The playwright "Sara Roll" in her book "One Hundred Articles I Didn't Write" says that one day she took her young son to watch a play, and after the show ended, she asked him for his opinion. He said: "It was beautiful, but I didn't like it!"

This answer made her think about what if adults had the same ability to make this "emotional" separation between taste and criticism. As is the custom, especially among theater critics according to her, they tend to judge a work as bad immediately if it doesn't please them or meet their tastes!

As for me, her son's answer made me think about all the beautiful things that I don't like:

The Mona Lisa painting

The song "Hello" by Adele

The Statue of Liberty

The poems of Adonis

The city of London

And... the play "Waiting for Godot"!

I admit that the work is beautiful and carries great philosophical messages, but quite simply, I didn't like it; perhaps because I believe that plays are written to be watched, not read!

A boring play that didn't appeal to me at all. It was truly a waste of time.

I went to the theater with high expectations, hoping to be entertained and inspired. However, from the moment the curtain rose, I knew it was going to be a disappointment. The plot was convoluted and made little sense, and the characters were one-dimensional and缺乏depth. The acting was also subpar, with the actors failing to bring the story to life.

The stage set was visually unappealing, and the lighting and sound effects did little to enhance the overall experience. I found myself constantly checking my watch, longing for the play to end.

In conclusion, this was a play that I would not recommend to anyone. It was a prime example of how not to stage a production. I left the theater feeling frustrated and disappointed, and vowing to be more selective in my choice of entertainment in the future.

Oh boy. I have known this one was coming up, so let’s get it out of the way.

2014 was a year that holds a special place in my memory. Goodreads kindly informed me that around April or May of that year, I rated "Waiting for Godot" 1 star. I was in my final year of high school at the time. Three years prior, I had reluctantly chosen "Drama" as a course, fulfilling the art/music/drama credit requirement in Canadian high schools. I thought it would be a chore, something to just get through and then forget about. But as it turned out, those three years in drama were filled with joy and discovery. I became a "drama kid," and soon it was time for my final project of my final year. That's when Samuel Beckett entered the picture.

My friend and I were assigned the roles of Vladimir and Estragon, and we had to perform about 15-20 minutes of this "play." I remember feeling extremely nervous. My grades were crucial then as I needed to maintain a certain average for university, and drama was an important part of that average. "Godot" was going to contribute a significant portion to my final mark. As we read through the piece, our initial anxiety quickly turned into fear. And as the weeks passed, that fear escalated into sheer terror. The main characters, "Didi" and "Gogo," would go back and forth, spouting what we affectionately called "literal nonsense." How were we supposed to remember the exact number of "Adieu"s they uttered? How could we stage their random back and forth movements? It was incredibly difficult to anchor our lines and cues to specific storylines because there were no real stories in this play. Literally, nothing happened. We were at a loss as to how to situate ourselves.

Nevertheless, we somehow managed to pull it off. We performed the play. I don't even remember which character I was playing – that's how much of a blur that day is in my mind. Was I Didi, comforting Gogo in his sudden passions and rages? Or was I Gogo, constantly shooting down Didi's Biblical screeds? It doesn't matter anymore. But I do know that I forgot my lines, and so did my friend. At the same time. And the improv that followed was so absurd that I'm sure no one, except maybe our teacher, noticed anything was wrong. After all, the show must go on. I received an acceptable grade, gave Beckett the middle finger, and never looked at my copy of the book again. 1 star, you bastard!

Now, looking back, I can't help but smile. The shift from a 1-star rating to a more favorable view in just 7 years is quite remarkable. Part of the reason it's so hard for me to put my love for this book into words is because of my own inexperience back then, but also because of Beckett's refusal to comment on interpretations of his work. I find myself inclined to use the word "existential" in this review. And indeed, it is an existential piece. Here, you will find profound commentary (at least, in my personal opinion) on the meaning of life, the lack of meaning in life, the question of suicide, our engagement with the environment, the passing of time, the role of the Other as both the savior and the devil, relationships as a means of filling the void, and relationships as the abyss in themselves. Ultimately, it explores the concept of Being as opposed to not Being.

Should I have been expected to understand all of this in 2014? I'm not sure. Maybe not. I was not in the right state of mind to give it a fair chance and an open interpretation. But this is a book that I will continue to read and explore for years to come.

P.S. One of my biggest regrets in life is missing the opportunity to see the Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart adaptation of this play at the Theatre Royal Haymarket. Oh well. Life goes on. Or does it? We go on. You go on. Go on? What does that mean? I am leaving.

Alan remains seated.

One of the most captivating and inspiring stories you will ever encounter. Each time I finish reading this, I am filled with a sense of joy and motivation. Why is this so? It is because Beckett perceives the essence of being human: there is Nothing to be done. This simple yet profound statement holds a wealth of truth. In a world often filled with chaos and uncertainty, realizing that there are some things beyond our control can bring a strange sense of peace. And laughter, it is truly a powerful weapon against the darkness of despair. It has the ability to lighten our hearts, to break the chains of忧愁 and worry. When we laugh, we are reminded that life is not all doom and gloom, that there is still beauty and humor to be found even in the most difficult of times.

|| 3.5 stars ||

This is a tragicomedy that delves deep into the profound lack of meaning in life.

It centers around two (apparently homeless) individuals, Vladimir and Estragon. Day in and day out, they patiently wait for the arrival of an enigmatic man named Godot. Every single day, they remain seated by a tree, insisting that they cannot leave or engage in any other activity but simply sit there. This is all because they are constantly waiting for Godot, despite the fact that this man will never actually come.

The dialogue within this play is interestingly absurd. The conversations frequently consist of ramblings and repetitions, and the content is largely completely pointless. I believe this is intended to illustrate just how bored these two men are. Yet, they attempt to make the passage of time more bearable by chatting about nonsensical things. Anything is preferable to nothing.

The friendship between Vladimir and Estragon was truly heartwarming to me. They are so lonely and exhausted, and their only source of support is each other's presence and comfort. Of course, they are not always the most affectionate towards one another, but it simply seems like the bickering of two elderly men; a form of banter that is only possible between those who have spent the majority of their lives together.

Overall, the play symbolizes the absurdity of existence, the futility of life, and how suffering intensifies as time passes.
It conveys a rather depressing message. However, what makes the entire thing even more unique is that its tragic themes are presented in an often comical way. In modern parlance, I would refer to this as 'dark humour'.

Finally, I came to write a review for it, after more than a month!

I wanted to write about some of its parts, but since the book was precious, I didn't underline it or take notes. On the other hand, I was happy to see that some of it was brought up by the kids in their reviews here. The reviews were very good, and it made me feel warm all over.

"Waiting for Godot" became one of my favorite works. Recently, since I had a conference and a paper at the university regarding meaning-making and existentialism, and also saw how much they appealed to my spirit, my study in these fields has increased. In literature too, if you want to find absurd works, and as it happens, the absurd works that I read really touched my heart. Now, my priority in studying is these fields. Finally, "Waiting for Godot" with all its powerful structure hit me hard. Maybe it's because it's almost a year since my mental space has been shared and I've heard and read so much about "Waiting for Godot" that it has become a bit of a burden for me. But still, I liked reading it. I'm thinking that if I can write my thesis on something in these areas, I will be very satisfied with myself. Because I really want to create a connection between my major and my specialty and be able to work in this field.

I also really liked that article at the end of the book. It was about the absurd theater. How much I want to see the play "Waiting for Godot" too. The reason I gave it one star less at first was not because of its quality or anything like that. It was that mental space issue I mentioned. It couldn't hit me as hard. Because for a year, my mind has been constantly on these topics. I also really want to read the rest of Beckett's works. I always used to be afraid of Beckett. I thought I should leave it, for example, to read his works when I'm thirty years old. :)) Both Beckett, Camus, Sartre, Kafka, and Brecht, these are the people whose works have an absurd and existential space. Due to my own bad fate, I have come to a state where reading these works is exactly answering in this stage of my life. I don't know if it's good and will lead to better things or if I'll regret it in the future. :)))

The work "Waiting for Godot" elicits a remarkable quantity and variety of interpretations, which is both common in such texts and yet curiously captivating. Just reading the comments of fellow readers on Goodreads reveals positions that are sometimes radically opposed. This, I believe, is where its great popularity lies. Like an image in the Rorschach test, the work transforms into what matters to each individual reader.

But what is the correct interpretation? I don't think it can be put in such terms. Is the correct interpretation the one that aligns with the author's purpose? If so, we have a problem. Beckett, with all his intelligence, never wanted to clarify the meaning of the work beyond denying God as the being behind the character of Godot, yet countless readers continue to make that connection.

Of course, I also have my own interpretation of this Rorschach blot. I am not among those who see God behind Godot, nor do I think the work's purpose is to denounce the absurdity of human existence, its lack of purpose, its emptiness, or the absence of a way out. Nor do I believe, of course, that the work is a mere absurdity without rhyme or reason, symbolizing the senselessness of human destiny. In my opinion, "Waiting for Godot" tells us, shouts at us, quite the opposite: ACT, DON'T WAIT FOR GODOT.

The work is absurd because the behavior of humanity has been, is, and surely will be absurd. A behavior that does not respond to a destiny but to an ignorant choice. It criticizes precisely the fact that the history of humanity has been a history of waiting, of a fruitless waiting. Generation after generation has proceeded in the same way, without learning, without remembering what was done yesterday, where one was, and, of course, without knowing where one will be tomorrow or what one will do beyond... yes, precisely that, waiting for Godot. The entire history of humanity has been nothing more than a tragic circle repeated a million times. It is not, therefore, a story about the dead end between despair and the warm refuge of the gods; it is a call to action, to reclaim our rights.

We must rebel against the powerful, realize that the powerful depend entirely on the servant; even the powerful must wake up from the dream of their unjust and pathetically justifying reasoning. Vladimir must realize that it is not true that the only thing one can do is occupy the waiting; Estragon must have the courage to break away from Vladimir; and both must stop being content with word games, paradoxes, and Byzantine discussions that distance them from confronting their condition. Both must choose the courage of movement.

Nor should we excuse ourselves in atavistic original sins, nor in the fleeting nature of existence, nor blame the era in which we happen to live, nor get entangled in words. We must not hide behind an immovable human condition. In short: DON'T ASK WHAT GODOT CAN DO FOR YOU; ASK YOURSELF WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOURSELF, FOR ALL.

**"Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett: A Deep Dive**

En Attendant Godot = Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett

"Waiting for Godot" is a profound play by Samuel Beckett. It features two main characters, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), who wait indefinitely for someone named Godot, who never shows up. While waiting, they engage in various discussions and encounter three other characters. The play is Beckett's translation of his original French work, "En attendant Godot," and is subtitled "a tragicomedy in two acts."

The story unfolds in a desolate place outside the city, beside a leafless tree. Vladimir and Estragon, looking haggard and poor, await Godot, not knowing who he is. Their waiting is their hope for survival. Estragon has spent the previous night in a ditch and been kicked by strangers, which reminds them of the cruelty of people. They lament not having jumped from the Tower of Babel when they were young and beautiful. Estragon suffers from tight shoes and Vladimir from a hat that makes his head itch and a venereal disease. They cannot leave because they are waiting for Godot and are condemned to stay until he fulfills his promise.

They have no certainty about Godot's promise or that the meeting place should be there under the leafless tree. They talk of prayers, pleas, and fruitless expectations, even though Godot has made no commitment. But they hope for his help, perhaps to sleep warm and dry that night with a full stomach. When they hear a cry that might signal Godot's arrival, they are filled with terror and cling to each other. Then they sit back down to wait. Estragon is hungry, and Vladimir tries to amuse them. Pozzo is amazed that these two strangers have mistaken him for Godot and are waiting for Godot on his land. Lucky stands there, falls asleep from exhaustion, and does not protest when Pozzo orders him to dance and speak. Before leaving, Pozzo tells Lucky to be silent. A boy enters and announces that Mr. Godot will not come that night but will definitely come the next day and then leaves. Vladimir and Estragon prepare to leave but change their minds and remain motionless.

The moon rises at the end of the scene. The next day, at the same time and place, Vladimir shows Estragon that the tree has a few leaves. Estragon remembers nothing - not the tree, not Pozzo, not Lucky. He only remembers the kick he received and the chicken bone he was given. Estragon falls asleep, but his sleep does not last long. Vladimir plays with Lucky's hat, pretending to put it on and take it off. Then they reenact the arrival of Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo and Lucky enter and fall to the ground. For a moment, Estragon mistakes Pozzo for Godot and says, "This is Godot." Vladimir says, "He arrived on time... At last we are saved." Pozzo asks for help. Vladimir and Estragon discuss how much money they should give to help. At this moment, they feel that as representatives of all humanity, they are waiting for Godot and filling the time in any way they can. Pozzo is blind and has lost the concept of time, and Lucky is dumb.

After Pozzo leaves, Estragon wants to sleep. The same boy from the first act enters. Vladimir tries to get more information about Godot and learns that he is a man with a white beard. The boy announces that Godot will not come that night but will definitely come the next day. Estragon suggests that they give up waiting forever or commit suicide. They approach the tree. Estragon takes out a thin rope that he has tied around his waist instead of a belt. The rope is not strong enough. The two men decide to leave but do not move. Night falls, and the moon rises at the end of the scene.

**Title: An Analysis of "Waiting for Godot"**

On 15 - 6 - 2016, there was an update, and the first review was on 3 - 3 - 2016. The play "Waiting for Godot" presents a complex and thought-provoking narrative. The quote ""The problem is whatever we do. And by the grace of God we know the answer to this subject. Well, in the face of this great turmoil only one thing is clear.. we stay here waiting for Godot." shows the main goal of the play and the idea it revolves around. Godot will not come, and their knowledge of their existence in this place - in life - is wrong.

Everyone is waiting for Godot, but who is Godot? Samuel Beckett died, and no one knew the mystery of his absurd play. This period when existentialism flourished and its great influence and the time were the reasons for the emergence of absurd literature. The absurd play is not, as some think, aimless chaos but has a primary role in strengthening the principles of existentialism by depicting life in an absurd view. Existentialism emphasizes complete freedom in thinking without restrictions and highlights the individuality of a person, that he is the owner of thought, will, and choice, and does not need a guide. The absurd play portrays its characters as having no freedom in thinking, as non-entities who do not know the reason for their existence but create a fictional reason for themselves, like the character of Godot in Beckett's wonderful play.

Some see Godot as a symbol of God - glorious and exalted - and this interpretation may be correct. If you look at the original name of the play in English, you will find that it is a transformation of the name of God with the addition of two letters, so it is likely that what is meant is Godot - God. However, I think that Godot has extremely many meanings, and every reader of the play can look at the character according to his own thinking.

The play here does not depend on the place, time, or plot, only the dialogue is the main axis. But that dialogue was obscure, ambiguous, and disjointed, with subjectivity, connection, and dissonance. All the characters in the play speak without any of them being able to understand the other or convey their message. The first part of the play has a lot of philosophical dialogues, while the second part is dominated by absurdity. The play is based on five characters, two of them are the main characters, "Estragon" and "Vladimir", and each of them is different from the other. They know nothing more than that they are waiting for Godot, and even when they say they will leave, they don't. And "Pozzo" and "Lucky", two very strange characters who depict humans and the struggle between freedom and slavery. And "the Boy" who is the messenger who comes in the evening to tell them that Godot will not come today but tomorrow.

One of the characteristics of the play - and the absurd play in general - is the satirical sparkle that runs through it, which gives it a good spirit. There is no end to the play, they will remain in this endless loop forever. They say they will leave but they don't. Far from the basic idea that no one has ever known, Beckett died without saying who Godot is. But he left behind a great work, one of the masterpieces of the theater in history. Also, the film made in 2001 was successful in embodying the play as the best it could be.

VLADIMIR: It's difficult to live with you, Gogo.

ESTRAGON: It would be better if we separated.

VLADIMIR: You always say the same thing. And you always come back.

4.5

I would never have thought that a play would appeal to me so much. This short exchange between Vladimir and Estragon in the play "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett is both profound and thought-provoking. Their dialogue reveals the complex nature of their relationship, filled with frustration, dependence, and a sense of inevitability. The simplicity of the language belies the depth of the emotions and ideas being explored. It makes me wonder about the nature of human connection, the meaning of waiting, and the cyclical patterns in our lives. This play has truly opened my eyes to the power of theater to engage and challenge our minds.

In many of the film scores composed by Hans Zimmer, a ticking clock motif is included. In “Dunkirk,” he even used the Shepard tone, an auditory illusion where the pitch seems to constantly ascend yet remains the same. Samuel Beckett, in his play, also hangs an imaginary giant clock (perhaps on that lonely tree where the characters wish to hang themselves) to mark time for Estragon and Vladimir, but abandons the suspense technique. There is no suspense, and there seems to be a vacuum of time, even though the ticking is clearly heard, indicating that time is passing. There is only endless waiting.

“Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful!”

Beckett was inspired by Caspar David Friedrich’s painting “Two Men Contemplating the Moon.” The somber figures and the silhouette of the dead tree contrast eerily with the golden moon in the distance. Similarly, both V. and E. constantly strain their eyes to see their shining moon on the horizon – their Godot – but lack dynamics. “The air is full of our cries,” says Vladimir. “But habit is a great deadener.” The habit of doing nothing when numbed by the long cold fingers of meaninglessness makes it difficult for its victims to escape. In an interview, Maria Popova said, “Critical thinking without hope is cynicism. Hope without critical thinking is naïveté.” V. and E. naively hope for salvation to come from outside, not from within themselves. This is why they are caught in the impossible vicious circle of waiting for someone to bring meaning to them, when the meaning of their existence is to wait for someone to bring meaning.

“We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?”

We humans are experts at giving ourselves the impression that we exist, even deluding ourselves that what we do has some meaning. Otherwise, we would have gone mad. Maybe we have? “We are all born mad. Some remain so.” Godot is an allegory of what we are all waiting for and perhaps what we become while waiting. Maybe the meaning is to search for meaning, not expect it to come to us. Maybe there is no meaning. Where are you, Godot?

Beckett’s play is a representative of the theater of absurdity and its examination of existentialism. Life is empty in anticipation of Godot, and even communication is like a broken wing of a bird, irrational, losing its thread, a half-life. Samuel Beckett, who prefers “France at war to Ireland at peace,” and writes because he’s fit for nothing else, expresses in his play that mute frantic scream we would all emit if the absurdists are right. They suspect that existence has no meaning, but since this cannot be proven, we have the choice of suicide or not. Vladimir and Estragon also consider hanging themselves matter-of-factly several times.

“All evening we have struggled, unassisted.”

It’s almost unbearable to be left to our own devices and choices. Wondering whether to head into the unknown, not knowing how dangerous it is, or stay in the dreadful familiar whose degree of dreadfulness we already know. From an evolutionary perspective, we are designed to play it safe because there are always bad things lurking in the dark. The unknown is darkness. In fact, as night approaches, V. and E. calm down, as if their trial for the day is over – night is a metaphor for death, and when you’re dead, you’re not expected to continue the painful search for meaning.

“Waiting for Godot” is a highly abstract play that is open to various interpretations. Beckett was annoyed by this and wondered why people try to complicate something so simple. A literary critic said that virtually nothing happens in the play, and since Act II is almost a repetition of Act I, nothing happens twice. So, is there any point in reading “Waiting for Godot”? There is – because of the lifeless atmosphere that reflects life, as life is often illogical, because of the irony and the fragments of pungent insight. And to search for meaning for ourselves. Always for that.

“That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.”

**PASSARE IL TEMPO**

The French film by Emmanuel Courcol (2020) offers an opportunity to talk about Samuel Beckett's masterpiece. I recently watched this French film, which is inspired by a real event that took place in Sweden in 1985. Five prisoners, engaged by the prison as theater actors, took advantage of a theatrical rehearsal to escape. This event had already inspired a Swedish film in 1999, "Vägen ut – Breaking Out", and there may also be an American remake.

The French film starts with an actor in difficult times. The only job he seems to have is teaching the Maori haka to executives and employees of some company. This scene is both funny and a bit sad. He accepts to replace a colleague in the task of teaching acting to prisoners. There are five prisoners at first, then it becomes six, but one leaves and is replaced by another. Our actor thus becomes a director, even though he has never done it before. But he has gained some experience by being directed by others. And perhaps it's time for him to take some stones out of his shoe. He quickly realizes that the opportunity to do something different, worthy, remarkable is appealing. So, as soon as possible, he replaces the study and practice text, from La Fontaine's fables to "Waiting for Godot". A great choice.
Of course, knowing Beckett's text helps. Because it's easier to make the connection between the vagabonds of the Irish playwright (wandering just like his compatriot Joyce) and the prisoners, between the absurdity of the life of those who wait for Godot – who never arrives and it's very likely that those who wait for him don't know him at all, this Godot – and the absurdity of prison life, which is based on waiting. Daily waiting: for the meal, for the airing time, for the visits, for the mail. Waiting for the end of the sentence, waiting for liberation. Looking closely, the repetitiveness of the gestures and words of the pair of vagabonds Vladimir and Estragon also reflects the immobility and exasperated reiteration of life behind bars.
The French film seemed perfect to me for how it respects the canons of the genre (or sub-genre). For how it knows how to touch the right chord at the right moment. The cast is excellent: no star, all spot-on, good and convincing. Maybe there is a bit of accumulation, a few too many personal events. The exact opposite of Beckett's sparse approach, who would probably say, Less is better. But a stage is a different place from a screen. When they told Beckett what had happened in Sweden, the Nobel Prize winner was happy and commented that it seemed like a perfect ending.

The Swedish film by Daniel Lind Lagerlöf (1999).