Waiting for Godot is a play by Samuel Beckett, in which two characters, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), wait for the arrival of someone named Godot who never arrives, and while waiting they engage in a variety of discussions and encounter three other characters. Waiting for Godot is Beckett's translation of his own original French-language play, En attendant Godot, and is subtitled (in English only) "a tragicomedy in two acts". The original French text was composed between 9 October 1948 and 29 January 1949. The premiere, directed by Roger Blin, was on 5 January 1953 at the Théâtre de Babylone, Paris. The English-language version premiered in London in 1955. In a poll conducted by the British Royal National Theater in 1990, it was voted the "most significant English language play of the 20th century".
Q.1 What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?
“Longing” is painting by Caspar David Fredrich. He has drawn two paintings and both paintings have same background of nature. From these paintings Samuel Beckett has got inspiration for his setting of the play “Waiting For Godot”. Other than this there is no more connection between these image and setting of the play because Fredrich belongs to romanticism, his depiction of nature has different meaning, and Beckett’s depiction of nature has different meaning. Fredrich wants to show nature as healer and soothing to humans, while in Beckett’s play nature don’t has anything to do with characters. So, these paintings are inspiration for setting of the play and I don’t find any more connection.
Q.2 The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves?
The tree in the play is reflecting nature. Mostly people take nature as something which coordinate with human life. Romanticism also sing a song of nature as supporter in every ups and downs in human life. But in this modern play Beckett shows nature as totally indifferent from human life. Here tree stands for itself and not representing any character from play. It don’t has anything to do with the quest and misery of any human’s life. In second act there are leaves on tree which shows it does not wait with Vladimir and Estragon for Godot. Nature don’t need any Godot and it also don’t sympathies with human beings. It doesn’t have rationality but human always try to give rational meanings to it. It works on its own way and it has its own world.
Q.3 In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?
In both the acts scene of night and moon, we can interpret it as that both Vladimir and Estragon has killed the time successfully. They have killed one day of their life. In other way we can interpret it as temporary end of their waiting for Godot. As when night comes they come to know that now Godot will not come. We can also interpret it as the hope of rise of next day and coming of Godot. We may can say that their Godot is night, because when moon rises and night comes they both says “let’s go”. Though they don’t move but they stop saying that they are waiting for Godot.
Q.4 The director fills the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?
Director fills setting with debris which shows that how freckle the materializing world is. It brakes down and don’t has capacity to stand against while on the other hand there is barren tree which in next act has some leaves. Nature or we can say reality can stand and sustain on its own, while cultural or fake things can be broken down in to the pieces. To show this shattered nature of world may be director had scene of the setting with debris.
Q.5 The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?
The beginning of the play itself suggest the meaninglessness of life. “Nothing to be done”. There is nothing in life to do. Though human beings always tries to find some meaning in life same as Vladimir and Estragon tries to find meaning in waiting and also while killing the time. Doing nothing is also doing something. It don’t has any meaning but we always try to rationalize it. But at the end of the day every thing is meaningless.
Q.6 Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?
Yes, I am agreed that this play is not pessimistic because the central theme of the play is waiting, which means hope, hope of something to be done or get or coming. The whole life of human is passed with this waiting. It is true that no matter what happens but life goes on. It does not wait and stop for anything or any one it just go with flow. No matter Godot come or not the life of everyone and everything goes on. One can commit suicide but other are still living and will keep on living. So this play is not pessimistic play, it is positive play.
Q.7 How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?
The props like hat and boots are representing human’s attraction towards mind or body. Hat symbolically represents the mind as Vladimir is with hat and he keep on thinking, same with lucky, when he starts thinking then to stop him one has to remove his hat. While Estragon has hat but he doesn’t use it he is more concentrating on his boots which are not comforting to him. In second act when he finds fit to him he is satisfy with it. It shows that how some people are constantly thinking and how some are constantly comforting their bodily needs. With this vast difference also both are at same place.
Q.8 Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?
Yes, the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic because he has started loving his slavishness, his chains and because of that he don’t even feel like slave and even when his master is blind he don’t think of freeing himself. We also have these kind of slaves in our society who has loving masters and they don’t feel that their master is using them as slave. Such chains should be broken but slave them selves don’t want freedom.
Q.9 Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or . . .
According to me Godot is an object of never ending desires. One after another we keep on changing our object of waiting. Ultimately our destination is death but while waiting for death we keep dangling carrot front of our eyes to not see directly in the eyes of death. So some times our Godot arrives and we create new Godot and some times Godot doesn’t arrive and we keep on waiting. When our final Godot arrives our wait ends. Our death is our final Godot.
Q.10 “The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?
I do agree with Martin Esslin because if Godot was subject of the play at the end we might have some clarity that who is Godot and may be he will come also at the end. But the subject of the play is waiting. It is so because Beckett wants to make us feel the flow of time during waiting and how our whole life is only waiting for death. So we can say that the subject of play is waiting and not Godot.
Q.11 Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?
I think that this type of play should be viewed and read both. First one should have background knowledge of the play, otherwise they will not get any thing. After background reading this play should first watch, this is not advisable for all literature but plays like this one should be watch first. Because the visual and audio will help to get the sense of the play and after this the play should be read for deeper understanding. While watching the torrent of language will not allow to think deeply so after getting the texture of the play if one will read it will help in better understanding.
Q.12 Which of the following sequence you liked the most:
Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting
Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
Conversation of Vladimir with the boy
I like the conversation of Vladimir and the boy because it is so relatable. Many time it happens in our life that we are eagerly waiting for something and at the end we didn’t get it and the irritation we feel same we can feel in conversation of Vladimir and boy. So I like this conversation most.
Q.13 Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?
Yes I do feel existential crisis during screening of the movie. It is felt when Vladimir and Estragon both are trying to kill time by asking questions and meditation and all that things. At that time I feel that how we are also doing the same, these all things does not make any sense in larger structure of life but we are keep on doing such things just to kill time nor we are waiting for our death.
Q.14 Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?
In our innumerable list of desire, one is death also. Vladimir and Estragon also have that desire. We can say that they are fed up with waiting daily and trying to kill them selves, but because it is not easy they don’t do so. According to Existentialism suicide is not the solution. Existentialism says that even if there is no meaning in life but it doesn’t mean that one should end their life. That is why Vladimir and Estragon thinks to do so but they don’t.
Q.15 Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'? So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in Broadway production). Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?
This play is written after world war II. So effect of world war was reflected in play. If we go by the names than Vladimir stands for Russia, Estragon for France, Pozzo for Italy and Lucky for England than Godot will stand for Germany. Hitler is the one who is waited by every one. When he came he came he destroyed every thing. If we want to see Pozzo and Lucky, master and slave, Pozzo stands for England and Lucky for Ireland. Though Pozzo becomes blind Lucky don’t free himself. Same because Ireland is small country and for its own goods it sticks with England.
Q.16 The more the things change, the more it remains similar. There seems to have no change in Act I and Act II of the play. Even the conversation between Vladimir and the Boy sounds almost similar. But there is one major change. In Act I, in reply to Boy;s question, Vladimir says:
"BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?
How does this conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify?
Majorly both the acts are similar but in act 2 the conversation of Vladimir and Boy has some changes. It goes like…
“BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw me and that . . . (he hesitates) . . . that you saw me. (Pause. Vladimir advances, the Boy recoils. Vladimir halts, the Boy halts. With sudden violence.) You're sure you saw me, you won't come and tell me tomorrow that you never saw me!”
In first act he mentions both of them but in second act he only talk about himself. Here Vladimir has become selfish. We can connect the story of two thieves which was told earlier that one was saved and one was damned. Here he also want to be the one who was saved. He emphasize on remembering only him.
