Thinking Activity: Waiting for Godot

 

 Q.1.  What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?

Ans.There are two people in this picture. Both have desires. This picture also indicates that they are waiting for something. But the longing in the picture is the theme of this painting. So Samuel Beckett is inspired by this painting and then writes Waiting for Godot. They have a desire in painting but for those whose affairs, they want to meet with God and have a place in Heaven. So when we look at a painting we find that painting has their will and then when we look at Beckett's game something is waiting for him. So perhaps both painting and in-play have the same reasons for waiting and wanting.

 

Q.2. The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of trees in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves -?

 

Ans.The tree also becomes a symbol in the game. And when we find out that without the leaves of the tree. That picture gives our minds a little negativity. We think it is a symbol of something bad happening or it is a symbol of death. And when our desire, when nothing happens, indicates death, we are finally becoming a part of life and death. So ultimately the truth is death. So in the play, both Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for Godot. And both want to visit Godot. They have been waiting for the first day but Godot never came that day. But Godot sends a messenger. It does not come. And then the next day he doesn’t even come and sends Godot Messenger again. So when the first godot does not come. At that moment Walidimir sees a tree. On the tree, new leaves grow. So it gives hope. So the tree gives the positivity that the next day Godot is definitely coming. That is why they are waiting for the next day. So the tree becomes a symbol of hope.

 

Q.3. In both Acts, evening falls into night, and the moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

 

 

Ans. So In the play, day and night also involved in the play. In the night also they are waiting. So maybe it becomes a symbol of negativity. That nobody comes. They only Weaste their time. But they have hope that one day Godot will Came. And both meet with Godot. So one-day situation happens another day the same situation happens. Some minor changes are found. As the moon never stop rising,  same way people shouldn't be frustrated by their daily life.

 

Q.4. The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?

 

Ans. Here we can interpret debris as a materialistic thing, which will not be permanent. We can also associate these things with human life by saying that humans are dying like things.

 

Q.5. The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?

Ans. "Nothing to be done" reflects existentialism. This theory shows that life is meaningless, that whatever you do has no ultimate meaning. The play begins with the idea of ​​doing nothing. Vladimir and Estragon will wait without informing Godot whether he will come or not, whether he exists or not, who is he? The obscure theme shows anything of the play.

 

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)?

 

Ans. Yes, I agree with Marshall's point of view. Mostly we keep thinking about the goal but if you work hard in the process the goal will automatically get better. Another interpretation that comes to our mind is that no one comes to our rescue to do so. No one should be disappointed because it is life.

 

Q.7. How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?

Ans. Beckett has presented all the symbols very well. In the symbol of the hat, we can combine intelligence. And shoes as a person's mute. Or we can say carefree spirit for a valid reason as Estragon represents in the play.

 

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?

 

Ans. Sometimes we can get a chance to be free from some created situation, yet we cannot snatch that opportunity because we have settled into that created situation, it cannot allow us to think further. Lucky knows full well that his master does not have the power to see anything, but he does not turn away from him and does not serve him without question of real freedom. It is not to be regarded as a rational thinker but those who live a sheepish life can be driven by the flow without question.

 

Q.9. Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or  . . .

 

Ans.  According to my success and death, both are like Godot. Because everyone wants success in their life. For success, everyone works hard and then they have success so it becomes like Godot. And death is also like Godot because then we get everything we need where eventually death becomes the final station of our life. So late death fulfills our full desires. Ultimately we are connected to death so death is also a godsend for me. In my movie or play, T becomes Godot because the tree gives Vladimir hope and positivity.

 

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?

Ans. Yes, the subject of the play is not Godot but waiting. I agree with Aslin's opinion. Nothing happens throughout the play. Which shows the absurdity of life. Even in life, we wait for something until our death.

 

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 a better understanding of the play?

 

Ans. In my opinion, both reading and watching can be beneficial and essential for drama. Because it can be boring if you just watch a movie. Because it has constant dialogues and less action. To understand philosophy, one has to read the play. Just reading makes you bored too because you can’t imagine Vladimir and Estragon and their useless action. We have to do both things in class that have enriched our understanding of drama.

 

Q.12. Which of the following sequence you liked the most:

·        Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting

·        Vladimir and Estragon: The Had and the Boot

·        Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts

·        Converstion of Vladimir with the boy

Ans. I like those two acts before when Vladimir and Izeragan waste their time at the moment both arguing with each other and both say the deep deep vision of life in their conversation. And secondly when Pozzo and Lucky come whatever Pozzo says Lucky obeys his order. But Lucky has a sense of thinking, he just thinks and Pozzo is just ordering. When Lucky starts talking, everyone gets irritated.

 

Q.13.  Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifferent Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?

 

Ans. Yes, we feel the effect of an irrational crisis or the meaninglessness of human existence in an irrational and indifferent universe when Vladimir asked the boy about Godot and he asked if Godot would come today or not? The boy of that time replied that Godot will come tomorrow but Godot never comes during the whole game so we can find Godot's meaningless wait. And the other nonsense we find in Lucky's character is that when sheep-like slavery fill their master goes blind. So, we can say that life is meaningless for Lucky because they don't even think about freedom.

 

Q.14.  Vladimir and Estragon talk about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?

Ans. We can associate these things with escapism. Getting rid of conflict but not committing suicide means they have the ability to survive. In the same way in life many times we question our existence, most of the time whenever we get caught in a trap we feel like committing suicide. So it’s like escapism. In the same way, suicide is considered a sin in Christianity, in the same way that both of these Trumps avoid suicide and begin to wait for karma in trouble.

 

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?

 

Ans. Yes, we can do a political reading of this play with the names of the characters. Here Vladimir for Russia, Italy for Pozzo stand, France for Lucky stand, and France for Astragon stand. For the character of Godot, we can say Germany through Hitler who has deserted the land in the WW. In the case of Pozzo and Lucky, we can associate them as master-slaves, here Pozzo represents England and Lucky represents Ireland.

 

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?

Ans. In most acts, we feel no difference. But yes we can see the difference in the above context. Here Vladimir becomes more self-centered. Like life, most people live with us but they leave us when they think their goals are not close at that time.