Theater Arts
IB
Play Analysis
 |
| http://www.possumpointplayers.org/aboutWaitingForGodot.html |
Title of the play: Waiting for Godot
Author: Samuel Beckett (1906 – 1989)
Interesting facts about the author:
 |
| Wikipaedia.com Samuel Beckett |
- · Irish
- · Was born on a Good Friday
- · Lived most of his adult life in Paris
- · Avant-garde novelist
- · Playwright
- · Poet
- · Theater director
- · Regarded as one of the most influential writers of the 20th century
- · One of the last modernists (though some say he’s a postmodernist)
- · Nobel Prize in Literature (1969)
- · Wrote in both English and in French
- · One of the key writers of Theater of the Absurd
- · « His work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human nature, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humor. » - Wikepaedia.com
First performed in: 1952, at the Théâtre de Babylone (in Paris – in French)
Period: Unspecified, though inferring from the dialogue of the
characters, I’d guess it was meant to be viewed as unfolding in Beckett’s time;
middle of the 20th Century.
Setting: On a small hill with a single tree in the background (too
small to hang someone on)
Style: Absurdist play / a tragicomedy
Immediate Impression: I don’t think I’ve ever read a stranger
play. Not terribly long, easy to read – but some moments (such as Lucky’s
discourse as he presents to all his thoughts) are downright confusing. The lack
of motion in the play is unlike anything I’ve encountered before, and yet,
there is a plotline. Sort of - not really. And yet, there is. I don’t really
know how to describe it, nothing really happens, but then again, that’s the
beauty of the play.
Nothing happens;
and yet it does or there’d be nothing to read or to go and watch.
Part of the reason
it’s so effective is the Godot never arrives. The entire play, we’re waiting
for this mysterious Godot – who simply never shows up. It’s brilliant.
The discussions and cloudiness twisted around the notion of time in the play is brilliantly wound and incredibly unnerving, though perhaps the latter is more of a personal reaction since one of my greatest fears would be to loose my memory and sense of self. The element of time is probably the absurdist factor in the performance that slides the play into that category.
The discussions and cloudiness twisted around the notion of time in the play is brilliantly wound and incredibly unnerving, though perhaps the latter is more of a personal reaction since one of my greatest fears would be to loose my memory and sense of self. The element of time is probably the absurdist factor in the performance that slides the play into that category.
Never once does
the text give a straight answer – it’s all left hanging just loosely enough for
everything to be up in the air and open to interpretation.
Brief Summary of the Story: Basically, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting
for the mysterious Godot to show up, endlessly and in vain. They occupy their
time talking, sleeping, eating (a carrot), encounter Pozzo and Lucky (a master
and carrier) who pass by, contemplate suicide, play games, take off boots,
change hats, argue, sing, exercise, and then hearing from a messenger boy who’s
never seen them before that Godot will meet them tomorrow without fail. And the
cycle repeats itself, varying slightly.
The entire play is
spent, true to its title, waiting for this Godot character. Who never comes.
Vladimir and
Estragon do anything they can think of "to hold the
terrible silence at bay" (Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett) while they wait.
And wait – and wait.
Three key moments:
1) This particular
dialogue must occur at least a dozen times throughout the play, and – although
repetitive – is of great importance, reminding the audience of the reason for
waiting in the first place. And the entire performance, both the audience and
characters do just that – they all wait for Godot, without ever truly discovering
the reason for their waiting.
There’s a certain
warped beauty to it all.
“ESTRAGON: I’m tired!
(pause) Let’s go.
VLADIMIR: We can’t.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We’re
waiting for Godot.
ESTRAGON: Ah!”
2) This is the
first passage, just at the beginning of act two, that unsettled me as Beckett
dives into the twisted mystery of time and human perception. The element of absurdum
is dragged in by the ambiguity that shrouds the notion of time in the play, and
this was the scene that first set me on edge – that pushed me out of my comfort
zone. The sheer conviction of the characters and the matter-a-fact manner in
which they discuss such a complex notion, coupled with their acceptance of the
ambiguity, shocked me.
“VLADIMIR: I was
saying that things have changed here since yesterday.
ESTRAGON: Everything
oozes.
VLADIMIR: Look at the
tree.
ESTRAGON: It’s never
the same pus from one second to the next.
VLADIMIR: The tree,
look at the tree.
Estragon
looks at the tree.
ESTRAGON: Was it not
here yesterday?
VLADIMIR: Yes, of
course it was there. Do you not remember?
We
nearly hanged ourselves form it. But you wouldn’t.
Do you not remember?
ESTRAGON: You dreamt
it.
VLADIMIR: Is it
possible you’ve forgotten already?
ESTRAGON: That’s the
way I am. Either I forget immediately or I never forget.”
3) This passage
intrigued me greatly, along with Vladimir’s tirade shortly after Pozzo exits.
Once again, the subject is (unsurprisingly) the mysterious concept of time. But
rather than puzzle over it as Vladimir has done, Pozzo approaches it head on
with no patients, taking a very pragmatic stance. The first part of his rant
can be summed up in two words, ‘Who cares?!’.
He pushes human
mortality to the front, a subject not many enjoy contemplating too long. What
does time mean for us? It doesn’t matter – you can’t escape it. You’re born,
you’ll live, and you’ll die – just like everybody else. Accept it, and stop
counting the minutes. If you spend all your life trying to gage how much of it
you’ve had, you’ll never do anything. He explains that life is an immeasurable period
since the only perception of time we have is warped due to out humanity. It’s
all a little confusing, but a truly fascinating concept if you take the time to
try and puzzle it out. After all, our lives are merely a blink of an eye on the
scale of things if you take into account the amount of time the Earth’s been
around. But then again, time itself is a human concept.
“POZZO: (suddenly furious). Have you not done
tormenting me with your accursed time! It’s abominable! When! When! One day, is
that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day
we’ll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the
same second, is that not enough for you? (Calmer.)
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s
night once more.”
- The quotes are from Waiting for Godot,
by Samuel Beckett
Have you ever
heard the song, ‘Seasons of love’? It popped into my head once I’d finished
reading Waiting for Godot. Go look it
up, I promise it’s relevant.
Critical Response
Direction (Scene transitions) / Performance (Set design/ Costumes) / Technical (Actor’s use of Body/ Voice):
&
Explore how the interrelationship between these elements
contributed to your impressions of the play (the
way that the set, lights, sound, costumes, performance, and space worked (or
didn’t work) together):
I have not, as of yet, had the opportunity to see this
particular play performed. However, I am one of those people who have a
constantly shaping video that plays out in my minds’ eye while reading the text
– I’m definitely a visual person.
But that’s neither here nor there.
What I visualized when reading this work of art was, to be
totally honest, rather simple. For me, Waiting
for Godot is a script that replies heavily upon their cast of five actors –
so much so that there are barely any props littering the stage in the first
place.
 |
| http://www.magnoliabox.com/tag/black%20sky |
Picture this, a barren stage.
Well, not completely barren. Upstage right you have a
tree. Just slightly taller than the actors, the top braches probably stretching
up to 2 meters at most, it’s crafted of papier-mâché and painted in a multitude
of brown hues, with the occasional area tinted red, orange or black. During the
first act it’s completely bare, but during the second, several green fabric
leaves (of various shades) – about a dozen – will have been glue tacked/ glued
on to several of it’s branches.
I’m taking for granted that the stage is a traditional,
lunge stage made of light brown wooden planks. The lunge stage will ensure that
the audience really feels they are a part of the play, and gives the actors
more areas of space to play with, and attempt to fill.
A uniformly black, thick curtain – to emphasize the
out-of-time aspect of the performance – will fill the background. After all, the
ambiguity that shrouds the element of time is one of the key absurdist aspects, and is important to preserve that carefully
constructed confusion.
I also imagine a constant,
soft background noise; a constant, omnipresent mix of cricket sounds, a light
light breeze ruffling the countryside and the occasional bird chirping. A sort
of mix of evening and nighttime sounds one would identify with the middle of
nowhere.
There are not many
scene transitions in this play. The only one, in fact, that springs to mind as
a true transition divides the two acts that compose the play. In my minds’ eye,
the stage simply fades to black – the second act opens just as the first one
did (plus the boots and leaves on the tree).
There will be no
music, though the soft background noise of the crickets, wind, birds, etc. will
continue so as not to break the flow of the performance.
The actors
themselves play a vital role in any production of Waiting for Godot, and it is mainly through the use of their bodies
and voice that the empty space of the stage is filled, entertaining an audience
for almost two hours straight. This is no mean feat. In my minds’ eye, all
their actions are slightly exaggerated, yet smooth and precise. They always
move with a purpose, although the reason may not be shared with the audience.
Their voices and body language mirror their rather abrupt mood swings; at one
second full of energy and life, the next depleted, hallow.
The costumes are
bright in comparison to the stage, uniformly colored suits, not particularly
clean but still ironed. Bright colored ties hang rather loosely round their
necks, and of course, the famous hats upon their heads. Estragon’s boots are
wellingtons. Vladimir is dressed in a deep blue suit (blue is often considered
the color of wisdom, and Vladimir does a lot of thinking), while Estragon is in
brown (the color of mud and earth, tying back to his more primal instincts).
Lucky, contrary to his name, ought to be covered in black (a representation of
his lot in life), and wears a rope instead of a tie. All his bags, however,
will be multicolored and bright, the burdens lighting up the stage, representing
the only stability Lucky can grasp onto that brings an element of color into
his life. Pozzo would wear pure white, including his tie (highlighting his
social status). The messenger boy will be dressed is a simple white shirt and
brown flannel pants, without shoes (underlining his status).
 |
| http://www.apieceofmonologue.com/2009/04/godot-worth-waiting-for.html |
I imagine this
played out by an all-male cast, four elderly men and a young boy. The basic
costumes, without any indication of an era besides ‘relatively recent’ allows
to deepen the mystery that shrouds the element of time, adding to the general
confusion since the audience can not situate the characters in a particular
time either.
My impressions are rather limited to my personal
interpretations and imagination, since I have never actually seen this play
performed. However, I find that overall the elements I’ve discussed above work
together and contribute to the ambiguity shrouding the notion of time that is
such a key element to the richness of the performance. As long as that
ambiguity is preserved, so are the main elements of the play.
Other
Critical Response/Production History
Describe what you discovered from other critics and/or
descriptions of other productions.
« Cornell’s
Waiting For Godot lives up to the reputation of its predecessors as a
visually remarkable production. The look and style of the play has been
inspired by the American vaudeville tradition and such great silent film clowns
as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Laurel and Hardy. Cornell’s production
follows in the footsteps of previous Godots while maintaining a sense of
freshness and energy. »
- http://news.cornellcollege.edu/2011/04/theatre-department-presents-waiting-for-godot/#.UQS4GkJptD0
« Boehlke does a masterful
job of putting his twists on the multiple possible meanings of Godot. As
the show fades to black at the end, you know you can come back the next day,
see the same show and take something different away from it. »
- http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/arts/theater/waiting-for-godot-jungle-theater-review
« Under the incisive
direction of Michael Arabian, the play is treated not as a symbolist pageant or
a philosophical gag machine but as an encounter with two tattered souls whose
plot is the master plot of our lives: filling up the time that has been
bafflingly granted to us during our stints on planet Earth.
Beckett was quick to dismiss
the high-minded prattle that surrounded the interpretation of the play that
established his reputation in the mid-1950s. (He was more concerned that Gogo’s
pants fall down as stipulated in Act 2.) And indeed the slapstick buffoonery is
designed to undermine any intellectual pretensions that might be provoked by
the play’s indelible image of the human predicament.
But this is an extraordinary
opportunity to see a modern masterpiece in the hands of two experts and a
highly resourceful supporting cast able to uncover fresh humanity in familiar
roles. Kudos to Armstrong for making Lucky’s nonsensical tirade (“...divine
aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions...”) heartbreakingly amusing
and to Cromwell for registering misgivings in Pozzo’s whirlwind
pomposity. »
- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/03/theater-review-waiting-for-godot-at-the-mark-taper-forum.html
« There's a
danger that pinning the play down to a single meaning might diminish its
overall relevance, yet the actors remain humorously aware of the fact. Any
temptation to over-read every colour reference is nicely exploded when Patrick
Robinson's Estragon expresses a preference for pink radishes over black ones.
"This is becoming really insignificant," responds Jeffery Kissoon's
Vladimir, with a wry grin that elicits a patter of applause.
Whatever the
pros and cons of presenting Waiting for Godot as an ethnic experiment, the
least you can say is that it passes the time – which would have passed anyway,
though probably not as quickly. »
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/feb/08/waiting-for-godot-review
What connections can
you make between what you experienced/wrote about with this play and your own
theatre experiences or practice?
Waiting
for Godot, a play that has a good rhythm to it and is far from
painful to read, falls definitely into the category of absurdist plays. I had never
before read anything relating strongly to absurdum, although I have encountered
several surrealist novels and can see certain parallels.
The play focuses on the mystery of time, a notion that
lies beyond the complete grasp of human beings. It’s an intriguing topic, one
that always has – and always will – elude even the most savant philosophers of
any era. It’s one of the examples in which man comes face to face with his own
limitations, limitations that he is then forced to face and acknowledge.
Therefore, the concept of human imperfection and flaws goes hand in hand with
this tragicomedy.
No one ever likes being told about their flaws – most get
offended and storm away if the topic is broached. And yet, here you have a play
that approaches the topic in such a round a bout and clever way that the
audience often doesn’t realize the significance of what they’re watching until
much later. I have not personally had much contact with plays of this level,
and it’s fascinating to read about. At a glance so simple, and yet – so
complex.
It is rare (at least, from what I’ve encountered) to come
across a play that truly only requires five characters. Most plays have
multiple supporting roles, but I suppose that’s part of the beauty of it all.
Usually, a cast of five would be forced to cut characters and double or triple
up several roles, like we did for our performance of Tempest.
It is also rather rare to find a play with solely male
characters – a solely male cast, sure. There was quite an extensive period in
which women were not allowed to act. But most of the plays still had female
characters that were simply impersonated by males, like in Shakespearean, Greek
or Roman times.
It’s really something very different than anything I’ve
encountered before. There’s a frank honesty and bottom line bareness to it all
– a sort of ‘truth’, if you will. No fancy masks, sets, nor equipment needed.
Just four men, a boy, the clothes on their back, a couple bags, pair of boots
and a rope. Find a tree or a branch to prop up, and you’re all set.
I find there’s a simplicity that is rather rare to
encounter.
Sources/Bibliography:
·
Waiting
for Godot, by Samuel Beckett (online version)
·
No comments:
Post a Comment