Worksheet- Movie screening: Waiting for Godot

This blog is a response to an assigned blog by Dr. Dilip Barad sir, on Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett. This blog answers several assigned questions.

WAITING FOR GODOT

Samuel Beckett-

Samuel Barclay Beckett (13 April 1906 – 22 December 1989) was an Irish novelist, playwright, short story writer, theater director, poet, and literary translator. A resident of Paris for most of his adult life, he wrote in both French and English. He is considered one of the last modernist writers, and one of the key figures in what Martin Esllin called the Theater of the Absurd. Beckett was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize of Literature "for his writing, which—in new forms for the novel and drama—in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation"

Waiting for Godot:

Waiting for Godot is a French play 'En attendant Godot' originally translated to English by Beckett himself. The subtitle of the play 'The tragicomedy in two acts'. It was originally published in 1952.

In the play two characters Vladimir and Estragon engage in various useless discussions to pass their time waiting for titular character Godot who is mute and never comes. The play shows the meaninglessness of life, absurdity and boredom in people's lives. This play seems connected to today's time to a great extent. Even watching the Waiting for Godot film makes us feel bored. This play is read from various points of view; Existentialism, religion, political, psychoanalytical & deconstructive.

'Waiting for Godot' is considered among the three greatest plays with Hamlet, Oedipus Rex. It appeals to an uncertainty: why are we here? Are we alone in the uncaring universe or not? What are we to do while we are here? How can we know? And, ultimately, what does it matter?

Let's discuss some questions-

In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

I interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ in three ways:

1. Vladimir and Estragon are waiting whole day for Godot. It does not arrive and the falling of night seems falling/ breaking of their hope of Godot coming. And the rising of the moon seems like hope in the dark night which reflects the brighter side and motivates them to wait.
2. They both are waiting for the whole day for Godot but Godot doesn't visits and in waiting night falls and sun rises, this also reflects that nature is distinct from human life. Human’s desire or waiting doesn't affect nature; it will continue doing its work.
3. The falling of night and rising of moon also indicate the end of waiting or postponement of waiting, for both characters after the whole day. It can be read as the coming of night is a postponement of punishment from daily suffering. The appearance of the moon in the sky signals that the night has come and both should stop waiting now.

The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?

Debris is pieces from something that has been destroyed or pieces of rubbish or unwanted material that are spread around.

The setting of the play is

"A country road. A Tree.

Evening." (Act 1)

"Next day. Same Time.

Same place."(Act 2)

1. But taking artistic liberty Michael Lindsay Hogg uses Debris in the setting of the film released in 2001. This Debris are read in various ways-
2. This debris is placed to indicate the major earthquake arise in Gujarat in 2001.
3. It also indicates the post- World war effects in various places.
4. We are witnessing the history through Ukraine- Russia war; The photo of debris I have added is debris of Ukraine, exhibiting bomb blasting effects.
5. Debris is the unwanted waste which can also be read as nothing is permanent in this world. Something can be most important in life but once it's destroyed it becomes of no use, no permanence.
6. It also shows the meaninglessness of the material world; irrationality, meaninglessness, nothingness and pointlessness of life.

Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." ? (Source: E.G. Marshal said so - he played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)

Waiting for Godot talks about absurdity, meaninglessness and irrationality of life but it doesn't make it a negative or pessimist play. Instead it is giving us the moral of life. The play gives us hope for living life. Life is meaningless. We don't know our essence but one should continue living life, lack of essence should not drive towards the end of life. It is a positive and hopeful play as it is providing us a capacity to quickly recover from difficulties. Characters of the play exhibit the journey without goal which we can easily connect to ourselves. Both are hopefully waiting for Godot for consecutive two days, but he doesn't visit, still they keep on waiting . This also gives us strength, mental power and asks us to be hopeful.

One don't know what the future is, one should not be downhearted by failures. Life goes on, our main idea should be cutting/ passing the time/ life through working/ staying engaged in activity which will ultimately take us to our goal/ essence.

The sprouting of leaves on the tree sent a powerful message to oppressed people - it suggested new life and resolution, an image of hope against all the desolation. This play significantly provides the frame of real life- we really don't know where we will end in life but we are working and staying hopeful. It is the same as the passing of time as we are thrown on this earth.

It is a positive play which gives essence of life- life goes on we cannot stop the time so flow with the time. Keep ‘WAITING’ for the good. ‘ You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life.’

“The tears of the world are a constant quantity.” - Pozzo

This play gives us the real idea of human nature and life so I agree with E.G. Marshall, it is a positive play.

Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseated? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?

Yes, the obedience of Lucky seems extremely irritating and nauseated. We can agree that he is brought as a slave and his work id to follow master. But in Act I master is ready for him with allegations of being lazy and not working as before. Still Lucky blindly follows him.

In Act II, master turns blind still Pozzo doesn't leave him and by himself gives his rope in master’s hand, surrenders himself even without trying to fight for independence. He is being abused and insulted by master. While watching the film we start feeling like why and for what he is doing that.

We can compare this slavish behavior of Lucky to the religious people in today’s society. Religious guru/ people working on temple service to God as a slave, changing his clothes, giving him food, work for them as a slave do for master. Even the common p[people follow religious practices and rules blindly without thinking. Eg.; pouring milk on shiv when numbers of poor are sitting outside the temple. Even God might be feeling nauseated.

Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?

Yes I personally feel that plays like this can be better read because while watching the film the dialogues are quick, due to which we don't get enough time to understand the meaning hidden in the dialogue or what they want to convey through a specific word.

We had a movie screening in class but before that we also read original text and understood the essence of particular conversations and dialogues. Which let us understand the film/ play better.

Eg. : VLADIMIR:

I don't know. A willow.

ESTRAGON:

Where are the leaves?

VLADIMIR:

It must be dead.

ESTRAGON:

No more weeping.

We cannot understand this reference if we don't know about the Irish tradition. Dead leaves so there will be no weeping while the tree with leaves is considered to be a happy tree. But after reading, thinking and googling, we spent enough time to understand that a willow tree with leaves looks like a weeping tree. So, the dead tree came with the reference of no more weeping. Thus, reading provides better understanding.

Yes visuals do help in this play to understand the setting of the play and the tone of conversation.

Which of the following sequence you liked the most:

(i) Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting

(ii) Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts

(iii) Conversation of Vladimir with the Boy - the messenger of Mr. Godot

In the play Vladimir and Estragon's conversations were worth understanding and interesting. I enjoyed them but the sequence I liked the most was of Vladimir and the Boy. The major reason is that they were easy to understand. The conversation between them was full of energy and curiosity. Vladimir wished to know more and more about Godot but the Boy kept silent on the questions he didn't want to answer. The Boy seemed to be so clear in his mind and answered everything with the shortest answer. The first conversation with the boy was the hope for Vladimir and the second conversation somewhat despair and revealed Vladimir's selfishness.

Act I: " tell to Godot we are waiting for him ".

Act II: " tell to Godot that I am waiting here ".....

This conversation also raises a question for us. Was this boy real or just a hallucination of Vladimir? Was he really a messenger of Godot?

Thankyou for visiting. I hope this blog was useful to you. any queries or question please write in a comment box.

[words-1700]