Here I am sharing my blog as response to blog task, given on Existentialism, screening of "Waiting for Godot". (unit3, modernist literature.)

1.  What is existentialism?

Existentialism is a philosophical moment which was started during the time of 19^th century in Europe. we can say that it was outcome of world war. It appeared in the literary works mostly known as “absurd theatre’’ also. It is difficult to bind the term in any definition but in brief, we can say that the question regarding anything that exists.

2.  What is the theme of ‘the myth of Sisyphus’?

‘Imagining the meaning’, ‘monotonousness’, ‘representation of absurdity’ these might be the themes of ‘The myth of Sisyphus’

3.  Do you agree that Existentialism is humanism?

Yes, I do agree that Existentialism is humanism, because it speaks of the helplessness of human being. And also indicates all absurdity of human deeds. Existentialism as a term also sympathises with human being for its absurdity. So it is related to humanism.

4.  What is ubermensch?

Ubermensch is a concept given by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It means “Overman”, “superman”, “superhuman” or so. It talks about the super human being who goes above all the ideas of god and destiny. Who thinks of himself as doer of the things, who does not blame circumstances or situation for whatever is happened to him. He takes himself as controller of situation and does not believe himself as inferior to some mightier persona. No matter if that person is god or destiny.

5.  What is theatre of absurd?

I would like to say that Existentialism got expressed in literature. The plays were being written upon the theme. And the expression of Existentialism became absurd.

6.  What connection do you see in the setting of the play and these paintings?

It seems like Becket was influenced by the painting and the setting in ‘waiting for Godot’ is just like the painting itself. Two men are waiting for something, a barren tree, rising and setting of sun. All these things were reflected in setting of ‘Waiting for Godot’.

7.  The tree is the only important thing in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts?

First Act- The tree is barren. ESTRAGON says about it that it is good that it is barren. “No more weeping.” It can be read as- ‘if there is anything left, it is the thing of sorrow, if there is NOTHING, we do not have to worry.’ One of the two says that it is a BUSH. For this, we have to go deep into bible. The biblical reference says that it was the bush where god appeared.

Second Act- in second act, the tree does not remain barren. There grew some leaves. We were told that it was just another day after the one which is passed.  We all know that it is not possible that 4-5 leaves suddenly come up on tree in just one day. So we can think of two possibilities.

1     Not only single day have passed but so many days have been passed in between. But they are similar enough that it becomes difficult to differentiate all the days. And the characters are not sure whether one day has passed or more time has gone.

2     They are not at the same place where they used to be in the first act. But the thing is that that it does not matter for them. It gives the touch of absurdity.

8.   In both acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’?

They feel some relief out of that burdensome waiting at night.

9.  The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in setting?

It is director’s own creativity we can say! We can read the effect of World War 2 here. Everything has collapsed down. The debris is rose out of the buildings. Construction of human life is also broken down just like the debris.

10.                   How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?

 The characters keep on reminding us the theme by the dialogue ‘nothing to be done’. By n large if we see at the play, in whole the play; nothing happens as such. If we look at the activities four of them are doing, what we see as result comes as nothing. This is how nothingness recurs in the play and with what we are ultimately left is nothing but NOTHING itself.

11.                   Do you agree, ‘the play was a positive play, not negative...’?

Yes. I do agree that the play is positive one. The sentence is very significant “No matter what- atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything- life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can’t kill life” – Marshal.

It is marvellous observation done by actor himself. It proves that he not only have played the role of the character, but have lived the character. Perhaps we can say that it is the reason why Estragon and Vladimir have not killed themselves even after frequent thinking of committing suicide. And as a message of existentialism we can say that it does not tell us to end our lives.

12.                   Do you think that the obedience of lucky is extremely irritating and nausea tic?

Yes. We as a reader also doubt some time that such a slavish nature is possible to practise or not. Why one have to remain submissive after blindness?

13.                   Who according to you is Godot?

“Godot” can be read in different ways. If we make a religious reading it is God himself. If we think rationally, we can see that it is any object of desire. But whatever it is, it never comes to an end.

14.                   “The subject of play is not Godot but waiting”. Do you agree?

Yes. I do agree the observation. To prove the point, i would like to say that if they are given whatever they want, it would come as an end. What we have to do in life is to fill up the time with whatever the thing. If godot would have come, they will left with nothing to do.

15.                   Do you think that plays like this can better be read than viewed?

Yes. Because in the play point will come where we have to stop, go back and think. Watching movie is frequent process and it does not allow us to do so.

16.                   I like the most – conversation of Vladimir with boy.

17.                   Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence? Where?

Yes. While they talked on hanging their selves on the tree but did not follow the thing, and goes with the absurd conversation, at that time i felt something like that.

18.                   Idea of suicide in Existentialism??

This is already mentioned in answer 11 & 17.

19.                   How does conversation go in act 2? Is there any change seeming similar situation and conversation? What is it? What does it signify?

In another act, we do not find any major changes as such. Same things happen again. What changes come is thus – the barren tree have got some leaves, Vladimir have grown wiser than yesterday, whereas Estragon have got no changes. Pozzo goes blind and lucky goes dumb.

It signifies that we think that nothing changes as such but change plays its role so silently that we do not recognise it until it gets giant.

Thank you sir.