Example of critical thinking on the truth about waiting for nothing

Introduction

Metatheatre is a word that was first used by Lionel Abel in 1963; he introduced a new way of and look at post modern-drama, which at the very least adds more language to the to the ones that are usually spoken in theatres. The description of Meta itself constitutes a meaning describing above or after and about or upon. On the other hand, Samuel Beckett, an Irish Dramatist changed the traditional drama as shown in his work in “ Waiting for Godot”. The change in his style was due to his dissatisfaction of the earlier dramatist. Beckett’s work featuring the characters Vladimir and Estragon. This Meta Theatrical drama is evaluated for its overall theatrical presentation; artifice and its social and realistic play making characteristics. It is apparent that modern drama reflects self-consciousness. Therefore, Beckett’s meta-theatrical approach is a discovery or realities way above the understanding of a rational mind; a constitution of less concerned meaning that accentuates understanding and a notion that surpasses restriction of thought.

Theater Insights

Beckett’s “ Waiting for Godot” delivers a deliberate strand of agonizing boredom because of the character’s nature for not saying anything. However, the theater adaptation of Beckett’s texts was able to breathe significant amount of praise and enjoyment. The production in general did not show slight hints of boredom. However, during intermissions comments can be heard from the audience insinuating their confusion as to where the story is going and anticipations are eminent in the faces of the faces of the audience hoping that the next act will pick itself up to convey the concealed narratives of the play. Seeing the Godot in a theatrical play against reading it in text form reveals an apparent distinction. Beckett’s texts are transformed into a dramatic work in which the anxiousness of both Estragon and Vladimir were more intensified as compared in the text. The theatrical adaptation of Beckett’s work displays a vaudevillian characteristic that is both organic that constitutes its meta-critical side.
The stage production including its first staging 50 years ago in Broadway managed to please the majority of critics because of its adherence to the virtues of the old-fashion stage play. Furthermore, the stage production was able to persuade the audience to care about the apparent relationship of the two main characters Vladimir and Estragon. Beckett is known to be a grumpy playwright as critics repeatedly described the great playwright. This description Beckett manifests in the texts of the play. However, it is apparent that the stage production itself should not necessarily adhere to such grumpy characteristic and the texts itself can be illustrated on stage with a pleasurable performance. Besides, Beckett’s texts will remain undiluted and undisturbed by the amount of enjoyment that the audience expects to experience in its stage adaptation. Experiencing the play through Beckett’s texts and on stage, it is apparent that Beckett is actually inviting participation from its audience. The intervals in the stage play signify meta-theatrical nods, which appear to have an intention to bring the audience to a proceeding. For example, in the stage adaptation; Vladimir uttered “ all the samethat treethat bog”, on the other hand the audience could be seen throwing hisses. Such reaction from the audience gives justification to audience hostility, which provides a clue for something that the audience should recall while watching stage plays in the future. Actions delivered by the characters with the limitation in language encourage the audience to participate and reflect on its meanings.

Artifice

In terms of the play’s artistic and crafty expedient, it seems that it was created to constitute a philosophical convention of absurdity. For instance, the two characters were created in a less conventional manner. Estragon and Vladimir cannot act, think or move in a very meaningful way while taking time waiting for that very mysterious man. The characters felt that it is something that they should do mandatorily without a mere epiphany that there is an underlying choice that they could actually take. There is a hint of hesitation in the characters, although they manage to consciously make decisions for themselves instead of just wasting time waiting for that someone, they cannot seem to translate such thought into action, which demonstrate Beckett’s analogy of meta-theatrical philosophies. Such nature of the characters can only be delivered by carefully thought through way of thinking, which the author himself was able to demonstrate.
Having to illustrate the characters on stage with their apparent characteristics brings about several questions from the audience about what makes Estragon and Vladimir to act in such a way they do not do what in reality a man should do in such situation. After the character’s decision to do something else aside from waiting, they seemed cannot execute their thoughts and it conveys the same question to the audience as to why can they not move despite deciding to do so. There is also n obvious contradiction of thoughts whether the two characters were indeed condemned to keep on waiting or is there a metaphoric meaning to their action that waiting is also an illustration of choice itself. These questions can only be asked by the audience to themselves, but cannot truly comprehend if their perceived meaning to the actions in the play actually requires philosophical contemplation. Given all the thoughts and questions that the audience would have while watching the play, it is evident that Beckett was able to successfully deliver the play in a meta-theatrical approach.

Social and Realistic Play Making

In most cases, plays often demonstrate realistic social phenomenon. However, “ Waiting for Godot” exempts itself from the traditional connotations of a theatrical play. Beckett’s work was once hailed as the theater of the absurd because the work itself is a dramatic promotion of philosophical convention. The play demonstrates an auto-universe that illustrates a different world where daily routines constitutes no apparent meaning. The language that is employs do not effectively communicates the obvious and from time to time the characters are perceived to be demonstration of theatrical artifice. This is due to the fact that, theater plays should convey a story that is clear to its meaning and delivers obvious thoughts and audience expectations. Beckett’s work on the other hand was made differently as the characters themselves are wandering loudly on stage instead of displaying obvious actions. The meta-theatrical drama as defined by Godot is a visual representation of philosophical connotation of absurdity.
For example, Estragon and Vladimir’s actions or lack of action in this case resembles absurd reality because based on the social norms; no person would be absurd enough to wait for something that is not certain whether to come or not. The choice of whether to do something else apart from waiting and doing nothing is apparent in everyone, not unless the person is obliged by another’s will do it. Given that thought, the characters suggests absurdity beyond themselves, but a demonstrate absurdity in the real world. Consciousness is obviously in existence in both characters in the play. However, they cannot seem to do anything about it, which is again an absurd display of characteristic that is not normal in a real social context. Looking deeply into the context of the play beyond the physical actions, there is a small hint of truth in what Estragon and Vladimir are trying to convey. For instance, Estragon commented in Act I that they are not going to do anything because it will be safer. In a real world, everyone is facing uncertainty of the consequences of their action. The truth here is that, when one is baffled by uncertainty, the best option to take is not to do anything thinking that everything will fall into place in time. However, there is an apparent contradiction to that simple truth that not choosing to take action also constitutes equal set of consequences.
The Beckett was able to convey the tenets of existentialism in his work that the world does not have any sort of meaning and that meaning is made by individual thoughts and perception. Waiting for Godot is a dismal portrayal of life as something stagnant and repetitive. That the lack of meaning by doing nothing results to perpetual suffrage, that the obvious solution only relies between taking action and making choices in the face of uncertainty. In the play, Pozzo speculates that life means nothing at all, but Vladimir on the other hand mentioned that the mere absence of meaning is due to habit. The play gives essence of meaning to time, as the problem itself as mentioned by the titles is the slew of time for the sake of waiting for something that will never come. However, the characters have shown a fact of life that everyone would agree on and that is time is not a barrier, but a test to a man’s ability to endure. The reason that the play does not employ a visually stunning background and chooses to have a barren backdrop is because Beckett appears to intentionally let his audience to focus on symbolisms and the allegory that he puts the play’s theatrical artifice. The duality of the characters, the tree, the nightfall and the shining of the moon, the never ending song of Vladimir, the carrot, the lucky dance, the hats, boots, vaporizer and the smell all accentuates the various meanings that Beckett is trying to convey as a playwright.

Conclusion

Meta-theater drama composed by Beckett is an example of play that conveys a lack of meaning, but in reality constitutes an exploration of thought that could only understood by digging deep into each audience’s rational mind. A depiction of meaningless existence yet demonstrates understanding beyond the limits of shallow thoughts.

Works Cited

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York, USA: Grove Press, 2011. Print.