path of interpretation that was not even thought of. When discussing the play it was always thought that Godot was a higher being or at least someone of high society. But unlike that thought, McKellen stated that, “No, Godot is not God”. In his speech McKellen was exclaiming that Godot really had no other meaning behind it other than real life. He said that the memory loss meant nothing but Dementia and that Pozzo and Lucky were nothing more than just mere survivors like Vladimir and Estragon. Another thing that he said was that the bowler hats which in class had meaning behind them, were merely just a sign of comedy. He took a play that is usually seen as a meaningful allegory of life, filled with symbolism, was nothing more than a description of real life.
The only thing that has remained constant throughout discussions in school, “Theater of the Absurd”, and Sir Ian McKellen’s speech is that the fact that humans have a tendency to do a lot of waiting and that is what the play Waiting for Godot is really about. Whether it is just for the purpose of showing what human life is like or to give a call to action through Absurdism, remains unknown, but personally I believe that there is actual meaning behind the play other than that it is just real life.
The excerpt from Theatre of the Absurd did not really change the way I originally interpreted Waiting for Godot, it really just reinforced my ideas on the piece and what I took away from it. While reading Waiting for Godot, it was abundantly clear that Vladimir and Estragon represent the allegory for the meaninglessness of life or the individual’s lack of purpose. Beckett puts these two characters in the middle of nowhere to basically relive the same day over and over again. Both of these ideas relate directly to the Theatre of the Absurd’s general characteristics of an absurd play, more specifically numbers 1 and 5 which state that life is miserable and meaningless, along with the play having little to no action or plot. Sir Ian Mckellen touches on these two characteristics in his speech about Waiting for Godot. McKellen relates Vladimir and Estragon’s constant waiting to the present day and society,“an awful amount of life is about waiting . . . waiting to go to college, waiting to meet the right person . . . waiting for death”. . He essentially points out the mankind is very much like the two characters in Waiting for Godot; we are constantly just waiting for time to pass, to be onto the next new and exciting in our lives, yet the time we spend waiting is basically meaningless. While reading the play I never once thought about how it could relate to my life, I’d always imagined it as an old story based on people decades or maybe even a century ago, but after watching McKellen’s video I find this point to be the most interesting.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with McKellen and his idea that waiting around for things to happen in life is inevitable, I do not think it is without meaning or purpose. I think that what one does in between the big moments in life is extremely important. Making the most of everyday and making everything you say and do have purpose is one of the greatest thing you can do in life. The waiting in life can be very routine and boring, but it is this routine that helps make the big moments so special and different. we look forward to these events because they are so different from our everyday lives. This idea is supported by Theatre of the Absurd, once again through the general characteristics of what an absurd play should be, “the Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age . . . Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that had become trite, mechanical and complacent” (Ahmed 1). This statement reinforces the idea that absurd theatre is used as a way to help one “snap out of it” or become aware of the fact that they are in a rut and try to change it. I firmly believe that each person is fully in control of their own life or their own destiny, and I think that this is an idea Beckett also related to his audience in Waiting for Godot. Technically, Vladimir and Estragon are trapped by their waiting for Godot, forcing them to basically live the same day over and over again. In reality the two could make the decision for themselves to stop waiting at any time, yet they continue to leave their fate in the hands of someone else who may or may not even exist. If the two could snap out of it and realize that they could take matters into their own hands, maybe they wouldn’t continue to see life as waiting for Godot or waiting to kill themselves.
Katie Burke-
ReplyDeleteReading “The Theatre of the Absurd” and listening to Sir Ian Mckellen commentary on Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, did not change my viewpoints but rather they made my thoughts towards Waiting for Godot more reinforced. When I finished Godot, I concluded that the book was an allegory towards life and the meaning of it. The Theatre of the Absurd addresses Samuel Beckett’s take on an absurd play and what it portrays. According to The Theatre of the Absurd, an absurd play includes, “... Man is fascinated by death which permanently replaces dreams and illusions.There is no action or plot. Very little happens because nothing meaningful can happen…” (1). Beckett utilizes absurd characteristics well by representing these absurd play qualities throughout the novel. Estragon and Vladimir's interest in hanging themselves relates back to the qualities of absurd play qualities. The entirety of Godot is filled with no action or set plot to the play. The characters are in this barren wasteland, waiting on something or this someone (Godot) to come, all this representing the true meaninglessness of life in itself. My conclusions towards the novel were more enforced while reading the Theatre of the Absurd, for example, the reference to the characters being puppets on page 5 which states, “Waiting for Godot is an absurd play for not only its plot is loose but its characters are also just mechanical puppets with their incoherent discussion”. Since we as a class discussed the characters being looked at like puppets, this thought from the Theatre gave me more of a comfortable understanding of the novel all together.
Through Sir Ian Mckellen’s talk on Godot, it gave me a reassuring outlook on Godot and summed up my thoughts and feelings towards the novel. With his in depth and extensive knowledge on Beckett and his life, his opinions and information on the novel allowed me to further conclude my thoughts on Godot. Mckellen brings up a more simple viewpoint on the characters, such as his comparison between Godot and a farmer, which opens up my thoughts and allows more insight to arise. Mckellen’s entire outlook and thoughts on the play and life, relate in such a beautiful manner and I agree wholeheartedly with him. He discusses that while reading, the characters must be found within yourself, which really stuck out to me. The ties between Godot, Mckellen’s commentary, and The Theatre of the Absurd, cleanly concludes our unit on Godot and existentialism. These pieces all are tied within each other and it’s mind blowing to me with all the connections.
After listening to Sir Ian McKellen’s analysis of Waiting for Godot, the points that he made contradict my thoughts on the play. I did, however, appreciate McKellen’s very specific background on Beckett’s time in World War II. He explained how Beckett would be sent on assignments to wait for a message from an unknown person. If that message didn’t come, he would return night after night until it finally did come. It was this event in Beckett’s life that McKellen believed was the basis for the play (1:07). While I don’t find it altogether surprising that an author may insert himself into the story he writes, it seems as though this knowledge that McKellen holds about Beckett has furthered his literal interpretation of Godot. McKellen believes that the problems these men face are all “very, very real” (5:50) and that their situation is “...all absolutely rooted in that reality of getting through the day” (6:17). While McKellen may be able to better connect himself to the characters in the play based on his age and role as an actor, his viewpoint contradicted mine in that I believe Beckett’s purpose was to illustrate the hopelessness that arises as a result of a lack of purpose in an individual’s life, not to merely demonstrate the everyday struggles of getting through a day.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding, while differing from McKellen’s, is supported by Ashraf Ahmed’s explanation of the Theatre of the Absurd. Ahmed writes that Vladimir and Estragon’s waiting and purpose in the play “seems to be aimless” (5). This is because the characteristics of the Absurd Theatre that state that “Life is essentially meaningless, hence miserable” and also the assertion that “Reality is unbearable unless relieved by dreams and illusions” (1). In Godot, Vladimir and Estragon are miserable because of their lack of purpose, yet comforted by the thought that Godot will come eventually. This nihilism and complacency within the play again affirms another aspect to absurdist plays: “The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve...shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition” (Ahmed 1). Throughout my analysis of the play, it seemed evident that Godot was in fact a call to action of sorts, and as this resource states, that is indeed so.
-Amber Stacho
To some, the beauty of a play lies in the various interpretations of the set, the stage directions, the plot, and the characters themselves. To Ashraf Ahmed in his Basic Concept of the Theatre of the Absurd, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot represents the absurdity and meaninglessness of humanity. However Sir Ian McKellen takes a more direct approach to Beckett’s play.
ReplyDeleteBecause we spent a majority of our class time dissecting the components of Waiting for Godot, be it the symbols, allusions, or repetition, my views were originally more closely related to the philosophy discussed in “Theatre of the Absurd”. Ahmed explains that the point of absurd theatre is to “startle the viewer, shaking him out of this comfortable, conventional life of everyday concerns” (1). Lucky’s speech is a clear-cut example of Beckett startling the audience to grab their attention and make a point. We discussed Beckett’s purpose was to perhaps use a condescending tone towards his characters in order for us as readers to learn not to live this way. However, due to the subtlety and absurdity of the play, it is easy for me to see how Waiting for Godot can be considered as a work that “solves no problem” (Ahmed 1). “Theatre of the Absurd” did change my viewpoint on the importance of stage directions, as Ahmed makes the point that “Theatre should aim at expressing what language is incapable of putting into words” (4). In theatre, the actions and the objects/props used are just as important, more in Ahmed’s eyes, than the language of the play. Characters can readily and easily give into the societal expectation of manners and being polite and thus rarely convey the true point they feel: “It is the hidden, implied meaning of words that assume primary importance in absurd theatre, over what is actually being said.” Ahmed spends a great deal of his essay detailing the superficiality of language, which serves in direct contrast to McKellen’s interpretation of Waiting for Godot.
I dedicated a great deal of time attempting to understand the components within Beckett’s play as well as the meaning as a whole. To then see McKellen’s straightforward take on Waiting for Godot seemed at first amusing. Only when I put his interpretation into perspective, and saw the importance of his view as an actor, did it begin to become relevant. In order to portray his character, McKellen took the play and made it more relatable to himself and to the audience: “For us playing it, it is absolutely real people. And the first thing that happens is that one character, an old man, comes up and he’s got dreadful feet. Well if you know any old men, we’ve all got bad feet” (5:24). Though I cannot agree that Beckett’s play simply represents two friends living and waiting, I can see where McKellen is coming from with his superficial interpretation of the play.
Sir Ian Mckellen appeared to restate what I already knew. His initial presentation of the character’s, Vladimir and Estragon, almost inaction throughout the entire play cemented the notion that their very act of waiting represents life in general. Ian went on to state that people go through their lives are simply,” Waiting to go to college, waiting to meet the right person, my age waiting for death.” People spending their whole lives waiting for great events such as love or educational success epitomizes Vladimir and Estragon’s escapade in Waiting For Godot, because they simply wait for their own epoch just like anyone else. In the case of the play it is the day that Godot will finally come and help them somehow. At first glance this explanation was in accord with my own, until Ian offered a different color palette to the characters.
ReplyDeleteIan also presented the peculiar notion that Vladimir and Estragon are both old men which I failed to even suspect. He attributed this viewpoint by using Estragon’s memory loss as a sign of dementia. Moreover, Ian specifically stated that,“if you know any old man they got bad feet, they can’t remember what happened.” Estragon’s incessant memory loss and pain in his feet are not just occurrence of his misfortune in general but are also attributed to his old age. Yet initially, my own biased perspective, ,which i suspect is due to my young age as well as stereotypes in popular culture, deprived me of realizing such an arbitrary directive. Because all my elders have suffered from severe physically dampening illnesses I would never have suspected that the two men, waiting out in the open air for two nights straight in the hopes that some stranger would bring them solace, in the play would be from an older generation. By giving the main characters a specific age range we as the reader/audience are ever more so “proven” that the quest for meaning is never ending. Godot never comes, and neither will the de-facto meaning of life.
On the other hand, the Basic concept of the theater of the absurd enlightened my understanding of an absurdist play as a genre instead of merely one play. Waiting for Godot seemed to substantiate Sartre’s existentialist view that man chooses what to believe in the world around them by having its main characters search in vain for meaning, but I was unaware that an “absurdist play” was a genre unto itself. I’ve come to understand how Waiting for Godot refreshingly exemplifies every characteristic of an absurdist play. For example in the paper it is written that: “The Theatre of the Absurdis aiming to create a ritual-like, mythological, archetypal, allegorical vision, closely related to the world of dreams” (page 3). The absurdist play tries to impart the reader with as much power over themselves as they would appear in a dream. In a dream you can attain full control of reality, so these plays hope to induce a high level of control within the reader as to how they can interpret reality itself. A a matter a fact, In his play Beckett created two characters that outright refuse to even try to utilize their own power of perspective to show the reader, in an adverse manner, that he/her control what they think ,because Vladimir and Estragon willingly refuse to even try to think for themselves in any manner that actually holds a long term effect. As a play in which Dr. S. C. Mundra believes that,“ There is no action or plot”(page 1), Waiting for Godot serves as a grand stepping stone into an entire genre of peculiarly existentialist theatre that I never have never experienced.
There are many main characteristics of the Absurd Theatre present in Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”. What stood out to me was the list at the beginning, especially numbers 1 and 6: “1. Life is essentially meaningless, hence miserable… 6. The final situation is absurd or comic” (Ahmed 1). This immediately set my mind to thinking about “Waiting for Godot” as an absurd play. Frequently in the play, the question is why Vladmir and Estragon cannot leave the tree. The answer is always “Because we’re waiting for Godot”. This backs up the statement that the two main characters’ lives are meaningless. They were not contributing to society nor taking action to fix anything in themselves. They were also miserable because they often talked of killing themselves or arguing just to pass the time. As for the ending, it was comical because it felt as if the story would just start again—like nothing ever happened. When The Theatre of Absurd switches to Godot specifically, I disagreed with many of the points and felt slightly perplexed. I understand that “Waiting for Godot” is an absurd play, but I thought that it at least taught the reader lessons, even if the characters themselves were not experiencing anything. When the author states “its theme is unexplained” (Ahmed 4), I wondered if he thought there was no theme at all. (I thought about the themes of repetition, passiveness, forgetfulness, etc.) Ahmed also states “what a reader hears is simply the incoherent babbling which does not have any clear and meaningful ideas” (4). My classmates and I all were readers with no PhDs, certifications, or merit and we were able to pull something from the play. Ahmed’s point of view did not change my opinion that I was able to learn something from “Waiting for Godot”, in fact, it has strengthened my argument on why and how the play taught its message.
ReplyDeleteIan McKellen discusses many details, especially about Samuel Beckett, that I did not know. For instance, McKellen discusses Beckett’s possible inspiration for this play. I knew that Beckett had been living during the period of occupied France, but I was surprised to hear that he would go into the woods and wait for messages for the resistance (0:30). His story blew my mind and I think it would be really amazing to experience something like that. It also changed my view on the play in the sense that I imagine it in my head differently. I used to think about only what was given to me—there were two men, a tree, visitors, etc. However, now I feel a new sense of urgency when thinking about who Godot could be and what kind of message he might have for the characters. I never really cared much about who Godot was, but now I feel as if I missed an astronomical part of the play that I would like to explore again with new eyes. The next part of the interview I found interesting was around 4:00 when McKellen compared the waiting shown in Godot to “waiting to go to college, waiting to meet the right person, (my age) waiting for death…” This also changed my perspective because I am currently waiting to go to college and I can imagine what that is like because I’m living it, but I do not see how that relates to waiting for Godot. For me, I feel as if I have a plan, I know some information on the place I’m going and I have ambition to take me there. For Vladmir and Estragon, they do not have a plan, they have little information on Godot, and they do not have any ambition to find out what is happening to them. McKellen’s interview reminded me to take other examples and apply them to the play. One of these instances was of the vultures in the Jungle Book—talking in cycles insistently, always trying to find out what they are going to do.
McKellen’s thoughts and the “Theatre of the Absurd” essay impart valuable background information which refines our understanding of Beckett’s intent in “Waiting for Godot.”
ReplyDeleteBoth resources stress that absurdism depicts reality. Ahmed states “Apollinaire demanded that art should be more real than reality” (4), which means that in absurdism, situations depicting reality are exaggerated to a point past reality, to the point of absurdity. Correspondingly, in “Waiting for Godot,” everything is exaggerated. McKellen gives as examples of realistic problems in the play Estragon’s bad feet, Vladimir’s bad bladder, and all the characters’ bad memory (5:30), and he says that these are all typical problems for old men. However, in the play, the characters’ bad memories are exaggerated to the point that they can barely remember major events which happened the day before (such as Pozzo forgetting that he spent dinner with two people when he hadn’t seen any other living being for the past day). This lack of memory is based off of a real possibility, but its exaggeration gives the play its absurdity and emphasizes the meaninglessness of human lives.
Furthermore, the entire play could be seen as an exaggeration of Beckett’s real experience. McKellan states that when Beckett was in the resistance in World War II, one of his assignments was, with a companion, to “go into the forest… and wait for a message to come” from an unknown messenger (1:00). And if no message came that night, then they would come back the next night, and the next, and the next, until the message came. Vladimir and Estragon in “Waiting for Godot” face the exact same situation with some exaggerations: instead of the messenger (Godot) being unknown, the messenger might not exist at all; while the messenger would eventually come in Beckett’s case, Vladimir and Estragon have been waiting for fifty some years and will likely continue to wait for eternity. Also likely, but without explicit evidence, is that Vladimir’s and Estragon’s pointless discussions about death, suicide, random stories, and leaving the waiting site are caricatures of Beckett’s own conversations with his fellow companion. All of these exaggerations - of the messenger’s existence, of the waiting time, and of the conversations - are taking mundane characteristics and emphasizing them, amplifying them to the point of fantasy, of art, so that we can appreciate how pointless life can be.
Sir Ian Mckellen’s discussion on “Waiting for Godot” opened my mind to a greater interpretation. At first, I saw each character as a separate entity with a unique personality, but I was changed by his statement of a “double act”. Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky - they needed to be together in order to give the effect Beckett was looking for. Pozzo and Lucky are the main power struggle. McKellen notes how the change in the control of the rope also changes the power held. Vladimir is the false “Godot” for Estragon. He attempts to change his thinking by encouraging Estragon to take action instead of waiting. His reluctance mirrors that of Beckett during the revolution in World War 2. The idea that Beckett rebelled against an “accepted” form of theater shocked me. In waiting, Beckett allowed time to pass them by, which I understood. and while McKellen states, “. . .[W]aiting for college, waiting for the right person, and waiting for death”, they do none of that and wait for Godot; a figure they could never truly know, leading their lives to misery.
ReplyDeleteThe Theatre of the Absurd did not change my perception of “Waiting for Godot” Their existence was meaningless. They refused to learn, explore, or develop a better sense of recognition for themselves and accepted whatever was placed before them, and only that. For example, “Man is fascinated by death which permanently replaces dreams and illusions” (Theatre of the Absurd pg 1). Vladimir and Estragon see the death as a take on death, an escape from the reality life has given them. They also tend to refute and/or silence their dreams and thinking to limit their needs of life.