How is waiting for godot an absurdist play

There is a bald tree and one of them is sitting on a mound. From their conversation it becomes clear that they believe to have an appointment with a certain Godot, even though they are not sure about that. In the meantime, two other characters walk by. Pozzo leads his servant Lucky on a leash and makes him carry all his baggage. Pozzo gets into a conversation with Estragon and Vladimir and makes Lucky — to their amusement — dance and think. Then, Pozzo and Lucky move on but Estragon and Vladimir stay there.

A boy appears and tells them that Godot will not come today, but that he will surely come the next day. Vladimir and Estragon decide to go, as it is already night, but they do not move. When the second act starts, the tree is slightly leaved.

Vladimir and Estragon appear. Again they are waiting for a person called Godot. As they talk about the past, their memories are very sketchy. To pass the time they think up games.

Again, Pozzo and Lucky walk by, but this time, Pozzo is blind and his servant it dumb. Estragon and Vladimir tell them that they are still waiting for Godot but Pozzo cannot remember that they had met the day before.

Lucky and Pozzo move on and again the boy appears to tell them that Godot will not come today but certainly tomorrow.

As the night before, the two men decide to go but do not move as the curtain falls. It is not only the action that does not make any progress which makes it difficult to figure out the content of Waiting for Godot. Everything is vague. Almost nothing can be said with certainty. What makes it so difficult for the viewer or the reader to understand the play, is one of the essentials of Waiting for Godot: The Vagueness.

Bechert Moreover, Beckett uses the process of the so-called theatrical reduction. This means that, although the format meets the usual expectations of the viewer 4 , Beckett makes use of the minimization of time, space, of dialogues and the status of his characters. Beckett, Waiting for Godot In this regard, the language, action, time and place and the dramatic characters will be considered.

Brecht writer, required and designed alienation effect of the epic theater that should disillusion and distance the spectator from the action on stage in order to induce him to critical thinking.

As an alienation effect appear, e. Term Paper, 22 Pages, Grade: 1,3. E I Stefanie Speri Author. Add to cart. Index 1 Introduction 2 The Theater of the Absurd 2. Samuel Beckett. What is the genre of Waiting for Godot? Tragicomedy play play. What according to esslin are the characteristics of a good play?

In his work, "Poetics," he says a good play has six characteristics: plot, characters, theme, language, music and spectacle. These elements have formed the backbone of successful plays through the centuries and continue to be important to playwrights today.

Who created absurd Theatre? Martin Esslin. What are the characteristics of Theatre? The Audience: Theatre requires an audience. For all of the arts public is essential. The physical presence of an audience can change a performance, inspire actors, and create expectations. What the play means as opposed to what happens the plot.

Also absurd theatre is comparable to poetry because of the agglomeration and consolidation of words. They illustrate that humans are without orientation and troubled by feelings of anxiety and guilt. There are people like Mr. Esslin The knowledge on absurd theatre should be the basis for the further analysis of Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead for both plays are absurd dramas and reveal similar aspects of this notion.

When it comes to the comparison of the two plays the examination of the characters Vladimir and Estragon and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are crucial. Albert" Beckett 62 and Estragon mentions that he has once been a poet. Beckett 9 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor characters of the Hamlet play and they tend to confuse their names; so it seems that they have no real identity. Batty 23 In the actions of the characters this attributions become clear.

Gogo explains, for example, the risks from hanging, whereas Didi reflects on the Bible. Beckett 9, 17 These telling names also seem like clown names and diminutives. They both have the same memory of the past, intellectual pretentions and the ability to nursemaid their companions.

Ros is meant to be instantly recognizable as the Estragon character. They are both relatively untouched by the past, concerned primarily with the physical and practical aspects of existence and the need to be looked after by their companions. Beckett 5, 6, 14, 17, 19 and they seem interdependent and inseparable like the mind and the body of one human being.

Cormier 14 Applying the Freudian theory adds that Vladimir, like Guildenstern is the unconscious element of the human psyche with memories and emotions, whereas Estragon, like Rosencrantz represents the conscious part and is concerned with the external reality.

They both are a unit and separate characters at the same time. Batty 23 Another approach to this idea is that Vladimir and Estragon together are only one character in the play Waiting for Godot and the fact that they are separated shows how people separate their thoughts from their actions in modern society.

This clash of mind and body might be an occurrence of a multiple personality disorder. This approach, however, does not fit Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are recognized by several other characters in the play.

Vladimir and Estragon might only think they met Pozzo, Lucky and the Boy out of a hallucination within a multiple personality mentioned before. Another thing the characters have in common is that they are all rather objects than subjects in the plays. Incoherent babbling is also important ingredient of theater of absurd as mentioned by Esslin.

Whole play is based on delivery of dialogues but most of them have no apparent meanings. Every dialogue is full of symbols. Every word refers something in hidden meaning but it lacks the interest of audience because it lacks action. Dialogues create action in every play. Action looses its importance without worthy dialogues.

Thus, they are meant to pass the time. It actually indicates nothingness in it. Thus, dialogues of the play are nothing but incoherent babbling. Audience do not observe any obvious theme in the play. Superiority of a play is always dependent on its themes. If there is any, it is hidden. Moreover, it presents individualistic vision of the writer.