Waiting for Godot by Sameul Barclay Beckett

The play : Waiting for Godot

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani, writing this blog as a part of thinking activity which is given by Prof. Dr. Dilip Barad for the chapter of ‘Waiting for Godot’. In this we have to answer some questions in our blog.

Samuel Beckett

So, let’s have a look to the answers,

1) 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?

In the play ‘Waiting for Godot’ there is two acts. And both acts are ending with the same time of ‘coming of night and moon’. In the play our both major characters are waiting for ‘Godot’ at evening time.

Coming of night and moon symbolizing the peace or rest. Here we can say that now both the characters are tired of waiting so they can have peace while act of waiting. Another thing is that when moon rise the day set so the hopelessness of waiting can be seen here as day is gone in a same way. 

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

The image of debris of ukrain that now a days it facing this same situation of war.

This play ‘Waiting for Godot’ is written after WW2 so it was the time when all the things were destroyed so by this setting of the Debris might director of the movie has used this setting purposely.

Another observation is like, director has used the debris to show destroyed aspect. The movie’s theme is all absurdity and nothingness. So one can say that this is the theme of human life too and destroyed aspect of life of thinking.

Debris can be symbol like, it seems that the fight or war can not give anything to human excepting this kind of useless things. And how people were thinking and how they were having the absurdity after war situation in their mind.  

3) 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)

4) Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? 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 character of Lucky is biting me in his every act which he is doing. It seems to me like extreme irritating character when I see his slavishness ideology. By portraying this character might, Beckett is trying to show us the proper situation of people in different contexts. He is secondly major character but by his character, the play is getting the very unique idea of slavishness itself.

In first act of the play, the Pozzo and Lucky comes and there is the interesting act going on when Pozzo tell to Lucky to ‘think’ and there is the idea come out that Thinking is terrible.

Again they arrive in the second act, and Pozzo become blind and Lucky become dumb. Pozzo cannot see now still Lucky obediently hands the whip in his hand. And it is the unbearable to see. 

5) 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?

Whenever we think about movie screening of any play or literary texts. Firstly we have to be careful to it’s faithfulness towards original one. Other side it helps us to understand in better way and also time consuming way to get familiar to any texts or story.

If we talk about this text Waiting for Godot. The movie adaptation itself it is hard to catch the dialogues and it seems like bored way. The chain of dialogues is going constant so the viewer or audience can not have time to catch those dialogues at a time. In the movie screening it seems more comic rather than serious one. When we read the play it seems like something serious going on between the all characters and their conversations.

6) 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

The whole play is all about conversation rather than any of actions. When we watch the faithful version of the movie it starts with the conversation of Vladimir and Estragon (in the novel)with the setting of tree, (in the movie) with the setting of tree and debris. And they both are doing conversation, it seems like comic but it has many philosophies in it.

Meanwhile there are two characters added and they are, Pozzo and Lucky. One is master and another is slave of that master. So from those characters Beckett very well given idea or concept of mastery and slavery. Let’s have a look the Pozzo’s dialogues.  

POZZO: 

(terrifying voice). I am Pozzo! (Silence.) Pozzo! (Silence.) Does that name mean nothing to you? (Silence.) I say does that name mean nothing to you?  

POZZO: 

(halting). You are human beings none the less. (He puts on his glasses.) As far as one can see. (He takes off his glasses.) Of the same species as myself. (He bursts into an enormous laugh.) Of the same species as Pozzo! Made in God's image!

THANK YOU!