Ionesco & Beckett

Ionesco's 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' were both premiered in London in 1955. What grounds do they have for being the plays that changed the way that people viewed what constituted theatre? Also, Harold Hobson described 'Waiting for Godot' as being as unique as a four-leaf clover or a black tulip. Do you agree?

Comments

[Francesca Fennell]

I am currently writing my dissertation on Osborne's 'Look Back in Anger' - it is to be a discussion on the extent to which it should be considered 'seminal'. I am interested to see that you consider that it may have been 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' whic in fact 'changed the way that people viewed what constituted theatre'? Please could people share their views on whether it was 'Look Back in Anger' which provoked change or whether in fact this had already been acheived by those such as Ionesco and Beckett?

[Francesca Soper]

Both 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting For Godot' could be seen as unconventional plays at this time, due to the content of them, the imagery and language which all contribute to their unusual charactersitics. 'Waiting For Godot' is unusual in the fact that nothing much happens in the play; it is a development of the the title, waiting for Godot.

Time is an important factor in the play, as they find out that Godot will not be coming. Therefore the act of waiting is over, yet mysteriously it starts up again each day that the play portrays. The action, in the same way is described as a circle; each day returns to the beginning. Nothing is completed because nothing can be completed. This ties in with the imagery of the tree, which between the first and second day has sprouted a few leaves, the only sign of true nature, the only symbol of a possible order in a thoroughly alienated world.

This is related to the fundamental imagery in the play, Christian imagery; the tree could be symbolising the Tree of Knowledge or maybe the cross, and God immediately springs to mind when thinking of the name 'Godot'; perhaps God or a God-like figure is the one that the tramps are really waiting for.

'The Lesson' by Ionesco again is an unsual play because like 'Waiting for Godot', there is not much of a storyline. Also another similarity is the concept of time. In 'Waiting for Godot, the action is described as a circle, which could be said for 'The Lesson', as the Proffesor kills the pupil at the end of the play, just in time for another pupil to wait for her unfortunate end. It suddenly clicks to you at the end the reason why the Professor is late for his pupil at the beginning, because he is hiding the pupil that he killed before.

The Language is used incredibly well, because althought the words themselves are pretty mundane, the language is used as a provoker and instrument of emotion, and it emphasises the plays questioning of obsession and abuse of power.

[Sarah Burbridge]

In both cases the plays represent the overturning of what constitutes acceptable theatre in post-war Britain. Rather than adhering to the social norms that were governing society, both ‘The Lesson’ and ‘Waiting for Godot’ contained material that up to that point would not have been appreciated within society.
The plot of each of the plays (or even lack of specific plot!) is demonstrative of a shift in British Theatre style. Rather than sticking to a strict formula of beginning-middle-end and ‘happy ending’ structures, as well as highly stereotyped characters, emphasis was shifted onto alternative effective elements, for example more minimalist staging and mime.
Consequently, audiences were presented with alternative options as to what could credibly constitute theatre.

As for ‘Waiting for Godot’ being described as incredibly unique, I would that sat that this is true, even perhaps arguably in modern as well as contemporary theatre. For a play of such length to be so devoid of direction and to focus on somewhat nonsensical characters was definitely a huge diversification from what was previously acceptable. However, if one is able to see past Vladimir and Estragon’s superficial silliness, the occasional poignancy of the play clearly makes way for the emergence of the Absurdist genre as credible form.

[Vicki Carey]

'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' are both plays which are significantly different to any other British theatre which preceded them. They completly blow apart the notion of 'the well made play' which would have a beginning middle and ending which would explain away any lose ends and the leave the audience with a sense of closer. In this sense then, both 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' would certainly have given the audience a new concept of what constituted theatre. Both plays tell us very little about their characters, 'The Lesson' has only 'The Professor' 'The pupil' and 'The Maid' all of whom we know very little about. If anything the audience realises they know less and less about the characters as the play continues and the more sinister plot unfolds. As the curtain closes the audiences is left with a wealth of questions - Who is the Professor? Why Does he murder his pupils? How has he got away with it for so long? And most importantly, What does it all mean? I think this is precisly why Ionesco leaves such an air of mystery over his play, he wants the audience to find their own answers and produce a play which is thought provoking and not just pure entertainment.
Simularly 'Waiting for Godot' is a play which seems to have been written for more than just entertainment value, the mysterious figure of Godot can be interpreted as symbolising any number of things as can the characters and their actions. In this way the audience can make the play their own by putting their own individual slant on it. It is certainly an original play which sets itself apart from the bulk of British theatre of the period. I feel that both 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' opened the gates for playwrights who had something to say in a way that was previously thought of as unconventional and unentertaining.

[hannah hassack]

Both The Lesson and Waiting for Godot are controversial plays that deviated from the conventions of theatre of their time. The Lesson seems to focus on the passions humans have for learning; Ionesco seems to ridicule this social convention. Pupil "I really do know my season's don't I, Sir?” This can be read satirically, as though Ionesco is laughing at the importance we place on education. Post-war, there was a lot of questioning regarding social institutions and the purpose in our lives. I think in The Lesson Ionesco questions these conventions, such as education, and asks what they really do for us. In the instance of war for example, knowing the seasons seems fairly worthless. The fact that all The Professor’s pupils die anyway, killed by their education, implies the meaningless of such an institution. Ionesco, then, invites us to consider the conventions of society and the boundaries we have created based on arbitrary pretexts.

In contrast, Beckett focuses on the insignificance of time and space in a world of no structure. It has been considered that the ever absent Godot represents God, while Estragon and Vladimir represent society. The idea has been asserted that E and V create time in order to give their lives meaning, whilst living for someone who they never see. However Beckett insisted "I told him (Sir Ralph Richardson) if by Godot I had meant God I would have said God and not Godot. This seemed to disappoint him greatly." Perhaps, then, we can deduce that Beckett is asking the audience not to find the meaning in what appears an utterly pointless play. "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful" (Jean Anouilh), Beckett perhaps intends us to stand back and consider why we need to find meaning in the play, just like Estragon and Valdimir needed to find some rationality in their absurd lives. Both Ionesco and Beckett deviate from what had previously been considered acceptable and “entertaining” theatre, creating a whole new genre with perhaps even more importance and even more to say than plays with structure, direction and mundane meaning.

[Blanche Hammond]

'Waiting for Godot' is a very unusual play, even by modern standards, and I believe that it did change the way people of the time viewed modern theatre. It is certainly very different to the earlier more conventional form of play, for example it is not centred around the stereotypical family members in a family household, and the play offers little resolution. The play evokes stagnation, which is shown through the repetitious nature of the language and events, and the fact that the characters never have any direction because they are always merely waiting for something. There is no progress, and everything that the characters do is soley to pass time, which presents a rather negative view about the way that many people do not live their lives to the full and waste their own potential because they are living for something else, for example God or the opinions of others.
I can understand why this play was unpopular at its time of production as it was like nothing the audience had seen before, and it requires a lot of work on the audience's part to look between the lines of dialogue and see what Harold Pinter's messages were.

[Alison Parry]

The works of Beckett and Ionesco proved very influential on Post War British Theatre. For the first time, theatre which had been previously dominated by the likes of H.M. Tennent’s productions which centred around the ‘well made play’ format, the portrayal of the middle classes and a characteristic unwillingness to engage in political issues was subject to a whole new convention of creative and original theatre. ‘Waiting for Godot’ not only marked the start of the foreign influence on British theatre, but also a new wave of creative plays which British theatre audiences had never seen before.
The very format of ‘Waiting for Godot’ – a tragicomedy in two acts, already broke with convention. Beckett’s style of balancing the play between comedy and tragedy was highly original. Although the characters of Estragon and Vladimir are desperate and lost, the manner in which they are presented makes them comical. At the end of the play, when the two characters botch their suicide attempt as the hanging rope snaps, we see that the rope also serves as a belt holding up Estragon’s trousers. In a moment of desperation and helplessness the audience cannot help but laugh as Estragon’s trousers have fallen down. It is Beckett’s ability to combine comedy and serious drama that makes his work so original and effective.
Similarly, the way in which Ionesco’s ‘The Lesson’ uses the form of academic discourse to comically convey the Professor’s fantasies of rape and murder was also original. The use of relatively formal language acts as a mask to hide the tensions and conflicts of the serious issues at hand. Both ‘The Lesson’ and ‘Waiting for Godot’ demonstrate a change in British Theatre, where creativity was no longer stifled and attention was given to a more inventive and original theatre.

[Alison Norden]

‘Waiting for Godot’ and ‘The Lesson’ can both be described as absurdist plays which changed the way people viewed what constituted as theatre. In essence the absurd actions within the plays are microcosmic of humanity, such as Ionesco focussing on the weakness of communication between people. The audience receives a sense of patheticness as humans are given comical but incompetent manners. Playwrights have adopted the 1940s philosopher Albert Camus’ ideas about life as meaningless and absurd. Distaste about life is fuelled from World War II where life could be interpreted as futile, and people began to fear prospects of nuclear war. Playwrights also recognised the diminishing religious faith people had, so by introducing a futile existence in plays people might be persuaded to retain their faith out of discomfort and shock. In ‘The Lesson’ the line, ‘In this world of ours, Mademoiselle, one can never be sure of anything’, can summarise a universal feel of the futility of life. Ionesco fuels a disgust towards the human behaviour as sexual undertones are created, for example in ‘Ready for me?...[A gleam in the eye’ and the ‘thrust of the knife’. The image of humankind being heartless is conjured. People would begin to see how theatre instilled a new acknowledgement of the failure to communicate, for example when the pupil has toothache, ‘I’ve got the toothache! I have, I have, I have, I have. PROFESSOR: Good. Let us go on.’ The futility of life is also suggested in the way that the murder is prompted, the increasing pain of the pupil and the professor’s insistence on her pronouncing the word knife articulates an almost hypnotic chant that becomes like a plea for him to kill her without her realising it. The worthlessness of life is mirrored in the way that a cycle is created since at the end of the play a new pupil arrives, just as had happened at the start of the play. ‘Waiting for Godot’ deliberately employs absurd dialogue and actions and transfers qualities of each character from one to the other, exposing the uselessness of human action.

‘Waiting for Godot’ is a unique play and this is demonstrated by the fact that it deviates from the norm through adopting absurdist theatrical techniques, and in adopting these techniques underlying themes such as the weakness of humankind are displayed. It is my interpretation that the characters are dead, especially as they note a grave near them, and are actually awaiting God, trapped between two worlds and waiting for judgement. I believe this is why the play has a sense of timelessness since you do not know when and where you are, and despite the possibility of it taking place in a short place of time, they are always awaiting nightfall, and leaves even appear on the trees. They are in a void. It is a unique play because through references to the Bible the possibility of Godot being God and religion is questioned. When thinking of what they asked Godot for Estragon says ‘A kind of prayer’, imploring that Godot is God. Pozzo also says, ‘Godot…Godin…anyhow you see who I mean, who has you immediate future I his hands’. This enhances the idea of waiting for judgment and a life after death, and Estragon talks of climbing heaven. The unreliability of the gospels as questioned by Vladimir, and unreliability of Godot, suggests a wavering belief in religion. It may reflect a universal feeling after WWII about God not being there. The messenger boy says of Godot ‘He does nothing, sir.’ In displaying alternating communications and confusion, it is possible that the characters portray consciousness, existing like a morality play with the purpose of re-installing faith. Estragon says, ‘We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?’, enhancing ideas of death, spirit, and judgement.
There are hints that Pozzo could be God as he says ‘I am perhaps not particularly human’ and ‘Of the same species as Pozzo! Made in God’s image!’. The idea of humankind as worthless is depicted in the cruel treatment of Lucky, demonstrating how man can be ruthless, and a sense of stupidity is constructed through scenes such as Lucky’s incomprehensible thinking, and when Estragon and Vladimir exchange Lucky’s hat several times. Man as insensitive is highlighted by the hesitation in helping the blind Pozzo, and the fact that Vladimir says ‘all mankind is us’, and Estragon says of Pozzo, ‘He’s all humanity’, amplifies the notion of humans being pathetic and struggling.
As a member of the audience I would be disappointed and frustrated with an ending that it is repetitive and with no logical progression from the beginning, but that is fundamentally what makes the play unique. At first I would argue for a play that is not unique, people can act absurd, and people are always questioning the issues of the self and religion. But it is unique, I was frustrated and therefore the absurdist play has achieved its aim. I would have watched a play with people taking part in futile activities, and this is the whole point, people’s lives being futile. It awakens you to ideas of ineffective communication and relations between men.

[Sinead Gray]

Both ‘Waiting For Godot’ and ‘The Lesson’ are far removed from the ‘well made plays’ that dominated British Theatre in the 1950s. Beckett and Ionesco redefined the notion of what constituted a play; there is no neat beginning middle and end in ‘Waiting For Godot’ and ‘The Lesson’, and while there are problems that exist within the plays neither playwright offers any resolution. The plays only leave audiences with a multitude of unanswered questions; who is Godot? Why are they waiting for him? Where has Pozzo come from and where is he going? Who is the pupil? Who is the professor? How has the professor been getting away with murder? Both plays leave audiences feeling frustrated and confused and this was ground-breaking theatre in the 1950s. Beckett and Ionesco’s plays were unique and rare because they stopped treating their audiences as a passive group of people there to be entertained and instead empowered them by allowing them to make their own judgements and form their own conclusions.

[Ellie Purkis]

'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' played such a significant role in changing people's views on what constituted theatre because they were bold enough to abolish the foundations of the 'well made' play and introduce other functions of theatre.

Having won the war, the cinema no longer had the obligation to provide a sanctuary of entertainment and tame storylines for its viewers, and could afford to venture into more untrodden ground.

In 'The Lesson', Ionesco breaks away from the focus on characters and predictable plot of previous plays, providing the audience with only the minimal details of the professor, student and maid, and ends back where the play began, with the threat that this cycle will continue... Suddenly theatre is not a light entertainment for the audience but an awkward, unconfortable experience; similarly 'Waiting for Godot' demands that the audience take on a role in great contrast to the passive one they were used to, causing them to constantly question the action and interpret events for themselves. They are made more a part of the play, as they are not swept along with the detached storylines as before, but are involved in each silence and question, questionning along with the characters of the play (cf. Waiting for Godot - the 'why's') Of course audiences were not used to this level of interaction with the play and its new role as riddler as opposed to entertainer, hence why these plays gained the loathing of so many critics. Theatre had gone from one extreme to another; from displaying a surreal, comforting portrayal of life, to pushing the very boundaries of reality.

[Sarah Tough]

It is without doubt, in my opinion, that Beckett’s 'Waiting for Godot' marked a turning point in the history of British Theatre. The arrival of absurdist theatre placed a newfound emphasis on conveying the value of a play by means of far vaguer and implicated suggestions. With a new focus now on allusive evocations as opposed to ostentatiously confirmative inferences, Beckett is inviting the audience to deduce their own personal interpretations and understanding of the performance. In 'Waiting for Godot', for example, the chief protagonists Estragon and Vladimir, are waiting for a message from a ‘being’ whose real identity is left deliberately undisclosed, thus allowing the audience to arrive at their own conclusions about what Beckett is trying to articulate through the dramatic action (or lack of it) on stage.

Ambiguity and uncertainty is similarly reflected in Ionesco’s ‘The Lesson’, whose subject matter is paradoxically both simple and confounding. The absence of a well-defined, neat resolution at the end of the play significantly reflects the playwright’s intention to “re-orientate a theatre audience away from a desire to detect clear-cut meaning”, instead choosing to inspire and inculcate a more innovative and perceptive mode of thinking amongst receptors of the play.

In 'Waiting for Godot', the irresolute closure and notable absence of a linear plot progression distinguishes the play from any other devised before. Beckett creates an allegory, through consciously embodying abstract and spiritual qualities within his characters. This, in turn, generates an innovative reflection of a new modern society surfacing at the time of writing in which conflict and tensions were predominantly emerging.

[Cerian Jones]

I very much agree with Harold Hobson’s description of Waiting for Godot, as it is so entirely different to anything British audiences would have encountered. In particular, Waiting for Godot differs for the general plays of the time because of the way in which there is no large event or clear plot. Theatre-goers at the time of the premier would have been more inclined to expect a neat play with a clear beginning, middle and end. To have been presented with a play which still entertained and provoked interest whilst not consisting of a structured plot must surely have changed the way in which people viewed theatre. I think that Waiting for Godot was highly influential and created new opportunities for different types of plays. I also feel that The Lesson would have changed people’s opinions of theatre as it at first appears to be a typical play of the time but slowly changes dramatically into a dark, yet absurd piece of theatre. In my opinion, this piece of theatre would be very memorable to the audience because of the way its beginning is so different to the end and therefore would produce a kind of expectation in the audience for something shocking and surprising. As a result, I feel that both The Lesson and in particular, Waiting for Godot were very likely to have been the plays which changed peoples opinions of theatre.

[Matt WIllis]

The way in which Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' could be seen as revolutionary is inherent in its representation of an absurdly shrouded everyday experience. The representation of an apparently endless cycle of events, personified by waiting for a character that is seemingly destined never to arrive, is much more accurate a depiction of reality than any of the drama that preceded the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ in my view. In a play that was initially criticised in terms of ‘nothing happening’, Beckett (much like his counterparts, Pinter and Ionesco) placed his focus on the dialogue between the central characters in favour of simple, plot-enhancing conversation which seems to represent an experience that can be appreciated by the common man on a much grander scale. Beckett was opposed to any acknowledgment that the character of Godot was in fact intended to represent God as he attempted to disregard any simpleminded interpretation of a play which he intended to act as a simple, if bizarre, representation of the human experience.

In both Ionesco’s ‘The Lesson’ and ‘Waiting for Godot’, the unconventional, non-linear time span is central to the striking effect the play had on an audience of the time. Both works seem to end at the point in which they started, expressing the creators’ ideals as focusing on the manipulation of language and character interaction instead of conventional dramatis which seemed to utilise the words on the page as an interim, always moving towards a plot resolution. In ‘The Lesson’, the Professors utilisation of language is especially interesting, acting as not only his ally, but also his weapon and alibi. Both plays seem to express a desire for language and dialogue to take on a role of utmost importance in a manner that it arguably had never achieved in the theatre before this point.

[Katherine Pike]

Both 'The Lesson' and 'Waiting for Godot' fall into the category of 'absurdist theatre', stearing away from the then norm of the 'well-made play' that typically consisted of a denoument - unveiling of the plot, and a resolution. The fact that these plays did not follow the typical structure of a 'well-made play' would have indeed changed peoples opinions on what constituted theatre during the period. 'Waiting for Godot' has an almost circular plot where nothing significant happens that makes the play progress further; the beginning of each Act starts in the same way with both Estragon and Vladimir waiting for Godot, an 'event' which also finalises the play giving the reader/audience a sense that the characters will repeat the process of waiting for Godot after the close of the play. The fact that we are given no indication of who or what Godot is, also suggests an irresolution; there is no denoument that gives the plot away so at the end we are left asking questions such as who is Godot? Why were they waiting for him? All these questions indirectly asking what the point/message of the play was.
In direct comparison, with 'The Lesson', what starts as a normal situation of a professor teaching a pupil, quickly escalates into absurdity with the frantic outbursts from the proffessor and finally his killing of his pupil. Instead of then, a resolution, we are made aware that the events that have taken place will continue to do so as the maid makes plans to bury the 'forty' other pupils and prepares to send in the next one. In retrospect, we can see this to be so through the maids outcries throughout the play: "Don't take on so, Monsieur, think what it may lead to!". This inevitably shows that she knows what is coming and therefore serves as a forwarning; she makes the audience aware that it has happened so may times before, implying it will continue after the close of the play.

[Sophie Barnard]

Both Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ and Ionesco’s ‘The Lesson’ are absurdist plays in that they reject closure and linear progression that typified pre-war theatre and replaced it with a cyclical structure that directed the focus to the forms of communication.

After the war, a number of foreign influences revolutionised conventional British theatre. Notably, the visit to Britain by Brecht and the Berliner Ensemble gave rise to epic theatre and the focus on whole body expression rather than spoken narrative and characterisation. This theatre fascinated many by emphasising the problems of contemporary life, for example the monotony and lack of knowledge or clear objective. By structuring the plays in such a way, absurdist theatre made the familiar seem strange and intended the audience to question their surroundings and analyse the symbolism throughout.

The introduction of this genre marked a seminal transitional moment in British theatre. Not only were the public in debate concerning absurdist plays, but newspapers also mirrored this vibrancy in lively debate. The struggle between Tynan and Hobson, two noted theatrical journalists, made London theatre seen alive. Hobson, in fact, titled his review of ‘Waiting for Godot’ ‘Tomorrow’ to emphasise its unique structure in which so much is said, but so little is conveyed.

[Agnieszka Sikora]

Both Beckett and Ionesco innovated the theatre introducing new forms (or rather anti-forms) of playwriting which developed modern Western theatre.The Lesson and Waiting for Godot changed people’s conception of theatre as they did not respect the traditional scheme « exposition-climax-dénouement » and broke already existing rules.

The essential theme in these two plays is language (far more important than action) which is no longer a direct mean of communication. The reader/spectator realises how complex and confusing the language is and to what extent we depend on the language.In Waiting for Godot the characters constantly repeat what has already been said.Thus,they are unable to express themselves in their onw way.
The Professor in Ionesco’s The Lesson believes that all languages are identical and express ideas by one and the same word in every language.But he himself has difficulties in communicating with his students which will further lead to a tragic end.

Another striking idea in both works was the fact that nothing actually happen during the whole play. Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot who never comes. The Professor gives lessons to young girls-students and kills them one by one.
This conception of infinity is present in both plays.Their tragedy lies in the fact that there is no escape from that vicious circle and the characters are condemned to lead meaningless lives…

Absurd dialogues,nonsense,violence and uncertainty are omnipresent in The Lesson and Waiting for Godot.However surprising those factors might have seemed to the readers,they in fact reflected post–war feelings of anexiety and mankind’s search for meaning and hope for a better world.

I fully agree with Harold Hobson’s opinion on Beckett’s play.Waiting for Godot is indeed a unique work,not only thanks to its innovative structure but also to its themes.The (non)existance of Godot rised a vivid debate amongst critics and readers/audience.
Asked about further explanations concerning the misterious Godot, Beckett replied :
« If I knew (who or what Godot was), I would have said so in the play… »
The most common interpretation of Godot may be God (the name « Godot » naturally leads the reader to this solution). »Waiting for God » would then be a response to the horrors of the 20th century and people’s cry for a different world.
But Godot may also stand for everything a Man might wait for. In this interpretation Godot would has a function rather than a particular meaning.

In his play Beckett reminds that nothing is certain and that there is no definite knowledge.His characters seem lost in reality and therefore constantly « kill the time ».

[James Morris]

‘What grounds do they have for being the plays that changed the way that people viewed what constituted theatre? Harold Hobson described 'Waiting for Godot' as being as unique as a four-leaf clover or a black tulip. Do you agree?’

From a purely critical standpoint, I have no problem with viewing these plays as being something revolutionary, among ‘the most influential plays of the post-war period’. The description of Waiting for Godot as being ‘as unique as a four-leaf clover or a black tulip’ is, to my mind, a fitting one. The play appeared to me a purely organic affair, seeming as much a product, however unlovely, of the playwright’s imagination and creative faculty, as the carrots and turnips his lead characters bemoan and depend on. There is a sense in which ‘boredness’ pervades Waiting for Godot. In the case of both Vladimir and Estragon the search for any meaningful or diversionary daily activity mirrors their own proverbial human condition, yet the very act or process of writing seems to be complicit in their search. Beckett’s voice breaks through the quagmire of his text at numerous occasions, as a voice of self-commentary, and as one of self-doubt as a playwright in the context of his culture. He ‘begin(s) to weary of this motif’, and thus moves on to another idea. His choice of insult to the theatre-goer screams from the page ‘(with finality). Crritic!’

The cyclic nature of Waiting for Godot is one of its key features; aside from the so-called ‘Biblical imagery’ the apparently improvisatory play appears, at times, to be a revelatory stream of conciousness. A good example of this is found in the almost allegorical figure of Lucky, who, like the Pupil of Ionesco’s The Lesson is subjugated to an arbitrary system of education or servitude while displaying a preternatural, savant-like mental dexterity. Leaving aside for a moment the obvious absurdism of both the plays, it is important to note that both have significant points of comparison with each other: questions of power relations in microcosmic relationships, political dialogue, allegory, and detail of character development. Peripetia, or the Greek ‘reversal of fortune’ seems to be a shared motif of both these plays. One has only to regard to complex and divergent relationship of Pozzo and Lucky or the molestation of the Pupil which is ‘of course … achieved by slow degrees, imperceptibly’.

Regarding Waiting for Godot, and after having briefly examined it in relation to Ionesco’s The Lesson, is seems that the the similarities between the two belie the former’s ‘uniqueness’. As plays of ‘the absurd’, shared elements are, consciously or not, at play. One could rather more pertinently say that the very ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ itself was Hobson’s black tulip. The critic saw Godot as the only one of its kind, but as part of a genre, however unconsciously or artificially constructed, it says more about the universality of man’s own search for meaning than it ever could do as an anomaly.

[stephen wischhusen]

I write as something of a dinosaur. My "active" days as a theatre practitioner finished in 1991, and even then I had not ventured far outside the mainstream, whatever that happened to be at a partiular time.
Certainly "The Lesson", "Waiting for Godot" and "Look Back in Anger" changed peoples' perception of what could be "Theatre".
From my own archaic viewpoint the first two showed that Theatre of The Absurd was a valid form, but I think it has not developed but has remained like Neanderthal Man, something of an evolutionary blind alley. I'm not sure it can go any further and may be very much of its time - like german expressionistic cinema in the late 1920's/early 1930's .
"Look Back in Anger" however, I would suggest opened up mainstream theatre to wider audiences, transcending intellectual levels opening up Theatre as more of a multi-class recreation.
In my heathen opinion, the first two plays still appeal mainly to an intellectual elite.
But then, I have always worked in the unsubsidised sector, so I would say that, wouldn't I.

[Matthew Comras]

John Osborne

Like Pinter to follow, Osborne seems to say more through how his characters speak rather than what they actually say. The opening of The Entertainer serves to demonstrate this point perfectly as a multitude of themes are touched upon in a seemingly innocent and unrelated conversation between an old man (Billy) and his granddaughter (Jean). Themes of racism, in Billy’s attitude to the “Bloody Poles and Irish”; the isolation of the elderly as Billy says “I don’t get much chance to talk to anyone”; alcoholism, divorce, crisis in the Middle-East, war and allusions to paedophilia as Billy reminisces “You used to enjoy yourself with me when you were a little girl”. Through a seemingly innocent scene then, Osborne freely addresses these themes, overtly displaying his forward thinking. The extent to which the themes are relevant today is a further tribute to Osborne’s observations.

A feature of both The Entertainer and Look Back in Anger is how detached the characters seem from each other. More prolifically in The Entertainer but true of both, the plays are set in times of war and this unrest filters through the characters affecting them in different ways. Each character seems to exist independently of each other despite being in the same room and apparently sharing the same conversation. Whether it is Archie’s optimistic ramblings about his role in the struggling theatre scene or Jimmy’s idealistic criticisms of just about everything, none of the characters ever seem to connect with each other, which serves to paint a vivid picture of the unsettled 1950’s society.

[Emma Nolan]

Anyone who would read a copy or see a performance of either Waiting for Godot or The Lesson would immediately notice how different they are to plays that had been previously performed on the British stage. Both foreign plays, they brought a new, unconventional ‘absurdist’ genre to Britain, undoubtedly challenging audience perceptions as to ‘what constituted theatre’.

For years, British theatre goers had been used to the standard ‘beginning, middle, end’ formula of the ‘well made play’; being presented with nicely structured plotlines, characters, themes and ideas etc. Waiting for Godot and The Lesson, however, did not provide the audience with this at all.

Firstly, if we look at The Lesson, it could be suggested that the play doesn’t even have a proper ‘story’ or plot at all – just one act about a girl being taught how to add up and subtract. The characters are largely unknown to the audience – identified only as the ‘professor’, the ‘maid’ and the ‘pupil’. There are instances in the play when the props are imagined – a pretend chalkboard, an imaginary knife etc. and the play can come across as somewhat comic and farcical, even though it is supposed to be on the more dark and tragic side of things. Contemporary audiences would arguably be rather confused at this – it’s nothing like anything they would have seen before. The Lesson therefore would almost certainly change the way people would have viewed theatre, as despite all of the differences from conventional plays, it is still a good, successful and engaging play. It explores the relationship and transferral of power between characters, and at points can be rather unnerving. There is also a startling and murderous ending that is not resolved. The pupil is killed, and the professor is not brought to justice; instead, his maid just removes the body and they carry on as if nothing has happened. It went against many conventions – but it was ok!

Waiting for Godot is similar to The Lesson in its unconventionality, as the play doesn’t really have a ‘proper’ story either. Nothing actually happens. It is just two men sitting in the middle of nowhere, waiting for someone (or something) named Godot. The play is about them waiting – there is no real action or development, and the dialogue is largely the small chit chat of Vladimir and Estragon just trying to pass the time. It is incredibly circular and not really progressive; notable through the appearances of Lucky and Pozzo in each of the acts. Even though these features would have negative connotations, I would argue that this is what makes it unique. I agree with Harold Hobson’s comment that Waiting for Godot was ‘a black tulip’. It is nothing like anything that had been performed before; it was challenging and forward thinking. I would argue that audiences can relate to the characters, the monotony and boredom of waiting around for something that would save them, but something that never seems to come. Again, there is no resolution at the end of this play; another day ends, and ‘Didi’ and ‘Gogo’ are still waiting. The audience is still waiting for something to happen, or at least some information – who are these men? Who is Godot? Why are they waiting for him? Etc. Initially, audiences were probably confused and somewhat unfulfilled – but this play challenged their expectations of theatre and what it means. Waiting for Godot is, in my opinion, fantastic. It almost definitely changed how people viewed theatre, splitting audiences – they would either love it or loath it, some would leave before the second act.

Both plays were really unconventional, they were forward thinking and experimental. Although it is contested that the turning point of British theatre came with the plays of Osborne and the ‘angry young men’, I would suggest that Beckett and Ionesco were the forerunners in changing how people viewed ‘what constituted theatre’. Their plays were the initial challengers and experimenters – these foreign influences may have helped to inspire the new generation of British playwrights…