Кіріспе
1965 жылы АҚШ-та түсірілген, Самуэль Беккеттің жазған сценарийі бар фильм. Бұл фильм – Беккеттің жазған жалғыз сценарийі. Оны «Гров Пресс» баспасының Барни Россет тапсырыс берген. Жазу жұмысы 1963 жылдың 5 сәуірінде басталды және алғашқы нұсқасы төрт күннің ішінде аяқталды. 22 мамырда екінші нұсқа дайындалды, содан кейін 40 парақтан тұратын түсірілім сценарийі жасалды. Фильм 1964 жылдың шілдесінде Нью-Йорк қаласында түсірілді. Бекетт пен Алан Шнайдер бастапқыда Чарли Чаплинді, Зеро Мостельді және Джек МакГоранды шақыруды жоспарлаған, бірақ олар қатысудан бас тартты. Содан кейін Бекетт Бастер Китонды ұсынды. Фильмде шағын рөлге ие болған Джеймс Карен де Китонды қолдады. Түсірілген фильм Бекеттің бастапқы сценарийінен өзгеше, бірақ ол оған келісім берді, өйткені ол түсірілім алаңында болды. Бұл оның АҚШ-қа жасаған жалғыз сапары болды, бұл факті Сэмюэл Бекеттің «Жинақталған қысқа пьесалары» (Faber and Faber, 1984) кітабындағы сценарийде көрсетілген. 1979 жылы Британдық кино институты (16 мм, 26 минут) Бекеттің қатысуынсыз осы фильмен қайта жұмыс істеді, оны «Фильм: Самуэль Беккеттің сценарийі» деп атады. Режиссерлік жұмысын Дэвид Рейнер Кларк жасады, ал Макс Уолл басты рөлде ойнады. Алғаш рет бұл фильм «Eh Joe and Other Writings» (Faber and Faber, 1967) жинағында жарияланды.
Film is a 1965 short film written by Samuel Beckett, his only screenplay. It was commissioned by Barney Rosset of Grove Press. Writing began on 5 April 1963 with a first draft completed within four days. A second draft was produced by 22 May and a 40 leaf shooting script followed thereafter. It was filmed in New York City in July 1964. Beckett and Alan Schneider originally wanted Charlie Chaplin, Zero Mostel and Jack MacGowran, however they eventually did not get involved. Beckett then suggested Buster Keaton. James Karen, who was to have a small part in the film, also supported having Keaton. The filmed version differs from Beckett's original script but with his approval since he was on set all the time, this being his only visit to the United States, as stated in the script printed in Collected Shorter Plays of Samuel Beckett (Faber and Faber, 1984). It was remade by the British Film Institute (1979, 16 mm, 26 minutes) without Beckett's supervision, as Film: a screenplay by Samuel Beckett. David Rayner Clark directed Max Wall. It first appeared in print in Eh Joe and Other Writings (Faber and Faber, 1967).
Қысқаша мазмұны
Алғашқы екі бөлімде бәрі дерлік камера көзімен (сценарийде E деп белгіленеді) көрсетіледі, дегенмен О-ның көзқарасымен көрсетілген шағын сәттер де бар. Үшінші бөлімде О-ның бөлме және оның ішіндегі заттарды қабылдауы көбірек берілген. Екі көзқарасты ажырату үшін О көрген заттар линзалық тор арқылы түсірілді, бұл оның көрісін бұрмалап көрсетті, ал Е көргендер тор немесе сүзгілерсіз түсірілді, суреттердің қалыпты болуын қамтамасыз етті.
Көше
Фильм толқындармен бейнеленген суретпен басталады, ол бүкіл экранды толтырады. Түссіз болғандықтан, не көрсетілгенін анықтау қиын, бірақ ол тірі. Қозғалғанда, ол қабақтың өте жақыннан түсірілгені байқалады; ол бүкіл экранды алып жатыр. Көз ақырындап ашылады, жабылады, қайта ашылады, жыпылықтайды, содан кейін басқа толқынды суретке ауысады, ол әлі де біршама органикалық, бірақ өзгерген, әлі де. Камера оңға және жоғары қарай жылдам қозғалғанда, ол қабырға екенін көруге болады; біз ғимараттың сыртындамыз (Төменгі Манхэттендегі ескі фабрика). Жаз мезгілі болса керек, бірақ оны анықтау қиын. Камераның қозғалысы тегіс емес. Ол бір нәрсені іздегендей. Соңында ол қызығуын жоғалтады және сол жаққа, төмен қарай, қайта қабырғаға қарай жылжиды. Кенеттен камера (Е) күшпен сол жаққа бұрылады. Бір ер адам (О) қабырға бойымен солдан оңға қарай асығыс жүгіріп барады. Ол тоқтап, қабырғаға жабысып тұрады, сонда Е оған назар аудару мүмкіндігіне ие болады. Ол ұзын қара пальто киген, жағасы тіктеп тұр, ал бас киімі бетіне дейін тартылған. (Китон Бекеттен О-ның пальто астында не кигенін сұрады. Автор мойындап: "Мен мұны ойлаған емеспін", - деді, содан кейін: "Сол пальто", - деп ұсынды, бұл екеуіне де ұнады.) Бірақ әйел оны тыныштандырады, пьесадағы жалғыз дыбысты шығарады. Екеуі де бірге Е-ге қарай бұрылады, ал олардың беттері аузы ашық қалпында көрінеді; олар көрген нәрсеге шыдай алмай, беттерін бұрып алады. О-ға қайта оралатын кезде, ол бұрышты айналып өтеді. Ол дұрыс есікке келгенін білгенше көшемен төмен қарай жүреді. Ол кіреді.
Баспалдақтар
Камера вестибюльге қарай соғады. Көрермен тікелей О-ның артында. Сабақ сол жақтан басталады, бірақ О оңға бұрылады да, тоқтап, өзін-өзі ұстап алады. Ол оның пульсін өлшеді, ал Е кіріп кіреді. Ол Е-нің бар екенін білгенде, бірнеше баспалдақпен төмен қарай жүгіріп, камера біршама артқа шегінгенше қабырғаға жақын тұрып, тығылып тұрады. Ол сонда, ол көше деңгейіне кері бұрылады, содан кейін баспалдақпен көтеріледі. Қамыршаң қарт әйел төмен түсіп жатыр. Камера бізге қысқаша тұйық түсірілім жасайды. "Ол мойнына таспен байланған гүлдер салатын табаны алып жүреді. Ол жайлап, аяғы қалшылдап төмен түседі". О артқа шегініп, баспалдақтарды оңға қарай жылдам төмендетеді, онда ол баспалдаққа отырады және бетін бастрға қысады. Ол қыздың қайда екенін көру үшін қысқаша қарап, содан кейін басын көзден жасырады. Әйел баспалдақтың төменгі жағына жеткенде, терезенің ішіне қарайды. Ол сыртта тұрған еркек пен әйелдің бет-әлпетіне қарап, қатты қорқып кетті. Ол көзін жұмып, құлап қалады. Е-нің жігіттің қайда болғанын тексеріп, О-ның қашып кеткенін біледі. Оның шапанның құйрықтары баспалдақпен ұшып бара жатқан көрінеді. Е оны қуып жетіп, бірінші рейстің жоғарғы жағында табады. Ол айналасына қарап, ешкім жоқ па деп ойлайды. Ол қомақты ақшаға үйіне кіргізіп, үйіне кіргізеді. Е есікке кіргенде Е есікке кірмейді, О есікті құлыптап, оның пульсін тағы да өлшетеді.
Бөлме
Біз "кішкентай, көбінесе жиһазсыз бөлмеде" тұрмыз. Адам және оның артынан ілескен камера бөлмедегі заттарға көз жүгіртеді: ит пен мысық бір себетті бөліседі, клеткадағы тоқылған құс пен алтын балық кішкентай үстелдің үстіндегі аквариумында отыр. Қабырғалар бос, тек айна мен қабырғаға қадалған жақтаусыз суреттен басқа: үлкен көздері бар шумерлік Tell Asmar мүсіні (сценарийде "Ата Құдайдың жүзі" деп сипатталған). Сондай-ақ, жастығы бар диван, оның үстінде көрпелер мен кілемше, "ерекше ойылған бас тірегі" бар шайғақ және екі жағына бүкіл ұзындығындағы торлы перделер ілінген, жыртылған ролик жалюзиі бар терезе де бар.
Бөлмені дайындау
Жүйелі түрде О бөлмедегі әрбір затты немесе тіршілік иесін алып, оны "көру" қабілетін жояды: ол жалюзиді жауып, тор перделерді тартады, айнаны кілеммен жабады, мысық пен ит ("ұялшақ және ынтымақтастыққа келмейтін, кішкентай Чихуахуа") біршама қиындықпен бөлмеден шығарылады, ал сурет жыртылады. Бұл қарапайым сипатталғанымен, осы тапсырмаларды орындауға қажетті амалдар қиынға соғады (мысалы, ол терезеден өте жатқанда, айнаны жабу үшін алдымен ұстаған жамылғысының артына тығылады, ал мысық пен итті есіктен шығаруға тырысқанда, оларды өзінен қашық ұстайды). Бұлардың бәрін жасағаннан кейін ол креслоға отырады. Бас сүйегінде көзге ұқсайтын екі тесік бар. Ол оларға назар бермей отырады. О папканы портфелінен алып, ашуға кіріседі, бірақ онда "жақсы пропорцияланған екі ойық" бар; ол папканы 90 градусқа бұрады, бірақ папағайдың көзі оны алаңдатады, сондықтан ол орнынан тұрып, клетканы пальтосымен жабуға мәжбүр болады. О қайта отырады, папкасымен осы амалды қайталап, содан кейін тұрып, алтын балықтың аквариумын да жабуға тура келеді. "Беккет бастапқыда фильмді кешке түсіруді жоспарлаған, бірақ практикалық себептерге байланысты одан бас тартты: "Бөлмедегі жарықты өшіруге мүмкіндік бермеу үшін"".
Салыстырмалы инвестициялар
(Бұл жерде "инвестицияның" мүмкін анықтамасын талқылау үшін Ричард Кейвтің фильмнің 1979 жылғы нұсқасына берген шолуының алғашқы екі абзацтарын қараңыз). О ұйықтап бара жатқанда, Е оның сол жағына қарай жылжи бастайды. Кенеттен О өзін қарап тұрғанын сезінеді де, басын күшпен оңға бұрады. Е қайтадан оның артына шығады. О қайтадан тербеліп, ұйықтап қалады. Бұл жолы Е оңға бұрылып, терезеден, айнадан, құс клеткасы мен аквариумнан өтеді де, соңында сурет ілінген қабырғадағы орынның алдында тоқтайды. Е айналып тұрады, және біз алғаш рет О-ны, тербеліс креслосында ұйықтап жатқанда көреміз. Кенеттен ол оянып, тікелей камераға қарайды. Ол жетінші суреттегі адамға өте ұқсайды, бірақ әлдеқайда егде. Оның көзіне лақты бар. О креслодан тұруға әрекеттеніп, кейін қатып қалады. Бірте-бірте, біз бұрын жұбайлар мен қарт әйелдің бетінде көрген үрейлі көрініс оның бетіне шыға бастайды. О өзіне қарайды, бірақ біз көріп отырған, киімсіз, тозған адам емес. Оның алдында тұрған адамның басының жанында үлкен шеге бар, және оның бетінде "күшті ықылас" көрінеді. О қайтадан креслоға құлап, тербеліп бастайды. О көзін жұмып, көрініс жоғалады. О қысқаша қолымен бетін жауып, қайта қарайды. Бұл жолы біз Е-нің бетін жақыннан көреміз, тек көздерін ғана. О қайтадан көзін жауып, басын иеді. Тербеліс баяулап, содан кейін тоқтап қалады. Экран қараңғыланады. Содан кейін біз ашық көздің бастапқы кадрын көреміз, ол мұздай тоңған, ал титрлер оның үстінен шығады. Аяқталғаннан кейін, көз жабылады және фильм аяқталады.
Интерпретация
"Ирландияның ең ұлы фильмі". – Жиль Делёз
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."
"Ескі әңгімелердің жиынтығы". – Дилис Пауэлл (The Sunday Times)
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."
Бұл туындыны кино және театр ғалымдары зерттейді, сондай-ақ сынға да ұшыратады. Кино ғалымдары фильмді түсірілу барысында, ал театр ғалымдары сценарийді жазылған күйінде зерттейді. Сыни пікірлер қарама-қайшы, бірақ кино ғалымдары бұл туындыны театр немесе Беккет ғалымдарынан жоғары бағалайды. Жоғарыда айтылған пікірлер – екі шеткі полюс. "Орташа" пікір, мүмкін, "шынайы жазушының өзіне жат ортаға, жетістікке жеткізе алмаған дарыны мен түсінігі жоқ күйде тырысуының нашар әрекеті" болар еді. Бекеттің өзі бұл фильмнің "қызықты сәтсіздік" екенін айтқан.
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."
Фильм соқыр көздің жақын кадрымен басталып, аяқталады. Бұл сөзсіз, "Андалуздық иттің" атышулы сахнасында пышақпен кесілген адам көзін еске түсіреді. Шындығында, "Көз" – фильмнің бастапқы атауы болған, бірақ сол кезде ол ашылу кадрының қажеттілігін ойламаған. Француз әдебиетін оқыған Бекет Виктор Гюгоның "Консиенс" поэмасын білген. Француз тіліндегі "conscience" сөзі ағылшын тіліндегі "conscience" (ар-ождан) немесе "consciousness" (сана) мағынасын білдіреді, және екі мағынасы да маңызды. Гюгоның поэмасы аспаннан үнемі оны бақылап тұратын көзден қиналып жүрген адам туралы. Ол одан қашып, тіпті қабірге дейін, онда көз оны күтіп отырады. Бұл адам – Қабыл. О өзінің, бауырын өлтірген адамның санасынан қашып құтылуға тырысады, бірақ ар-ожданы оған тыныштық бермейді. Көз / Мен әрқашан бар, және одан әрі қашу мүмкін болмағанда, қабірде бетке қарай қарау керек. Фильм 18 ғасырғы идеалист ирланд философы Берклиден шабыт алған. Туындының басында Беккет атақты цитатаны қолданады: "esse est percipi" (болу – қабылдану). Бірақ Беккет Берклидің толық тұжырымының бір бөлігін қалдырған: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (болу – қабылдану немесе қабылдау). "Фильм" киностудиясының директоры Алан Шнайдерден бірде "көшедегі адам" түсінетіндей түсіндірме беруін сұрағанда: "Бұл көруші көз туралы, көрінуші және көруші туралы фильм – бір адамның екі жағы. Көруші көруді қатты қалайды, ал көрінуші жасыруға тырысады. Соңында біреу жеңіп шығады". Бруклин көпірінің жанындағы түсірілім алаңында Китон журналиске осыған ұқсас бірдеңе айтып, тақырыпты "адам барлық адамдардан алыстауы мүмкін, бірақ өзінен алыстай алмайды" деп түйіндеді. Бекеттің бастапқы сценарийіндегі екі басты кейіпкер, камера және оның артынан қуатын адам E (Көз) және O (Объект) деп аталады. Бұл қарапайым бөлу Көзді тек қуатын адамға ғана қызығушылық танытады деп ойлауға әкелуі мүмкін. Бұл рас болуы мүмкін, бірақ ол онымен байланысқа түскен кез келген адамға бірдей әсер ете алмайды. E – O-ның бір бөлігі, бірақ O-ның бөлігі емес; E – камера, және камера арқылы көрерменнің көзі. Бірақ E – бұл өзіндік, тек O-ның ғана емес, кез келген адамның өзіндік, әсіресе басқа кейіпкерлердің – қарт жұптың және гүл сатушының, олардың қарауына қорқынышпен жауап беретін өзіндік. E – O-ның соқыр көзі. "Ол байланысқа түскендердің бәрін өзіндік сезінуге мәжбүр ету функциясын атқарады".
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."
O басқалардың көруін болдырмау үшін физикалық тұрғыдан барлық мүмкіндікті пайдаланады, бірақ "барлығын көретін құдайдың" қабылдауын болдырмау үшін жасай алатыны – суретін жыртып тастау, бұл символдық әрекет, "Егер мен сіздің бар екендігіңізге сенбесем, сіз мені көре алмайсыз" деуге тең. Оның шын мәнінде кім екенін көруге ешкім жоқ, сондықтан осы құдайсыз әлемде E, O-ның өзіндік қабылдауын білдіретін, қабырғадан жыртылған суреттің орнында тұруы тиіс. O өзінің өткенінің суреттерін, кім болғаны туралы "естеліктерін" де жояды. Енді O-ға тек өзінен қашып құтылу ғана қалды, ол E-нің қатаң қарауынан оянып, ұйықтап қалу арқылы жүзеге асады. Бекеттің бөлмесі, көптеген бөлмелері сияқты, нақты мағынадан гөрі бейнелі, "ойдың бөлмелері", бір актер айтқандай. Егер Бекет Шекспир болса, ол: "Көрілу немесе көрінбеу, сұрақ осы" деп жазған болар еді. Бұл Бекет кейіпкерлерінің көпшілігін алаңдататын мәселе. "Годоны күту" романының бірінші актісінің соңында бала Годоға не айту керектігін білгісі келгенде, Владимир оған: "Оған (күдіктенген күйде) айт, сен бізді көрдің деп айт. (Тұрақ) Бізді көрдің ғой, солай ма?" дейді. Ал жалғыз қалғанда не болады? "Аты жоқ" романының баяндаушысы: "Олар бірінен соң бірі кетіп, дауыстар жалғасады, бұл олардың емес, олар ешқашан болған емес, сізден басқа ешкім болған емес, сіз туралы сөйлесіп жатырсыз" деп жауап береді. Роккабидегі қарт әйел O-ның дәл қарама-қарсысы болып көрінеді, бірақ ол белсенді түрде біреудің көзіне түсуге тырысса да, O-ның көрінуін болдырмау үшін бәрін жасаса да, екі кейіпкердің де жалғыз болғаны ironical. Бекеттің сценарийі әртүрлі жолдармен түсіндірілген. Р. С. Ламонт "Фильм өлімге баулу, өмірден өзін-өзі айыру процесі туралы" дейді. "Тибет кітабы сияқты, ол өзіндік ерекшеліктің біртіндеп жойылуын үйретеді. Терезелер мен айналарды жабу, құс клеткасын жабу – жарықтың, көріністің және жарықтың жойылуы – соңғы ұсынуға дейінгі ритуалдық қадамдар, соңына жететін уақыт". Фильмнің соңында O өзінің орындығында отырып, қолын бетіне жасырады; Роккабидің соңында қарт әйелдің басы иіліп, соңында өлгендей болады. Фильмнің соңғы көрінісі "Ол уақытта" кітапханасындағы қарт адамның картинадағы өз көрінісін көруіне де ұқсас. O мен E-ні Бекеттің доктор Джекил мен мистер Хайд сияқты қарастыруға болар еді – шындығында, алғашқы нұсқасының нотаттарында Бекет "E-ні биік, ал O-ны қысқа (және) семіз ету" туралы ойланған, бұл Джекил мен Хайдтың дене бітіміне сәйкес келеді, бірақ Фильм жақсылық пен жамандық туралы емес, екінші өзің туралы, қуатын және қуылған туралы.
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."
Линда Бен Зви үшін "Бекет модернистік техника мен өнерді көшіру туралы сынды және алаңдаушылықты ғана емес, сонымен қатар техника мен көруді көшіру туралы сынына 'ешқандай шындық мәнін' бермейді. Оның орнына, ол аудиториясының сынсыз қабылдауын оятып, жандандыратын диалог жасайды". Туындының формасымен қатар, форманың өзіне де сын айтылады. "Ойын" және "Ән" атты пьеса мен әнді жазғаннан кейін, Бекеттің киноға жасаған алғашқы қадамы "Фильм" деп аталуы таңқаларлық емес. Атауы Бен Звидің түсіндірмесін қолдайды, өйткені бұл кинематографиялық технология туралы фильм: "Фильмдегі" кинокамера мен фотосуреттерді қалай пайдалану фильмді түсінудің кілті. "Жоғарыда айтылғанға шындық мәні жоқ, оны құрылымдық және драмалық ыңғайлылық ретінде қарастырылады" деп жазғанда, Бекет Берклидің максимінен баса назарды аударып, туындының драмалық құрылымын көрсетеді. Көрермендер туындыны эмоционалды немесе философиялық емес, құрылымдық және драмалық тұрғысынан қарастыруы керек. Фильм сыншысы және кино тарихшысы Эндрю Саррис өзінің "Америка киносы: режиссерлер мен бағыттар, 1929-1968" кітабында "Фильмді" қысқаша айтады. Саррис "Фильмді" Бастер Китонның кино мансабына арналған бөлімінде талқылайды, "Samuel Beckett актердің уақытынан бұрынғы абсурдтығын "Фильм" деп аталатын көңілсіз тәжірибеге салған, кино тарихындағы ең мақтанды атау" деп жазады.
A "load of old bosh." – Dilys Powell (The Sunday Times)
The work is studied by and has been the subject of criticism from both film and theatre scholars, with the former tending to study the film as shot, the latter tending to study the script as written. Critical opinion is mixed, but it is generally held in higher regard by film scholars than it is by theatre or Beckett scholars. The views above represent extremes. A 'middle ground' review would probably be "a poor attempt by a genuine writer to move into a medium that he simply hadn't the flair or understanding of to make a success". Beckett's own opinion was that it was an “interesting failure.”
The film opens and closes with close ups of a sightless eye. This inevitably evokes the notorious opening sequence of Un Chien Andalou in which a human eye is sliced open with a razor blade. In fact, The Eye was an early title for Film, though admittedly, at that time, he had not thought of the need for the opening close up. As a student of French literature, Beckett would have been familiar with Victor Hugo’s poem La Conscience. ‘Conscience’ in French can mean either ‘conscience’ in the English sense or ‘consciousness’ and the double meaning is important. Hugo's poem concerns a man haunted by an eye that stares at him unceasingly from the sky. He runs away from it, ever further, even to the grave, where, in the tomb, the eye awaits him. The man is Cain. He has been trying to escape consciousness of himself, the self that killed his brother, but his conscience will not let him rest. The eye/I is always present and, when he can run no further, must be faced in the tomb. Film takes its inspiration from the 18th century Idealist Irish philosopher Berkeley. At the beginning of the work, Beckett uses the famous quotation: "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). Notably, Beckett leaves off a portion of Berkeley's edict, which reads in full: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (to be is to be perceived or to perceive). Alan Schneider, the director of Film, was once asked if he could provide an explanation that ‘the man in the street’ could understand:
"It's a movie about the perceiving eye, about the perceived and the perceiver – two aspects of the same man. The perceiver desires like mad to perceive and the perceived tries desperately to hide. Then, in the end, one wins." In between takes on the set near the Brooklyn Bridge, Keaton told a reporter something similar, summarizing the theme as "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." In Beckett's original script, the two main characters, the camera and the man it is pursuing are referred to as E (the Eye) and O (the Object). This simplistic division might lead one to assume that the Eye is only interested in the man it is pursuing. This may be true, but it does not mean it will not have the same effect on anyone who comes in contact with it. “E is both part of O and not part of O; E is also the camera and, through the camera, the eye of the spectator as well. But E is also self, not merely O's self but the self of any person or people, specifically that of the other characters — the elderly couple and the flower lady — who respond to its stare with that look of horror.” E is, so to speak, O's blind eye. "He has the function of making all with whom he comes into contact self aware.”
O does everything physically possible to avoid being seen by others, but the only thing he can do to avoid perception by an “all seeing god” is to tear up his picture, a symbolic act, as if saying, “If I don't believe you exist you can't see me.” There is no one there to see him for what he really is other than himself and so, in this godless world, it is only fitting that E, representing O's self perception, would appear standing where the picture has been torn from the wall. O also destroys the photographs of his past, his 'memories' of who he was. Now all that remains for O is to escape from himself which he achieves by falling asleep until woken by E's intense gaze. The room is more figurative than literal, like many of Beckett's rooms, “as much psychological as physical, 'rooms of the mind', as one actor called them.”
If Beckett were Shakespeare he might well have written: "To be seen or not to be seen, that is the question." It is an issue that concerns many of Beckett's characters. At the end of the first act of Waiting for Godot, when the boy wants to know what to tell Mr Godot, Vladimir tells him: “Tell him (he hesitates) tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?” But what happens when you are alone? The narrator of The Unnamable answers: “They depart, one by one, and the voices go on, it’s not theirs, they were never there, there was never anyone but you, talking to you about you ” The old woman in Rockaby appears to be the exact opposite of O but although she actively seeks to be seen by someone while O does everything to avoid perceivedness, the irony is that both characters are alone with only themselves for company. Beckett's script has been interpreted in various ways. R. C. Lamont writes that "Film deals with the apprenticeship to death, the process of detaching oneself from life. Like the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it teaches the gradual dissolution of self. The veiling of the windows and mirrors, the covering of the birdcage – the extinction of light, reflection and light – are so many ritualistic steps to be taken before final immobility, the resignation of the end.” At the end of Film, O is seated in his rocker with his face buried in his hands; at the end of Rockaby, the old woman's head inclines forward as if, finally, she had died. The final scene in Film is also comparable to the moment in the library when the old man in That Time sees his own reflection in the glass covering a painting. It could be tempting to think of O and E as a Beckettian Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – indeed in notes for the first draft Beckett did toy “with the idea of making ‘E tall’ and ‘O short (and) fat’ which corresponds with the dual physique of Jekyll and Hyde” – but Film is not concerned with representations of good and evil, only with the concept of the second self, of pursuer and pursued.”
For Linda Ben Zvi, “Beckett does not merely reproduce the modernist critique of and anxiety over technology and the reproduction of art; he attaches 'no truth value' to his critique of technology and the reproduction of the gaze. Instead, he creates a dialogue that awakens and revitalises the uncritical perception of his audience The work not only is predicated on the form but invariably becomes a critique of its form." Having written a play titled Play and a song called Song, it comes as no surprise that Beckett would entitle his first foray into cinema as Film. The title supports Ben Zvi's interpretation in that it is a film about cinematic technology: how the movie camera and photographic images are used in Film are essential to understanding it. When he writes, “No truth value attaches to above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience”, Beckett takes the emphasis away from Berkeley's maxim thus stressing the dramatic structure of the work. The viewers are being asked to consider the work structurally and dramatically rather than emotionally or philosophically. Film critic and film historian Andrew Sarris briefly mentions Film in his book, The American cinema: directors and directions, 1929 1968. Sarris discusses Film in the context of his section on the film career of Buster Keaton, writing that: "Even Samuel Beckett contributed to the desecration of the Keaton mask by involving the actor of absurdity before its time in a dreary exercise called Film, the most pretentious title in all cinema."