Explore how Beckett presents Waiting for Gadot as a tragic comedy.
You must relate your discussion to relevant contextual factors.
Waiting for Godot (WFG) marked a landmark in Western theatre and became one
of the iconic plays of the retrospectively named ‘Theatre of the Absurd’
movement by Martin Esslin in 1965. Plays of this genre rejected the conventions
of the well-made play (for example, following Freytag’s pyramid of dramatic
structure) and instead built on more experimental forms, outrageously flouting
all the standards by which drama had been judged for many centuries. Esslin
cited 20th century “social and spiritual reasons” such as World War 2 (1939 to
1945) as the cause of the sense of disillusionment which prevailed within society
at the time. Beckett played a role within the French Resistance and seems to
draw upon his own experience of “being faced with a world that is both illogical
and frightening, where the firmest certainties have dissolved; all pillars of hope
and optimism have collapsed” in the writing of this subversive play. It shares both
Modernist and Post-modernist traits, and the use of humour to undermine
discussion of tragic events have earned it the label of a tragic comedy.
One way that Beckett chooses to intermingle the serious and the comedic is by
bringing into question the very function of language. Traditionally, dialogue is
used to progress the plot forward, however the combination of nonlinear time,
circular structure and repetitive dialogue leads to even the meaningful
conversations deteriorating into the absurd. One example of this is a
conversation between Vladimir and Estragon that initially seems to be
confrontational, but is in fact one of the many games they play to pass the time.
They engage in crosstalk, which is shown through the use of a new anaphoric
stichomythia (“Vladimir: Moron, Estragon: Vermin, Vladimir abortion”) where
they hurl insults at each other, however, this string of abuse ends with “critic”, a
relatively neutral word compared to some of the other descriptions. However, it is
interpreted to be the most harsh one as it seems to defeat Vladimir (“Oh! [He
wilts, vanquished, and turns away]”). This may seem illogical to the audience,
however, the characters share a mutual understanding that facilitates this
interaction. They are engaging in language game, a concept invented by Ludwig
Wittgenstein, where he proposes that words only have meaning because of the
context they’re placed in. Whilst this game clearly brings amusement to the pair
and o ers a temporary reprieve from their boredom, the audience are unsure
whether to laugh at these two clearly close friends throwing tirades of abuse
each other.
You must relate your discussion to relevant contextual factors.
Waiting for Godot (WFG) marked a landmark in Western theatre and became one
of the iconic plays of the retrospectively named ‘Theatre of the Absurd’
movement by Martin Esslin in 1965. Plays of this genre rejected the conventions
of the well-made play (for example, following Freytag’s pyramid of dramatic
structure) and instead built on more experimental forms, outrageously flouting
all the standards by which drama had been judged for many centuries. Esslin
cited 20th century “social and spiritual reasons” such as World War 2 (1939 to
1945) as the cause of the sense of disillusionment which prevailed within society
at the time. Beckett played a role within the French Resistance and seems to
draw upon his own experience of “being faced with a world that is both illogical
and frightening, where the firmest certainties have dissolved; all pillars of hope
and optimism have collapsed” in the writing of this subversive play. It shares both
Modernist and Post-modernist traits, and the use of humour to undermine
discussion of tragic events have earned it the label of a tragic comedy.
One way that Beckett chooses to intermingle the serious and the comedic is by
bringing into question the very function of language. Traditionally, dialogue is
used to progress the plot forward, however the combination of nonlinear time,
circular structure and repetitive dialogue leads to even the meaningful
conversations deteriorating into the absurd. One example of this is a
conversation between Vladimir and Estragon that initially seems to be
confrontational, but is in fact one of the many games they play to pass the time.
They engage in crosstalk, which is shown through the use of a new anaphoric
stichomythia (“Vladimir: Moron, Estragon: Vermin, Vladimir abortion”) where
they hurl insults at each other, however, this string of abuse ends with “critic”, a
relatively neutral word compared to some of the other descriptions. However, it is
interpreted to be the most harsh one as it seems to defeat Vladimir (“Oh! [He
wilts, vanquished, and turns away]”). This may seem illogical to the audience,
however, the characters share a mutual understanding that facilitates this
interaction. They are engaging in language game, a concept invented by Ludwig
Wittgenstein, where he proposes that words only have meaning because of the
context they’re placed in. Whilst this game clearly brings amusement to the pair
and o ers a temporary reprieve from their boredom, the audience are unsure
whether to laugh at these two clearly close friends throwing tirades of abuse
each other.
