Waiting for Godot; 4m/1 boy
THE STORY: The New York World-Telegram describes: “GODOT cannot be compared to any other theater work, because its purpose is so different. Two dilapidated bums fill their days as painlessly as they can. They wait for Godot, a personage who will explain their interminable insignificance, or put an end to it. They are resourceful, with quarrels and their dependence on each other, as children are. They pass the time 'which would have passed anyway.' A brutal man of means comes by, leading a weakling slave who does his bidding like a mechanical doll. Later on he comes back, blind, and his slave is mute, but the relationship is unchanged. Every day a child comes from the unknown Godot, and evasively puts the big arrival off until tomorrow…It is a tragic view. Yet, in performance, most of it is brilliant, bitter comedy…It is a portrait of the dogged resilience of a man’s spirit in the face of little hope."
Labels: classic; absurdism
posted by Larisa at 3:50 PM
7 Comments:
This classic hasn't been produced in the Twin Cities for over 10 years. It would be a perfect choice for TRP's arena for the stark staging and silly physical humor. It would complement more complicated and large cast shows we would include in the season.
I enjoyed this play. I wonder if this could be considered a classic comedy. The fast pace, minimal set changes, simple blocking, and small cast could help balance our season, depending on what other plays we picked. The cast is small and all-male, which is fine as long as we don’t have too many shows with that cast demographic. It’s very funny and light-hearted, which could be of us considering how dark some of the shows under consideration all. I know the Guthrie is doing a Beckett show this year, maybe this could be a box-office draw for Beckett fans.
Full disclosure: I hate this show. I have seen in produced poorly. I have read and studied it for every theatre class I have ever taken. Despite the clowning, it is exceptionally dark as the birth of absurdism, with a deep sense of existential dread. That being said, it was meant to be the embodiment of the absurdity of hope after decades of world wars, so maybe it would resonate with people - although I would prefer to embrace hope than deny it.
Also not a fan of this for reasons similar to what Larisa said.
In my youthful innocence I found this play intriguing - until I had to suffer through what may have been a mediocre production. However, subsequent professional productions did absolutely nothing to make me like the play in performance (except when an actor I had an immense crush on appeared in one production, but the appeal had nothing to do with the play). Yes, there is wit and humor, but in the long run I find it tedious and completely unrewarding. So, it will forever be a "no" for me.
The biggest challenge is that you cannot make any strong artistic changes to this play. Things like the cast’s gender, the setting, etc. must be as it is written. The Beckett estate does not allow anyone to produce this play if they do not follow Beckett’s instructions in the script. People have been taken to court over this. So, if we do this, we are producing an all-male show...
Other than that, I have been a long fan of this play and some of Beckett’s other works. I still regret not seeing Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen perform in this on Broadway. If done right; it is unique, hilarious, and thought-provoking. Yes, it's dark. Some might find this work depressing. But there are people (like me) who find this existential art relatable to the human experience.
From Howard: A classic, but wearing my audience member hat, I attend theater to escape and enjoy the story. I have no desire to sit through two men talking.
Post a Comment
<< Home