Hope in the desire for companionship

Khoirunnisaa 1

Khoirunnisaa Binte Abdul Ja’afar

Assistant Professor Kevin Riordan

HL4099: Graduating Essay

20th April 2015

“So Long Alone Together”, Hope in the Desire for Companionship in Samuel Beckett’s Plays

Many camped outside the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York just to get a

glimpse of the performance artist Marina Abramovic. The museum opens and chaos ensues

as many start running in to be the first to sit across her. As they enter the Marron Atrium of

MoMA, they see Abramovic sitting in the middle of the room. Her long red dress is a striking

image against the dull grey flooring and empty white walls. A wooden table and two wooden

chairs on either side of the table occupy the square stage she had built. She stares intently into

the eyes of the audience member who is sitting on the other side of the table. They do not

speak. Abramovic and the audience member are encircled by the camera crew, museum staff,

and the murmuring crowd. The audience member, after an hour so, places her hand on her

chest, nods in gratitude, and leaves. The next number is called and another audience member

steps out of the crowd to sit with her. This performance is called “The Artist is Present”

(2010).

After which Abramovic shared her experience of performing “The Artist is Present”

on a website called, Marina Abramovic Institute. In her sharing, she mentions the shocking

emotional impact her performance had on her audience. The interesting feature of her

performance is that she interacts with her audience in silence. On the surface, her

performance seems straightforward especially because she is sitting motionless in a

minimalist setting. However, by paying attention to the other person’s presence, Abramovic

transforms this seemingly simple gesture of gazing at the other person into something

meaningful. This is what she had to say about her experience:

Khoirunnisaa 2

The curator was telling me you have to be ready that at the front of you will be empty

chair because nobody could imagine in New York, the most basic place in the world

that anybody would take time to sit and just engage in mutual gaze with me. So it was

complete surprise for myself, to the entire staff of MoMA and to everybody else.

These enormous need of the humans to actually have contact. How we are so

alienated from each other. How this society make us really distant. You know we are

texting each other messages without seeing each other. So many stories of

loneliness….so many people start crying and this became such important experience

in their lives. (Sic) (Vimeo)

She is surprised that in a city where people are constantly pre-occupied, some were

willing to make time to sit across her and engage her gaze. Nonetheless she postulates as to

why many people participated in her performance. She observes that it is the kind of lifestyle

led by the people of the contemporary period that encouraged many to participate. This

lifestyle lacks direct communication because people spend more time texting rather than

speaking to one another. According to Abramovic this has an alienating effect and results in

loneliness. The crux of her performance is about human interaction and her performance

reminds her audience that it is possible to have meaningful interactions with one another

without any dialogues and merely through physical presence. What she had accomplished

through her performance reminds one of a late Modernist, early Postmodernist playwright’s

work. Samuel Beckett’s plays, like Abramovic’s performance, present the problems faced by

the people of his time. His plays made an impact on his audience because it reflected and

presented the changes experienced by the people of the Modern period. They saw a collapse

of grand narratives that once held their society together, as a result the people of the Modern

period felt disconcerted and disillusioned.

Khoirunnisaa 3

Martin Esslin, a playwright dramatist and critic who coined the term “The Theatre of

the Absurd” in his book of the same name, provides a framework to understand the

repercussion of the failure of grand narratives. He then goes on to relate these changes to the

development of the Theatre of the Absurd and the significance of this type of theatre. Esslin

begins his analysis by referring to Nietzsche’s claim that God is dead. Esslin believes that

ever since this claim was made, people began their search for “substitute religions [such as

their] faith in progress, nationalism, and various totalitarian facilities [to fill the void left by a

God who is dead]. All this was shattered by the war” (23). The world that Man once

understood through his religious beliefs was shattered. When the “substitute religions” too

collapsed, Man was unable to comprehend the world he was once familiar with. He was no

longer able to define his position in relation to an alien world. Esslin claims that any art form

that clings on to old traditions will fail to explain Man’s position in the world. This gave rise

to experimentation, which resulted in the development of the Theatre of the Absurd. The

Theatre of the Absurd, instead of presenting the illusion of a coherent self and world, aims to

shatter this illusion and it does so by simply presenting the human condition to its audience.

Samuel Beckett is famously known for writing plays that are bleak and repetitive. His

plays present the human condition at its most basic level; “the fundamental problems of life

and death, isolation and communication…” (Esslin 392). In order to communicate Man relied

on language, however language’s inadequacy led to disappointments, and works of the

Modern period tend to reveal language’s ineffectiveness. The collapse of language as s

system is evident in Beckett’s work where it fails to explain the world within the play and

sometimes silence takes precedence over speech. Like the audience who is unable to

comprehend the characters and their position in the play, the characters in the play too

struggle to understand their position within the fictional world. These characteristics serve to

show the audience that their position in the world is somewhat similar to that of the

Khoirunnisaa 4

characters existing in the Beckettian world. The anxiety and despair expressed by his

characters has led to a conclusion that most of his plays are depressing.

While this is the common reading, Laura Marvel in her study of Beckett’s oeuvre,

introduces a new perspective, which is the presence of hope in his works. The tender

moments in his plays have been mentioned in passing and although Marvel does not explore

these tender moments, she does explore the theme of hope in Readings on Waiting for Godot.

She begins analysing hope by first challenging the common understanding critics have of his

plays; “when it comes to Beckett’s world view or understanding of existence, the terms

which we find repeatedly associated with it include the following: nihilistic existentialism or

a sense of the nothingness of life, the void, isolation, alienation, pessimism, despair, the

absurd” (83-4). However, by comparing the worlds in his novels to those in his plays, she

observes that the two tramps’ position in Waiting for Godot is less bleak. This is because the

world in this play is not “deprived of all concreteness and palpable reality and of every

semblance of order. The nihilism, therefore, is not altogether without relief” (83). While she

does address that there is relief, therefore a glimmer of hope, she also claims that the relief

comes from a world that is not completely unrecognizable. The common reading states that

Man is alienated from a world that was once familiar, whereas Marvel’s reading of Beckett’s

plays contradicts this as she claims familiarity within the Beckettian universe.

This thesis reconciles the contradiction between the two ways of reading Beckett’s

Waiting for Godot, Come and Go, Ohio Impromptu, and Krapp’s Last Tape by proving that

hope stems not from the relief of knowing that the world is still familiar. Rather Beckett’s

plays are hopeful because they display his characters’ struggle to reach out to one another,

which exhibits their desire for companionship. He succeeds in presenting their struggle by

creating a disparity between dialogues (what is said) and actions (what is seen). Thus reading

his plays through Abramovic’s performance provides a new perspective to reconsider the

Khoirunnisaa 5

notion of hope in his work. By being silent and by freezing time in her performance,

Abramovic bridges the gap between herself and her audience. Despite being entrapped a

meaningless and alien world, Beckett’s characters too strive to find a connection with one

another. Reading Beckett’s work from this perspective reveals its timelessness as it addresses

and provides a kind of consolation for the problem Man is faced with today; which is human

beings’ alienation from one another and the problem of loneliness that displays our desire for

companionship.

Why Performance art and Theatre?

While performance art and theatre in the contemporary context are generally

understood as two distinct forms, they share similar aims and characteristics. An analysis of

the methodology of theatre and performance art facilitates the understanding of Abramovic’s

and Beckett’s representation of hope. Although, the solitary act of reading short stories,

novels or poems does engage with the readers’ imagination, watching a play or performance

art is more impactful as it surpasses language’s failure to communicate. The act of viewing

concretizes conceptual ideas and engraves itself in the audiences’ minds. Therefore, these are

the most effective forms to display hope because theatre and performance art have the

capabilities to change perspectives.

Both theatre and performance art are associated with the act of looking and by

providing a designated space for viewing, they frame that which is to be seen. Both the

forms’ “use of visual elements, movement, light and language” evokes the audiences’ senses

and emotions (Esslin 396). However, Abramovic and Beckett use these elements differently

to achieve varying effects. Abramovic invites her audience members to enter her performance

space and participate in her performance. By literally reducing the distance between herself

and her participants, she was also able to bridge the emotional distance between herself and

them. She engaged with her audience at close proximity and this evoked affective responses

Khoirunnisaa 6

from them. Vanessa Lodigani, an audience member expresses appreciation towards

Abramovic for simply being present for her; “you embodied the key element in the act of all

creation…offering us your being as unconditional…” (Diego 15). Another audience member,

Jennifer Mills, understands Abramovic’s pain, “it was your generous aches that made me

believe we could laugh together” (Diego 15). Being a performance artist herself, Mills

understands the immensity of this performance and the mental stamina Abramovic needed to

complete her performance. Her audience’s responses prove that it is still possible for people

to reach out to one another. By displaying this possibility her performance exhibits hope for

people to overcome alienation and the resulting loneliness by simply reaching out to one

another.

On the other hand, Beckett’s audience do not participate instead they simply spectate.

Although he experimented with the form and used different elements of the theatre to

different effect, the rigidity with which he wanted his directors to follow his stage directions

constrained their freedom to stage it according to their imagination. Also by demarcating and

maintaining the space between his audience and his actors/characters, his audience are unable

to interact in the way the audience in Abramovic’s performance interacted with her.

Regardless, through the use of self-reflexive dialogues, his plays communicate with the

audience in a different way. The self-reflexive dialogues break the fourth wall and this

alienates the audience. In Act one of Waiting for Godot, Pozzo asks before answering

Vladimir and Estragon’s question, “Is everybody ready? Is everybody looking at me?”, which

indirectly refers to the presence of the spectating audience (23). Similarly, in Come and Go,

when Vi asks Flo, “how do you think Ru is looking?”, Flo replies, “one sees very little in this

light” (355). This play is staged with minimal lighting so Flo’s dialogue mirrors the

audience’s thoughts. By doing so, the alienating effect prevents the audience from suspending

disbelief and it draws attention to their position as audience. This encourages them to actively

Khoirunnisaa 7

think about the playwright’s aim for including these self-reflexive dialogues. Thinking about

the play rather than suspending disbelief encourages the audience to notice that Beckett’s

plays are presenting an exaggerated and grotesque version of themselves. Yet he also allows

these grotesque characters to exhibit compassion and love.

Therefore, bringing future audience’s attention to the moments displaying hope in

Beckett’s plays, will also transform their future experiences and understanding of his work.

As opposed to seeking for a single system to explain all of the mysteries of the world,

bridging the gap between one person and the other provides more comfort than existing in a

world where Man is completely alienated from both. Using the success of Abramovic’s

performance to perceive Beckett’s plays illuminates the struggle his characters experience in

trying to communicate with each other. Their attempts to reach out is the reason why there is

more hope than despair in his plays. Both the Theatre of the Absurd and Performance Art

focus on presenting Man’s position in the world and their interpersonal relationships within a

given space and time. Such an effective communication with the audience is only possible

because these forms have the capabilities to impact changes in the audience.

The Absurdity of and in Waiting

When watching a Beckett play, audience will notice that the act of waiting is one of

the major themes Beckett explores in detail. Like the tramps who are waiting for Godot to

arrive, the audience watching this play also wait for it to make some logical sense. The first

time Waiting for Godot was staged, many in the audience expressed confusion and frustration

for the play made no sense to them. This, coupled with the meaninglessness of Vladimir and

Estragon’s wait, defines Waiting for Godot as absurd. Vladimir and Estragon’s wait for

Godot is meaningless only because Godot does not arrive and is only conjured in their

utterance of his name. The pointlessness is poignant and it evokes sympathy in the audience

because the tramps are unable to see the end of their wait. In this play Godot’s absence makes

Khoirunnisaa 8

their wait apparent, however in Come and Go, Ohio Impromptu and Krapp’s Last Tape the

wait is less apparent. Regardless, all the characters in the above mentioned plays are waiting

and their wait comes across as being worthless.

As Vladimir and Estragon are waiting, they go through various stages of emotional

changes before they reach a state of hopelessness. Roland Barthes’ A Lovers’ Discourse

explains the various emotional stages and he begins by describing the agony experienced by a

lover who is waiting for his/her beloved’s arrival. “A woman waits for her lover, at night, in

the forest; I am waiting for no more than a telephone call, but the anxiety is the same” (37).

Barthes is indirectly showing that the agony of waiting for someone is a universal emotion.

He divides the three emotional stages into three acts, like in a play. In Act one the lover

expresses anxiety, Act two is when the lover displays anger directed at the beloved, and in

Act three the beloved is dead to the waiting lover.

Vladimir and Estragon express the three different emotions in their wait for Godot. In

Act one, the lover checks with his watch several times to assure himself of the time and

venue. While in Barthes’ book, the lover questions him or herself, in Godot, Estragon is the

voice that questions the accuracy of the details Vladimir had received. Estragon asks, “you’re

sure it was this evening?” and Vladimir replies, “He said Saturday. [Pause.] I think” (7). The

pause is an indication of his uncertainty about the day they were supposed to meet Godot.

Readers can imagine the humour in this conversation as the stage direction describes

Estragon’s intentions behind his questions as being “very insidious” (7). Estragon is aware of

the way Vladimir would react to his questions, yet he proceeds to ask, “But what Saturday?

And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday?” (7). Upon hearing these questions Vladimir

becomes anxious and he starts “looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in

the landscape” (7). He is looking for signs from the landscape since his memory has failed

him. However, it is rather unfortunate for them because the only landmark they have is

Khoirunnisaa 9

something that looks like a tree, “a shrub, “a bush” (6). Although, this moment is comical,

their uncertainty when it comes to time and place makes their wait a lot more hopeless.

Anxiety turns into anger towards the end of Act one when Estragon confronts the

messenger boy violently and requests the truth from him. After which this anger transforms

into “pure anxiety: the anxiety of abandonment [where] the other is as if dead” (Barthes 38).

Vladimir expresses the explosion of grief towards the end of Act two, when he has a moment

of realisation that their actions are meaningless. While staring at the sleeping Estragon,

Vladimir says, “Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do what shall I say of today? That with

Estragon my friend, at this place, until the fall of night, I waited for Godot? That Pozzo

passed, with his carrier, and that he spoke to us? Probably. But in all that what truth will there

be?” (83). This moment reveals his realisation that all their actions of the previous day and

the days to come will be insignificant. They are insignificant because he knows that like

yesterday and today, Godot will not come tomorrow. Although he does not express this

knowledge explicitly, it lingers beneath his dialogues. At this moment, Godot is dead to him.

It is not just Vladimir and Estragon who are waiting, many of Beckett’s characters are

also waiting. Laura Marvel makes a similar observation that “there is in Godot something

which is basic, elemental, and paradigmatic to Beckett’s vision for life [because] there is a

sense in which all of Beckett’s characters are waiting for Godot…” (81). Like how Vladimir

and Estragon are waiting for Godot to arrive, the three characters in Come and Go, Flo, Vi,

and Ru and Krapp in Krapp’s Last Tape are waiting as well. The question is what are they

waiting for? It is apparent that these characters are waiting for something because of the

repetitive nature of the actions they engage in while they wait. Vladimir and Estragon think

deeply about what they can do in order to pass the time. The need to pass time is extremely

important to them because of the boredom they are experiencing while waiting for Godot to

arrive. And their very need to pass time also means the tramps are waiting for something

Khoirunnisaa 10

important to happen. In Come and Go, the three female characters engage in mechanical

movements where they exit, enter and shift their seating arrangements repeatedly. Krapp is

seen spending his time recording and listening to the earlier recordings of himself. All their

actions are repetitive and even though it is not obvious, it seems as if they will continue to

repeat their actions to pass time until their wait is over.

Esslin notices that these characters are faced “with time and therefore waiting…

waiting between birth and death; man running away from death…passively sinking down

toward death…man forever lonely, immured in the prison of his subjectivity, unable to reach

his fellow-man” (391-2). Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for a sign that will guide them

and will explain their position in their world and that sign is Godot. However, the three

female characters in Come and Go are waiting for death and in the meantime they repeatedly

recall and desire for a past that was full of promise, when they were “dreaming of…love”

(355). Krapp on the other hand is forever lonely. The younger Krapp gave up companionship

for his Magnum Opus. Now old and decrepit, he is simply waiting for death. While in these

three plays the repetition evokes a sense that these characters will forever be caught in this

circularity, Ohio Impromptu has a note of finality.

The character called Reader reads a tale of the relationship that was formed between a

lonely man and a reader who was sent by an unnamed man to comfort him. However, the

story ends with the reader claiming that he is never going to come and this tale is going to be

told for the last time as there is “nothing…left to tell” (448). Although the play does not

provide any clear backstory for these characters, one thing is final and that is, the story is

never going to be told again and the reader is never going to visit the protagonist. The ending

is more depressing than the other plays and perhaps it is an indication of Man resigned and

“passively sinking down toward death” (391-2). In the meantime, the two characters, Reader

and the Listener are passing time by reading the “sad tale a last time told” (447). All of the

Khoirunnisaa 11

above mentioned characters engage in repetitive actions only to pass the time until their wait

ends.

While they wait, these characters’ end is nowhere in sight, both for them and the

audience. And because Beckett’s last few plays, such as Come and Go, Ohio Impromptu and

Krapp’s Last Tape are relatively shorter than Waiting for Godot, the audience do not have the

time to make sense of these plays. The thinking only happens long after the curtains had

fallen. While watching, the characters seem foolish as they engage in meaningless actions.

Understanding them from this perspective inevitably leads to the conclusion that most, if not

all of Beckett’s plays are depressing. It is indeed accurate to claim that Beckett’s characters

are blindly seeking for an answer in the impenetrable darkness. While they wait for many

reasons, they also wait for an answer or an explanation that describes the purpose of their

existence. However, these characters do not receive an answer. Without a clear answer, their

existence becomes meaningless and absurd. Hence, the claim that his plays are depressing.

Abramovic overcomes the Absurd

However, reading Beckett’s work through Abramovic’s lens, changes the perspective

that his plays are dismal. On the other hand, her work can also be read through a Beckettian

lens, which indicates that the world of her performance is also absurd. Nevertheless,

recognizing that she was able to build a bond with her participants within this absurd world,

proves that it is possible to overcome the feeling of alienation. Similarly, shifting audience’s

attention to focus on Beckett’s characters’ struggles to reach out to and communicate with

one another reassures that his plays are not utterly hopeless. The world Abramovic created in

MoMA is absurd because of two reasons: the intermingling presence of people and

technology and the quick shift in their status from museum goers to participants. Both these

factors decentre her audience and prevent them from understanding their position in her

world.

Khoirunnisaa 12

While some Abramovic supporters were aware of her performance, some were

accidental museum goers who, upon seeing her sitting in the middle of the Marron Atrium,

decided to partake in her performance. Regardless of whether they had prior knowledge

about her performance or not, the sudden shift in their position forced the participants to step

out of their comfort zone to confront their emotions. A participant, Sara shared her

experience of sitting across Abramovic, “I didn’t want to sit with Marina. Too gimmicky, too

boring, too public. I lay on the bench on the 6th floor. An hour passed. Calm amidst the chaos.

Part of something bigger” (Diego 16). A closer analysis of Sara’s testimony shows that her

emotional and mental state was constantly shifting while she was sitting across Abramovic.

Although she did partake in the performance, her initial reaction was that of rejection as she

mentions that she did not want to sit with Marina because participating in her performance

was too modern, famous and therefore public. While waiting in the queue Sara would have

been an anonymous audience member. However, stepping out of the crowd and sitting across

Abramovic transformed Sara into a body that was to be viewed and analysed.

Jane Collins and Andrew Nisbet, in their collaborative study of the experience of

seeing and space in performance art in the book called Theatre and Performance Design

claim that “the separation of performer and the audience is fundamental to the act of viewing.

Thus it is essential that the delineation of the stage edge, the demarcation line between the

performer and the viewer, is clearly drawn” (9). By drawing the line between the space

occupied by herself and her audience, Abramovic framed herself as the performer and her

actions or lack thereof as a performance. However, this demarcation also became the very

reason that induced confusion in her participants. Once the participant stepped into her space,

they are deemed as part of her performance and therefore are viewed by the crowd standing

around them. From her sharing, readers can see that Sara felt exposed as she uses the phrase

“too public” to recount her experience. She also describes the atmosphere as being chaotic

Khoirunnisaa 13

and the noise most likely coming from the crowd watching her and Abramovic. The camera

crew and the video cameras directed attention to Sara’s expressions and emotions. Her

private emotions were publicised and she tried to overcome this by mentally distancing

herself from the museum. She imagined herself lying on the bench on the sixth floor and the

feeling of sunlight on her face. However, after sitting in front of Abramovic for a prolonged

period, she returns to the present moment and tries to engage with Abramovic.

Katharine Worth a professor of drama in London, in her study of the Beckettian world

and the reasons behind directors’ attraction to his plays provides a reason that describes the

world Abramovic created in MoMA. Worth states, “ …a kind of fellow feeling some

directors felt they had with Beckett because of his concern with form and his interest in the

relationships humans have with a mechanical world, their ‘interaction with technology’”

(Oppenheim 219). Beckett’s Krapp’s Last Tape is an example of Man’s interaction with the

mechanical world, which displays Krapp’s relationship with his tape recorder. The reason

why Beckett appealed to many directors was because of his display of the problem of

alienation. Alienation caused by the replacement of human presence and interaction with

technology. Abramovic states something similar in her sharing, “You know we are texting

each other messages without seeing each other. So many stories of loneliness” (Sic) (Vimeo).

Man interacts more with technology in comparison to the person standing in front of him and

she aimed to excavate the loneliness experienced by people of this contemporary world to

show them that their overreliance on technology is to be blamed for their loneliness. She

accomplishes this by creating a space for technology to intermingle with people.

By sitting in the middle with her, the participant is watched by both the non-human

eyes of the cameras and video cameras as well as by the people standing around him or her.

Alex Teplitzky, a Brooklyn based fiction and arts writer and curator attended Abramovic’s

performance and he describes the atmosphere inside the Marron Atrium as he stands

Khoirunnisaa 14

watching her as an audience member. “I drank up the atmosphere and listened to the crowd,

thinking about the borders of the piece and the technology that also made itself present. But I

noticed that I was looking more at the cameras looking at you then I was looking at you.”

His description reveals the distractions caused by the presence of cameras and other

technological devices. His inability to focus on the people echoes Abramovic’s claim that

people are texting each other more than looking at each other. The reason why this is absurd

is because both the audience member (Teplitzky) and the participant (Sara) were unable to

understand their position and experience of being in a space that was familiar yet alien. It is

absurd because people’s initial reaction was to interact with the technological devices more

than with the people around them and this is incongruous with Abramovic’s aim for her

performance.

Despite the absurdity, Abramovic succeeded in encouraging her participants to

interact with her. Her title, “The Artist is Present” does not simply refer to her physical

presence, however it also refers to her emotional and mental presence, meaning

acknowledging the presence of each and every participant who sat across her. This is evident

in Sara’s sharing as she mentions that she returned to the present moment. “I came back…I

sat with Marina…background receded. Sounds magnified. Time froze. I wanted to help

Marina pass the time” (Diego 16). Instead of thinking about her past or future, Sara returned

to the now and she acknowledged the reality of the performance. Time freezes and all Sara

wanted to do was to help “Marina past the time”. Initially, Sara could think of nothing but her

confusion and discomfort but Abramovic’s relentless presence encouraged Sara to return to

the present moment.

By communicating with her participants through non-verbal means, which Abramovic

calls energy, she was able to build a bond with most of them. In Abramovic’s performance

language was completely discarded. This removed the complications and ineffectiveness of

Khoirunnisaa 15

communicating with one another using language. After a prolonged period of sitting in

silence, the demarcated space between herself and her audience became positive. Because the

space excluded noise, language, and cameras. It created a space that was exclusive only for

herself and her participants. At the beginning, the participant Sara was only physically

present. However, staring at Abramovic for more than an hour, Sara returned to be present,

physically, mentally and emotionally. By thinking about Abramovic’s well-being instead of

just her discomfort, she proves that it is possible to express concern for a complete stranger

she had just met. This is how Sara became present for Abramovic and their genuine presence

for each other became the foundation for the establishment of a bond between the two.

Being present both physically and mentally, Sara stepped outside her emotions to

show concern for Abramovic. When the curators mention that Abramovic’s performance is

only complete with the presence of the audience, they do not refer only to the physical

presence rather for the participants to be present both mentally and emotionally. Even though

the world of her performance was alien to her audience, Abramovic successfully overcame

this absurdity. By being relentlessly present for her participants, she encouraged them to

ignore their alienation from her performance world. Through which she managed to form a

meaningful bond with them and at the same time invited them to strive for a connection with

her.

Her performance shows how recognizing the other person’s presence can create

opportunities for her to reach out to them. It didn’t matter that they could not comprehend the

world she created in MoMA because they left feeling comforted by simply engaging in

mutual gaze with her. The struggle expressed by her participants is also apparent in Beckett’s

characters, who also attempt to reach out to one another.

Hope in the desire for companionship

Khoirunnisaa 16

A) Laura Marvel’s argument about language in relation to Vladimir and Estragon’s

relationship

Laura Marvel claims that there is hope in Beckett’s plays, however for her the hope lies in

the knowledge that the Beckettain world is not entirely alienating. The familiarity she sees in

his world led to her argument that there is hope in his plays. As mentioned in the

introduction, this thesis aims to prove that hope stems from Beckett’s characters’ desire for

companionship, not from the recognisability of his world. Because she claims that hope stems

from the familiarity of the Beckettian universe, in her study of Waiting for Godot, Marvel

posits that Vladimir and Estragon’s desire for community is unfulfilled because of the lack of

sincerity in their friendship. She argues that relationship should “be constituted not by [one

character] reaching out to possess [the other character] but by there being something between

[them]. This something between, which sustains, makes it possible for people to risk being

involved with each other” (87). She however, does not explain what “this something

between” means, instead she moves on to question the tramps’ decision to remain together

and she proposes that the tramps remain together for practical reasons. Therefore, their

relationship is not meaningful.

She supports this argument with the observation that there is a refusal in both of them

to open up to each other and thus a rejection of their responsibility for each other’s emotional

well-being. For her, the whole play is summed up by that one scene in Act one. Vladimir

awakens Estragon because he feels lonely and when Estragon awakens he wants to tell

Vladimir his nightmare. However, Vladimir refuses to listen to his nightmares and claims that

nightmares should remain private. She understands that, “the two men feel the need for true

community and want it, yet they are unwilling or unable to pay the price for it. [Because] it

really is too painful to be open and available to others. Genuine involvement in other people’s

private nightmares is too hard to bear” (86-7). She agrees that there is something between

Khoirunnisaa 17

these two characters that keeps them together. However, her argument shows that for her,

there is no value in a friendship that does not have the friends involved, be genuinely

concerned about each other’s emotions.

B) Waiting for Godot

Marvel’s claim relies on her understanding that opening up to each other means to be able

to communicate with each other through the use of language. However, Beckett aims to

subvert any reliance on language as a means of effective communication. He accomplishes

this by creating a disparity between Vladimir and Estragon’s verbal and non-verbal

communication. For the tramps language fails to aid in their expression of their honest

emotions. In Act one Vladimir tries to explain to Estragon that without him Estragon might

be dead. “When I think of it…all these years…but for me…where would you be…?” (1). To

which Estragon replies, “Ah, stop blathering and help me off with this thing” (2). Estragon

does not respond or acknowledge Vladimir’s emotions, instead he is more concerned about

his aching feet. Thus, there is a disconnection between them when they try to converse

through language. Hence, Marvel’s proposed solution which relies on language collapses.

She posits that the characters should open up to each other and converse about each other’s

fears through the use of language. However, language fails to bridge the distance between the

tramps.

Regardless, the tramps express their compassion and concern for each other and the other

characters through non-verbal communication. Thus, the performance, and not the dialogue,

reveals their desire for companionship. At the beginning of both acts, Vladimir suggests they

embrace and after his initial rejection to this suggestion, Estragon yields and embraces his

friend. The act of embracing each other reveals their genuine care for each other. In Act two

when Estragon is sleeping on the mound, Vladimir removes his jacket and lovingly places it

on Estragon’s shoulders to keep him warm. And having given his jacket to his friend,

Khoirunnisaa 18

Vladimir feels cold and he walks around to keep himself warm. When Estragon awakens

feeling frightened because of a nightmare, he runs to him and places his arms around him to

comfort his friend. There is no need for the tramps to share their private nightmares, as

Marvel suggested, through language because their actions reveal their awareness of each

other’s fears.

The tramps are also sensitive to each other’s emotions and this does not require them to

verbally express their anger or unhappiness. In Act one, Estragon refuses to partake in the

activity Vladimir suggested, which was to tell stories. After a few minutes, Estragon makes

the same suggestion and Vladimir simply “brushes past Estragon, crosses the stage with

bowed head” (9). Vladimir’s body posture and his silence is enough to let Estragon realise

that his companion is unhappy. Estragon walks tentatively to him, speaks kindly to pacify

him and embraces him. Both their actions reveal their sensitivity to each other’s emotions

without the need for verbal conversations.

The tramps do not simply show compassion to one another, they also show compassion to

Pozzo and Lucky. In Act two, when Pozzo is blind and Lucky dumb, upon entering the stage

the both of them fall on each other, and Pozzo cries for help. Although the tramps discuss

about offering their “good offices to certain conditions” they do not take anything in return

from Pozzo after helping him up (7). Even though their dialogues reveal their inhumane

thoughts as they discuss about gaining monetary benefits for simply helping Pozzo stand up,

their actions speak otherwise. When Lucky cries in Act one, Estragon expresses sympathy

and he agrees to and tries to wipe Lucky’s tears. Vladimir also expresses his disgust towards

Pozzo’s treatment of Lucky by exiting the stage and by refusing to engage in conversations

with him. By placing Pozzo and Lucky on stage, Beckett allows the tramps’ actions to reveal

their compassion for strangers.

Khoirunnisaa 19

Marvel puzzles over the tramps decision to remain with one another because she does not

see the value in their friendship. However, the above mentioned examples and their decision

to return to where the tree is, displays their desire to remain together while they are waiting

for Godot. In Vladimir and Estragon’s case, the “something in between, which sustains,

makes it possible for [them] to risk being involved with each other” is the value they see in

their friendship. Estragon suggests against their suicide plan because if one dies and the other

lives, the living character has to wait alone. They would rather wait together than wait alone.

Even when each act ends with them claiming that they are going to leave each other, they do

not move. They do not leave each other because they find solace in each other’s company.

By creating a disparity between language/dialogue and performance/action, Beckett

displays the significance in the tramps’ friendship. Marvel’s claim that there can be no

meaningful connection between the tramps, collapses because their actions speak otherwise.

The more characters there are the more hope there is in the play because the interaction

between these four characters exposes the tramps’ compassionate side and their concern for

one another.

C) Albert Camus’ observation of Man’s insincere behaviour

Albert Camus observes that the “mechanical aspect of [human being’s] gesture, their

senseless pantomime, makes stupid everything around them. A man speaking on the

telephone behind a glass partition—one cannot hear him but observes his trivial gesturing…

This malaise in front of man’s inhumanity, this incalculable letdown when faced with [the]

image of what we are, this ‘nausea’, as a contemporary writer calls it, also is absurd” (Esslin

390-1). Camus claims that the absurd is displayed in Man’s inhumanity and any

compassionate gesture that is insincere is a performance, therefore meaningless. While

Marvel focuses on language and the relationship between Beckett’s characters, Camus’

observation focuses on describing Man’s behaviour in relation to the absurd. Camus’

Khoirunnisaa 20

description of a scenario about the man speaking in a phone booth behind glass partition

shows that, for him, any action that cannot be explained with logical reasoning is absurd. The

man’s actions look like pantomimes because the viewer outside the booth is unable to hear

him. He is standing alone in a phone booth and it seems as if he is talking to himself. This

brings us back to Abramovic, who made a similar observation that people are texting each

other, rather than talking to each other. Even though the man in the phone booth is conversing

with someone else, the phone a mechanical device creates physical distance between him and

the other person. There is a lack of direct communication. Hence, his actions become

insincere, inhumane and automated.

Although, the characters in Come and Go and Ohio Impromptu, in comparison to the

tramps behave in a mechanical manner, which seems to display a lack of compassion for one

another, a closer analysis of their actions subverts Camus’ claim that Man’s actions are

inhumane and insincere Their choreographed actions show that they have no agency over

their movements. However, Beckett’s characters in these two plays, strive and struggle to

overcome the external force that is controlling their actions through brief moments of

physical contact. Although, these moments are brief, it is poignant in illustrating that, where

language fails, non-verbal communication successfully bridges the gap between the

characters. In doing so, it reveals their desire for companionship. Their struggle is displayed

through their determination to sustain physical contact and through the brief moment of

shared gaze between the characters.

D) Come and Go

The three female characters in Come and Go seem to have no agency or control over

their actions. Their actions seem to be choreographed, calculated, mechanical, and

disconnected from their dialogues. It creates the same effect as seeing a man talk inside a

phone booth. The three female characters, Flo, Vi and Ru, sit looking forward until one of

Khoirunnisaa 21

them speaks. After which the character wearing red, Vi who is sitting in the middle, walks off

in a slow and precise manner into the dark. While she is gone, the character in yellow, Flo

speaks to Ru, the character in purple. Flo moves from stage right to fill in the gap between

herself and Ru. She whispers to Ru and Beckett does not reveal what it is that she is saying to

Ru. After a long pause, Vi returns and sits on stage right. These movements are repeated by

the other two characters until Vi ends up sitting in the middle again. The way they walk off

the stage and the way they move from one side of the bench to the middle is calculated and

mechanical. The rigidity of their actions presents them as less human compared to the tramps.

Their actions are incongruous with their dialogues, which is nostalgic as it recalls the tender

moments from their past. Regardless, it is their actions and not their dialogues that speak

sincerely about their desire for companionship.

By narrating the poignant moments in their lives, these characters repeatedly refer to

their past and the dreams they had when they were young. The first dialogue in this play is

mentioned by Vi, who asks “When did we three last meet?” (354). The play begins with them

recollecting a time in the past when they were together. They speak of sitting “together as

[they] used to, in the playground at Miss Wade’s. On the log” (354). Their dialogues are

minimal and because it is minimal it becomes significant. Sitting at the playground was an

important occasion in their lives because they shared this moment together. Although

language does reveal their longing for companionship, the gossiping subverts the sincerity in

their previously expressed yearning. When Vi leaves, Flo asks Ru what she thinks about her.

She whispers something in Ru’s ear and Ru is appalled. Both Vi and the audience are kept in

the dark because both are unable to hear Flo’s words as she whispers to Ru. When one

character leaves, the other speaks about her to the one who remains. The gossiping, subverts

the initial sincerity of their desire for companionship, rather it reveals their dishonesty.

Khoirunnisaa 22

However, their actions speak in place of language. Although their actions seem

impersonal and performative, they remain significant. Because it displays their struggle to

retain the bond between them by going against the external force that is controlling their

movements. By deciding to discard language the three characters, through a brief moment of

physical contact, expose their desire for each other’s presence. Like Vladimir and Estragon

who repeatedly return to find each other by the tree, the three female characters, exit the stage

and return to where their friends are. Their entrance and exit reveals a sincere desire to

remain together as opposed to their dialogues. When Vi recalls a moment from the past, Ru

suggests, “let us not speak” (354). This phrase is repeated towards the end of the play when

Vi says, “May we not speak of the old days…shall we hold hands in the old way?” (355).

Their preference to discard language that fails to translate their longing for each other’s

presence reveals Beckett’s subversion of the power accorded to language to communicate

effectively.

All three characters prefer to hold hands the way they used to when they were young.

Although this is the only moment they have physical contact with their friends, this action is

important to them. Their old way of holding hands is rather unique and Beckett describes this

in the stage direction, “Vi’s right hand with Ru’s right hand. Vi’s left hand with Flo’s left

hand, Flo’s right hand with Ru’s left had, Vi’s arms being above Ru’s left arm and Flo’s right

arm” (355). It is unique because all three of them are able to hold each other’s hands. The

complicatedness of it also illustrates their closeness and affection for one another. Because

this unique way of holding hands also reminds them of their past when they were together

and dreaming of love, it is significant to them. By ending the play with them holding their

hands, Beckett uses actions rather than dialogues to reveal their desire to retain the bond

between them.

F) Ohio Impromptu

Khoirunnisaa 23

As for Ohio Impromptu, the Reader and Listener’s movements are a lot more limited

and automated compared to the three characters in Come and Go. The only time they move is

when the Listener, who is seated on stage right, knocks on the table to indicate to the Reader

to pause and repeat a few phrases. Another such moment is when the Reader closes the book

and ends the story. Both the characters then gaze at each other and their movements are in

sync. Like the female characters in the previous play, these two characters behave as if they

have very little control over their actions. Because their actions do not reveal their

relationship and also because the sad tale is told in the third person voice, audience are unable

to identify that the tale is about the Reader and Listener’s relationship. It is only much later,

when the Reader mentions, “a man appeared to him and said, I have been sent…to comfort

you” that the audience realise that the sad tale is about the two characters sitting on stage

(447).

The Reader reads a story of a man who, in order to obtain relief, leaves the place he

once shared with an unnamed person and moves to a single room. Although he isolated

himself and desired to be alone in the hope of being relieved, he experiences loneliness. To

comfort him, a reader is sent by an unnamed man and this reader reads to him repeatedly

every night. Therefore, the act of storytelling comforts the characters. However, the

characters do not engage in a verbal conversation because only the Reader has the ability to

speak, therefore has access to language but the Listener remains silent throughout the play.

Furthermore, the story ends on a depressing note because the reader “[will] not come again”

and this is a “sad tale [told] for the last time” as “there is little left to tell” (445-7). The note

of finality in the dialogue evokes a sense that these characters have reached an end.

Language does not provide hope in this play, nor does it reveal enough for the

audience to understand the relationship between these two characters. However, what the

audience do know is that, “with never a word exchanged they grew to be as one” (447). The

Khoirunnisaa 24

Reader and Listener’s relationship grew with them never having to converse. When the “dear

name[d]” character instructs the reader to never come again, the protagonist of the tale “saw

[his friend’s] dear face and heard [his] unspoken words” (447). The protagonist of the tale,

without having to hear his friend express his emotions, understood what he felt about having

to leave him. Both the Reader and the Listener are not keen in leaving each other. This desire

for each other’s companionship becomes apparent at the end of the play when the two of

them gaze at each other even after the sad tale is told for the last time. Even though the

dialogue states that the Reader is never going to come again, he remains seated on stage with

his companion, the Listener. Therefore, their actions/performance contradicts what has been

expressed though their dialogues, because their actions, not their dialogues, display hope.

The Reader and Listener’s relationship is founded on silence as they became friends

without the need for an exchange of words, which resembles what Abramovic had

accomplished in her performance. The set and structure of Abramovic’s performance echoes

the way the Listener and Reader sit across and gaze at each other at the end. However,

Abramovic’s entire performance is based on the gaze. Her performance proves that gazing at

the other person builds a connection between people. By allowing the Reader and Listener to

gaze at each other, even if it is for a brief moment, Beckett has already presented a possible

way in which people can reach out to one another. Therefore, Abramovic’s performance

encompasses and extends beyond the brief connection Beckett created between the Reader

and Listener at the end of Ohio Impromptu.

E) Krapps’ Last Tape

Unlike the characters in Come and Go and Ohio Impromptu, Krapp’s movements are

not measured and mechanical. In his movements, he is as human as Vladimir and Estragon.

Even though his actions are not controlled or determined by an external force, he chooses the

tape recorder for companionship. By choosing to realise his creative fire every time he had

Khoirunnisaa 25

the opportunity to build a relationship with the other person, Krapp is not just lonely he is

also alone in this loneliness. He does not have the opportunity to embrace anyone or show

compassion or gaze at the other person because all he has is the voice of his younger self, the

book he wrote, and an inanimate tape recorder. The only comforting factor in his life is

language and this is evident in his proclamation that uttering the word spool was the

“happiest moment of the past half million” of his life (222).

In this play, the disparity between what is heard by the audience and what they see on

stage does not evoke or increase hope because actions become meaningless without the

presence of another character. Instead, the disparity evokes sympathy in the audience. The

audience are deeply saddened seeing the old decrepit Krapp sitting there listening to his

younger self mention, “perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of

happiness. But I wouldn’t want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No I wouldn’t want

them back” (223). The disparity between his younger self mentioning the fire in him and his

decision to reject happiness and the impact of that decision becomes obvious when the

audience see Krapp who is “hard of hearing”, “very near-sighted”, has “disordered grey hair”

and has a “laborious walk” (215). The Krapp on stage is the left over ash and a ghost of his

younger self. Although the play is titled Krapp’s Last Tape, the younger Krapp’s voice

dominates the older Krapp the audience see on stage.

Krapp is “forever lonely, immured in the prison of his subjectivity, unable to reach his

fellow-man” (Esslin 392). Krapp lives life in half-consciousness because he is never living in

the present, but always in the past or the future. Because of his loneliness he has conjured

another character out of his younger self. However, listening to the tape and trying to

recollect his past selves shows that even the old Krapp is more concerned about his identity.

He is more concerned about “removing the grain from the husks” as opposed to striving for a

companionship with the other person (217). He is imprisoned in his loneliness because he is

Khoirunnisaa 26

unable to see beyond his problems and desires. Because he chose to live alone, the only

consolation he has is the darkness surrounding his study area; “with all this darkness round

[him he] feel[s] less alone” (217).

Krapp seems to embody the character Camus described as exhibiting the “mechanical

aspect of [human being’s] gesture…senseless pantomime [and] inhumanity” (390-1).

Krapp’s actions, in comparison to Flo, Vi, Ru, Reader, and Listener’s actions, are more

inhumane and pantomime-like because he uses the tape recorder as a means to try and return

to his past to reach out to the people he decided to let go when he was younger. His

conversation with the tape recorder parallels the image of the man in the phone booth, who is

trying to converse with someone through the phone. Assuming that the man in the phone

booth is truly having a conversation with another person, Krapp’s conversations, in

comparison to his, seem less sincere. The only interaction he has is with his inanimate tape

recorder, which unlike the characters in the other plays, does not reciprocate Krapp’s desire

for companionship. As he tries to record his last tape he expresses his bitterness over the

failure of his book to sell, his physical ailments, his drinking habits and that at the end he has

“nothing to say, not a squeak” (222). He too refuses to use language to express his emotions

because the older Krapp realises that with language there will always be failure. While in the

other plays, Beckett could use the disparity between performance and dialogue to exhibit the

characters desire for companionship, there is no such possibilities available in this play.

Because Krapp’s actions are not received by a living human being. He only has memories

and language that eventually fails him as he mentions that he has nothing left to say. He

follows up with this claim as he sits motionless listening to the moment he spent with the girl

on the punt once again. At this point in the play, language and action work in tandem with

each other.

Khoirunnisaa 27

The parallel between dialogue and performance is also apparent in Beckett’s

experimentation with lighting. The visual display of the contrast between light and dark

compliments the images evoked by the dialogues in this play. While the rest of the stage is

enshrouded in darkness, Krapp’s table is well-lit. The image of the black ball and the white

dog, the dark nurse wearing a white starched uniform upon which hanged a black

perambulator, are all images depicting the contrast and divide between light and dark.

Beckett plays with this contrast because it reminds him of the eye. “‘The eye’, Beckett told

Rich Cluchey, ‘is the organ of interruption between light and dark’. But by the same token it

can also hold the promise of continuity, of union, as it does for Krapp, in the eyes of the

women…‘ Let me in’ is a plea to heal separation and exclusion” (Lawley 93). The eye is an

important image because it encompasses separation and union. The white of the eye has to

remain distinct from the black of the cornea in order to fulfil its function. It is this separation

that allows the eye to function as one. Krapp vividly remembers the eyes of the women he

encountered in his younger days because it held “the promise of continuity, of union”

however, in his attempts to separate the grain from the husks, he is left with nothing but

himself and his words. The older Krapp rewinds and listens to the moment with the girl on

the punt repeatedly because for him the separation did not provide a “promise of [a] union”.

This is why his most vivid memories are of the eyes of the women he encountered in his

younger days. Their eyes and his memories of the girl on the punt reminds him of separation

and his yearning for a unification.

Krapp does not exhibit hope, and in fact he expresses bitterness and regret. There is

less hope when there is one character on stage because he is both alone and lonely. However,

this does not completely eradicate hope in this play. Although Krapp does not see hope in his

life, his loneliness, the bitterness and regret he displays because of his wrong decisions,

indicate his desire for companionship, which shows there is hope, even if it is little. The way

Khoirunnisaa 28

Krapp is seated at a table is similar to the way the Reader and Listener, Abramovic and her

participant were seated across each other. Unlike the other two, Krapp is alone. In fact all of

Beckett’s characters display their desire for companionship through non-verbal means.

Unlike the characters in the above mentioned plays, Krapp’s desire remains unfulfilled

because he is alone. Therefore, the more characters there are the more the characters display

hope and desire to find unification with the other character. The more characters there are the

more hopeful the play becomes for the audience because it proves that Man has not

completely lost his abilities to express compassion, concern, and love for one another

especially when they are living in an absurd world.

Conclusion

Returning to Abramovic reinforces that hope is found in Man’s acknowledgement of

the each other’s presence. There is still hope and solace in the companionship one seeks from

the other person. As mentioned earlier, her performance is an expanded version that echoes

the brief moment at the end of Ohio Impromptu. This only proves that Beckett’s plays are not

utterly dismal because even before Abramovic performed “The Artist is Present”, he had

already presented a solution for the alienation experienced by people.

The incomprehensibility of the world is an unsolvable problem. Rather than focusing

on this, as many critics of the Theatre of the Absurd do, one should focus on Beckett’s

presentation of the alienation between the characters, and recognize the ways in which his

characters strive to find a connection with one another. All of his characters in the above

analysed plays, display the failure of language to communicate. Instead, their actions and

gestures expose their bond with their friend. These actions are often displayed in silence.

Vladimir and Estragon are unable to use language to express their desire for each other’s

companionship, language in Come and Go displays the characters insincerity and in Ohio

Impromptu, language has a note of finality, which becomes depressing. However, in all three

Khoirunnisaa 29

plays, the characters’ actions reveal otherwise to what is being said. The tramps express their

need for each other’s presence through their actions. The three female character refuse to

speak, instead the interlinking of their hands reveals their desire to remain together. Even

when the story ends, the Reader and Listener continue to remain together on stage and gaze at

each other. Their actions become a non-verbal way of communicating their longing for the

presence of the other person. Krapp on the other hand, has nothing, but language. Yet he too

displays desire for companionship through his regret.

The silence, gazing and physical contact recalls Abramovic’s performance. She

performed in silence and formed a connection with the participants through her gaze and

presence. Reading Beckett through Abramovic reveals the presence of hope in his plays.

However, reading Abramovic through a Beckettian lens shows the absurdity of her

performance world. Although this may be disheartening, it only serves to prove that it is

possible to form meaningful connections with the other person even in a world that is alien

and absurd.

The nature of all these relationships analysed in this thesis can be summed up by this

dialogue from Ohio Impromptu: “alone together forever” (446). This phrase accurately

speaks about human life and interactions in general. The paradox is that Man is alone and he

experiences the world alone. However, the consolation stems from knowing that he can share

his loneliness with his companions, therefore Man experiences the state of being alone,

collectively.

The state of simultaneously being along and together, is also reflected by the

audience’s position. Watching a play entails both watching it alone and together at the same

time. Each audience member experiences the play alone. However, sitting beside another

person also means that the audience member is sharing these moments of hope with the other

person. Understanding that the audience is performing the nature of human relationships as

Khoirunnisaa 30

they are watching a play or a performance art work, only serves to prove the impact

performance art and theatre has on its audience. It awakens senses and evokes emotions and

the overall experience can change the audience’s perspectives.

Abramovic and her participants experience loneliness or any other emotions

differently and this is true for Beckett’s characters as well. Both their works illustrate that by

addressing and acknowledging the other person’s existence directly, people can build a

connection with one another. By building a connection they can share the emotions they are

experiencing alone and therefore differently. At that moment of sharing, the feeling of

loneliness, hopelessness, despair, anxiety and confusion dissipates, and what is left is the

feeling of solace in the knowledge that one still has a companion for support and comfort.

10 202 Words

Khoirunnisaa 31

Work cited

Barthes, Roland. A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments. Trans. Richard Howard. London: Vintage,

2002. Print.

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. 1956. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 2006, Print.

Beckett, Samuel. “Come and Go.” The Complete Dramatic Works. London: Faber and Faber

Limited, 1986. Print.

Beckett, Samuel. “Ohio Impromptu.” The Complete Dramatic Works. London: Faber and

Faber Limited, 1986. Print.

Beckett, Samuel. “Krapp’s Last Tape.” The Complete Dramatic Works. London: Faber and

Faber Limited, 1986. Print.

Collin, Jane, and Andrew Nisbet. Theatre And Performance Design. New York: Routledge,

2010. Print.

Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1968. Print

Lawley, Paul. “Stages of identity: from Krapp’s Last Tape to Play.” The Cambridge

Companion to Samuel Beckett. Ed. John Pilling. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1994. Print.

Marina Abramovic on The Artist is Present. Dir. Zec, Milica. Perf. Marina Abramovic.

Vimeo, 19 Apr 2014. Web. 2 Apr 2015.

Marvel, Laura. Readings on Waiting for Godot. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

Print.

Sileo, Diego, and Eugenio Viola. Marina Abramovic: The Abramovic Method. Vol. 2. Pero

(Mi): 24 ore cultura, 2012. Print.

Teplitzky, Alex. “A Love Letter to The Artist is Present/Marina Abramovic, 2010, MoMa.”

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Khoirunnisaa 32

Worth, Katharine, “Sources of attraction to Beckett’s theatre.” Palgrave Advances in Samuel

Beckett Studies. Ed. Lois Oppenheim. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 209-225.

Print.

.