“You’re on earth, there’s no cure for that!”After reading "Endgame" once, my initial reaction was that the play seemed to be the basis for every Beckettian cliche that is all-too-familiar to contemporary readers (see Durang's "The Actor's Nightmare"). Haggard figures, speaking in stilted dark poetic platitudes, etc. The second reading of "Endgame," however, allowed me to peer much more deeply into the subtleties of Beckett's clownish-vignettes. Also, the characters' poetic abstractions became much more grounded in the reality of their lives. Where did they come from? How did they find themselves in such a state of brokenness? Thematically, "Endgame" centers on a variety of things:a. The interchangeability of the "Master/Slave" relationship -- i.e. Hamm and Clovb. The intangibility (and, in turn, inaccuracy) of memory -- i.e. Hamm's father, Lake Como 1. "Creating" history, narrative -- i.e. Hamm's never-ending storyc. Inexplicable loss (of senses, agency, etc.) -- i.e. blindness, lamenessd. Habit as pseudo-religious rituale. Symmetry -- i.e. form, movement, behavior, etc.f. Bastardization of the canon, religious dogma -- i.e. "lick your neighbor as you would yourself"g. Performance, life as a play -- i.e. meta descriptions of their entrances, "soliloquies," etc.Despite these bleak motifs, "Endgame" features several moments of humanity, which are further pronounced in concert with such grave themes. For all their talk, no one can fully kill anything--Clov killing Hamm, Clov killing the rat, etc. Indeed, no one can even kill themselves. While this isn't a point of relief--if anything, it's a "No Exit"-brand of eternal damnation--it speaks to a certain humanity in each of the characters. Further, one of the most touching moments is when Clov lies to Hamm about the toy dog facing its owner--a simple deception, which brings the old man unending satisfaction.For each of the characters, familiarity is both a comfort and a curse. While their daily routine in "the hole" gives them purpose (i.e. "I love the old questions!"), it also numbs them to any hope of flux. How would these characters cope with change? This issue of repetition and, in turn, the characters' motivation for such behavior is sticky -- is their behavior evidence of some sort of collective amnesia? Not likely. The redundancy is conscious and, at times, comforting. But why engage in it? Perhaps, in response to Mother Pegg's fate, the characters repeat their daily rituals to keep from "dying of the darkness."Finally, the relationship between Hamm & Clov is highly reminiscent of the one between A and B in Beckett's "Rough for Theatre I." While Hamm--the elder--is blind and wheelchair-bound in "Endgame," Beckett deepens the mutual dependence between Hamm and Clov in their second incarnation in "Rough." In this later play, the younger man is able-bodied, but blind, while the old man is wheelchair-bound and sighted. Why did Beckett return to and adapt this archetypical duo? Perhaps because, in "Endgame," Clov had an easier "out" while the "Rough" situation allows for more dramatic tension / co-dependence?
This review probably says something about my intellect, but if it does, I don’t really care. Holy pretentious metaphysics, stay away from this drama. Artistes might tell you this is Beckett’s finest masterpiece. My take is that I am making for myself a permanent rule: if the words “French”, “surreal”, and “existential” are words that describe the play or book I should leave it at the bookstore, and run away as fast as possible. The play begins with a man sitting in a recliner center stage covered by a sheet, while two other characters are hidden inside two large trashcans stage left. The character in the recliner and another character have an exchange about bicycle wheels and painkillers and pap. The two characters inside the trashcans have an exchange about biscuits and love and some shared memory about a trip. And after that first scene, the play doesn’t make any more sense. I think the play is musing upon suffering and death, but I can’t tell if that is actually the play, or what I wished for as I read through it. I read through it once, and tried rereading it again before stopping halfway because the second time through wasn’t making it any less nonsensical. Worst book of the year for me.
Do You like book Endgame & Act Without Words (1994)?
I saw a wonderful performance of this play not too long ago and as I was rereading it I had the clearest image of the actors on the stage. As with Godot, the sparse settings, and the physicality of the acting, carry the emotion as much as the dialog. And this comes through in the writing via the stage directions. Beckett pays as much attention to choreography, carefully scripting the movements of the actors, as he does the interplay of their dialog. Contrast this with, say, Hamlet, where virtually no stage direction is given. Shakespeare leaves it up to the actors/director to determine how to deliver the lines and what to do while delivering them. Beckett on the other hand is more like the novelist—well, he was one—in that he wants to control the action, the emotional texture, doesn’t want to leave all that up to the actors/director’s interpretation. An interesting feature of the text versus the play is the repetition of the stage direction “(Pause.)” Seeing it repeated on the page over and over has a hypnotic quality that doesn’t happen on the stage. On the stage those pauses have the effect of creating expectation.
—Steven
It's unfortunate to see reviews of Beckett contain so many cliches. Defining his work by "existenial" or "absurd" -whether in a positive or negative context- is as reductive as defining Faulkner's works as "Southern" or Dostoyevski's as "psychological." Beckett strived to create original works that reflected his preoccupation with complex ideas of philosophers (Descartes and schopenhauer)and psychology (Young and Freud) He also belonged to the liteary generation (like Eliot and Joyce) that wrote with the classical western literature in mind. Dante, Bible, Proust, Shakespeare in particular. Beckett, like any other serious author, failed at times but he was always committed to his art and honest. He never intended to tell stories or impose an absolute explanation on what he considered very difficult themes. I also am not sure why some reviewers conclude the difficulty in understanding Beckett is enough reason to dismiss his work. I do not understand most of Quantum Physics but I don't conclude it's meaningless.
—Khosro
First read-through: pretty much nothing made sense. It was a swirl of madness and confusion.Rereading it reveals layers and depth that elicits examination and interaction with Beckett's (post)modern themes of meaninglessness and disorder. He makes references to The Waste Land, which I thought was interesting. While Eliot ultimately reaches Christian conclusions, Endgame circles around nihilistic ideologies of nothingness.I love this play for what questions it sparks within me. Reading it from a Christian perspective gives me peace, and I enjoy it thoroughly. However, the great problem with postmodernism (which Beckett has been considered one of the firsts), is that it's an ideology which leads to hopelessness and despair (as it furthered the ideas of Nihilism and Modernism). The implication in the end of Endgame is that their lives will continue to circle back around with no escape.I recommend this play for writers or people who like to ask existential questions.Review written: Dec 28, 2013
—Taylor
