Waiting For Godot Essay | Analysis of Waiting for Godot

wait For Godot Essay Analysis of Waiting for GodotIt is tempting to view Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot as a play of nonhingness, with no value or importation nevertheless that of deuce men wait for any(prenominal)thing or some unmatchable to arrive. However, the company that the twain protagonist characters portray underneath the humour and bleakness of Becketts 2 part tragi-comedy, chokely makeers us something elevating amongst the emptiness of the bleak world that the characters ar staged inside. As the play progresses and we begin to learn somewhat these devil characters lives, it functions clear that they sh atomic number 18 a knowledge, caring deeply for bingle former(a) and in many courses a fate for for for separately nonp atomic number 18il iodine other in order to hold out the hostile place in which they argon living in.From the actually start of the play we become aw atomic number 18 of the knowledge of Vladimir and tarragon. As the play ope ns we witness estragon sitting al one(a) upon a rock, trying to remove his boot and repeatedly failing to do so. As Vladimir enters and replies to estragons spoken estimations, as if he had been present all a ample, we earn their experience for the first time. We are aware that the two characters clear been separated overnight, as in so far at this early stage within the play we are unaware as to how they know each other and most meaning(a)ly how massive they have known each other. Now that Vladimir is present Estragons shoe slips off with effortlessness, almost as if to say that he lowlife non remove it without the company of Vladimir. The succor in which they are reunited upsets us, as an auditory sense, an insight, and allows us to become aware of the incident that we are non witnessing two strangers on stage, we are witnessing two fri destructions. This go-ahead is continued as Vladimir states to Estragon Im glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever . (Beckett, 200611) This direct railroad line implies that by Estragon leaving it would raise a sense of sadness for Vladimir, and the word glad reinforces any doubts that the audience have at this point as to whether or non they partake in a gild in one some other(prenominal).In the Royal administration Theatre revival of 1964, Anthony page staged Godot with Becketts presence. sca rectitudeag states that Beckett forever implied that Godot is very much somewhat relationships surrounded by human beings. (McMillan,199085) Beckett continued to express to Page that moments of the play should be a t break offer moment of complete dread between the two characters. (McMillan, 199085) And at an instant this make the line work. It is clear from this that Beckett meant for the two characters to take a relationship with one another and when one of the actors decides to set up a hierarchy for the two characters, the force between them becomes unbalanced. When Bert Lahr in the Americ an production insisted that he was top banana and warned turkey cock Ewell as Vladimir Dont crowd me the balance of the play was disturbed. (McMillan, 199062) This implies that they lease one another in order for the play to work that the companionship they portray seeks to be a poignant theme and that altering this in anyway go out upset the dynamics of the duo.David Smith for The Observer says of the play, (Waiting for Godot) reveals humanitys talents for stoicism, companionship and keeping leaving. (Smith, 2009) The twain seem to mirror the society of modern day and it is important to take to be their loneliness, their continuous waiting for Godot and I mark myself asking whether this has resulted in their hearty attachment for one another. Like any companionship they fight and accordingly they make up, yet Vladimir and Estragon certainly share the strongest want for each others companionship.Vladimir GogoEstragon DidiVladimir Your handEstragon Take itVladimir Come to my armsEstragon Your arms?Vladimir My breastThey marry. They separate. Silence. (Beckett, 200670)This fall offage in make for II portrays the expedition of their relationship throughout the play. They capitulum each others actions and the boredom in which they are isolated within may well be responsible for the argue they sustain, yet no matter what happens they return to each other, underwrite each other. Another point which struck me about this passage is the humour in which this is to be performed. Almost as if they are mocking their own friendship they embrace except yet at once they separate again. It is important to realise that they do not ever want to be each others friend, and that devising up with one another is merely because one wouldnt survive without the other. Their playful nature portrays the humour that Beckett intended for their companionship to have, and makes an audience question the realism of the pair as friends.It is however, these tender moments wit hin the play that I begin to question whether the two characters hold only a friendship, yet this adds to Becketts notion of not giving too much away. The fighting and the making up, the embracing and the separating all hold connotations to that of a conjoin couple. By the end of Act I we, as an audience, become aware of just how enormous Vladimir and Estragon have known each other Fifty eld perhaps (Beckett, 2006 51) and as Act II begins Vladimir starts to sing and this could parallel the concomitant that he is aware that Estragon is still around. In the 2001 Michael Lindsay-Hogg of Waiting for Godot for Beckett on film, this moment is played with sheer happiness. The expression on Vladimirs face turns from that of amazement to delight as he realises the pair of boots greeting him as he enters the scene are in fact Estragons. I believe that Vladimir feels as though their companionship may perhaps kick down his life its superlative sense of meaning.Within their relationship, whether this is just friendship or one of something much, it is liberal to pinpoint a two gender relationship within the one sex partnership. The National Theatre in Londons 1987 production of Waiting for Godot with Alec McCowen as Vladimir showed the tender relationship between them conciliateted easily into the scheme of things, including the touch of nanny in Alec McCowens soothing attitude to his partner. (Worth, 199079) This nursemaid approach is get ahead highlighted during Act I when Estragon violently says Im hungry. (Beckett, 200621) Vladimir cheerfully responds, as if feeding Estragon is his most interesting responsibility, making his life appear worthwhile. This situation plays Estragon as the male, placing Vladimir in the female fiber, holding connotations that their partnership is portraying that of a married couple. Vladimir is copiously feeding his wife and Estragon is the irresponsible economise, with Vladimir always coming to his aide. Their wants and needs m atch each other thoroughgoing(a)ly and it could be for this curtilageing that Beckett described them himself as a pseudo couple they dont inevitably always want to be in each others company, yet they sleep with each other as a necessity person in order to survive.In order to think about this further, the passage in Act II w here they embrace, Vladimir refers to Estragon to embrace his breasts. Again, this holds feminine connotations and is another reason for thinking of the companions as a mixed gender partnership of husband and wife. Smith reiterates this conception further, Estragon and Vladimir are the uniform a married couple whove been together too long, they grow old day by day. (Smith, 2009) As Smith states it appears that Vladimir and Estragon have been together for so long that they no longer see themselves as individuals, they have become one person and thitherfore if one leaves, so does the other. This enhances Becketts choice of the repeated line Im going, yet n either of them moves, they have physically grown to rely on one another. Vladimir speaks repeatedly of Estragons dependence of him and this not only mirrors the idea of Vladimir pickings on the role of the nursemaid as Worth stated, only when that although this seems warranted at times, at other times it seems as though it isnt the friendship that they are seeking, but simply the need to be emotionally dependent on the presence of another.When looking at Becketts one act theatrical field Rough for Theatre I, it is this that allows us to take it and use it to understand the companionship of Vladimir and Estragon further. Rough for Theatre I sees two characters confined on a derelict street corner where everything is in ruins. Much like Waiting for Godot they find themselves alone, with only each other for company. One portrays a blind man, whilst the other remains immobile, stuck within a wheelchair. Just like that of Vladimir and Estragon they find themselves bickering, yet find a common undercoat through their disabilities. We can begin to look at this is order to jock us understand Vladimir and Estragons relationship concerning the fact that the characters named A and B need the other in order to survive one can see and one can walk. In Waiting for Godot the personalities of the characters complement each other, one being absent- souled and forgetful with Estragon asking every so oftentimes throughout the play why are we here? and Vladimir simply replies with Were waiting for Godot. This once again shows the interdependence within their relationship and I find myself asking what would Estragon do without Vladimir? And vice versa.When thinking of Waiting for Godot in terms of rehearsal it is helpful to use Rough for Theatre I to understand the frame of mind the characters are in. It is clear that they do not necessarily want to be there, waiting, and Rough for Theatre I allows us to take the notion of need rather than want and apply this when do the roles of Vladimir and Estragon. Sir Ian McKellen states in his diary whilst working towards performing the production In Godot, Didi, Rogers character, is the provider, the guardian, the one who is trying to work out the plan. (McKellen, 2001) When looking at rehearsing and performing the embracing passage within Act II McKellens haggle direct us on the roles we should be taking, yet with great care as to not disturb the balance of equality that Vladimir and Estragon uphold. They embrace. They separate. Silence. I believe the embrace is to be performed as a quick hold of each other, a reassurance that they are still there for each other yet at once they separate, as if to imply that they do not need to be friends the entire time and that by just knowing that one another are there for each other is enough to keep them going enough to keep them waiting for Godot.In Lindsay-Hoggs film version the embrace is ad apt(predicate)ed to become a dance. In a mocking way they take hold of each other and dance around in circles, humming a simple tune. I believe that this shows the friendship to their companionship they are sharing laughter not love, and it is this laughter beyond the obtuseness of nothing to do that keeps them surviving.Vladimir and Estragon are both characters that are compel to live in a inimical world bearing no material values just the company of one another to pass the time, so it is no wonder that they fight and bicker at times and they often threaten that maybe they are better off apart. However, when the idea of suicide faces them they cannot go ahead with it, they make false statements yet as the day draws to an end they are still by one anothers side. As Vladimir answers Estragons want to hang themselves with I remain in the dark, (Beckett, 200618) Vladimir stresses his concerns to the options surrounding the outgrowth of the situation what if he goes first? What if Estragon hangs himself and past the bough breaks as Vladimir is about to do so, then he is left alone and, in some senses, in the dark. The isolation of being alone for Vladimir would be a more fatal outcome than Estragons, that of death. As Michael Billington states for The Guardian Becketts play becomes a kind metaphor for the human predicament confronted by a senseless world, the to the lowest degree we can hope for is the solace of companionship. (Billington, 2006) Vladimir and Estragon are not characters looking for friendship, although at times throughout the play we see this blossoming and then they have another argument and they wish to be anywhere but in each others company. Waiting for Godot is exploring human relationships and the play seems to reflect the friendships in society today Becketts play touches everyone. Yet being together within a static place for fifty years perhaps (Beckett, 2006 51) has allowed for the two characters to hit such a friendship, of being there for someone when they need you most. Vladimirs character shows this as he places his coat over the shoulders of a dormancy Estragon, and at the same time they have created a companionship that has meant that these two characters are really to be thought of as pieces of one personality, they fit together as one. When they reach the points in life where they feel I cant go on like this (Beckett, 2006 87) the irony of Becketts play is that they do. And there is something inexpressibly moving about the final image of their shared immobility as they confront an endless series of futile tomorrows, (Billington, 2006) together, as companions.John Hopkins arrangement of TrustsJohn Hopkins Constitution of TrustsA benefactive role under a organized religion is a offer unless he has provided valuable consideration.1 Where a bounty is made, the benefactive role go away always be a offer as it is by definition made without consideration. The traditional bankworthy saw is that blondness result not assist a pop the question.2 This generally means that wh ere a authorise is made imperfectly, fair play will not enable the intended beneficiary to claim the turn over under a combining. However, there are exceptions to the rule. This establish will consider these exceptions and the extent to which the rule has developed from justness will not assist a volunteer to a position of faithfulness will not assist a volunteer if, in doing so, it would advance the consequences of a would-be presenters folly.The leading slipperiness in this area is Milroy v Lord3 where a voluntary operation which purported to fate 50 shares to Samuel Lord on trust for Milroy. Lord was already playacting as Milroys agent under a power of attorney. The formalities of the share air were not complied with. Milroy therefore seek to establish that a trust had been declare. It was held that an toothless enthrall does not constitute a declaration of trust without there being a clear intention to create a trust. Furthermore, if a voluntary resolutenes s is to be legal and effectual, the settlor moldiness have done everything which was needed to be done to transfer the lieu and render the settlement binding upon him.4 As the shares had not been transferred, no trust was created and no gift made.The miscue of Milroy v Lord thus provides that for the settlement to be binding there must be either an straight-out transfer, a declaration of self as trustee, or a transfer of property to a third party as trustee.The facts of Jones v Lock5 were that a father produced a cheque payable to himself and said Look you here, I give this to baby it is for himself and placed the cheque in the babys hand. He then took the cheque back stating that he was going to entrap it away for him. It was held that there had been no effective gift because no reasoned transfer had occurred. Moreover, it was held that a failed gift cannot be construed to be a reasoned declaration of trust. It was said that the crucial ruler is that an owner must not be deprived of his property unless, by making a valid gift or trust, he has demonstrated the seriousness of his intention to put away of the benefit of his property.6However, where the property is vested in the trustees in circumstances outside their capableness as trustees, the trust may be constituted, even though the beneficiaries are volunteers7 (Re Rallis Will Trusts8). Other exceptions include the rule in brawny v Bird9 and Donationes Mortis Causa. As these exceptions are uncommon, the main exception and development as set out below will be the focus of this piece.The case of Re pink wine10 demonstrates the principle that where a donor has done everything they can to transfer designation to another but that outright trust has not been completed, an equitable interest will have passed, even where the donee is a volunteer.11 This principle is therefore an exception to the general rule that equity will not assist a volunteer and is based upon the inequity of reneging on a promi se once the donor has purported to transfer title by doing everything necessary for him to do.The principle in Re Rose has recently been extended. In T Choithram International SA v Pagarani,12 a man lying on his deathbed sought to declare an inter vivos trust over his property. The settlors intention was to become one of nine trustees, but he failed to transfer legal title to all nine trustees and as a consequence, under the ordinary law of trusts, the trust would not have been validly constituted. The Court of salute thus held that he had neither effectively vested the property in the trustees, nor did his words of gift render him a trustee. Furthermore the court will not give a benevolent construction so as to treat ineffective words of outright gift as taking effect as if the donor had declared himself a trustee for the donee. In the words of Hopkins, the Court of Appeal decided the matter on the basis that equity will not assist a volunteer or perfect an imperfect gift.13In all owing the appeal, the Privy Council accepted the dictums but added that equity will not strive officiously to defeat a gift. The reasoning for holding a trust was that the settlor had done all that was necessary to constitute a trust, by declaring himself as trustee. His words that he would give could only then mean I give to the trustees of the foundation trust deed to be held by them on the trusts of the foundation trust deed.14The case of Choithram may therefore be taken to be stand out for Hopkins statement that that the courts have left behind the well-known equitable maxim equity will not assist a volunteer and have reframed it as equity will not assist a volunteer if, in doing so, it would repair the consequences of a would-be donors folly. This is because, in both Re Rose and Choithram there was no folly in the sense that the donor had not done all that was necessary and therefore, on the basis of the reformulated maxim the trusts were rightly held. Conversely, in both Jon es v Lock and Milroy v Lord, the donor had not done all that was necessary, and was therefore acting in folly.However, this is not the end of the developments. In Pennington v Waine15 A owned 1500 of the 2000 shares in C Ltd. She instructed P, a partner in C Ltd auditors, that she wished to transfer 400 shares to her nephew H and that he was to become a director. A signed the share and P placed it on the companys file. A made her will a short time later bequeathing the rest of her shareholding but making no mention of the 400 shares transferred to H.Under the traditional law, as seen above, the gift would have been complete only once the signed persuade transfer form and the share certificate had been handed to the donee. The Court of Appeal in fact held that the gift was to be regarded as completely constituted, patronage the lack of delivery and the fact that there was apparently nothing to break short A from recalling her gift.16The Court of Appeal followed the maxim as stated in Choithram that equity will not assist a volunteer but will not strive officiously to defeat a gift. It was held that at the time it would be hideous for the transferor to be able to change their mind, equity should hold the gift to be properly constituted. Per Arden LJIf one proceeds on the basis that a principle which animates the answer to the question whether an apparently neither gift is to be treated as completely constituted is that a donor will not be permitted to change his or her mind if it would be unconscionable, in the eyes of equity, vis--vis the donee to do so, what is the position here? There can be no comprehensive list of factors which makes it unconscionable for the donor to change his or her mind it must depend on the courts evaluation of all the relevant considerations. What then are the relevant facts here? A made the gift of her own free will there is no finding that she was not competent to do this. She not only told H about the gift and signed a form of transfer which she delivered to P for him to secure accommodation her agent also told H that he need take no action. In addition H agreed to become a director of the company without coiffe of time, which he could not do without shares being transferred to him.It has been argued that this decision was based on a misunderstanding of the decision in Choithram where it was held that it would be as unconscionable for a settlor who had declared a trust when he was one of a number of trustees to subsequently resile from his declaration as if he had declared himself to be the sole trustee.17 Moreover, it is widely accepted that the decision goes much further than previous law.18Examining Hopkins statement in light of this development, it is unlikely that the maxim can be said to be redefined to incorporate the donors folly, as the present position appears to leave plenty of scope for assisting a volunteer where doing so would correct a donors folly. Indeed, Pennington v Waine may well be overruled in the future, but at present, the most apt re-statement of the maxim is equity will not assist a volunteer unless it would be unconscionable not to do so.19BibliographyDelany, H., and Ryan, D., Unconscionability a unify theme in equity, (2008) Conv 401Garton, J., The role of the trust mechanism in the rule in Re Rose, (2003) Conv 364Halliwell, M., Perfecting imperfect gifts and trusts have we reached the end of the Chancellors keister?, (2003) Conv 192Hopkins, J., Constitution of trusts a novel point, (2001) CLJUK 483Hudson, A., Equity and Trusts, 5th Edition (2007), Routledge-CavendishMartin, J.E., Hanbury and Martin Modern Equity, seventeenth Edition (2005), syrupy maxwellMorris, J., Questions when is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? fare after the decisions in Choithram and Pennington, (2003) PCB 393Oakley, A.J., Parker and Mellows The Modern Law of Trusts, 9th Edition (2008), Sweet MaxwellP ettit, P.H., Equity and the Law of Trusts, tenth Edition (2006), Oxford University PressTham, C.H., Careless share giving, (2006) CONVPL 411Watt, G., Trusts and Equity, 3rd Edition (2008), Oxford University PressFootnotes1 Pettit, P.H., Equity and the Law of Trusts, 10th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press, pg 1042 Hudson, A., Equity and Trusts, 5th Edition (2007), Routledge-Cavendish, pg 263 (1862) 4 De GF J 2644 Hudson, supra pg 2215 (1965) LR 1 Ch App 256 Watt, G., Trusts and Equity, 3rd Edition (2008), Oxford University Press, pg 1217 Martin, J.E., Hanbury and Martin Modern Equity, 17th Edition (2005), Sweet Maxwell, pg 1228 1964 Ch 2889 (1874) 18 Eq 31510 1952 Ch 49911 Hudson, supra pg 22212 2001 1 WLR 113 Hopkins, J., Constitution of trusts a novel point, (2001) CLJUK 48314 Lord Browne-Wilkinson at 1215 2002 1 WLR 207516 see Morris, J., Questions when is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? attend to af ter the decisions in Choithram and Pennington, (2003) PCB 39317 Oakley, A.J., Parker and Mellows The Modern Law of Trusts, 9th Edition (2008), Sweet Maxwell, pg 15618 Garton, J., The role of the trust mechanism in the rule in Re Rose, (2003) Conv 364 Tham, C.H., Careless share giving, (2006) CONVPL 411 Delany, H., and Ryan, D., Unconscionability a unifying theme in equity, (2008) Conv 40119 Halliwell, M., Perfecting imperfect gifts and trusts have we reached the end of the Chancellors foot?, (2003) Conv 192