Language, Action and Time in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot

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.”

As our world progresses further into the future with increasingly complicated and advanced technology, one fact remains true throughout history; Communication is key. Centuries away from the time period of Shakespeare, now looking back at his play Othello, this fact seems more evident than ever. Through a relatively short five acts, observers and readers alike are able to witness countless instances of miscommunication and dramatic irony between the characters throughout the play. The perceptive reader is quickly able to realize the immense power of the words spoken between the principal characters and contrast them effects of said words. As brilliantly put by renowned author Yehuda Berg; “Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to

The atomic bomb signaled not only the commencement of the Cold War, but also a political divide between the communist ideologies of the Soviet Union and the democracy of the Western world. A fear of communism behind the Iron Curtain and nuclear annihilation spread throughout the US, while existential views regarding the meaning of life arose. Through their texts, composers subverted dominant Cold War paradigms to …….. ATQ……. Samuel Beckett’s modernist existential play ‘Waiting for Godot (Godot) (1953)’ is a philosophical questioning on the purpose of human existence, and the nature of scientific development. In response to the existential angst following WW2, Beckett uses the conventions of Absurdist theatre to examine philosophical

It is important to remember that Shakespeare’s original plays took hours to perform in order to get the message being conveyed across. However we live in a society now where we want instant gratification and understanding and therefore plays of this length will not captivate an audience for very long. Many plays and novels are being adapted for film in order to try to achieve the same desired message while appeasing the audience’s need for instantaneous results that we will understand, but is this truly being accomplished. The changes in the timeline and dialogue that occur in the movie cause Hamlet to appear more courageous and aggressively driven. However, in the play, Hamlet is seen as a weakling and quite cowardly.

The chief definition of "thought" revolves around the basic concept of the mental process: "The action or process of thinking; mental action or activity in general, esp. that of the intellect; exercise of the mental faculty; formation and arrangement of ideas in the mind" (OED, 1a). A further subset of definitions can be catalogued into a Manichean vision of positives and negatives and which equally apply to Hamlet's central consideration of consciousness as a blessing or a curse. There is a stress on thought's potentiality which fits with Hamlet's obsession with the infinitude of man: "Conception, imagination, fancy" (OED, 4c). But following this comes the negative view of thought as quasi-action, a direct link to Hamlet's stall tactics: "The entertaining of some project in the mind; the idea or notion of doing something, as contemplated or entertained in the mind; hence, intention, purpose, design; esp. an imperfect or half-formed intention; with negative expressed or implied = not the least intention or notion of doing something" (OED, 4d). Similarly, the past neutral sense of "Remembrance, Œmind'" (OED, 5e) is countered by the negative anticipatory connotation of: "Anxiety or distress of mind; solicitude; grief, sorrow, trouble, care, vexation" (OED, 5a). This current of duality is important to keep in mind as we explore its

Marvin Carlson’s article argues about whether plays are better experienced purely through text or through performance. He discusses the conflict theorists dealt with when they wanted to perform Shakespeare’s plays. Some theorists believed that Shakespeare’s texts were a magnificent work on their own and that any performance needed to be as close to the text as possible. This caused theorists to regard performance as unnecessary since it had the potential to ruin the text. This type of theory carried on past the romantic period and some theorist continue to believe that plays should keep to the original script as much as possible. Carlson cites Charles Lamb commenting on how performances of Hamlet diminish the quality of Shakespeare’s work. Marvin then explains how

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.

That alchemy has proved transcendently effective over the centuries since the plays were first written. The bard has a way of saying simple things and for others a simple way of saying complex things. For Brook, theatre is very much the latter; and, in a late work like Tierno Bokar, he is seeking, in his own phrase, to "go beyond" the immediate present. This likewise philosophy treats theatre less as a product than as a process: a collaborative means of exploring life's mystery.

The two works are written in very different styles, but each has its own unique quality that adds to the overall success of the works themselves. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot is a play, and is thus written with stage directions and dialogue instructions, as it is meant to be both a piece of literary mastery and a wonderful stage experience. It is this traditional play structure that counterbalances the more modern thematic

Over the centuries, many writers, thinkers, and students have studied the works of William Shakespeare. One of the most analyzed plays in history is Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet. The most common topic of scrutiny is Hamlet’s insanity. Is Hamlet’s madness a reality, or is it actually a clever the clever plan he leads us to believe it is? This ambiguous play allows the reader to pass his or her own judgment on Hamlet’s mentality, which in turn causes much confusion as to what the correct diagnosis is. As the reader puts the pieces together and begins to unfold the true feelings and actions of Hamlet, it becomes obvious what the truth is. Hamlet’s “antic disposition” is a reality, and his rationalization for his “mad” behavior is nothing

If the world of theatre can be accredited for anything, it would be for drama’s constant criticism of societal structure. Through it’s epic use of comedic and dramatic storytelling, theatre subconsciously inspires the minds of it’s audience to genuinely analyze the inner workings of their community’s sturcture. Some playwrights successfully incorporate this masterful mind game through their humorous and entertaining comedies; Others entice by their jarring and encompassing dramas. No matter the style, playwrights are constantly attempting to challenge the minds of their audiences and bring truth to light through their art. A phenomenal and extremely direct example of this comes from Moliere’s most

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.

In modern linguistics, a shift from realism, making works that represent the actuality of life, to subjectivism, everything is subjective and there are no definite meanings, has occurred. This linguistic shift influenced numerous works of writing and works of art as well. The move to subjectivism can be clearly seen in both William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michel Foucault’s Power/Knowledge through each’s discussion on truth, power, and the definitive meanings of words.

In Waiting for Godot, Beckett often focused on the idea of "the suffering of being." Most of the play deals with the fact that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for something to relieve them from their boredom. Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for. Waiting for Godot is part of the ‘Theater of the Absurd’. This implies that it is meant to be irrational and meaningless. Absurd theater does not have the concepts of drama, chronological plot, logical language, themes, and recognizable settings. There is also a split between the intellect and the body within the work. Vladimir represents the intellect and Estragon the body, both cannot exist without the other.

Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy written in two acts, was written by Samuel Beckett in 1949. The plot of the play revolves around two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who wait in hope to meet someone or something named ‘Godot.’ While on the other hand, there is Pozzo and Lucky who appear venturing on the country road. Beckett uses the characters in Waiting for Godot to embody specific meanings to their relationships and how it may parallel to the world as people know it.