Waiting for Godot
Amaryllis Theatre Company disappoints with its production of Samuel Beckett’s classic.
Sam’s town: Didi (Michael Toner, left), Pozzo (Lynn Manning, center) and Gogo (Buck Schirner, right) populate Samuel Beckett’s classic play.
Waiting for Godot is one of the most significant plays of the 20th century, but you wouldn’t know it from watching Amaryllis Theatre Company’s stilted production of Samuel Beckett’s classic work.
The play concerns two tramps named Didi (Michael P. Toner) and Gogo (Buck Schirner) who are waiting for a person named Godot. The play’s action (if you can call it that) involves the many activities the pair devises in a desperate attempt to pass the time. Their waiting is interrupted only by visits from a despotic blind man named Pozzo (the wooden Lynn Manning) and his slave Lucky (an eloquent David Stranger). Each day ends as the one before, with a young shepherd boy (Noel Smith) announcing that Godot will not come today.
Godot is typically interpreted as an exploration of the meaninglessness of life. In a chaotic, directionless universe we wait for a God that never arrives. Co-directors Mimi Kenney Smith and Tom Reing seem to have little interest in this nihilistic message, preferring instead to emphasize the play’s language. Their Godot is certainly well-spoken (with one glaring exception) but it comes at the expense of the characters who remain even more obscure than usual.
The fault doesn’t lie entirely with the directors. Manning brings so little to the role of Pozzo that his performance isn’t just unrealized, it’s almost entirely absent. Stranger does better as the unfortunate Lucky and his pontificating recitation of Lucky’s fabled monologue is a rare bright spot in this otherwise clunky production.
Toner has considerable experience with Beckett, having previously starred in two of the playwright’s solo works. His performance underlines Godot’ s most poetic passages, but his Didi is too polished and Toner struggles with the physical demands of the role. Schirner is far more successful at suggesting the play’s physical humor, and his performance as the bewildered Gogo is the production’s best.
For all its deficiencies, Amaryllis’ Godot is successful at communicating Didi and Gogo’s resilience and their attachment to each other. Stuck in an absurd world devoid of meaning, the pair attempt to find some rationale for their existence. “We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression that we exist,” remarks Gogo as they embark on another mindless activity. In the midst of what Didi calls “this immense confusion,” they persevere. “One thing alone is clear,” says Didi. “We are waiting for Godot to come.” In the waiting the men find a purpose.
Amaryllis isn’t the first company to fail with Godot . The production’s lack of success seems particularly disappointing given the ticket prices are a mere $10. Sadly even at that price, Amaryllis’ Godot isn’t much of a bargain. ■
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENT
MORE
Article:
A Man's Effort to Protect His Sons Comes at a Cost in "The Walworth Farce"
Article:
Oliver!
Article:
David Mamet Explores Feminine Matters in "Boston Marriage"
Article:
A Man Obsesses Over the Loss of His Hand in "A Behanding in Spokane"
Article:
Philadelphia Shakespeare Theatre Masterfully Produces the Very Bloody "Titus Andronicus"
Article:
A Dangerous Manifesto Demands Gay Rights in "The Temperamentals"
Article:
Flashpoint's "Slip/Shot" Is Haunted by the Death of Trayvon Martin
Article:
Philly's Homegrown Playwrights Enjoying a High-Profile Boom
Share this Story: