Critically analyzing Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ with respect to Russian Formalism.
According to Russian formalism, any work of
literature can be read as a form oriented work. It should be of an autonomous
domain, in an enclosed universe and not related to extrinsic systems. To a
Russian formalist, form and meaning are inseparable and no literary work is
insignificant. We are going to employ techniques like close reading,
de-familiarization, construction of language, structure and the Boris
Tomashevsky approach to analyse the play Waiting
for Godot with respect to Russian formalism.
Russian formalists
majorly look into the structure of a literary work as one of its key critical
components. The play is divided into two acts with identical action and
setting. The almost identical acts suggest a repetitive cycle which continues
throughout the play. Waiting for Godot
is a tragicomedy play of an absurdist nature containing a dominant theme of
existentialism. Being an absurdist play, it highly draws attention to the
concept of de-familiarization. It is replete with aspects of de-familiarization
with respect to the forms and features. An artistic technique of the twentieth
century, framed by Victor Shklovsky, it is an artful aspect of a work that
causes the reader to intensify the attention, aid to the text and to look again
at an image in an effort to take in the unexpected. It may make the familiar
seem strange and awaken the reader to new experiments and understanding. The
de-familiarization in this piece of work is taken to such an extent that even
major events are rendered meaningless. There are many consequential instances which
are supposed to make sense but seem unfamiliar. The anti-conventional form of
the play is quite strange and different from the traditional form of a play.
The similarity in action and plot in it makes it difficult to understand. The
plot has a circular and parallel structure, having four identical structures in
the two acts. Repetition is a prime factor in the play. The main characters
Vladimir and Estragon, are alone in the setting, whereas Pozzo and Lucky keep
arriving and departing. During their wait for Godot, a messenger boy arrives
and departs the scene rendering Estragon and Vladimir alone and this is
continued in act two again without variation, hence making the play perfectly
parallel and the structure circular.
Similarly,
de-familiarization can be detected in the setting too. The setting of the play
isn’t conventional and brings out the tragicomedy in the play. The readers have
absolutely no idea where Estragon and Vladimir are, neither in time nor in
place. The set is basic and monotonous. It gives a melancholic and tragic feel.
Act one opens with the description of a barren country road with a single
leafless tree and rocky ground with small mounds and trenches. The place is
deserted and unrecognized, alienating the readers. The minimally described
setting of the play focuses on only the actors and the tree. Props like the
vegetables and rope add to this minimalistic description. The presence of the
tree and the mound are impotent, hence showcasing the de-familiarization in the
setting.
When talking about
de-familiarization, the two key terms coined by Boris Tomashevsky- ‘Fabula’
(story) and ‘Syuzhet’ (plot) are of great importance. The play comprises of
many absurdist elements, therefore failing to run along the lines of a
conventional fabula. The fabula of Waiting
for Godot is divided in two acts with multiple syuzhet. Different plotlines
like that of Vladimir and Estragon; the cross talks and dialogues in the
parallel structure make up for one plot altogether. Similarly, the monosyllabic
conversation between Pozzo and Lucky is another plot. The gerede between all
the four characters constitute a plotline while the talk about Godot and
waiting for him, along with the interruptions by the messenger boys, is yet
another plotline. The syuzhet has a de-familiarizing effect in the play as the
actions and dialogues of the actors don’t have any momentous role and don’t
contribute to enhance a reader’s life.
The characters of the
play are seemingly difficult to understand. A very important element in absurdist
theatre is the characterization in the play. The characters in Waiting for
Godot aren’t traditional characters and have no substantial significance
throughout the play. Godot, despite being physically absent plays the role of a
major character; Vladimir and Estragon appear to be waiting for him. His
identity is not certain and he is assumed to be a ‘God-like figure’ and also
represents a psychological and physical wait for time.Vladimir and Estragon,
who seem to be endlessly waiting for Godot, are made out to be the protagonists
of the play and have a constant stage presence. Their waiting for an unknown
entity in the barren land and mannerisms in speech and action give a prominent
sense of de-familiarization. Their childlike behavior, repetition of each
other’s dialogues and action, signs of mental and physical decay and make them
unique consequential characters. Pozzo and Lucky have a master-slave
relationship. Lucky is presented more like a clown than a person; he is a dog
doing tricks for his master, stripped of dignity and autonomy. Pozzo, on the
other hand, is an arrogant master to Lucky and represents the clear class
divide between them. He seems to be living in the aristocratic era and is
ignorant of his circumstances. Hence, the relationships between the characters
are bizarre.
Another essential part
of the analysis is the language of the play. The nothingness and absurdity of
life, a man’s inability and refusal to make choices and to initiate action is
not only transmitted through the lack of plot and setting but also through
language. The monotonous and contradictory dialogue with repetitive vocabulary,
pronoun shifts and all other comic effects fail to respect their function of
communication because they do not convey any factual meaning and thus cannot
give any significance to a nonsensical universal. Throughout the play there are
several cases of breakdown of communication and speech disintegration. Vladimir
and Estrgaons’ cross-talks and pointless conversations along with Pozzo’s
monosyllabic commands to Lucky are examples of the above. The perfect example
of breakdown of communication comes from Lucky’s speech. “…Acacacacademy
Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard…” Although there are
moments when the characters try to break through this cycle of endless waiting
and to make sense of their existence. Vladimir’s monologue in Act two
highlights his effort to break this cycle and brings out the theme of
existentialism, even though his momentum is lost immediately. Yet another
example of breakdown in communication would be the number of pauses and silence
between their dialogues. Therefore, there is no logic and sequence between
dialogue and actions of the characters.
In conclusion, the
formalist approach seeks to provoke the reader to be more thoughtful in acting
and reading, which seems to have been practiced in the play.
Comments
Post a Comment