Waiting on God: A Christian Examination of "Waiting for Godot"
Discuss this article here.
When New York Times critic Vivian Mercier was asked about Samuel Beckett's two-act play, “Waiting For Godot,” he replied, “nothing happens, twice.” It is not difficult to see why Godot would elicit such a response. The play follows two old men who sit in the same place waiting for a man who never comes. Yet there is much in Godot that becomes apparent as we read it, looking to understand what it has to say about us and our culture. If we look closely, we can see that Godot is a very significant work for understanding modern culture and philosophy.
Since Godot utilizes complete unity of place and each act utilizes unity of time, the entire focus of the play is upon the characters and their dialog. It is thus of the utmost importance to understand each of the characters both as they are presented explicitly and what they may signify implicitly.
Estragon and Vladimir
The two protagonists, Estragon and Vladimir are elderly tramps who live in a gutter and scrounge for food. They are, however, longtime friends and are always together. Given the date of the work (1953) and the age of these two men, it is entirely possible that they were childhood friends and later comrades in arms during the first World War, evidenced by the following exchange in the play's exposition:
Vladimir: ...On the other hand what's the good of losing heart now, that's what I say. We should have thought of it a million years ago, in the nineties.
Estragon: Ah stop blathering and help me off with this bloody thing.
Vladimir: Hand in hand from the top of the Eiffel Tower, among the first. We were respectable in those days. Now it's too late. They wouldn't even let us up... What are you doing?
Estragon: Taking off my boot. Did that never happen to you?
Vladimir: Boots must be taken off every day, I'm tired telling you that...
Between the two of them, Vladimir generally seems the most intelligent and pensive. It is Vladimir that begins the deepest conversations and it is he that has the best of the pair's failing memories. Vladimir also appears to have some sort of painful bladder disease which causes him to rush about at various times during the play, looking for the nearest spot to relieve himself. We learn this at the beginning when he complains about the pain and Estragon reminds him to re-button his fly.
Although the friends have a good dynamic, several conversations betray the fact that they would each be happier if they were not together. Several times they resolve to split up and upon making the resolution, remain right where they are. Vladimir reminds Estragon that in the past when he has tried to leave, he always comes back. As the play closes, the two again sit unmoving after vowing to part ways.
Pozzo and Lucky
This bizarre pair is present in half of the play. Pozzo is some sort of taskmaster who we learn very little about besides the fact that he is on his way to the fair to sell his slave, Lucky. Pozzo controls Lucky by means of an extremely long rope which he jerks and tugs if Lucky is the least bit slow.
Lucky is the absolutely subservient slave of Pozzo and he unquestioningly does his every bidding. Lucky speaks only once in the play and it is a result of Pozzo's order to “think” for Estragon and Vladimir. Based on Pozzo's account, Pozzo and Lucky were at one time friends and companions and used to engage in all sorts of intellectual discourse. But after a while, Lucky bored Pozzo and Pozzo somehow assumed the role of Lucky's owner. Despite his horrid treatment at Pozzo's hand, Lucky remains completely faithful to him and does not do one thing out of order.
Themes and Motifs
The first two lines of the play serve as the theme of the entire work:
Estragon: Nothing to be done.
Vladimir: I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying, Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. So there you are again.
From the very outset, Estragon and Vladimir have nothing to do. They are waiting for Godot to arrive and meet them and they have agreed to meet him at the tree in front of which the entire play takes place. Sitting beside the tree, Estragon and Vladimir attempt to find ways to pass the time. Passing the time becomes another major theme in the play as the pair debate issues of biblical criticism, contemplate suicide, eat carrots, amuse themselves with jokes and stories, and engage Pozzo and Lucky in discourse and entertainment.
In fact, the passage of time seems to become more important to Estragon and Vladimir than the reason for which they are waiting on Godot. When Vladimir offers to tell Estragon the story of the thieves on the cross, Estragon refuses until Vladimir reminds him that it will pass the time. When Pozzo and Estragon leave at the end of the first act, the only thing said about the odd experience was that it passed the time. Estragon tries on his old boots in act two as a means of passing the time and when the disabled Pozzo and Lucky return, Estragon tries to guess their names as a way to pass the time. Amid all this, neither character ever mentions the reason they are waiting for Godot. It is clear, however, that they believe Godot can somehow help them out of their present state.
This brings us to the underlying thread that unifies the work: hope. Vladimir and Estragon live in perpetual hope of the coming of Godot. Even being unsure as to the precise reason they are waiting for Godot, the two seem to derive a great deal of hope in the possibility that Godot might come tonight. This is, after all, the reason they are so consumed with passing the time and why they never leave the tree.
Interpretations
Many interpretations have been offered as to the meaning and purpose of the play. Beckett flatly denied some of the most prevalent opinions while refusing to divulge his “true” motives behind the work. Nonetheless, Godot does seem to be an internally coherent commentary on the human condition and the shape of modernity.
As mentioned above, Vladimir and Estragon live, it seems, for only one purpose: to wait for Godot. This places the play squarely in the camp of existentialism, a philosophy which states essentially that all that life is is existence. There is no cosmic significance to anything and human experience is isolated and meaningless. In this vein many have posited that Godot is meant to represent God. Beckett was openly hostile to Christianity and the idea of a play about men who faithfully wait on a God who never shows up is popular with those who see it as either an extension of Beckett's own views or an illustration of the effect of meaningless faith on humanity. But understanding Godot as a representation of God allows the play to reflect much more than a growing atheistic influence in the world. In fact, it breathes life into the many other symbols in the play.
One of the first things Vladimir says to Estragon is, “Suppose we repented.” Estragon replies, “Repented what... Our being born?” The two then proceed to discuss the biblical accounts of the crucifixion. Vladimir points out that only one of the four Gospels relates the conversion of one of the thieves crucified with Christ. He remarks that there is no reason to take the word of the one over the word of the other three and that those who do are “bloody ignorant apes.”
What happens here is that the two contemplate repentance, then decide against it in the face of the rational evidence against its benefits. Soon after this incident, the two get it in their heads to hang themselves from the tree they are waiting beside. It is important to note here a strong biblical connection between Jesus' death on the cross and “hanging on a tree.” In fact, “tree” and “cross” are the same Greek word. This fact allows us to draw a strong parallel between the contemplation of repentance and the contemplations of hanging. Again, the two decide to hang themselves then decide not to in the face of the evidence that it would not work as they hoped. This episode (like several others) is repeated in a similar fashion in the second act, where the pair again decides to hang themselves but does not. Making the metaphorical connection, Estragon and Vladimir, failing to “take the plunge” and repent of their sins, sit endlessly waiting for something to happen.
Several key story elements clue the audience into the fact that Estragon and Vladimir have been waiting for a very long time and that each day that passes is a virtual repeat of the last. The first clue come after Pozzo and Lucky leave in the first act. Estragon and Vladimir have the following exchange:
Vladimir: Haven't they?
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: Changed.
Estragon: Very likely. They all change. Only we can't.
Vladimir: Likely! It's certain. Didn't you see them?
Estragon: I suppose I did. But I don't know them.
Vladimir: Yes you do know them.
Estragon: No I don't know them.
Vladimir: We know them, I tell you. You forget everything. (Pause. To himself.) Unless they're not the same...
Estragon: Why didn't they recognize us then?
Vladimir: That means nothing. I too pretended not to recognize them. And then nobody ever recognizes us.
Here we see not only the fact that this meeting between Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo, and Lucky has happened before, but also that Estragon and Vladimir are the only ones who don't change.
Since the play's debut, many have wondered about the possible meanings of the characters of Pozzo and Lucky, who they may represent, and the significance of their names. One interpretation has Pozzo a representation of capitalism and Lucky workers in the system, faithfully slaving away for their hard taskmaster. Others have proposed that Pozzo with his Italian name is meant to represent the Pope and Lucky to represent the Christian faithful, constantly dogged and kicked by the papacy. I submit that we view Pozzo as the tyrannical “world” while Lucky is the headlong follower and servant of the dictates of the flesh.
Having established a framework for interpretation, we turn now to look at the development of the play as a whole in order to understand what it has to say. Since little development occurs within the individual acts, most of the significant development takes place between the acts in the form of the consistencies and inconsistencies between the two.
When comparing the two acts, there are many similarities. Estragon and Vladimir meet and act as though they haven't seen each other in a long time, they discuss being beaten up in a ditch, Estragon eats a vegetable and fumbles with his boots, the pair plays with their hats, contemplate suicide, talk about old times, and vow to leave one another, ultimately sitting unmoving. This gives the audience the sense that the events in act one were in fact repeats and that this cycle goes on virtually unendingly. Contributing to this interpretation is the song that Vladimir sings to open the second act:
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:
A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
(etc.)
The song seems almost insignificant until one recognizes that the song is of the unending variety. That is to say, it is cyclical in form and will repeat forever. What's more, Vladimir cannot make it past the line, “And dug the dog a tomb,” without pausing and reflecting upon it. Thus we have a hint that Vladimir is beginning to realize the nature of his existence. He sees that life is like the song, an unending cycle that features death ever before us.
Despite the many similarities, there are some conspicuous discontinuities between the two acts that call attention to themselves. First of all, Estragon's boots, removed the day before, are still present but have changed color and size and now fit Estragon comfortably. Likewise, the tree is still present but now is covered in leaves. Also, when Pozzo and Lucky arrive, it is discovered that Pozzo is blind (and has been for some time) and Lucky is dumb. No logical reason is ever given how these might be the case, but they all serve to tell us something. The transformation of Estragon's boots may symbolize Estragon's perpetual optimism. The blinding of Pozzo may represent the downfall of the monolithic Catholic Church and the dumbness of Lucky may correspond to the silence of the believers in the church.
Applications
To this point, the observations made may seem like a collection of disjointed ramblings. This is probably the inevitable result of attempting to take what is technically classified as an absurdist play and make it simple and understandable. But hopefully, the trek through the metaphors and symbols will give way to the significance of the play and what we may understand it to be saying to us.
I would like to begin this task by recalling what was said earlier about Estragon and Vladimir passing the time in hope of the appearance of Godot. In the light of these observations, one of Vladimir's earliest lines becomes incredibly significant. In response to Estragon's observation that Vladimir always waits until the last moment, Vladimir says, “Hope deferred maketh the something sick, who said that?” Estragon ignores him and the subject is never revived. But that one line may contain the key to understanding the play. Vladimir is partially recalling Proverbs 13:12 which reads, “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.” This verse seems so poignant in the context of this play that “Hope Deferred” sounds like a perfectly good title for the play. Especially significant is the fact that, according to Proverbs, when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Clearly, the desire Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for is the arrival of Godot, and I do not believe it is a coincidence that they are waiting beside a tree, one we have already shown to be metaphorically connected with the tree of life, the cross of Christ.
We may view Vladimir and Estragon as the archetypal “man.” They themselves give us license to do this as they introduce themselves on two occasions as “Adam,” and “all mankind” (Adam, of course, being the Hebrew word for all mankind). These two characters perpetually live in a hope which is ungrounded and unsatisfying. They contemplate repentance but ultimately refuse it. As a consequence, they are doomed to constantly repeat their days in a Bill Murray, Groundhog Day-like haze, each one ending with no more hope than the last.
What is interesting is that the two seem to more preoccupied with waiting for Godot than with actually meeting him. The two never discuss what they will say to Godot when he finally arrives, nor do they discuss why they are waiting for him in the first place. Perhaps most striking is the fact that, when the boy messenger arrives from Godot, it never occurs to either Vladimir or Estragon to follow the boy or even ask him where Godot is. Presumably, if one or the other ever did come up with the idea, the conversation might look something like this:
Vladimir: Suppose we go to Godot.
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: Rather than wait.
Estragon: You mean leave?
Vladimir: Yes. Leave. Go to Godot ourselves.
Estragon: We can't.
Vladimir: Why not?
Estragon: We're waiting for Godot.
Vladimir: (despairingly) Ah!
So there they sit, resigned to wait for all eternity. In them we see modern man, daily running out the course of his meaningless life, passing the time, waiting in a hope that will never materialize. This stands in stark contrast with the life God calls us to, a life of active faith and love, assurance, and true hope grounded in the promises of Scripture.
This may shed some light on the curious name of the character Lucky. Why would such a mistreated character be named Lucky? A partial answer might be revealed in the first act, when, after Pozzo reveals that he aims to sell Lucky, Estragon repeatedly asks if Pozzo will be looking to replace him. Perhaps Estragon sees Lucky's condition as being better than his own. True, Lucky is tied to Pozzo, but this is not entirely unlike Estragon's situation:
Vladimir: What was it you wanted to know?
Estragon: ...(his mouth full, vacuously) We're not tied?
Vladimir: I don't hear a word you're saying.
Estragon: (chews, swallows). I'm asking you if we're tied.
Vladimir: Tied?
Estragon: Ti-ed.
Vladimir: How do you mean tied?
Estragon: Down.
Vladimir: But to whom? By whom?
Estragon: To your man.
Vladimir: To Godot? Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it. (Pause.) For the moment.
Estragon sees Lucky tied to Pozzo and himself tied to Godot. But although Pozzo mistreats Lucky, Lucky gets first dibs on Pozzo's chicken bones and he is not destined to sit forever in one place. What's more, Estragon's days are filled with finding things to do to pass the time. Lucky has no such problem as he is always told what to do by his master. In this we may see an eerily grotesque parallel with man's essentially religious nature. We learn both from Scripture and experience that man, created as he was to worship, finds all manner of things to bow down before, none of which serve as benevolent taskmasters. In the days of ancient Israel, men erected wooden statues and bowed down to them. Today, men devote their lives to the pursuit of money, pleasure, and thrills. We lift up movie stars and musicians and call them gods. We follow their every move and desire to be just like them. Just like the Psalmist tells us in Psalm 115:8, “Those who make [idols] will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.” Perhaps we are to see “...Godot” as a conflict between the promises of the world and a life of agnosticism, with the prospect of repenting and believing on God as out of the question as hanging oneself or leaving the meeting place to find Godot.
This is the state in which we find man. And it should go without saying that Beckett's play reflects the actual despair which is the inevitable result of misplaced trust. Many commentators have said that Godot is a play about hope. I submit that it is truly about hopelessness. The play ends as it begins and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Godot is not coming. Even the characters realize this:
Vladimir: You have a message from Mr. Godot.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Vladimir: He won't be coming this evening.
Boy: No Sir.
Vladimir: But he'll come to-morrow.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Vladimir: Without fail. (Silence)
The great irony in these lines undoubtedly penetrates the clown garb of the actors on stage to convey the despair that permeates the work.
But the God of the Bible is not like the Godot of Beckett. Unlike the purely philosophical Godot, God does initiate relationships with men. He seeks them and He meets them where they are, and He calls them to leave the muck they've lived in all their lives. He bids them come and die with Him and find that this death is the only true life. In this respect, perhaps Estragon and Vladimir missed the most obvious thing before them. Perhaps the tree in the middle of the stage was what they were waiting for all along. Perhaps, recalling the three-way connection between Christ's crucifixion, the coming desire being the tree of life, and the men's discussions of hanging themselves on the tree, Estragon and Vladimir should have hung themselves. Not as an act of despair of life but as an act of surrender, as a metaphor for repentance.
This is the only hope for a world of hopelessness, the only way out of the never ending cycle of passing the time waiting for death. God arrives every day and He brings love, hope, and peace. He lives in covenant with His people and He pours out His blessings upon them. This is the living God.
Godot never arrives. This is because Godot is dead. Old, white-bearded Godot who does nothing is dead.
Discuss this article here.
Last Updated Wednesday, August 01 2007 @ 01:19 PDT; 5,406 Hits 