Waiting For Godot Essay | Analysis of Waiting for Godot

Waiting For Godot Essay | Analysis of Waiting for Godot It is tempting to view Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot as a play of nothingness, with no value or meaning but that of two men waiting for something or someone to arrive. However, the companionship that the two protagonist characters portray underneath the humour and bleakness of Becketts two part tragi-comedy, clearly offers us something elevating amongst the emptiness of the bleak world that the characters are staged within. As the play progresses and we begin to learn about these two characters lives, it becomes clear that they share a companionship, caring deeply for one another and in many ways a need for each other in order to survive the hostile place in which they are living in. From the very start of the play we become aware of the companionship of Vladimir and Estragon. As the play opens we witness Estragon sitting alone upon a rock, trying to remove his boot and repeatedly failing to do so. As Vladimir enters and replies to Estragons spoken thoughts, as if he had been present all along, we see their friendship for the first time. We are aware that the two characters have been separated overnight, yet at this early point within the play we are unaware as to how they know each other and most importantly how long they have known each other. Now that Vladimir is present Estragons shoe slips off with effortlessness, almost as if to say that he cannot remove it without the company of Vladimir. The ease in which they are reunited gives us, as an audience, an insight, and allows us to become aware of the fact that we are not witnessing two strangers on stage, we are witnessing two friends. This opening is continued as Vladimir states to Estragon Im glad to see yo u back. I thought you were gone forever. (Beckett, 2006:11) This direct line implies that by Estragon leaving it would create a sense of sadness for Vladimir, and the word glad reinforces any doubts that the audience have at this point as to whether or not they share a companionship in one another. In the Royal Court Theatre revival of 1964, Anthony page staged Godot with Becketts presence. Page states that Beckett forever implied that Godot is very much about relationships between human beings. (McMillan,1990:85) Beckett continued to express to Page that moments of the play should be a tender moment of complete understanding between the two characters. (McMillan, 1990:85) And at an instant this made the line work. It is clear from this that Beckett meant for the two characters to share 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 American production insisted that he was top banana and warned Tom Ewell as Vladimir Dont crowd me the balance of the play was disturbed. (McMillan, 1990:62) This implies that they need 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 an yway will 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 going. (Smith, 2009) The pair seem to mirror the society of modern day and it is important to remember their loneliness, their continuous waiting for Godot and I find myself asking whether this has resulted in their strong attachment for one another. Like any companionship they fight and then they make up, yet Vladimir and Estragon certainly share the strongest want for each others companionship. Vladimir: Gogo! Estragon: Didi! Vladimir: Your hand! Estragon: Take it! Vladimir: Come to my arms! Estragon: Your arms? Vladimir: My breast! [They embrace. They separate. Silence.] (Beckett, 2006:70) This passage in Act II portrays the journey of their relationship throughout the play. They question each others actions and the boredom in which they are isolated within may well be responsible for the bickering they sustain, yet no matter what happens they return to each other, embracing 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 but yet at once they separate again. It is important to realise that they do not always want to be each others friend, and that making 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 within 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 married couple. By the end of Act I we, as an audience, become aware of just how long Vladimir and Estragon have known each other Fifty years perhaps (Beckett, 2006: 51) and as Act II begins Vladimir starts to sing and this could parallel the fact 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 confusion 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 give his life its greatest sense of meaning. Within their relationship, whether this is just friendship or one of something more, it is easy 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 fitted easily into the scheme of things, including the touch of nursemaid in Alec McCowens soothing attitude to his partner. (Worth, 1990:79) This nursemaid approach is further highlighted during Act I when Estragon violently says Im hungry. (Beckett, 2006:21) 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 role, holding connotations that their partnership is portraying that of a married couple. Vladimir is copiously feeding his wife and Estragon is the irresponsible husband, with Vladimir always coming to his aide. Their wants a nd needs match each other perfectly and it could be for this reasoning that Beckett described them himself as a pseudo couple; they dont necessarily always want to be in each others company, yet they recognise each other as a necessary person in order to survive. In order to think about this further, the passage in Act II where 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 idea further, Estragon and Vladimir are like 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 therefore if one leaves, so does the other. This enhances Becketts choice of the repeated line Im going, yet neither 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 taking on the role of the nursemaid as Worth stated, but that although this seems warranted at times, at other t imes 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 sketch 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 ground through their disabilities. We can begin to look at this is order to help 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-minded and forgetful with Estragon asking every so often throughout the play why are we h ere? 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 performing 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 words 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 s eparate, 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 adapted 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 dullness of nothing to do that keeps them surviving. Vladimir and Estragon are both characters that are forced 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, 2006:18) Vladimir stresses his concerns to the options surrounding the outcome of the situation; what if he goes first? What if Estragon hangs himself and then 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 compassionate metaph or for the human predicament: confronted by a senseless world, the least 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 create 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 sleeping 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 reac h 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: Constitution of Trusts John Hopkins: Constitution of Trusts A beneficiary under a trust is a volunteer unless he has provided valuable consideration.[1] Where a gift is made, the beneficiary will always be a volunteer as it is by definition made without consideration. The traditional equitable maxim is that equity will not assist a volunteer.[2] This generally means that where a gift is made imperfectly, equity will not enable the intended beneficiary to claim the gift under a trust. However, there are exceptions to the rule. This essay will consider these exceptions and the extent to which the rule has developed from â€Å"equity will not assist a volunteer† to a position of â€Å"equity will not assist a volunteer if, in doing so, it would repair the consequences of a would-be donor’s folly†. The leading case in this area is Milroy v Lord[3] where a voluntary deed which purported to assign 50 shares to Samuel Lord on trust for Milroy. Lord was already acting as Milroy’s agent under a power of attorney. The formalities of the share transfer were not complied with. Milroy therefore sought to establish that a trust had been declared. It was held that an ineffective transfer does not constitute a declaration of trust without there being a clear intention to create a trust. Furthermore, if a voluntary settlement is to be valid and effectual, the settlor must have done everything which was necessary to be done to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him.[4] As the shares had not been transferred, no trust was created and no gift made. The case of Milroy v Lord thus provides that for the settlement to be binding there must be either an outright transfer, a declaration of self as trustee, or a transfer of property to a third party as trustee. The facts of Jones v Lock[5] were that a father produced a cheque payable to himself and said â€Å"Look you here, I give this to baby; it is for himself† and placed the cheque in the baby’s hand. He then took the cheque back stating that he was going to put it away for him. It was held that there had been no effective gift because no valid transfer had occurred. Moreover, it was held that a failed gift cannot be construed to be a valid declaration of trust. It was said that the crucial principle 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 dispose of the benefit of his property.[6] However, where the property is vested in the trustees in circumstances outside their capacity as trustees, the trust may be constituted, even though the beneficiaries are volunteers[7] (Re Ralli’s Will Trusts[8]). Other exceptions include the rule in Strong v Bird[9] 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 Rose[10] demonstrates the principle that where a donor has done everything they can to transfer title 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 promise 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 settlor’s 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 Appeal thus held that he had neither effectively vested the property in the trustees, nor did his words of gift render him a trustee. Furthermore â€Å"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 â€Å"equity will not assist a volunteer† or â€Å"perfect an imperfect gift†.[13] In allowing the appeal, the Privy Council accepted the maxims but added that â€Å"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 â€Å"I give to the trustees of the foundation trust deed to be held by them on the trusts of the foundation trust deed†.[14] The case of Choithram may therefore be taken to be support 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 Jones 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 Waine[15] 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 â€Å"on the company’s 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 stock 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, despite the lack of delivery and the fact that there was apparently nothing to stop A from recalling her gift.[16] The 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 unconscionable for the transferor to be able to change their mind, equity should hold the gift to be properly constituted. Per Arden LJ: â€Å"If one proceeds on the basis that a principle which animates the answer to the question whether an apparently incomplete 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-à  -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 registration: her agent also told [H] that he need take no action. In addition [H] agreed to become a director of the company without limit of time, which he could not do without shares being transferr ed 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.[18] Examining Hopkins’ statement in light of this development, it is unlikely that the maxim can be said to be redefined to incorporate the donor’s folly, as the present position appears to leave plenty of scope for assisting a volunteer where doing so would correct a donor’s folly. Indeed, Pennington v Waine may well be overruled in the future, but at present, the most apt re-statement of the maxim is: â€Å"equity will not assist a volunteer unless it would be unconscionable not to do so†.[19] Bibliography Delany, H., and Ryan, D., â€Å"Unconscionability: a unifying theme in equity†, (2008) Conv 401 Garton, J., â€Å"The role of the trust mechanism in the rule in Re Rose†, (2003) Conv 364 Halliwell, M., â€Å"Perfecting imperfect gifts and trusts: have we reached the end of the Chancellor’s foot?†, (2003) Conv 192 Hopkins, J., â€Å"Constitution of trusts – a novel point†, (2001) CLJUK 483 Hudson, A., Equity and Trusts, 5th Edition (2007), Routledge-Cavendish Martin, J.E., Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity, 17th Edition (2005), Sweet Maxwell Morris, J., â€Å"Questions: when is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? Answer: after the decisions in Choithram and Pennington†, (2003) PCB 393 Oakley, A.J., Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts, 9th Edition (2008), Sweet Maxwell Pettit, P.H., Equity and the Law of Trusts, 10th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press Tham, C.H., â€Å"Careless share giving†, (2006) CONVPL 411 Watt, G., Trusts and Equity, 3rd Edition (2008), Oxford University Press Footnotes [1] Pettit, P.H., Equity and the Law of Trusts, 10th Edition (2006), Oxford University Press, pg 104 [2] Hudson, A., Equity and Trusts, 5th Edition (2007), Routledge-Cavendish, pg 26 [3] (1862) 4 De GF J 264 [4] Hudson, supra pg 221 [5] (1965) LR 1 Ch App 25 [6] Watt, G., Trusts and Equity, 3rd Edition (2008), Oxford University Press, pg 121 [7] Martin, J.E., Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity, 17th Edition (2005), Sweet Maxwell, pg 122 [8] [1964] Ch 288 [9] (1874) 18 Eq 315 [10] [1952] Ch 499 [11] Hudson, supra pg 222 [12] [2001] 1 WLR 1 [13] Hopkins, J., â€Å"Constitution of trusts – a novel point†, (2001) CLJUK 483 [14] Lord Browne-Wilkinson at [12] [15] [2002] 1 WLR 2075 [16] see Morris, J., â€Å"Questions: when is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? Answer: after the decisions in Choithram and Pennington†, (2003) PCB 393 [17] Oakley, A.J., Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts, 9th Edition (2008), Sweet Maxwell, pg 156 [18] Garton, J., â€Å"The role of the trust mechanism in the rule in Re Rose†, (2003) Conv 364; Tham, C.H., â€Å"Careless share giving†, (2006) CONVPL 411; Delany, H., and Ryan, D., â€Å"Unconscionability: a unifying theme in equity†, (2008) Conv 401 [19] Halliwell, M., â€Å"Perfecting imperfect gifts and trusts: have we reached the end of the Chancellor’s foot?†, (2003) Conv 192