Comments on: What do I need to know to understand Beckett's Waiting for Godot?

Question: What do I need to know to understand Beckett's Waiting for Godot?

gregb1007 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:19:05 -0800

How can I make sense of Beckett's play Waiting for Godot

I am not averse to avant-garde literature, but Beckett's Waiting for God seems to escape my understanding. I have only read a half of it because I found it too confusing to be able to continue beyond that point. I would really appreciate if someone could get some perspective on the play to help me get into it.

By: cholly

cholly — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:48:31 -0800

Here's a page with some links related to the play. Spark Notes have a study guide with a summary.
You could probably also get some information from other online study guides. I haven't studied the play myself, but I recall one of my friends finding the Spark Notes summary quite useful.

By: micketymoc

micketymoc — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:59:06 -0800

It's better seen than read, if you ask me.

You might see it as a burlesque - Gogo and Didi engage in a lot of physical comedy throughout their wait. But there's a definite arc through both acts - first anticipation, then annoyance, then despair, then resignation, as they hear that Godot isn't going to come today.

The physical comedy, for me, does a lot to underscore this arc. This might be what you're missing when you simply read the play.

I think Pozzo and Lucky are there to add some sense of time passing by, in contrast to the continual waiting game that Gogo and Didi play with Godot. Gogo and Didi are stuck in a situation where time seems to have stopped - not so for Pozzo and Lucky.

(Disclaimer: I never actually studied this in college, but I played Lucky in a college theater production. We staged it in both English and Filipino, with the same cast in both. Phew.)

By: pracowity

pracowity — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:52 -0800

All the kids these days are using something they call the wiki-pedia:

The intentionally uneventful and repetitive plot of Waiting for Godot can be seen as symbolizing the tedium and meaninglessness of human life, which loosely connects the play to one of the themes of existentialist philosophy. It is noteworthy that the audience never learns who Godot is or the nature of the business that Vladimir and Estragon expect to transact with him. One common interpretation of the mysteriously absent Godot is that he represents God, though Beckett always categorically denied this. As a proper noun, the name "Godot" may derive from any number of French verbs, and Beckett stated it might be a derivative of godillot, which is French slang for "boot". The title, in this interpretation, could be seen as suggesting that the characters are "waiting for the boot".

Left to speak for itself, without Beckett's interpretation, Waiting for Godot initially confused interpreters and critics. A play that spoke without interpretation, it confounded at first many assumed rules by which actors looked for motivation and critics looked for storyline.[4] Depending upon director, some performances played it for comedy and slapstick, others for pathos and drama.

Some 50 years after its writing, it is now more clear that Waiting for Godot holds some form of mirror up to individuals who see it. Directors often favour a "less is more" philosophy, a bleak stage with a tree, a rock, and perhaps three or five leaves only, to draw out the precision of the powerful juxtaposing of inadvertent humor and emotional pathos expressed through the lives of the characters. It is a play which requires great precision and focus to act well, where the silences and actions express a view on existence rather than just tell a storyline.

Beckett uses the characters' interaction to bring home the existentialist view of the tedium and meaninglessness of modern life. [...]

By the way, from the same source:

The name "Godot" is pronounced in Britain and Ireland with the emphasis on the first syllable (i.e. "GO-doh"/"GOD-oh", SAMPA: ["gO:d%oU]); in North America it is usually pronounced with an emphasis on the second syllable (i.e. "guh-DOH", SAMPA: [%g@"doU]). Beckett himself said the emphasis should be on the first syllable, and that the North American pronunciation is a mistake [3]. Etymologically the name is French, which (at least in the case of France) places equal emphasis on both syllables - "goh-doh".

But you still have to read the play. All the sex scenes are in the last half.

By: AmbroseChapel

AmbroseChapel — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:43:22 -0800

I suppose it all depends what you mean by "understand" or "make sense of". For what purpose: academic study/acting in the play/your own personal satisfaction?

It's not a detective story with a puzzle to be solved and despite all the sex scenes in the second half, there aren't any big surprises and revelations.

If it appears to you to be an absurd, frustrating, repetitive story about a couple of old tramps doing nothing in particular, well, yes it is.

Maybe the better question is, why would someone write an absurd, frustrating, repetitive story about a couple of old tramps and why is it considered a classic of modern theatre?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:11:11 -0800

You could always go out to a remote location with a tree & a boulder & somebody else who doesn't understand it & wait around until the meaning doesn't show up...?

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:05:41 -0800

Just spend some time waiting for Godot.

By: jb

jb — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:16:10 -0800

Yes, try to see it. It is a very physical and emotional play - the magic happens in the interaction between the text and the interpretation.

This is actually true of just about all theatre - I never read Shakespeare, but I love seeing it. And I'm having trouble thinking of any play which would be as good read as it is seen (though I could be wrong). It's like reading a film script or a music score - good for studying how it's constructed, but not really the art as it was created.

By: emelenjr

emelenjr — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:06:09 -0800

That's interesting to me about the pronunciation, which isn't the way the last college professor I had who taught Beckett pronounced it. That prof's take on the name Godot was that it was derived from the German Gott ist tod, but I like the idea of waiting for the boot, too.

I also think you'll get more out of the play by watching it rather than just reading it.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:19:57 -0800

I never read Shakespeare, but I love seeing it. And I'm having trouble thinking of any play which would be as good read as it is seen

Ironically, the only playwright I can think of who can be better to read that to see is, in fact, Shakespeare. The language is so gorgeous and you can linger on a phrase when reading. Sometimes I get an actual physical shiver of delight. Try reading MacBeth, which could be the most accessible, with a copy of the play that has explanations of archaic or obscure words on the same page as the line.

As for Godot - yes, that one has to be seen performed to make much sense.

By: amtho

amtho — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:25:29 -0800

I had an acting teacher who loved this play, at least partly because it was, for her, the quintessential actors' play. It can be played many, many ways -- it might be interesting for you to search for various reviews. My S.O. once played the tree in a local company's production.

The written play is like a framework; the actors and director have to put a lot of flesh on any production of "Waiting for Godot", so seeing it would help a lot. Reading reviews might give some insight, and help bring the play alive as you continue to read.

A search for ["waiting for godot" review] on Google yielded 351,000 hits.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:53:43 -0800

I agree with CunningLinguist (which is ironic, because I'm currently producing a Shakespeare play): Shakespeare is great to read -- assuming you understand Elizabethan English. And it's fairly easy to learn to understand it. I also get the shivers. I call it "having a Shakespeare moment."

Here's one quick example: in "Much Ado About Nothing," Leonato learns that his daughter -- who he loves more than life itself -- has been unchaste. He is angry at her and wants to disown her. But he also still loves her. He phrases his agony as follows:

I might have said 'No part of it is mine;
This shame derives itself from unknown loins'?
But mine and mine I loved and mine I praised
And mine that I was proud on, mine so much
That I myself was to myself not mine,
Valuing of her,--why, she, O, she is fallen
Into a pit of ink, that the wide sea
Hath drops too few to wash her clean again
And salt too little which may season give
To her foul-tainted flesh!

I get the shivers with "But mine and mine I loved and mine I praised / And mine that I was proud on, mine so much / That I myself was to myself not mine..."

To be fair to other writers, Shakespeare isn't the only one that is fun to read. Try Moliere, Congrieve or any of the Restoration guys (I highly recommend "The Way of the World.") Greek plays, well translated, can be a joy to read, too. And if you're looking for a contemporary play that reads like poetry, go no further than "The Weir," by Conor McPherson.

Now back to your previously scheduled program.

PS. I think "Godot" is about waiting.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:15:06 -0800

I told a professor I didn't understand WFG, and desired to understand it. He said meet me at four. Fucker never showed up. I am still grateful.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:55:20 -0800

It's worth noting that the phrase "a mystery wrapped in an enigma" was originally used to describe the 1956 New York premiere of Waiting.* That review captures the play's confusion fairly well, even if it makes the simplistic mistake of equating Godot with God. Since it may be hard to find a production on short notice, if you're reading it for a class, I'd say "what you need to know" to understand the play is something about existentialism and absurdism. Maybe try Camus' The Stranger for a more readable take on those.

*With Bert "Cowardly Lion" Lahr and E.G. Marshall in the starring roles!

Sidenote:
[Waiting for Godot] can be played many, many ways

Except by women, of course; Beckett and his estate have repeatedly attempted to shut down productions that use women instead of men, even when the women are made up to look like men.

By: ewagoner

ewagoner — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:22:18 -0800

I don't know if this adds anything to the comments before mine, but here's my program notes for a production I directed (and also played Lucky) a few years ago:

Volumes have been written about this play. Entire semester-long classes have been devoted to a single page from the script. It's easy to get carried away, I think, and such over-analysis has given this play a bad reputation in some circles. I feel that Beckett has written one of those rare works that reflects back what the observer has brought with him. Is it about WWII French Resistance? Sure. Is it about the wait for God? You bet. Is it about two bums passing time at the side of a road? Certainly. It's been my goal to present this play in as open a manner as possible, how I feel Beckett intended, to allow you to see something personally meaningful. The actors were given some of the most difficult roles in all of theater, and have done wonderfully. I hope you agree. Enjoy the show!

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:38:07 -0800

It's worth noting that the phrase "a mystery wrapped in an enigma" was originally used to describe the 1956 New York premiere of Waiting.

Actually, it's based on a 1939 Winston Churchill quote:

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:56:25 -0800

Thanks! "famously used," then. :)

By: beatrice

beatrice — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:34:17 -0800

Boy: Mr. Godot told me to tell you he won't come this evening but surely tomorrow.
[silence]
Vladimir: Is that all?
Boy: Yes Sir.
[silence]
Vladimir: You work for Mr. Godot?
Boy: Yes Sir.
Vladimir: What do you do?
Boy: I mind the goats, Sir.

By: baylink

baylink — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:29:23 -0800

So the 'women' thing means if you want to stage this, the only place you can get rights is directly from his estate?

By: ewagoner

ewagoner — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:57:39 -0800

baylink: "So the 'women' thing means if you want to stage this, the only place you can get rights is directly from his estate?"

Sort of... it depends on where you are, and what type of production you wish to undertake. In the US, amateur production rights are handled by Dramatists Play Service, who handles things according to the copyright holder's wishes (in this case, Beckett's estate).

I unknowingly violated the contract terms in my production. I didn't know about the whole woman prohibition until the week of the production, and I had cast Pozzo as a woman. I changed pronouns, but that was the only change I made to the text. The theater company I was working through handled the rights, and I never actually saw the contract.

To make matters worse, I put the text online to help my cast and crew, and didn't lock it down well enough. Google found it, and I received more than a few emails from folks asking how I managed to secure the rights for what I did. Luckily, not one of them came from the Beckett estate.

By: frogan

frogan — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:14:59 -0800

Maybe the better question is, why would someone write an absurd, frustrating, repetitive story about a couple of old tramps and why is it considered a classic of modern theatre?

Consider it the high-falutin' form of the Aristocrats joke, where the point of the joke isn't the punchline, it's all the things that happen on the way there.

When it's read, you get a lot of stage directions for "they wait." That doesn't have to literally mean they stand there and do nothing. It's opens the production up for improvisation, like a jazz riff.

In other words, it's not about the tale, it's about he who tells it.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:33:19 -0800

I understand your confusion. The play is about waiting, and waiting is one of those subjects that -- normally -- no one writes about. It's what we cut past, so that stories will be more exciting than real life. Rather than doing that, Beckett chose to confront waiting dead on. He made it the center-piece of the story. He looked at waiting from every angle. If you think about it (think about standing in a long line at the post office), waiting is aggravating, absurd, boring, tragic and many other things. While we wait, we reflect, we ponder, we go numb, we get angry ... we do all sorts of things.

Waiting is part of the human experience. You will enjoy "Godot" or not if...

a) you think it's a part of the human experience worth exploring, and

b) you connect with Beckett's way (and the specific production's way) of exploring it.

But it is -- or at least was, when it came out, a pretty unique play. No one had really delved into waiting like this, before Beckett.

By: milkman

milkman — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:38:30 -0800

Generally, in terms of getting rights, unless you are a big enough theater to have lawyers and such taking care of it for you anyway, you don't actually need to worry about it.

There have been plenty of productions which have cast one or both of the main characters as women.

By: jb

jb — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:49:39 -0800

There have been plenty of productions which have cast one or both of the main characters as women.

I directed a scene from the end for my drama class, and yes, I had two women cast (one as Estragon, the other as the boy - no need to change the gender of the characters in the text at all, just go on with a woman playing a male character). They were both the perfect people in the class for the roles.

Ironically, the only playwright I can think of who can be better to read that to see is, in fact, Shakespeare.

I respectfully must disagree. Shakespeare is good to read, one of the best, but not as good as when performed well. A director and an actor who really get the scene bring the magic to it - and it's not just the words. The best Shakespeare I've ever seen was actually in translation and then back again (the subtitled version of Jesus of Montreal) because it brought out the meaning of Hamlet's soliliquy more than any direct performance I'd ever seen, and more than reading it. (Language isn't an issue - I read material from that period every day). But it was also performed by Robert LePage, which may explain it.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:09:15 -0800

Generally, in terms of getting rights, unless you are a big ... theater ... you don't actually need to worry about it.

Unless you live in NYC. Even small theatres are watched and need to be careful. This may be true in other theatre meccas, too (London, Chicago, etc.)

My SMALL theatre company produced -- or tried to produce -- a Pinter play. We actually DID have the rights. Then a big producer became interested in the same play, and the rightsholder REVOKED our rights. According to the small print, they are allowed to do so, as-long-as they give us our money back. Since they stood to make much more money off of a big (Broadway?) production than our little one (and since they don't allow two concurrent productions in the same city), it made economic sense for them to take the play away from us.

Unfortunately for us, we were already a month into rehearsal. It was heartbreaking. And the big producer ultimately dropped his project, so no one wound up producing the play.

A friend, who runs a small theatre company was producing a children's play by David Mamet. He also had the rights. The rightsholder took his rights away -- not because someone else was doing the same play -- but because someone else was doing a totally different Mamet play in the same city. And they thought my friend's little children's play would be competition. In the end, my friend DID get to produce his play, but he had to appeal directly to David Mamet.

One of the many reasons I LOVE doing Shakespeare is that his plays are all public domain. It doesn't matter if Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro are doing "Macbeth" on Broadway. I can still produce it.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:10:02 -0800

Shakespeare is good to read, one of the best, but not as good as when performed well.

It's a silly cats/dogs Macs/PCs argument. There's value in both reading and seeing, and I wouldn't want to give up either.