Waiting for Godot is in fact a traditional and burlesque farce. Burlesque, by definition, is “a literary or dramatic work that ridicules a subject, either by presenting a solemn subject in an undignified style, or an inconsequential subject in a dignified style” and is beautifully rendered in Waiting for Godot. Farce is such a dramatic work in which highly unlikely plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often elements of slapstick are used to create humor and mocking themes. Throughout Godot’s wait we witness these structural associations that reflect the “theater of the absurd.”
Samuel Beckett’s plays contain many comic features, but they are not comedies in the usual sense, and are unlikely to be laughed at by audiences. Often our laughter in a comedy implies a feeling of liberation in response to the transgression of some rule of social conduct enacted by the actor. This is not the kind of response Beckett is trying to elicit. The norms of social conduct treated in the comedy of manners, for example, or the mistaken identities and misunderstandings of farce do not occur in Beckett’s world because they are based on the individual’s participation in society. Financial, social, or psychological aspirations are conditioned by the social group, and this perspective is not relevant to Beckett’s theme. At a more basic level, it deals with man as a rational animal, or with the isolated existence of an individual in time.
However, Beckett’s works have many elements that are in effect, or by traditional association, comic. These elements, such as clown characters, slapstick action, and cross talk, are a staple of many of Beckett’s works. In considering why he uses them, we must look at the effect they have on the audience and the contribution they make to the work as a whole.
A dualism is evident in the dialogue of Beckett’s works more in the nature of the characters. Many exchanges have a funny comedic aspect, but with a more serious subtext. In Waiting for Godot and Endgame in particular, there are many scenes where the characters communicate in a form of cross-talk derived from the music-hall double act. Most of the dialogue in Waiting for Godot is in this form, and the technique was taken up and used by Harold Pinter in many of his works.
Cross-talk is fast, simple and direct. We don’t have time to contemplate or digest what is being said, but the joke hits us as we try to keep up with the two speakers. By borrowing the form, Beckett not only borrows the comedy, but also emphasizes his philosophical points with equal speed and force.
In Beckett’s hands, crosstalk becomes a cheap and powerful way to manipulate ideas.
Vladimir: You must be happy too, deep down, if only you knew.
Estragon: Happy of what?
Vladimir: To be with me again.
Estragon: Would you say that?
Vladimir: Say you are, even if it’s not true.
Estragon: What am I going to say?
Vladimir: Say, I am happy.
Estragon: I’m happy.
Vladimir: Me too.
Estragon: Me too.
Vladimir: We are happy.
Estragon: We are happy (silence). What do we do now, now that we are happy?
Vladimir: Wait for Godot.
Beckett amuses his audience while at the same time demolishing one of the most well-known answers to the question of what gives value to human life.
Vladimir and Estragon, alone on stage, depend on each other as touchstones to try to maintain some relationship with reality and preserve their sanity.
Tarragon; I asked you a question.
Vladimir: Oh!
Estragon: Did you answer?
Vladimir: How is the carrot?
Tarragon: It’s a carrot.
Vladimir: All the better, all the better. What was it you wanted to know?
Estragon: I have forgotten.
In the context of a music-hall double act, such an exchange would elicit laughter from the audience. In the context of Waiting for Godot it’s fun, but there’s so much more to it because it’s built into the themes of the play. The speed of the exchange seems indicative of a state of insecurity. Each expression demands an immediate response, as if there were no time to think and no mental energy to ponder or consider the meanings.
Their existence seems limited to the present, as they literally live and think from moment to moment, their immediate concerns too pressing for them to attempt to relate their situation to a larger context. Rapid memory loss is itself an indication of a state of insecurity and unreality. They cannot grasp any form of conception of their condition, and without certainties to relate to their memories they cannot function properly.
Many of Beckett’s devices take on meaning by implicit contrast with their original context. For example, Estragon’s pants falling off refers to a whole convention in the theater, the farce. Beckett’s theater is also fiction, of course, but he brought new meanings to the theater and emphasized its novelty in part by reminding us of what it was not. Waiting for Godot is not a melodrama, a farce, a tragedy, a music-hall act, or any other familiar form of theatrical entertainment. It was something new, now generally known as the Theater of the Absurd.
The break with tradition seems to be one of the points of Pozzo’s comic entry. When Waiting for Godot was first performed, the audience must have been “waiting for the actors” and “waiting for the drama.” When Pozzo arrives, you might have thought a real actor had finally arrived and the drama would begin, but actually his arrival is a great anticlimax.
Pozzo: (scary voice) I’m Pozzo! (Pause) Well! (Silence) Does that name mean nothing to you?
He is ‘an actor’, but he is out of place on this stage. His melodramatic style fails in this world of empty waiting. His acting style, like his attitudes, is old-fashioned and irrelevant, and his importance to Vladimir and Estragon, as well as to the audience, extends little beyond helping time pass faster.
By implicitly discarding traditional forms of theater in this way, Beckett increased the impact with which his plays were able to address his view of the reality of life in the 20th century.
conclusion
Thus, Beckett uses comedy in various ways. On the surface, we can have fun, and this will help keep us interested in works that might otherwise become boring. But humor is always just one aspect of a statement that, whether by its content, its implied meaning, or its implied relationship to other dramatic forms, has a deeper meaning for the meaning of the play and, through the play, For our lives. . Therefore, we can safely conclude that Waiting for Godot is structurally based on traditional and burlesque farce.