Analyzing Social Class and Humanity in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Seinfeld

Throughout history, class distributions have constantly been a serious issue. Many compositions today display social disparity; however, to recognize it, one needs to look through the proper lens. Literary critical lenses help to understand a work from a different angle which leads to a further interpretation of the composition. There are many lenses and aspects in literature, and one of them is the Marxist Theory. Also known as the Conflict Theory, this idea asserts that class struggle is a powerful divider in society. Although it is a social idea, this concept also relates to literature. In his play Hamlet, William Shakespeare demonstrates class struggles. Looking at this composition through the lens of the Marxist Theory, one uncovers that the dominant ones suppress and exploits the others seeking to display their superiority.

Throughout the term I have begun experiencing movies in a different way. The class has taken ideas of cinematography, theory, and film history and practically applied it to physically watching movies. By breaking down scenes and movies as a whole, the way I look at films in general has developed. A reflection on two of the films from this term, Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942) and North by Northwest (Hitchcock, 1959) will carry the bulk of the essay. Though, I will also be discussing how this class changed the way I saw a movie just a few weeks ago. Casablanca’s script and acting are of particular caliber, and North by Northwest unfortunately does not deliver with the dialogue and casting of lead actor Cary Grant. Though, overall, they both

Theatre is a complex art that attempts to weave stories of varying degrees of intricacies with the hope that feelings will be elicited from the audience. Samuel Beckett’s most famous work in the theatre world, however, is Waiting for Godot, the play in which, according to well-known Irish critic Vivian Mercier, “nothing happens, twice.” Beckett pioneered many different levels of groundbreaking and avant-garde theatre and had a large influence on the section of the modern idea of presentational theatre as opposed to the representational. His career seemingly marks the end of modernism in theatre and the creation of what is known as the “Theatre of the Absurd.”

How does your chosen film adhere to or diverge from the generic convention at play within the genre of the chosen film?

    Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.

Things such as tropes, mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, and sound all play major roles in putting movies together and conveying the film’s message and plot. These aspects of film are typically looked over by

Throughout Hamlet, Shakespeare shows the inherent complications and unintended conflict between rank and social class by making the members of the lower class experience hardships and conflict at the hands of the royal family and upper class. The idea of social class distinction is very prevalent in Hamlet and how each character interacts with every other character. Despite the fact that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet centuries before the Industrial Revolution and the rise a large divide between the one percent and the bourgeoisie, it was still written during a time of class struggle. During the time of Shakespeare, the feudal system of land-ownership was in full effect, and the people struggled for freedom from their monarcho-fascist oppressors.

Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett's existential masterpiece, for some odd reason has captured the minds of millions of readers, artists, and critics worldwide, joining them all in an attempt to interpret the play. Beckett has told them not to read anything into his work, yet he does not stop them. Perhaps he recognizes the human quality of bringing personal experiences and such to the piece of art, and interpreting it through such colored lenses. Hundreds of theories are expounded, all of them right and none of them wrong. A play is only what you bring to it, in a subconscious connection between you and the playwright.

In any society, a congregation of people ensures the creation of classes, and the dynamic interaction that ensues between them. Terry Eagleton, a British literary theorist, analyzed the works of Karl Marx in the nineteenth century. The ideas of class, class struggle, revolution, and power are evident in Marxist Theory, an exploration into the hidden interactions of power that envelop a society. In any instance of social order, there exists, “the capitalist class who owns those means of production, and the proletarian class whose labor-power the capitalist buys for profit” (Eagleton 3). The result of these distinct classes is, “the economic structure of society . . . or ‘base’ or ‘infrastructure’” (Eagleton 3). The base gives rise to the “superstructure—certain forms of law and politics . . . whose essential function is to legitimate the power of the social class which owns the means of economic production” (Eagleton 3). The application of these interactions in society is apparent in the play Hamlet, specifically the events that propel the play to a start. The kingdom of Denmark is ruled by the excellent King Hamlet, whose tempestuous brother, Claudius, recognizes his position in the class that adheres to the superiors. In this setting, a man who has royal blood, yet fails to become involved into the line of succession, has no future in rule. In the case of Claudius, there is no future as the ruler of Denmark, for Hamlet himself is next in the line of succession. Claudius is an observant man who recognizes that his position as merely a servant to King Hamlet’s wishes is suppression, and thus desires freedom of reign. Analyzing the effect of Marxism present in the French Revolution, author George C. Comninel declared that the event, “was to be overthrown by the revolution of the proletariat, the ‘universal class’ of humanity, realizing true human emancipation” (Comninel 29). In this salvation of revolution, that expands the mind from oppression, Claudius fins a similar transformation in power. Claudius kills King Hamlet, and thus is granted the power of a King. In killing his brother, the unintended consequences of the transferring of power in such a superior arena propels Hamlet forward. But what does an

Modernist fiction is incredibly dense and abstract. Writers from the twentieth century also seem to carry with them the weight of the world, and thus their fiction has been filled with realistic misery and pain. Still, these writers often add to this element with existentialist thematic structures, which construct a very unique and experimental viewpoint on a modern existence. This is what is occurring in both Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as well as Albert Camus' The Stranger. The two a very different in format, yet both play upon the modernist idea of abandonment by God and the idea that there is an underlying sense of nothingness that guides modern life. Each focuses on the notion of free will and how it determines our lives in a world devoid of God. Together, these great works of contemporary fiction are a telling testament to the changing nature of sentiments regarding both religion and the meaning of life in a tumultuous twentieth century paradigm.

On of the play’s assumptions is that chance is the main factor behind a human’s existence. Again, leading that human life is determined by and only chance. Beckett beckons on the path of religious symbolism. Hints of Christianity are influenced in this play throughout. In fact, opening moments of the play, Vladimir

Samuel Beckett may have renounced the use of Christian motifs in Waiting for Godot, but looking at the character of Lucky proves otherwise. We can see Lucky as a representative figure of Christ as his actions in the play carry a sort of criticism of Christianity. His role suggests that the advantages of Christianity have declined to the point where they no longer help humanity at all.

Estragon and Vladimir are often occupied in arguing and storytelling to “pass the time,” (Beckett 6) and this repetitive and anticlimactic routine leads Estragon and Vladimir to ask each other, “What did we do yesterday?”(Beckett 9) Their passionate dispute over whether to continue waiting and their diminished awareness of time and daily events are evidence of Beckett’s desire to establish a mood that is suspenseful but primarily distorted, as to accentuate the lack of significance with which the men seem to act. In further consideration of the flattening of planes that fundamentally occurs in modern art, “the past and present are represented as occurring simultaneously”(Barrett 50) – this is precisely the mood that is established in the initial dialogue. Since Beckett’s characters are unable to simply adhere to religion or spirituality as paths to experiencing a “higher reality,” they are bound to a “flat and inexplicable world”(Barrett 49) which governs not only the state of their emotions but also their perception of the physical world. This seems to enslave Estragon and Vladimir, and Beckett ultimately uses Godot to control the dimension of time with more solidity, at least as it affects the two men. Vladimir confirms this dependence when he says, “Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it. For the moment” (Beckett 17). This attitude places Estragon and Vladimir in a condition of helplessness, one that is further complicated

Samuel Beckett’s plays are abstract and seemingly ludicrous in the minds of those “cultured” by “true” literature. However, that is not the point, or rather that is the point that Beckett wants to break. Thinking about love, the weather, or the next Trump scandal will not help us in our endeavor to understand who we are and why we are here. It is through Beckett’s works that he challenges our preconceptions of the world and who we have learned it from so that we can craft our most authentic selves, a “self” that is transparent and questioning. In Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Act Without Words II, the play serves as an authentic reflection of life and actively questions and inquires on what it means to

At first glance, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, appears to be an unavailing, pointless play whose only purpose is for comic relief. It is filled with off-topic conversations and awkward silences that seem to show no correlation. However, when the confusing plot is analyzed, it is revealed that the play is an analogy of the futility of religion. The use of language in Waiting for Godot serves to illustrate the theme that religion is incompatible with reason and only brings Vladimir and Estragon confusion and sadness.