From today’s viewpoint, it’s hard to imagine the effect of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot on its original 1953 French audience. On those opening performances, many people left at the interval, or jeered it for its nonsense; one evening the audience broke into a fight as those who hated it clashed with those who defended it. And of course the scandal of this outrageous play just made it more attractive to those curious to see what all the fuss was about.
Its 1955 London premiere was equally divisive, with the likes of Harold Hobson and Kenneth Tynan understanding its value whilst all the other critics dismissed it. Seventy years on, the play still has the power to divide and befuddle; a) because on the face of it, it’s incomprehensible nonsense and b) because it demands that you read interpretations into it that may not necessarily be there. Is Godot God? Beckett said that if he’d meant Godot to represent God, he’d have called him God. When Ralph Richardson asked Beckett to give him a little more about Pozzo’s back story, he replied that everything he knew about Pozzo was in the text – if he’d known more, he’d have written more. Beckett insists that you appreciate the play as he has written it – no need to imbue it with other meanings.
What really offended the theatregoers of the time – in my humble opinion – was the in-your-face recognition of human frailty and disgusting bodily functions. Whilst the works of Coward and Rattigan, for example, may well have dealt with mental frailty, anything lavatorial or for Doctor’s ears only was kept well away from their sensibilities. Beckett’s characters are not so coy. One with stinking feet, one with stinking breath; one with a constant need to urinate, one happy to eat chicken bones off the floor. Fortunately for those easily offended 1950s theatregoers, the censor removed Vladimir’s reference to an erection, and Mrs Gozzo’s suffering from clap was replaced by warts, bless her.
In a nutshell: two men wait by a tree – they’re waiting for Godot. Two other men appear, one controlled by the other by means of rope; after some debate, they depart. At the end of the evening, a boy arrives to tell them that Godot won’t come today, but surely he will tomorrow. Then there’s the interval. And then it all happens again. It sounds like the epitome of stasis, but a lot happens between the two Acts. Overnight, Estragon has been beaten up. The tree has sprouted leaves. Pozzo and Lucky enter the stage from the opposite direction, and Lucky’s rope is shorter. Pozzo has gone blind. Estragon’s boots have moved. Is this progress?
Beckett doesn’t give a stage designer much to go on, but Rae Smith’s set is fantastic. An off-white lunar landscape, full of rises and falls, the kind of rock formation a child would love to clamber over. Starkly, the tree of the same colour stands out. As each Act begins, the set revolves around, just slightly, into place, giving the impression of a Groundhog Day-type time and space reset. Bruno Poet’s lighting design briefly transforms this white barren landscape with a lush warm glow signifying the sunset.
There was much pre-production excitement about the pairing of Lucian Msamati and Ben Whishaw as Estragon and Vladimir, and the expectation that they would be devastatingly good. They do indeed make a very convincing couple of Godot devotees. Mr Msamati’s Gogo is a weary, pain-riddled, sleepy chap who appears to be slow on the uptake. He has a perfect expression for his character; showing little emotion he constantly seems to be processing information in an attempt to understand what’s going on.Mr Whishaw’s Didi, on the other hand, is probing and questioning, tries to take the initiative whenever it’s possible; he’s the alpha male of the two, and leads the conversations with Pozzo and the boy. But the two men are inter-reliant, supporting and irritating each other; lonely when the other is not there, and simply finding ways to pass the time. They execute the famous hat swapping sequence perfectly, in a scene that brings the characters closest to a sense of clowning, but also suggests they’re dissatisfied with their identities. Alternatively, it might just simply be a game to while away a few minutes.
Jonathan Slinger’s Pozzo irradiates (in the first Act at least) wealthy superiority, looking down his nose at everyone and everything, cracking open a bottle of wine as if settling down for a self-indulgent picnic, barely acknowledging his slave Lucky, played with all Tom Edden’s legendary physical comedy – except that it’s not played for laughs. There’s nothing Mr Edden can’t do on stage that calls for some physicality in extremis, and he makes just about as much sense out of Lucky’s long speech that it is possible to do.
It’s fascinating to watch a superb production of this highly significant play. The intensity of the conversations between the two main characters are very demanding on the audience, and you need to concentrate very hard if you want to make some kind of sense out of what’s going on. As a result, at the end of the show and even more so at the beginning of the interval, the audience is stunned into some kind of muted silence. There’s no excited buzz between theatregoers about how much they’re enjoying it (or indeed hating it) – it simply takes all one’s energy away. But it doesn’t leave you empty or feeling short-changed; quite the opposite, in fact. It remains a most remarkable play, and this is a very fine production.
Five Alive, Let Theatre Thrive!