Why is the setting so vague?
What does the nondescript tree in this play represent, and why is this different from reality? Had Godot really been trying to meet our two men, would he have not been more clear about the tree where he wanted to meet them? Perhaps this is the only tree in this world, and it is important enough that everyone knows it:
-
- VLADIMIR:
- He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?
Trees are somewhat eternal in nature, they continue to grow until they are obstructed by either man, weather, or another tree. Trees are interesting because damage which is inflicted upon them remains a constant scar for their entire existence, even if converted to lumber, they become stronger as time passes but do not lose their history. Beckett's tree is one which might provide shade to the men below in the same way that a forest canopy shelters the plant and animal life below.
-
- VLADIMIR:
- From a bough? (They go towards the tree.) I wouldn't trust it.
Here, the tree takes on its own personality, it becomes a character in the play. A character which could have provided an ending to the saga, but instead is left alone to continue its eternal existence, life for a tree has no meaning.
Much like the growing and changing of an actual tree, their conversation does the same from tree, to weeping willow, to a tree without leaves (no longer having to weep), to a shrub, to a bush. A tree starts as a single, tiny seed which once planted begins to grow and flourish until it becomes a completely different being from that of the single seed. The tree then produces seeds which start the entire process over again. This talk of the tree and the changing description of it keeps the conversation moving forward as it grows and flourishes to become a completely separate entity. It moves the conversation from simply talking about what kind of tree it is and its many changing aspects to the question at heart – are they in the right spot as they continue to wait for Godot?
Why don’t the characters place deep value in their lives?
In Waiting For Godot, the character Estragon casually proposes hanging himself. A dialogue insues, as follows
ESTRAGON:
What about hanging ourselves?
VLADIMIR:
Hmm. It'd give us an erection.
ESTRAGON:
(highly excited). An erection!
VLADIMIR:
With all that follows. Where it falls mandrakes grow. That's why they shriek when
you pull them up. Did you not know that?
ESTRAGON:
Let's hang ourselves immediately!
VLADIMIR:
From a bough? (They go towards the tree.) I wouldn't trust it.
ESTRAGON:
We can always try.
VLADIMIR:
Go ahead.
ESTRAGON:
After you.
VLADIMIR:
No no, you first.
ESTRAGON:
Why me?VLADIMIR:
You're lighter than I am.ESTRAGON:
Just so!VLADIMIR:
I don't understand.ESTRAGON:
Use your intelligence, can't you?
Vladimir uses his intelligence.VLADIMIR:
(finally). I remain in the dark.ESTRAGON:
This is how it is. (He reflects.) The bough . . . the bough . . . (Angrily.) Use your
head, can't you?VLADIMIR:
You're my only hope.ESTRAGON:
(with effort). Gogo light€”bough not break€”Gogo dead. Didi heavy€”bough
break€”Didi alone. Whereas€”VLADIMIR:
I hadn't thought of that.ESTRAGON:
If it hangs you it'll hang anything.VLADIMIR:
But am I heavier than you?ESTRAGON:
So you tell me. I don't know. There's an even chance. Or nearly.VLADIMIR:
Well? What do we do?ESTRAGON:
Don't let's do anything. It's safer.
In this dialogue, hanging, which would certainly lead to their death, is viewed as a way to just pass the time. The implications of death, and ending their own lives, are presented in a minimalistic, non-important light. By presenting the end of one's life as unimportant, life itself is shed in a non-crucial light.
The fact that the characters casually contemplate suicide also puts the audience's attention in the moment. At this point, it is really possible that anything could happen. During the play, it is difficult to avoid thinking about the sum of the play while the action is in progress. The sum of the play's action cannot be assessed until every moment has concluded. Rather than focusing on the the "result" before the play has ended, the audience is forced to focus on the individual moments because they cannot predict when the play will end.
Why are the characters’ conversations unnaturally short?
The play's major characters Estragon and Vladmir are certainly not characters renowned for their lengthy and wordy conversations, a number of their discussions spanning less than just a few lines:
-
- VLADIMIR:
- Did you ever read the Bible?
- ESTRAGON:
- The Bible . . . (He reflects.) I must have taken a look at it.
- VLADIMIR:
- Do you remember the Gospels?
- ESTRAGON:
- I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. That's where we'll go, I used to say, that's where we'll go for our honeymoon. We'll swim. We'll be happy.
A major reason for this is Becketts clear disregard for the details of life. Our two men are in a state of purgatory while waiting for Godot, being forced to make small talk in order to pass the endless amount of time which is passing. Conversations which are described as being "curt" are generally a good symbol of people who might not be the greatest of friends or who are simply bored with eachother's company. All that needs to be said has been said.
Most of the play is written in the manner, but there are a few quotes that break up the pattern of the text.
POZZO:
He's stopped crying. (To Estragon.) You have replaced him as it were. (Lyrically.)
The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep, somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. (He laughs.) Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors. (Pause.) Let us not speak well of it either. (Pause.) Let us not speak of it at all.
A majority of the text is very simple and uses short wording, while some parts do not follow this pattern. This speaks to the greater world around the characters instead of the immediate setting surrounding them. It makes it seem as if things like this encounter, this meeting, this constant waiting, happen on a continuous basis. The past present and future seem to be blurred together to create something much bigger and greater – life.
Why is all definition avoided?
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.
Why are space and time distorted?
Waiting for Godot is different from reality due to short term memory lapses by the characters, the concept that time is skewed, and the day is repeated. I think all of these propsitions tie together. By presenting the concept that time is skewed by presenting repeating days and unreliable memories, Beckett makes it clear that the specifics of the play are not important. If they were, the audience would have a clear understanding of exactly when and where the play takes place. However, by making time and events unreliable, it becomes apparent that this play is universal. It can be occurring anywhere and at anytime, and it applies to all of mankind.
In Waiting For Godot, Pozzo becomes blind in one night and helpless in one night. Because Waiting for Godot does not operate on a linear time scale, the one night is irrelevant. Although it may attract the audience because it has happened so "suddenly," one night could be as little as one night or as long as one's lifetime. As Pozzo enters the play, he is indeed somewhat of a powerful man, construed to be much more well off than Lucky. However, regardless of his fortune and power, Pozzo eventually ends up helpless and blind. Perhaps Pozzo's helpless condition represents man's mortality. Man eventually will die, whether it be at an old or young age. Pozzo's blindness could very well represent man's inability to comprehend life. Maybe Beckett is suggesting that regardless of one's life experience, man will never truly understand what life is about.
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."
- 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.
- Beckett has presented this ambiguity for a number of reasons. First, the inibility of the characters to grasp the true concept of time helps to invoke a sense of hopelessness and cluelessness upon the audience. When looking at the title, the concept of time is expressed in the word waiting. The characters spend all of their time waiting for Godot, which turns out to be fruitless. Perhaps because the audience cannot identify the time that is parallell with the play, Waiting For Godot suggests that the hopeless struggle presented in the play applies to man as a whole.
- Why are the names different?
The whole establishment of names and naming in Waiting For Godot is very different from reality. While this play was written and translated to English in the 50s, all of the names present in the play are not common names found today, nor were they common in America in the 50s. These unique names include Pozzo, Godot, Vladamir, Estragon, and Lucky. In addition, names within the play do not hold as the ultimate form of identifying somebody. Lucky is constantly reffered to as "pig" while Estragon is called "Mr. Albert" by the messenger who is called "boy."
Why are some characters treated as sub-human?
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.
Why do characters place responsibility on objects?
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.
Why is emphasis placed on light and darkness?
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 given that both of the times he appears during twilight. (twilight to be CONSIDERED AS MAXIMUM GRAPHICAL EXPONENT OF BLURRED BOUNDARIES).