Waiting For Godot - Thinking Activity

 

  Welcome readers,                                    

                                      Samuel Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' is a commercially successful experimental play. The main attraction of the play which captured the attention of the larger audience and many good readers is the central theme of 'nothingness' - practically nothing happens in the play and there is not any development in the plot yet the significance lies in the nothingness of it. Because nothing in the setting of the play changes, the characters are waiting and the audience is also waiting with the characters but the waiting is endless. 

Martin Esslin in his visionary article very appropriately describes- 

"As nothing real ever happens, that change is in itself an illusion. The ceaseless activity of time is self-defeating, purposeless, and therefore useless, and therefore null and void.

...

They are aware that all we do in this life is as nothing when seen against the senseless action of time, which is in itself an illusion."

                                              This blogpost is a thinking activity assigned by our professor to ponder upon the questions mentioned below on Waiting for Godot after class reflective worksheet. Waiting for Godot is Beckett's translation of his own original French-language play, En attendant Godot, and is subtitled (in English only) "a tragicomedy in two acts". 

Click here to navigate to Prof. Dr Dilip Barad Sir's blog titled -Worksheet: Screening Movie Waiting for Godot

1) What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?

                         Firstly, one should inquire into the very idea of a tree in order to understand its use in literature as a symbol or metaphor. For example, a 'tree' is always associated with nature and one of the profound age of Nature in the history of English Literature is that of Romantic Age where the natural objects have been represented in a variety of ways. 

                            Since a long period of time, trees in great works of art have been represented in mysteriously varied ways- everything from the powerful and divinely secretive methods of nature to immortality, to the imagination, to family, to individual. Hence, individually and collectively the idea of the same object differs. 

                            Similarly, one such play of an Irish playwright Beckett presents this image of a tree differently in the setting of his play. The setting of the play 'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett is inspired by two paintings by Caspar David Friedrich - a 19th-century German Romantic landscape painter. The title of this painting is 'longing'. 

                            In 1975, in Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition, his book about the kind of modern painting that expresses spiritual longing, Robert Rosenblum offered Friedrich as a source for painters such as Gottlieb and Rothko, whose versions of intense nothingness he demonstrated to be similar illustrations of "the search for the sacred in the secular modern world." (HOLLANDER, A)

Friedrich's paintings with nothingness as their subject always insist on the absolute presence of something, often in detail. 

-Anne Hollander

                                            It seems as if the artist had conveyed the pain of the transcience and the naked force of spiritual longing. It seems that in his art, religious longing may be precipitated only by the look of an actual tree, never by an idealized tree, a visionary tree, an idea of trees. And the experience of observing the is also unique. 

                                        Here longing means the deep desire and craves for something. Waiting in the play is connected with the longing of the painting. In the painting two people, probably, are seen as watching the sunrise and sunset. The more significant thing is that both the paintings have a similar background of Nature. In one painting nature(tree) stands for bright hope and in the second one, it stands for despair. Inspired from these paintings, Samuel Beckett used the thematic concern and significance of tree in his play and director Michael Lindsay-Hogg in his 2001 film called 'Waiting for Godot' an adaptation of Beckett's play also uses the tree to signify the barrenness of life, the anguish of human existence. 

                                    But it becomes hard to draw more comparison between these paintings and Beckett's play because Casper David Friedrich's paintings contain hugely romantic elements, his depiction of nature has a different and optimistic meaning and Beckett’s depiction of nature has an altogether different meaning.

                                The 'longing' maybe 'waiting' but then there is no further comparison possible. The 'waiting' for Beckett is in the indifference and uncaring universe. The most astonishing thing is that in Act 1 there are no leaves in the tree but in Act 2, Beckett gives a tree a few leaves. 

                                    Fredrich seems to be romantic in his visionary output because of his association with the romanticism in Germany but at the same time, as one of the great Romantics, Friedrich also departed from the charming landscape painting of his contemporaries, setting sparse accents in his nearly empty oil paintings. With his radical image design, he was one of the modern artists of his time. On contrary, being a romanticist he looks to catch the endless experience of nature.

                                    The depiction of debris and the barren tree, in the play, suggest abandonment, compounded by the dull plot or no plot or story element and uneven compositional balance of narration. Beckett’s simple images are often deceptive and transmographic – ideas that resist any artistic tendency to linger over specificity or detail. The discussion among Estragon and Vladimir with respect to the "tree" status is likewise significant for Godot.

2) The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves?

 

                            The tree is a symbol in the play. It can be said that the tree itself is a character as any other character. Generally, it is observed that a character grows in the work of art by learning from the experiences. This kind of character is called a developing character. But the play Waiting for Godot explores a static situation and static or flat characters. The characters think to move but they do not move. 

"Waiting for Godot' does not tell a story; it explores a static situation. "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful." On a country road by a tree two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting." (Esslin) 

                                 Hence, there is not any mental progression in the characters but on the other hand, an object that is the tree can be seen as growing. From the leafless tree in Act 1 to a tree with four to five leaves in Act 2. 

                                    Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot and there is a tree in the background which can be assumed a representative of Godot. The leafless tree in Act 1 represents a lack of vitality and meaning. 

Estragon: [despairingly] Ah! [Pause.] You’re sure it was here?

Vladimir: What?

Estragon: That we were to wait.

Vladimir: He said by the tree. [They look at the tree.] Do you see any others.

Estragon: What is it? 

Vladimir: I don’t know. A willow.

Estragon: Where are the leaves?

Vladimir: It must be dead.

Estragon: No more weeping.

Vladimir: Or perhaps it’s not the season

Estragon: Looks to me more like a bush.

Vladimir: A shrub.

Estragon: A bush.

Vladimir: A–. What are you insinuating? That we’ve come to the wrong place?

                                        

                                     To wait by the tree for Godot signifies as if the tree is associated with Godot. The tree, in this scene, serves as an organizing plot device which anchors Vladimir and Estragon to the location that will remain constant on stage throughout Godot’s performance. They are waiting there, on stage, because “he” (presumably Godot) told them to wait by the tree.

                                    Here, Vladimir calls the tree 'a willow tree' for the image of the willow tree is religiously charged, both in the Celtic and Christian traditions. A willow tree is a sign both of grief and of hope for a new life and a willow tree is always planted on the cemetery of the dead. As Godot is not appearing, both characters are entertaining themselves in the philosophizing the tree for which Samuel Beckett can be assumed to have displayed or signified the true activity of the philosophers is to entertain themselves in their leisure time. 

As the characters argue about the nature of the tree (as a beaconing object) by which they were told to wait for Godot, they simultaneously call its role as a symbol into question. If we entertain the common interpretation of Godot’s (lack of) arrival as symbolizing salvation for Vladimir and Estragon (i.e. Waiting for Salvation), then the characters, as early as the sixth page of the play, negate the tree’s possibility as a “site of salvation.” For, in questioning its existence as a tree, Vladimir and Estragon question salvation itself. Despite their simultaneous faith and eschatological scepticism towards Godot’s arrival, the characters remain rooted to the spot, in vain, waiting for Godot.

                                    In Act 2, the tree stands for itself and not representing any character from the play. It doesn’t have anything to do with the quest and misery of any human’s life. It is growing at its own pace and time. In the second act, there are leaves on the tree which show it does not wait with Vladimir and Estragon for Godot. Nature doesn’t need any Godot and it also doesn’t sympathies with human beings. It is completely indifferent towards human existence or even human misery. 

                                              It doesn’t have rationality but human always try to give rational meanings to it. The natural object like a tree is devoid of any human purpose but it is the humans who try to justify the significance or give a tree its meaning which for a tree is completely useless!

Vladimir: The tree, look at the tree. [Estragon looks at the tree.]

Estragon: Was it not there yesterday?

Vladimir: Yes of course it was there. Do you not remember? We nearly hanged ourselves from it. But you wouldn’t. Do you remember?

Estragon: You dreamt it.

Vladimir: Is it possible you’ve forgotten already?

Estragon: That’s the way I am. Either I forget immediately or I never forget. 

                                    In Act 2 of the play, the characters are moving towards the absurdity of their waiting, the futility of their longing for Godot. It can also be interpreted as the leaves of the tree indicates the positive connotations of characters thinking, as and when they think it is meaningless to wait for Godot. So, in this way as the human grow in their thinking and move towards rationality in the same manner the tree is sprouting with some leaves. The (4-5) leaves of the tree can be fruitful questions one needs to ponder upon- 

For whom are we waiting? For what are we waiting? Why should we wait and why are we supposed to wait? Is waiting necessary? Can't we move on?

                                        Another interpretation of the tree can be done on the basis of Estragone's forgetfulness in Act 2. When Estragon says.

ESTRAGON: 

(suddenly furious). Recognize! What is there to recognize? All my lousy life I've crawled about in the mud! And you talk to me about scenery! (Looking wildly about him.) Look at this muckheap! I've never stirred from it!

                                  It can be derived that what is there to remember in such a meaningless existence. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in assuming that the leaves of the tree are increasing the hope of Estragon and Vladimir as because, sprouting of the leaves can be a sign of hope but it is an illusionary hope for both the characters in their meaninglessness. 

3)  In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

                                         In both the acts of the play, the scenes of the moon at night can be interpreted as the time passes. It is an indication that time has passed and the next sunrise is going to be a good one- 'GODOT WILL COME" the next day. Hence, the night passes, time passes. In a larger context, it is the time passing period in the endless waiting. As the older people wait for death and everyday figure out their days that when are they going to get salvation in the same manner, both these characters are waiting for their salvation which GODot can only provide them. 

                                 In another way, we can interpret it as per the manner in which Beckett shows the importance of time in Waiting for Godot through the symbol of the moon. The moon is a noticeable symbol to the characters and the audience as well, whenever they see the moon; they know that the night has come which means that it is the time to leave and have a rest, also the moon shows that the time is in progress to them. Both the characters- Vladimir and Estragon find the moon as a sign of mercy to them to end their suffering as well as a relaxation in their futile act of waiting. 

4) The director fills the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?

                                     

                                   In the 2001 released film by Michael Lindsay-Hogg, the director takes the artistic liberty in designing the setting of the play where he uses the debris in the setting may be to create the effects of a catastrophe of the World War. The director fills the setting with some debris comprising of waste and broken bits of rocks connoting the unimportance of life, the meaninglessness and futility of our actions that how the things become pointless whenever we destroy or create an enormous structure. The debris also symbolized the after-effects of the war as if the War had broken out and huge planes and aircraft have been destructed in the bombing and turned into plains and plateau. It also strikes our attention on the cities and states being destroyed in a bombing by the superpowers and creating the victim countries into a complete mess. 

                              Additionally, the debris is the opposite of nature, the debris is a human-created useless waste. It also symbolizes the 'powerless Powerfullness' of the humans. Humans in the greed of their material world have the strength to destroy but when it comes to reconstructing and healing, this powerfulness turns into complete and bare powerlessness. 

5) The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?

"Waiting for Godot' does not tell a story; it explores a static situation. "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful." On a country road by a tree two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting." (Esslin) 

                                    As Martin Esslin puts it, the play is surrounded by nothingness. And Beckett begins his play with a dialogue -

ESTRAGON:(giving up again). Nothing to be done 

                                        This statement - "Nothing to be done" is repeated almost four times in the play. This statement carries deep philosophical meanings. It defines the struggle to Find Meaning in Purposeless Life. The very form of the play Waiting for Godot indicates the unbearably repetitious nature of life altogether. Samuel Beckett provides us with two acts in the play – two acts which both follow the same basic plotline. A repetitious existence renders all efforts to struggle futile; in a life that repeats the same events over and over, individuals like Estragon and Vladimir can only wait out a seemingly unending, mind-numbing existence and, at best, find ways to pass the time. 

                                    Hence, through the opening scene, Beckett clears the idea of nothingness. This line represents the whole idea- the central struggle of human begins as a thematic concern. It symbolizes the nothingness of existence, the purposeless life, the life devoid of meaning and as nothing can be done within life and nothing can be done while waiting for Godot. It shows how nothing can really mean something as there is the context within this play.  

6) Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?

                                    Yes, I strongly agree that this play is not pessimistic, rather it provides optimistic rationality which is the significance and futility of waiting. Theologically, this play is suggesting GODOT as GOD and because the central theme of the play is waiting, that is hope, it describes the futility of hope in our lives. 

                                      The Life of human beings are surrounded in and around hope and depends on the waiting, HOPE.  The whole life of a human is passed with this waiting. Life is a continuing process and it requires something to hold on so generally, human beings tend to rely on hope. Similarly, Estragon and Vladimir both the characters are relying solely on the waiting - Waiting For Godot. But they are forgetting that they do not need any Godot for the continuation of their journey. Hence, the play is optimistically dealing with the philosophy of existentialism. 

'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." - E.G. Marshal 

                                    The circle of time is endless and as long as life exists, time is going to record the footsteps. 

7) How are the props like the hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?

                        The props like hat and boots are representing human’s attachment towards the mind or body. 

                                Hat symbolically represents the mind as Vladimir is with hat and he keeps on thinking, same with lucky, both use the hat as a tool for thinking and with Lucky, one has to remove his hat to make him stop thinking. It displays the mechanical life of human beings, it seems as if when one switches on- the thinking process starts and when one switches off the thinking process should end. While Estragon has hat but he doesn’t use it he is more concentrating on his boots which are not comforting to him. 

                                The boots are a symbol of daily struggling — Estragon is constantly affected by his boots, always taking them off and putting them on but never makes a difference. (Ajemian) This routine struggle of the fitting is described by Beckett. The second Act describes the hat as finally fit for him. Estragon’s boots, instead of symbolizing rational thought processes on the other hand symbolize the fact that there is nothing to be done for the two men in a less pensive and more active way. Estragon, who focuses more on boots than hats, is more earthy and realistic because he is more grounded than Vladimir.  

8) Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?

                                  

 When Milton says -

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven"

Similarly, it cannot be denied that it is  

the mind which which can make itself powerful and capable of ruling over other and it is the mind which accepts the surrendering and subjugation of others. 

                     Yes, I do think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic. Obedience to authority is the tendency people have to try to please those in charge. Psychological evidence indicates that people tend to respect and follow those whom they perceive to have legitimate authority. This can lead to trouble if it causes people to fail to exercise their own independent ethical judgment. Similarly, Lucky is habituated with his being as a slave or rather he has become Pozzo's slave in such a way that it is hard for him to even think of his being a slave. It is a satire on human beings that how they become a slave of religion, politics unconsciously that they fail to realise the real and true identity of themselves and they consider their original identity as some marks of the masters. Lucky is a submissive slave. He carries heavy luggage, thinks and dances for his master. He taught all the higher values of life - beauty, grace, the truth of the first water'.

                             He is the mind - the spiritual side of man which is spoiled in such a way that it totally is unaware of its own subjugated identity and is colonized mentally by the master.

                           Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. As he carries the baggage physically, he has a mental unconscious baggage of his identity as a slave who is incomplete without his master. The luggage and the rope around lucky are very interesting symbols. If the behaviour of Lucky is not putting down the baggage and his obedience seems extremely irritating and nauseatic to us then we should ask one statement that -

 Are we putting down the theological baggage which was handed to us when we were children as a tool of playing with our sentiments?

People are carrying these baggages unknowingly- Is there any escape from all these?

Are the rope and the luggage invisible markers form which we are trying to liberate ourselves? 

As Lucky is tied with a rope, aren't we tied to something?

9) Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or  . . .

                                When we read the play and try to situate the invisible character Godot in the context, we realize that it may be the divine power which is described by the boy (god's messenger). When we try to look for the number of times the word Godot is referred to in the play, we can certainly say that the word Godot is referred to 23 times in the play. Here is some significant reference-

VLADIMIR:

To Godot? Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it. (Pause.) For the moment.

...

POZZO:

who has your future in his hands . . . (pause) . . . at least your immediate future?

...

BOY:

(in a rush). Mr. Godot told me to tell you he won't come this evening but surely tomorrow

...

VLADIMIR:

He said that Godot was sure to come tomorrow. (Pause.) What do you say to that?

ESTRAGON:

Then all we have to do is to wait on here.

                     So, through this references, one can surely say that GODOT can be God. When Alan Schneider, who was direct the first American production of 'Waiting for Godot', asked Beckett who or what was meant by Godot, he received the answer

"If I knew, I would have said so in the play"

                  Hence, it is open to the interpreter to interpret the identity of Godot or to see Godot as an object also. As the title is 'Waiting for Godot' - the Godot is for whom or for what are we waiting!

10) The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?

 

                                     If the title of the play is to be interpreted in a significant way then one is bound to think more on the etymological meaning of the word GODOT. Of course, it is strange and arouses curiosity but along with that, the character of Godot is mentally present in the play and not physically. So, the GODOT, throughout the play remains as a mysterious and annoying figure. One can convincingly agree with Martin Esslin's words- 

"Yet whether Godot is meant to suggest the intervention of a supernatural agency, or whether he stands for a mythical human being whose arrival is expected to change the situation or both of these possibilities combined, his exact nature is of secondary importance." 

         Hence, this statement surely emphasizes that the subject of the play is not Waiting but Godot. But 

" The act of waiting as an essential and characteristic aspect of the human condition. Throughout our lives, we always wait for something and Godot simply represent the objective of our wanting - an event, a thing, a person, death."

 the subject of the play with reference to above mentioned lines is not Godot but waiting!

11)  Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?

                                I think that this type of play should be viewed and read both. As we know that reading literature widens our perceptions and opens a variety of perspectives and also widens our imaginative powers. Screening of film based on texts helps in shaping our imagination in a perfect mould and shape. So, I believe, initially, one should read the original text and should develop the background knowledge of the play to get a proper idea.  After background reading this play one is free to watch, this is not advisable for all literature but plays like this one should be watched first. 

                      “Show, don’t tell,” is the motto that any good writer lives by. His words stir the reader’s imagination, thereby transporting him to the described scene. This is one of the engrossing elements of literature. 

                     Films are better vectors to reach and inform a vast audience. Films bring texts to life. Moreover, the concrete images of the film are easier to remember long after their display than the imagined ones required for reading.

                                  Beckett's plays are full of good and philosophically rich dialogues while watching the film these dialogues are skipped to be deeply pondered so it is advisable to read the play and then watch the film. Because the visual and audio will help to get the sense of the play for better understanding.

12) Which of the following sequence you liked the most:

• Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting
• Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts
• The conversation of Vladimir with the boy

                          Though Beckett issuing the most simple language in his plays, his simple language is deceivingly philosophical. The philosophically rich statements in the conversation of Vladimir and Estragon when they are killing time in questions and conversations while waiting in one of the various scenes which I found having profound significance. 

13) Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during the screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt if ever it was?

                                Widely interpreting, the thematic concern of the play revolves around endless waiting and meaningless utterances of the characters. Yes, I felt the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifferent Universe during the screening of the film in the attempt to commit the suicide scene.  

Vladimir: (Silence. Estragon looks attentively at the tree.) What do we do now?

Estragon: Wait.

Vladimir: Yes, but while waiting?

Estragon: What about hanging ourselves?

Vladimir: Hmm. It´d give us an erection.

Estragon: (highly exited). An erection!

Estragon: Let´s hang ourselves immediately!

Vladimir: From a bough? I wouldn´t trust it.

Estragon: We can always try

                                 More Surprisingly, the play has more number of scenes where both Vladimir and Estragon thinks and converse about suicide because of boredom raised due to the waiting. They think it better to end up their lives than to wait because they belives that their lives are unworthy of living. Essentially, value and lack of purpose are simultaneously removed from their lives by Vladimir and Estragon which, therefore, leads them to contemplate suicide without ever committing it.

14) Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?

 "Suffering is an essential part of human existence"

Humans consume much of life in suffering or trying to stay away from suffering, yet there is little accuracy or steadiness in the word what we call as ‘suffering’. In the play, Vladimir and Estragon because of their sufferings think and talk about hanging themselves and commit suicide. 

15) Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'?

                             This play is composed after world war II. So the impact of the war seems natural to be reflected in the play. In the event that we pass by the names informs us about the Vladimir who is the representative of Russia, Estragon stands for France, Pozzo for Italy and Lucky for England than Godot will represent Germany. Everyone's waiting for Hitler, everyone has hope in Hitler that he will do something but nevertheless, Hitler is the person who is held up by each one and who never shows up. And when he felt to show up. he shattered the nations into debris land. 

                                                               On the other hand that we need to see Pozzo and Lucky, as master and slave, Pozzo represents England and Lucky for Ireland. Despite the fact that Pozzo becomes blind Lucky doesn't free himself. Same since Ireland is a little nation and for its own products and development it sticks with England.

16) So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in Broadway production). Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?

                  So far as Lucky and Pozzo (slave and master) are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland. 

                   There was a very bitter and sataric  reference. Pozzo as England is the master- a well stabled nation and lucky is like Ireland which is like  slave and is depending on the master England for the economic stability. The condition depending upon other as a slave for personal value is conditioned in the mind of Lucky. Though Ireland  is  separate country then too it wants to become a slave. 

17) The more the things change, the more it remains similar. There seems to have no change in Act I and Act II of the play. Even the conversation between Vladimir and the Boy sounds almost similar. But there is one major change. In Act I, in reply to Boy;s question, Vladimir says: 

[BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?

VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?]

How does this conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify?

                              The more things change, the more they are the same. The waiting represents the action of time. What seems to be similar is paradoxically presented in the play. The change is permanent and everything keeps on changing. When we look from the farther viewpoint we feel that everything is static but from the nearest sight everything appears to be changing and the most amazing thing is that the time keeps on repeating the events. Pozzo is expressing his frustration about the concept of time and the passage of time. 

                     Almost, nothing changes in the play, both the acts have same situations happening but the conversation of Vladimir with boy is absolutely necessary to observe selfishness of Vladimir.

                 This change in act 2 can be interpreted with reference to the story of the two thieves were one is damned and the other is given salvation.

                               

Thank you.

Works Cited-

Ajemian, Allison. Pertinence of Props in Waiting for Godot . 11 Dec. 2013, bu.digication.com/allison_ajemians_theatre_now_portfolio/Final_Paper_Pertinence_of_Props_in_Waiting_for_God. 25 November 2020.

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 acts. Grove Press, 1954

Beckett , Samuel, and Alan Moloney . Waiting for Godot . Film4 Distribution, 2001. 

Esslin, Martin. The theatre of the absurd. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015.

Esslin, Martin. "Samuel Beckett: The search for the self." The Theatre of the Absurd (1969): 11-65.

Hollander, A., 1991. The Landscape of Longing - Casper David Friedrich a peculiar romantic. The New Republic, [online] pp.30 - 36. Available at: <http://www.anne-hollander.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Koerner-friedrich.pdf>. Accessed 25 November 2020.

"Narratricide: An Analysis Of The Tree In Samuel Beckett’S Waiting For Godot". Blake Guthrie, 2017, https://blakeguthrie.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/narratricide-an-analysis-of-the-tree-in-samuel-becketts-waiting-for-godot/. Accessed 25 Nov 2020.

(www.dw.com), Deutsche. "The Epitome Of German Romanticism: Caspar David Friedrich | DW | 07.05.2020". DW.COM, 2020, https://www.dw.com/en/the-epitome-of-german-romanticism-caspar-david-friedrich/g-53363747. Accessed 25 Nov 2020.