This blog is in response to a thinking activity given by our professor Dilip Barad https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2014/09/worksheet-screening-movie-waiting-for.html this is the link you can go there and see more detail about this task. In this Blog I am going to write about my understanding of "Waiting for Godot".
Beckett translated the text of Waiting for Godot from French to English himself. When he did this, he included the subtitle, “A tragicomedy.” This portmanteau suggests that the play blends elements of tragedy and comedy together. At first, this definition seems somewhat impossible. How can something be both tragic and humorous at the same time? This paper analyzes specific themes throughout the play in an attempt to demonstrate just how accurate Beckett’s description is. More specifically, it asserts that this tragicomic quality appears most often in the moments where the characters feel as if they lack control over death, time, Godot (standing in for the unrealized), and the self.
-Waiting for Godot is the most well-known play from the Theatre of the Absurd movement. It was written by Samuel Beckett and performed for the first time in Paris on January 5th, 1953. At its premier, the play shocked its audience as it presented a new type of theatre which used very unconventional methods. In fact, it is said to have nearly caused riots across Western Europe. Godot’s debut in the United States took place at San Quentin penitentiary in 1957. Unlike European audiences, the prisoners were able to identify with the play, primarily because they understood the concept of waiting . Eventually, Waiting for Godot received the recognition it deserved and took its place as a classic of modern theatre. This anecdote is an excellent preface to reading or seeing Waiting for Godot because it prepares the audience to abandon any preconceptions they may have about theatre in order to better understand the piece.
-Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves?
In Act-1 The Tree is very significant in both acts. In fist act tree is barren and when we generated answer in AI this is worksheet given by Dilip sir https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2014/09/worksheet-screening-movie-waiting-for.html In this blog in last you can find that worksheet.
AI gave this response- In Act II, the barren tree is symbolic of the emptiness of Beckett's life, as well as his lack of hope for the future. When he grows a few leaves on the tree, it signifies his renewed hope and optimism that he may be able to achieve something meaningful in his life. The leaves also represent the potential for change and growth, which Beckett is striving to achieve.
But it is not authentic information about this barren tree or in Act-2 the tree has three to four leaves. We can interpret this the tree as a "Nature". And also when we interpret this we know that nature does its own work when human being does their. Nature never work according to human.
-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'?
-Yes, we can do a political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters. For example, in the play, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, which could be interpreted as a metaphor for the European Union. Vladimir and Estragon, representing Russia and France, are two of the most important members of the Union. Pozzo, representing Italy, is a powerful figure who is constantly trying to maintain control over Lucky, who represents England. This could be seen as a metaphor for the power struggle between the two countries as they both try to assert their power in the Union. Additionally, the play could be seen as a commentary on the European Union as a whole and its struggles with unity, identity, and power.
The interpretation of which country stands for 'Godot' is more open to interpretation. Godot could represent any number of possible political forces, such as the United Nations, the United States, or the Soviet Union. It could also represent a more abstract concept such as hope or progress. Ultimately, the interpretation of Godot is up to the reader and their particular view of the post-war political landscape.
-In Act I, in reply to Boy’s question:
"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?
What is the significance?
-In Act II, the conversation is similar but with a slightly different meaning. Vladimir says to Boy:
BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
VLADIMIR: "Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw me. You did see me, didn't you?"
Vladimir became selfish in Act-2 and in Act-1 he think about his Friend Estragon.
- In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises.
How would you interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?
-Interpretation of 'Coming of night and moon' yes, we can do the interpretation of this passing of time as a Pale of Weariness.
Wandering Companionless: Pale for Weariness is an emotional and poetic exploration of the loneliness and beauty of the Moon. I have always had a great affinity for her. She has always seemed like a person, a friend. She is beautiful, mysterious, solitary, and always floating above the earth.
As Shelley presents it, the moon is a symbol of great contradiction, variability and loneliness – a lot less strange and supernatural and more relatable to ourselves than we usually consider. And feeble wanderings of her fading brain, The moon arose up in the murky east, A white and shapeless mass.
-What is the meaning of the terms
‘Apathia, Aphasia and Athambia’ in Lucky’s speech? “. . . divine apathia divine, athambia divine, aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown …”
This result is given by AI Chat-Gpt.
-Apathia: A lack of feeling or emotion.
-Aphasia: Difficulty in understanding or expressing language, either spoken or written.
-Athambia: A state of being without ambition or direction.
This is my interpretations.
-Apathai: Lack of interest.
-Aphasia: Easily not excited.
-Athambia: who do not have capacity to speak.
these three words, apathia, Athambia and aphasia are used as binary opposition to the other three famous words for God, i.e. Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent.
In conclusion, we can say that the reference to these three words in Lucky's speech is also nothing but a satire on people belief system.
-‘A better solution to the tramp’s predicament than to wait – is, suicide”. Is it really so? Why they fail to commit suicide?
-Interestingly in Waiting for Godot and Act without Words I none of the
characters commits suicide, though it is frequently discussed and attempted by
Gogo and Didi. They are between eros and Thanatos; they cannot determine what is
to be chosen—life or death; they cannot determine what is to be done; they cannot
even determine if anything should be done or chosen. Their inability to commit
suicide, in fact, gives way to their inability to do anything. They are framed within
the situation.
However, the problem of Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot begins
with their world and themselves. In fact, it is the beginning of the play as well. They
cannot realize the world nor can they realize themselves—a characteristic of the
typical absurdity as defined by Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus. Like Camus
in The Myth of Sisyphus, Gogo and Didi do not know whether God exists or not.
Their world without certainty promises only despair. "Suicide remains their favorited solution unattainable owing to their own incompetence and their lack of the practical tools to achieve it. It is precisely their disappointment at their failure-to-succeed in their attempts at suicide that a Vladimir and Estragon rationalize by waiting, or pretending to wait, for Godot.
"I'm curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we'll take it or leave it. " Estragon, far less convinced of Godot's promises than Vladimir,
is anxious to reassure himself that they are not tied to Godot.
ESTRAGON: I'm asking you if we are tied.
VLADIMIR: Tied?
ESTRAGON: Ti-ed.
VLADIMIR: How do you mean tied?
ESTRAGON: Down.
VLADIMIR: But to whom. By whom?
ESTRAGON: To your man.
VLADIMIR: To Godot? Tied to Godot? What an idea! No
question of it. (Pause.) For the moment.
This answer is based on Martin Esslin's article " The Search for the self". (Page No-36)
Explain: “Godot might become as image of what Sartre calls “Bad Faith””.
-The hope of salvation may be merely an evasion of the suffering and anguish that spring from facing the reality of the human condition. There is here a truly astonishing parallel between the existentialist philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre and the creative intuition of Beckett, who has never consciously expressed existentialist views. If, for Beckett as for Sartre, mans has the duty of facing the human condition as a recognition that at the root of our being there is nothingness, liberty, and the need of constantly creating ourselves in a succession of choices, then Godot might welcome an image of what Sartre calls “Bad Faith”- “the first act of bad faith consists in evading what one cannot evade, in evading what one is.”
-Explain: “One hardly feels the absurdity of some things, on the one hand, and the necessity of those other things, on the other, (for it is rare that feeling of absurdity is not followed by the feeling of necessity), when one feels the absurdity of those things of which one had just felt the necessity (for it is rare that the feeling of necessity is not followed by the feeling of absurdity)”
-This statement is saying that it is rare for one to feel the absurdity of something and then not feel the necessity of it, or to feel the necessity of something and then not feel the absurdity of it. In other words, the two feelings are often connected, so that when one is experienced, the other is likely to follow.
This quote from Waiting for Godot is a reflection on the cyclical and often contradictory nature of life. It is a reminder that life is full of paradoxes and that it is common to feel both the absurdity of some things and the necessity of others. It speaks to the idea that life is a cycle of absurdity and necessity and that one can easily go from feeling the necessity of something to feeling the absurdity of it and back again. This idea is a major theme in Waiting for Godot and is used to show how humans are stuck in a state of repetitive waiting and searching without any real understanding or control of their actions.
This is a whole play of "Waiting for Godot."
{words-1871}
{Video-05}
{Images-04}
No comments:
Post a Comment