IF YOU LIKE ‘WAITING FOR GODOT,’ LB PLAYHOUSE IS PERFECT PLACE TO DO IT
By Greggory Moore
While the standard answer is “Shakespeare,” if you ask me it is Samuel Beckett whose contributions most directly shaped “modern” theatre. Shakespeare showed us how much more could be done with the dramatic arts, how much more significance and content could be contained within a single work. But Beckett showed us how flexible three walls and a stage can be.
Waiting for Godot is Beckett’s signature work for stage, the one everybody knows (or at least has heard of). It’s so familiar it’s almost a cliché. Two guys (Gogo and Didi) wait for someone (Godot, pronounced GOD-oh) who didn’t show today but surely will tomorrow, and as they wait they question life, death, themselves, each other, and what the hell they’re doing. Oh yeah: they’re waiting.
“Funny, the more you eat the worse it gets,” says Gogo, really talking about much more than eating.
“I get used to the muck as I go along,” says Didi, giving us the other side of the same tarnished silver dollar.
Part of Beckett’s brilliance is that he groks human experience as whole coin, not obverse or reverse. “[Y]ou must go on,” he writes at the end of his “three novels” trilogy, “I can’t go on, I’ll go on.” Understand how Beckett holds a place in that dichotomous mental space, and you go a long way toward getting where he’s at pretty much every time he put pen to paper.
There’s a saying about good session drummers: If they’re doing it right, you don’t really notice them. I offer this aphorism to give a sense of how Long Beach Playhouse succeeds with Godot: unobtrusiveness. Director Carl daSilva and company have given us a completely straight take, with nothing to clutter up the pithy sparseness of the dialog. Anthony Cohen and Karl Schott as the ones doing the eponymous waiting never let their clowning infringe upon the pathos that pops up in seemingly every minute of this masterpiece. If you like Godot, there’s nothing not to like about this production.
If you don’t like Godot (subtitled “a tragicomedy in two acts”), then something is wrong with you. Perhaps you’re insensitive to the intellectual charms of existentialism. Perhaps you’re such an unimaginative literalist that you can’t do anything with absurdism. Perhaps being part of the MTV generation has programmed you to respond only to meaningless quick cuts and wall-to-wall sensory stimuli. Perhaps you lack the mental wattage to take a night of theatre home to ponder.
Or perhaps you just haven’t seen it. Perhaps it’s one of those famous, famous pieces you’ve always known about but never bothered to check out; or maybe you read it in high school but really didn’t grasp/care about it because, hey, you were a high-schooler and maybe just not ready to absorb this kind of thing.
But you’re older now. What are you waiting for? Waiting for Godot is probably the most important work of theatre composed in the 20th century, and certainly one whose quality and depth make it deserving of that historical place.
“In the meantime,” says Gogo in Act Two, still waiting, as always, “let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent.”
If you’re gonna fail, you may as well do so like this.
WAITING FOR GODOT LONG BEACH PLAYHOUSE • 5021 E ANAHEIM ST • LONG BEACH 90804 • 562.494.1014 LBPLAYHOUSE.ORG • THURS-SAT 8PM, SUN 2PM • TICKETS $14-$24 • THROUGH MAY 7
19 Comments
The likelihood is high that this is possibly the most asinine, pretentious review I have ever read. It can be stated with a fair amount of certainty that, “If you don’t like Godot (subtitled “a tragicomedy in two acts”), then something is wrong with you” is not only dead wrong, but indicative of how desperately the author is attempting to appear intellectual and erudite.
The desire to watch a play with, say, a plot, does NOT make one “an unimaginative literalist that can’t do anything with absurdism”. It makes one a human being. Absurdism is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with the form at all. But to make the galactic leap that if the audience does not like a particular show is nothing more than stupid, pompous arrogance.
Vivian Mercer ‘s oft quoted review of Waiting for Godot is the succinct statement, “Nothing happens…twice.” Spot on doesn’t even begin to describe the accuracy of this statement.
I offer a counterpoint to the above review. I put forth the simple question, “Will you, the PAYING AUDIENCE enjoy Waiting for Godot?”. The answer to that question is as definitive a “NO!” as can possibly be mustered. The “hand-on-the Bible, scout’s honor, cross-your-heart-and-hope-to-die” answer is that Waiting for Godot will expose you to hitherto unknown levels of boredom. Not ordinary boredom, mind you, but deep, relentless monotony. Twenty minutes in and your thoughts will run along the lines of, “I can’t believe I spent $20 for this.” I wish this were not the case, but sadly, the truth is inescapable.
Scholars will long debate Waiting for Godot. My own personal opinion is that it is Samuel Beckett’s cosmic joke that decades after his death we still pay hard-earned money to sit and watch a play wherein nothing happens. Beckett is surely happy to see unsuspecting patrons looking nervously at their watches thinking, “Dear God, isn’t this over yet?!” Let the scholars do their thing and let theatre reviewers stroke their egos over how Beckett “groks the human experience”. Let them carry on with their “aphorisms” and “pithy sparceness”. At the end of the day it is YOU, the theatre patron, who will have the most telling review. Will you enjoy this show? No…almost certainly not.
By all means spend that $20 on theatre. But not on Waiting for Godot.
Hello Anonymous,
Greggory Moore’s criticism of local theatre—from the values that he prioritizes in a play to the style in which he presents his assessment—is certainly fair game for anyone else’s review … even anonymous snipers.
But in my assessment of what you and Greggory have written, his is the one that carries the propulsion and the persuasivenss of courage. He signs his name to his opinions. I understand that giving your name can be dangerous stuff out in the world—but inside a community theater?
I wonder, Mr. Wielenga, would your response be so swift and dismissive were you not the publisher of this website?
I do not begrudge Mr. Moore voicing his opinions. He certainly has every right to think Waiting for Godot is the greatest thing since chocolate-covered chocolate. Opinions are like….well I’m sure you can finish that sentence on your own.
However, to contend that someone who disagrees with his sentiments “lack(s) the mental wattage to take a night of theatre home to ponder” is foolish in the extreme. It serves no other purpose than to heap derision upon those with alternate viewpoints.
As to your inference that I lack “propulsion and the persuasivenss(sic) of courage” because I choose not to sign my post with my given name, the answer is simple. Unlike Mr. Moore I have neither the desire, nor need to further my writing portfolio. The rightness or wrongness of my statements in no way depends on the name attached to them. Had I chose, I could have signed the post, “Charles Dickens”, “Dr Seuss” or “Cutiegirly2000”. Is Mr. Moore somehow more right because his name appears at the head of the article?
While I applaud your balanced approach in letting my rebuttal pass the moderation stage and be posted at all; I almost suspect it was solely to give precedent to your ad hominem argument.
I only take issue with Mr. Moore’s stance that theatre patrons are somehow mentally defective if they do not enjoy this particular production. I place a rather high priority on whether or not a given audience will enjoy a production. Would an audience member say to his or herself, “Wow…that was 20 well-spent dollars there” ? No…I’m afraid not.
The Long Beach Playhouse has done and will do again, highly enjoyable, successful shows. Until its next premier, however, its patron base will have to echo Gogo and Didi’s plight…”nothing to be done”.
Dear Anonymous (though “Cuitegirly2000″ is a lot catchier),
I’m pretty confident WfG would not enjoy its stature as THE most impactful play of the 20th century (and probably since Shakespeare) – as an historical matter, whether or not you find it artistically so – if the answer to the question of whether a paying audience will enjoy said play is as definitive a “NO!” as can positively be mustered (a bit redundant, what?). But your opinion of it is as valid as…well, maybe not as mine, but valid enough. As is your opinion of my review. Except for one thing: apparently you have little to no sense of humor, at least when it comes to processing theatre reviews. I mean, while, yes, I find WfG to be a wonderful work, I shudder to think of how much humor you miss in life if you take what I say about those of you who don’t dig it as necessarily sweeping indictments of your minds and souls. Look, I take Mercer’s review as hilarious, not as a personal insult. My review is not nearly that funny (although let’s be honest: it’s a helluva lot more informative. It’s not like I don’t understand the play; with Mercer, we can’t really be sure, can we? Quips are sometimes cover-ups, clever as they may be); the problem is that you wouldn’t know one way or the other. Similarly, might you be missing the funny boat with Beckett? I don’t know. I don’t really care. I just thought you might want to take a moment to consider whether you could possibly lighten up.
Love,
Intellectual Erudition, PhD
Have never seen a production of WfG, but had considered checking out this particular LB Playhouse show after wrapping up my business here in NY and returning to LB.
Reading Moore’s review and the anonymous counter-review, I’m wondering if I should save the 20 bucks because this debate is potentially more interesting and entertaining than the actual live WfG play.
Anon.,
I like your passion with regards to the arts. I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I have not read the play, but I like the way you advocate your cause. The bold passion is appreciated.
Rephrase above statement: The bold passion/ and erudite dexterity/ is appreciated.
Rino, Anon. HAS read the play, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, either. (Just kidding. Felt like giving DWR more free entertainment. Now go see the play, both of you.)
Intellectual Erudition,
Beginning one’s argument with the false assumption, “…WfG would not enjoy its stature as THE most impactful play of the 20th century…” is treading on thin logical ice indeed. To further compound the offense by dropping to the base level of attacking me personally does nothing more than illustrate the shaky ground upon which your stance built. In short, rather than rebut the message, you have chosen to shoot the messenger.
There are two key points that I would address in your response to my assessment of your review.
#1
I would ask exactly where the idea that Waiting for Godot is the most impactful play of the 20th century comes from? When did it attain this status? By whom was it granted?
To be fair, the January ’99 issue of American Theatre featured a poll of Drama League members finding that Waiting for Godot was the tenth most significant. No small feat there and worthy of note, but it does nothing to cement its status good or bad. Similarly, the National Theatre of Great Britain found Godot at the top of its lists. While changes in taste between Americans and the Brits can be endlessly debated, there is a striking trait that both these poll share. Those polled were actors, journalists, directors, playwrights and theatre veterans of all different slants. I am left to question whether or not any non-theatre related audience members were polled at all. Did anyone bother to ask the “man in the third balcony, nosebleed seats”, what HE thought of the show? To take into account only these people opinions seems not only elitist, but shockingly masturbatory.
#2
Once again, you drop to mudslinging by assuming that someone with an opposing viewpoint is somehow dysfunctional. That you “shudder to think of how much humor you..(this poster)… miss in life” does little more than repeat your earlier sentiment that there is something deeply wrong with an audience member who does not find Godot funny. At which point you then backpeddle by saying that these are not “sweeping indictments of your minds and souls” when, in plain fact, they are exactly that. While I, myself, am not wounded by your contention, the fact remains that your primary thesis is “If you don’t like Waiting for Godot you are stupid.” And that, sir, is a hell of a weak thesis.
Rino2, thank you for your kind comments. I urge you read the play. Copies can be found freely almost anywhere. Do this, if you would, before deciding whether to see the show. I’d be very curious to know your thoughts.
DWR, thank you for your interest. I’d urge the same of you; to attempt a read of the play prior to plopping down $20.
Thanks Anonymous (your style is much like “Jason”), point taken.
I do believe plays are meant to be watched, not read. I’ll leave the reading to the actors learning their lines.
I may still gamble the 20.00 on seeing a live performance of Godot for the first time and hey, I just may agree with your damning critiques.
And yes, I recognize I’ve been duly warned.
Anon., I bought the book and read it – about 100 quick read pages. When you say “Waiting for Godot will expose you to hitherto unknown levels of boredom. Not ordinary boredom, mind you, but deep relentless monotony”, well, this is the subject matter of the book/play itself.
Waiting for Godot to me is like some level of Hell, kind of like Groundhog day with Bill Murray, excect the characters Gogo & Didi don’t even have the hope of memory to lighten their burden. They are in a nearly hopeless, (only hope is waiting for Godot, probably to advise them how to get out), and purposelessness existence, and Lucky may have been that by finding pain and suffering as an alternative to what the others are “living”.
But ya, I don’t know why this play is rated so highly? But then, some people want others to believe the snow is black.
Also, I thought it entertaining with the way the characters related to each other and thought about things. And, it makes me want to be a better person because eternity is so long.
Anon.: 1. Cast about and you’ll find plenty of support for the “most impactful” claim; but it’s an opinion, since one can’t really quantify such a thing. But look at it this way: Consider the history of theatre before WfG, then since WfG. See the change, the new avenues that opened up, the way in which modern theatre would be vasty different (or at least sporting a capacious hole) without Beckett? If not, I don’t know what to tell you. 2. You’re bound and determined to stick to your guns and be insulted by mine, to the point where you think you better understand my words than I do. As you like it.
ok, I got talked into seeing this show with some friends. OMG I don’t think I’ve ever been so bored in my life. I wanted to leave at intermisson but decided to try and stick it out. Big mistake. The only thing that kept running through my head was the Family Guy scene where Brian takes Peter to see Uncle Vanya and Peter’s response is “What the hell is this? Can someone just throw a pie or something? I talked to the rest of my party and they were super bored too. I dont really think it was the actors faults cause the script was just dumb. Just talking talking and more talking.
I’ve seen some good stuff at long beach before but this was just terrible. Like they forgot the comedy part of tragicomedy. It might be offensive but the only people i can see liking this play are the guys that sit at Starbucks all day pretending to write their novels trying to look all angsty.
G, you say Shakespeare “showed us how much more significance and content could be contained within a single work.” And Beckett “showed us how flexible three walls and a stage can be.”? Well, history has been manipulated to show us after WWII that mankinds creative impulse which created the A-bomb, could be used wipe us all out. And, in the movies, I challenge you to find a movie since about the mid 60s where you’ll find a scientist portrayed in a admirable way, or where someone in a movie role who listens to Mozart, Bach or Beethoven isn’t in the process of doing some evil or something foolish.
Well, we know that the universe is consistent and well, universal, so why is this play rated so highly?
G, never mind the above badly put together conspiracy stuff. I was just trying to get from you what a real issue is with regards to this play between you and Anon – you saying it’s the most important work of the 20th century, and him saying that people will say “I can’t believe I spent $20.00 on this”, after seeing it. And by real issue I mean what is underlying issue here. Or, maybe there is nothing else and you have said what you mean and think I’m looney.
This Anonymous is very, very correct. My wife and I went to see the show last weekend and left at intermission. I really do not see how anyone could enjoy this show. If the point of this show is how boring and meaningless life is then I got the point in the first ten minutes. We should have gone to see the downstairs show.
I’ve always thought of contentious comment strings following online stories as the 21st Century version of Waiting for Godot. They don’t always go anywhere, some people want to know things, some people don’t care, characters appear and disappear, and then the strings just end.
US Blues, it’s the fear, although MR doesn’t seem to have much.