VLADIMIR: To every man his little cross. Till
he dies. And is forgotten.
-Waiting for Godot
The American director Alan Schneider first met the
Irish playwright Samuel Beckett in 1955, after
being hired to direct the United States premiere
of ''Waiting for Godot'' in Miami. Schneider had
come to Beckett's Paris apartment bursting with
preproduction questions, especially regarding the
identity of the title character. To Schneider's
initial query, ''Who is Godot?,'' the laconic playwright
famously replied, ''If I knew, I would have said
so in the play.''
Henceforth, Schneider was to devote most of his career
to realizing Beckett's stated intentions in his
plays. But despite his fidelity to every letter
of Beckett's text, and despite the participation of such
popular clowns as Bert Lahr and Tom Ewell, the Miami
production of ''Waiting for Godot'' was a
resounding flop. Baffled by the metaphysical reverberations
of a work that had been billed as ''the
laugh riot of two continents,'' a third of the audience
left at intermission. Others lined up at the box
office not to purchase tickets but to ask for refunds.
-from Robert Brustein's NY Times review of The
Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider
To read Waiting for Godot is to bitterly envy those lucky folks
who actually had the privilege of walking out and demanding their money
back. In a more just world they would have hunted down the playwright
and horsewhipped him.
Here is the play in its entirety: Two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon,
wait by a tree for two days, expecting the imminent appearance of Godot.
Instead they are visited by a master and slave, Pozzo and Lucky, and a
boy who brings them a message that Godot will soon be there. The curtain
falls. The crowd hisses.
That's it. Godot is obviously supposed to be God (though Beckett
relentless fought against others finding meaning in the work) and the play
presumably demonstrates the futility of human existence: waiting around
for the God who never shows. Of course, this message is nothing new.
In fact, it is central to the story of Christ. When he was being
crucified, Jesus wailed: "Oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" It
is in this moment that God/Christ came to understand man's despair and
Christ then admonished: "Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do."
So 2000 years ago, it was said better in a far superior drama; why sit
through this piece of crap?
One delightful irony that I found is that Beckett was adamant that production
of this play--which is supposed to show the folly of existence, the impossibility
of communication, etc.--follow the strict guidelines that he envisioned:
In his autobiography, the American director Alan
Schneider recalled his attendance with Samuel
Beckett at the first run of Waiting for Godot in
London in 1955. Whenever a line was
misinterpreted or an extra piece of stage business
was added, Beckett would clutch Schneider's arm
and exclaim, in a clearly audible stage whisper,
"It's ahl wrahng! He's doing it ahl wrahng!"1 That
loud whisper still sounds in the ears of those who
stage Beckett's plays now. No other dead
dramatist remains such a daunting admonitory presence
for his directors and performers. Where
most great playwrights were content to write the
text of a play, Beckett wrote the entire theatrical
event. He specified, not just the words, but the
rhythms and tones, the sets and the lighting plots,
and these specifications are preserved in the remarkable
series of notebooks whose publication by
Faber and Faber is now completed with S.E. Gontarski's
exemplary edition of Beckett's ledgers for
productions of his short late plays.
Where most plays invite the active participation
of actors, directors, and designers in determining
the meaning of the work, Beckett's work demands
that the meaning remains indeterminate. Where
theater artists think of themselves as interpreters,
any interpretation of a Beckett play is necessarily a
reduction. With these plays, creative intervention
seems like crass interference. The director is
haunted by the playwright's stern ghost, frowning,
clutching his arm, whispering at every deviation,
"It's ahl wrahng!"
-from Game
Without End by Fintan O'Toole (NY Review of Books)
I mean that's just beautiful. Life is pointless, but it's my way
or the highway. You've gotta love it. These poor existentialists
have such a hard time keeping their story straight, you can sometimes almost
feel sorry for them.
I took a Humanities class in High School and absolutely loathed it (some
of you may recall my discussion of Ragtime which a teacher suggested
I read for the class--see Review).
This was one of the things we read and even as a callow youth of 15 or
16, I was flabbergasted at what a crock it was. Now that I'm older,
crustier and, hopefully, wiser, I have even less patience with idiocy and
this play is truly idiotic.
Dorothy C. Judd writes: Dear Orrin,
It was with GREAT interest that I read your review of Waiting for Godot.
I can only hope and dream that somehow your Humanities teachers, and especially
Nan Hoffman, have somehow accessed your site and are reading your
reviews.
Do you remember asking me, "Who is Godot?" And my not too confident
answer, "I think he is supposed to be God?" On your humanities test,
the question was, "Who is Godot? and how do you know?" You wrote,
"Godot is God, and I know because my mother told me." You got an
A because the teacher thought it was terrific that you discussed the play
with your mother!!!!!
Love,
Mom
Orrin notes:
Hell, we discussed the fact I was failing Chemistry & I still got
a D in that class
Is it really relevant who Godot is? The fact is he's not coming and he never will. it's not the body of the play - not the message. please explain the importance.
While this play doesn't deserve the amount of praise its given, I think it deserves more than an F, after all, it is rather funny even if you can't interpret it.
You obviously misunderstood the play, which didn't surprise me after I looked at some of you other reviews. I dunno, maybe you should stick to reviewing books like the Hardy Boys, or Harry Potter: leave "Waiting for Godot" to those who actually know what they're talking about. Also, why do your analysis always boil down to the same, worn-out cliched categories that are beaten until meaningless, as they are continuously repositioned in ways that are supportive of the mandates of the Republican Party? It's funny when you misconstrue an author's tone and it becomes a stretch to fit the work into your pathetically narrow-minded worldview (see the Moby Dick review). I feel bad for the kind of egotistical idiocy that your children are going to have to grow up with, and probably spend years getting over.
"Here is the play in its entirety: Two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, wait by a tree for two days, expecting the imminent appearance of Godot. Instead they are visited by a master and slave, Pozzo and Lucky, and a boy who brings them a message that Godot will soon be there. The curtain falls."
the above is all that you got out of this play. I found it to be a very interesting and intellectually stimulating read. My only problem is that I have not yet seen the play performed.
Think about this: Where does all of this dialogue (I imagine that you don't think any action took place) happen? I suggest that perhaps this is Purgatory, that our two "heroes" are waiting, hoping to go to Heaven.
I am sure, if you look online somewhere, that you can find the meaning behing Lucky's monologe that occurs directly in the middle of the play. Some people feel that this is the entirety of the meaning in the play, yet it is couched in nonsense.
while i disagree with your review, and agree with the point made that not much of the review addressed the play itself, I only wish to make a few points:
1) Beckett is believed to have said that the name Godot comes from the French "godillot" meaning a military boot. Beckett fought in the war and so spending long periods of time waiting for messages to arrive would have been commonplace for him. THE MORE COMMON INTERPRETATION THAT IT MIGHT MEAN "GOD" IS ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG. Beckett apparently stated that if he had meant "God," he would have written "God".
2) the plays first performance in paris was warmly recieved and spread by word of mouth. it's failure in the u.s. may be largely due to the fact that it was advertised as a great comedy (though i'm also tempted to add that the lack of appreciation may also stem from an almost universally american trait . . . but i suppose that might be rude). It later found success, though nothing extensive, when it was later properly advertised in New York.
why i bothered writing this, i do not know. funny the things we do to fill our lives.
this would have to be the worst book/movie review i have ever seen. it is a quality book and you should keep your mouth shut if you don't have anythink nice to say, i say get a life build a web site people would won't to go on to and scrap this piece of crap off the computer
I found the play (as read and performed) to be very interesting and stimulating. I certainly don't think it merits an F, and, aside from attacking its spare nature, you really don't give us any reason to dislike it. Furtmore, given Beckett's experiences in WWII, and with Nazism specifically, despair was certainly an appropriate emotion. Indeed, Beckett fought in the French resistance despite his despair.
Dear Orrin, Hello, My name is Graham and I'm from Liverpool in England. I'm doing an essay on Waiting For Godot at the moment for a module in literature at the University of Liverpool. I found your homepage on the play very helpfull and interesting. There is a lot of detailed information which I believe has helped me to understand the play a little better. Keep up the good work and best wishes. Graham.
