Reflect Like Human Beings, A Civilization Will Talk To

Samuel Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot between October 1948 and January 1949. Since its premiere in January of 1953, it has befuddled and confounded critics and audiences alike. Some find it to be a meandering piece of drivel; others believe it to be genius. Much of the strain between the two sides stems from one simple question. What does this play mean? Even within camps where Waiting for Godot is heralded, the lack of clarity and consensus brings about a tension and discussion that has lasted over sixty years.

Over the many years of English literature and various forms of media, the ideals of the times and of the creators of these works have changed; some drastically, some possibly not as much. The genre of science fiction is no exception. Take, for example, two of the most widely-known science fiction novels in the history of English literature: The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds, written in the late 1800s in Victorian England by H.G. Wells—novels which, quite arguably, revolutionized the science fiction genre—and their modern theatrical counterparts. While it may be more beneficial to compare two works of the same medium, the differences in themes and style are still evident. The former two reflect Wells’ own views in society and

Samuel Beckett uses some techniques to portray the idea of modern life being absurd in “Waiting For Godot”, these techniques include symbolism and metaphor, also he uses a special form that is anti-play that is a feature of Theatre of the absurd in the drama. “Waiting For Godot” is a classical theatre of the absurd.

Given societal notions of disillusionment and ennui associated with the departure from religion and the gravitation towards reality and scientific fact, modern artwork has evolved to reflect a subsequently flattened state of human emotion. William Barrett presents this concept through his discussion of Modern Art in The Irrational Man, depicting the psychological underpinnings of this progression of artistic style. In the tragic comedy of Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett demonstrates that literature is no exception to modern art’s capturing of an evolved human spirit – which might itself be flattened more so than its artistic manifestation. Through Estragon and Vladamir, Beckett attempts to reveal how life perpetually challenges

Civilizations will talk to themselves. Art is the favored medium of discourse. Literature mirrors that internal conversation directly. For example, take Victorian England. Dickens’ A Christmas Carol reflected social guilt over the treatment of the poor. H. G. Wells the War of the Worlds reflected insecurity over an industrial-age world war. That war became a reality in less than two decades. So it’s wise to listen to a culture’s authors, especially to those whose work outlives them. Their words often predict the future.

In all fiction, the author’s main goal is to entertain and keep the interest of their readers. In order to accomplish this, they often incorporate world events and topics. These events, whether they are currently relevant or happened previously in world history, make books more engaging, relatable, and entertaining to the audience, and can even be used to establish a personal connection with the reader. World events have influenced fiction to the point where most books use popular culture or historical happenings as main components to the plot, and without them, the genre would be nowhere near as interesting, rich, and diverse as it is today.

The play "Waiting for Godot” performed at the NYU Skirball Center for the Performing Arts provides an impressive adaptation of Samuel Beckett’s original work. First off, the Irish theatrical troupe, Gare St Lazare, is one of the foremost specialist on Beckett’s work, which includes modern interpretations of his work in “Waiting for Godot. This production combines a strong does of slapstick comedy, which is typically found in the way Vladimir (Nathan Lane) and Estragon (Bill Irwin) are often seen physically interacting with each other when taking off boots, running about the circular stage, and other back-slapping styles of “Laurel and Hardy” methods of interaction. In comparison, Beckett’s play tends to reveal the absurdity of poverty of the two men, which is depicted in a more serious depiction of their wretched lives. For instance, in one scene Beckett’s Vladimir is more prone to somber bouts of violence in the original play: “Enter Vladimir, somber. He shoulders Lucky out of his way, kicks over the stool, comes and goes agitatedly” (36). In the Gare St Lazare production, the slapstick style of comedy is far less violent in terms of projecting a more comedic view of poverty in the dire circumstances portrayed by Lane’s portrayal of Vladimir. However, there are some elements of the absurd, which are dictated by the presentation of Beckett’s play in a smaller venue, such as the Skirball Theater at New York University.

In Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, one of the most prominent dramatic styles Beckett uses is the tragicomedy. This blend of the two classic forms of drama adds a sense of dark humor to the play. When it is performed, the play’s seemingly random acts of comedy are dispersed through the tragedy. which provides a physical act to be performed on stage, as well as expanding the depth of the ideas presented. Beckett uses the tragicomedy style to demonstrate how tragedy and comedy are two of the most important parts of life, and to provide a shocking and stark contrast between ideas presented in the play.

Originally performed in 1953 in French, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot took the stage at the Soulpepper Theatre in Toronto. The play tells the story of Vladimir and Estragon, two men who wait for Godot, someone or something they have not met to seen. The Soulpepper Production illustrates the journey that plays with Vladimir and Estragon’s mind and emotion, in regard to the interactions with their surroundings and themselves. The main focus of the production directs the audience’s attention towards an enclosed setting that limit the actions originally sought in the play. The production however, focused more on Vladimir and Estragon’s relationship, the play does not capture the same effect. Thus, the production is a mere interpretation from what the play offers in portraying the stage. From the play to the stage, Waiting for Godot illustrates how an enclosed setting represents Vladimir and Estragon’s mind.

“Brennt Paris?” Allegedly, this is the question Adolf Hitler asked German general Dietrich von Choltitz on the eve of the surrender of the city to the Allies. Translated to English, Hitler asked the general “Is Paris Burning?” The fuhrer wished to destroy Paris, generally considered the most beautiful city in the Western world, so that even if he could not control the city, no one else could either. Fortunately, swayed by the beauty of the city, among other factors, Choltitz refused, preserving the charm, culture, and history of Paris to inspire others for posterity. The fact that Paris survived the war relatively untouched allowed for a mass influx of writers, painters, and thinkers from around the world, especially as so many other major cities across Western Europe were destroyed or heavily damaged following the Second World War. One such writer who found his way to the postwar City of Lights was Irish playwright and novelist Samuel Beckett. He was not alone, however. Others such as Ernest Hemingway, Albert Camus, and Jean Paul Sartre also lived in Paris around the same time, and whether or not Beckett spent his time at Les Deux Magots with them conversing about writing and philosophy, the effect they, and the city around them, had on Beckett is indelible. Nowhere is this more visible than in Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, where the absurdist existentialism that permeated the writings of many other Parisian expatriates is at the forefront.

Who is Godot and what does he represent? These are two of the questions that Samuel Beckett allows both his characters and the audience to ponder. Many experiences in this stage production expand and narrow how these questions are viewed. The process of waiting reassures the characters in Beckett 's play that they do indeed exist. One of the roles that Beckett has assigned to Godot is to be a savior of sorts. Godot helps to give the two tramps in Waiting for Godot a sense of purpose. Godot is an omnipresent character that helps to give meaning and function to the lives of two homeless men.

In Waiting for Godot, a simplistic view can be applied which makes the play frustrating and seemingly worthless, which exemplifies how different views can be applied to different pieces of literature. If an existentialist view is applied to the play, it is easy to see how the nothingness that fills the main characters’ lives can be connected to the readers’ own lives and how the play exposes the lack of meaning thrust upon them. In Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, the suppression of the narrative arc and stagnant character development attribute to the simplicity and overall meaningless qualities present in everyday life.

This is an absurd play written in 1953 by Samuel Beckett. It features two main characters Vladimir and Estragon who wait tirelessly for Godot. These two seem not to undergo any transformation throughout the scenes. In the same play, Pozzo, a master and Lucky, his slave becomes blind and dumb respectively in Act II. The character Godot, a mute character, is the reason Vladimir and Estragon wait patiently at the roadside after his messenger, a boy delivered the message of his coming. The author utilizes the same setting throughout the play which a secluded road with only one tree.

Gambaran ini telah dilukiskan oleh Samuel Beckett melalui karya drama absurdnya yang pertama iaitu En attendant Godot (Waiting For Godot). Samuel Beckett merupakan tokoh yang bertanggung jawab dalam mempopularkan drama absurd di kaca mata teater dunia selain daripada Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet dan Arthur Adamov. Seperti mana bentuk-bentuk drama absurd lain, Beckett memperlihatkan ketidakrasionalan ini melalui pengujudan masa dan tempat yang tergantung seperti mana juga idealisme perletakan masa yang tidak spesifik oleh Adamov yang beliau samakan dengan alam-alam mimpi. Kebanyakan watak-watak yang dilukiskan dalam drama absurd ditimpa kesengsaraan dan berupaya berdiri sendiri dalam menyelesaikan konflik yang ditanggung tanpa menangisi nasib takdir tersebut kepada tuhan. Demikian juga topik dan isu persoalan yang ditimbulkan adalah sukar untuk dikenal pasti di dalam drama berbentuk absurd. Ia seperti satu persoalan yang tergantung yang tidak menemui jawapan. Kesemua bentuk-bentuk yang membangunkan drama-drama absurd ini didasari oleh kekejaman peperangan yang melanda manusia pada ketika itu dan nasib manusia yang tidak terbela oleh tuhan yang kemudiannya diluahkan melalui pembentukan drama absurd barat.

This paper is a comparative study of the absurdity of time and place in Samuel Beckett’s (1906–1989) Waiting for Godot (1948) and Salah Abdel Sabour’s (1931–1981) The Princess Waits (Al-Amira Tantazer) (1969). It is an attempt to compare the two plays with regard to the absurd features of time and place with reference to the aspects of the absurd theatre. The reasons for selecting these two plays in particular are: firstly, both plays share the process of waiting which is directly connected with the time and place of waiting; secondly, Abdel Sabour was influenced by the European theatre of the absurd; and thirdly, the absurd features of time and place in both plays are similar. The difference of time and place in the two plays is attributed to difference in the cultural and religious background of both playwrights.