Context
After World War I writers of Modernist literature focused on science, philosophy, art, and innovative narrative techniques to analyse and express human experience.
The aftershock of World War II produced a further revision in the Western vision of humanity's place in the universe, expressed in the Postmodernist culture. There evolved a gradual recognition that reason and truth were human ideologies, not Truths as the Enlightenment had taught. An era of post-truth evolved (seized on for personal benefit by populist politicians in the 21st. Century). The Postmodernist movement determined that reason itself was a Western construct which competed with other traditions of faith and cultural understanding.
Shocked by the human rights violations during the World conflict such as the Holocaust and the atomic bombings of Japan, Postmodernism expressed the disillusion caused by the Second World War and focused on beliefs rather than factual science. Writers began to view the search for meaning as impossible and they turned to meaninglessness.
The theatre of the absurd developed in this postmodernist cultural environment. The term was coined to describe a new wave of plays that emerged in Europe in the 1940s and ’50s. These works were influenced by the existentialist philosophy of French writers Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. The playwrights of this tradition viewed the world as inherently devoid of meaning, with humans illogically attempting to impose order and purpose on their existence.
The postmodern narrative developed through undermining the established relationship among text, author and reader. The achronological narrative is illustrated by Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse Five (1969) in which the protagonist is buffeted between the present and the past in a meaningless war. Postmodernism avoided absolute meanings and emphasised fragmentation, as exemplified in the narrative playfulness of Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967) that follows many characters over a long time, indicating the scantiness of human life. Metafiction (the artificiality of fiction) is the subject of Italo Calvino's metanarrative If on a winter's night a traveller (1979) which is a novel about a reader reading the novel If on a winter's night a traveller. Samuel Beckett’s theatre staged the disintegration of narrative meaning in his play En attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot) composed between 1948 and 1949. It premiered in Paris in 1953 and was published in 1954.
The Theatre of the Absurd sees the world as inherently devoid of meaning, with humans illogically attempting to impose order and purpose on their existence. The movement gained momentum thanks to the bleak postwar atmosphere of the era, which led to widespread disillusionment with traditional values. It is characterised by displaying the absurd irrationality of life; alienation, where characters feel isolated from a world that’s indifferent to their existence; disorientation through non-linear timelines, unconventional plots, and strange characters, creating a pervasive feeling of uncertainty; incommunication through disjointed dialogue and nonsensical language which often leads to a total breakdown in understanding among the characters; existentialism which invites the audience to question what it means to be human in a world that feels like it’s spinning out of control.
Salient plays of the theatre of the absurd were Sartre's Huis Clos (No Exit) (1944), Ionesco's La Cantratrice Chauve (The Bald Soprano) (1950), La Leçon (The Lesson) (1951), Les Chaises (The Chairs) (1952) and Beckett's En Attendant Godot (Waiting for Godot) (1953) and Fin de Partie (Endgame) (1957).
Summary
(Though Irish, Beckett established residence in Paris and wrote in French. In Waiting for Godot he portrayed an existential tale of two hobos waiting in vain for a supposed Godot, who never appears.)
The play is set in a country road, near a leafless tree, where two men, Vladimir and Estragon, are waiting for the arrival of a man named Godot. In order to pass the time while they await Godot to arrive, the two men talk about a variety of subjects, including how they spent the previous night (Vladimir passed his night in a ditch being beaten up by a variety of people), how the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is described in the different Gospels, and even whether they should hang themselves from the nearby tree.
A man named Pozzo turns up, leading Lucky, his slave, with a rope around his neck like an animal. Pozzo tells them that he is on his way to the market, where he intends to sell Lucky. He eats a picnic, and Vladimir requests that Lucky entertain them while they wait for Godot to arrive. After Lucky has performed a dance for them, he is ordered to think: an instruction which leads him to give a long speech which only ends when he is wrestled to the ground.
Lucky and Pozzo leave, and a Boy arrives with a message announcing that Godot will not be coming today after all, but will come tomorrow. Vladimir and Estragon decide to leave, but remain exactly where they are.
The second act of the play opens the next day. The tree has grown a number of leaves overnight, suggesting that more time than this has passed. Vladimir and Estragon discover Lucky’s hat, which he had left behind, and the two men role-play at pretending to be Lucky and Pozzo. They then throw insults at each other to pass the time.
Lucky and Pozzo return, but they have changed overnight: Lucky can no longer speak, and Pozzo is blind. When Lucky and Pozzo fall to the ground, Vladimir and Estragon try to help them up, but end up falling down too. Pozzo has no memory of meeting the two men the day before. He and Lucky leave again, with Vladimir and Estragon left to wait for Godot.
The Boy returns, but he denies being the same one that came to them yesterday. Once again, Godot will not be turning up today, but will come tomorrow, he tells them. The two men decide to hang themselves in their desperation, using Estragon’s belt, but all that happens is his trousers fall down. They decide to leave, but stay exactly where they are, determined to stay another day and continue waiting for Godot...
Themes
Existentialism
Waiting for Godot presents existentialism by illustrating the futility and absurdity of human existence. The endless wait of the two main characters reflects the existential belief that life lacks inherent meaning and purpose. The play challenges the audience to recognise the uncertainty and repetitive nature of existence, underlining the existential themes of despair and absurdity.
The phrase "nothing to be done" is a recurrent in the play, symbolising existential despair and the futility of action. It summarises the existential belief that human efforts are ultimately meaningless in an indifferent world. Estragon first says it while struggling with his boot, highlighting the absurdity of mundane tasks. Vladimir echoes these sentiments as they contemplate more abstract thoughts on life and hope, reinforcing the theme of hopelessness and the senselessness of the universe:
VLADIMIR (advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. (He broods, musing on the struggle.)
Vladimir and Estragon's relationship reflects the human condition and the search for meaning. Their conversations, filled with hope, despair, and dependency, focus attention on the uncertainty and repetitive nature of life. The act of waiting itself is significant, symbolising the existential idea that life is a cycle of anticipation without resolution. The play's cyclical structure, where each day mirrors the last, reinforces the existentialist notion that life is a series of repetitive, meaningless actions.
Beckett's portrayal of existentialism is both nihilistic and comic. The play suggests that life is a bad joke, with its absurdity providing a source of humour. The relationship between Lucky and Pozzo, along with the tramps' antics, adds a humorous layer to the existential despair. The humour lies in the absurdity of their situation, as they continue to wait for someone who may never come, reflecting the existential belief that life is inherently meaningless.
Absurdity
The play explores the existentialist question of the inherent meaninglessness of life. Its structure, through lack of traditional plot and character development, presents the futility of human existence. Estragon and Vladimir's endless wait for the elusive Godot demonstrates the absurdity of their situation, reflecting the philosophy that life is devoid of inherent purpose.
The play presents a world where traditional expectations of plot and coherent dialogue are absent. This is evident in Lucky's monologue in Act I, where he rambles incoherently:
"I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink."
This speech underscores the absurd nature of the play, immersing the audience in a world where meaning is elusive and communication is fragmented.
Absurdism also involves themes of salvation and the human condition. Estragon and Vladimir's belief that Godot will bring salvation reflects their search for meaning in a chaotic world. Their lives are at a standstill, unable to move forward without Godot:
"Gogo: Let's go.
Didi: We can't.
Gogo: Why not?
Didi: We're waiting for Godot."
This dialogue presents their dependence on an external force for change, something that appears as a false promise. The play suggests that humans, like Estragon and Vladimir, are trapped in a meaningless existence, waiting for a salvation that may never come.
The theme of waiting in the play symbolises the stagnation of life when individuals fail to seek change by themselves. The characters' endless wait for Godot represents the paralysis that occurs when people rely on external forces for salvation, such as religion. This message prompts the audience to reflect on their own lives and the need to take personal action to effect change, instead of waiting for it to happen.
Postmodernism
Beckett was a Modernist writer, but “Waiting for Godot” is a postmodern play:
Irony is one postmodern device in the play. The biggest irony is that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, while they don’t even know who or what Godot is? They just keep on waiting, without attempting to find out the purpose of their waiting.
In the Lucky-Pozzo episode, Pozzo is master and Lucky is servant. Then in the second act Pozzo becomes blind and Lucky is his dumb servant. Now, Pozzo depends on Lucky, but ironically Lucky doesn’t realise his power and position and continues to remain a servant. He is so used to being in service that he cannot become independent.
There is a certain irony in the play's black humour. Estragon’s memory appears as funny, but there is deep philosophy in it. When he is beaten every night by some unknown people, it seems superficially humorous, but its connotations may refer to life's unknown troubles.
Another example of the irony in the characters' lives comes at the end of both Acts, they talk about going but no one moves:
(End of first act)
“ESTRAGON: Well, shall we go?
VLADIMIR: Yes, let's go.
(They do not move).”
(End of second act)
“VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.
(They do not move).”
The dialogue seems burlesque, but it throws up basic questions about the monotonous stagnancy of life and the ironical twist that there is no escape.
Fragmentation is a prevalent Modernist and Postmodernist device used to reflect the fractured nature of human experience in the post-World War years.
In Waiting for Godot the dialogue is presented in short bursts of sentences, avoiding embellished language:
“Vladimir: …How shall I say? Relieved and at the same time… (He searches for the word)… appalled… (With emphasis) AP-PALLED…”
Lucky in Act one, starts speaking forcefully. Pozzo also speaks furiously without any particular form or style. They seem to speak whatever comes into their minds, lost in a stream-of-consciouness.
The characters are also involved in a fragmented relationship:
"Vladimir: Do you want me to go away? (Pause) Gogo! (Pause. Vladimir observes him attentively) Did they beat you? (Pause) Gogo! (Estragon remains silent, head bowed.) Where did you spend the night?
Estragon: Don't touch me! Don't question me! Don't speak to me! Stay with me!
Vladimir: Did I ever leave you?
Estragon: You let me go."
The pauses in dialogue which come time and again are also an important part of this fragmentation. A character, while speaking, unexpectedly pauses, leading to a fragmentary communication.
The setting of the play is also piecemeal. There is only a country road and a barren tree. The props are fragments of nature presenting frustration, hopelessness and the futility of all knowledge, action, life and the world itself.
Intertextuality is also a prominent theme in Postmodernist literature. In Waiting for Godot the biblical context appears, as is to be expected in an Irish author:
"Vladimir: Did you ever read the Bible!"
"Vladimir: Do you remember the Gospels?"
"Vladimir: ...one of the thieves was saved..."
"Vladimir: Our saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other... (he searches for the contrary of saved)... damned."
"Vladimir: I tell you his name is Pozzo.
Estragon: We'll soon see. (He reflects.) Abel ! Abel !"
"Vladimir: I begin to weary of this motif.
Estragon: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain ! Cain !"
Shakespeare is another source of influence in the play. Godot appears to draw on Hamlet’s graveyard scene for macabre imagery:
"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."
In the Hamlet skull scene, Yorick’s skull pitches Hamlet into an existential crisis. He is reminded of his own existence by the decaying old skull. He thinks about Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar after seeing the skull. They had achieved a lot, but still ended up being dust particles. Hamlet reflects that existence in this world is just like dust, a symbol of the futility of life.
There are a number of connections with Shakespeare's The Tempest and specifically with its “salvage and deformed slave” Caliban. The figure of Caliban is significant as a lyrical figure whose great speech about sleeping, waking, and dreaming informs Lucky's monologue in the play:
'Don’t be scared. This island is full of noises and sweet music which bring pleasure and harm no one. Sometimes I hear a thousand twanging instruments humming around my ears, and sometimes I hear voices that are so soothing that they send me back to sleep even if I have just woken up. And then, in my dreams, it seemed to me that the clouds parted to reveal treasure ready to fall down from the sky upon me, so that when I woke up, I cried because I wanted to dream again.’
Ironically given his name, Lucky is enslaved by Pozzo and when forced to speak delivers a parody of a theological speech in a stream-of-consciousness style which is ultimately meaningless, but similar to Molly Bloom’s inner monologue in the final page of Ulysses. Lucky maintains that God seems to be lost in a maze of irrelevance, absurdity, and incoherence, just like the speech itself.
Metafiction
Postmodernism used metafiction to engage readers in a dialogue about the very act of writing and reading. It pushes the readership to question the fundamental structures of narrative fiction and explore the possible fictionality of the world outside the literary fictional text.
Metafiction has a long tradition. The introversion of the 18th. century novel Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne is different from the 20th. century metafiction which pays attention to the autonomy of the fictive structure itself. However, this is precisely what occurred in Cervantes' 17th. century Don Quixote where, in a fiction about fiction, the author penned not only a parody of the main character's delusion, but also of the illusion created by narrative itself.
Waiting for Godot participates in metafiction by breaking down the fourth theatre wall, that between the audience and the play. It acknowledges its own theatricality, reflecting on the nature of performance and the boundaries between reality and illusion. This is achieved through the play's repetitive structure: Act 2 is a mirror reflection of Act 1. In the Lucky-Pozzo episode in Act 1, Pozzo is a cruel master and Lucky is his unlucky but declamatory slave. Then in the second act the relationship is mirrored with a blind Pozzo led by a dumb Lucky. Now, Pozzo depends on Lucky. The play's whole cyclical structure, where each day mirrors the last, questions the flip-flop storyline itself which, like the characters, is going nowhere.
The characters are very much self-aware and openly reflect on their plight:
"Estragon: We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?
Vladimir: Yes, yes, we're magicians."
Both characters have lost the capacity for action and they express this feeling of inaction. They want to act, but cannot. However, their self-awareness is relentless. For the audience the magic also lies in the characters' inventiveness which forms the storyline, but since it leads nowhere the plot itself comes under question. This is a cyclical narrative with no end in sight. The traditional linear framework is under deconstruction in front of the spectators' eyes.
Modernism relied on the belief that we can know the world, that we can use our knowledge to critique and analyse the way things are and that, as a result, we can create a better world. For modernism, knowledge offers power, and when knowledge is guided by reason it can give us the power to create a world that is more humane.
However, Postmodernism turned to a new vision which described many elements of the world, not merely as deceptive appearances but as simulations. The claim is that our belief that we can know reality is an illusion. Another assertion is that the self, society and reality are fictions.
In Waiting for Godot the postmodernist Didi and Gogo find it difficult to make sense of anything in a chaotic, illogical world. This leads to them finding it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is illusion. At the beginning of the play, they can't remember what they did yesterday. Estragon thinks they were at the same spot yesterday but does not recognise the place. They are also unsure about why they are waiting for Godot but continue to wait nonetheless.
The audience is placed in a similar quandary since there are no familiar character types, no lineal plot nor any common situations to which they can relate. The language, the scenarios, and the characters are all presented in an illogical, absurd, or hopeless light. Given that the characters and events are so absurd, the play appears like a dream or even a nightmare. Both the characters and the audience experience what it is like to endure an absurd existence, unsure about what is real and what is illusion.
At the end of the play, Didi and Gogo plan to commit suicide "unless Godot comes." They also determine to leave, but do not move. This is a play in which nothing happens . . . twice. The characters cannot escape from their existence which, as it is stripped of linear structure and traditional character roles, appears so bizarre that it is difficult to say whether it is real or a dream.
Vladimir and Estragon's world seems surreal and dreamlike, but it might be more real than that of the onlookers in the sense that it is not structured by plot, familiar roles, and linear progression. However, does real life have a plot? Are these structures such as plot and identity real or illusions? Is the play more real than our "reality"?
No comments:
Post a Comment