Liveness of Performance: A Study of King Lear and Waiting for Godot

This essay argues that the liveness of a performance cannot be captured through video recordings or other forms of documentation, using Shakespeare's 'King Lear' and Samuel Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' as case studies. It defines liveness as the actual performance enacted before an audience for entertainment or education, and contrasts it with the increasing reliance on recorded performances due to time constraints and technological advancements. The essay analyzes the Globe Theatre's 'King Lear' and its digital documentation, highlighting the missing elements of audience connection, verisimilitude, and the essence of the play in the recorded version. It emphasizes the importance of space, time, and natural light in live performances, which are often lost in edited video documentations, thus diminishing the overall impact and authenticity of the theatrical experience.

Running head: LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
Liveness of Performance
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
“I love the performance of a craft, whether it is modest or mean-spirited, yet I walk away
when discussions of it begin….I am interested only in the care taken, and those secret
rehearsals behind it. Even if I do not understand fully what is taking place”
The above quotes lines of Michael Ondaatje from his famous work “Divisadero”
(2007) clearly enumerates why the majority of the audiences even in the 21st century like to
go to a theatre to see a live performance rather than stay back at home and watch the video
recording of it. Webb et al. (2016) are of the viewpoint that the theatre is perhaps one of the
oldest of the art forms and since the traditional times various artists like William
Shakespeare, Christopher Marlow, Ben Jonson, Moliere, Samuel Beckett, T.S. Elliott and
others have used this as a sieve to showcase their talent and art.
As opined by Diamond (2015), the theatre for a very long time had formed the major
source of entertainment in the lives of many people from all walks of life including the ones
related to the royal families and in the past centuries it was seen that the royal families used
to offer patronage to the various theatre artists. However, in the recent times it is seen that the
improvements in the genre of technologies as well as film has drastically limited the scope of
the theatre and theatrical performances (Miles 2018). The end result of this is that the
audiences are more interested in the motion pictures rather than the theatrical performances
and thus theatre in the present times is often seen as a dying art (Schechner 2017). The
liveness of performance however cannot be captured in an effective manner in the video
recordings or the documentations of the actual plays or dramas which are primarily intended
for the live audiences because of the fact that the essence of the actual plays or dramas is
being lost when an individual watches a recording of it rather than the actual stage
performance. This essay will argue the fact that the liveness of an actual performance can
never be captured through the video recordings or other forms of documentation in the
particular context of Shakespeare’s “King Lear” and Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”.

2LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
As opined by Way (2017), the various plays or dramas are primarily intended for live
performance or in other words meant for enactment before the audiences and it is here-in the
importance of the concept of liveness of performance lies. The concept of liveness of
performance can be defined as the actual performance consisting of various artists or actors
which is being enacted before an audience and is meant for entertainment or educational
purposes (Rein et al. 2018). However, in the recent times the status quo of the entertainment
world has drastically changed and because of time constraint and other factors the audiences
are resorting to recorded or documented performances rather than actual performances
(Reason and Lindelof 2016). In this regard, Taylor (2003) has articulated the viewpoint that
“The live performance can never be captured or transmitted through the archive. A video of a
performance is not a performance, though it often comes to replace the performance as a
thing in itself”. This comment of Taylor as a matter of fact has formed the central lacuna of
various debates in the recent times regarding the effectiveness and also the quality of the
video recordings or the documentations of some of the hugely successful plays or dramas of
the past ages (Reason and Sedgman 2015).
Murray and Keefe (2016) are of the viewpoint that technology has much simplified
the lives of the modern human beings and they are being able to do the things which only a
century ago seemed almost impossible. However, along with the advancements that the
human beings have made in the genre of technology it is seen that the impact of these
technological advancements on the lives of the common people had much complicated their
lives (Auslander 2008). One of the most important aspects of this is the fact that the human
beings in the contemporary times have very limited amount of time for recreational purposes
because of the hectic life that they lead and this leaves them with very time to go out and
enjoy the actual theatrical performances (Rajan and Goddard 2018). The net result of this is
that the individuals often opt for the various video recordings or other forms of

3LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
documentations to fill up the void which though convey the overall sense of the plays or the
dramas to them yet there are found to be lacking in various aspects. For example, these
electronic documentations often fail to convey the essence of the actual performances and
also the perspectives of the actors and also the dramatists who wrote them (Zhang 2017). In
this regard, it needs to be said that the modern forms of electronic documentations are edited
several times and rather than showcasing the viewpoint of the authors or the dramatists they
just show the perspectives of the directors or the things that they want to show to the
audiences (Schlossman 2017).
As opined by Reason and Lindelof (2016), there are various gratification factors
which propel the audiences to watch the actual performance of the plays or the dramas like
the aura of verisimilitude which is being created by the dramatist or the playwright, time,
space and others. In this regard, Benjamin (1999) says that “Even the most reproduction of a
work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at
the place where it happens to be…the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the
concept of authenticity”. More importantly, it is seen that the manual form of reproduction of
the plays or the dramas which was used by the playwrights or the dramatists in the earlier
times was one of the major reasons that contributed to the success to those plays and also
helped the artists to engage the audiences in an effective (Diamond 2015). However, through
the use of electronic documentation although a copy of the performance is being created yet
the audiences are not being able to connect with the actors on the stage in an effective manner
and also the quality of verisimilitude is being lost. This can be explained on the basis of the
fact that the audiences begin watching the plays or the dramas with the notion that the
performance that they are watching is a “make-belief” story and intended solely for
entertainment purposes because of the factor of lack of human connection (Miles 2018).

4LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
An analysis of the original Globe Theatre’s “King Lear” and its digital documentation
is likely to reveal insightful details regarding the concept of liveness of performance and the
extent to which this can be captured in the electronically documented forms. In this regard, it
needs to be said that the play “King Lear” is perhaps one of the most popular of the plays of
William Shakespeare and is often regarded as the play which cemented his legacy within the
cannon of the English Dramatic Literature (Hamilton 2018). More importantly, the play was
extremely popular with the audiences and the unique infrastructure of the Globe Theatre
helped in the staging of the play before the 16th century audiences in an effective manner
(Goodland 2017). Murray and Keefe (2016) are of the viewpoint that the modern
infrastructure of the theatre not only facilitated the frequent entry and exit of the audiences
but at the same time helped in the enactment of the different scenes of the play in an effective
manner. More importantly, the small stage of the theater meant that the audiences were sitting
very close to the stage and they could not only feel sympathy with King Lear and his
daughter but at the same time felt empathy with them as well (Fitter 2016). This helped in the
creation of verisimilitude and also made the audiences convinced regarding the authenticity
of the events which were happening on the stage. Furthermore, the play was also being able
to convey the actual message or the ideas of Shakespeare in an effective manner to the live
audiences who were present in the theatre and all these factors contributed to the liveness of
performance in a substantial manner (Rajan and Goddard 2018).
The electronic documentation of the play of Shakespeare under discussion here
although a technological marvel because of the effectiveness with which it covers the play yet
at the same time it needs to be said that the entity of liveness of performance is missing from
the same (Fitter 2016). For example, a casual look at the video documentation reveals the fact
that rather than recording the play from a long range the director of the play had taken the
help of multiple camera settings. As a matter of fact it is seen that the video documentation

5LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
only covers the sections of the stage and the actors who are in action and the other sections of
the stage or the actors who although present in the stage but are not active are omitted from
the video (Goodland 2017). In addition to this, it is seen that the video documentation has
been edited in such a manner that only the relevant actions of the actors on the stage have
been covered following the film making technique of “fabric as film” (Hamilton 2018). For
example, taking the help of this method it is seen that the director after recording the entire
play have edited the entire recording in such a manner as the tailors do with the fancy cloth or
garments that they are preparing (Rein et al. 2018). However, at the same time it needs to be
said that although this has enhanced the quality of the video documentation by obliterating
the unnecessary sections of the play yet at the same it needs to be said that this has taken out
the entire essence of the play itself.
Webb et al. (2016) are of the viewpoint that the one of the most important
gratification factor for the audiences who watch the live performances of the different plays
or the dramas is the fact that they got to view the entire stage and also the different actors
who were present on the stage regardless of the fact whether they participated in the action or
not. More importantly, during the change in the scenes the audiences used to get a few
minutes in which they can reflect or ruminate on the things which they had just seen on the
screen. However, these things are not possible when the audiences are watching the recorded
or the electronically recorded versions of the same play or drama since in the recorded plays
these sections are usually omitted. Furthermore, the entities of space and time which are
accessible to the live audiences are not possible for the audiences who are watching the
electronic versions of the same because of the linear representation of the events or the scenes
of the play or the drama (Murray and Keefe 2016). In addition to these, in the original play it
was seen that natural light was used and also the scenes related to day and night were
depicted through the use of candles and natural sunlight. However, these aspects are

6LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
completely missing in the electronically recorded versions of the same play since the director
took the help of visual editing to show the scenes of day and night which as a matter of fact
took away the actual essence of the scenes and also the play (Way 2017). Thus, it can be said
that these factors greatly affect the liveness of performance which forms an integral aspect of
the different plays or dramas that are being intended for the actual or live audiences rather
than the digital audiences.
Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” is often considered to be one of the very
few plays which had drastically changed the landscape of the modern plays because of the
theme and also the usage of stage by the playwright (Orr 2016). The play showcases a post-
apocalyptic landscape wherein two existential characters are waiting for a character named
Godot, who is apparently going to release them out of their misery (Leonard 2016). Majority
of the audiences who attended the actual or the live performances of the play have stated the
fact that they were actually being able to connect with the Gogo and Didi during the entire
play and even felt that these two characters represented their own flight in the modern human
society (Feng 2017). More importantly, one of the major factors which distinguish this play
from the ones plays which came before it is the fact that in this play Beckett has actually tried
to break the metaphorical fourth wall. For example, it is seen that for the creation and also the
staging of the plays or the dramas the authors usually take the help of the three dimensions
and the audiences or the spectators are completely relegated to the background (Leonard
2016). However, Beckett in this play through his attempt to break the fourth wall sought to
engage the audiences in the live action which was being presented on the stage so as to make
them understand the plight of the modern individuals and also the suffering that they endured
in the best possible manner (Orr 2016).
The setting of the stage which was used by Beckett was a barren one and had one tree
which symbolically represented the tree of wisdom. Rein et al. (2018) are of the viewpoint

7LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
that this landscape actually tried to portray the bizarre landscape in which the human beings
dwell which although has all the equipments to offer physical comforts to the people yet
offers no mental or emotional solace. The near vacant stage and the bizarre equipments which
were used and also their proximity to the audiences who were sitting in the theatre helped in
the creation of that uneasy feeling which many of the audiences complained about after
watching the actual or the live performance of the play (Rajan and Goddard 2018). However,
an individual who is watching a digitally recorded or documented version of the same play
would not be able to have these feelings or experiences as the ones experienced or felt by the
actual or the live audiences of the play.
One of the most popular electronically recorded versions of the play “Waiting for
Godot” is that of the Sydney Theatre Company which was recorded towards the end of the
20th century (Leonard 2016). This digitally recorded version of the play under discussion here
has proven to be extremely successful as well as popular because of the effectiveness with
which the company is being able to depict the stage performance. More importantly, the
subtle camera angles which had been used by the director of the play and also the multiple
camera shots, namely, the long distance and the short distance and also the effective usage of
the light setting has been much appreciated by the digital audiences (Orr 2016). In this
regard, it needs to be said that the play takes the help of the recent video editing technologies
to omit the audiences from the picture frame and also the setting of both the scenes of play
have been made more eerie or apocalyptic through the innovative usage of editing (Feng
2017). However, despite these improvements of the original version there are various aspects
of the video which makes this digitally recorded or documented version of the play not on par
with the actual or the live performance of the play under discussion here.
One of the major drawbacks of this electronically recorded or documented version of
the play under discussion here is the fact that it completely negates the attempt of Beckett to

8LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
break the fourth wall (Schlossman 2017). For example, the audiences who are watching the
electronically recorded version of the play fail to understand the manner in which Beckett has
tried to break the fourth wall because of the fact that they are not being able to engage with
the actors on the stage in an adequate manner (Leonard 2016). More importantly, the effect
that the stage setting and the equipments on the stage are likely to make on an actual or a live
audience is not likely to make on the audiences who are watching the digitally recorded
version of the same play (Zhang 2017). In addition to this, the emptiness and also the vast
empty space of the stage is itself seen as a major character of the play however the digitally
edited version of the play presents the play only through short range camera and thus the
majority of the vast expanse of empty stage have been omitted from the recorded version
(Diamond 2015). In this regard, Phelan’s comment regarding the digitally recorded
performances of the actual or live plays becomes important to note. For example, Phelan said
“Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the
circulation of representations of representations: once it does so it becomes something other
than performance” which is aptly applicable to the digitally recorded versions of the two
plays under discussion here (Webb et al. 2016).
To conclude, technology has not only improved the quality of lives of the human
beings but at the same time they are offering the kind of opportunities to the individuals
which were not available to them in the earlier times. In this regard, mention needs to be
made of the opportunity that the individuals are getting to watch the digitally recorded or
documented versions of these plays. However, at the same time it needs to be said that
although these digitally recorded versions of the plays offer the opportunity to the individuals
to watch these plays yet at the same time it needs to be said that in these plays the liveness of
performance is being lost. It is pertinent to note that these digitally recorded versions of the
plays have tried to improve the video quality of the plays through the effective usage of

9LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
lighting, camera settings and others yet at the same time it needs to be said that through the
usage of these means the original essence of the plays are being lost. This not only reduces
the pleasure of the audiences but at the same time the entity of liveness of performance is
being lost. These aspects of recorded or documented plays become apparent from the above
analysis of the two plays “King Lear” and “Waiting for Godot” and their recorded versions.

10LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
References
Auslander, P., 2008. Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture. Routledge.
Benjamin, W., 1999. ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in H. Arendt
(ed.) Illuminations, London, Pimlico, 211-245.
Diamond, E., 2015. Performance and cultural politics. Routledge.
Feng, W., 2017. Performing Comic Failure in Waiting for Godot with Jingju Actors. Theatre
Research International, 42(2), pp.119-131.
Fitter, C.J., 2016. 'The art of known and feeling sorrows': Rethinking Capitalist Transition,
and the Performance of Class Politics, in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Early Modern Literary
Studies, 19(1).
Goodland, K., 2017. Female mourning and tragedy in medieval and Renaissance English
Drama: from the raising of Lazarus to King Lear. Routledge.
Hamilton, J.M., 2018. Constructing Dying and Death as an Eco-Political Concern in
Performances of Shakespeare's King Lear and Sarah Kane's Blasted. Shakespeare
Bulletin, 36(3), pp.485-500.
Leonard, R., 2016. A Committee Room. A Table. Evening: Using Beckett's Waiting for
Godot to Read Joyce's" Ivy Day in the Committee Room". James Joyce Quarterly, 54(1),
pp.33-44.
Miles, S., 2018. “Do We Have LIFT-Off?” Social Media Marketing and Digital Performance
at a British Arts Festival. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 48(5), pp.305-
320.

11LIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE
Murray, S. and Keefe, J., 2016. Physical theatres: a critical introduction. Routledge.
Orr, J., 2016. Tragicomedy and contemporary culture: play and performance from Beckett to
Shepard. Springer.
Rajan, R.S. and Goddard, J.E., 2018. Stages, Sights & Sounds: Evaluating Student
Engagement with Live, Multimedia Arts Performance. In Arts Evaluation and
Assessment (pp. 249-270). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Reason, M. and Lindelof, A.M. eds., 2016. Experiencing liveness in contemporary
performance: interdisciplinary perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
Reason, M. and Sedgman, K., 2015. Editors’ introduction: Themed Section on theatre
audiences. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 12(1).
Reason, M., 2006. Documentation, disappearance and the representation of live
performance. Springer.
Rein, P., Ramson, S., Lincke, J., Hirschfeld, R. and Pape, T., 2018. Exploratory and Live,
Programming and Coding: A Literature Study Comparing Perspectives on Liveness. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1807.08578.
Schechner, R., 2017. Performance studies: An introduction. Routledge.
Schlossman, D., 2017. Actors and Activists: Performance, Politics, and Exchange Among
Social Worlds. Routledge.
Taylor, D., 2003. The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the
Americas. Duke University Press.
Way, G., 2017. Together, Apart: Liveness, Eventness, and Streaming Shakespearean
Performance. Shakespeare Bulletin, 35(3), pp.389-406.