Waiting for Godot: Rethinking the World through Radical Theatre

NAME: Victoria Mocanu                                                                       NIUB: 20152436

Waiting for Godot: Rethinking the World through Radical Theatre

Waiting for Godot is a play written by Samuel Beckett in 1952, which has become a reference in the theatre of the absurd, as well as defying traditional theatrical conventions. Elaine Aston and George Savona, two theatre theorists, have argued that this radical play invites spectators to become active participants in the process of meaning-making. This process challenges the relationship both with the play itself and with the real world, as it incites a rethinking of the real world. This essay will explore how Beckett's play prompts the readership to participate in the sense-making process and the kind of 'rethinking of the world' that it proposes.

Firstly, the drama Waiting for Godot lacks a story, clearly defined characters and a satisfying conclusion. Instead, the play consists of a succession of events and monotonous exchanges between Vladimir and Estragon, two vagabonds who wait for Godot, but he never appears. The performance presents a depressing and ridiculous depiction of human nature. For example, in Act II, when Estragon is trying to remember his past and asks Vladimir if they were friends before they met, Vladimir responds by saying, "I don't know. I don't remember any more. You don't remember any more either" (Beckett, 1952) The two characters continue to question each other's memories and the nature of their relationship, ultimately concluding that they cannot be sure of anything. This scene highlights the absurdity and uncertainty of human existence, as well as the futility of trying to find meaning and order in a chaotic and meaningless world. Beckett's radical form challenges the reader or viewer to deduce the meaning of the play's seemingly meaningless acts and exchanges. The reader or audience must determine the play's meaning for themselves, as the play offers no definitive answers or conclusions.

Secondly, the radical form of the play encourages the audience to cooperate in the meaning-making process through different elements. Consequently, the plot is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The lack of a clear ending and the endless waiting for Godot leaves the audience with questions and doubts, an automatic act that forces them to actively participate in the search for meaning. As McDonald wrote:

"From the audience’s point of view, one effect of the lack of definition, the withholding of a clear meaning, is so shift the attention on to the dramatic qualities of the play rather than the significance of its message, its function rather than its meaning. It is clearly an innovatory and experimental play, removed from the conventions of naturalist drama." (McDonald, 2010, p.32)

According to the quote, ambiguity and abstraction in a play can make the audience experience more immersive and engaging since they are compelled to actively participate in the play in order to form their own opinions about what they are seeing.

Thirdly, the play does not provide definitive answers, the notion of progress is questioned, time is linear and the lack of a clear ending, for example:

Vladimir: "Well? Shall we go?"

Estragon: "Yes, let’s go."

(They do not move).

(Beckett, 1952)

This exchange between Vladimir and Estragon highlights the play's circular structure and lack of clear resolution or conclusion. That is, the characters have no clear goal, the plot does not develop in a traditional way and the ending is ambiguous. As a result, the audience must be willing to abandon their suppositions and participate in the construction of meaning. All these reflections invite the audience to consider their own existence and their search for meaning in the world.  

...