Modernist Drama: Waiting for Godot and The Caretaker

To what extent do the writers studied on this module inherit, reject or extend the thematic and formal characteristics of literary modernism? Discuss with reference to works by two writers studied on this module.

`The theatre`s intrinsic connection to physical reality and social existence make some of the key modernist principles inapplicable` is the conclusion that Christopher Innes draws in his treatise on Modernism in Drama.1 Still, Innes attributes a `modernist vision` to both Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter with regard to their engagement as playwrights.2 Drawing on this emerging discrepancy the following analysis takes a closer look at Waiting for Godot as well as The Caretaker. Accordingly, both plays are analysed with regard to their modernist potential. Hence, in a first step potential common features of modern drama are highlighted. In a second step the respective plays are analysed, examining them for characteristics that might be rooted in Modernism or even transgress it. Concluding, potential similarities between the plays are touched upon from a (post-) modern perspective.
As already implied, the attempt to summarize such a multifaceted concept as Modernism in a few sentences can only fall short.3 Still, for the purpose of this analysis, a basic definition needs to be found. In this respect Taylor- Batty and Taylor- Batty`s definition seems particularly useful. In their opinion Modernism, the beginning of which they roughly mark after the First World War, regards the world as chaos. In the face of the war, old, fixed values shatter. Formerly fixed notions of truth, reason, the enlightened self as well as the effectiveness of language are questioned. This is reflected in the literature produced in that time, a wariness of realism in favour of antirealism emerges.4 In short, modernists seek `to find a form that accommodates the mess` that they think post-war life is.5 The fact that drama is a public event that it is dependent on actors, a director and on the audience might have contributed to the impression that it was not as open for innovation as prose or poetry.6 However, as Innes points out drama has found its own innovative forms to represent the so called `mess` associated with Modernism: A break with the traditional structure of the well-made play as well as the use of ambiguous language are only some examples.7 Consequently, both Waiting for Godot as well as The Caretaker are examined with regard to the extent that the perceived modernist mess finds expression in both their form and content. However, the analysis focuses mainly on the texts themselves and not on performance-related issues like light, stage props and acting.
Starting from the narrative structure of Waiting for Godot it can be argued that it is evident that Beckett hardly created a traditional well-made play. On the contrary, his piece of work rather marks a rejection of traditional literary tenets (even if still bearing conventional elements as the symmetrical two acts structure). In this sense, one could reason that Beckett`s search for unconventional literary modes of representation mirrors the before quoted modernist claim to find `a form that accommodates the mess.`8 Instead of relying on traditional narrative structures, he makes use of techniques like repetition as well as a certain narrative circularity that contribute to the play eluding every attempt to infer absolute meaning from it, to impose the latter on it respectively.9 This might be exemplified by the following dialogue, which is repeated in the end of both acts: `ESTRAGON: Well shall we go? VLADIMIR: Yes, let`s go. They do not move.`10 This repetition of language but also of single actions is in fact preeminent throughout the whole play: In both acts there is the same focus on Estragon´s boots; there is Pozzo and Lucky entering and being both times mistaken for Godot, etc. It is the same words, things and movements all over again. What is created through this repetition certainly is not a logical narrative, it rather is a certain fuzziness. Repetition as a stylistic device hence rather seems to enforce the overall impression one has of the play: That the characters` wait is a never ending circle. Apart from the repetitiveness just described, what is also significant is the lacking concreteness of language itself. It can be argued that the contradictory, confusing way that language is used conveys the notion that language itself is no window to the world but rather a deficient tool to grasp one`s surrounding. Hence, against realist assumptions, Beckett`s language is on the one hand no means to thoroughly gain access to what is beyond, but on the other hand might also pretend that something is there that actually isn`t (like meaningful existence as Batty-Taylor and Batty-Taylor e.g. suggest).11 Beckett clearly plays with this by making his characters pose deeply essential questions, which however cannot be answered satisfactorily by means of language. The exchange in the beginning exemplifies this: `VLADIMIR: So there you are again. ESTRAGON: Am I ?`12 Estragon`s response leaves the spectator startled. As the audience we can virtually see him on the stage. Also, Vladimir just said he was here. Still, the `Am I ?` already purports a certain uneasiness of Estragon. He rather seems to be asking: `Am I` really? Do I exist? He seeks reassurance of his existence. However, the `So there you are again` does not seem to suffice to reassure him. Hence, language is presented as a deficient tool to reassure oneself of one`s existence, its `limitations […] as a vehicle for the expression of valid statement` are implied.13 Furthermore, if one follows the interpretation that meaningless existence of humanity is a key topic in the play, language actually only serves as a means of concealing this: `So there you are again.`14 Is he really?
As already touched upon, the stylistic features just described seem to enforce a certain interpretation of the play. However, if trying to pin down specific topics from a (post-) modern perspective, it clearly has to be stated that the play hardly has a plot in a conventional sense.15As Estragon phrases it `nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it`s awful`.16 Yet it is not really nothing that happens, one could rather argue that it is some kind of nothingness that the characters are waiting for instead. In other words: Their waiting could be argued to conceal that there is in fact nothing to wait for. Interpreting the play from this perspective, Waiting for Godot clearly could be attributed a modern essence: The characters` futile search for meaning, their hope to find something to explain their existence could be argued to mirror deeply modern concerns to the effect that previously prefixed notions as an absolute identity, absolute reality and absolute meaning seem to dissolve. What is left is only the fragmented being in search for an explanation, which it does not gain. This, however, is also where the play might shift into Postmodernism. Beckett does not only challenge the idea that notions like truth, reason, identity and meaning are fixed, clear-cut concepts which can be thoroughly, realistically represented in art. He also seems to purport that these fixed ideas are not as absolute as they were thought to be. On the contrary, he could be argued to propose that they do not exist at all: To approach it with Lyotard17: Does not Godot seem to stand for a grand explanation of human existence, and hence, for every possible metanarrative? And does not Beckett, suggesting that the characters` search for Godot is endless and futile, suggest that the search of humanity in general for a grand theory (religion, truth, reason, even the notion of an enlightened self) is futile? Hence, Waiting for Godot could be argued to essentially embody the `end of grand narratives` which is reasoned to be a key feature of The Postmodern Condition by Lyotard.18 Accordingly, waiting seems to have become an end in itself for Vladimir and Estragon: `Let`s go. VLADIMIR: We can`t. ESTRAGON: Why not? VLADIMIR: We`re waiting for Godot.`19 Their waiting prevents any action. This is even referred to quite frequently by the characters themselves, e.g. when talking about hanging themselves: `VLADIMIR: What do we do? ESTRAGON: Don`t let`s do anything. It´s safer.`20 Yet, this standstill, this persistence in waiting, this belief in a grand narrative might still make them modernist beings. Were they beings of a postmodern age instead, the last scene of the play would perhaps rather run: `Well? Shall we go? Estragon: Yes, let`s go. They move.`
Compared to Waiting for Godot, The Caretaker could also be argued to embody modernist concerns. Similarly to Beckett, Pinter too plays with the audience`s perceptions structure-wise. Even though The Caretaker`s plot bears traditional features such as narrative linearity as well as some sort of climax (Davies possibly being thrown out), the play does not really resolve satisfactorily in the end and hence clearly breaks with the conventions of the well-made play. In fact, Pinter not only refuses to present a clear resolution in the end, The Caretaker in general offers more questions than answers. In this sense, Davies` final words to Aston seem to stand exemplarily for the play: `Listen… If I… got down… If I was to… get my papers… would you […] If I got down… and got my… Long silence.`21 In the end nothing is resolved, all the questions the visitor is forced to ask himself during the play are forcefully thrown back at the audience: Is Davies going to Sidcup? Do the papers exist? What is (un-)real? We never find out.
Furthermore, with regard to Pinter`s style the following could be argued: The language displayed might seem rather realistic and colloquial at first sight. It is marked by pauses, hesitations and repetitions. Hence, one could draw the conclusion that the characters seem to be portrayed realistically. However, engaging with the text more intensely, it is evident that the characters are not thoroughly accessible to the spectator. They elude every attempt of the audience to impose definite meaning on them. On the contrary, the characters` exchanges rather reveal a certain ambiguity. In fact, the language displayed hardly presents a fixed notion of reality or truth, but several competing versions. The protagonists` utterances rather leave the spectator startled, unsure how to make sense of the characters. The first meeting between Mick and Davies e.g. serves as a possible example:
MICK. You sleep here last night? […] You remind me of my uncle`s brother […] I hope you slept well last night. […] You`ve got a funny kind of resemblance to a bloke I once knew […] Did you sleep here last night? […] You […] remind me of a bloke I bumped into once.22 This interrogation could be argued to display the before mentioned ambiguous quality of Pinter`s language. On a surface level, Mick`s remarks seem arbitrary. However, looking beyond the surface level of language one could argue that Mick´s comments actually serve the purpose of ascertaining his power over Davies (his right to speak). Even though probably sparsely evident at first sight, this might be interpreted as a departure from literary realism. It hints at a deeper level of language, a meaning departing from the surface. Hence, Pinter challenges the notion that language is a mere, realist reflection of the world as the realist depiction (the surface) seems to conceal something that lies deeper.23 Likewise, Mick`s talking about his `uncle`s brother`, which is irritating as this would be his father, points towards the multi-layered quality of his language.24 Also, until the end we cannot be sure about neither Davies` past or birth place: `I was … uh … oh, it`s a bit hard, like, to set your mind back […]`, nor whether Aston really has been in a mental asylum:
They weren`t hallucinations, they… […] I could see things … very clearly … everything … was so clear … […] all this quiet … and … this clear sight … it was … but maybe I was wrong.25
It is this special quality about Pinter`s language that points at something deeper than what is being said on a surface level26. With regard to Aston`s soliloquy e.g. one might interpret the pauses as his processing his past, however, it could also be interpreted as his making the story up and therefore having to pause. Similarly, this applies to Davies, the evasiveness of his language might be attributed to his attempt to conceal his past, it might, however, also display a certain mental disorder of his. Hence, contradictory to the aspersions of realism, via the characters` speeches, via a certain ambiguous language, Pinter offers a not so clear-cut reality, but seemingly divergent versions. The audience can never be sure which ones the right ones are.
Likewise, the themes taken up in the play clearly bear modernist features. Probably already the difficulty if not impossibility itself to outline clear-cut topics of The Caretaker are indicative of Modernism. It is this overarching ambiguity of the play`s language, of its characters that seems to lead to an overall ambiguity, blurriness of the play content-wise. Yet, in an effort to pin specific topics down with regard to Modernism, one could argue that isolation is a comprehensive theme: Aston lives isolated in his apartment, Davies is a tramp, the epitome of an outsider. They both seek companionship. Also, Mick seems hardly capable of forming actual relationships. There is no real communication between him and his brother. Therefore, one could say that isolation is the guiding principle of the play, constituting the characters, their relationship towards each other respectively. However, from a (post-) modern perspective, The Caretaker appears to be more than a socio-political study. In fact, one could claim that the isolation portrayed, the display of ambiguous language, the hopes of the characters all point towards the same direction: The inability of humans to cope with the chaos surrounding them, the breaking up of fixed values and the attempt of mankind to make sense of the world where there might be no definite sense at all. Thus, same as the play has started with a dark room this is also the way it ends. Aston and Mick still remain in the same place, restless. One does not know how they are going to progress. Similarly, one does not know if Davies is getting his papers in Sidcup, if they exist at all. Actually the audience is left with no definite knowledge in the end, with more questions than answers respectively. And this, it could be argued, is the modern essence of the play. However, this certain wariness of Pinter`s towards absolute notions of a unified self, guided by reason, of an absolute reality accessible via language could also point towards a postmodern direction with regard to Lyotard27: The old narratives are not necessarily replaced by new ones in Pinter`s play, he rather proposes that there are competing truths, competing realities.
Concluding, it can be stated that the attempt to fully ascribe a piece of literature to Modernism can hardly ever fully succeed as it is such a multi-faceted phenomenon. With regard to drama it might be even more difficult. Even though certain features have commonly been regarded to be salient in modernist prose and poetry like alienation, abstraction and montage these characteristics cannot be incorporated to the same extent in drama. However, simply denying performance in general any modern essence certainly falls short. On the contrary, to approach drama from a modernist perspective it might simply require a different definition, which takes account of the theatre`s particularities. For the purpose of this analysis it has been suggested that modern drama seeks to find innovative form to represent content. In other words the perceived chaos, the uncertainty about the purpose of human existence is reflected in an attempt to experiment with literary forms. With regard to the above analysis it has been shown that both Waiting for Godot and The Caretaker, which were produced after the Second World War, could be argued to embody the before outlined particular link between form and content: Both works show unconventional narrative techniques as well as a particular style that marks an evident departure from realism: In both plays language is not (only) used to depict things realistically it rather serves to demonstrate the fuzziness, the uncertainty of reality, of human existence. Hence, language goes beyond the mere depiction of content, it is rather its particular form that creates a certain impression in terms of content: That nothing is fixed, nothing really accessible through language. In this sense, both works, both style- and content-wise, could be argued to dismantle the perception that humanity is explicable, comprehensible through one great narrative. This might also be were the works shift into Postmodernism.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Beckett, Samuel, Waiting for Godot (London: Faber and Faber, 1971)
Pinter, Harold, The Caretaker (London: Methuen & CO LTD, 1968)

Secondary Sources

Driver, Tom, `Beckett by the Madeleine`, Columbia University Forum, 4 (1990), 23- 24
Dutton, Richard, Modern Tragicomedy and the British Tradition: Beckett, Pinter, Stoppard, Albee and Storey (Lancaster: The Harvester Press, 1986)
Innes, Christopher, `Modernism in drama`, in The Cambridge Companion to Modernism, ed. by Michael Levenson, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 128- 154
Levenson, Michael, `Introduction`, in The Cambridge Companion to Modernism, ed. by Michael Levenson, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 1-8
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Saint Paul: University of Minnesota Press, 1984)
Nightingale, Benedict, An Introduction to Fifty Modern Plays (London: Pan Books, 1982)
Oteiwy, Ghanim Obeyed,`Language in Waiting for Godot`, [accessed 12 March 2014]
Taylor-Batty, Mark and Juliette Taylor-Batty, Samuel Beckett`s Waiting for Godot (London: Continuum Books, 2008)

Bibliography: Primary Sources Beckett, Samuel, Waiting for Godot (London: Faber and Faber, 1971) Pinter, Harold, The Caretaker (London: Methuen & CO LTD, 1968) Secondary Sources Driver, Tom, `Beckett by the Madeleine`, Columbia University Forum, 4 (1990), 23- 24 Dutton, Richard, Modern Tragicomedy and the British Tradition: Beckett, Pinter, Stoppard, Albee and Storey (Lancaster: The Harvester Press, 1986) Innes, Christopher, `Modernism in drama`, in The Cambridge Companion to Modernism, ed. by Michael Levenson, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. Michael Levenson, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 1-8 Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Saint Paul: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) Nightingale, Benedict, An Introduction to Fifty Modern Plays (London: Pan Books, 1982) Taylor-Batty, Mark and Juliette Taylor-Batty, Samuel Beckett`s Waiting for Godot (London: Continuum Books, 2008)