Explore how Beckett uses the characters of Pozzo and Lucky to present the theme of cruelty in the play.
Attitudes to cruelty
- The audience has been shocked by the treatment of Lucky and V/E have little concern for him
(E’s main concern was Lucky’s bones. Even in Act 2 ‘We should ask him for the bone first. Then if
he refuses we’ll leave him there’ again neglecting Pozzo’s abuse)
- Pozzo assumes that the Slave-Master arrangement is fine as it follows the established social
aristocratic hierarchy present throughout the world.
Lucky’s acceptance and Godot doing the same with the boy confirm Pozzo’s security in his
master position.
Beckett uses Pozzo to confront the audience with issues of the oppression and slavery by the
powerful – similar to the aims of the Theatre of Cruelty
- Pozzo would try to ignore suffering because it has always existed (‘tears of the world are a
constant quantity’)
- Lucky, as the dominated and oppressed, does not in any way show signs of resentment over the
physical abuse Pozzo put on him.
(Pozzo: ‘he’s killing me’ ‘I can’t bear it any longer’)
Beckett makes the audience doubt the severity of Pozzo’s abuse.
Dehumanisation of Lucky
- Closer to a dog than a human (‘pig’, ‘hog’, ‘swine’)
Loss of rights and free will (no coincidence that before P/L’s first appearance, V/E were
discussing losing their rights (‘Estra: We’ve lost our rights? / Vlad: we got rid of them’)
- Humiliation of Lucky (‘dance’, ‘think’)
As if a show animal – Beckett drew inspiration from Circus Clown in which animal are often
an accomplice
L/P’s relationship resembles a circus ringmaster and his trained animal
No free will to object/ numbed by the frequency of Pozzo’s abuse so is compliant
- Dehumanisation as a form of distancing (Lucky is distanced by the rope ‘which is long enough to
allow him to reach the middle of the stage before Pozzo appears’)
Pozzo could be using this to affirm his power
OR Pozzo may distance himself as to not suffer from Lucky’s supposed abuse of Pozzo
Relationship of Lucky/Pozzo
- P/L have a formal relationship that contrasts with V/E (relationship of dominating and being
dominated)
They’re joined artificially and by force - threat is psychological cruelty
Use of props of whip and rope (‘Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his
neck’) (Pozzo ‘places the butt of the whip against Lucky’s chest and pushes’)
- Pozzo is upset by Lucky’s predicament, a situation of his own creation
Suffering is self-imposed
- Forced interdependency, similar to V/E, Lucky relies on Pozzo for food and a purpose, and Pozzo
relies on Lucky to carry his stuff and more predominantly with his blindness in Act 2.
Contradiction of terms of endearment ‘My Lucky’ and ‘Forward!’, ‘On!’ etc.
Beckett forces the audience to consider that Lucky may be abusing Pozzo OR is it just Pozzo
manipulating him.
Attitudes to cruelty
- The audience has been shocked by the treatment of Lucky and V/E have little concern for him
(E’s main concern was Lucky’s bones. Even in Act 2 ‘We should ask him for the bone first. Then if
he refuses we’ll leave him there’ again neglecting Pozzo’s abuse)
- Pozzo assumes that the Slave-Master arrangement is fine as it follows the established social
aristocratic hierarchy present throughout the world.
Lucky’s acceptance and Godot doing the same with the boy confirm Pozzo’s security in his
master position.
Beckett uses Pozzo to confront the audience with issues of the oppression and slavery by the
powerful – similar to the aims of the Theatre of Cruelty
- Pozzo would try to ignore suffering because it has always existed (‘tears of the world are a
constant quantity’)
- Lucky, as the dominated and oppressed, does not in any way show signs of resentment over the
physical abuse Pozzo put on him.
(Pozzo: ‘he’s killing me’ ‘I can’t bear it any longer’)
Beckett makes the audience doubt the severity of Pozzo’s abuse.
Dehumanisation of Lucky
- Closer to a dog than a human (‘pig’, ‘hog’, ‘swine’)
Loss of rights and free will (no coincidence that before P/L’s first appearance, V/E were
discussing losing their rights (‘Estra: We’ve lost our rights? / Vlad: we got rid of them’)
- Humiliation of Lucky (‘dance’, ‘think’)
As if a show animal – Beckett drew inspiration from Circus Clown in which animal are often
an accomplice
L/P’s relationship resembles a circus ringmaster and his trained animal
No free will to object/ numbed by the frequency of Pozzo’s abuse so is compliant
- Dehumanisation as a form of distancing (Lucky is distanced by the rope ‘which is long enough to
allow him to reach the middle of the stage before Pozzo appears’)
Pozzo could be using this to affirm his power
OR Pozzo may distance himself as to not suffer from Lucky’s supposed abuse of Pozzo
Relationship of Lucky/Pozzo
- P/L have a formal relationship that contrasts with V/E (relationship of dominating and being
dominated)
They’re joined artificially and by force - threat is psychological cruelty
Use of props of whip and rope (‘Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his
neck’) (Pozzo ‘places the butt of the whip against Lucky’s chest and pushes’)
- Pozzo is upset by Lucky’s predicament, a situation of his own creation
Suffering is self-imposed
- Forced interdependency, similar to V/E, Lucky relies on Pozzo for food and a purpose, and Pozzo
relies on Lucky to carry his stuff and more predominantly with his blindness in Act 2.
Contradiction of terms of endearment ‘My Lucky’ and ‘Forward!’, ‘On!’ etc.
Beckett forces the audience to consider that Lucky may be abusing Pozzo OR is it just Pozzo
manipulating him.
