What is it all about?

Alex Nicolson

A more Optimistic view.

Geoggrey brought up the idea that the play is about nothing at all, and the general meaninglessness of the human condition, and I believe that while that is certainly a part of the play, I do not think that it is all there is to the play. That being said, I really have no idea what the play is about, but I am sure it is more than just that. Some themes/thoughts I have had particularly relate to the relationships between and within the 2 pairs of characters we see.

Estragon and Vladimir bound to each other by a common need to meet Godot. IT is unclear if they knew one another before they set out on this shared mission, but over the many twilights they have waited for Godot, they have become fast friends, bordering on the sort of relationship often found in married couples. They often finish each others' thoughts and seem to both be thinking from the same consciousness. They do of course have their differences: Vladimir's logic vs. Estragon's complaints, for instance, but they complement each other well. Particularly when they talk of hanging themselves in act one, it sounds almost like two lovers, unwilling to leave the other behind, as demonstrated here.

Vladimir: You're my only hope.

Estragon: Gogo light-bough not break-Gogo dead. Didi heavy-bough break-Didi alone.

Once Estragon realizes the possibility that Vladimir might be left alone without him, he quickly gives up that line of thinking. Their use of pet names for each other, Didi and Gogo, also suggest a long and intimate relationship, as does their embracing at several points in the play.

Lucky and Pozzo, on the other hand, have none of this tenderness. However, they seem to have been together for a similarly long period of time, and their bond, while based on cruelty and subservience instead of friendship, seems to be equally strong. Neither could survive without the other. Lucky needs someone to give him orders, and Pozzo needs someone to order.

The interaction between the two pairs is telling as well. While they come from very different backgrounds and seem to have very different views of the world, they quickly bond, any company is better than no company, it would seem. Here I think Beckett is trying to say something about the nature of our relationships with other humans: we all live in the same world, no matter how bland and absurd it may be, it is the people we encounter that make the world. The set and visual world we are presented with it bleak and detail-less, the only thing the play concerns itself with is the human beings on the stage. As Vladimir says, in what is perhaps the most important speech of the play,

 "Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment in time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!"

It is in this moment onstage, and in this moment as we read the play, and in every moment wherever anyone is existing, that we must do something, while we have the chance, before it is too late. Be it waiting for Godot, or watching a play, or encountering random strangers by a tree on a country road, it is our duty as human beings to represent our race and not stand idly by, even if we are helping just to fight boredom, or even if we do not help, the point is simply to do something. Even if something is nothing. So the play is still about nothing, sometimes, but it is more importantly about continuing on through the monotony of our existence, for as boring as it is, the people around us make it interesting, be they our friends or slave drivers, or strangers on the street.

1st Reading Questions

Alex Nicolson

THE FIRST READING 

Title: Waiting for Godot

Cast of characters: Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky, Boy

Set description: A country road. A tree.

Time & place: Evening.

 

Where is the crux moment, the climax when all tension snapped?

Act II when Godot does not come again, and Vladimir confirms that the boy saw him.

What are the two sides of the tension that snapped?

Will Godot come today, will we wait another day?

Has it operated throughout the play? (If not, may have mistaken the climax)

Yes, always waiting for Godot, but always sure he will not come.

At what point in the early stage of the play did the driving force emerge to work against resistance?

Opening, when it is clear Godot has not come again.

Are the climax moments of the formal segments (acts & scenes) related to the overall tension?

In Act I when Lucky thinks and everyone stops him, sets up tension with Lucky, somewhat unrelated to Godot.

Does the play have a protagonist, and if so, who is it?

No

What tensions emerge in relation to the context of the play: between the present and past? or between the place of the action and places beyond our view?

Complete lack of order, place and time vs. our real perception of time and place, i.e. the theatre itself and the time spent watching the performance. Tension between place of action and wherever Godot is.

What is the nature of the audience's involvement?

Observers, but also strongly involved with the waiting and inanity of the whole affair and of our lives.

How does the play open to us?

Involves us with the issue of Estragon's boots, and Vladimir's struggle for reason and order and struggle with nihilism, coming around to idea of "nothing to be done"

What is asked of us in terms of emotional involvement and critical assessment?

We become very involved in the constant rising and releasing of tension, a constant dull cycle of boom and bust, gearing up and exploding and winding down.

Note any questions that you may have€¦.

What the hell is going on here?

 

But do it Backwards- Act IV scenes 4, 5, 6

Alex Nicolson

End of Scene 6

-Mariana and Isabella worry about speaking out against Angelo, and Friar Peter comes and tells them he has a place for them to stand near the duke

End of Scene 5

-Varrius meets the Duke and they go to meet their friends and make their entrance back into Vienna

-The Duke sends Friar Peter to round up his friends and Friar Peter leaves to do so

End of Scene 4

-Escalus leaves to alert people who want to make grievances, and Angelo worries about what will happen when the Duke returns, and regrets killing Claudio

-Escalus and Angelo are confused by the Duke's orders, and wonder why he has set up for people to bring forward grievances and injustices against them

End of Scene 3

But do it Backwards- Act V

Alex Nicolson

End of Play.

-The Duke sentences Lucio to marry a prostitute he had a child by

-The Duke accuses Lucio of slandering him, and does not pardon him

-The Duke reveals that Claudio is still alive, and pardons Angelo

-Mariana and Isabella plead for Angelo's life

-The Duke decrees that Angelo is to be executed because he executed Claudio, and all his property will go to Mariana

-The Duke forces Angelo to marry Mariana because he was once contracted to marry her and he slept with her

-The Duke reveals himself, and Angelo confesses to his wrongdoings

-Escalus, Angelo, and Lucio all accuse the duke/friar of lying and inciting Isabella and Mariana to slander Angelo, and the duke/friar defends himself

-The duke sends for Friar Ludowick and  leaves, and then returns as Friar Ludowick

-Mariana speaks out against Angelo, but is not believed, and then unveils herself

-Isabella accuses Angelo, but is not believed, and calls on Mariana (veiled) as a witness and mentions Friar Ludowick/the Duke

-The Duke makes his return to Vienna, and Friar Peter encourages Isabella to speak out against Angelo

Beginning of Act V

Dialogue- Images

In “Death of a Salesman” Miller chooses not to rely as heavily on spoken images, but rather to create them physically on stage. Instead of merely have a character tell a story, he shows it to us. However, dialogue is nonetheless important in creating images, with the image of Willy's insanity being perhaps the most important. Without his broken speech, drifting off into other times and places, we would not have the sense of how shattered he is. His speech right before he kills himself about Biff's football is a good example of this. He is completely disconnected from the world at hand, first telling Biff how to handle the game, and then suddenly drifting off into talking to Ben. We see how disjointed his mind is, yet also how clear his focus can be, never leaving behind his chance for riches, only in this case it involves taking his own life.

Research- Bio

From http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/arthur-miller/none-without-sin/56/

In the period immediately following the end of World War II, American theater was transformed by the work of playwright Arthur Miller. Profoundly influenced by the Depression and the war that immediately followed it, Miller tapped into a sense of dissatisfaction and unrest within the greater American psyche. His probing dramas proved to be both the conscience and redemption of the times, allowing people an honest view of the direction the country had taken.

Arthur Miller was born in Manhattan in 1915 to Jewish immigrant parents. By 1928, the family had moved to Brooklyn, after their garment manufacturing business began to fail. Witnessing the societal decay of the Depression and his father's desperation due to business failures had an enormous effect on Miller. After graduating from high school, Miller worked a number of jobs and saved up the money for college. In 1934, he enrolled in the University of Michigan and spent much of the next four years learning to write and working on a number of well-received plays.

After graduating, Miller returned to New York, where he worked as a freelance writer. In 1944, his first play, "The Man Who Had All the Luck", opened to horrible reviews. A story about an incredibly successful man who is unhappy with that success, "The Man Who Had All The Luck" was already addressing the major themes of Miller's later work. In 1945, Miller published a novel, FOCUS, and two years later had his first play on Broadway. "All My Sons," a tragedy about a manufacturer who sells faulty parts to the military in order to save his business, was an instant success. Concerned with morality in the face of desperation, "All My Sons" appealed to a nation having recently gone through both a war and a depression.

Only two years after the success of "All My Sons," Miller came out with his most famous and well-respected work, "Death of a Salesman." Dealing again with both desperation and paternal responsibility, "Death of a Salesman" focused on a failed businessman as he tries to remember and reconstruct his life. Eventually killing himself to leave his son insurance money, the salesman seems a tragic character out of Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. Winning both a Pulitzer Prize and a Drama Critics Circle Award, the play ran for more than seven hundred performances. Within a short while, it had been translated into over a dozen languages and had made its author a millionaire.

Overwhelmed by post-war paranoia and intolerance, Miller began work on the third of his major plays. Though it was clearly an indictment of the McCarthyism of the early 1950s, "The Crucible" was set in Salem during the witch-hunts of the late 17th century. The play, which deals with extraordinary tragedy in ordinary lives, expanded Miller's voice and his concern for the physical and psychological wellbeing of the working class. Within three years, Miller was called before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and convicted of contempt of Congress for not cooperating. A difficult time in his life, Miller ended a short and turbulent marriage with actress Marilyn Monroe. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, he wrote very little of note, concentrating at first on issues of guilt over the Holocaust, and later moving into comedies.

It was not until the 1991 productions of his "The Ride Down Mount Morgan" and "The Last Yankee" that Miller's career began to see a resurgence. Both plays returned to the themes of success and failure that he had dealt with in earlier works. Concerning himself with the American dream, and the average American's pursuit of it, Miller recognized a link between the poverty of the 1920s and the wealth of the 1980s. Encouraged by the success of these works, a number of his earlier pieces returned to the stage for revival performances.

More than any other playwright working today, Arthur Miller has dedicated himself to the investigation of the moral plight of the white American working class. With a sense of realism and a strong ear for the American vernacular, Miller has created characters whose voices are an important part of the American landscape. His insight into the psychology of desperation and his ability to create stories that express the deepest meanings of struggle, have made him one of the most highly regarded and widely performed American playwrights. In his eighty-fifth year, Miller remains an active and important part of American theater.

Research- Timeline

Timeline of Arthur Miller’s life up to “Death of a Salesman.” From http://www.ibiblio.org/miller/life.html

1915 Arthur Aster Miller was born on October 17th in New York City; family lives at 45 West 110th Street.

1920-28 Attends Public School #24 in Harlem.

1923 Sees first play–a melodrama at the Schubert Theater.

1928 Bar-mitzvah at the Avenue M temple. Father’s business struggling and family move to Brooklyn, 1350 East 3rd Street. Attends James Madison HIgh School.

1930 Reassigned to the newly built Abraham Lincoln High School. Plays on football team.

1931 Delivery boy for local bakery before school, and works for father’s business over summer vacation.

1933 Graduates from Abraham Lincoln High School. Registers for night school at City College, but quits after two weeks.

1933-34 Clerked in an auto-parts warehouse, where he was the only Jew employed and had his first real, personal experiences of American anti-semitism.

1934 Enters University of Michigan in the Fall to study journalism. Reporter and night editor on student paper, The Michigan Daily.

1936 Writes No Villain in six days and receives Hopwood Award in Drama. Transfers to an English major.

1937 Takes playwrighting class with Professor Kenneth T. Rowe. Rewrite of No Villain, titled, They Too Arise, receives a major award from the Bureau of New Plays and is produced in Ann Arbor and Detroit. Honors at Dawn receives Hopwood Award in Drama. Drives Ralph Neaphus East to join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain during their Civil War, and decides not to go with him.

1938 The Great Disobedience receives second place in the Hopwood contest. They Too Arise is revised and titled The Grass Still Grows for anticipated production in New York City (never materializes). Graduates with a B.A. in English. Joins the Federal Theater Project in New York City to write radio plays and scripts, having turned down a much better paying offer to work as a scriptwriter for Twentieth Century Fox, in Hollywood.

1939 Writes Listen My Children, and You’re Next with Norman Rosten. Federal Theater is shut down and has to go on relief. William Ireland’s Confession airs on Colimbia Workshop.

1940 Travels to North Carolina to collect dialect speech for the folk division of the Library of Congress. Marries Mary Grace Slattery. Writes The Golden Years. Meets Clifford Odets in a second-hand bookstore. The Pussycat and the Plumber Who Was a Man, a radio play airs on Columbia Workshop (CBS)

1941 Takes extra job working nightshift as a shipfitter’s helper at the Brooklyn Naval Yard. Writes other radio plays, Joel Chandler Harris, and Captain Paul.

1942 Writes radio plays The Battle of the Ovens, Thunder fron the Mountains, I Was Married in Bataan, Toward a Farther Star, The Eagle’s Nest, and The Four Freedoms.

1943 Writes The Half-Bridge, and one-act, That They May Win, produced in New York City. Writes Listen for the Sound of Wings (radio play).

1944 Daughter, Jane, is born. Writes radio plays Bernadine, I Love You, Grandpa and t he Statue, and The Phillipines Never Surrendered. Adapts Ferenc Molnar’s The Guardsman and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice for the radio. Having toured army camps to research for The Story of G.I. Joe (a film for which he wrote the initial draft screenplay, but later withdrew from project when he saw they would not let him write it his way), he publishes book about experience, Situation Normal. The Man Who Had All The Luck premiers on Broadway but closes after six performances (including 2 previews), though receives the Theater Guild National Award.

1945 Focus (novel) published. Writes Listen for the Sound of Wings (radio play). Writes “Should Ezra Pound Be Shot?” for New Masses (article).

1946 Adapts George Abbott’s and John C. Holm’s Three Men on a Horse for radio.

1947 All My Sons premiers and receives the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award, and the Donaldson Award. Son, Robert, is born. Writes The Story of Gus (radio play). Writes “Subsidized Theatre” for The New York Times (article). Goes to work for a short time in an inner city factory assembling beer boxes for minimum wage to stay in touch with his audience. Gives first interview to John K. Hutchens, for The New York Times. Explores the Red Hook area and tries to get into the world of the longshoremen there, and find out about Pete Panto, whose story would form the nucleus of his screenplay The Hook. Buys farmhouse in Roxbury Connecticut as a vacation home, and 31 Grace Court in the city.

1948 Built himself the small Connecticut studio in which he wrote Death of a Salesman. Trip to Europe with Vinny Longhi where got sense of the Italian background he would use for the Carbones and their relatives, also met some Jewish deathcamp survivors held captive in a post-war tangle of bureaucracy.

1949 Death of a Salesman premiers and receives the Pulitzer Prize, the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award, the Antoinette Perry Award, the Donaldson Award, and the Theater Club Award, among others. New York Times publishes “Tragedy and the Common Man” (essay). Attends the pro-Soviet Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to chair an arts panel with Odets and Dmitri Shostakovich.

Dialogue/characters

By Alex Nicolson       

 

Caitlyn has already touched on this, but I'll add some ideas of my own regarding characters and their particular dialogue.

 

Perhaps most interestingly, is Biff's name, which is short, harsh, and masculine. It is monosyllabic, and comes out of the mouth with a puff of air, and is onomatopoeia-like for a punching noise. It also rhymes with "if" which is perhaps a metaphor for Biff's character as a whole. His life, at least as Willy sees it, has been a giant wasted "if." What if Biff hadn't flunked math? What if he had gone to UVA? The Ifs roll on and on.

 

Happy on the other hand, always says things to make people happy. He uses the language of compromise, even telling half-truths and outright lies to keep the illusion of tranquility in the Loman household. Happy almost constantly asks questions, belying his insecurity and also giving his lines a higher, whinier pitch. By never making statements, he never asserts himself, always phrasing things in the less decisive form of a question, asking for the approval of those around him. However, he often uses superlatives, claiming Willy "has the finest eye for color in the business," for example. He constantly exaggerates so that he never speaks his mind plainly, but rather cloaks it all in a sugar coating to keep everyone happy.

 

In stark contrast to Happy, Linda rarely asks questions, and almost always makes statements and accusations. This gives her a much more decisive, confident sound, and reinforcing her as the stable foundation the family is built on. While she speaks far less than the other characters, when she does speak, it is always a poignant observation straight to the heart of the matter, with no frills or fluff.

Sound

Eurypides uses sound to great effect in Medea. Perhaps most prevalent is the fact that all the women are played by men, most likely talking and singing in a high pitched falsetto, giving the play a high, screeching tone, which would certainly put the audience on edge. This would add to the tension, and provide an exaggerated contrast between the men, speaking in their natural voices, and the women in their falsetto. This also influences the musical nature of the play. As compared to other Greek tragedies where the chorus would have been male, Medea would have a very different sound, a much more feminine sound, as would be fitting for one of the few Greek plays with a female protagonist.

            The language Eurypides uses helps the audience understand her and her actions, as well as be able to empathize with her. Words of destruction, such as "kill," "broken," "refugee," "sick," "hate," "enraged," and "starves" all set the stage in the first 20 lines of the play. The audience instantly knows that Medea has suffered horribly, and now has every right and reason to take revenge for the wrongs that have been done to her. These same words are used often throughout the play, especially "hate" and "betrayed" and give us great insight into the total fury and single mindedness of Medeas later actions. Jason's words, on the other hand, help us realize just how disconnected he is.  He is, as the Chorus says "ignorant beyond pity."  Jason thinks he is being "generous," and he somehow thinks leaving his wife for a younger woman makes him her "advocate."

            Eurypides carefully emphasizes the scene where the children are slaughtered by having it be the only time we hear them speak. They are on stage for many scenes, but they never do anything but watch, silent and obedient while their family falls apart around them. When they finally speak, it is because it is their only hope of saving themselves; it is too late for their family. They cry out, with young innocent voices, pleading for help in what is perhaps the most tense moment of the play. This tension is further heightened by the fact that the audience cannot see what is happening, they can only hear it. They are forced to rely on sound alone, and that sound for those few lines becomes the only thing that matters. One almost wants to watch Medea kill her children just to know what is actually happening behind that door instead of being denied perhaps our most important sense: sight. The audience becomes blind to the action of the play, as Medea has embraced her blind rage.