Author: as9vs

IN RESUME

BY ALE

In ‘Waiting for Godot’, things are different from reality in the way that mundane actions are exacerbated; thus, loosing importance and transcendence –like suicide (as prominent example).

Passing time is the main objective given  a lack of taste for life resumed to conformity. This conformity is not an aspect of the will, nor a matter of preference, ratther something which appears to be the only salvation from ‘nothingness’ and lack of meaning.

Life, in this bubble, moves relentlessly forward. Invariably, no decision is taken which is consequently translated into action. Every action is minimal and useless in terms of progress hence everything goes back to the beginning. ‘They don’t move’.

Didi and Gogo are stuck in time for they do nothing but wait.

(3) Lucky treated as a dog/slave on a leash.

Well, this is different from reality in the way that law forbids slavery. Also, the norms by which society abides, or claims to function by, are against a practice of the sort.

Moreover, this character’s leashing indicates his position in terms of power relations to the rest.

Subjugated by Pozzo, Lucky’s ‘automatization’ is clearly another factor that makes the play different from reality. It does so by exposing the extension of Lucky’s lack of self determination. His dependence to act on command make him an ‘automat’. Then, when he is left to his own device, as proof of what has been previously stated, he rambles nonsense.

In conclusion, life in in this limbo-like world degenerates character.

-GODOT IN WONDERLAND

BY ALEJANDRO

Anything can gain meaning in a place where things are not clearly defined and superficiality, slave to perception, reigns. When superficiality is not only upfront but is the core of everything…

Thus, a projection of someone becomes the dominant force. ‘God-ot’, through a perspective from inside the play , seems to be pulling the strings. This is different from reality in the sense that, normally, people would not be dependent of another person. Specially, this does not happen in a circumstance where the person awaited is a total stranger.

The clockwork of this play makes the audience ask itself what has Godot promised. Since this character is absent the entire time, but his omnipresence manifests through every action, or the lack of them there of, it acquires a God-like importance.

Deliberately, Becket’s minimalistic construct allows the different concepts -like time, space, setting, characters, the moon, twilight- to gain evocative and interpretative dimension; a tangible one as denoted by the reach of this piece.

Universality bursts out through imagery with the potential to extend as far as the audience capabilities to contrast, or relate to the concept, permit it.

Mary Beth says:
“The indefinite arrival of Godot is the largest evidence of the play's purposeful absence of measured time.”

Very valid argument. Time is normally conceived by hours and minutes which seem irrelevant in this play.
But it doesn’t mean time doesn’t pass. Every day there is a new day, the twilight indicates a shift from day to night, the tree is alive then dead, meaning that time passes. It passes because there are changes, and different actions. These actions, might not be perceived as meaningful.

We, for I include myself, question the “existing (or non-existing) action of the play”, when it is clear that things do happen.

When Pozzo’s watch suddenly disappears during twilight, for example, something happens –an action. The fact that it directly contributes to ‘distort’ the perception of time, while generating a sense of confusion, speaks of an action but not of an actor!

“but behind this veil of gentleness and peace, night is charging (vibrantly) and will burst upon us (he snaps his fingers) pop! Like that! …just when we less expect it.

That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth.”

Nobody to blame!

This is definitely different from reality, and it is so because things don’t just disappear.

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.

Image and Title in some general terms

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.