Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Safeem: (Safi)
Safeem: (Safi)
By
Safeem
Theatre of Absurd:
The drama waiting for Godot is a representative text of theatre of absurd, for
understanding the drama we have to understand absurdism first. Critic Martin
Esslin coined the term “Theatre of absurd” in his 1960 essay and, later, a book
of the same name. The Theatre of Absurd is a theatrical style originating in
France in the late 1950s to 1980. In 1979 the death of Samuel Buckket marks
End of this movement.
It expresses the belief that, in a godless universe, human existence has no
meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down. Logical
construction and argument give away to irrational and illogical speech and as
its ultimate conclusion, silence. There is nothing beautiful or transcendent about
being human, ultimately it is just a filthy business of revolting species trying to
survive. Permanence is a myth, an allusion, at the end of everything become
just a test subject. Why do we live? The work we do isn’t meaning in any great
sense, the connection we make invariably fall to ruin, everything we build
burns to the ground, meaning is myth. So why do we live.
Such types of plays generally lack conflict; they use these characteristics to
provoke some high levels of contrast, alienation, and irony. Plays within this
group are absurd in that they focus not on logical acts, realistic occurrences, or
tradional character development; they, instead focus on human beings trapped
in an incomprehensible world subject to any occurrence, no matter how
illogical. According to the Martin Esslin, Absurdism is “the inevitable
devaluation of ideal, purity and purpose “absurdist drama asks its viewer to
draw his own conclusions, make his own errors”. Esslin makes a distinction
between the dictionary definitions of absurd according to him “absurd is that
which is devoid of purpose…. Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and
transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, and
useless”.
Plot
Waiting for Godot follows a pair of men who divert themselves while waiting
expectantly, vainly for someone named Godot to arrive. They claim he's an
acquaintance but in fact hardly know him, admitting that they would not
recognize him if they see him. To occupy the time they eat, sleep, converse,
argue, sing, play games, exercise, swap (exchange) hats, and contemplate
(brood, think seriously) suicide – anything "to hold the terrible silence at bay
(name of a tree, breach, reddish brown colour)".
Characters:
Estragon:
Estragon is one of the two protagonists. He is a bum and sleep in a ditch where
he beaten each night. He has no memory beyond what is immediately said to
him, and relies on Vladimir to remember for him.
Estragon is impatient and constantly wants to leave Vladimir, but is restrained
from leaving by the fact that he needs Vladimir. It is Estragon’s idea for the
bums to pass their time by hanging themselves.
Vladimir:
Pozzo is the master who rules over Lucky. He stops and talks to the two bums
in order to have some company. In the second act Pozzo is blind and requires
their help. He, like Estragon, can not remember people he has met.
Lucky:
Lucky is the slave of Pozzo. He is tied to Pozzo via a rope around his neck and
he carries Pozzo’s bags. Lucky is only allowed to speak twice during the entire
play, but his long monologue is filled with incomplete ideas. He is silenced
only by the other characters that fight with him to take of his hat.
Boy:
The boy is a servant of Mr. Godot. He plays an identical role in both acts by
coming to inform Vladimir and Estragon that Mr. Godot will not be able to
make it that night, but will surely come the next day. The never remembers
having met Vladimir and Estragon before. He has a brother who is mentioned
but who never appears.
Godot:
The identity of Godot has been the subject of much debate. "When Colin
Duckworth asked Beckett point-blank whether Pozzo was Godot, the
author replied: 'No. It is just implied in the text, but it's not true.
"When Roger Blin asked him who or what Godot stood for, Beckett
replied that it suggested itself to him by the slang word for boot in
French, godillot, godasse because feet play such a prominent role in the
play. This is the explanation he has given most often.
Some Interpretations:
Religious:
Political:
Political interpretations also abound. Some reviewers hold that the relationship
between Pozzo and Lucky is that of capitalist to his labour. This Marxist
interpretation is understandable given that in the second act Pozzo is blind to
what is happening around him and lucky is mute to protest his treatment.
Lucky is Lucky:
Purpose is Myth:
At the end of Act 2 and knowing absurdism what I got from drama is our life’s
aims are just a myth, it has to that the myth is not the myth for everyone, and
certainly it is myth for those to. It is possible that within the myth, there’s a
sliver of truth and you have to believe in that sliver wholeheartedly, come what
may despite the rational mind because if you don’t the myth just reveals itself
to the myth, and meaninglessness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, also you
have to encourage others to believe in the myth. If they believe they can do
something, they can laugh, cry, feel, hope, fall into the emotion of love, hate,
get marry, vote, cure and everything which is necessary of this revolving wheel,
but if they don’t they can’t do anything and this revolving wheel will be
stopped and no is ready to face it.