Month: November 2008

On Beckett’s Distortion of Time

by Mary Beth

In Waiting for Godot, Beckett distorts time by eliminating the characters’ attachment to time and time’s measure. Time becomes a relative measure. It is not discrete, like it is in reality:

ESTRAGON:

What did we do yesterday?

VLADIMIR:

What did we do yesterday?

ESTRAGON:

Yes.

VLADIMIR:

Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you’re about.

ESTRAGON:

In my opinion we were here.
Vladimir speaks about time in a non-definitive way when he says, “On the other hand what’s the good of losing heart now, that’s what I say.  We should have thought about it a million years ago, in the nineties.”  
 
Alejandro said, “Space and time, conjunctively misperceived by Didi and Gogo, are warped and blurred,while functioning detrimentally towards the perception of meaningful action.” Beckett may have thrown out the use of consecutive, constant time in order to help the audience focus on the existing (or non-existing) action of the play.
The indefinite arrival of Godot is the largest evidence of the play’s purposeful absence of measured time.

The moon from twilight and its function. WHY

Twilight is different because of its exaggerated effect on the characters. The way in which it conditions the actions of the characters makes the difference. This natural phenomenon may be perceived as the natural manifestation of change in time, from day to night, which casts a mystical ambiance altering the, thus far, normal/typical behavior of the characters.

Towards the end of Act I, the end of twilight:

” The light suddenly fails. In a moment it is night. The moon rises at the back, mounts in the sky, stands still, shedding a pale light on the scene

Vladimir: At last!”

The appearance of the moon, as perceived by Didi, signifies something concrete… it reassures the character’s confidence. This happens because transition stops, waiting stops, blurred boundaries get clear, as if waiting for Godot would have been translated into waiting for the moon. When the boy exits, the moon appeared and there is no more exasperation. There is an apparent Order in the universe.

Estragon, before the appearance of the moon, behaves as if he were before a being. The character’s characterization of the celestial presence, is another example of how they assign qualities to inanimate objects. Even though the light from the moon is feeble, pale, it is strong enough to affect Estragon’s melancholy.

Through props of spectacle, lighting, Becket anticipates the action. Specific ambiguity strikes again! We have the road but not which road, we have Godot’s messenger but no Godot; only the moon and it’s pale light.

WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM REALITY? THE MOON HAS NO LIGHT OF ITS OWN. It is a pale reflection of something else, namely the sun, but it is enough for Gogo to cling to this illusion.

“Estragon Pale of weariness.

Vladimir Eh?

Estragon Of climbing heaven and gazing on the like of us.”

The way in which he speaks of the moon resembles the way a person would speak of another one. This denotes the kind of loneliness that is representative of one thematic in this play. Characteristically resulting in the depiction of Estragon’s depression. Gogo puts his existence down through an illusory third party, delegating the responsibility of a claim of dissatisfaction about himself to the moon.

Towards the end of Act II, the end of twilight:

” The Boy avoids him and exits running

Silence. The sun sets, the moon rises. As in act I. Vladimir stands motionless and bowed. Estragon wakes, takes off his boots, gets up with one in each hand and goes and puts them down front, then goes towards Vladimir”

It is valid to remark how somnolence plays an important role here. If boundaries are blurred, dream-world and reality can be confused. For example:

Did the Boy actually appear? The Boy is on the script so he is a character BUT I WOULD DARE TO SAY HIS ACTUAL PRESENCE IS AMBIGUOUS, given that both of the times he appears during twilight. (twilight to be CONSIDERED AS MAXIMUM GRAPHICAL EXPONENT OF BLURRED BOUNDARIES).

Space and Time with specific ambiguity.

BY ALEJANDRO

Space and time, conjunctively misperceived by Didi and Gogo, are warped and blurred,while functioning detrimentally towards the perception of meaningful action.

The structure of this play works marvelously as it evokes a sense of confusion and hopelessness which not only belongs to the characters but also manages to interpolate its way to the audience. Particularly, this is made more powerful due to its applicability and universality –given the ambiguous specificity and generality of the dramaturgical context.

How does this speak of why it is different from reality if I’m referring to applicability and universality? Given the ambiguous nature of its composition. The play occurs in a place (a road with a tree), this location is specific in its construction but vague in its location; that’s specific ambiguity.

Waiting for Godot. PULLING ANSWERS OUT OF A HAT.

BY ALEJANDRO

Some ‘hows’ for the ‘whys’ in the character’s world.

Context determines action when words are superfluous

The characters look for answers in weird places. (delegation of responsibility)

In this play there is a reduced list of props and each of them has significance as it marks the action in counterpoint to dialogs. This, concords with the general thematics which serve as a critique to human hypocrisy.

—(characters might say what they mean but, inescapably, they do what they do)—

– boot:

Vladimir brings up the faults of man as he says to Estragon:

” There’s man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet.” his claim is not erred. Nevertheless, the stage directions consecutively following this quote denote a repetition of his action; as previously stated by Becket.

“(He takes of his hat again, peers inside it, feels about it inside it, knocks on the crown, blows into it, puts it on again)

– hat

His constant inspection of the hat reinforces the idea of unreal expectations.

From an example later on in the story we can see the importance attached to hollow objects.

The hat image is resourceful.

“Pozzo: He can’t think without his hat.” (about Lucky)
The characters are affected by these objects as denoted by Lucky’s example: He can only speak when he’s got the hat on, and stops when the object has been withdrawn. The hat as the think-machine example pertains to, and is one of the foremost examples of, the absurd which mocks the states of affairs in reality and actuality. The use of images and metaphors is extensive in this practice.

Becket takes a hat, a man, human expectations, all of them, and assigns them roles which would not, normally, be considered normal; part of reality.

THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM REALITY.

I will not spend more time identifying this elements because it’s not my task to do that. I know that to say “how this play is different from reality” is part of the first group’s task but i needed to state some hows’ in order to explain the whys.

1st group:

Thank you for indulging, and feel free to comment on this.

Group Four Final Post

Themes (Adam)

Vice vs. Piety: Several character in the play seem to over indulge or in things or either are too strict.  Measure for Measure attempts to punish those who are too lewd, and teach those who are too pious, by the time the end is reached.

Temptation: Whether a person can resist temptation is a sign of how good or wicked they actually are. Temptation plays on the tendency of human nature to be flawed and vulnerable, and those who allow themselves to be tempted too far are weak of character.

Disguise: Disguise allows all of the Duke's plans to take place. Without disguise, and the way the Duke uses and abuses the privileges that this disguise affords him, many events in the play would not have taken place at all.

Moderation and mercy: These  two things are the two necessary qualities of a ruler that Angelo lacks, and which also make him a poor judge. Every ruler must govern with an eye for human nature and its weaknesses.  He must also show mercy for those who commit the same sins as the ruler himself.

Manipulation:  Manipulation pays a huge role in the plot since most of the events in the throughout are manipulated by the Duke. Without his manipulation of people and events, Claudio would have died, Angelo have remained unexposed, and Mariana would not have gotten married.  Justice depends upon the Duke's schemes and manipulations within the play, however self-serving his actions may turn out to be.

Actions vs. words: In Measure for many character say they are doing or will do one thing and then completely do the opposite.  The Duke often announces that he is doing one thing, and then acts completely different from what he said he is doing. This causes the reader to question why the Duke would be deliberately misleading, and what his overall intent for this deception of leaving the city is.

Appearance vs. reality: This is especially seen in the character of Angelo.  Angelo has the reputation and appearance of being good do not truly match who he is as an individual.  This idea can also be extended to the city of Vienna itself which appears to be pretty and serene but instead hides a lot of sin.

Corruption: The city in this play (Vienna) is corrupt on many different levels.  This corruption seems to spread from the city and affect Angelo who later becomes corrupt.  This corruption seems to be the result of too much indulgence, or a belief that one will get away with one's crimes.

Using Others (Caitlyn)

One motif of Measure for Measure shows itself when characters use other people, or ideas of people, to achieve goals.

Some examples:

Angelo uses the idea of himself as a strictly pious ruler to demand sex from Isabella.

Claudio is willing to use Isabella to save his own life.

The duke uses the image of a friar, a virtuous and trustworthy person, to spy on others.

Isabella uses Mariana to save her virginity.

The duke attempts to use Barnardine to save Claudio; he then uses a dead pirate instead.

This motif ties in with the theme of the play, illustrated in the title.  Obviously the characters are forced to measure the value of their own virginity, happiness, or social position in terms of each other.  In addition, the characters are forced to measure each other.  Shakespeare uses this tactic to explore how and why we judge others' actions and value certain people over others when it comes to achieving our personal goals.

Missing Person (Caitlyn)

THE DUKE
motivation: evaluate the trustworthiness of his subordinates and the success of his rule, bring order without appearing too harsh
obstacles: deception, brown-nosing from underlings, preservation of his reputation

what is he willing to do?: go incognito, deceive his subjects, lie
why would he do this?: he knows that that is the only way to get a subjective view of his government and fix its problemsavowed (why he says he does things) v. true (why he actually does things): says he puts Angelo in charge because he (Angelo) is a pious man, but it is really because the duke knows he will be a harsh ruler.

ANGELO
motivation: sex, unchallenged power
obstacles: the duke, keeping up appearances of propriety
what?: fail the duke, deceive, use sex as a weapon, lie, coerce
why?: he has the power, he must keep up appearances, he thinks the duke will never know
avowed v. true: he says he rules for virtue's sake but he is really hungry for power

CLAUDIO
motivation: love of Juliet/Isabella, survival
obstacles: the law, propriety
what?: sacrifice Isabella's virginity, die
why?: he is given no other choice (he must weigh the loves of Juliet and Isabella)
avowed v. true: appears torn between Juliet and Isabella, but is really just driven by fear of losing his life.

ISABELLA
motivation: love of Claudio, piety
obstacles: Angelo, the law, propriety
what?: lie, challenge Angelo, deceive, allow Claudio to die rather than her go to hell
why?: piety, value of god's law over humans'
avowed v. true: appears to value god above humanity but is still driven by her love for Claudio.

ESCALUS

motivation: support the duke, keep everyone happy through compassion and tolerance

obstacles: Angelo’s harsh rule, the duke’s need to question his own rule

what?: support the duke even when it seems his rule is causing pandemonium

why?: he believes that rulers should be compassionate and reasonable

avowed v. true: he supports the duke’s endorsement of Angelo, saying that he is the best man for the job.  Though he has his doubts, he ultimately wants to support the duke’s decisions.

Image and Title (Alejandro)

Meassure for Meassure, it's no moon. (textual evidence to be provided separately)

It's no moon but it's so recurrent and important. How do we meassure ourselves, how do we meassure others? What do we meassure with? WHAT'S THE SCALE, and most importantly, WHAT'S THE MEASSURE?

In this play by William Shakespeare there is no escape from action, the characters are doomed to face their fates. Each of the characters are distinct from one another, both in the ways they were conceived by the author and through the reader's, audience's, eyes and senses.

Distinctions and similarities between two blocks of contending forces (not necessarily opposing ones) :

The people from the state:

The Duke & Lord Angelo

The people from the people:

Claudio & Isabella

This distinction has been made in order to clarify the way these characters appear to be constructed in, and also because of what they represent in society. Both blocks are powerful given their own means in actuality, morality, politics, bed, appearances, religion, values, and law.

A close-up to the first block clearly strips away unnecessary weight and leaves the bones uncovered.

Ball states that characters gain meaning through performance rather than through text, while he puts forwards the importance of the skeletal nature of their definition distressing the focus on interpretation. Thus, this distinction needs to be done.

The first block, has been comprised to these two characters given their interactions.

The Duke's decision to step outside of the public arena gives Lord Angelo the reins of law. The Duke, nevertheless, seems to become passive in terms of decision but actually indulges in the most direct action. He steps into the arena as a different character, Friar, for direct intervention. Premeditatedly, he lets L.A take care of the situation in order to examine and expose this character given his lack of trust in him.

Reversely, in the second block Claudio asks Lucio to advert his sister about the situation given his knowledge and trust in her. He does so, not with the intention of examination but with hope and trust.

Claudio manipulates his sister virginity, her virtuousness and purity; which are all immaterial substances. Light ones in terms of real weight but solidly firm and rooted in her.

The Duke manipulates L.A.'s carnal debility to the seemingly corruptible and frail Isabella.

The woman-object of this story, Isabella, appears as a means. She is the means to freedom, as conceived by Claudio, and the subject for naughty intentions, as perceived by Lord Angelo.

Meassure by meassure, the deployment of action seems to be fated. Events fall under the expectations of the Duke and Claudio, but particularly the Duke. The latter, as a self-forced intermediary of God, offices his master plan beneath the surface. How does this relate to the title image?

Well, if we look the Duke's speech it always maintains a rhetorical structure. Everything he says builds up, forwards. He represents the master, knowledge. Although his position in society is not upon direct merit, he sticks to his role. Not only to appear fitted for his position, but the contrary. It is a character that is not caught in the realm of appearances, although he regards the superficial importance of things as powerful elements. This respect for the superficial world is made obvious by him adopting a different role to the eyes of others.

His temple, nevertheless, is internal. This characters' value lies in the acknowledgement of his duty. His duty is such because of his stock and lineage.

(AND NOW IS WHEN WE GET TO SPECIFICS)€¦ I will be editing this later on with the textual evidence and makeing a new post with the resume and identification of theme, different images, all according to Ball. I just thought it would be good if I posted some raw work to stimulate the discussion.

Bait-and-Switch Imagery (Caitlyn)

One recurring image in Measure for Measure is that of a bait-and-switch.  A promise is extended to a character, only to have it fulfilled in a way that goes against the original plan.  Usually the promise and the fulfillment are almost identical, creating a strong sense of irony.  For instance:

Angelo is pious and strict against adulterers and takes over for the duke only to demand sex from Isabella.  Vincentio is lax with adultery laws but leaves Angelo in charge in order to masquerade as a friar.

Angelo offers to not punish Claudio for adultery; however, the only way that can happen is if Isabella commits adultery, thus passing Claudio's sin onto his sister.

Isabella promises to unlawfully sleep with Angelo; instead, he is tricked into having an entirely legal tryst with Mariana.

Lucio constantly insults the duke when speaking to Vincentio as the friar; he later insults the friar to Vincentio as the duke.

Angelo sleeps with Mariana, then goes back on his word and demands to see Claudio's severed head.

The duke attempts to substitute Barnardine's head for Claudio's; Barnardine refuses to be executed.

The head of an executed man is demanded; the head of a pirate who died of natural causes is substituted.

The irony of the bait-and-switch imagery contributes to Shakespeare's theme of hypocrisy.  Many of the substitutions are quite similar to what was originally promised, showing that arbitrary human demands are usually unreasonable and hypocritical.

Exposition and Forwards- Act IV Scenes 3-6, Act V Scene 1

Exposition and Forwards – Act IV Scenes 3-6 and Act V Scene 1

Erica Brotzman

 

Act IV Scenes 3-6

 

Scene 3

Exposition

  • Barnadine is to be executed today.
  • Barnadine has been drinking all night
  • The Duke is still disguised as a friar. (only the Duke/audience know)
  • Provost and the Duke (friar) are conspiring together to save Claudio's life as they both believe that he should not be put to death for his crimes.
  • Provost respect the Duke (friar) because of his profession and he is willing to follow his plans.
  • The Duke plans to write Angelo stating that he is close to home.  (only the Duke knows).
  • The Duke lies to Isabella and states that Claudio has been executed and the Duke is to return tomorrow. (only the Duke knows that this is a blatant lie)
  • Lucio confesses to the Friar that he denied impregnating a women to the Duke. Little does he know he has just confessed his lie to the Duke himself.

 

Forwards

  • Calling Barnadine to rise and be put to death.  Will he truly be executed today?
  • Provost proposes to the Duke that instead of executing Barnadine and using his head to trick Angelo, that they should use another man's head who has died of a fever earlier in the day. Whose head shall they use in order to postpone Claudio's execution?  Will Angelo find out that Claudio is still alive? 
  • The Duke lies to Isabella about the execution.  Will she believe him?  How will she take the news?
  • The Duke (friar) states that the Duke shall return tomorrow.  How will the Duke come back into power?  Will the people be at ease to know that justice will once again be served? 

 

Scene 4

Exposition

  • Only the Duke knows the underlying meanings behind his orders to Escalus and Angelo.
  • Angelo is worried of the gossip that may ensue due to his relations with Isabella.  Only the Duke and Isabella and Mariana know that Angelo actually had sexual relations with Mariana, not Isabella.
  • Only Angelo knows that Claudio should not have been put to death.  He does not know that the head he received wasn't actually Claudio's and that Claudio is still alive.

 

Forwards

  • Why must Angelo and Escalus meet the Duke at the gates on his arrival?  Why must people present petitions in the street. 
  • Angelo is worried that Isabella may tell of his disgraceful act of taking a maiden's virginity and then putting to death a man of the same crime. What will come of Angelo?  Will Isabella talk? 

 

Scene 5

Exposition

  • The Duke returns as himself.  Only he knows that he has been in Vienna the whole time. 

Forwards

  • What do the letters that Friar Peter carries say?
  • What will the Duke reveal to Varrius?

 

Scene 6

Exposition

 

Forwards

  • Mariana and Isabella confer about whether or not to out Angelo.  Will Isabella and Mariana tell of his sin?

 

Act V, Scene 1

 

Exposition

  • The Duke has arrived.  Again only he knows that he has been in Vienna the whole time.
  • Everyone is complying with the Duke's plans, even though they think the plans were given by the friar. 
  • The Duke lies and tells Angelo he is thankful and proud of his work while he was gone. 
  • Isabella has confessed her and Angelo's sin.  The Duke plays dumb though he knows she speaks the truth.
  • Angelo admits to once being engaged to Mariana. 
  • The Duke once again questions Mariana, though he already knows her answers.
  • The Duke is disguised as the friar he has been portraying. 
  • The Duke orders Angelo's execution in exchange for Claudio's even though only he and Provost know that Claudio is still alive. 

 

Forwards

  • The Dukes return.  How shall he resolve the situation?  Will he right things in Vienna?
  • Why does the Duke seem so cold to Isabella in front of Angelo even though he knows of her honesty?
  • Mariana arrives.  Will she reveal her and Isabella's scheme?
  • Marian reveals that Angelo has been tricked. 
  • The Dukes disguised return.  Will he reveal himself?  What will he say of his schemes with the women?
  • Mariana pleads with the Duke to not execute her future husband.  Will the duke comply?
  • Bernadine and Claudio are led into the city.  Isabella finally finds out that Claudio is alive.
  • The Duke asks for Isabella's hand in marriage.  Will she accept?

Final Post

Alright guys I looked at Mary Beth’s compiled post, added a little bit to the act II, and posted a compiled version.  it’s basically the compiled version Mary Beth made though.  I also added Logan’s piece about why we do backwards analysis at the end of the compilation.  I posted it under the Ball Analysis template, so feel free to look at it and change it.  Or post it somewhere else if we think we need to.  I think it turned out pretty good.  hanks.

-Eric

Exposition and Forward, Act 2, Scene 1

Sam Beaver, Act 2 Sc. 1, Exposition

  •  Angelo tells Escalus that the law must be rigid, immobile. (Some know)
  • Escalus tells Angelo that they shouldn’t kill Claudio because no one is faultless, and his crime was not that severe.
  • Escalus acknowledges the dangerous balance between sympathy and legality, and feels bad for Claudio.

Forward

  •  Escalus warns Angelo not to be too tough with the law, because he might end up committing a crime himself one day, but Angelo says he wants the law to treat him strictly if he ever does fail. (Foreshadowing his indiscretions)

Though this scene is mainly for the comedy of Elbow, Froth and Pompey, there are still a few major points made about the caracters of Angelo and Escalus.  As we have seen earlier, Escalus is known as the most knowledgeable man in Vienna according to the Duke.  So if he is disagreeing with Angelo’s decisions, what does this say about Angelo?  Perhaps he is not as fit of a leader as they once thought..                                                                                                                                                                                                        Act 2 Sc. 2, Exposition

  • Provost tells Angelo that Juliet is about to give birth. 
  • Isabella goes to Angelo and says though she agrees with the justice system she still wants to save Claudio.
  • Angelo still refuses to save Claudio; Isabella begins to seduce him. (advice from Lucio)
  • Isabella makes him change his mind with her seduction; leads to him telling her to return tomorrow.
  • Angelo desires Isabella because of her virginity and purity, so he plans on bribing her with Claudio’s life. (only Angelo knows this)

Forward

  •  

Implications of backwards analysis

One other question that none of us in group one has yet addressed, that we still need to, is “what are the implications of doing the backwards analysis of the action?”

Simply put, this is a way to better understand the cause and effect relationships between the actions of the play.  For example when doing this analysis straight from the beginning to the end, as we learned in class, one action can lead to many sub-actions, therefore creating a potentially monsterously confusing tree of actions.  When working from the back to the front however, when you pick an action, there is ONLY ONE other action that could have caused this to occur and therefore it is much easier to find the single cause than it is to find multiple effects.

Without doing the analysis backwards, some actions could be missed entirely if one action has four or more sub-actions branching from it, so it is also more thourough to do the analysis from back to front.

— Logan