Waiting For Godot - Day 2

            I believe that the biblical references in Waiting for Godot were intentional, if not to shine line on some of the themes presented throughout the play, then just to keep the dialogue going while still keeping the audience on their toes. Maybe Samuel Beckett knew that critics would try to decipher the religious meaning, and that is why he included references of names like “Adam” and “Cain/Abel”. Godot is commonly compared to God and I feel like that is a legitimate argument. He always says that he is coming and these two guys wait every day and he never comes, even though they have undeniable faith in this stranger. This is so close to Christ and his followers it would be a disgrace to not at least mention it while discussing this play.

            This play could also be seen in a slight existentialist light because of the way all of the characters act toward each other. Even though dialogue is more plentiful than anything, they don’t seem to care too much about why they are waiting for hours on end or why a man with another man on a lease stop by. Both Vladimir and Estragon live their lives quite peacefully, never having to eat too much, never having to constantly use the bathroom, they just sit and wait and talk. Nothing seems to matter to them so in turn nothing does matter. They have created their own existential bubble, living without a care while still holding on to reality, even if it is as slight a hold as can be.

            I thought that the film adaptation was done very well, with talented actors and scenery that could only be used for this type of drama/film. The first thing I noticed about the film was that Vladimir and Estragon looked exactly how I pictured them to look, one tall, lanky and one small and stubby, respectively. I personally think that the actor who played Estragon was better than his counterpart. Estragon’s lines just read more passionate and less script-y… if that makes any sense. I liked the bleak scenery, how the sky is always a weird blue, not really ever turning into night. I feel like Becket’s point during this play was to use as little as he could and still say all of the grand things he wanted to say. This is impressive because while he is still speaking on humanity and its faith in mystery, he is also just letting two men speak their minds in a nonsensical and humorous manner. 

Waiting For Godot

            There are many moments in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot that seem both dark and humorous. One part that I remember specifically if when Vladimir and Estragon suggest that they hang themselves from the tree and the only reason why they don’t follow through with the plans is because they cannot find rope. While this is technically a really sad moment, it is funny because the audience knows that they are not going to hang themselves, they cannot leave the bench how are they going to do an action as complicated as hanging themselves? It is also sad because these two men have been going through these motions for so long that they are ready to resort to suicide just to get away from the cycle. Another somewhat funny theme is the repetition in the dialogue between the two men. Throughout the entirely of the play, Estragon says, “Let’s go” and Vladimir always answers with “We cant” because they are “Waiting for Godot”. Even though this an get slightly annoying since they say it multiple times in the play, I found it funny because even though Estragon knows the answer to his question, he continues to ask it hoping for a more appealing answer than the last.

            I feel like Beckett’s style is much different than Pinter’s because of the extreme abstractions. While Pinter was definitely using abstract theater to get across his themes about family, Beckett takes this to a whole other level. Waiting for Godot is nothing but abstractions. Vladimir and Estragon continue to speak back and forth very fast, usually not saying anything of much importance. Any word that comes out of their mouth probably doesn’t have much to do with the line 3 lines before. In Pinter’s play, even though the conclusion is out of no where and the characters do speak short, quick lines, Beckett’s dialogue just seems much more simple and relaxed. It’s as if this absurdity is not out of the norm for these two characters. Vladimir and Estragon go through this same scene every day, waiting for Godot and seeing Pozzo, Lucky, and the little boy consistently. It really makes you wonder how long this wait has actually been going on for. Has Estragon been struggling with his shoes for years? How long exactly has Pozzo been blind? Or will he regain his sight in time for the next day?

            I differentiate Vladimir and Estragon by the roles they place themselves in. Vladimir is the obvious leader, always having to tell Estragon that they cannot leave yet because they have to wait for Godot. It almost seems like Vladimir takes Godot much more seriously that his counterpart, even though neither of them actually leave when they suggest it. Estragon seems a little helpless in certain points of the play. When he tries to help Pozzo, then falls down himself, then pulls Vladimir down with him, it almost seems like Estragon is possibly a sort of comic relief. On the other hand, Estragon has just as much insightful dialogue as Vladimir, especially at the end when they basically switch lines from the first Act. 

Six Characters In Search Of An Author

I believe that the characters in Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author are more than a cheap trick, but a way to discuss the meta fictional connotations between the actors and the roles they take part in.  Not only are the characters more important than the actors, those characters are aware of this and understand that they are different than the people who end up representing them. The father and stepdaughter are the two characters that seem to want to explain their position and why they cannot simply act out their story. They must live their story because they are the real characters, not just actors reciting lines. They know nothing but their story; they live the emotions that they feel in this situation forever and always. The actors and the director seriously cannot comprehend this because they can’t see that actors are different than the character. There is a distinct difference. Actors can take on multiple roles, putting themselves in varies mindsets to suit the situation. These six characters can only play one role, can only think in one state of mind, and can only be in one situation for the rest of their existence. They have no concept of any other way of life. What is reality to them is nothing but words on a page to the director. The argument goes in a circle, almost seemingly never ending.

I think that the characters meta fictional discussions are much different than other breaks in character like asides, soliloquies, or plays within plays, because those are tricks that help the audience see ironies and characterization only. When the characters in Pirandello’s play speak they are not breaking character, they are stuck in their character. So it becomes the character speaking about himself, not someone stepping aside and discussing someone else. A play within a play is used to debate the themes of drama, where these meta characters are used to debate the themes of character. Asides are characters who are still in character, but are discussing their situation, not themselves. These six characters are also still in character, but speak on themselves in self-examination, understanding that what they experience is their destiny and forever lasting. While I do agree that plays within plays and asides are very useful when the audience needs help in the middle of the play, these tactics are definitely not as interesting or important as the questions that arise with meta fiction. The fiction is just as important to understand as the story the fiction presents.

Long Day's Journey Into Night

I would say that the character in Eugene O’Neill’s play Long Day’s Journey Into Night that contributes most to the dysfunction in the Tyrone family is Mary, the mother and wife who is addicted to morphine. Not only is she already dysfunctional by being addicted to something as dangerous as morphine, she is ridiculously addicted, becoming more and more crazy and stoned as the night progresses. She prods every person in the house consistently, trying to push her hatred for herself onto others. Her most obvious victim is her husband, James. She tells him again and again that she disapproves of his thriftiness and his drinking. She even gets to the point of telling him that her marrying him was a mistake on her part because she wanted to become a nun and a pianist. This is hurtful stuff that she is only saying because she is stoned, but then again maybe it is the truth and the only reason she is able to say it now is because she is stoned.

She creates confrontations with her sons just as much as her husband as well. Mary constantly argues with her sons about drinking, even though they go right ahead and drinks in front of her nevertheless. She feels as if Jamie has wasted his life away with booze and prostitutes. She treats Edmund, her younger son, even worse by not accepting his tuberculosis. She doesn’t listen to the doctor Edmund went to see because he is cheap. Edmund tells her many times in the play that he is seriously sick but she keeps insisting that her has a normal cold. This is not a normal reaction a mother has when their child tell them he is sick. This is how powerfully motivated her life is by the morphine. She doesn’t completely approve of how her family had turned out, so she escapes by taking larger and larger doses of the morphine. This drug has turned her into a monster, a mother who can’t even help her sick son try and get better. She is more focused on running back upstairs, away from her family, back to the drug that will make her feel good in the moment but will never help her life become more than shambles.

I think that a lot of her depression stems from the baby that she lost before she gave birth to Edmund. Losing the baby meant that she had failed that round of being a mother. When she finds out that Edmund is seriously ill, she thinks that she is getting what she deserves by failing her previous child. If only her mind wasn’t being diluted by the morphine she continues to pump through her system, the she would be able to realize that it wasn’t her fault that she lost the baby and she needs to move on. If she could move on from the grief than it would be possible to kick her drug habit. I wouldn’t say that Mary is the most dysfunctional member of the Tyrone family, but she definitely causes the most trouble between the array of characters.

Pygmalion

I watched the film version of the play Pygmalion for my mediated play. It was a little different watching a play after reading a number of plays in class. I love movies, so I instantly was captured in the story, but the play does lose a little of its appeal when in movie form because the audience can still deduct that it was originally a play. The film is mostly dialogue between a number of people, most of the time in rapid timing. This is a play that just reads better than when you watch it as a film. The rapid fire dialogue is better suited for reading because you can imagine it as fast or as slow as you please while reading it. When you watch it, sometimes it is hard to catch certain lines and it can be a bit confusing, especially with Eliza’s accent in the beginning. I prefer the play version if not because of that, then because of the quality of the movie. I watched it on Youtube, and the quality was very shaky and bad. When I read this play I can imagine it in color and probably set in a more present setting. This helps familiarize me with the setting of the play, while watching the scratchy black and while version puts me out of the atmosphere.

I believe that Pygmalion is Henry Higgins’ play more than Eliza’s. Straight from the beginning he is portrayed as a know it all, but the fact is he does know more than the average person. Even though Eliza seems like the more dominant force in the end, he still ends up getting what he wants: her. Even though in the beginning all he wanted was to fix the puzzle that was this poor flower girl he has grown to like her more and more throughout the movie. If he had not have taken her on as his student than none of the events would have happened and that is why he owns the play. Eliza’s entire technique which she uses to manipulate everyone around her is taught to her by Henry. She was a poor beggar before he laid eyes on her, she would have continued to be a poor beggar if he didn’t have the generosity to help her.