Script Analysis

by Logan Turner 

It’s all in the name, as well as the description/action.

Aside from the Godot/God name connection, Godot is also referred to look similarly to standard images of God (long white beard), have had the same ‘profession’ as God (both were shepherds), and like God, Godot seemed to have supremacy over all characters in the play (as God does over all things, because He is a supreme being).  Also, it is said that Godot has all the answers to unasked questions (they don’t remember the question they asked him, or even if they did, yet both Estragon and Vladimir feel like Godot has an answer for them).  And in information that one of the messenger boys gives (about being nice to his goatherd and beating his flock of sheep), it shows that Godot is selective in his punishments and rewards, like God himself was.

All of this, and Estragon and Vladimir’s knowledge of Godot show that man will never have a relationship or understanding with God and His ways (because neither of them can grasp anything about Godot, even from either of the messenger boys.  And that which they do glean is not significant enough to make any deductions about the man).  As a species we don’t grasp what we need to, to comprehend a supreme being.

Now, I also don’t believe that this is the ONLY thing that the play is about.  It’s merely one more idea to add to those of my counterparts.  And I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with Geoffrey about how the play is about how monotonous human life can be.  I think that Amy’s idea of live vs death may be a stretch and a twisting of words, but I like her other ideas.

The First Reading of Waiting for Godot

by Logan Turner

Question 1 – There is no climax where the tension snaps.  This play is merely two renditions of the same scene, and while things happen during this scene, there is not one large climax; ultimately both end in similar ways.  If I had to pick a moment of climax, it would be Estragon and Vladimir’s decision to actually hang themselves, and the decision to use a more suitable object (the rope) if Godot does not come on the third day.

Question 2 – The two sides of the tension that snapped were Godot not showing up on the second day, and whether or not the two tramps would decide to actually carry out their next suicide plan.

Question 3 – It has worked throughout the play because everyone, the audience included, has been wondering who Godot is and whether or not he will actually show up (after Act I), and wondering on if the tramps will actually end their miserable lives.

Question 4 & 5 – I think that the point in the play that the driving force emerged was when Estragon and Vladimir first arrive at the tree and know that they are there for a reason, and are waiting for a man named Godot, and NOTHING else.  The fact that they know so little about their own situation acts as the driving force.  This driving force, is in turn, resisted by two things.  One, the fact that no one knows if/when Godot will actually come (especially after Act I), or if he really exists!  And two, whether or not they will actually commit suicide, because if they do they will never gain any more knowledge of their situation.

Question 6 – Yes, the climax moments in the individual scenes are very important to the overall tension of the play.  Because each scene ends in almost exactly the same way, the audience is left wondering if they are ever going to see any kind of significant changes between acts.  This adds to the steady rise and fall of tension throughout the play, and never really peaking past a certain point (and if extrapolated through more Acts would probably stay the same).

Question 7 – Yes, the protagonists of this play are Estragon and Vladimir, equally.  They play main roles in causing the audience to think about their situation in two distinct ways: Estragon says things and acts in ways that make you think about the physical world (surroundings, feelings, sounds, etc.); Vladimir says things and acts in ways that make you think about the more emotional side of things (what the world is like, how bad life is, etc.), things that are less personal.

Question 8 – There is not a whole lot of context in this play to cause tension, because there is little information and therefore little context.  But, a few things that seem to cause tension are: the fact the neither the characters nor the audience can ever see any events or receive any information about the world beyond the setting where this play takes place (a road/a tree); and the fact that the audience does not have any background information (context) about the characters or their situation.

Question 9 – The nature of the audience’s involvement, is to get bored.  And I mean this in the best way possible, because if they get bored, the get Beckett’s point that life can be very boring and repetitive.

Question 10 – The play opens on what seems like a country road, but is also somewhat bizarre.  There is a tree on the side of the road, but otherwise the landscape is barren and wasted.  We see Estragon sitting on the ground…

Question 11 – In terms of emotional involvement, I don’t think we are asked very much.  And this is because you need to not have emotional involvement to understand what Beckett is trying to say about everyday life being so monotonous.  We should develop an interest for the characters, but it is never enough to actually care that much about what happens to them, but merely just to see it actually happen, just so we know.  I think that the level of Critical Assessment required is much higher than that of emotional involvement.  The audience must critically assess everything in this play because there are so few things (people/places/significant actions).  This play is about subtle changes not really being changes at all, so the audience must pay close attention to see these things and figure out what they mean.

Question 12 – Why did Beckett not write one or two more scenes?

Amy Szerlong

 

Although I find it difficult to argue with Geoffrey when it comes to his opinion that the play lacks a climax, I think the play may have a greater significance than the meaninglessness and banality of life.

Throughout the play Vladimir and Estragon continuously debate whether to keep waiting for Godot, or to leave and continue their lives elsewhere. This expresses a tension between a sense of faith and doubt, or life versus death, as more often than not the two characters debate waiting further or taking their own lives. However, in the sense that the play is about faith – it is not necessarily in praise of this virtue. The play continuously discusses, as Geoffrey mentioned, the fact that life merely keeps repeating itself. ["Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!" (43).] The fact that these gentlemen keep waiting and waiting for a man who is never going to appear, is eventually where the humor lies – since then men are seen as stupid for waiting as long as they have. However, the audience's involvement is such that they find themselves also waiting for Godot, and so consequentially, it is Beckett who has the last laugh on this issue.

Also though, on a similar note, the play also might have to deal with the concept of longing, when observing how the play opens to the audience.

Estragon: Nothing to be done.

Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it in front of me, saying, Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle.

This is a particularly interesting opening to reread once having completed the play, since once it's over the audience realizes the gravity of these opening statements. The audience's involvement with this play is such that the audience also finds themselves waiting for Godot. The audience becomes almost as eager as the two men in their waiting, and it seems that Beckett is trying to make a comment that humanity is more likely to live their lives longing for something to occur rather than go out and make something happen. In the beginning of the first act, Estragon says, "let's don't do anything, it's safer" (13). Doing nothing then, is exactly what these characters do throughout the play, which boldly contradicts Vladimir's opening statement as to why he continues to live. Waiting, though, is an issue he attempts to explain it in the latter half of the second act.

Vladimir: "€¦What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in the immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come-€¦or for night to fall. We have kept our appointment and that's an end to that. We are not saints, by we have kept our appointment. How many people can boast as much?" (90).

So simply by waiting, they have completed something that makes their lives worth living, although they are still desperate for the appearance of someone who will make their lives better. This is only known through lines near the closing of the play;

Estragon: I can't go on like this.

Vladimir: That's what you think.

Estragon: If we parted? That might be better for us.

Vladimir: We'll hang ourselves tomorrow. Unless Godot comes.

Estragon: And if he comes?

Vladimir: We'll be saved. (109).

Although this section of dialogue appears to be somewhat of a play on words, due to all the spiritual illusions to GODot, the characters think life will improve if Godot comes so they'll continue to wait. But as he has not yet appeared for the entirety of the play it is clear then in the opinion of Beckett, that these men have wasted their lives waiting for something to happen. So, in a similar vein to what has been written by both Alex and Geoffrey, this play is about humans "living" their lives by wasting time doing nothing. It is not that life is meaningless, but more that we lack the sense or knowledge to do something better or more meaningful.

 

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.

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?