Most of the time thinking becomes difficult and as a result of it one can not go deeper into the foundation. So to cultivate the habit of imagination/ thinking we got this task. This task is based on Waiting for Godot. For further details click here....
• What connection do you see in the setting("A country road. A tree. Evening.) of the play and these paintings.
This is the painting from which Beckett got the idea of arranging the setting of the play. This painting is drawn by Caspar David Friedrich. Here longing is connected with waiting and two persons keeps on seeing the sunrise and sunset same as in the play.
• The tree is the only important 'thing' in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act 2 on the barren tree- The tree has four or five leaves?
If we read the tree as a symbol then we can say that it stands for both hope and despair. Here we can interpret that after the WW -2 whole scene looks barren but change must take place and as a result of it we can find that leaves. Same way in life nobody will come to rescue us, for the survival we must should be adaptive.
• In both acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this 'Coming for night and moon' when actually they are Waiting For Godot?
As moon never stop rising, same way people shouldn't be frustrated by their daily life.
• The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?
Here we can interpret debris as a materialistic things, which not going to be permanent. We can connect this things with human lives too, by saying that humanities are dying like things.
• The play begins with the dialogue "Nothing to be done". how does the theme of 'nothingness' recurs in the play?
Ultimately nothing happens in the play. These both tramps wait for somebody whom they don't know. And in that process they do nothing. But according to me nothing to be done means lots of things to be done if person wants to do.
• 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)?
Yes I am totally agree with the Marshal's view. Mostly we keep on thinking about the destination but if you work hard in the process then automatically the destination will be better. Another interpretation comes in our mind is that nobody's gonna be come to rescue us. One shouldn't be feel frustrated because it is the life.
• How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?
Beckett has presented all the symbols very well. In the symbol of hat we can connect intellectuality. And boots as a dumbness of person. Or we can say carefree spirit with valid reason as Estragon represents in the play.
• 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?
Yes, it seems dumbness of lucky. He remains free after Pozzo gets blind. But yet he remains in the position of slave. This thing we can connect with the people like so many time people are habituated to live dependent life. They can't do anything without the string. In general person never find chain around him while there are so many chains which drives person.
• Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? or...
In the play we can say that God is Godot. But according to me the deep desire to be something, to achieve more and more in life. In between so many obstacles will keeps coming but we don't have to stop. That's the thing which makes this play positive.
• "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?
Yes, the subject of the play is not Godot but waiting. I am agree with the Esslin's view. During whole play nothing happens. Which shows the absurdity of life. In life also we keeps on waiting for something till our death.
• Do you think 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 better understanding of the play?
If we talk in terms of thinking then obviously reading will be more helpful. But for an understanding, how nothingness seems in movie, for that watching of movie also helps a lot.
• Which of the following sequence you liked the most:
o Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations whilewaiting
 |
| Vladimir and Estragon: The Had and the Boot |
o Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
o Converstion of Vladimir with the boy
I liked the conversation between Vladimir and Estragon :
Because during their talk we find that how Vladimir seems fool by representing the hat, where's Estragon who seems dumb but his arguments are more valid and rational compare to Vladimir. Altogether another interpretation comes in our mind is that both the character represents the human lives. Like those who think too much they suffers more compared to those who remains more passive.
• Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?
Yes, we can feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie. The first sentence it self suggests the meaninglessness of the life. These both traps thinks of suicide, allusions by boy, hidden chains in life as lucky can't escape from the slavery.
• Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?
We can connect this things with escapism. An escapism from the struggle. But they doesn't suicides means they have capability to survive. Same way in life so many time we questions on our existence, most of the time whenever we stucks in trap that time we feels of doing suicide. So it is like escapism. Thus, as in Christianity suicide is considered as a sin same way these both tramps avoids the suicide and starts waiting as a doing the karma in difficulty.
• 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?
Yes, going with the names of characters we can do political reading of the play. Here Vladimir stand for Russia, Pozzo stand for Italy, Lucky stand for England and Estragon stand for France. For the Godot's character we can say Germany through the Hitler who has barren the land in WW. In the case of Pozzo and Lucky, we can connect them as master - slave , Here Pozzo represents England and Lucky represents Ireland.
• 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?
In most of the acts we doesn't find any difference. But yes in above mentioned context we can see the difference. Here Vladimir becomes more self centered. As in life most of the time people stays with us but when they thinks that their motives are not are near that time they leaves us.
Thank you...
No comments:
Post a Comment