Waiting for Godot ....

 “Nothing happens. Nobody comes, nobody goes. It's awful.

Samuel Beckett

Samuel Barclay Beckett

  13 April 1906 – 22 December 1989

was an Irish novelist, playwright, short story writer, theatre director, poet, and literary translator. A resident of Paris for most of his adult life, he wrote in both French and English.

Beckett's literary and theatrical work features bleak, impersonal, and tragicomic experiences of life, often coupled with black comedy and nonsense. It became increasingly minimalist as his career progressed, involving more aesthetic and linguistic experimentation. He is considered one of the last modernist writers, and one of the key figures in what Martin Esslin called the Theatre of the Absurd.

Beckett was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his writing, which—in new forms for the novel and drama—in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation". He was the first person to be elected Saoi of Aosdána in 1984.

Waiting for Godot

The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stop. The same is true of the laugh.

Waiting for Godot is a play that prompts many questions, and answers none of them. As the title suggests, it is a play about waiting: two men waiting for a third, who never appear. ‘And if he comes?’ one of Beckett’s tramps asks the other near the end of the play. ‘We’ll be saved, the other replies, although the nature of that salvation, along with so much else, remains undefined: for both characters and audience, Waiting for Godot enforces a wait for its own. The two central characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait for someone named Godot, who, as a stand-in for God, never arrives. The title focuses the audience on the futility of human existence.  The meaning of the name Godot is debated among scholars. Although Beckett wrote in French, it is possible that he wanted his audiences to consider the presence of the English word God in the name of the character who never shows up.  It is possible, however, that Beckett named the character for a French bicyclist called Roger Godeau—or for a French slang word for boots.

Concept of Moonrise

The moon in the play can work as a sign for the characters to leave and have a rest. In Waiting for Godot, the two characters Vladimir and Estragon are waiting through the whole day for the arrival of Godot, so they feel exhausted, they spend the whole day suffering hoping for Mr. Godot to help or save them.

Classic interpretation says...that night = dark = death. The falling of night is as much a reprieve from daily suffering as death is from the suffering of a lifetime. There's also the issue of the moon, as its appearance in the sky is the real signal that night has come and the men can stop waiting for Godot. We can interpret this moon as brightness in the night so, I think Beckett wants to convey through this moon's brightness in the night means though the darkness of night there is somewhat hope like the brightness of some moon. So, we should not lose hope, every day is a new day. Also, we can say Moon has symbolized a sign of positivity, and What Estragon living is hope and waiting for Godot to come.

Debris 

In the Movie Adaptation of waiting for Godot, we can see that the whole act is performed around Debris this indicates that Beckett was a master in making meaning through his setting of the play. Whatever he used in the background carried some meaning and interpretation. Here again, he used the contour of Debris consisting of rubbish and broken pieces of rocks signifying the meaninglessness of life and how the useless things if put together then it creates a huge structure. Similarly, the world is full of useless things which create or makes the world. The world consists of each and everything whether it is good, bad, or rubbish. Debris also signifies the ups and downs of life. In this play also both the characters Vladimir and Estragon climb the Debris whenever feels disappointed and think of committing suicide.

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." ?

I am agreed with the idea of 'Waiting for Godot' as a positive play. As it presents the true picture of human life. How human life goes on without any change, whether they wish to live or not but life never stops. if they want to end their life then they can and in this way can get rid of life, but the death of any person doesn't affect the lifelong process of others. Other human beings keep on existing and living in this world, facing the same problem or suffering. Nothing changed in the routine of the life of others. On earth, life will always remain in different forms. It reflects the positivity, positive change in life. It is called a natural process which never interrupt by others.

Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseating? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity for slavishness is unbelievable?

In Waiting for Godot other than the God-centric theme we have another point to ponder and that is the relationship between Master and slave. Lucky and Pozzo portray the master and slave concept in Waiting for Godot. Yes, the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseating. But our society is full of Lucky-type people. We all are Lucky in one and another way. In this play when Estragon tries to help Lucky then he kicks him badly. Similar things happening in society also, when someone tries to help us or tries to make us aware we started blaming them and hate to listen to any advice, even if that advice was beneficial for us. We never allow ourselves to come out from the bond of relations, whether it is with relatives or whether it with God. We know that we are not tied by anyone but still, we can't escape or can't think of living our ideas, beliefs, or we can say superstitions also. Lucky also does this same thing in the play, even when Pozzo becomes blind, he never feels to make himself free from the chains and gives them to the hand of his master Pozzo.

Do you think that 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?

As per my opinion, I must say one should read Rather than view because a movie does not give a proper idea about it and a movie controls our thinking power and imagination whereas Book takes us to the story slowly and steadily it takes time to go further it gives us visual imagination it improves our thought process so as that Book is something which enhances our ability to understand, thought-process. As I have watched a movie and what I saw is a journey of two men waiting for Godot or we can say that waiting for something which is not going to happen but here what is a central theme is waiting Movie shows a straight idea of the whole novel but Book is like a slow-going process to know what is happening over there. As I have watched the movie now I would like to read the original text which is like every page gives an idea about what does it contains and how we our ownself is going to adapt the novel.

There is more than one scene that I like 

1) vladimir - Estragon killing time in questions and conversation while waiting for Godot

2) Conversation of Vladimir with the boy - the messenger of Godot