Customer Reviews

Waiting for Godot -English

5 star:		(73)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Waiting For Godot is certainly an interesting and unique drama. The sparse presentation and sense of hopelessness underlying this tragicomedy appeals to the existentialist in me, but I was not moved or stimulated enough to grant this work five stars. I daresay that the effect of Waiting For Godot is much more impactful and effective when performed on stage than it is when read, particularly in terms of the lyrical dialogue that often comes to the fore. To a large degree, this is a play about nothingness (which is quite different from a play about nothing), so I find it rather strange that it is hailed as one of the greatest dramas of the 20th century. This kind of thing usually suits my tastes but few others'. There's no fantabulous show designed to bedazzle the ideas of the spectator, just a country road and a tree set during the evening hours. The cast numbers five individuals: the two unfortunates Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo and his "slave" Lucky, and a little boy (possibly, in the context of the play, two little boys who may or may not look exactly alike). Estragon and Vladimir spend their time examining their hats, worrying with their boots, thinking about separating or just hanging themselves to be done with it all, and of course waiting for Godot. I don't want to ruin this for anyone, but you never meet or find out if this mysterious Godot even exists. Some critical thinkers (along with a few of your basic pseudo-intellectual crackpots) seem compelled to interpret Godot as a God-figure, but I see no reason to make that speculative leap.

Estragon and Godot really have no sense of who, where, and when they are, as becomes clear in their interactions with the wealthy passerby Pozzo and Lucky, his personal servant who is as much a trained mule as he is a man. Lucky can "think," though, and you'd better grab a seat and hold on when he gets started. After the first night comes, Estragon and Vladimir return to the same spot to once again wait on Godot, and once again Pozzo, now suddenly blind, and Lucky return. No one seems to remember anything much about the others or of the previous day with the exception of Vladimir, and the interaction between the four major characters certainly introduces some comedy, albeit of a tragic, resigned sort. The comedy actually makes the drama more tragic, so its classification as a tragicomedy in two acts is pretty apt. I don't see a lot of hope revealed here, although others seem to. Life is simply meaningless is the message I get most clearly out of it, so the only hope I perceive comes in the form of waiting for something that may or may not happen while doing nothing yourself to make anything happen. We are all waiting for something, I suppose, but such a vivid portrayal of the utter futility of such behavior strikes me as more depressing than inspiring. This drama really deserves multiple reads in order for its true essence to work its way closer to the surface; it may well be, I freely admit, that I have yet to spot whatever essence the play intends to reveal to me. I won't deny Waiting For Godot is a landmark drama, and I fear this review has done it very little justice, but I consider the act of writing it a victory of sorts over the useless practice of waiting for Godot to come and explain everything to me and take care of all my questions and troubles.

Waiting for Godot centers around two bums: Estragon and Vladimir. Estragon has an incredibly short memory and relies on Vladimir to remember for him. As a result, Estragon is extremely impatient and constantly suggests that the two would be better off if they parted. However, Estragon needs Vladimir and Vladimir needs Estragon, so they never do part. Vladimir, due to Estragon's lack of memory, is unsure of his own memory. Vladimir enjoys the company of Estragon, for it allows him to recall past events. Together, they spend their time devising ways to pass the time until 'Godot' arrives. Neither Estragon and Vladimir or the reader surely know what Godot is or looks like or whether he will ever arrive. On two occasions, they meet Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is Lucky's master and decides to stop and talk to Estragon and Vladimir for a bit of company. Pozzo hardly listens to what the other characters in the play say and frequently launches into melodramatic prose. Lucky is Pozzo's slave, tied to Pozzo via a rope around his neck. Lucky only speaks twice during the entire play. His monologue, which is delivered upon Pozzo's order of 'Think', is completely incoherent - a mix of half-finished words and sentences. Lucky is very obedient to Pozzo and rather violent and hostile to strangers, especially Estragon, who he bites. In the second act, Pozzo and Lucky return again, this time Pozzo is blind and Lucky is mute. They have no memory of ever having met Estragon and Vladimir. The play ends in the same way Act One ends - Estragon and Vladimir are still dependent on eachother and remain waiting for Godot.

Waiting for Godot is a classic text of existentialism and Absurdist literature. The very ambiguous nature of these two strands of thought and literature makes Waiting for Godot extremely difficult to understand and extract. However the questions, confusion, anger and melancholy that arise from the lack of explanation, meaning and answers is one of the very themes of the play. The large amount of speculation people have made upon Godot (the most popular one being that Godot symbolizes God) is entirely misdirected and a waste of energy. Beckett himself ignored such claims and interpretations, stating that the emphasis should be upon the 'Waiting for...' section of the title. Religious interpretations see Estragon and Vladimir as humanity waiting for the return of the messiah (Godot). Pozzo represents the Pope and Lucky is the faithful. Marxist interpretations see the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky as that between a bourgeosie and a proleteriat - Pozzo being blind to the injustice he causes and Lucky unable to protest against his treatment. Another interpretation claims that Lucky is granted his name because, in the context of the play, he is unduly lucky. This is because the other characters of the play are constantly searching for ways to pass the time, while Lucky's actions are fully determined by Pozzo. Other interpretations posit Estragon as the body without the intellect and Vladimir as the intellect without the body.

Overall, Waiting for Godot is a superb and though-provoking play. It should not be shunned for its ambiguity - for that is the very beauty and theme of it. Despite all this, it certainly calls for multiple readings. It is a remarkable insight into the nature of the individual and society in a meaningless, unexplainable world. Waiting for Godot does not propose any solutions or consolations - rather it paints a picture of the current predicament and man's reaction. Nearly every human being is waiting for their Godot and is employing some means of wasting the time until its arrival. I highly recommend this classic - it cannot and will not be ignored.

I thought the play beautifully expressed in laconic dialogue how some individuals deny reality, the human condition, and mortality by distracting themselves with meaningless activies. I don't know if Beckett saw life as meaningless. The mystery of life makes all of us story tellers. It's our responsiblity to find a story, activity, purpose, gift, belief that gives our lives fullness as opposed to emptyness.

Apparently, people have made much of the "fact" that Godot is god. While hardly being a fact (and in fact, being outwardly denied by Beckett himself), people who search too desperately for the specific personage Godot represents miss the point. One can say that Godot is god, especially if one is a New Critic and therefore ignores whatever the author may have said about his work. And while at one point Vladimir exclaims (and I'm just paraphrasing): "Godot is here! We are saved," this does not explicitly explain who Godot is. He could just as easily be bringing money to Vladimir and Estragon as he could be bearing salvation for them. The point is, that Beckett was an essentially existential writer, and saw that all of life was just waiting for the terminal breath. Furthermore, in the act of waiting for an ending, Vladimir and Estragon constantly make the existential choice: whether or not to keep on waiting. Several times they contemplate committing suicide; several times Estragon threatens to leave. In the end, they confirm their existence (yes, only one existence--they seem to be as one person in the dialogue: this is no mistake) by deciding, if offhandishly, to remain living; living, and waiting.

An existentialist tragicomedy in two acts. I loved this play-- definitely the epitome of a tragicomedy. I laughed out loud at many of the lines from Vladimir and Estragon, the main characters, as well as Pozzo, a man that happens by as they wait for Godot. The deeper themes of the play got me thinking too.

Who is Godot and why are these two men waiting for him? Good question. It's not important though-- not as important as their waiting to be saved by Godot at least. The way the characters passed away the time of their waiting made the pages fly by for me-- it seemed I had scarcely started when I was at the end!

Highly recommended. Waiting for Godot is a great, quick read.

What a fabulous play. I read it over an over again and every time I discover new meaning. Admittedly, the first time I read it, I hated it. The second time I read it, I understood just how profound this play really is. But then again, that is for you to discover.
On another point. Unlike what some reviewers have asserted, Godot is not sapposed to represent God. Godot is not sapposed to represent anything in particular. Rather, to each person, he will represent something different. Again, it's for you to find that meaning within yourself.

"Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!". That phrase, said by one of the main characters of "Waiting for Godot", somehow sums up the whole plot of this short tragicomedy in two acts. Strange??. You can bet on that!!!. So much that a well-known Irish critic said of it "nothing happens, twice".

The play starts with two men, Vladimir and Estragon, sitting on a lonely road. They are both waiting for Godot. They don't know why they are waiting for him, but they think that his arrival will change things for the better. The problem is that he doesn't come, although a kid does so and says Godot will eventually arrive. Pozzo and his servant Lucky, two other characters that pass by while our protagonists are waiting for Godot, add another bizarre touch to an already surreal story, in which nothing seems to happen and discussions between the characters don't make much sense.

However, maybe that is exactly the point that Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) wanted to make. He was one of the most accomplished exponents of the "Theatre of the Absurd", that wanted to highlight the lack of purpose and meaning in an universe without God. Does Godot, the person that Vladimir and Estragon endlessly wait, symbolize God?. According to an irascible Beckett, when hard-pressed to answer that question, "If I knew who Godot was, I would have said so in the play." So, we don't know. The result is a highly unusual play that poses many questions, but doesn't answer them.

Ripe with symbolism, "Waiting for Godot" is a play more or less open to different interpretations. Why more or less open?. Well, because in order to have an interpretation of your own, you have to finish the play, and that is something that not all readers can do. "Waiting for Godot" is neither too long nor too difficult, but it shows a lack of action and purpose in the characters that is likely to annoy many before they reach the final pages, leading them to abandon the book in a hurry. That is specially true if the reader is a student who thinks he is being barbarously tortured by a hateful teacher who told him to write a paper on "Waiting for Godot" :)

My advice, for what it is worth, is that you should persist in reading it. If it puts you to sleep, try reading it aloud with some friends, and discuss with them the implications of what happens with the characters. This play might not be thoroughly engaging, but it changed theatre and the possibilities opened before it forever. In a way, it provoked a blood-less revolution, and because of that it deserves at least a bit of our attention.

Belen Alcat

I believe all you need to know is that the characters all wear melon hats and suits... And that the play is written originally in French (Beckett's first play in French, and a smashing success), and surprisingly French despite Beckett's British origin... Hence you are reading a translation, sadly...

MetaTheater, dadaism, post-ww1 dissilusionement, all that ain't matter much... Well I say, to appreciate this play you do not need to know beforehand or care beforehand who Godot represents... whether he's "God" or some political figure... Superfluous definition of this play is not the point. Beckett wrote, and I paraphrase this translation: "I can't tell you what the play signifies. I can't tell you more than the words in the play don't already tell you. The characters of the play and I have gone our seperate ways..." etc, etc... That is all. Read it, read it loud, read it again in a few months, whatever.

Along with Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya," this play is very likely the best play ever written. Like the one mentioned above, it is not the most dinamic thing you'll ever read/see. Far from it. "Waiting for Godot" is still amazing, mainly thanks to the wonderful dialogue and intriguing characters.
It's hard to write about this without getting straight to the point and I don't want to. Read it yourself and than get anti-depressants.
If you really do intend to read it, have patience and look below the surface.

Beckett wrote this play in French, and it was first staged in Paris. The name Godot is an actual surname in France, and Beckett may have gotten the name from a series of novels about one 'Monsieur Godot'. Beckett repeatedly stated that Godot was not God or a metaphor for God; and while Beckett was usually elusive when discussing his books, he never outright denied something without being sincere.

Almost every one of Beckett's works present characters who are subject to irresistable and inexorable great forces. He loved to work out the ways human beings verbally react to such forces. The true nature of Godot is unimportant - Beckett could very well have written the same play with some other device in the background.