6th
Semester, Paper- ENG-HC-6016 (Modern European Drama)
Ghosts by- Henrik
Ibsen
1.
What
sort of memorial is Mrs. Alving building to honor the late Captain?
Ans. An orphan asylum.
2. Who fathered Regina? Or Who is Regina's actual
father?
Ans.
Captain Alving
3. Before she married Captain Alving, whom was Mrs.
Alving most interested in?
Ans. Pastor Manders
4.
Where
did Ibsen live most of his life?
Ans. Italy and Germany.
5.
What
does Oswald do by profession?
Ans. He is a painter.
6.
Why
is Regina hesitant to join Mrs. Alving and Oswald for champagne?
Ans. She does not want to forget
her place as a servant.
7. Why does Oswald return home?
Ans. He feels ill and wants to
honour his father’s memorials.
8.
What
is Jakob Engstrand by profession?
Ans. A carpenter.
9. Who is the last person to leave the ruins of the
asylum?
Ans. Oswald
10.
How
does Mrs. Alving first learn that Oswald is flirting with Regina?
Ans. She hears Regina resisting
him in the dinning room.
11. How does Oswald first appear in the play ‘Ghost’?
Ans. Smoking a pipe.
12.
What
does Oswald carry in order to be ready for emergencies?
Ans. Morphine pills
13. Ibsen was part of a late 19th-century artistic
Renaissance in which country?
Ans. Norway
14.
What
field did Ibsen abandon in order to write plays?
Ans. Medicine
15. What makes Regina not interested in working at the
sailor's establishment her supposed father, Jakob Engstrand, wants to open?
Ans. Pride in her job.
16.
What
does Mrs. Alving tell the pastor was her reason for sending her son, Oswald,
away?
Ans. She wanted to save him from
his father.
17. Despite her husband's immorality, Mrs. Alving has
done what to memorialize Captain Alving?
Ans. Established a orphanage.
18.
Who
is Regina’s supposed father?
Ans. Jakob Engstrand.
19. What does Mrs. Alving say about her motives for
marrying Captain Alving?
Ans. She married for money.
20.
How much money did Johanna get from
Mrs. Alving to leave and marry Engstrand?
Ans. $ 3000
21.
Discuss Ibsen’s ‘Ghost’ as a
Problem play
Or, Discuss Ibsen’s
‘Ghost’ as a Social play
Or, Discuss Ibsen’s
‘Ghost’ as a realistic play
Or, Henrik Ibsen’s ‘Ghost’ is the mirror of modern society. Give
well reasoned answer.
Or, Discuss how Ibsen presents the social realism in his play
‘Ghost’.
Ans. Henrik Ibsen was known as one of
our first modern realistic playwrights. He had taught men that drama; if it was
to live a true life of its own must deal with human emotions, with things near
and dear to ordinary men and women. He wrote plays in the late 19th century,
which were attempts to deal with real social issues in a realistic manner- a manner
which portrayed real people with real language in real settings. He wanted the
audiences to believe in his characters and situations so they could not avoid
what he had to say about it or the challenges to their values which his plays
presented. His plays were usually volatile investigations into topical social
problems. As a result Ibsen is commonly held to be: a social playwright.
The problem play is a form of
drama that emerged during the 19th century as part of the wider movement of
realism in the arts, especially following the innovations of Henrik Ibsen. It
deals with contentious social issues through debates between the characters on
stage, who typically represent conflicting points of view within a realistic
social context. Ibsen wrote ‘Ghosts’ in 1881. When first produced it created
uproar from audiences and critics alike because of its uncompromising treatment
of a taboo subject venereal disease. The play deals with family threads of
sexual promiscuity, insanity and motherly suffocation.
As in most of Ibsen's problem
plays, Ghosts begins at the collective climax in the lives of its characters.
The play deals only with the consequences of these past lives and does not need
to take place in more than one twenty-four hour vigil. Although the relationships
among the characters are close and lifelong, only the crowding of emotions and
events within these three acts forces each one to face the truth about himself
and about his society.
Each family has its skeleton in the cupboard. Thus, Alving’s cupboard
would have been better never to open. We meet this family on the pages of
the Ghost, a famous play written by a prominent Norwegian
playwriter, Henrik Ibsen. This author is known for his desire to make the world
face the problems that exist in modern society. Thus, his play, Ghost,
continued to arouse issues of morality, making people plunge into consideration
over the shameful facts that they are eager to hide. But when the cupboard of
the modern society was overfilled with skeletons and ready to boast, Henrik
Ibsen set it ajar to bring light on those dark secrets.
Though the whole play is centered on the life of one family and their
inner circle of friends, it appears to be a model of modern society. All the
secrets that the Alvings had to face and tried to hide are the reflection of
the social problems. It became impossible to keep those skeletons hidden
anymore. They seemed to revive in the ghost of Mr. Alving shameful past the
invisible presence of which was spoiling the life of everyone who was connected
to it. Perhaps, the playwriter was so disappointed in the society so much that
he felt that there was no way for it to get rid of its ghosts. It sank into
problems and sins too much. We may consider his play to be a warning against
destructive processes that threaten to ruin the world.
Mrs. Alving
had been keeping the secret of her husband’s true nature for so long that when
she dared to reveal the truth, it appeared to be too late because she and her
son’s lives had been already destroyed. She tried to save her child, Oswald,
from his father’s influence. She was afraid that he could inherit the same
character and uncontrollable desire to philander. However, Oswald got a fatal
disease because of his father’s lifestyle. No matter how hard Mrs. Alving tried
to reduce her husband’s influence; the destiny decided quite the opposite and
gave a blow, she could not return.
Mr. Alving’s dark past interfered in all spheres of the family’s life.
Mrs. Alving tried to build an orphanage as a tribute to her husband and as a
try to atone his sins. But Mrs. Alving’s attempt to burry Alving’s evil
influence under a monument of hypocrisy did not succeed because the building
was burned down. It seems that the ghost of Mr. Alving did not want to be
forgotten, and the truth was eager to reveal. It would be a pretense to glorify
a person who was not worthy of it.
Mrs Alving’s character shows the
limited freedom and choice for women in nineteenth-century conventional
society. Her marriage is a financial calculation made by others; her duty is to
sacrifice herself to her husband, her actions are policed. Despite this she is
presented as thoughtful in her view that law and order is the cause of all the
trouble in the world, and her acceptance of her own cowardice in the face of Manders’
defence of duty and responsibility. She also demonstrates independent
judgement, sending her son away even though this sacrifice casts her as a bad
mother and in her real motivation for building the orphanage. Mrs Alving’s
opinions are her emancipation; it is precisely her vocalising that combats the
hypocrisy and conventionality of such respectable pillars
as the Pastor. Yet any view of her as a heroine is simplistic, her concern
regarding reputation preserves the appearance at the expense of truth, and she
is too often silenced by her pragmatism.
This play is a great example of
not only the moral problems in the society but of a generation gap, a failure
of fathers and children to understand one another. We face the conflict between
Regina, Mr. Alving’s illegitimate daughter, and her step-father Mr. Engstrand
on the first pages of the Ghost that
reveals this problem as well as true two-faced nature of this girl. The tragedy
of the situation was deepened with the fact that Oswald and Regina fell in love
with each other. Thus, I suppose Ibsen tried to show the whole fatality of the
situation and necessity to end the sufferings of the main characters.
However, the
play ends abruptly when Mrs. Alving is looking for a fatal dose of morphine to
her son, who lost his mind because of his disease. I see it as a sign that
social problems will never be solved, and there is no salvation of them. Thus,
this agony will be eternal. Moral issues, their destructive influence, and
generation problems revealed in the Ghost made this play an awful reflection
of the contemporary world. Ibsen presents no concrete solution; he challenges
us to reflect on ourselves and our own societies.
Finally, we can
say that Ghosts is a revolutionary play which sceptically
challenges those social truths assumed to be self-evident. Character and plot
explore bourgeois morality and its consequences. Ghosts was initially constructed as an attack
upon marriage. Irony is consistently used to scrutinise religion, class, and
gender relations as pillars of society. The symbolic use of ghosts does not
simply refer to legacies of guilt and the central characters’ burdens; it is
symbolic of the haunting, decaying value system which remains in the present
though it belongs in the past.
The Cherry Orchard By- Anton Chekhov
1. What happened to Mrs. Ranevsky's son Grisha?
Ans. He drowned in a nearby
river.
2. What is Varya's relation to Mrs. Ranevksy?
Ans. She is the adopted daughter
of Mrs. Ranevsky.
3. What does Lopakhin suggest Ranekvsy do with the cherry
orchard?
Ans. Cut it down and build
cottages on the land.
4.
Why
does Dunyasha think Yasha is lucky?
Ans. Because she has travelled
abroad.
5. What, according to Trofimov, is the main problem
with Russian intellectuals?
Ans. They talk about ideas, but
never act on them.
6. Who walks by, playing the guitar, just before the
"sound of a breaking string" is heard for the first time?
Ans. Yephikodov
7. What is Yephikodov's nickname?
Ans. Simple Simon
8.
When
was the "sound of a snapping string" last heard, according to Firs?
Ans. Just before the serfs were
freed.
9. Where does Varya plan to go after she leaves the
estate?
Ans. To the Regulins’.
10.
In
what room of the estate house does the play begin?
Ans. The Nursery.
11. According to what Dunyasha tells Lopakhin, what has
Simon Yephikodov done to her?
Ans. Proposed to her.
12.
Who
died, causing Mrs. Ranevsky to leave Russia for Paris?
Ans. Her husband and her son.
13. For what purpose does Lopakhin offer Ranevsky a loan
of 50,000 rubles?
Ans. To buy the estate of cherry
orchard.
14.
Who
does Ranevsky mistakenly claim to see walking through the cherry orchard?
Ans. Her deceased mother.
15. According to Varya, who has been taking over the
estate's empty servant quarters?
Ans. Tramps.
16.
What
is Yepikhidov doing while he, Charlotte, Yasha, and Dunyasha talk on a bench
near an abandoned chapel?
Ans. Playing a guitar.
17. What does Dunyasha confess while Yepikhidov is going
to fetch her cape?
Ans. Her love for Yasha.
18.
According
to Gayev, who might send money to help Ranevsky buy back the estate?
Ans. A rich aunt.
19. What "sin" does Ranevsky confess to
Lopakhin and Gayev?
Ans. Adultery.
20.
Who
robbed Ranevsky after she sold her villa in Menton?
Ans. Her lover.
21. What kind of offer does Ranevsky insists Gayev
refuse?
Ans. A job offer.
22.
When
Lopakhin asks Trofimov what he thinks of him, what does Trofimov call him?
Ans. A beast of prey.
23. What does Ranevsky give the drunken man who stops by
to ask for directions?
Ans. Gold pieces.
24.
Who
has gone to the auction to buy the estate for Ranevsky using her aunt's money?
Ans. Gayev.
25. What does Charlotte do to entertain the guests at
Ranevsky's party?
Ans. Performs magic tricks.
26.
At
Ranevsky's party, who teases Varya about her being in love with Lopakhin?
Ans. Trofimov.
27. Convinced that Lopakhin will never propose, where
does Varya claim she would go, if only she had a few rubles?
Ans. A convent.
28.
What
does Anya promise that the family will do to console Ranevsky for the loss of
the estate?
Ans. Plant another cherry
orchard.
29. What does Lopakhin buy for the Ranevsky household to
mark the occasion of their departure?
Ans. Champagne.
30.
To
whom does Ranevsky give her entire purse of money before leaving the estate?
Ans. Some peasants.
31. After refusing Lopakhin's offer of a forty-thousand
ruble loan, what does Trofimov claim to be?
Ans. A free man.
32. Before leaving the estate for the last time, who
does Yephikodov claim to envy?
Ans. Firs
33.
Where
will Ranevsky go after leaving the estate?
Ans. Paris.
34. Where will Ranevsky go after leaving the estate?
Ans. He is ill.
35.
What
sound ends the play?
Ans. An axe striking wood.
36. What fatal disease was Chekhov suffering from at the
time he wrote The Cherry Orchard?
Ans. Tuberculosis.
37.
Where
is Ranevsky coming from when she arrives at the estate with her entourage?
Ans. Paris.
38. What's to be sold at an auction on the 22nd of
August, to pay for the family's debts?
Ans. The cherry orchard.
39.
In
which play the three young characters involved in a love triangle?
The cherry orchard.
40. Who do the play's main characters accidentally leave
to die in the final scene of ‘The Cherry Orchard’?
Ans. Firs.
41.
What
is the job of Ranevsky's adopted daughter, Varya?
Ans. Estate manager.
42. What is Lopakhin's nickname for Trofimov?
Ans. The eternal student.
43.
Who sends Madame Ranevsky
telegrams?
Ans. Her lover.
44. Name the two characters that are with debts in the
play ‘The Cherry Orchard’.
Ans. Madam Ranevsky and Pishtchik.
45. Dunyasha is proposed to by ………………….
Ans. Ephikhodof
46. Over how much time does the play stretch?
Ans. Five months.
47. Discuss the problems of Race, Class and Labor Reign of the 20th-century Russia in ‘The Cherry Orchard’.
Or, Discuss the social realism in ‘The Cherry
Orchard’.
Or, Discuss the themes of ‘The Cherry Orchard’.
Ans.
The Cherry Orchard was the last
play written by the famous Russian playwright and short story writer, Anton
Chekhov. Chekhov wrote the play between the years of 1901 and 1903. The play
premiered on January 17, 1904, on Anton Chekhov's 44th and final birthday.
Though suffering from tuberculosis, Chekhov was able to attend The
Cherry Orchard's premiere at the
Moscow Art Theatre just five months before his death. The story of The
Cherry Orchard was greatly influenced by the social changes in Russia
during the 1800s. Anton Chekhov's childhood was characterized by the rule of
Tsar Alexander II.
The plot unfolds at a springtime gathering of old friends,
relatives, servants and hangers-on at the ancestral estate owned by the once
wealthy Lyubov Andreyevna Ranevaskaya. Ranevaskaya, her brother Gaev (Peter
Crook), daughter Anya (Ayo Tushinde) and extended entourage are returning from
Paris where Ranevaskaya has squandered most of the family’s vast fortune.
Waiting to greet the returning ‘masters’ is Lopakhin (Brandon Simmons), a
descendant of serfs turned millionaire businessman, lifelong butler Firs (Mark
Jenkins) and Ranevaskaya’s adopted daughter Varya (Sydney Andrews). The estate,
along with the all-important cherry orchard, is due to be auctioned off,
because Ranevaskaya can’t pay the bills. Lopakhin, who longs to feel a part of
this aristocratic family, and works tirelessly to distance himself from his
peasant origins, offers a sound business plan for Ranevaskaya: transform the
cherry orchard into small plots of land for summer homes to pay off the debts.
While the future of the estate is in question, the flighty and idealistic Anya
falls in love with Trofimov (Spencer Hamp), a budding revolutionary firebrand
and perpetually failing university student. The minor characters—and yes, no
matter what other reviewers have told you (Seattle Times), there are minor
characters—orbit around these two dominant plot lines, to fill in Chekhov’s
world of turn-of-the-20th-century Russia.
The Cherry Orchard, more than any other Chekhov play, centers on one concern:
how a fading aristocracy faces the material, political and psychological
struggles of modernity. More specifically, The Cherry Orchard deals with the changing boundaries between
upper- and under- classes after the freedom of the serfs in 1861. This upended
Russia’s feudal agricultural system, which relied on the labor of slaves
who were turned to serfs (unfree peasants), and fueled the economy of empire.
The rise of a middle class, and the powder-keg geopolitical climate before the
Russian Revolution of 1905, provide the primary contexts for The Cherry
Orchard. The play is also chock-full of comedy – though Konstantin
Stanislavski, the original director of the play and acting methods guru, dealt
with it as a tragedy.
It’s impossible to do this play without sensitivity towards its
historical context. For example, Trofimov as a character reflects the
anti-government sentiments of Russian academia of the time, which favored
workers’ rights, individual liberty and radical anti-Tsarism. The academy
helped spur on the active phase of the Russian Revolution of 1905, including
the strike at the Putilov plant and St. Petersburg’s infamous Bloody Sunday,
military mutinies and peasant unrest. This brings me to what is perhaps the
most inspired, and risky, innovation offered by the ensemble: its desire
to compare Russian serfdom with US plantation slavery. This is hinted at from
the show’s stunning musical opening, in which the hidden ensemble sings the American
lullaby, ‘All the Pretty Little Horses,’ where a black nanny sings to her white
master’s child about her own, neglected black child. The racialized,
comparative exploration continues with two crucial episodes. First, a
conversation between Trofimov and Anya vis-à-vis serf-owning in the cherry
orchard. Second, Lopakhin’s reaction to his purchase of the estate and orchard.
It should be noted that both Anya (Tushinde) and Lopakhin (Simmons) are
mixed-race actors of black ancestry.
Anya and Trofimov’s conversation presents an interesting
opportunity to manage issues of class, gender, and race simultaneously. As the
scene is written, Trofimov poetically man-splains to Anya that her ancestors
were all “serf-owners, they all owned living souls … to own human souls—can’t
you see how this has transformed each and every one of us”? Instead of Trofimov
speaking these lines, in this production Anya takes them, and shows
a heightened consciousness about her family, and the dark historical
underbelly of the cherry orchard itself, whose cultivation depends on
exploitation. This line swap gives Anya an uncanny awareness (as a woman of
color) that the other (white) women in her family lack. This swap also
diffuses the sexist politics of Trofimov, as the educated man, leading the
ignorant woman to her social and intellectual transformation. Ultimately, I’m
not sure Anya is able to carry the weight of the speech, or that it even makes
sense to switch the lines. Anya’s heightened awareness, found only in these
co-opted words, contradicts her flighty, privileged perspective elsewhere in
the play, that is indeed subjected to Trofimov’s mini-lectures on exploitation
of labor and the need for liberty. The racial optics of this scene, however,
are effective. Regardless of who speaks the soul-owning lines, the casting of
Anya (as a woman of color) does the symbolic heavy lifting. Though perhaps a
bit frustrating with Anya’s overall character arc in mind, the scene worked for
me.
On the surface, this transnational comparison seems on point:
emancipation of blacks enslaved in the US came at essentially the exact
historical moment the serfs were freed. However, Russian serfs were deeply
connected to the customs, nationality, and religious practices of Russia, where
black American slaves were decidedly (perhaps necessarily) set apart. Since
race was used to justify enslavement of blacks in the US and class was what
kept the serf/noble paradigm in place in Russia, I’m not entirely
sure that a one-for-one correlation succeeds in this production. For
example, Simmons as Lopakhin seemed to play vindictiveness rather than surprise
or elation when announcing his having purchased the estate. His wild dancing,
taunting and stomping run counter to the text and made his final scene, where
he attempts to share a celebratory toast with the family and nearly proposes to
Varya, more or less unplayable. His disconnection from the peasant class is,
the original script suggests, motivated by a sense of camaraderie and longing
to be considered a legitimate member of the upper class. Here, Simmons’s
powerfully-delivered speech, highly effective on its own terms, seems instead
the fruit of a calculated scheme to ‘stick it to the masters’ and honor his
serf-born forefathers by buying the estate out from under the white
Ranevaskaya. I commend the cast for making race a factor Anya and Lopakhin’s
actions. These performance and casting decisions make for stimulating viewing
and should help to foster critical debate. Although the text is a critique of
class, not race, it’s arguably not worth nit-picking in our current American
political climate, where questions of class and racial conflict are heavily
intertwined, and equity demands center stage.
These intersecting issues of race, class and labor themselves
justify The Seagull Project’s 18-month rehearsal process! The ensemble proves
that there is extraordinary value in being diligent students of theatrical and
historical through lines. They also keep true to their credo that doing the
exhausting work of building strong character relationships makes the heart of
the show. Here, Briskman’s Ranevaskaya and Crook’s Gaev stand out. Perhaps the
most striking moment of interpersonal connection comes as Gaev and Ranevaskaya
stand ready to finally leave the estate for good. The emotional weight of
Chekhov’s social critique of the aristocracy, and the tender love between two
aging siblings, come crashing into one another. Crook and Briskman find a
special connection that is difficult to cultivate in a few short hours on
stage. They convince the audience of a precious and complex familial history,
and tell us stories from the past in a time and place we do not understand.
At the end of the play when Trofimov and Anya leave for Moscow,
the actors, and the audience, should feel certain that they are headed, as the
rest of the country, towards the revolution. The play is about the necessary
death of a social, political, and economic system that profits from the
sustained disenfranchisement of a laboring class. Trofimov and Anya aren’t just
courting in the orchard; they’re the seeds of the revolution. Lopakhin isn’t
simply swelling his financial empire in purchasing the estate; he’s the
democratizing landownership. Ranevaskaya and Gaev are mourning more than just
the loss of their childhood home; they’re offering an elegy to the aristocracy
of the 20th-century Russia.
48. “The Cherry Orchard” as Political
and Social Play by Anton Chekhov.
Or,
Discuss ‘The Cherry Orchard’ as a play of social change.
Ans. The
play “The Cherry Orchard” focuses on the importance of socialism and change
which is regarded as one of the most discussed political and social plays. It
was written at the time of the downfall of the aristocracy and the rise of the
middle class in Russia. The noble class was enjoying the luxuries of life
without doing anything; it even was not paying taxes. Serfs were there to work
for them. The communist revolution ended in the year 1917 but its beginning was
very vital. Russia witnessed social and political change. The middle class
started feeling proud of their class as many nobles were unable to defend their
estates.
Russia was divided into two main
classes. The first class was of serfs whereas the second was of aristocrats.
The life of serfs was miserable. They were working hard but gaining nothing. On
the other hand, aristocrats were doing nothing yet their life was prosperous.
Play “The Cherry Orchard” demonstrate social and political change with respect
to these two classes. Lopakhin represents the class of serfs whereas Mrs
Ranevsky represents the aristocratic class. The play starts when Lopakhin
becomes a good businessman. Ranevsky’s estate is going to be auctioned. Indeed,
the play “The Cherry Orchard” is about the social and political conditions of
Russia in those days.
Feudalism was at its peak and the
middle class was wretched due to their worst behaviour. Thus a change was
required. The middle class raised voices against it and remained successful in
throwing away the pride of the noble class. It is evident from this play. The
character of Lopakhin can be referred to here. His ancestors were serfs. They
were working hard for Ranevsky’s family even though they were living miserable
life. After the social and political change in Russia, improvement in
Lopakhin’s condition is witnessed. He has new ideas. He can think freely. His
lifestyle has improved. He himself is getting the fruits of his labour instead
of giving them to his masters as he and his forefathers used to. On the other
hand, the Ranevsky family is in danger. In order to pay large taxes, they need
money. In case of failure, Ranevsky’s estate would be auctioned. Similarly,
Boris Simeonov Pishchik is also facing the same problem; however, he manages to
save his estate with the help of Mrs Ranevsky. Anton Chekhov captured a clear picture
of Russian society in “The Cherry Orchard” and showed the social and political
change in Russia in this play.
Some other elements of the play
also indicate a change in Russia. For instance, time and again industrial
development has been symbolized. In order to pay the debts, Lopakhin suggests
the Ranevsky family cut down the cherry orchard and make small plots for
industrial purposes. This idea actually symbolizes the industrial revolution in
Russia. Small gardens and orchards were cut. Plots were made and used for
industrial purposes. Similarly, we see railway tracks were added in order to
upgrade rural areas to urban areas. The middle class was in hurry to cooperate
in this regard. For example, at the end of the play when Lopakhin purchases the
estate, he immediately cuts down the orchard. He adopts the same solution to
pay taxes that he once gave to Mrs Ranevsky. Sounds of axes can be heard at the
end of the play. Thus, the middle class was in much hurry to cooperate with the
State.
The aristocratic class on the
other hand was not happy due to this sudden change. Mrs Ranevsky’s character
was remarkable in this regard. She did not consider this change favourable. She
was of the view that it had completely destroyed her along with many other
noble families. Every noble family was resisting change. Their properties were
in danger. These properties were going to be auctioned for the welfare of the
State. They had very less time to enjoy the lavishness and comforts. Mrs
Ranevsky knew that after the auction, she needed to work hard in order to
survive. Anton Chekhov also sheds light on the responsibilities of both social
classes. Irresponsible behaviour of the noble class could be observed whereas
the middle class was much more responsible. Negligence of feudal class had been
presented in “The Cherry Orchard” through Mrs Ranevsky’s character. Thus, many
incidents are there in the play which prove that “The Cherry Orchard” had been
written keeping in view the social and political change in Russia.
In order to prove a political and
social change in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, Peter Trofimov is significant.
He critically evaluates every situation in Russia. Dialogues as well as
speeches of this character indicate the political environment of Russia.
Through his dialogues, he constantly emphasizes the value of work as the
salvation of Russia and convinces Anya that the whole of Russia is her orchard.
Soviet critics after the Russian Revolution of 1917 latched onto the character
of Trofimov as a literary hero who exemplifies the ideals of socialism, often
citing his speech describing the trees in the orchard as souls. Hence, this
main character helps Anton Chekhov in helping the political and social
condition of Russia in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.
In a nutshell, though “The Cherry
Orchard” seems a mere story of the Ranevsky family yet it is more than that.
The writer has presented the whole of Russian society in it. He depicts the
condition of people whether they belong to the upper class or lower class. Both
types of people have been assessed in this play. Anton Chekhov was a true
Russian. He knew the condition of his people. The biography of Anton Chekhov
reveals that his ancestors were also serfs, therefore, he knew the feelings of
the lower class.
Finally, we can say that the play
“The Cherry Orchard” describes the author’s political and social opinions but
they are not biased. Hence, the play “The Cherry Orchard” has political and social
components. It describes many of the political events but it cannot be said
that it is purely a political or social play. Anton Chekhov cannot surpass
famous dramatists such as Bertolt Brecht, Jean-Paul
Sartre, Robert
Penn Warren etc. in writing social and political plays. It is also true that
the theme of the play is social and political change as many political events
have been mentioned in the play. The audience can see the political and social
conditions of Russia. It has something to say about society. It also reveals
some political unions but the play is not completely a social or political
play.
49.
Discuss the Social Realism in ‘The
Cherry Orchard’.
Ans. The history of the
early twentieth century Russian society is the history of social transition,
transformation. The late 19th century Russian society was struggling to be free
from the shibboleth of the dying feudal aristocracy. In parallel to this
struggle, there was also progressive change which hastened the dawn of a
mercantile middle class.
At
every time in the chapter of social history, a single class can’t maintain its
supremacy and privileged status. With a passage of time the old social order
has to die yielding place to the new emerging social order. No society remains
unchanged. Every society has to transform. Each society is bound to undergo
change as time passes by. It is the very nature of society to undergo change.
This law of social change is applicable universally in the world.
The
late 19th century Russian society witnessed the soaring success of the
capitalist middle class. At every step the middle class was on the rise. At all
point this class was successful. The progressive march of this class was so
strong that no obstacle was going to disturb it. Furthermore, the old feudal
aristocracy was not only on the immediate decline, but on the verge of
extinction without leveling any remnant of it. The old feudal social order was
no longer in a tenable position to dictate its ethos and to impose its ideals
and norms. Surprisingly enough, this class was totally ignorant and un-
habituated to adaptive evolution. A new emerging class was head over heel in
love with change, with progressive social transformation. But the old dying
aristocratic class was allergic to change, antipathetic to change, and
unprepared to embrace the costly social transformation.
In
the play The Cherry Orchard,
Lyobov and Gayev represent the dying aristocracy. Their heavy debt forced them
to put their Orchard in the auction. Their orchard was sure to be lost.
However, there was a route to save it by letting it on lease for the
construction of summer cottages. There was a chance for the virtually dying
class to live a life of adaptation and compromise. But this class was too proud
to let their orchard on lease. Lyubov and Gayev were rather ready to leave the
place that to see others possessing it. They fought their last battle in their
hopeless and unsuccessful attempt to save the orchard. Finally, they failed.
The orchard fell into the much more practical and sensible man, Lopakhin.
Lopakhin
represents the victoriously emerging middle-class. A man of action he believes
in the necessity to take the quick action man of vision he is far busier in the
plan to rise above the underprivileged class through financial and practical
success. Once he belonged to the working class. He was a servant in Lyubov’s
house when he was a child. Through hard- work and practical line of thinking he
succeeded in earning money. With the huge amount of money he earned, he
succeeded in changing himself from the working class to the middle class.
Economically he became so strong that he bought the Cherry Orchard of Lyubov at
auction for the highest purchase. Even the aristocracy was attracted towards
him. Lyubov offered her daughter Varya’s hand to him, but Lopakhin hesitated.
If Lopakhin represents the practical middle class, Trofimov represents the theoretical
and visionary ideals of the class committed to embrace.
The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation. It is a well-known fact that
Russian society
in the early 20th century said goodbye for good to the last vestige of its
deteriorating feudal structure when it expelled Lyobov and Gayev
from their
positions as a result of their inability to maintain their place
in the living of
compromise and adaptation. This fact was illustrated by the fact
that Lyobov
and Gayev were expelled. The feudal nobleman in the majority of
Chekhov's
plays is portrayed as being uninterested, passive, dreamy, and
absurdly perfect.
This kind of classification also demonstrates that this class has no right to
occupy front in the social hierarchy of Russia, which is an important
finding.
People in the middle class are portrayed as being realistic,
logical, laborious,
hard-working, and radical all at the same time. The fact that the dramatist
supports the development of this social group is made clear by the
characterization choice that has been made here
As a result, the drama "The Cherry Orchard" depicts a
social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation. It is a well-known fact that
Russian society
in the early 20th century said goodbye for good to the last vestige of its
deteriorating feudal structure when it expelled Lyobov and Gayev
from their
positions as a result of their inability to maintain their place
in the living of
compromise and adaptation. This fact was illustrated by the fact
that Lyobov
and Gayev were expelled. The feudal nobleman in the majority of
Chekhov's
plays is portrayed as being uninterested, passive, dreamy, and
absurdly perfect.
This kind of classification also demonstrates that this class has no right to
occupy front in the social hierarchy of Russia, which is an
important finding.
People in the middle class are portrayed as being realistic,
logical, laborious,
hard-working, and radical all at the same time. The fact that the dramatist
supports the development of this social group is made clear by the
characterization choice that has been made here.
As a result, the drama "The Cherry Orchard" depicts a
social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation. It is a well-known fact that
Russian society
in the early 20th century said goodbye for good to the last vestige of its
deteriorating feudal structure when it expelled Lyobov and Gayev
from their
positions as a result of their inability to maintain their place
in the living of
compromise and adaptation. This fact was illustrated by the fact
that Lyobov
and Gayev were expelled. The feudal nobleman in the majority of
Chekhov's
plays is portrayed as being uninterested, passive, dreamy, and
absurdly perfect.
This kind of classification also demonstrates that this class has no right to
occupy front in the social hierarchy of Russia, which is an
important finding.
People in the middle class are portrayed as being realistic,
logical, laborious,
hard-working, and radical all at the same time. The fact that the dramatist
supports the development of this social group is made clear by the
characterization choice that has been made here.
As a result, the drama "The Cherry Orchard" depicts a
social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation. It is a well-known fact that
Russian society
in the early 20th century said goodbye for good to the last vestige of its
deteriorating feudal structure when it expelled Lyobov and Gayev
from their
positions as a result of their inability to maintain their place
in the living of
compromise and adaptation. This fact was illustrated by the fact
that Lyobov
and Gayev were expelled. The feudal nobleman in the majority of
Chekhov's
plays is portrayed as being uninterested, passive, dreamy, and
absurdly perfect.
This kind of classification also demonstrates that this class has no right to
occupy front in the social hierarchy of Russia, which is an
important finding.
People in the middle class are portrayed as being realistic,
logical, laborious,
hard-working, and radical all at the same time. The fact that the dramatist
supports the development of this social group is made clear by the
characterization choice that has been made here.
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation.
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation.
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society towards
the tail end
of the 19th century. During that time period, the society was
inching closer and
closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the
reality of the social transformation.
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle
working class and into the middle class. Because of his tremendous
success in
the business world, he was able to outbid everyone else and win
the auction for
the Cherry Orchard of Lyubov. Even members of the elite found
themselves
drawn to him. Although Lyubov gave him her daughter Varya's hand in
marriage, Lopakhin was hesitant to accept it. If Lopakhin symbolises the
pragmatic aspects of the middle class, then Trofimov embodies the
theoretical
and aspirational aspects of the class that is determined to
embrace them.
As a result, the drama "The Cherry Orchard" depicts a
social phenomena that
represents the transition from the traditional, decent feudal order to the fast
increasing commercial and capitalist middle class. The play is an
example of the
social realism literary genre, and it depicts Russian society
towards the tail end
of the 19th century.
"The Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that
represents
"The
Cherry Orchard" depicts a social phenomena that represents the transition
from the traditional, decent feudal order to the
fast increasing commercial and capitalist middle
class. The play is an example of the social realism literary genre and it
depicts the Russian society towards the tail end of the 19th
century. During that time period, the society was inching closer and closer to the change threshold. Chekhov was able to accurately portray the reality of the social
transformations. Ts is a well known fact that Russian society of the early 20th
century said goodbye for good to the last vestige of its deteriorating feudal
structure. People in the middle class are portrayed as being realistic,
logical, laborious, hard-working, and radical all at the same time.
Thus,
in conclusion we can say that the play ‘The Cherry Orchard’ presents a social phenomenon which
exemplifies the old decent feudal order giving way to the rapidly expanding capitalistic
and mercantile middle class. As a mode of social realism the play represents
the Russian society by the end of the 19th century. At that time the society
was moving towards the threshold to change. Chekhov captured the reality
concerning the social transformation. The displacement of Lyobov and Gayev on
account of their failure to stand in the living of compromise and adaptation
illustrates a golden fact that the early 20th century Russian society bade
final adieu to the last remnant of decaying feudal structure. In most of
Chekhov’s plays the feudal aristocrat is presented as bored, passive, dreamy
and ridiculously ideal. This mode of characterization also reveals that this
class has no right to occupy foreground in the social hierarchy of Russia. The
middle class people are depicted as practical, sensible, painstaking, hard-
working and radical as well. This line of characterization displays the fact
that the playwright is in favor for the emergence of this class.
50.
Chekhov’s “The Cherry
Orchard”: Tragedy or Comedy? Justify your answer.
Ans. Whether The Cherry Orchard is
a comedy or tragedy, is a serious and a bit
ambiguous question about this play. Notwithstanding, some lavishly humorous
situations, characters and dialogues, “The
Cherry Orchard” is barely like a comedy in the known sense. And
yet Chekhov exhorted that it was a comedy and in places even a force. The play has been debated for many years with
respect to its style and genre. Neither it could be called a tragedy nor could
it be categorized as a comedy but a combination of both. There are equal tears
and laughter in the play. At one moment it seems like a comic masterpiece but
in the next moment, it becomes tragic. Perhaps, Anton Chekhov blended the
ingredients of the two main genres of drama i.e. tragedy and comedy.
Written in the background of
socio-political changes in Russia, the play "The Cherry Orchard" has
been viewed by critics with tragic aspects of an aristocratic family which
remains unable to save itself from the loss of its beloved estate, yet the
playwright has clearly stated that he meant the play a comedy and farce. In
fact, the play may, perhaps, be viewed as a combination of both. We may
possibly view the play as a tragi-comedy: "a play that combines the
elements of tragedy and comedy, either by providing a happy ending to a
potentially tragic story or by some more complex blending of serious and light
moods...". The play depicts the fall of Russian aristocracy and the
emergence of middle class with the emancipation of the serfs.
It does not make sense when
someone calls Anton Chekhov’s poem The
Cherry Orchard a comedy, but as one progresses to analyze the
book, this idea becomes a reality. The play is centered on Lyubov Andreyevna
whose irresponsible mannerism leads their family into a tragedy of financial
collapse and this forces them to look at what they normally do not care to look
at – losing their ancestral Cherry
Orchard. Besides, the play depicts a lot of contempt for love
since most of its characters such as Varya and Lopahin get disappointed. Also,
the author explores suicide when Firs waits to die on the realization that
everyone else has deserted him in the abandoned house.
At the end of the play, the
author makes one of the main characters, Firs, to feel useless. Indeed, it
sounds absurd when such a play is called a comedy, but Chekhov, who is the author,
believes it is. One of the first people to differ with Chekhov is Konstantin
Stanislavsky, the director of the play, who is convinced the play is a tragedy.
Chekhov is deeply frustrated by the stand of the director that he decides to
destroy the manuscript copies. This conflict between the author and the
director in The Cherry Orchard shall
be explored in this paper, besides determining who is right between the two
men.
Accordingly, many characters in
the play are humorous. For instance, Gaev, the brother of Lyubov, displays a
lot of entertaining gestures when he makes his stand regarding bookcases known.
He humorously honors the bookcase for serving the Justice and the Good for the
past one hundred years. He proceeds with his comedy when he praises the
Divinity and Beauty that the art of nature contains. It is also unrivaled that
Semoyonov is another comical character in the play.
This is evident when he is called
a parasite of a neighbor, swallows the pills that he snatches from Lyubov, and
sleeps frequently while speaking to some of the characters. Comedy is also
apparent when Firs communicates with some of the characters. In fact, his
responses are not only sarcastic but also generate a great sense of humor.
Other episodes of humor are apparent in the play when a character such as
Charlotte Ivanovna responds to no one in particular that her dog also eats
nuts. It even gets more interesting when the author does not develop this
statement of Charlotte.
In line
with the ongoing discussion, The
Cherry Orchard can
be seen as a play with characters of high performance acting by means of fear
to generate some sense of tragedy. These characters undergo all the patterns of
tragic action: suffering and endurance, destruction, and sacrifice. For
example, tragedy befalls Lyubov, Varya, Gaev, and Anya when their Cherry Orchard is destroyed at
the end of the play.
Also, the death of the aging Firs
conveys a strong impression of waste accompanied by misery and emotional
distress. Fittingly, all the above scenes give the play experiences of majestic
sadness in which the whole pleasure of tragedy resides. However, the overall
picture of the character’s extreme actions and their inappropriate responses
within the context of unpromising misunderstanding depicts comedy. Conclusively,
it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanislavsky is wrong when he does not
appreciate The Cherry Orchard as
a comedy.
Resultantly,
it is wrong to say that the play is a pure comedy. It is a hotchpotch of comedy
and tragedy, therefore, to add this play to the list of comedies is totally
unfair and unjustified. A number of actions and dialogues of different
characters are comic but it is sure that the play is not a pure comedy. In
addition to comedy, the play is also sad, gloomy and depressing. In short, the
play can be considered a tragi-comedy rather than pure comedy.
Waiting for Godot By- Samuel Backet
1. Who informs Pozzo and Lucky that Godot won't be
coming on the first day?
Ans. A boy
2. What is Vladimir's nickname?
Ans. Didi
3. What item of Pozzo's does Lucky carry?
Ans. His stool
4. What is the first
thing the audience sees Estragon doing?
Ans. Taking off his boot.
5. Which characters of the New Testament's Gospels are
Estragon and Vladimir discussing at the beginning of the play?
Ans. The two thieves.
6. Where are Estragon and Vladimir supposed to meet
Godot?
Ans. Near the tree.
7. After Estragon
complains he is hungry, what does Vladimir give him?
Ans. A carrot
8. Once Pozzo and Lucky enter, what does Pozzo start
eating?
Ans. Chicken
9. What does Pozzo do
after announcing that it's time to go?
Ans. Smokes a pipe
10. What does Lucky do when Estragon tries to wipe the
tears from his eyes?
Ans. Kicks him.
11. Pozzo tells Vladimir
that Lucky can't think without his ..........................
Ans. Hat
12. After Pozzo and Lucky leave, what part of Estragon's
body begins causing him pain?
Ans. Foot
13. Who bullies the boy
that enters toward the end of Act I?
Ans. Estragon
14. What is different about the tree Vladimir and
Estragon stand by at the beginning of Act II?
Ans. The tree has leaves now.
15. After seeing the tree,
what time of year does Estragon say it must be?
Ans. Spring
16. What is the first vegetable that Vladimir offers to
Estragon?
Ans. Black radish
17. What item of Pozzo and
Lucky's does Vladimir find on the ground after Estragon wakes from his nap?
Ans. Hat
18. As Pozzo crawls away, what is the first name
Estragon calls him that Pozzo responds to?
Ans. Abel
19. After Vladimir and Estragon are finally able to help Pozzo up, why can't Pozzo recognize them?
Ans. He is blind.
20. After the boy enters,
when does he say that Mr. Godot will arrive?
Ans. The next day.
21. Who planned to commit
suicide by jumping off the Eiffel Tower?
Ans. Estragon and Vladimir had, during their
younger days, together planned to commit suicide by jumping off the Eiffel Tower.
But, Vladimir thinks, in their present condition, they would not be allowed to
go up the Eiffel Tower and will thus be denied even the most despairing choice.
22. What year was Samuel
Backett awarded the noble prize?
Ans. 1969
23. What is an absurd
play?
Ans. An absurd play is a play in
which meaninglessness and purposelessness is presented. There is very less
action but dialogues are presented.
24. When and where does
the play ‘Waiting for Godot’ take place?
Ans. ‘Waiting for Godot’ takes
place in the evening time on a country road under the willow tree.
25. What language was the
play ‘Waiting for Godot’ written in?
Ans. French
26. How is ‘Waiting for
Godot’ a tragicomedy?
Ans. The theme of suffering
presents it as tragedy but the elements of comedy like playing with hats,
Lucky’s dance in a net and incoherent speech present it as comedy. Therefore,
the play has both the elements of comedy and tragedy, so , ‘Waiting for Godot’
is a tragicomedy.
27.
‘Waiting
For Godot’ as an absurd play. Justify
your answer.
Ans. The phrase ‘Absurd Drama’ or
‘The Theatre of Absurd’ gained currency after Martin Esslin’s book ‘The Theatre
of Absurd’ was published in 1961. Esslin points out that there is no such thing
as a regular movement of Absurd dramatists. The term is useful as “A device to
make certain fundamental traits which seem to be present in the works of a
number of dramatists accessible to discussion by tracing the features they have
in common.” By ‘Absurd’, Camus meant a life lived solely for its sake in a
universe which no longer made sense because there was no God to resolve the
contradictions. In other words, what Camus called ‘absurd’, Kierkegaard called
‘Despair’. And it is on this philosophy that Beckett created his famous play
‘Waiting for Godot’. Before the genre of Absurd Drama gained popularity in the
hands of Beckett, Adamov, Ionesco and Gennet, plays were characterized by
clearly constructed story and subtlety of characterization and motivation.
However, the absurd plays were characterized by non specific unrecognizable
characters who are presented almost like mechanical puppets. These dramas speak
to a deeper level of the audience’s mind. It challenges the audience to make
sense of non-sense, to face the situation consciously and perceive with
laughter the fundamental absurdity.
Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for
Godot’ belongs to the tradition of the Theatre of Absurd. It was first written
in French and called En attendant Godot. The author himself translated the play
into English in 1954. It is unconventional in not depicting any dramatic
conflicts. In the play, practically nothing happens, no development is to be
found, there is no beginning and no end. The entire action boils down in an
absurd setting of a country side road with two tramps Vladimir and Estragon who
simply idle away their time waiting for Godot, about whom they have only vague
ideas. They have nothing substantial to tell each other and yet they must spend
the time, for they cannot stop waiting. Two other characters, a cruel master
called Pozzo and his half-crazy slave called Lucky appear. Eventually a boy
arrives with a message that Godot will arrive the next day. The two tramps
decide to go away, but they do not move and the curtain falls, eventually
nothing happens. The second act is the replica of the first act, but Pozzo is
now blind and Lucky is dumb. The wait of Vladimir and Estragon continues but in
despair. This monotony characterized the world after the wars and this
condition was captured and depicted in the Theatre of Absurd.
Beckett's Waiting for Godot
largely deals with the absurd tradition. The play is without any plot,
character, dialogue and setting in the traditional sense. The setting of the
play creates the absurdist mood. A desolate country road, a ditch, and a
leafless tree make up the barren, otherworldly landscape whose only occupants
are two homeless men who bumble and shuffle in a vaudevillian manner. They are
in rags, bowler hats, and apparently oversized boots- a very comic introduction
to a very bizarre play. There is a surplus of symbolism and thematic suggestion
in this setting. The landscape is a symbol of a barren and fruitless
civilization or life. There is nothing to be done and there appears to be no
place better to depart. The tree, usually a symbol of life with its blossoms
and fruit or its suggestion of spring, is apparently dead and lifeless. But it
is also the place to which they believe this Godot has asked them to come. This
could mean Godot wants the men to feel the infertility of their life. At the
same time, it could simply mean they have found the wrong tree.
The setting of the play reminds
us the post-war condition of the world which brought about uncertainties,
despair, and new challenges to the all of mankind. A pessimistic outlook laced
with sadism and tangible violence, as a rich dividend of the aftermath of wars.
It is as if the poignancy and calamities of the wars found sharp reflections in
Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.
Next comes the plot. In the
traditional sense a plot should concentrate on a single motivated action and is
also expected to have a beginning, a middle and a neatly tied-up ending. But
it’s almost impossible to provide a conventional plot summary of Waiting for
Godot, which has often been described as a play in which nothing happens. It is
formless and not constructed on any structural principles. It has no
Aristotelian beginning, middle and end. It starts at an arbitrary point and
seem to end just as arbitrarily. Beckett, like other dramatists working in this
mode, is not trying to "tell a story." He's not offering any easily
identifiable solutions to carefully observed problems. There is little
moralizing and no obvious "message." The pattern of the play might
best be described as circular. The circularity of Waiting for Godot is highly unconventional.
As per as the portrayal of
characters is concerned the play also fits into the absurd tradition. A
well-made play is expected to present characters that are well-observed and
convincingly motivated. But in the play we meet five characters who are not
very recognizable human beings and don’t engage themselves in a motivated
action. Two tramps, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), are waiting by a tree
on a country road for Godot, whom they have never met and who may not even
exist. They argue, make up, contemplate suicide, discuss passages from the
Bible, and encounter Pozzo and Lucky, a master and slave. Near the end of the
first act, a young boy comes with a message from Mr. Godot that he will not
come today but will come the next day. In the second act, the action of the
first act is essentially repeated, with a few changes: the tree now has leaves,
Pozzo is blind and has Lucky on a shorter leash. Once again the boy comes and
tells them Mr. Godot will not come on that day and he also insists he has never
met the tramps before. The play concludes with a famous exchange:
“Vladimir:
Well, shall we go?
Estragon:
Yes, let’s go.
They
do not move.”
Again the traditional play is
expected to entertain the audience with logically built, witty dialogue. But in
this play, like any other absurd play, the dialogue seems to have degenerated
into meaningless babble. The dialogues the characters exchange are meaningless
banalities. They use language to feel the emptiness between them, i.e. to
conceal the fact that they have no desire to talk to each other regarding
anything at all.
The absurd plays deal with the
themes of existentialism, especially the existentialist theme of absurdity. In
other words the absurd playwrights tried to translate the contemporary
existentialist philosophy into drama. They also tried to portray the
distressful condition of the humans. In Waiting for Godot the human condition
is shown as dismal and distressful. The derelict man struggles to live or
rather exist, in a hostile and uncaring world. A sense of stagnancy and
bareness captivates man, and whenever he tries to assert himself, he is curbed.
In Beckett's words, human life is the endurance and tolerance to "the
boredom of living" "replaced by the suffering of being." These phrases
speak volumes of a philosophy born out of the harsh human realities. Vladimir
and Estragon are blissfully and painfully oblivious to their own condition.
They go about repeating their actions every day unmindful of the monotony and
captivity. They also do not activate their mind to question or brood over their
own actions and the motives underlying their actions. The "compressed
vacuum" in their lives is constantly disregarded. The idea that God or
fate or some Supreme Being with control, toys with the lives of men is
startlingly clear. Every moment of every day, mankind waits for some sign from
God and hope that his suffering will end. And every day, God does not arrive.
So many times in the play, a
possibility is suggested and then immediately undercut by its unhappy opposite.
This technique is used by Beckett to relay his theme that life is uncertain and
unpredictable at its best, unfortunate and unending at its worst. To further
state this theme, Estragon asserts that "There's no lack of void" in life.
It is actually of little importance where they were the previous day, as
everywhere everyday the same empty vacuum envelops them. Absence, emptiness,
nothingness, and unresolved mysteries are central features in the play.
Thus, in conclusion we may say
that the play ‘Waiting for Godot’ contains almost all the elements of an absurd
play. The play depicts the irrationalism of life in a grotesquely comic and
non-consequential fashion with the element of "metaphysical alienation and
tragic anguish." Beckett captured this situation and depicted it through
the deadening condition of the two tramps in a null and void state without any
real action. The play has often been interpreted as a parable where Godot
stands as God, or for a mythical human being or for the meaning of life, death
or something eventful. Habit, boredom, monotony, ignorance and impotence which
enveloped the world after the wars and created an absurd existence, is
recreated by Beckett in “Waiting for Godot.”
28. Explain the
significance of the title ‘Waiting for Godot’.
Or
Show that the main theme or the play ‘Waiting for Godot’ is
"waiting".
Or
"Waiting for Godot is not about Godot or even about waiting.
It is waiting." Discuss.
Ans. Wailing for Godot is a
multi-sided play with significant title. Its meanings and implications are complex. The two key words in the title are "waiting"
and "Godot". What Godot exactly means has been the subject of much
controversy. It has been suggested that Godot is a weakened or diminutive form
of the word "God." Godot may therefore suggest the intervention of a
supernatural agency. Or perhaps Godot stands for a mythical human being whose
arrival is expected to change the situation. We may presume, too, that both
these possibilities (a supernatural agency and < a supposed human being) may
be implied through the use of the name "Godot". Furthermore, although
Godot fails to appear in the play, he is-as real a character as any of those
whom we actually see. However, the subject of the play is not Godot; the
subject is "waiting", the act of waiting as an essential
characteristic aspect of the human condition. Throughout their lives, human
beings always wait for something, and Godot simply represents the objective of
their waiting an event, a thing, a person, death. Beckett has thus depicted in
this play, a situation which has a general human application.
The title
"Waiting for Godot," suggests waiting for a mysterious stranger
whohas obvious symbolic dimensions and implication. At first this play does not appear to have any
particular relationship with the human predicament. Fro instance, we feel
hardly any inclination to identify ourselves with the two garrulous tramps who
are indifferent to all the concerns of civilised life. Godot sounds as if he
might have some significance; but be does not even appear on the stage.
However, soon we are made to realise that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting and
that their waiting is of a particular kind. Although they may say that they are
waiting for Godot, they cannot say who or what Godot is, nor can they be true
that they are waiting at the right place or on the right day, or what would
happen when Godot comes, or what would happen if they stopped waiting. The have
no watches, no timetables, arid there is no one from whom they can get much
information. They cannot get the essential knowledge, and they are ignorant.
Without the essential knowledge they cannot act, and so they are impotent. They
produce in us a sense of baffled helplessness, which we experience when forced
to remain in a situation which we do not understand and over which we have no
control. All that they do is to seek ways to pass the time in the situation in
which they find themselves. They tell stories, sing songs, play verbal games,
pretend to be Pozzo and Lucky, do physical exercises. But all these activities
are mere stop gaps serving only to pass the time. They understand this
perfectly. "Come on, Gogo." Pleads Didi, breaking off a reflection on
the two thieves crucified with Christ, "return'the ball, can't you, once
in a way?" and Estragon does. As Estragon says later,
"We don's manage too badly, eh Didi,
between the two of us,......We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the
impression we exist"
Here we have the very essence of boredom
actions repeated long after the reason for them has been forgotten, and talk
purposeless in itself but valuable as a way to kill time. We could
appropriately say that the play is not about Godot or even about waiting; the
play puts "waiting" on the stage. The play is waiting, ignorance,
impotence, boredom, all these having been made visible on the stage before us.
As a critic says, Beckett in his dermas does not write about things but
presents the things themselves. In other words, a play by Beckett is a direct
expression or presentation of the thing itself as distinct from any description
of it or statement about it. In the waiting of the two tramps we, the audience,
recognise our own experience. We may never have waited by a tree on a deserted
country road for a distant acquaintance to keep his appointment, but we have
certainly experienced other situations in which we have waited and waited. We
may have waited and waited for a communication offering a job, or for the
arrival of a train, or for a love-letter, or for something to turn up. In other
words we can discover a common ground between ourselves and the two tramps who
are waiting for Godot. We feel with them and with millions of others who have
known ignorance, impotence, and boredom. Here is then the recognisable significance
of the play and it is this which accounts for the play's widespread appeal.
Vladimir and Estragon have travelled far
towards total nihilism, but they have not fully achieved it. They still retain
enough remnants of hope to be tormented by despair. And in place of hope as a
dynamic, they have expectancy. This is the main motif of the play, spelt out in
the title, which in an earlier version was simply: waiting. The two tramps ale
in a place and in a mental state in which nothing happens and time stands
still. Their main preoccupation is to pass the time as well as they can until
night comes and they can go. They realise the futility of their exercises and
that they are merely filling up the hours with pointless activity. In this
sense their waiting is mechanical; it- is the same thing as not moving. In
another sense, it is an obligation. They have to remain .where they are though
they resent doing so and would like to leave. This might be called a moral
obligation, since it involves the possibilities punishment and reward. If Godot
comes, a new factor may be introduced into their existence, whereas if they
leave they will certainly miss him. Their waiting therefore contains a certain
element of hope, no matter how cynical they may be about it. This mood of
expectancy has also a universal validity, because whenever we wait we are
expectant even though we are almost certain that our waiting will not be
rewarded.
It is in the act of wailing that we
experience the flow of time in its purest,, most evident form. When we are
active, we tend to forget the passage of time but, if we are waiting passively,
we are confronted with the action of time itself. Being subject to the flux of
time, human beings are, at no single moment; Identical with themselves. We can
never be sure that the human beings we meet are the same today as they were
yesterday. When Pozzo and Lucky first appear, neither Vladimir nor Estragon
seems to recognise them; Estragon even takes Pozzo for Godot. But after they
have gone, Vladimir comments that they have changed since their last
appearance. Estragon insists that be did not know them while Vladimir insists:
"We know them. I tell you. You forget everything." In Act II, when
Pozzo and Lucky reappear cruelly deformed by the action of time, the tramps
again have their doubts whether those are the same people whom they met on the
previous day. Nor does Pozzo remember them. Here then is another aspect of
"waiting" which is conveyed to us the act of waiting makes us
experience the flow of time. To wait means to experience the action of time,
which is constant change. And yet as nothing real ever happens, that change is
in itself an illusion. The more things change, the more they are the same.
That is the terrible stability of the
world. "The tears of the world are a constant quantity says Pozzo,
"For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops." One
day is like another, and when we die, we might never have existed. As Pozzo
exclaims in his great final outburst: "Have you not done tormenting me
with your accursed time?......They give birth astride of a grave, the light
gleams an instant, then it's night once more." Still Vladimir and Estragon
live in hope: they wait for Godot whose coming will bring the flow of time to a
stop Godot represents, to the two tramps, peace and rest from waiting. They are
hoping to be saved from the fleetingness and instability of the illusion of
time, and to find peace and permanence outside it. Then they will no longer be
tramps or homeless wanderers, but will have arrived home.
Waiting for Godot is a dramatisation of
the themes of habit, boredom, and "the suffering of being". Habit is
a great deadener, says Vladimir and by the lime he says so, he and Estragon
have had about ninety minutes on the stage to prove it. It is the sound of
their own voices that re-assures the two tramps of their own existence, of
which they are not otherwise always certain because the evidence of their
senses is so dubious. The tramps have another reason also to keep talking. They
are drowning out those voices that assail them in the silence, just as they
assailed nearly all Beckett's heroes in the novels.
This play is a parable. Godot may stand
for God, or for a mythical human being or for the meaning of life, or for
death, or for something else. The play is a fable about a kind of life that has
no longer any point. This fable is a representation of stagnant life. It is a
fable that suffers from a lack of cohesion because a lack of cohesion is its
very subject matter. This fable does not relate an action, because the action
it relates is life without action. This fable offers no story, because it
describes man eliminated from, and deprived of, history. The characters in this
play have been pulled out of the world, and they no longer have anything to do
with it: The world has become empty for them. The two heroes, or anti-heroes,
are merely alive, but no longer living in a world. And this concept is carried
through with a merciless consequence. Where a world no longer exists, there can
no longer be a possibility of a collision with the world. In our world today
millions of people have begun increasingly to feel that they live in a world in
which they do not act but are acted upon. The two tramps, in spite of their
inaction and the pointlessness of their existence still want to go on. The
millions of people today do not after all give up living when their life
becomes pointless. The tramps are waiting for nothing in particular. They even
have to remind each other of the very fact that they are waiting and of what
they are waiting for.
Thus, actually they are not waiting for
anything. But, exposed as they are to the airily continuation of their
existence, they cannot help concluding that they must be waiting. And, exposed
to their continued waiting they cannot help assuming that" they are
waiting for something. It is meaningless to ask who or what the expected Godot
is. Godot is nothing but the name for the fact that the life which goes on
pointlessly is wrongly interpreted to mean waiting or as waiting for something.
What appears to be a positive attitude of the two tramps amounts to a double
negation their existence is pointless and they are incapable of recognising the
pointlessness of their existence. The
title “Waiting for
Godot,” suggests
waiting for a mysterious stranger who has apparent symbolic dimensions and
implication. Godot could also be a representative, in Beckett’s modern time
period of some authority, who has promised safety to the tramps. The title of
the play thus brings into our mind about the meaningless waiting and it is the
waiting for Godot who may stand for God, or for a mythical human being, or for
the meaning of life, or for death or for something else.
29.
‘Waiting for Godot’ as a Religious Play/ Christian play/ Nihilistic
play. Discuss.
Or, Write a note on Backett’s interpretation of
Christian mythology and Biblical elements in ‘Waiting for Godot’.
Or, Do you think that ‘Waiting for Godot’ has any
religious implications.
Ans. The play ‘Waiting for
Godot’ seems absurd but with a deep
religious meaning. Though the play commonly interpreted within the context of
the theatre of absurd, existentialist literature, it is also Christian allegory
and also interpreted with religious interpretations. The play has very strong
evidences of theory of existentialism, but still, it can be related with many
other religious interpretations. Like, Christian myth of two thieves, waiting
for second coming of Jesus Christ, Hindu philosophy and its ‘Avatar’ and other
interpretations.
Waiting
for Godot, an
absurd drama as it is, has an unmistakably religious element. When Beckett was
once asked to comment on the play Waiting for Godot, he quoted from St.
Augustine: “Do not despair: one of the
thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned”. This
is a significant statement and may be regarded as a clue to the play. In
an Absurd
play the
idea of God and religion is conspicuous by its absence. The
playwrights normally emphasize irony and negation, neurosis and despair, a
ritual orgy of jabbering, the infinity of nihilism. They present a hostile universe where
man withers like atomic dust.
Not Waiting for Godot alone, the other plays are also imbued with deep
religious fervour. For Beckett God has not failed. There is religious symbolism throughout. In his novel Molloy,
Beckett says: “It was a cargo of nails
and timber, on its way to some carpenter I suppose”. And we all know
that Jesus Christ was a carpenter by profession and helped his father Joseph
before he had undertaken his missionary work.
As a matter of fact, Beckett is
never tired of referring to Christ and the salvation of the suffering and
penitent man. Suffering is the true badge of honour for a Christian. The suffering that characterizes earthly
existence and the theological context of that suffering are recurrent
leitmotifs in Beckett’s drama. The casual relationship between divine cruelty
and human suffering is perhaps most effectively dramatized in Beckett’s
portrayal of many of his characters as emblematic Biblical sufferers.
If we regard Waiting for
Godot as a Morality play, it naturally becomes a religious play as
well. The Morality play was a medieval forerunner of our modern novel-with-a
purpose, as unconvincingly didactic as instructive. The Morality play may be
defined as an attempt to dramatize a Sermon. The characters in such a play are
personified qualities, e.g. vices, mental attributes, impulses, moods, states
of mind, and the like, or of universalized types set in a framework of
allegory. Exactly like the Morality plays, the Theatre of the Absurd,
as has been pointed out by Martin Esslin, is concerned with the ultimate
realities of the human condition, e. g. life, death, isolation and communication.
Drama
owes its origin to
religion. So does Absurd Drama, in which man has confrontation with ultimate
realities, synonymous with religious reality. In the twentieth century Europe
has become a vast and arid waste land, where man is groping in the dark for
light. It is an era of nothingness, of nihilism, and negation of traditional
values. Religion has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. Christ is
being crucified for umpteen times. Vladimir and Estragon are the
representatives of the modern man standing for hope and light. They are not men
of flesh and blood but the concrete shapes of abstract qualities.
There is the reference to
Salvation, Judgment and Crucifixion like a recurrent refrain.
In Waiting for Godot, for example, the first clearly explicit reference to
salvation is found in Vladimir’s mention of the two thieves crucified on either
side of Christ, one of whom was saved and the other damned. When asked by
Estragon what the thief was saved from, Vladimir replied that the man was saved
from hell. Vladimir wonders that of the four Evangelists, St.
Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, only one speaks of a thief being saved.
Beckett was fascinated
by the idea of salvation, while most people have to suffer damnation. Ever
since the dawn of history there have been millions of persons who had to be
damned for their misdeeds. Only two thieves got the splendid opportunity of
being saved. The Sheep and the Goats or “the Judgment of the Nations” is
a pronouncement of Jesus recorded in chapter 25 of Matthew’s Gospel in the New
Testament.
While Pozzo tells Vladimir about
Lucky: “Remark that I might easily
have been in his shoes and he in mine. If chance had not willed it otherwise”,
he might be thinking of the thieves. Man cannot be sure of the Grace of God,
which is awarded fortuitously. God willed otherwise, and, therefore, Pozzo, so
long better placed, had to become blind, at the mercy of others. If Godot is God, he does not bestow
favours in a strictly logical manner. For the ways of God are mysterious and
inexorable. Take the case of Cain and Abel, who were siblings and brought up in
the same environments. Abel was saved and Cain damned.
There are several
other references to the fortuitous bestowal of divine grace. Two boys
serve as the messengers of Godot- one tends the goats and the other sheep. They
are brothers Cain and Abel. But unpredictably Godot is kind to one who
tends the goats, and beats the other who tends the sheep. When Estragon thinks
that Godot is coming, he cries out in fear: I’m accursed!” Estragon feels that
he is in hell. Vladimir, on the other hand, rejoices at what he imagines to be
the arrival of Godot.
Salvation as divine grace is
matter of chance, and Beckett reiterates the point. When asked to think, Lucky,
gives a demonstration of his thinking and mentions several words, namely ‘apathia’ ‘athambia’, and ‘aphasia’.
This is not mere rigmarole, and has a philosophical significance, for apathia
means divine apathy; athambia means terror of God, and aphasia means the
speechlessness of God. That is to say, God may be apathetic; God may be
speechless; God has the capacity for terror. God will love and save only a
select few.
One popular interpretation of
waiting for Godot is the second coming aspect. One meaning of Mr. Godot is none
other but ‘God’ and there are many clues and evidences in the play which
symbolically says, that Mr. Godot is a symbol for God. Religious interpretation
posits Vladimir and Estragon as humanity waiting for the elusive return of a
saviour. This interpretation makes pozzo into the pope and Lucky into the
faithful. Another evidence is the title itself; the name ‘Godot’ also proves
it. The name suggests ‘God’-OT it must have some significance. And it must be
interpreted religious way.
The background image of ‘Tree’
has multiple meanings, and religious interpretation see as it is an image of
cross where Jesus Christ was crucified. Their waiting also reflects the basic
biblical idea of Christ’s returns on the Doomsday. Tree is the symbol of
cross on which Christ was hanged. Few leaves on the tree in second act
indicate the idea of hope. They have hoped that their wait will give them some
meaningful results. The Boy, a messenger of Godot conveys the message of
Godot’s arrival to Vladimir and Estragon. The boy here is a symbol of hope and
better tomorrow.
Vladimir
and Estragon are
waiting for divine grace. For, to wait for Godot is to wait for divine grace
and salvation. Vladimir has consistently practiced Christian tolerance and
charity and has not left his friend even amidst trying circumstances. Beckett
has taken infinite pains to distinguish the two tramps from Pozzo and Lucky.
While the tramps have something to wait for, something to look forward to,
Pozzo and Lucky are cast adrift with no objective in view. Pozzo particularly
suffers from the chastisement of hubris, pride, which is one of the Seven
Deadly Sins. He believes that night will never fall upon him. But at the advent
of night he becomes blind and plays the penalty of his overweening confidence.
Consciously or unconsciously, writer presents many Christian myths and Biblical
images. As biography suggests, Beckett knows about all the Christian
philosophical, spiritual ideas from childhood. So, the play has many Christian values like
repentance, craving for salvation, faith in God, fear of God and hope for to be
saved, and 'coming of Godot'.
30. Write a note on the plot structure of the play “Waiting for Godot”.
Or, ‘Waiting for
Godot’ is a play in which “nothing happens twice”. Discuss.
Or, “ In the play
‘Waiting for Godot’ practically nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful, and there is no
beginning no end.” Critically discuss the view.
Ans. “Waiting for Godot” is not a
play to which traditional ideas of plot, action, structure etc. do
apply. To a certain extent, Beckett has deliberately discarded or parodied such
conventions. There is double-structure in “Waiting for Godot” linear and
cynical. The structural devices can be seen in dialogues, characterization and bringing out of the
themes. In cyclical structure, there is no change, no movement,
development, nothing happens but linear things have their ways of changing. The
major structural devices are parallels. “Waiting
for Godot” on philosophical level maintains a close relationship with the
philosophy of Hera-Clatus who is of the view that “change is the crux of life”.
But Samuel Beckett presents an opposite situation where he depicts “nothing
happens twice”.
“Waiting for Godot” does not
follow the congenital play structure. It has no action which is soul of a
tragedy, therefore, it is entirely different from other plays.. Samuel Becket
has proved Aristotle wrong in many ways. He has proved that the concept viz.
“there can be a tragedy without character but not without action” has become
old now. He has written a play without “a proper beginning, middle and end”.
Still his play is successful. Many critics have remained failed to answer the
reason behind the success of this novel. The play has nothing in it yet
it glues the audience to the chairs. It has gained much success; even it has
been translated and perfumed many countries. Its freshness can be felt even
today. Samuel Becket has violated the traditional rules of playwriting yet this
play is successful and given him fame. The play has no story, no plot, no
characterization even then it is successful. Traditional writers were used to
write plays with good plots, strong characterization and good actions but
“Waiting for Godot” lacks all these necessary ingredients. It does not fulfill
even a single requirement of traditional dramatists. Samuel Becket experimented
with theater and he became famous. Thus, in order to judge “Waiting for Godot”,
we have to consider view of critics and the interest of audience. It cannot be
adjudged on the basis of comparison technique; it is entirely a new concept,
therefore, it cannot be compared to any traditional play.
There is no exposition,
development, reversal and denouncement in the play. Its structure is based on
repetition; both acts have similarity in many ways. Not only dialogues are
repeated but actions are also repeated; both acts end without any development.
There are some similarities in both the acts. For instance, in both the acts,
Estragon feels problem with his feet and boots; he is beaten by strangers in
both acts; comic conversation involving carrots, radishes and turnips is
available in both the acts; Vladimir has problem with his urination in both the
acts; they decide to commit suicide in both acts; three characters come and go
in act-I; similarly these three characters visit in act-ii of the play; their
visit has been repeated; both acts end with let’s go but none of them moves
from his place. Thus, there is repetition everywhere in the play, however, this
repetition sometimes becomes ironical, which does not let the audience leave
their chairs. Undoubtedly, the play has repetition but this repetition has its
unique importance. It is interesting and compels the audience to watch the
whole play. Moreover, there is a little difference in every repetition;
sometimes there is different in intensity of dialogue delivery; somewhere there
is difference in the actions; somewhere in words. Thus, these little changes
always drift the emotions of audience.
There are very less characters in
the play but Samuel Bucket has created contrasting characters. Every character
is different to each other. Estragon and Vladimir although are dependent on
each other yet they are entirely different; there is difference in their
thinking; one likes telling funny stories other find them bore; one shows his
sympathies with Lucky, others has fellow feeling for him. Similarly, Pozzo is
entirely dependent on Lucky but his is totally different from him; there social
status is different; their philosophy is different; their behavior is
different. Hence, it is also an importance feature of the play “Waiting for
Godot” that it has contrasting characters.
The play gains a
structural cohesion because the rhythmic repetition of certain
themes, incidents and situations.
There is a parallelism and contrast even in
characters. Estragon and Vladimir are both tramps who are facing a common
situation of bored waiting. But Estragon is weaker and more temperamental
whereas Vladimir is strong, protective and clear-headed. At crucial times
Estragon goes to sleep. Estragon always blames Vladimir for troubles but
Vladimir is much tolerated. Vladimir has greater control on himself than
Estragon. There are parallels and contrasts in Lucky and Pozzo also.
The characters, themes, setting,
dialogue, etc. reflect and emphasize the circular structure in “Waiting for
Godot”, due to which we notice no development in the plot. Hence, the play ends
as it has begun. The play repeats same themes as are available in other plays
of Samuel Becket i.e. Boredom and sufferings of human beings.
There are short dialogues in the
play. Except speeches, every dialogue is short. Audience finds no ambiguity in understanding the motif
behind dialogues. Furthermore, every dialogue of the play is symmetric; it is
symmetric structure due to which the time of the play has been filled. Fast
questioning and fast answering; sometimes there is a silence between the
dialogues but it is not frequent. It is only there, where it is required.
Dialogues of the play have a
symmetrical structure; Act-I and act-ii are symmetrical. Similarly, there is
verbal symmetry. While talking about symmetries a critic writes: “symmetry to
suggest a static design”, whereas another critic suggests: the play has
“asymmetric structure” but none of them has said that the play follows the rule
of tragedy as defined by Aristotle in his book “Poetics”.
The setting is the same, and the
time is the same in both acts. Each act begins early in the morning, just as
the tramps are awakening, and both acts close with the moon having risen. The
action takes place in exactly the same landscape a lonely, isolated road with
one single tree. In the second act, there are some leaves on the tree, but from
the viewpoint of the audience, the setting is exactly the same. We are never
told where this road is located; all we know is that the action of the play
unfolds on this lonely road. Thus, from Act I to Act II, there is no difference
in either the setting or in the time and, thus, instead of a progression of time
within an identifiable setting, we have a repetition in the second act of the
same things that we saw and heard in the first act.
In conclusion we may say that
like theme of the play, its structure is also based on “nothingness”.
Characterization is very less; nothing happens twice; there is no change in
acts; motif of the characters does not change; they do not move from one play
to another; there is no reversal of fortune. The play violates every single
rule of a perfect tragedy. Astonishing feature of this play is that it has
gained fame despite the fact that it has nothing in it. Thus, with respect to
structure, it is a new concept. Samuel Becket does not belong to any school. It
is his experiment on theater and astonishingly he become successful in it. His
experiment has given him eminence in the world of theater. Thus, structure of
“Waiting for Godot” is entirely unique.
31.
Discuss
the symbolic significance of Pozzo-Lucky episode in ‘Waiting for Godot’.
Or,
How would you relate the Pozzo -Lucky episodes to the theme or the play,
‘Waiting for Godot’, as a whole?
Or
What is the dramatic significance of the Pozzo -Lucky scenes
in ‘Waiting for Godot’?
Or,
Write a note on the relevance or the Pozzo-Lucky appearances
to the total scheme or ‘Waiting for Godot’.
Ans. The Puzzo-Lucky pair plays a
very significant role in portraying Beckett's world-view in Waiting for Godot.
The dominant theme of this play is waiting, boredom, ignorance, and impotence.
The Pozzo-Lucky relationship does not seem to have any basic or integral
connection with this dominant theme. In fact, the connection between the two
pairs of characters is not very close or intimate. Even if the Pozzo-Lucky
episodes were removed from the play, the play would still stand and be
satisfactory representation of the ordeal of waiting for someone who does not
turn up or for something which does not materialize.
Vladimir and Estragon are tied
with the invisible and unbreakable bond of friendship and camaraderie. Pozzo
and Lucky are not friends. Their relation is that of a master and a slave.
Pozzo is a power-mad master, who has Lucky tied with a rope. He ill treats him
and abuses and manhandles him in season and out of season. He goes so far as to
think of selling Lucky in the fair as a beast of burden. Lucky has to carry the
luggage of Pozzo. To heighten the irony of the play he even carries the whip
between his teeth which his master has to use from time to time for the
chastisement of the slave, Pozzo eats chicken voraciously and throws the bones
with no pith and marrow at Lucky. A trencherman, he eats and drinks and has no
consideration for his slave, who plods his weary way hungry, thirsty and
exhausted. Pozzo imagines that he is as powerful as Godot, and therefore,
the arbiter of human destiny.
The audience as
well as the tramps find in the Pozzo-Lucky episode a
welcome interlude, although it may not be sufficiently comical. The episode
brings into sharp focus the relentless forces of existence. Vladimir and
Estragon are not the only persons to suffer the arrows and slings of
misfortune. They are all in an alien world, groping in the dark. They are all
separated from the hostile world, where they can only abandon themselves the
pessimism, ennui, despair, doubt, and fear. The relation of Pozzo with
Lucky shows the grim picture of what man has made of man. Dressed
in a brief little authority, Pozzo looks upon Lucky as a pariah dog or an ass.
He thinks of himself, sitting on the stool as a king seated on the throne.
There are many interpretations of
Pozzo and Lucky and their symbolic significance. According to one interpretation,
these two men represent a master and a slave. According to other
interpretations, Pozzo and Lucky symbolise the relationship between capital and
labour, or between wealth and artist. A group of critics find a
autobiographical Origin: Pozzo representing James Joyce and Lucky as Samuel
Backett. Another critic characterises Pozzo as the God of the Old Testament,
the tyrant in Act-1 and the New Testament God, helpless, crucified in Act-II.
Thus we have almost as many
interpretations as there are critics. One of the critics says that, while Pozzo
and Lucky may be body and intellect, master and slave, capitalist and
proletarian, sadist and masochist, Joyce and Beckett. But they essentially
represent a way of getting through life just as Vladimir and Estragon represent
another way of doing so.
Pozzo and Lucky create a metaphor
society. Pozzo appears as all-powerful, dominating personality by virtue of his
wealth. He reminds us of a feudal lord. It is Lucky who gives Pozzo's ideas
into real shapes. But for Lucky and Pozzo's thoughts and all his feelings would
have been of common things. "Beauty, grace, truth of the first
water"- these were originally all beyond Pozzo. But Lucky is now a puppet
who obeys Pozzo's commands. He dances, sings, recites, and thinks for Pozzo and
his personal life has been reduced to basic animal reflexes: he cries and he
Kicks. But once Lucky was a better dancer and capable of giving his master
moments of great illumination and joy; he was kind, helpful, entertaining,
Pozzo's good angel. But now he is "killing" Pozzo, or so Pozzo
believes.
In the play ‘Waiting for Godot’,
we first see Lucky driven by Pozzo by means of a rope tied round his neck. All
of Lucky's actions seem unpredictable, in Act-I, when Estragon attempts to help
him. Lucky becomes violent and kicks him. Lucky seems to be more animal than
human, and his very sentence in the drama is a parody of human sentence. In
Act-II, when he arrives completely dumb, it is only a tilting extension of his
condition in Act-I. Now he makes no attempt to utter any sound at all. Lucky
represents the man, reduced to lead the blind, not by intellect, but by blind
instinct.
There is another way of
approaching this curious pair of characters. Perhaps, in the portrayal of
Pozzo, Beckett has given us a caricature of God, the absolute power. Pozzo is
the living symbol of the Establishment. He is an egotist, full of self-love.
Pozzo's greatest concern is his dignity. He rebukes the tramps for asking him a
question: "A moment ago you were calling me sir, in fear and trembling.
Now you're asking me question. No good will come of this!" Here Pozzo's
absolute mastery, his divinely delegated powers, must remain unchallenged.
Estragon and
Vladimir are poor tramps with no material resources. But they have their hearts
in the right place. They feel for their fellowmen. When they watch human
indignity they can at least show their sympathy and compassion. The relation
between Pozzo and Lucky is the relation between the master and the slave, the
relation between a heartless man and a beast of burden. Pozzo and Lucky heighten
the gloom of the play and contribute to its tragic effect and atmosphere. Pozzo
always gives the airs of superiority and even vulgarity. Lucky has never a word
of protest against his master’s heartlessness. But this very man, who has been
reduced to object slavery and beastliness, talks in an altogether different
vein, when asked to ‘think’. He strikes a note of gloom and despair as he says
unequivocally that man lives in an alien world. God is not the symbol of love
and goodness.
Pozzo and Lucky represent the
antithesis of each other. Yet they are strongly and irrevocably tied together-
both physically and metaphysically. Any number of polarities could be used to
apply to them. If Pozzo is the master, then Lucky is the slave. If Pozzo is the
circus ring master, then Lucky is the trained or performing animal; if Pozzo is
the sadist. Lucky is the masochist. Or Pozzo can be seen as the Ego and Lucky
as the Id. Samuel Beckett, with his hope to represent human beings and super
ego, has drawn the Pozzo-Lucky pair that has a great symbolic significance in
the play.
In conclusion,
we may say that the Pozzo-Lucky relationship constitutes a subsidiary theme in
the play, ‘Waiting for Godot’. The dominant theme of this play is
"waiting"-waiting, boredom, ignorance, and impotence. The Pozzo Lucky
relationship does not seem to have any basic or integral connection with this
dominant theme. In fact, the connection between the two pairs of characters in
the play is not very close or intimate. Even if the Pozzo Lucky episodes were
removed from the play the play would still stand and be a satisfactory
representation of the ordeal of waiting for someone who does not turn up or for
something which does not materialise. But in that case the play would become
rather truncated and would not, besides, occupy the ninety minutes or so for
which it now occupies the stage. The Pozzo Lucky scenes representing a master
slave relationship are thus intended to add to the substance of the play and to
introduce some variety as regards subject-matter.
32.
‘Waiting
for Godot’ as a tragicomedy. Discuss.
Ans.
Comedy and tragedy coexist in tragicomedies. Tragicomedy
is a play which claims a plot apt for tragedy but which ends happily like a
comedy. The action is sometimes serious in
theme, subject matter and tone but it seems to be a tragic catastrophe until an
unexpected turn in events brings out the happy ending. The characters of a
tragicomedy are noble but they are involved in improbabilities. In such a play
tragic and comic elements are mixed up together. It is obvious from the definition of tragedy that if a play
contains both the elements of poetry then it should be regarded as a
tragicomedy, however, “Waiting for Godot” is a play about the suffering of
humanity. How can it be called a tragicomedy if there is no comedy in it? Even
if tragic elements are not available in this play then too, we should add it to
the list of tragicomedies. Let’s analyse “Waiting for Godot” from both perspectives
to prove that it is truly a tragicomedy.
The English edition of “Waiting
for Godot”, published in 1956 describes the play as a “tragicomedy” in two
acts. There are many dialogues, gestures, situations and actions that are stuff
of pure comedy. All musical devices are employed to create laughter in such a
tragic situation of waiting. The total atmosphere of the play is very akin to
dark-comedy. For example, Vladimir is determined not to hear Estragon’s
nightmare. The latter pleads with him in vain to hear him, saying that there is
nobody else to whom he may communicate his private nightmares. The audience
burst out in laughter when they see Estragon putting off and on his boots.
Vladimir’s game with his hat appears as if this is happening in a circus.
Vladimir is suffering from prostrate problem. Vladimir's way of walking with
stiff and short strides is as funny as Estragon’s limping on the stage.
Estragon’s gestures of encouraging Vladimir to urinate off-stage are farcical.
The comedy in this play at certain times gives the impression of Vaudeville.
There are many dialogues which occur like a comic paradigm in the play. To cite
an example the following conversation may be quoted:
“Estragon: Let’s go.
Vladimir: We can not.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot. (They do not move.)”
Again, Estragon and Vladimir put
on and take off each other’s hat as well as that of Lucky again and again. It
shows that in the world of tramps, there is no place of significant actions.
The most farcical situation in the play is the one where the tramps are testing
the strength of the cord with which they wish to hang themselves. The cord
breaks under the strain. One cannot have an uninhabited laugh at the situation
for there is also something deeply uncomfortable.
“Waiting for Godot” has several
moments of anguish and despair. We are told that someone beats Estragon daily.
Estragon’s feet and Vladimir’s kidneys are also taken to be granted. The tramps
resent that they should be asked whether it still hurts. It goes without saying
that it hurts all the time. When Vladimir asks Estragon whether his boots are
hurting him, he responds: Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts! A little later
Estragon asks Vladimir about his kidney trouble and the latter replies in the
same words: Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!
In fact his trouble is so bad
that it does not even permit him to laugh. Life lies all bleak and barren
before them and that only valid comment on it is the one with which the play
opens, “Nothing to be done”. Theirs is a world of negation in which inactivity
is the safest course; as Estragon says: Do not let us do anything, it’s safer.
The tramps are living at the barest level of existence. Carrot, turnips and
radishes are all they have to eat. Estragon’s remarks show tragedy and
helplessness: Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful.
Contextually, the situation of
Lucky too is quite pathetic, especially in view of his glorious past, as Pozzo
describes it. His speech tells us that Lucky must have brooded deeply over the
anguish of the human situation. The anguish breaks in his incoherent harangue:
“… the flames, the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull
the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours
abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas
alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the
tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (melee, final vociferations) tennis …
the stones … so calm …Cunard … unfinished …”
The comedy in “Waiting for Godot”
at once turns into tragedy when the audience thinks about the helplessness of
tramps. Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for someone who never comes. In order
to pass time they indulge in irrelevant, meaningless activity. The element of
force fades away and miserable condition of man looms large in our imagination.
Their life can be compared with that of a prisoner for whom there is no escape,
even suicide is impossible. Every activity is a mockery of human existence.
The changing of farce into
absurdity brings a lot of tragic sentiment in the play. Estragon’s nakedness is
a picture of ‘man’s miserable condition’. The absurd living is a major source
of tragedy. The source is the situation of pointless waiting of Estragon and
Vladimir. They do not know who Godot is. They are sure neither about the time
nor about the place of their appointment. They even do not know what will
happen if they stop waiting. Lack of essential knowledge makes them totally
impotent and powerless. They are glued to a situation. Nothing is certain and
all they can say is “Nothing to be done”.
The total effect of the play is
therefore the co-mingling of tragic and comic elements, which in turn suggests
that Samuel Beckett was a realistic dramatist who looked at life from a
position of a pessimist and an optimist. The form of tragicomedy is highly
suitable to this vision of life. The climax of Beckett’s tragicomedy is the
role of Lucky. He is wearing servant’s vest while holding his master’s
overcoat, a basket and a stool. His neck is tied with one end of the rope. His
appearance is not only fantastic but grotesque too. The moment we realize that
he is a half-wit; he becomes an image of man’s misery. We are all the more
sorry for Lucky when it is revealed that Pozzo has learnt all the beautiful
things of life from lucky. But now Pozzo is taking the same person to sell in a
fair. The relationship of a ringmaster and his trained animal, changes into a
relationship of an owner and a slave. It is an exploitation of a man by a man
who stops the audience from bursting out into laughter. Comedy has been checked
by tragic element or sentiments, while the effect of tragedy has been mitigated
by farce created through characters, dialogues, gestures and actions.
We can sum up that ‘Waiting for Godot’ may not be a tragedy in the
traditional sense yet there are sufferings in the play as there is the
catharsis of pity and fear, simultaneously it contains comic elements which
form a tragicomedy. An excellent example of a tragicomedy is ‘Waiting for Godot’, which is seen as being under the umbrella of Absurd Theater. Because of the black humor—humor brought on by something
genuinely painful. Beckett himself referred to this play as a tragicomedy in
two acts.
***************
The Caucasian Chalk Circle By-
Bertolt Brecht
1.
Who
is the author of the play?
Ans. Bertolt Brecht
2.
Brecht terms himself a
"pacifist." What in his career most probably led to that stance?
Ans. Army
3.
Who
is the narrator of the story of the play ?
Ans. Arkadi Tcheidse.
4.
During the 1920's Brecht frequently
collaborated with a famous composer and a famous singer. Who were they?
Ans. Weill and Lenya.
5.
Who
did Lavrenti convince Grusha to marry?
Ans. A dying
peasant Jussup
6.
The Caucasian Chalk Circle was
written in Hollywood in 1944-45. Its premiere performance was given in what
state in the USA?
Ans. Minnesota.
7.
The biblical reference to Cain/Abel
refers to whom in the play?
Ans. Fat Prince/Governor.
8. The Monk was also known as ……….. in the play.
Ans. Anastasius.
9.
Which
literary device did the author use in the play?
Ans. Play within a play.
10.
Where
do the events of the play take place?
Ans. Georgia
11.
Whose
baby did Grusha run away with?
Ans. Natella
Abashvili's baby
12.
Why
did Grusha refuse to pull Michael from the center of chalk circle?
Ans. She doesn't want to hurt the child
13.
Did
Azdak divorce Grusha and the peasant man?
Ans. Yes.
14.
Why
did Natella want to get her son back?
Ans. Because all
Governor's estates and finances are tied to Michael and cannot be accessed
without him
15.
What
is the name of the singer in the story caucasian chalk circle
Ans. Gabriela Lotaif
16.
How many days does
Grusha take to travel to the northern mountains?
Ans. 22 days.
17. Why did Bertolt write the Caucasians chalk circle?
Ans. Brecht adapted this story into parable form and changed the setting to Soviet Georgia near the end of World War II.
18. What is the Chalk Circle in the play ?
Ans. This is the circle drawn by Azdak the Judge at the end of the play. He uses this to determine the mother of the child, Despite Natella Abashwili pulling Micheal hard she awards Grusha since she cares for the baby by not pulling and tear him apart.
19.
What is the
connection between the fat prince and the Governor?
Ans. The Fat
Prince and the Governor are brothers.
20.
Who were the
two doctors attending to Michael the son to Georgi Abashwili?
Ans. The two
doctors names were Mika Lokadze and Niko Mikadze.
21.
What is the
significance of the songs in The Caucasian Chalk Circle?
Ans. The songs
introduce the key issues that the play deals with.
22. “The
Caucasian Chalk Circle” is a strong introduction to epic theatre” Justify your
answer.
Or, Discuss ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ as an epic theatre.
Ans. Bertolt Brecht was known as a brilliant and shameless writer,
who in his earlier plays of experimentation of expression, developed a unique
style of play write. His well known play The Caucasian Chalk Circle depicts
this, a parable inspired by the Chinese play "Chalk Circle" written
at the close of World War Two. The story is set in the mountains of Georgia,
and retells the story of a child dammed by and fought over by two mothers and
King Solomon. This story is metaphorically drawn around Brecht's communist and
Marxist views on society, especially focusing on the bourgeoisie class. Through
the use of various gestus techniques, Brecht represents the differences between
Dramatic and Epic theatre, particularly within the first two scenes of the
play, creating an intellectual response, instead of an emotion one.
The concept of “epic theatre” was brought to life by
German playwright, Bertolt Brecht. This direction of theatre was inspired by
Brecht’s Marxist political beliefs. It was somewhat of a political platform for
his ideologies. Epic theatre is the assimilation of education through
entertainment and is the antithesis of Stanislavsky’s Realism and also
Expressionism. Brecht believed that, unlike epic theatre, Expressionism and
Realism were incapable of exposing human nature and so had no educational
value. He conjectured that his form of theatre was capable of provoking a
change in society. Brecht’s intention was to encourage the audience to ponder,
with critical detachment, the moral dilemmas presented before them.
In order to analyse and evaluate the action occurring
on stage, Brecht believed that the audience must not allow itself to become
emotionally involved in the story. Rather they should, through a series of
anti-illusive devices, feel alienated from it. The effect of this deliberate
exclusion makes it difficult for the audience to empathise with the characters
and their predicament. Thus, they could study the play’s social or political
message and not the actual events being performed on stage. This process is
called Verfremdungseffekt, or the alienation effect, where instead of
identifying with the characters, the audience is reminded that they are
watching only a portrayal of reality. Several well-known Brechtian plays
include Drums in the Night, Edward 2, The Threepenny Opera, Rise and Fall of
the Town of Mahoganny, The Life of Galileo, The Good Person of Szechwan,
Triple-A Plowed Under, One-Third of a Nation, Mother Courage and her children
and the Caucasian Chalk Circle.
A play whose dramatic structure and didactic purposes
epitomises epic theatre is The Caucasian Chalk Circle (CCC). The prologue of
this play transpires in a Caucasian village of the Soviet Union, where the
people of this village are being presented a play called “The Chalk Circle”. This
play is narrated by a “Singer” and embarks on the story of a servant girl,
Grusha, who rescues the governor’s son when their city falls under siege. The
son, Michael, has been left behind, without so much as a backward glance, by
his fleeing mother. Grusha escapes, with Michael in her arms, to the mountains
where they live for over a year. Along this journey, countless places and
people are encountered, a number that would only occur in epic theatre.
In truly epic fashion, the play then regresses to the
beginning of the story and introduces a man, Azdak. By chance this character
becomes an amoral and almost absurd judge in Grusha and Michael’s former city.
The paths of Grusha and Azdak cross when Grusha is summoned to the trial that
will determine who is to have custody of Michael. His biological mother or the
peasant Grusha who has cared for him the past years. Azdak’s ruling results from the outcome of the
“Chalk Circle” test. Grusha is awarded the child and hence, though the law has
succumbed, justice has prevailed. It is arguable that Brecht’s message in this
was to the Germans, that in order to uphold justice they must revolt against
Hitler’s law.
Many components of The CCC brand it to be an epic
drama. The Singer narrates what is to occur at the commencement of each scene,
so that the audience is familiar with enough of the plot in order for them to
refrain from becoming emotionally involved. Thoughts that could only be
expressed through soliloquies are also executed by the Singer. This person additionally
allows the play to uninhibitedly change place and time by just citing several
words. The ability of altering the situation and time is another element of
epic theatre. The Singer accomplishes the transition from Grusha’s story to
Azdak’s and this action assists in weakening the audience’s engagement with
Grusha’s plight.
Brecht has calculated the character of Grusha to be
one that the audience does not wish to identify with. Her salvation of Michael
is not a maternal and noble act but more of a disheartened resignation.
Throughout her ongoing struggle for survival she is not ‘courageous’ but
insidious. However, she does ignore her own interests, putting her life in
jeopardy, and is thus humane. This action could be evaluated as a further
social directive of Brecht’s, again aimed at the Germans. It could represent
that they can only be humane by striving to thwart Hitler, though they would be
endangering their lives by doing so. The existence of a social message in this
play further indicates that the CCC is indeed an example of epic theatre.
When performing an epic drama many Brechtian
alienation techniques can be incorporated. To illustrate these possible
techniques, scene 6 of the CCC will be briefly studied and directed. This scene
begins with a narration by the Singer. During this speech the Singer could be
finishing erecting the sets up on stage, demonstrating to the audience that the
scenery and props are just that and not authentic. In Brecht’s time he often
used a German theatre called the Theater am Schiffbauerdamn where the
auditorium was structured in an extravagant way close to fantasy, while its
stage was stark and mechanical. This contrast reminded the audience that, while
they were there to be entertained, they were also to think scientifically.
Thus, a theatre resembling this layout could be employed.
Epic
Theatre was experimental- it employed various unconventional devices. It was
aimed to allow the spectator of audience to stand outside and study the play,
as it was often dialectical. This contrasts against Dramatic Theatre, known
otherwise as "Aristotelian Theatre" in which the spectator is in the
thick of the play, and shares the experience. Brecht wanted to change the
audiences" ideals and views on society by forcing them to intellectually
recognize the messages conveyed within The Caucasian Chalk Circle, using the
Verfremdungseffekt. This is achieved in the first two scenes of the play
through the use of characters. There are many characters introduced to the
audience within these two scenes, all of them not being emotionally developed
to the audience. By not allowing this to happen, Brecht is sustaining the
audience from becoming "in the thick" of the play. The character of
the singer is used as a narrator ensuring the audience that what they were
viewing is not reality, instead actors playing a part. For example at the start
of scene two the singer quotes "Once Upon a time.
Thus, in conclusion, we may say
that certainly, ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ is
very different from more conservative theater usually shown in Utah Valley. It
asks questions prominent in the 1940’s, and the format is unusual to behold. As
a practitioner and student of theatre, we found the experience enlightening and
unique. As a performance, it was present and formalistic, and we loved every
moment of it. The innovative use of theatricality, combined with a solid script
made for an evening of theater we would happily repeat. Running time went a
little long but it was so compelling that we wanted the play to have kept
going. The nature of the show was simultaneously frustrating and invigorating,
and the questions it left with us still require answers. Brectht is best
known today for what he called “epic theatre,” his provocative revision in the
presentation of theater, which stripped performance of its usual tokens and
replaced the art form with a daring call to audiences. No longer were people
meant to watch theater in complacency, but the shows they watched served
purpose to incite them to action. Theatre, Brecht believed, should instruct
audiences and give them momentum to change the social climate of the world
around them.
23.
Discuss
how Bertolt Brecht paints
a picture of the
social inequality of the contemporary
age in ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’.
Or, Discuss how
Bertolt Brecht paints a picture of a society undergoing radical socio-political
transformations in ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ .
Ans. In ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’
Bertolt
Brecht paints a picture of a society undergoing radical socio-political
transformations coups and counter-coups. The play addresses love, abuse of
power, betrayal, justice, social class and inequality, negligence of duty and
irresponsibility, greed and materialism, and religious hypocrisy. Social
class inequality is a situation whereby a society is divided into groups
according to their economic, political and social status. In the text, the
difference between the rich and the poor is very pronounced. While the Grand
Duke, the Governor, the princes and their families are affluent, other members
of society are poor and dying of hunger. The children of the poor are sent to
war but when they get injured, they are not compensated. The children of the rich,
on the other hand, are not sent to war. Some of the petitioners beg for mercy
for their relatives who have been arrested unfairly. The poor people in the
text are not supposed to intermingle with the rich. When the people move
forward to air their grievances to the Governor, the soldiers lash them with
whips. Even when they only want to see young Michael, they are forced back by
the soldiers violently. The people in higher positions mistreat those below
them. For example, the Corporal harasses and intimidates one of the young
soldiers because the soldier was unable to beat up the husband of a fat girl
they had met. Even though Azdak makes an attempt to address inequality in this
society, the return of the Grand Duke shows that class inequality in society
cannot be fully eradicated. Poor people in society will always suffer
injustices and prejudices in the hands of the rich.
The Caucasian Chalk Circle is,
at its heart, a work that forces its audience to reckon with the harsh
realities of economic and social inequality. In keeping with Brecht’s Marxist
political leanings, The Caucasian Chalk Circle depicts the narcissism
and carelessness of the rich and the goodness and diligence of the poor in
stark contrast. He sets this social critique against a backdrop of political
turmoil in Grusinia (the Russian name for Georgia), as the nation weathers a
long, bloody war, as well as several smaller coups and transfers of power.
Written while Brecht was in exile during World War II—and had already witnessed
the horrors of World War I as a young man in Berlin—The Caucasian Chalk Circle is
a treatise against political, social, and economic corruption. In it, Brecht
argues that wealth, privilege, and power lead to both political and moral
corruption, which takes the form of evil deeds, war, and the perpetuation of
the lower class’s suffering.
The first example of moral
corruption in the play comes early on, with the introduction of the Abashwili
family. The Governor, Georgi Abashwili,
and his wife Natella employ
two doctors to look after their baby Michael’s every
need. Although the baby is healthy, Natella is constantly worried that he will
fall ill, and forces the doctors to minister to the child’s every cough or cry.
Meanwhile, Georgi is planning to expand add a new wing his palace, even as a
war rages through his country and peasants approach him on the street to beg
for lower taxes and an end to the fighting. The Abashwilis are only concerned
with themselves and their life of luxury. Their power and wealth has corrupted
them and blinded them to the plight of the poor. When the Fat Prince leads
a coup against the Governor and beheads him, Natella is forced to flee. Because
she does not take the coup seriously, she struggles with several trunks stuffed
full of fine dresses, shoes, and other accessories, even as the sky over Nuka turns red with fire from the peasant’s
riots and Natella’s servants urge her that her life—and the life of her
child—is at stake. In fact, Natella is so focused on bringing the right pair
of boots along
with her (themselves a symbol of wealth and decadence) that she leaves her
child behind in the courtyard. Natella is completely corrupt, and is the worst
kind of narcissist—deeply obsessed not only with herself, but with the material
possessions she has amassed despite the despicable living conditions of the
people she and her husband supposedly serve.
When Natella finally brings Grusha to
trial in an attempt to get Michael back for herself, it comes to light that it
is not even the child himself that she is set on repossessing—it is his
inheritance, as he is the heir apparent to all his father’s estates. That
Natella waxes poetic about how deeply she has missed her child when she is only
after his inheritance demonstrates how corrupt she really is. Grusha alone
seems aware of the tendency of wealth and power to corrupt, and sings several
times of how she hopes her child will grow up free of the trappings of luxury.
In the end, she knows that if her child is returned to his birth mother, he
will grow up to be cruel and narcissistic, and it is her wish to continue to
raise him up right, which helps to sway Azdak in
her favor.
Political corruption, too, is
rampant in Grusinia, and Brecht intentionally shields his audience from ever
knowing who the “most” corrupt party is. The Abashwilis work for a regime led
by the Grand Duke that is revealed to be deeply hated, and yet the peasants
riot in the street when they are deposed and replaced by the Fat Prince. Grusha
learns, while she is seeking shelter in the mountains, that the Grand Duke has
returned, and has brought mercenaries from the Persian Army to help him fight
against the Fat Prince and his brother, but all of this information is
delivered in a second-hand and gossipy manner. Brecht does this intentionally,
to prevent the audience from being able to keep up with the waves of corrupt
power-grabbing that are sweeping Grusinia, and to show that ultimately it
doesn’t matter who is in charge, since corruption will mar each and every
regime that takes power. Brecht uses the theme of corruption in this play to
comment on the times he was living in—a moment in history during which the
world was war-torn, disparities in wealth were deeply felt, and unspeakable
violence and corruption were taking hold of his homeland. In The Caucasian Chalk Circle, Brecht
sought to argue—through the play’s climax and denouement, when justice and
reason finally triumph—that corruption must be overturned and eradicated
completely if the suffering of the world is ever to be lessened.
In conclusion,
we may say that Widely considered to be Brecht’s
most engaging and humane play, The Caucasian Chalk Circle tells the story of Grusha who
sacrifices her happiness and dignity for the sake of an abandoned child she
takes as her own. Containing one of the most memorable trials ever staged, this
thriller and controversial political polemic is a great classic of the modern
theater that presents different themes as Bertolt Brecht paints a picture of a society
undergoing radical socio-political transformations coups and counter-coups.
24. Discuss the major themes of ‘The
Caucasian Chalk Circle’.
Ans.
A theme is not stated directly, hence, the author will use
different characters and events in order to bring out the message or themes. In
the play, ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’, some of the major themes that Brecht
addresses are: Abuse of power, Greed , Selflessness, Social class inequality,
Justice, Political and social turbulence, Deceit, hypocrisy and religiosity,
Love, etc.
Abuse
of power occurs when people in authority misuse the power bestowed upon them by
virtue of their position or office. In the text, power is abused by the
Governor, Natella, the soldiers / Ironshirts and the Fat Prince. The Governor
abuses power by enriching himself whereas his people remain poor. He is said to
be as rich as Croesus, with very many horses and a vast estate yet many of his
people are beggars. When he goes to church, he is confronted by many beggars,
petitioners and mothers with hungry children. They cry for him to reduce the
high taxes. His son has two doctors and he is said to be preparing to tear down
slums to start the building of the east wing of his garden. He does not care
about where the poor, slum people will go. Natella is also seen to abuse her
powers through her treatment of servants. She orders them around, insults them
and even uses physical violence on them. The Ironshirts/soldiers also abuse
their powers on many occasions. They lash the people with thick whips when they
move nearer to see Michael. The Corporal also abuses his powers when harassing
Grusha by making sexual advances at her. The soldiers also use violence on
Azdak when they beat him on realizing that the Grand Duke is back. The Fat
Prince and the other princes also abuse their powers by overthrowing the Grand
Duke and his Governor. The Fat Prince goes ahead and raids his brother’s palace
and arrests the Governor. He then kills him and orders the Ironshirts to hang
his head on the door. He also orders them to look for Michael and to kill him.
He also tries to have his nephew, Bizergan Kazbeki, appointed as the new Judge.
Azdak also abuses power by favouring the poor in his judgments. Though his
actions are motivated by the injustices that the poor have endured, he misuses
his powers as judge in seeking revenge. Finally, it is the misuse of power that
leads to other social ills such as injustice, violence and political
instability. When those who are entrusted with power in society misuse it, it
begets social and political turmoil. The citizens will find it difficult to
obey authority if those in power do not obey the rules they expect others to
follow.
The theme of greed is also
revealed in the novel. Natella wants to have a share of her late husband’s
estate. The only reason that she looks for her child is that the latter is the
legitimate heir to the estate. She takes Grusha to court and fights for her
child’s custody for all the wrong reasons. However, the judge realizes that
Natella does not care for the child: she only wants to inherit the late
governor’s money.
Selflessness is whereby puts the
welfare of others ahead of his or her own. A selfless person will sacrifice
what he/she has to the benefit of others who may be less privileged or
vulnerable. In the text, Grusha shows a lot of selflessness especially towards
Michael who is not her real child. First, when the Governor is beheaded and
Natella takes off, Grusha decides to remain behind and take care of Michael the
whole night. Secondly, when the Ironshirts, led by the Corporal, discover where
Michael is hidden, Grusha risks her life by hitting the Corporal, taking the
baby and running away. Grusha, again, risks her life and that of Michael by
daring to cross the rotten bridge even after she is warned by the merchants.
Thirdly, during winter, Grusha has to bear the discomfort of staying in the
house of her sister-in-law who is very religious and pious. She is hidden in a
small dark room away from the neighbours to avoid being an embarrassment to his
brother’s family. Fourthly, Grusha accepts to get married to a ‘dying ma’ Jussup,
for Michael’s sake. She sacrifices her promise to Simon because she needs to
provide food and a home for Michael. When Simon comes back and finds Grusha
married, he becomes upset but Grusha decides to stay with Michael rather than
follow him. When the soldiers come for Michael, she follows them forgetting the
danger she is putting herself into. Finally, she risks getting arrested by
going back to the capital where Natella and the Corporal are waiting for her.
Natella accuses her of stealing a child while the Corporal wants to arrest her
for injuring him. Grusha is, however, prepared to face Natella in a court of
law where judge Azdak decides the case in her favour.
Social class inequality is a
situation whereby a society is divided into groups according to their economic,
political and social status. In the text, the difference between the rich and
the poor is very pronounced. While the Grand Duke, the Governor, the princes
and their families are affluent, other members of society are poor and dying of
hunger. The children of the poor are sent to war but when they get injured,
they are not compensated. The children of the rich, on the other hand, are not
sent to war. Some of the petitioners beg for mercy for their relatives who have
been arrested unfairly. The poor people in the text are not supposed to
intermingle with the rich. When the people move forward to air their grievances
to the Governor, the soldiers lash them with whips. Even when they only want to
see young Michael, they are forced back by the soldiers violently. The people
in higher positions mistreat those below them. For example, the Corporal
harasses and intimidates one of the young soldiers because the soldier was
unable to beat up the husband of a fat girl they had met. Even though Azdak
makes an attempt to address inequality in this society, the return of the Grand
Duke shows that class inequality in society cannot be fully eradicated. Poor
people in society will always suffer injustices and prejudices in the hands of
the rich.
There is a lot
of injustice in the text mostly perpetuated by the rich, the powerful and those
in authority. The people seek justice through the courts, through petitioning
the Governor and sometimes through seeking revenge on their own. Justice is
dispensed primarily through the court system.
Another theme that is revealed in
the play is motherhood. The question of motherhood comes into play when
Natella, the governor’s wife, looks for her child. Despite her being the
biological mother, the judge decides that Grusha should keep the child because
she is the "real" mother. The author reveals that motherhood involves
raising a child in addition to bringing it into the world.
One of the themes revealed in The
Caucasian Chalk Circle by Bertolt Brecht is war. In the play, a
political uprising occurs, which sees the governor being killed. Furthermore,
the war results in the governor’s wife losing her child to Grusha, the house
help. Because of the war, Grusha flees the city with the child.
Through the
portrayal of Grusinian society as chaotic, Brecht makes
clear arguments against corruption and hypocrisy. All the politicians in the
play are obsessed with power, including the governor, the grand duke, and the
fat prince. Each strives to gain more power through literally cutting down and
killing their fellow man. The fat prince arranges a violent coup to overthrow
the grand duke, and three years later, the grand duke arranges a coup that
kills the fat prince. During both violent uprisings, it isn't only the powerful
politicians who are killed. Hundreds of innocent people are killed as well.
These include the governor, who was violently beheaded in his palace in Act 1, the judge
found hung outside the courthouse in Act 4, and countless
peasants and soldiers. At various times, characters complain that there simply
aren't enough men around because they've all been killed simply so one person
can gain more power. Throughout all this violence, characters pay each other
off, using money as a means of corrupting humanity and morality. The fat prince
pays police officers, such as Shauva, a fee for every fugitive they kill. There
is no trial, no sense of justice just immediate death based on someone else's
perception of the victim's loyalties. There are so many fugitives running for
their life that Shauva stops seeing them as human, referring to them as
"rabbits" instead of people.
Money isn't the
only tool of corruption in The Caucasian Chalk Circle,
however. Brecht, an atheist, also criticizes religion through his portrayal of
Aniko, Grusha's pious sister-in-law. Religion has corrupted Aniko's empathy for
others, making her judgmental and punitive. Aniko focuses so intensely on her
piety that she fails to show her sister-in-law basic humanity. She refuses to
arrange a meal or a bed for her starving, weak family member because she
assumes that Michael is Grusha's illegitimate child, which means that Grusha
must be a sinner. And Aniko does not want to be seen sheltering a fallen woman.
Love is
presented in the following ways: parental love i.e. the love that parents have
for their children, filial love i.e. the love that exists between siblings, and
romantic love which is the intimate love between two people of the opposite sex
who are not related by blood.
In conclusion,
we may say that Widely considered to be Brecht’s most engaging and humane
play, The Caucasian Chalk
Circle tells the
story of Grusha who sacrifices her happiness and dignity for the sake of an
abandoned child she takes as her own. Containing one of the most memorable
trials ever staged, this thriller and controversial political polemic is a
great classic of the modern theater that presents different themes as Bertolt Brecht paints a picture of a society
undergoing radical socio-political transformations.
25.
“The
main theme of ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ by Bertolt Brecht is of Ownership
and Belonging “. Do you agree? Justify
your answer.
Ans.
Ownership can be
defined as the act, state, or right of possessing something and belonging can
be defined as human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. The
theme of The Caucasian Chalk Circle is Ownership and Belonging. I did agree to
the message of the play. I agreed with the message of the play because the play
surrounds mostly Grusha and the Governor’s child (Michael).
The meaning of ownership is
displayed within the play by Grusha taking the Governor’s child and raising him
as her own and them faces the Governor’s wife in court to decide who is the
rightful mother and who does the child belong to which is where the other part
of the theme belonging comes into place. The protagonist of the play was Grusha
and the antagonist of the play was The Fat Prince Kazbeki. Grusha had many
goals in the play which were to protect the child at all costs, marry Simon
Shashava, take a journey to her brother’s village for housing, as well as prove
to the newly appointed judge Azdak that the child was hers when the Governor’s
wife tried to reclaim him because of the estates and finances that was
inherited. The goal of the Fat Prince was please the Governor and his wife to
later organizes a coup and get rid of the Governor and be in control, as well
as get his nephew to be appointed as the new judge, and have the Sergeant find
and kill Michael (Governor’s Child) to wipe out the previous ruling party’s
bloodline. Grusha’s goal/motivations did make sense to the given play whereas
the Fat Prince’s did not. Grusha goals and motivations made sense to theme of
Ownership & Belonging because she had to prove her motherhood to the judge
to claim that the child was hers even though the child wasn’t. The Fat Prince’s
motivation/goals did not make sense to the theme of the play because his plan
was to have his nephew be the new judge but fails and is beheaded which has
nothing to do with neither Ownership nor Belonging.
The primary conflict between the
protagonist and antagonist was the right to property and the rights to life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness or Michael. Michael was the primary conflict
because the Fat Prince wanted him dead and Grusha wanted him to be safe which
caused the Prince to have soldiers hunt for the baby and Grusha give up the
baby and then claim the baby as hers again. During the play every actor
portrayed one role tremendously but throughout the whole play the best actor
who portrayed all their roles the best was Victoria Reibel who of course played
the main character Grusha. I would say that Victoria was the best actress
because she gave us what it seemed like real emotion when she was refusing to
fight over Michael because she felt that he would suffer pain. I honestly think
that there was no worst actor but the actor that I felt that could have done
better was Ethan Lyvers. Ethan played the role of Simon and the First Young
Man. I felt that Ethan could’ve done better as his role of Simon because I
really didn’t feel Simon’s presence it was like there was no love connection
between the two.
The play’s set helped contribute
the play’s story, theme, and characters by making it seem like their village
was destroyed in which it was because this happened around the time of WWII. I
felt that the set did help my understanding of the story, characters, and theme
because since the story takes place around WWII the set was intended to look
dirty, messy, and scattered in which it did. During the other scenes for
example where Grusha had to walk across a shaky bridge it seemed real and
dangerous which it was supposed to be. The play’s costumes contributed to my
understanding of the play’s story, characters and theme by everyone looking
like their roles. The play’s costumes did help me understand the play’s story,
characters, and theme by the high-class fashion of the Governor, Governor’s
wife, the Fat Prince and his nephew to the low-class basic clothes of Grusha,
the Farmer and his wife, and the Servant. Also, the middle- class fashion of
the Doctor’s, the Sergeant, and Azdak.
The costumes were so detailed and
so to the point that I knew exactly who that person was portraying. The play’s
lighting contributed to my understanding of the play’s story, characters and
theme by focusing the light on the key important parts of the play. For
example, when it came for the Singer to sing to the audience on what was
happening during that scene the lights were centered and focused on him so that
all our attention would be on him and not the other actors. In my opinion the
play’s lighting helped my understanding of the story, characters, and theme. I
felt that the lighting helped because during the play the lights were centered
on some or all the characters to tell what the key important part of the scene
was when they all spoke together looking up at the sky.
The play’s sound/score
contributed to my understanding of the play’s story, characters and theme by
just like the lighting but the actors singing the key important events of what
happened throughout the scenes. For example, the Singer is like a narrator who
tells a story of an artistic movie, poem, or song in which the Singer uses song
to narrate Grusha’s adventure. The play’s sound/score helped my understanding
of the story, characters, and theme by like stating before singing key
important events to tell the audience what happened during the scene or what
will happen later in the same scene.
In conclusion,
we may widely considered that‘The
Caucasian Chalk Circle’ by
Bertolt Brecht is engaging and
humane play, the play tells
the story of Grusha who sacrifices her happiness and dignity for the sake of an
abandoned child she takes as her own. The main theme of ‘The Caucasian
Chalk Circle’ is Ownership and Belonging since that most of the play revolves
around Grusha and Michael during the era of WWII and ends with Grusha obtaining
custody of Michael after facing major backlashes and obstacles.
THE CAUCASIAN CHALK
CIRCLE OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Name the two communes
that have a dispute over a piece land. of (4 marks)
2. How does Azdak become
a judge? (6 marks)
3. Identify the six
cases that Azdak conducts in the story based on the following. (8 marks)
a) The case
b) The complainant
c) The accused
d) The verdict
4. Give reasons why the
fruit farmers were given the valley. (6 marks)
5. Describe the
happenings around the chalk circle in Natella and Grusha’s case. (6 marks)
6. Explain the encounter
between Azdak and the Grand Duke. (5 marks)
7. What is the name of
the singer in the story? (1 mark)
8. describe the
following incidences involving Grusha
a) Picking of thre child
(2 marks)
b) The milk incidence (3
marks)
c) The doorstep
incidence
d) The Jangatau Glacier
incidence. (3 marks)
e) The bridge incidence.
(3 marks)
8. How many days does
Grusha take to travel to the northern
mountains? (1 mark)
9. Why are other servants
of the palace discouraging Grusha from taking the child? (3 marks)
10. what are the funny
things that Azdak does during his cases? (6 marks)
12. prove that Azdak is
corrupt. (4 marks)
13. “What there is shall
be given to those who are good for it.”
a) Who said these words?
( 1 mark)
b) Give two incidences
in the story that prove the above words. (6 marks)
14. How doe Azdak come
to know the true intention of Natella of wanting baby Michael in her case with
Grusha (3 marks)
15. Prove that Aniko is
not hospitable. (3 marks)
16. What is ironical
about Jussup being refered to as a dying man? (3 marks)
17. Comment on the
behavior of the monk in the story. (4 marks)
18. Describe one
incidence of a play within a play as seen in the story. (5 marks)
19. comment on the
character of the corporal. (6 marks)
20. Who is simon? (1
mark)
21. How is Azdak saved
from the wrath of the firmers and the ironshirts when the Grand Duke comes
back to power? (3 marks)
22. What is Azdak’s
favourite statement before he begins his cases and what does this mean? (2
marks)
23. What is ironical in
the divorce case? (2 marks)
24. what happens to the
judge who was there before Azdak? (1 mark)
25. Why do you think
Azdak sits on the statute book? (3 marks)
Comments
Post a Comment