The South Campus Commons provided an intimate setting last Thursday through Sunday for the Brandeis Players' performance of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. The play was created by Director Justy Kosek '14, Stage Manager Jessica Pizzuti '15, Executive Stage Manager Nora Mitnick '12 and Producer Iyvon Edebiri '13. It was clear that there was a sense of excitement for the play before the show even began. Attendance on Friday was so high that a number of latecomers couldn't find seats, but they were still willing to sit on the floor. As everyone finally settled down, the lights went out, the stage lights came up, and the show began.

Enter Gogo (Dan Katz '12) and Didi (Christopher Knight '14), who appear to be travelers stopping by a bare tree and a bench. They wear shoddy clothing and their only defining characteristic is their dialogue. They talk about nothing in particular: a short Biblical story, the date, the time of year, erections and so on. So what are they doing here? At one point, Gogo thinks of leaving, but Didi reminds him, "We can't. … We're waiting for Godot!" So begins their quest for answers.

Soon Pozzo (Grace Fosler '14) and Lucky (Stephen Badras '13) enter. These characters also appear to be traveling and serve as character foils for Didi and Gogo. Pozzo is an elitist and seemingly bipolar woman. She holds her young servant, Lucky, on a leash and forces him to carry all her belongings—bags, a stool and a coat. They both dress in leather outfits. Pozzo seems to have complete control over Lucky, who answers to her every beck and call. She orders him around in loud exclamations ("Up, Pig!"), with an arrogance reminiscent of the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland. Lucky tolerates all of this to the point of exhaustion—he frequently falls asleep standing up. He also never speaks for himself except for one unintelligible monologue in the second act. Pozzo knows her servant well enough, explaining to Gogo and Didi that he is not nice with strangers, and that you have to yank his leash just right to get him to do what you want—you know, the usual.

Pozzo and Lucky's entrance only complicates Didi and Gogo's quest for answers. Perhaps Didi and Gogo enjoy this; they are no longer bored waiting for Godot since they have Pozzo and Lucky to annoy, question and battle with their wits—or lack thereof.

Finally, Pozzo and Lucky exit near the end of act one, and a masked girl (Barbara Rugg '15) appears. Godot's messenger, she tells them that Godot won't come today, but surely tomorrow. So Didi and Gogo must wait some more.

The second act contains familiar echoes from the first half of the show, while adding deeper meaning and humor to the play. More absurd things continue to occur as Didi and Gogo wait. But still, Godot never comes.

The play ran for two hours, but the audience appeared involved in the characters' struggles throughout the performance. The seemingly random and funny events told much more than met the eye. For one, the play contains many of the major questions of philosophy: What is knowledge? What is ethics? Does God exist? and so on. The play challenges these questions and renders them ironically futile. What is the hope of ascertaining knowledge when these characters have such defective memories?

Then there is the issue of ethics. In the second act when Pozzo falls and cries for help, Didi and Gogo argue about what she wants exactly, and then whether to help her (thereby putting her in their debt). Meanwhile, she is left to suffer for minutes on end. Pain has never been so funny.

And then, of course, the play challenges the existence of God and what He does. Didi and Gogo wait for Godot, who is mysterious and offstage, and who never provides them with a message, a purpose, or an order that they so desperately seek—sounds like God to me.

There is a lot of terrific yelling going on throughout the play: yells of commands, of announcements, of victory. But mostly, yells of "Why?" The characters are dissatisfied; they want something more. They seek Godot, though it is never explained why. There is a lack of explanation throughout the play. Why did the trees' leaves grow overnight? Why did Gogo's boots disappear and a better pair appear in their place? Even the simplest things, such as why Lucky won't ever put down his bag, are troublesome questions for the characters. The answer is so delayed that it makes Gogo hysteric for explanation, "WHY!?! BAAAAG!?!?!" And when Lucky finally does put down his bag, the question then becomes, Why did he put down his bags? Very philosophical questions.

Despite the philosophical discussions, there is actually a lot of humor in Waiting for Godot. The audience often waited in anticipation for the punch line of a joke, but instead received a completely unexpected answer. This itself became a continuing joke. Beckett sets up a world in which the most unexpectedly funny and unexplained things occurs. The tree branch flicks the characters three times of its own accord, for example. Pozzo constantly misplaces her belongings: a pipe, a spray bottle, and a watch, among other things. I admire how these actors could take a ridiculous situation and milk it to the last drop. It was clear that they had a great deal of fun with it.

If I seem to be listing a series of unrelated events when describing Waiting for Godot, it's because I am. This play is not a rational series of actions, and I did hear a few audience members confused by what was going on. During the intermission, some people remarked that this is a play in which nothing happens. However, this is also a play in which everything happens, philosophically. I felt the majority of the audience was enthusiastically involved in Waiting for Godot, both through their laughter and silence anticipation.

Viewers observed characters that were incapable of looking at themselves and rising above their seemingly self-made, restraining circumstances. They saw the characters' persistence to wait and to demand answers. They laughed at this rich, dramatic irony. Waiting for Godot is certainly not a play for everyone, but I think that the Brandeis Players made it comical, thought-provoking and entertaining all at the same time. I commend them for that.