Waiting For Godot

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

"Perhaps we'll get an erection!"

Best quote ever (one of my favorite plays).

That said I actually don't get the joke. Godot never shows up (kinda the point). Is it playing on Burton's odd way of reimagining series?

Helen Jones:
This is a play about the pointlessness of life.

It is mainly about two men, Estragon and Vladmir, who are waiting for a man Godot, a play on the word God.
There are only two other characters, Pozzo, a slave-master, and his slave Lucky. If this seems like a tiny cast it's because it is, it's desolate. Lucky only has one line in the entire play, but this one line (in my version of the text) takes up 3 entire pages, it's complete gibberish.
(Also saw the Ian McKellen version, and I really wish I could find a recording of Lucky's speech, it was brilliant.)

He wasn't God. Beckett once said something to the effect that if he wanted to to be God, he would have said God. Also there are more than 4 characters in the play... there's six, the two messenger boys (usually played by two different, but fairly similar looking, child actors).

Shinsei-J:
Umm, what?
Completely lost here.
I need a map.

It's a riff on how Tim Burton misses the point of every adaptation he does in order to continue his Johnny Depp obsession (although I'm disappointed you couldn't find a way to shoehorn Helena Bonham Carter in here as well Grey. I mean, Tim Burton always does :P).

Anyway, 'Waiting For Godot', is a very understated play about two men who are quite literally waiting for another man named Godot. However, Godot never actually shows up. Rather than a character, Godot is a plot device. He's figurative, and through him many ideas are explored. It's the sort of dark, quite abstract piece that Tim Burton might have done a really good adaptation of back when Tim Burton didn't suck, but if he did it today he'd make Godot the main character (just like he made Willy Wonka the main character in 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', and practically made the Mad Hatter the main character in 'Alice in Wonderland'), make Godot 'goofy' just because Johnny Depp needs his pay check, and leave the actual relationship between the other two characters (which is what 'Waiting for Godot' is actually about) to get completely lost in the background.

LavaLampBamboo:

Helen Jones:
This is a play about the pointlessness of life.

It is mainly about two men, Estragon and Vladmir, who are waiting for a man Godot, a play on the word God.
There are only two other characters, Pozzo, a slave-master, and his slave Lucky. If this seems like a tiny cast it's because it is, it's desolate. Lucky only has one line in the entire play, but this one line (in my version of the text) takes up 3 entire pages, it's complete gibberish.
(Also saw the Ian McKellen version, and I really wish I could find a recording of Lucky's speech, it was brilliant.)

Point is, God(ot) never shows up, Johnny Depp will never get his part. The play ends with them agreeing to leave and not come back, but they freeze, they never exit the stage.

There was also this lovely story that came out-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1277418/Sir-Ian-McKellen-mistaken-tramp-rehearses-play.html

To lighten the mood at the end, McKellen and Roger Rees did a tap dance. Y'all missed out.

Samuel Beckett was once asked about this and said "If Godot was meant to represent God, I'd have called him God. They're waiting for Godot."

I saw this when it was on with McKellen and Patrick Stewart opposite him. It was a really excellent performance and incredibly funny. I highly recommend it.

What artists say about their work and what can be drawn from it can be two very different things.

Godot is not "meant" to be God, but he can be representative of God, as well as lots of other things.

Of course, if Tim Burton did direct this, we wouldn't have to wait long for Godot and we'd find out he's a manic-depressive with daddy issues and pedophilic subtext.

Eternal_Lament:
So either Johnny depp is so bad that he should be given a role that doesn't exist, or that he's so good that a role that originally didn't exist should be made for him. At least, that's what I can gather from it.

I thought it was the tendency for Tim Burton to disregard/@#$% up an original work's mythos and give the main character seat to Johnny Depp, except here it's funny because it's as if Burton is unaware that Godot doesn't actually show up.

See also: Michael Bay's The Great Gatsby.

Well, Helena Bohnam Carter HAS to be in it. Why?

It's a Tim Burton film...
.....with Johnny Depp in it...
.....it's in their contracts....

.....no seriously, look it up.

=D

image

And now I'm happy

I thought Godot was around the "It was his sled!" level of pop culture now.

My personal favorite is when Elmo played Godot.

RC1138:

He wasn't God. Beckett once said something to the effect that if he wanted to to be God, he would have said God. Also there are more than 4 characters in the play... there's six, the two messenger boys (usually played by two different, but fairly similar looking, child actors).

Have never heard that before (obviously), but thanks for sharing, it's pretty interesting. While clearly from that Godot can't BE God, I do stand that the plays theme of spending a life waiting for something can be linked to God and Christianity, but as a lesser idea rather than a central one.

For the first time ever I can say Critical Miss made my day. That joke is awesome and epic !

Dep might make a good Lucky. I could see him doing that speech he does very, very well.

Uszi:
-snip-

Ah I see... Although even with this new knowledge that you have supplied me with, I still don't see the hilarious side of what I'm guessing was the proposed joke. Though I thank you for the information. And just so you know I did momentarily wonder if the comic may have been slightly related to Laser-Face Godot. :D

Well, that sure is an easy buck for Depp in the titular role...

...to be followed by Krapp's Last Tape shot in 48FPS 3D.

Fah, I don't know about all of you, but I am still waiting for Tim Burton's adaption of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", staring Johnny Depp as both Rosencrantz AND Guildenstern. :P

It has been explained to me and all of a sudden I realise that this was really funny.

Well...

At least they kept the hats intact.

This made me laugh, quite a lot. XD

I think I've got it.
Tim Burton will put Johnny Depp as the title/main character of anything, even if said character never appears.

I didn't get the joke, so I went to Google.

After 5 minutes of searching, I have yet to get the joke. You have won, Mrs. Rydell and Mr. Carter.

Farther than stars:

BurnedOutMyEyes:
I really shouldn't have read the play. It's weird.

Reading a play?! Reading a play?! What's next? Playing a novel? Listening to a painting? Plays are watched, not read, or you should not bother appreciating them at all!

See, there's this wacky new invention called the script...

*shrug*

I get the joke. It's clever, in its own abstract way. The poster shouldn't say that Depp is going to play Godot, though. He could easily be one of the two that are waiting. Maybe he and Bonham Carter are sitting around waiting for a Tim Burton adaptation that isn't several notches off of the 'needless' meter. They really would be waiting forever for that one, or, at least, present day cinema suggests that they would be.

The idea that Burton would give Depp a role that isn't supposed to appear, and then shoehorn it in is perfectly valid, though, so I suppose it's an acceptable interpretation. (Godot being an absurdist play, I believe there should be many different interpretations of this drawing, and therefore challenge people to come up with more).

Interesting work, my friends. Next time make some mention of The Blacks, though. Genet's works generally offer a little more in the way of the fixed-yet-open-interpretation that really good absurdist theater needs than Beckett's do.

seriously that was the funniest ever jut thinking about burton doing godot terrifies me and is hilarious at the same time

Farther than stars:

Reading a play?! Reading a play?! What's next? Playing a novel? Listening to a painting? Plays are watched, not read, or you should not bother appreciating them at all!

That would be nice, but unlikely if pursuing an English degree. I would occasionally read a dozen plays a semester and only see one or two. It only got really annoying on plays wherein the sets were important and we had to visualize where everything was to make plot points.

As a fan of absurd plays I greatly appreciated this comic.

BurnedOutMyEyes:
So is this about a bipolar world of mutually broken classes of society dashing blindly towards its own nuclear destruction? Or just a silly joke because Godot never actually shows up and people would still watch, waiting for Johny Depp?
I really shouldn't have read the play. It's weird.

Its worse than wierd, its bad.

Its not even good in the Donnie Darko / Eternal Sunshine of a spotless mind way.

Its just plain bad. You have to be more than obscure to be good.

This strip was just slightly better than the play. But I might be out of sync with the series.

Ah well, off to Baldurs Gate 2 again.

Holy shit. A theater major joke. Props

Cause Godot never shows up in the play, it's the two characters waiting for him that play off of each other. A comment about Burton's tendency to bastardize source material (A la Alice in Wonderland) and of his Depp fetish, I believe.

Helen Jones:
This is a play about the pointlessness of life.

It is mainly about two men, Estragon and Vladmir, who are waiting for a man Godot, a play on the word God.
There are only two other characters, Pozzo, a slave-master, and his slave Lucky. If this seems like a tiny cast it's because it is, it's desolate. Lucky only has one line in the entire play, but this one line (in my version of the text) takes up 3 entire pages, it's complete gibberish.
(Also saw the Ian McKellen version, and I really wish I could find a recording of Lucky's speech, it was brilliant.)

Point is, God(ot) never shows up, Johnny Depp will never get his part. The play ends with them agreeing to leave and not come back, but they freeze, they never exit the stage.

There was also this lovely story that came out-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1277418/Sir-Ian-McKellen-mistaken-tramp-rehearses-play.html

To lighten the mood at the end, McKellen and Roger Rees did a tap dance. Y'all missed out.

I saw it with Ian Mckellen and Patrick Stewart, and if that had the same Lucky, then he really was great.

Love it. I also love that since he doesn't actually show up, no one can ask about the choices of carrot and tiny dog atop a ridiculous hat. Though, I would almost like Burton's twist as seen by Carter & Rydell, with Godot being the only character, unspeaking, referenced by offstage (offscreen) voices. He'd probably still move around like mobile jello, because it is Johnny Depp, but hey, all the die-hard TB/JD fans will get what they want, and everyone who liked the metaphors and allusions in Godot will get to rage hard enough that everyone will try and see the Gandalf/Picard version instead of the Mad Hatter as Captain Jack Scissorhands.

On note, I wish I was in Australia, to try and see Sir Ian McKellan and Roger Rees' version of the piece.

I knew enough to know who it was(after realizing it wasn't about Phoenix Wright) and thought i got the joke, but I didn't realize Godot never showed up. I wish I had, that seems like it would make it very funny.

I saw Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart in this together. Very clever, funny play.

I think the joke is that even though Godot doesn't exist, Tim Burton would still create a character from it and cast Johnny Depp in it. Very similar to what Mr Burton did with the mad hatter in Alice In Wonderland.

That seems like the most appropriate reason for the joke.

(This is much more high brow than I am used to from Critical Miss. Keep it up!)

I just want to point out how weird it is that the strip about absurdist theatre is getting fewer confused responses than the strip about Blade Runner.

I so want this to become an actual thing..... It would be a huge F U to the audience that goes to see a film just because it has Johnny Depp in it. (Which for a long time did include myself, however I have now missed his last 3 films and don't feel any worse off)

About 6 or 7 years ago I came to the realization that I don't actually care about who the actors are, ever really.... I care about the story, and the story comes from the writers, so now I focus on who wrote a film/show then look at their previous work determine that if I liked that I will like this, and more often than not I am correct. And if they are a first time screen writer I may go, I may not it depends on critics at that point.

So we're giving Rebecca's role to Helena Bonham Carter now?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here