Picturesque Speech

Overall, “Waiting for Godot” could be considered an easy read because of its short and rhythmic dialogues. If one doesn’t stop to consider much what the characters are actually saying, then the play could be well read in one seating. However, there is one part of the play that disturbs that sort of easiness. Lucky’s dense and incoherent speech completely breaks the mood of the reader, and it is possible that all the mumbling and non-sense distract the reader. I personally skimmed through the long speech finding it unbearable to read. It’s another story when it is performed.

In the 2001 movie of “Waiting for Godot” the prolific interpretation of Lucky’s speech helps the viewer understand further the meaning of the words. In addition to that, shot sizes and camera angles aid the viewer and deepen the meaning of the dialogue.

The scene starts with an extreme wide shot, showing us all the character aligned and a good view of the background. At this moment, it is important to focus on the initial reaction of all the characters to Lucky’s action, hence the use of extreme wide shot and frontal, eye-level camera angles.

As Lucky starts his speech, the shot shrinks to wide-shot focusing more on the character. The somewhat low camera angle denotes superiority to the now thoughtful Lucky. His pose is very virtuous making him look magnanimous. The curious Vladimir and Estragon approach cautiously. The tree is visible in the shot. 

As Lucky’s speech progresses, the camera shot subtly zooms on Lucky. He is the center of attention; the medium-shot size forces the viewer to focus solely on Lucky, his facial expressions, and dialogue. At this, all distractions have been removed and we are to fully submit to Lucky’s incoherent rhetoric.  

The speech continues and it progressively becomes more passionate and incoherent. The camera now zooms out to show the reaction of Pozzo, who clearly finds his servant’s speech unbearable. The camera slowly moves circularly to show the panoramic, perhaps in tune with Lucky’s now circular speech.

The shot shrinks again now showing a desperate Vladimir attempting to stop Lucky. Lucky is higher in altitude, and Vladimir lower, showing he is helpless and frustrated while the solemn Lucky continues. The tree is always visible.

Lucky’s speech finally ends when Vladimir removes his hat, and he collapses and falls face down to the ground. The extreme wide shot works to show how everyone reacts to the event. Lucky is diminished, while Vladimir is higher than all and holding the hat. The road’s curve is imminent and gives off an impression of eternity, because we don’t see the road going anywhere.

Waiting for....Muppet?

The wits of children’s shows never cease to amaze me. Who ever thought that Sesame Street would make its own parody version of “Waiting for Godot”? In the “Monsterpiece Theater” segment of Sesame Street, there is an episode called “Waiting for Elmo” where “Groover and Telly Monster lament near a tree waiting for Elmo. In disgust, the tree both monster monsters are waiting by leaves.” The play is introduced as “A modern masterpiece, a play so modern, so brilliant it makes absolutely no sense.” Alistair Cookie monster then says it doesn’t make sense to him, but maybe you (the viewer) can find out what it means. The clip is only a couple of minutes long. The setting consists of a leafless tree and windy noises. The two monsters are standing side by side gesturing frantically as they usually do. The dialogue is stripped down basic (intended for children) and they say they are waiting for Elmo to come and play with them. The blue monster says that when Elmo finally comes to play with them, they will be so happy. The blue monster is more optimistic, while the red one is more skeptic about the situation. Maybe the red one is Estragon. It doesn’t take long for them to get mad at Elmo for making them wait “How dare he keeps us by this tree waiting, waiting, waiting!” Like children, their mood swings are quick and violent. There is a special emphasis on emotion, something we don’t see much in the play, yet logica,l for children understand emotions easily. What is particular about the play is the tree’s intervention. It’s as if it was a spectator of the play. It says, “I’ve been waiting for this play to make some sense. I don’t get it!” The tree ends up by taking off and the Muppets follow him. The tree’s intervention only helps to ridicule the notion of the play even more. However, it can be looked upon as the ignorant response this play had when first published. It still may provoke this reaction, and most likely children don’t have the background knowledge to understand the situation, but its presence is what is important.  This stripped down version of “Waiting for Godot” highlights the absurdity of the play. It is perhaps the most existentialist version of the play, which makes sense with the nature of the show, as children can be the biggest existentialists. 

The Big Picture Axiom

Other than Meursault’s acts, which by themselves are completely existentialist, there’s another way the book presents a broader view on existentialism. Instead of searching for ideas in the details, the big picture represents too, the ideals of existentialism. For example, the idea that we as people desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe is represented in the trial. An irrational Meursault sits quiet through his prosecution while strangers discuss about his soul, intentions, morale, and his fate. Essentially, the prosecution tries to reason the nature of Meursault’s actions

“…the prosecutor rose to his feet again, adjusted his robe, and declared that only someone with the naiveté of his esteemed colleague could fail to appreciate that between these two sets of facts there existed a profound fundamental, and tragic relationship.” (pg.96)

Somehow, reason is being imposed to what were otherwise irrational, or poorly justified acts.

“Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous o sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun.” (pg.103)

However, the prosecutor and the jury refuse to believe in the absurdity of it all. That is humanity trying to make rational decisions, when in fact its existence surges from the opposite. There is a big discrepancy with what existentialists believe is the nature of life and the imposition of reason from the others who believe in motives. Ultimately, the truth is what we want to believe is true. The best example for this is the prosecution that said:

“I will prove it to you, gentlemen, and I will prove it in two ways. First, in the blinding clarity of the facts, and second, in the dim light cast by the mind of this criminal soul.” (pg.99)

And whose definitive belief was:

“I have retraced for you the course of events which led this man to kill with full knowledge of his actions.” (pg.99)

Despite everything, we are aware of the absurdity of the situation, because we saw through Meursault’s eye. This brings me to the next belief that existence is essentially absurd, and how the lack of motives from Meursault other than the sun, the indifference of the universe he embraced in the end, and his vision on the ephemeral universe goes represent the previous idea.

“The utter pointlessness of whatever I was doing there seized me by the throat…” (pg.104)

Silence

“…the presiding judge told me in bizarre language that I was to have my head cut off in a public square in the name of the French people. Then it seemed to me that I suddenly knew what was on everybody’s face. It was a look of consideration, I’m sure. The policemen were very gentle with me. The lawyer put his hand on my wrist. I wasn’t thinking anymore. That’s when they took me away.”(pg.106)

If it wasn’t for the use of first person, the narrator could perfectly be mistaken with a non-omniscient third person narrator, perhaps  a member of the audience observing the happenings. Other than “I wasn’t thinking anymore” there are no indications of what is going on inside Meursault’s mind. The absence of metacognition in the passage is especially significant because it indicates the lack of reasoning in the whole process and therefore recalls the absurdness of it all. Meursault does not express his opinion or reaction to the sentence of his fate, and what we get instead is a description of the situation. Who cares if the policemen were gentle to him! The lack of an expression of feelings in this passage lets us know how detached Meursault is from himself. In fact, the only thing he bothers to tell is he wasn’t thinking anymore, meaning his rational faculties had deceased, and his presence was reduced to that of mere bone and flesh.

The juxtaposition of the sentences “I wasn’t thinking anymore.” And “That’s when they took me away.” Reflect Meursault’s stance in the trial (ironically absent) and the trial’s position toward it. Meursault is absent minded, in fact he seems to be during the entire book, he gives no reasons for anything. The trial on the contrary attempts to impose logic to the otherwise illogical acts Meursault committed. Meursault acknowledges his irrational being, and just then, they take him away.

Altogether, the book lacks expression of feelings from Meursault and reasoning for his actions which together help transmit the absurdity of existence. It is often what is not said that enhances the meaning of the spoken.