Absurdist, surreal, existentialist - all words thrown in together by literature students and aspiring actors trying to explain this play. Beckett hated all of them. Sure, use the terms as an attempt at genre classification if that's what you need to do. But to say the play is absurdist in the real Oxford dictionary definition of the word is, surely, missing the point. Beckett did not believe or try to prove in his plays that life is devoid of meaning and sense. The whole burden of Hamm and Clov's existence is that they have no idea whether this is just a game, or whether there's a purpose for all of this, for every single word they utter. And maybe - just maybe - the more absurdly they behave, the more preposterous their interactions, maybe someone will finally take notice and start paying attention! Hamm and Clov might act like they have given up hope in a meaningful world, but in reality they never do. They are still there waiting for another Godot to interrupt this silly play and shout "Stop that nonsense! There is a real world outside of here! Waiting for you to do something!". This Godot again, of course, never arrives during the play. But this doesn't prove that he won't do so later. The reason, you see, that Endgame is so painful is that the characters are NOT resigned to life's absurdity. They are merely unsure of it. They doubt. They fear. They sometimes dare to hope. They question. They wonder. But they don't know. Hamm is never sure whether Clov's threats to abandon his master are serious. And Clov never knows whether he will have the courage to leave. And not only that, but at the end of the play, we have no idea whether Clov left or not. This could be just another ritual, part of their monotonous lives. If Clov had left, he would have found out whether life outside this room is worth living, or - what he fears - just another absurd world only more dangerous than this one. But he never does find out. The neverending perpetuation of its doubt, its fear of the unknown, its unanswered questions, its "if"s and "maybe"s - these are the things that make the play powerful. And although Beckett was not fond of this interpretation either, it must be mentioned that post WWII ideology is rearing its ugly disconsolate head throughout Endgame again and again. Some even say that this was just another attempt by another playwright to find meaning in a world full of so much suffering. But that's not all there is to it, and that's probably why Beckett rejected this perspective.

I can't say that this is one of my favourite plays, on a level of sheer enjoyment. But I found it thought-provoking and strangely moving and I suppose that says something about its writer's intentions. Lastly, another matter worthy of mention is the death of a character in the play and the way this is portrayed. The interesting thing about this particular death is that it might be in fact the only happy event of the play, because it is the only event that provides some sort of resolution. You can see the remaining characters mourning, but you can also see that they are almost jealous of the dead one. The dead at least know now whether this whole Existence thing had some sort of higher meaning, or whether it was just an absurd game of chess, one silly move after another. ( )

Endgame - Ghastly!: "Endgame" is a crude and despicable play. It's not a classic and a pitiable excuse of a play. Utterly useless and does not deserve our time. The characters are one dimensional, lacking, and unrealistic. The plot is morally confusing and worthless. I do not recommend.

Nowhere near as good as Waiting for Godot. Either of them. ( )

F.W.J.Hemmings's copy. I remember reading Fin de partie as a teenager in the dining room at home. I liked the names: Hamm and Clov but didn't understand it. Still don't.

A great comment on uselessness, suffering, perseverance, interdependence, and solitude in relationships. A pessimistic take on human "love" and "kindness". A quick read with lasting impact. For those with disabilities, simultaneously deeply offensive and groundbreakingly revolutionary (depending on the way one slants it). ( )