LiteratureWaiting for Godot

How does Beckett flout the norms of theater to create a new theater in Waiting for Godot?

4 Mins read

Samuel Beckett’s drama, Waiting for Godot, first carried out in Paris in 1953, exemplifies the existential philosophy and important components of the theatre movement referred to as the “theatre of the absurd.”

The “theatre of the absurd”—of which Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot is probably the most well-known instance—wasn’t an intentional movement. The movement did not actually have a name till Martin Esslin published an article within the Tulane Drama Review entitled “The Theatre of the Absurd,” which movement he further explored in a book of the identical title in 1962.

The “theatre of the absurd” has no manifesto. In his article and book, Martin Esslin merely provides a name to the movement, and makes an attempt to elucidate the philosophy and important components of absurdist drama by analyzing the plays themselves.

Read About: Symbolism in Waiting For Godot

Esslin bases his evaluation of absurdist plays on the philosophy of Albert Camus’s 1942 essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” where the conclusion was that life is absurd, which is to say that our existence is basically meaningless, and that our efforts to live our lives are futile.

Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, exemplifies and epitomizes this philosophy and the absurdist theatrical movement.

Against the backdrop of typical theatre, Waiting for Godot represents irony in extremesUnlike typical forms by which every little thing on the stage exists for a bigger function, the world of Godot is a world with out meaning: bare in each matter and form. With its excessive paucity of action, Godot confronts the theatre-goer with an experience of failed expectations: nothing occurs, Godot never comes. In this sense, Godot presents an excellent simulacrum (representation) of actual life by which desire is frequently annoyed by the boring details of the everyday life.

The haunting picture of despairing bumpkins (rustic/ awkward person) hobnobbing (mix socially) around a stage barren except for the lone, skeleton-like tree, creates a scenario of highly effective metaphorical significance. The characters are so featureless, so context-less, that it’s practically not possible to view them as representations of empirical entities; somewhat, they seem virtually as symbolic abstractions. In his seminal essay on the subject, Esslin argues that the Theatre of the Absurd shares a kinship with the mystery plays of medieval Europe for this very purpose— because these plays usually portray characters and conditions too obscure and generalized to indicate any explicit factor. Rather, the whole impotence of Vladimir and Estragon is suggestive of the failure of human thought, within the macrocosm (world) of human existence at massive, in addition, within the individual thoughts.

The characters within the play exist in isolation from the remainder of the world, in an indeterminate time and place. The stage instructions for Act I are, “A country road. A tree. Evening.” The stage instructions for Act II are, “Next day. Same time. Same place.”

Read About: Importance of Lucky’s Speech in “Waiting for Godot”

The first line of the play is:

ESTRAGON: Nothing to be done.

This line is repeated 4 times throughout the play, and the phrase “nothing” seems more than forty times, most frequently by way of the nothingness and meaninglessness of existence.

The play has no plot. Events merely occur for no obvious purpose. There is not any cause-and-effect for something that happens within the play.

Two characters, Estragon (nicknamed “Gogo”) and Vladimir (“Didi”), undergo the motions of their day by day lives, however nothing that they do in any way changes their existence or their state of being. They start the play waiting for Godot—whoever or whatever “Godot” is—and so they finish the play nonetheless waiting for Godot.

Two of the opposite characters, Pozzo and Lucky, appear to reverse their master and servant roles throughout the course of the play, which may be a change of their relationship or their state of existence, however the viewers cannot make sure that this reversal of roles would not occur each day in precisely the identical method. Likewise, the viewers cannot make sure that Pozzo and Lucky do not transfer out and in of Estragon and Vladimir’s lives in the identical method, day after day.

Near the end of the first act, a boy enters with a message from “Mr. Godot.”

BOY: Mr. Godot told me to tell you he won’t come this evening but surely tomorrow.

There’s a dialogue with the boy about whether or not the boy has seen Estragon and Vladimir before, which the boy denies. The boy says that he minds Mr. Godot’s goats and Mr. Godot treats him properly, however that he beats the boy’s brother, who minds Mr. Godot’s sheep.

In time, the boy runs off with a message for “Mr. Godot” from Estragon and Vladimir to the impact that the boy has seen them.

VLADIMIR: Tell him…(he hesitates)…tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?

BOY: Yes Sir.

The viewers cannot make sure that something that the boy says about himself or about “Mr. Godot” is true, whether or not the boy has or hasn’t seen Estragon and Vladimir before, that the boy will deliver their message to “Mr. Godot,” or that “Mr. Godot” even exists.

At the end of the play, Estragon and Vladimir seem as they did initially of the play.

VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?

ESTRAGON: Yes, let’s go.

They do not move

Read About: Waiting for Godot as an Absurd Play

In absurd theater, the writers flout all the standards by which drama has been judged for a lot of centuries. In their performs there is no such thing as an explicit consideration spent creating a recognizable plot, no detailed characterization, and no readily definable theme.

“Waiting for Godot” is an absurd play for not solely its plot is loose however its characters are additionally simply mechanical puppets with their incoherent colloquy (dialogues). And above than all, its theme is unexplained. It is devoid of characterization and motivation. So far as its dialogue approach is concerned, it’s purely absurd. What a reader or spectator hears is just the incoherent babbling which doesn’t have any clear and significant concepts. Nothing particular occurs within the play, nor will we observe any important change in setting. The scenario virtually stays unchanged and an enigmatic vein runs all through the play. “Nothing happens, nobody comes … nobody goes, it’s awful!”

Godot stays a mystery and curiosity still holds a sway. The wait continues; the human contacts stay unsolved; the issue of existence stays meaningless, futile and purposeless.

Suggestions? Share in the comment section.

And yes! if you need premium accounts at cheapest rate inbox me on my Facebook page at: Premium Palace

Subscribe my YouTube channel at: The Stream Post

And, if you want me to rewrite your blog post with 100% uniqueness, then contact me on Fiverr at: Shahireng

Related posts

Literature as Expression of Thoughts, Society and Life

4 Mins read
Introduction Literature is expression of thoughts, reflection of society and reflection of life. It contains the thoughts, reflections and observations of people…

Art for Life's Sake and Moral Purpose of Literature

3 Mins read
Introduction Some say ‘art for life’s sake’ and others say ‘art for moral purpose.’ But who is right? They both are, in…

Difference between Romanticism and Classicism

3 Mins read
Introduction Romanticism is a literary and artistic movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century. Romanticism was characterized…

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.