The Guardian theatre critic reviews new Samuel Beckett production
'I have no problem with the fact that [Waiting for Godot] stars two big box-office names in Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart. But Sean Mathias's production not only includes superfluous Goon Show-type sound effects but also permits its two lead actors to get away with a good deal of showbiz shtick. At times I felt the evening was closer to Neil Simon's The Sunshine Boys, about the reunion of two old vaudevillians, than to Beckett's tragic vision of humanity.'
Michael Billington has written once again on the UK revival of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. At first glance, his observations celebrate the newfound public acceptance of open-ended theatre; plays that have for so long played to critics and academics are now becoming popular with the public at large. Wonderful! you might say: it's about time! And so it is. But that's not where the article ends, and it's not the happy ending we were hoping for. What Billington gives with one hand, he takes with the other, and it begins to appear that his well-meaning assessment conceals some not-so-well-meaning conservative reservations.
While Billington is willing to accept and venerate the public's interest in 'freedom of choice' concerning the theatre, and the way Waiting for Godot is being embraced by audiences at London's Haymarket, he appears to resist the productions themselves. His article is structured around a surreptitious contradiction. In the case of the Beckett revival, Billington appears to accuse Sean Mathias' direction of pandering to the masses, resorting to 'Goon Show-type sound effects' and wallowing in crass 'showbiz shtick'. Billington resists these aspects of the production by stressing the importance of the text, as written, and of upholding Samuel Beckett's authorial vision.
I think that his review makes an interesting case, but I am also a little bemused that he would feel this way. To begin with, the Beckett Estate, for all their limitations, are the first to admit that there is no definitive reading of Beckett's work. Each production is a kind of rejuvenation, or reinvention, that builds on the reputation of previous productions, and so adds to the richness of the play's long-term cultural significance. Each successive treading of the boards brings something new to the table, emphasizing a different theme or image or idea for the audience to take away with them. There is no right or wrong interpretation, strictly speaking, and to suggest so misses one of the fundamental points of Beckett's ouevre.
Waiting for Godot is a play that somehow manages to grasp at a 'tragic vision of humanity', but infuses that vision with humour, irony and slapstick. I can relate to Billington's point that there is a 'joy of not getting it' when it comes to open-ended narratives and profound questions, but it's the joyfulness that Billington doesn't seem to get: the joyfulness of getting what's not to get.
While Billington is willing to accept and venerate the public's interest in 'freedom of choice' concerning the theatre, and the way Waiting for Godot is being embraced by audiences at London's Haymarket, he appears to resist the productions themselves. His article is structured around a surreptitious contradiction. In the case of the Beckett revival, Billington appears to accuse Sean Mathias' direction of pandering to the masses, resorting to 'Goon Show-type sound effects' and wallowing in crass 'showbiz shtick'. Billington resists these aspects of the production by stressing the importance of the text, as written, and of upholding Samuel Beckett's authorial vision.
I think that his review makes an interesting case, but I am also a little bemused that he would feel this way. To begin with, the Beckett Estate, for all their limitations, are the first to admit that there is no definitive reading of Beckett's work. Each production is a kind of rejuvenation, or reinvention, that builds on the reputation of previous productions, and so adds to the richness of the play's long-term cultural significance. Each successive treading of the boards brings something new to the table, emphasizing a different theme or image or idea for the audience to take away with them. There is no right or wrong interpretation, strictly speaking, and to suggest so misses one of the fundamental points of Beckett's ouevre.
Waiting for Godot is a play that somehow manages to grasp at a 'tragic vision of humanity', but infuses that vision with humour, irony and slapstick. I can relate to Billington's point that there is a 'joy of not getting it' when it comes to open-ended narratives and profound questions, but it's the joyfulness that Billington doesn't seem to get: the joyfulness of getting what's not to get.
6 Comments:
Unfortunately Rhys, you're misrepresenting the issue. I'm sure Billington and Eric Griffith's (whose review in the TLS is equally damning) would not deny there is no definitive interpretation of the play as a whole. But this is not only about "upholding SB's authorial vision" (a woolly phrase to allow a multitude of abuses), it's about respecting Beckett's directions. These are quite explicit. For example, Beckett's notebooks for Godot insist there should be no music. So why does this production flout this instruction? If it is about making it popular with the masses, then it patronises them to assume they can't be trusted to see the play as the author instructed (i.e. *not* intended). After all, it's the real thing they've been sold.
Also, has this play really only played to "critics and academics" since the 1950s?
Hi Steve,
That's a good point.
My girlfriend and I saw the UK production earlier this month, and I can certainly relate to some of Billington's criticisms regarding its loyalty to Beckett's stage directions. But, having said that, I feel that his article follows the rules of the productions notebooks without understanding the spirit in which they were written.
I feel there is a kind of elitism at play, where anything humorous in a 'serious' artistic work is ignored or pushed off-stage. I think that by bringing that humour to the fore, Sean Mathias has not only done something interesting with a great play, but drawn attention to the kind of humour that defines all of Beckett's writing. There were elements that I found a little jarring, and I agree with your points on Beckett's stage directions, but I'm still impressed by what Mathias has achieved.
The 'critics and academics' part might have been a slight exaggeration!
Rhys
I thought the main experience of WfG is one in which humour and deep unease merge like a mobius strip. Bringing either to the fore would thereby distort the play.
I would agree with that. The sound effects and music were certainly distortions of the play. Although I don't believe there are any final readings, or 'main experiences' to be had regarding a performance of Waiting for Godot: it is never the same twice, so there can be no final meaning or interpretation.
Rhys
You're very sure for someone advocating uncertainty!
Of course I was referring to *my* main experience of the play. However, you don't have to believe in it because I'm certainly not convinced.
If there's one thing for certain, it's uncertainty.
Post a Comment