Scan barcode
A review by ionm
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
Returning to Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is a rewarding experience. Most importantly, it is an act of mandatory necessity. The play in which nothing happens is a treasure trove of meaning. Attempting to find our own version of truth is tempting, and I would argue it holds the key that the author left abandoned in plain sight.
Critics have opined that the play is an existentialist exploration of the meaninglessness of life in post-war Europe. Others emphasised God’s abandonment of humanity, that is in constant expectation of His return. Others have taken a political reading of Anglo-Irish relations, and unsurprisingly many saw it through the lens of psychoanalysis. In effect, in line with modernist thinking, all of these theories are valid, and probably all wrong simultaneously, especially given the author’s own reticence to describe the play’s meaning, whilst admitting to having unconsciously borrowed from a variety of sources in the euphoric act of writing.
Vladimir and Estragon are two men in the middle of nowhere in particular who are waiting for a man that would solve their misfortune. Godot seems to miss an appointment with them, but promises to return the next evening. We are witnesses to two of those evenings, though it is clear that these two days are just two random occasions of the many that have taken place in the past and are to take place in the future. On each night, they encounter Pozzo and Lucky, a master and servant that seem intrinsically dependent on each other. Except Vladimir, no one in the play seems to remember each other after each eternal encounter. Each day is a repetition of the other, as pointless as the other and as meaningless as the other. “Yesterday evening we spent blathering about nothing in particular”, Estragon tells Vladimir. “That’s been going on now for half a century”, he concludes.
I argue that this strong sense of union between the characters suggests an intrinsic bond. Estragon’s preoccupation with the mundane and Vladimir’s concern with the act of thinking hint directly at a dualist being made of flesh and mind. Estragon’s nightly punishments represent the flesh’s constant battering by external forces. His threats to abandon Vladimir repeatedly, and the latter’s ever successful attempts to maintain the constancy of their existence, are evidence of man’s will triumphing over the desire for death. But if we are to accept this reading as essentially a man’s struggle for survival, the presence of Pozzo and Lucky in this daily chore feels incongruous.
So instead of having one single dualist entity, “Waiting for Godot” has arguably two distinct individuals. One is formed by the broken harmony of Estragon and Lucky, and the other by the contrast of Vladimir and Pozzo. We know that Estragon claims to have been a poet, and Pozzo claims that Lucky taught him all his thoughts and feelings. In spite of their intrinsic connection with the physical world around them, both Estragon and Lucky are essentially the authors, the mind force responsible for truth. Pozzo’s life can only be explained by the presence of Lucky, and Vladimir does not seem to have any past outside of his relationship with Estragon. When they eventually hurl insults at each other, Estragon accuses Vladmir “with finality” of being a “Crritic”. This makes both Vladimir and Pozzo as a symbol of the critic, a human whose life is concerned with the dissection of original thought. Vladimir’s desire to meet Godot far surpasses that of Estragon’s for ultimately the critic requires a salvation from the dependency of the art created by others. Godot in that sense is the public that justifies the role of the critic, and one that may have an impact to seal the memory of authors into history. Estragon and Vladimir don’t move, as their lives are trapped in the collective experience of consumers of art.
The enduring success of this play emanates from the fact that it is essentially a dialogue on the role of art in society. Its apparent inaction is contradicted by the audience’s desire to perforate the complexity of thought in order to achieve clarity, in turn generating nail-biting attention. “Waiting for Godot” in its simple setting has revolutionised the dramatic art by making the audience an active player in the theatre of life.
Critics have opined that the play is an existentialist exploration of the meaninglessness of life in post-war Europe. Others emphasised God’s abandonment of humanity, that is in constant expectation of His return. Others have taken a political reading of Anglo-Irish relations, and unsurprisingly many saw it through the lens of psychoanalysis. In effect, in line with modernist thinking, all of these theories are valid, and probably all wrong simultaneously, especially given the author’s own reticence to describe the play’s meaning, whilst admitting to having unconsciously borrowed from a variety of sources in the euphoric act of writing.
Vladimir and Estragon are two men in the middle of nowhere in particular who are waiting for a man that would solve their misfortune. Godot seems to miss an appointment with them, but promises to return the next evening. We are witnesses to two of those evenings, though it is clear that these two days are just two random occasions of the many that have taken place in the past and are to take place in the future. On each night, they encounter Pozzo and Lucky, a master and servant that seem intrinsically dependent on each other. Except Vladimir, no one in the play seems to remember each other after each eternal encounter. Each day is a repetition of the other, as pointless as the other and as meaningless as the other. “Yesterday evening we spent blathering about nothing in particular”, Estragon tells Vladimir. “That’s been going on now for half a century”, he concludes.
I argue that this strong sense of union between the characters suggests an intrinsic bond. Estragon’s preoccupation with the mundane and Vladimir’s concern with the act of thinking hint directly at a dualist being made of flesh and mind. Estragon’s nightly punishments represent the flesh’s constant battering by external forces. His threats to abandon Vladimir repeatedly, and the latter’s ever successful attempts to maintain the constancy of their existence, are evidence of man’s will triumphing over the desire for death. But if we are to accept this reading as essentially a man’s struggle for survival, the presence of Pozzo and Lucky in this daily chore feels incongruous.
So instead of having one single dualist entity, “Waiting for Godot” has arguably two distinct individuals. One is formed by the broken harmony of Estragon and Lucky, and the other by the contrast of Vladimir and Pozzo. We know that Estragon claims to have been a poet, and Pozzo claims that Lucky taught him all his thoughts and feelings. In spite of their intrinsic connection with the physical world around them, both Estragon and Lucky are essentially the authors, the mind force responsible for truth. Pozzo’s life can only be explained by the presence of Lucky, and Vladimir does not seem to have any past outside of his relationship with Estragon. When they eventually hurl insults at each other, Estragon accuses Vladmir “with finality” of being a “Crritic”. This makes both Vladimir and Pozzo as a symbol of the critic, a human whose life is concerned with the dissection of original thought. Vladimir’s desire to meet Godot far surpasses that of Estragon’s for ultimately the critic requires a salvation from the dependency of the art created by others. Godot in that sense is the public that justifies the role of the critic, and one that may have an impact to seal the memory of authors into history. Estragon and Vladimir don’t move, as their lives are trapped in the collective experience of consumers of art.
The enduring success of this play emanates from the fact that it is essentially a dialogue on the role of art in society. Its apparent inaction is contradicted by the audience’s desire to perforate the complexity of thought in order to achieve clarity, in turn generating nail-biting attention. “Waiting for Godot” in its simple setting has revolutionised the dramatic art by making the audience an active player in the theatre of life.