It is clearly established that Vladimir and Estragon have a significant diverse relationship as compared to that of Pozzo and Lucky. The circumstances practically stays unaltered and a cryptic vein runs all through the play. We note that the ending of the play is not a conclusion in the usual sense. Waiting for Godot Patrick Stewart left and Ian McKellen in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot at New York City's Cort Theatre, 2013. So far as its dialogue technique is concerned, it is purely absurd as there is no witty repartee and pointed dialogue. Neither it makes a considerable use of dream and fantasy nor does it employ conscious poetic language. The absurdity caused by the seeming mismatch between characters' tones and the content of their speech can be seen as a reaction to a world emptied of meaning and significance.
Because they hold out hope for meaning and direction, they acquire a kind of nobility that enables them to rise above their existence. Another interpretation is that Pozzo is God, and Lucky is mankind. Perhaps Pozzo is really Godot, as he was mistaken for Godot, or maybe Pozzo is just there as a deception. Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not unhappier than its predecessors. In The Chairs, the old people, needing to express their thoughts, address themselves to a mass of empty chairs which, as the play progresses, crowd all else off the stage. Edward Albee, an American, differs significantly in his emphasis and concern with the sexual substructure of society. That's because—spoiler, guys—Godot never shows.
The mixture of comedy and near tragedy proves baffling. The question of whether society is to be integrated or segregated is, to Genet, a matter of absolute indifference. Nevertheless, Waiting for Godot has claimed its place in literary history as a masterpiece that changed the face of twentieth century drama. The two main characters in Waiting for Godot, go about repeating their actions every day unmindful of the boredom and imprisonment. The play entitles two contrasting pairs of characters, Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky. Their sole purpose is to wait for Godot. While other dramatists have also contributed significantly to this genre, Beckett remains its single, most towering figure.
And it rapidly becomes apparent that Vladimir and Estragon, as representatives of modern man, cannot formulate any cogent or useful resolution or action; and what is more pathetic, they cannot communicate their helpless longings to one another. Beckett combats the traditional notions of Time. Gogò has difficulty in understanding how to play at Pozzo and Lucky p. The playwrights most often associated with the movement are Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, and Arthur Adamov. It would still be society, and the individual would still be outside it.
These two Estragon and Vladimir are old acquaintances, but they are not sure of their identity. Where do we begin or whom should we ask? At the time, there were two distinct opinions about the play; some called it a hoax and others called it a masterpiece. None, of these it makes an impressive utilization of dream and dream nor does it utilize cognizant beautiful dialect. The play is filled with nonsensical lines, wordplay, meaningless dialogue, and characters who abruptly shift emotions and forget everything, ranging from their own identities to what happened yesterday. One of Beckett's main concerns, then, seems to be characterizing man's existence in terms of these polarities. Godot remains a mystery and curiosity still holds a sway.
Neither it makes a considerable use of dream and fantasy nor does it employ conscious poetic language. Readers are left to wonder how long they actually wait and if Godot finally makes his way to see Vladimir and Estragon to discuss whatever they had planned to discuss. Philosophically almost all of them share the existentialist philosophy of absurdity and nothingness. It is formless and not constructed on on any structural principles. Perhaps the most important thing about time in the play is that it is uncertain. Waiting for Godot is part of the Theater of the Absurd.
They wait and wait and nothing ever comes, but yet they do not leave, that is because they have an idea or just have faith that one day Godot will come and will end the suffering. This is why Vladimir demands to know that the boy will in fact remember them the next day. Waiting for Godot is a prime example of what has come to be known as the theater of the absurd. This bizarre rejection of any recognizable pattern or development gave birth to the term Literature of the Absurd. Vladimir represents the intellect and Estragon the body, both cannot exist without the other. Often perceived as being tramps, Vladimir and Estragon are a pair of human beings who do not know why they were put on earth; they make the assumption that there must be some point to their existence, and they look to Godot for enlightenment.
If the world is meaningless, it makes no sense to see it as comic or tragic, good or bad. Beckett's play shares with Modernist works a fascination with pushing the boundaries of literary genre, representation, and etiquette, as well as an interest in language… Closely related to the Modernist and Postmodernist aspects of Beckett's play is its conception of time, an issue of fascination to Modernists and Postmodernists alike. The essential difference is that critics like Camus have presented their arguments in a highly formal discourse with logical and precise views which prove their theses within the framework of traditional forms. Beckett does this through his use of dialogue, stage directions and most importantly, text type. This is how Ionesco deals with the haunting theme of the basic meaning and value of personal identity in relationship to society. All of the characters and thus the audience, as well are unsure of exactly when the play is taking place. Likewise in Ionesco's The Bald Soprano, the Martins assume the roles of the Smiths and begin the play over because there is no distinction between the two sets of characters.