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.