Введение
Фильм 1965 года, США, написанный Сэмюэлем Беккетом. «Фильм» – короткометражный фильм 1965 года, написанный Сэмюэлем Беккетом, его единственный сценарий. Заказчиком выступил Барни Россет из издательства Grove Press. Работа над сценарием началась 5 апреля 1963 года, первый черновик был завершен за четыре дня. Второй черновик был готов к 22 мая, после чего последовал 40-страничный съемочный сценарий. Съемки проходили в Нью-Йорке в июле 1964 года. Беккет и Алан Шнайдер первоначально хотели видеть в фильме Чарли Чаплина, Зеро Мостеля и Джека МакГорана, однако им не удалось привлечь их к участию. Тогда Беккет предложил Бастера Китона. Джеймс Карен, которому отводилась небольшая роль в фильме, также поддерживал кандидатуру Китона. Экранизированная версия отличается от первоначального сценария Беккета, но была одобрена им, поскольку он постоянно присутствовал на съемочной площадке. Этот визит стал единственным для Беккета в Соединенные Штаты, как указано в сценарии, опубликованном в сборнике «Сборник коротких пьес Сэмюэля Беккета» (Faber and Faber, 1984). Британский киноинститут осуществил новую версию фильма в 1979 году (16 мм, 26 минут) без участия Беккета, под названием «Фильм: сценарий Сэмюэля Беккета». Режиссером выступил Дэвид Рейнер Кларк, в главной роли – Макс Уолл. Впервые был опубликован в сборнике «Эх, Джо и другие произведения» (Faber and Faber, 1967).
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).
Синопсис
На протяжении первых двух частей почти всё показано глазами камеры (обозначенной в сценарии как E), хотя изредка мы видим и восприятие О. В третьей части значительно больше внимания уделяется восприятию О комнаты и находящихся в ней предметов. Чтобы разграничить эти два типа восприятия, объекты, увиденные О, снимались через рассеивающую линзу, создавая эффект размытости, в то время как изображение, соответствующее восприятию Е, снималось без линзы или фильтров, оставаясь чётким.
На улице
На экране появляется рябящее изображение, заполняющее весь экран. Без цвета сложно разобрать, что показано, но оно живое. В движении становится видно, что это крупный план века; оно заполняет весь экран. Глаз медленно открывается, закрывается, снова открывается, моргает, а затем переходит в другое рябящее изображение, все еще в некоторой степени органичное, но изменившееся, неподвижное. Когда камера начинает плавно перемещаться вправо и вверх, можно различить стену; мы находимся снаружи здания (старой фабрики в Нижнем Манхэттене). На улице лето, хотя это и трудно определить. Движение камеры неровное, словно она что-то ищет. В конце концов, она теряет интерес и перемещается влево и вниз, обратно к стене. Внезапно камера (E) резко дергается влево. Мужчина (O) спешит вдоль стены слева направо. Он останавливается, прижимаясь к стене, и у E появляется возможность сфокусироваться на нем. На нем длинное темное пальто с поднятым воротником и шляпой, надвинутой на лицо. (Китон спросил Беккета, что O носит под пальто. "Я об этом не думал", – признался автор, а затем предложил: "то же самое пальто", что понравилось обоим.) Но женщина одергивает его, произнося единственный звук во всей пьесе. Вместе они поворачиваются и смотрят прямо на E, и их лица искажает выражение открытого рта; они не могут выносить увиденного и отворачиваются. Действие переключается обратно на O, как раз в тот момент, когда он доходит до угла и поворачивает. Он идет по улице, пока не понимает, что находится у нужной двери. Он входит.
Лестницы
Камера переключается на вестибюль. Зритель находится прямо за О. Лестница ведет вверх слева, но О поворачивает направо и останавливается, чтобы прийти в себя. Он проверяет пульс, и Э входит. Как только он замечает присутствие Э, он бросается вниз по нескольким ступеням и прячется у стены, пока камера немного не отъедет. Когда это происходит, он возвращается на уровень улицы, а затем начинает подниматься по лестнице. Спускается хрупкая старушка. Камера показывает ее короткий крупный план. "Она несет поднос с цветами, подвешенный на ремне к шее. Она спускается медленно и неуверенно." О отступает и торопливо спускается по ступеням вправо, где садится на ступеньку и прижимает лицо к перилам. Он мельком поднимает взгляд, чтобы посмотреть, где она, а затем прячет голову. Когда женщина доходит до нижней ступени, она смотрит прямо в объектив. Выражение ее лица меняется на ужас, который был на лицах мужчины и женщины снаружи. Она закрывает глаза и обрушивается вниз. Э проверяет, где был О, но тот успел скрыться. Видны полы его пальто, взлетающие вверх по лестнице. Э преследует его и находит на верхней площадке первого пролета. Он оглядывается, нет ли поблизости кого-нибудь. Убедившись, что никого нет, он поворачивает налево и, не без труда, открывает дверь в комнату и входит. Э проскальзывает внутрь незамеченным, как О запирает дверь за собой и снова проверяет пульс.
Комната
Мы оказываемся в "небольшой, почти пустой комнате". Мужчина – и камера, следующая за ним сзади – осматривают ее содержимое: собака и кошка делят корзину, в клетке попугай, а на небольшом столе – золотая рыбка в аквариуме. Стены голые, за исключением зеркала и не вставленной в раму картины, приколотой к стене: шумерская статуэтка из Тель-Асмара с большими глазами (в сценарии описана как "лицо Бога Отца"). Также в комнате есть диван с подушкой, одеялами и ковром, кресло-качалка с "причудливо резной спинкой" и окно с порванными рулонными жалюзи, по бокам от которого висят длинные тюлевые занавески.
Подготовка помещения
Систематически О берет каждый предмет или существо в комнате и лишает его способности "видеть" его: он закрывает жалюзи и задергивает тюль, накрывает зеркало ковром, кошку и собаку (робкую и несговорчивую, маленькую чихуахуа) – с немалыми усилиями – выдворяет из комнаты, а картину рвет. Несмотря на кажущуюся простоту, механика, необходимая для выполнения этих действий, утомительна (например, проходя мимо окна, он прячется за одеяло, которым прикрывает зеркало, а кошку и собаку несет от себя, пытаясь выставить их за дверь). После всего этого он садится в кресло. В подголовнике два отверстия, напоминающие глаза. Он игнорирует их и садится. О берет папку из портфеля и собирается ее открыть, но видит "два аккуратных отверстия"; он поворачивает папку на 90°, но его беспокоит глаз попугая, и ему приходится встать и накрыть клетку пальто. Он снова садится, повторяет то же самое с папкой, а затем встает и накрывает аквариум с золотой рыбкой. "Беккет сначала думал снимать фильм вечером, но отказался от этой идеи по практическим соображениям: 'чтобы исключить возможность выключения света в комнате'".
Инвестиции собственно
(См. первые два абзаца обзора фильма Ричарда Кейва 1979 года для обсуждения возможного определения понятия "инвестиция" в данном контексте). Когда О начинает дремать, Е начинает перемещаться к его левой стороне. Внезапно О осознает, что за ним наблюдают, и резко поворачивает голову вправо. Е снова оказывается позади него. Он продолжает раскачиваться и засыпает. На этот раз Е стремительно разворачивается вправо, проходя мимо окна, зеркала, клетки с птицей и аквариума, и, наконец, останавливается перед местом на стене, где висела картина. Е поворачивается, и впервые мы видим О, спящего в кресле-качалке. Внезапно он просыпается и смотрит прямо в объектив камеры. Он очень похож на человека на седьмой фотографии, только гораздо старше. Повязка на глазу все еще на месте. Он приподнимается с кресла, но тут же застывает. Постепенно на его лице появляется тот же ужас, который мы видели раньше на лицах пары и старой женщины. Он смотрит на себя, но не на того небрежного, измученного человека, за которым мы наблюдали. Человек перед ним, стоящий с большим гвоздем у головы, выражает "острую сосредоточенность" на лице. О оседает обратно в кресло и начинает раскачиваться. Он закрывает глаз, и выражение лица исчезает. Он на мгновение закрывает лицо руками, а затем снова смотрит. На этот раз мы видим лицо Е крупным планом, только глаза. О снова закрывает глаза, опускает голову. Раскачивание стихает и останавливается. Экран гаснет. Затем мы видим начальный кадр с глазом, который застыл, и поверх него появляются титры. Когда титры заканчиваются, глаз закрывается, и фильм завершается.
Интерпретация
"Величайший ирландский фильм". – 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."
"Полная чушь". – 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."
Работа изучается и была предметом критики как киноведов, так и театроведов, причём первые склонны изучать фильм с точки зрения съёмки, а вторые – сценария. Критические мнения расходятся, но в целом киноведы относятся к нему с большим уважением, чем театроведы или исследователи творчества Беккета. Приведённые выше точки зрения – крайности. Обзор, занимающий "среднюю позицию", вероятно, звучал бы так: "неудачная попытка настоящего писателя перейти в среду, в которой ему просто не хватило таланта или понимания, чтобы добиться успеха". По мнению самого Беккета, это был "интересный провал".
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 начинается и заканчивается крупными планами безглазого глаза. Это неизбежно вызывает ассоциации с печально известной начальной сценой фильма "Андалузский пёс", где человеческий глаз разрезают бритвой. На самом деле, "Око" было одним из ранних названий фильма, хотя, признаться, в то время он не думал о необходимости открывающего крупного плана. Будучи студентом французской литературы, Беккет был знаком с поэмой Виктора Гюго "Совесть". Слово "сознание" во французском языке может означать как "совесть" в английском понимании, так и "сознание", и это двойное значение важно. Поэма Гюго посвящена человеку, преследуемому глазом, который неустанно смотрит на него с неба. Он убегает от него, всё дальше и дальше, даже в могилу, где, в гробнице, его ждёт глаз. Это Каин. Он пытается избежать осознания себя, того, кто убил своего брата, но совесть не даёт ему покоя. Глаз/Я всегда присутствует, и когда он больше не может бежать, он должен встретиться с ним в гробнице. Фильм вдохновлён ирландским философом-идеалистом Беркли XVIII века. В начале произведения Беккет использует знаменитую цитату: "esse est percipi" (быть – значит быть воспринимаемым). Примечательно, что Беккет опускает часть изречения Беркли, которое звучит в полном объёме так: “esse est percipi aut percipere” (быть – значит быть воспринимаемым или воспринимать). Алана Шнайдера, режиссёра фильма, однажды спросили, может ли он дать объяснение, которое было бы понятно "обычному человеку": "Это фильм о воспринимающем глазе, о воспринимаемом и воспринимающем – двух аспектах одного и того же человека. Воспринимающий безумно жаждет воспринимать, а воспринимаемый отчаянно пытается скрыться. И в конце концов, побеждает один". В перерывах между съёмками возле Бруклинского моста Китон сказал репортёру нечто похожее, обобщив тему как "человек может держаться подальше от всех, но не может убежать от себя". В оригинальном сценарии Беккета два главных героя, камера и человек, за которым она гонится, называются E (Око) и O (Объект). Это упрощённое разделение может навести на мысль, что Глаз интересуется только человеком, за которым он преследуется. Это может быть правдой, но это не означает, что оно не окажет такого же эффекта на любого, кто с ним соприкоснется. E является частью O и не является частью O; E также является камерой и, через камеру, глазом зрителя. Но E – это также Я, не только Я O, но и Я любого человека, в частности, других персонажей – пожилой пары и продавщицы цветов, которые реагируют на его взгляд с ужасом. E, так сказать, слепой глаз O. "Его функция – сделать всех, с кем он вступает в контакт, осознающими себя".
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 делает всё возможное, чтобы избежать того, чтобы его видели другие, но единственное, что он может сделать, чтобы избежать восприятия "всевидящим богом", – это разорвать свою фотографию, символический акт, как будто говоря: "Если я не верю, что ты существуешь, ты не можешь меня видеть". Больше нет никого, кто мог бы увидеть его таким, какой он есть на самом деле, кроме него самого, и поэтому, в этом безбожном мире, вполне естественно, что E, представляющий самовосприятие O, появляется там, где фотография была сорвана со стены. O также уничтожает фотографии своего прошлого, свои "воспоминания" о том, кем он был. Теперь всё, что остаётся O, – это убежать от себя, чего он достигает, засыпая, пока не проснется от пристального взгляда E. Комната скорее символична, чем буквальна, как и многие комнаты Беккета, "столь же психологическая, сколь и физическая, 'комнаты ума', как их назвал один актёр".
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."
Если бы Беккет был Шекспиром, он, возможно, написал бы: "Быть увиденным или не быть увиденным, вот в чём вопрос". Это проблема, которая волнует многих персонажей Беккета. В конце первого акта "В ожидании Годо", когда мальчик хочет узнать, что сказать господину Годо, Владимир говорит ему: "Скажи ему (он колеблется) скажи ему, что ты нас видел. (Пауза) Ты ведь нас видел, не так ли?". Но что происходит, когда ты остаёшься один? Рассказчик "Неназываемого" отвечает: "Они уходят, один за другим, и голоса продолжают звучать, это не их голоса, их никогда не было, никогда не было никого, кроме тебя, говорящего с тобой о тебе". Старуха в "Колыбельной" кажется полной противоположностью O, но, хотя она активно стремится быть увиденной кем-то, в то время как O делает всё, чтобы избежать восприятия, ирония заключается в том, что оба персонажа одиноки и в компании только с собой. Сценарий Беккета был интерпретирован по-разному. Р. К. Ламонт пишет, что "Фильм рассказывает об ученичестве у смерти, о процессе отстранения от жизни. Подобно Тибетской книге мёртвых, он учит постепенному растворению Я. Занавешивание окон и зеркал, накрывание клетки с птицей – угасание света, отражения и света – это множество ритуальных шагов, которые необходимо предпринять перед окончательной неподвижностью, принятием конца". В конце фильма O сидит в своём кресле-качалке, лицом в руки; в конце "Колыбельной" голова старухи склоняется вперёд, как будто она, наконец, умерла. Последняя сцена в фильме также сопоставима с моментом в библиотеке, когда старик в "То время" видит своё отражение в стекле, покрывающем картину. Может возникнуть соблазн рассматривать O и E как беккетовского доктора Джекила и мистера Хайда – действительно, в заметках к первому варианту Беккет подумывал "о том, чтобы сделать 'E высоким', а 'O коротким (и) толстым', что соответствует двойственному телосложению Джекила и Хайда", – но "Фильм" не касается представлений о добре и зле, а лишь о концепции второго Я, преследователя и преследуемого".
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."
Для Линды Бен Зви "Беккет не просто воспроизводит модернистскую критику и тревогу по поводу технологий и воспроизведения искусства; он не приписывает 'истинное значение' своей критике технологий и воспроизведения взгляда. Вместо этого он создаёт диалог, который пробуждает и оживляет некритическое восприятие его аудитории. Произведение не только основано на форме, но и неизменно становится критикой этой формы". Написав пьесу под названием "Игра" и песню под названием "Песня", неудивительно, что Беккет назвал свою первую попытку в кинематографе "Фильм". Название поддерживает интерпретацию Бен Зви, поскольку это фильм о кинематографических технологиях: то, как кинокамера и фотографические изображения используются в "Фильме", имеет важное значение для его понимания. Когда он пишет: "К вышесказанному не придаётся истинного значения, рассматриваемого лишь как структурная и драматическая условность", Беккет смещает акцент с максимы Беркли, подчеркивая тем самым драматическую структуру произведения. Зрителям предлагается рассмотреть произведение структурно и драматически, а не эмоционально или философски. Кинокритик и кисторик Эндрю Саррис вкратце упоминает "Фильм" в своей книге "Американское кино: режиссёры и направления, 1929-1968". Саррис обсуждает "Фильм" в контексте раздела о карьере Бастера Китона, утверждая, что "даже Сэмюэл Беккет способствовал осквернению маски Китона, вовлекая актёра абсурда до своего времени в унылое упражнение под названием 'Фильм', самое претенциозное название во всём кинематографе".
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."