The meaning is in the waiting’?
Waiting for Godot is a play which plays simultaneously on the heart and the mind. The heart responds to the humour, the bleakness, the boredom, the human cruelty and the human warmth displayed by the five characters in search of meaning; the mind responds to what may or may not be clues to that meaning scattered throughout the play. In this light it is appropriate to refer to it as an existentialist text in an absurdist guise. It hints at the fundamental questions which we must all consider if we are to take our existence seriously and discover a code of values by which to live. At the same time it raises the possibility that such questions have no answers and such values are not to be found and that our existence may after all be doomed to the absurdity of a situation in which ‘Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody, goes – it’s awful.’ Is such a play then appropriate for performance in church?
Another characteristic of Waiting for Godot is the frequency of scriptural allusion, which we shall look at in more detail in a moment. The title has of course led many to assume that Godot is in some way a reference to God. But of course the play on words exists only in the English translation of the French title, in that Godot has no resonance with ‘Dieu’. When asked what the name implied Beckett replied that it was suggested by the slang word for boot (godillot) because feet and boots have a prominent role in the play!
The first reference to the Bible comes on the second page of the text when Vladimir asks, ‘Hope deferred maketh the something sick, who said that?’ The reference is to Proverbs 13:12 ‘Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.’ Should we take note of the unquoted second half of the text because the only obvious piece of scenery is a tree – a tree which by the second act has begun to grow leaves? Shortly afterwards Vladi raises the question of repentance and refers to the penitent thief in the crucifixion narrative. What worries Vladi is that only one of the gospels refers to a thief being saved whereas all four gospels mention the presence of thieves. And so the question of salvation is introduced. A reference to the tree on stage brings an allusion to gospel stories of shrubs and bushes and the season for fruit. The character of Godot resonates with the businessmen of the parables, and Godot is himself a keeper of sheep and goats. He also has a white beard!
Vladi and Estragon’s relationship to Godot is introduced with a question about what they had asked him for.
VLADIMIR: Oh … nothing very definite.
ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.
VLADIMIR: Precisely.
ESTRAGON: A vague supplication.
VLADIMIR: Exactly.
They speculate on whether they are tied (down?) to Godot, on how well they know him, whether they would recognise him.
All this is of course frustratingly allusive. Ironically God gets more direct attention in the lunatic ramblings of the ironically named ‘Lucky’ (Beckett suggested he was lucky because he had nothing more to expect). Lucky gives an almost incomprehensible lecture on the medieval understanding of God as free from emotion, imperturbable and speechless, and therefore we must assume of no help to characters like these. And that makes all the more poignant the dialogue with Godot’s messenger boy at the end of the first act when Estragon and Vladimir are so concerned to make sure that the boy tells Godot that he has seen them, that they have been recognised.
The second act introduces a debate about the possibility of change, about truly wanting something, and about the necessity of decision if you are to start out on something new even though you can start from anything. And all this is said in the context of the tree starting to grow leaves. The struggle with a sense of their insignificance goes on vying with the discovery of something which gives them the impression that they exist. At one point Estragon asks whether God sees him and we are reminded of the conversation with the boy about their being seen. Somehow knowing that you are seen is becoming a validation of existential meaning. And yet when the now blind Pozzo reappears he provides one of the play’s most negative thoughts about human existence: ‘They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.’ Prior to this Vladimir and Estragon have been debating whether to help Pozzo. ‘Let us do something while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed….At this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for once the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us.’ The degree to which they then fail to help is measured by the overblown rhetoric with which the idea is represented.
And so as the play moves towards its end we are left with the question whether waiting for Godot is a source of meaning or an excuse for inactivity. In a final conversation with the messenger boy Vladimir asks what Godot does and is told ‘nothing’. Again Vladimir focuses on the importance of the boy having seen him. Estragon raises the possibility of dropping Godot, but Vladi believes that would result in their being punished. They contemplate the possibility of suicide. Estragon says that he can’t go on like this but Vladi replies, ‘That’s what you think.’ And still they hold onto the idea that if Godot comes they will be saved.
Any production of this play requires then equal measures of humour and existential significance. Though at one level the play is about boredom we must never be bored. And this balance is what the Hampstead Players’ production splendidly achieved. In all the performances I have seen in which Bill Risebero and David Gardner acted together something special has been achieved. And in this production Bill gave us the humorous, ironic, restless character of Vladimir almost always on his feet, raising the philosophical and religious questions and then dropping them before they get anywhere. David on the other hand gave us the often seated Estragon, the down to earth character concerned with food and the state of his feet, forgetful and yet intuitively poetic. And deep beneath the surface there was always a strong sense of the bond between them and their need of each other which has lasted for fifty years, and we believe it.
Pozzo, played by Harlequin, a frequent actor in recent productions, came across as a dominant yet deeply anxious character – dictatorial yet vulnerable, a fantasist playing a part, self absorbed and always overcompensating, his actions and his vocal mannerisms often so over the top that we are not inclined to take the existential gloom of his final speech as the last word on life. Lucky played by Matthew Williams succeeded brilliantly in conveying the suppressed power and pathos of a character that initially has nothing to say and crawls around on hands and feet. He is the really the more influential in the partnership and though his mind has gone to pieces he has taught Pozzo all that he knows. In his long lecture on God he succeeded in keeping us searching for grains of sense in a stream of nonsense.
And finally Matthew Gardner played his next most significant role after his appearance in ‘The Winter’s Tale’, as the boy who brings the messages from Godot. The boy must not be overawed by the adults, he must be clear and a character in his own right, respectful yet assertive. Even though we see him on what are supposed to be two successive days we have to believe him when he says on each visit that he has never seen Estragon and Vladimir before. His role must contribute to the atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty. And this Matthew clearly achieved with a clearly articulated air of vulnerable innocence.
Waiting for Godot is a tragic-comedy which may or may not mean something profound and a successful production like this one, keeps you on the edge of your seat searching for that meaning, and pondering long afterwards the many meanings which it may contain. As Beckett said, ‘It is a game in order to survive.’