Audience Member
The last consideration we can make about "Waiting for Godot" is to be an adaptation of Samuel Beckett's play, perhaps for issues involving copyright or respect and admiration either by the author or the text, Michael Lindsay-Hogg, director of the film Made in 2001, ends up presenting a production that is largely the same, a piece that was filmed with rare oscillations and space opportunities for a possible draft audiovisual exercise. In short, it is not an adaptation as it seeks to be more and respect a theatrical record.
Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), "Waiting for Godot" (1948-1949), was the first play written by the director, playwright and theater scientist, has features of Beckett's distinctive style, as well as marks Theater of the Absurd developed by the author, as well as the question of existentialism and its view of human life without meaning or purpose, easily identifiable mark in Waiting for Godot, where two lords, Vladimir and Estragon, await the arrival of someone every day Who never comes and who goes by the name of Godot.
In the 2001 film by US director Michael Lindsay-Hogg, nothing in the original text is abandoned, unlike anything else such as the indications, marks, lines, rubrics in brief, the entire text structure of the piece is presented In the film, we even have the division of the film into two acts, equally the division of the piece, but, this is not the point, which reduces the potentialities of the film. Although the director has gone through copyright to Beckett's piece, which has a rigid and accurate manual of how it can and should be assembled, where, for example, all the author's indications can not be modified, the piece is practically Followed by an instruction manual that does not allow any changes. Still with this possible prerogative, we can not consider as a limitation, as the film often presents itself, since the cinematographic tool has its own expressiveness and that if incorporated into this history, would have great potential.
In large part we have a film where the camera does not assume the posture of an audience, but also, little is assumed as a mark of a direction, it is limited to register dialogues and carry out plans and against plans, in the sequence and mediated dialogues and against Di-analogs. Few times we have the use of other plans or camera movement that allows a cinematographic grammar, and when they arise cause great enthusiasm, as in the "traveling" I went through the void of a beautiful work of theatrical stage, but very well done and that Presents a deserted road that can not be described because it does not resemble anything at all, and where there is a skeleton of a solitary tree, without leaves, but in the passage from what would be overnight, or who knows of many days , Is made to flower with some leaves. Besides this "traveling" punctual, we have two or three movements of "plongée", in the others we have a cadence of general, medium and closed plans. I do not mean by this that the director is limited or that the little exploration of a grammar does not make it a filmic possibility, what I mean is that by clinging to theatrical marks, a unique setting, inexpressiveness of movements and the persistence of Text, we have a slow and tedious material that if we want to be theater or theater record before the possibility of being cinema, which is pitiful when we combine the text of Beckett, the possibilities of surrealist art, of absurdity and the vast experience of Hogg In the production of music videos, where he directed clips of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and then migrating to TV, theater and cinema.
With the limitations of one direction resulting in an unimpressive film and resulting in the disfigurement of Beckett's proposals, and not generating the reflexive and provocative pungencies originating from the text, the few positive ties to the film are a precise work of art and enlightenment, very faithful to the History and the construction of its narrative and also of a beautiful work of the actors, who, by the way, take to themselves (completely) the film.
Barry McGoverr (as Vladimir) and Johnny Murphy (as Estragon) perform a work of extreme duplicity, which promotes unique moments, as in the game very close to the clown field, with a stylized floor and especially in the scene of a hat that goes From a slow-moving hand to the rapidity of the gesture. Barry enjoyed a major international success with Beckett's award-winning "I'll Go On," which Gate Theater presented at the Dublin Theater Festival in 1985. Already the game written by Alan Stanford (as Pozzo) and Stephen Brennan Like Lucky) are equally duplicitous and provocative moments that range from pure laughter to the revolting place between the exploited and explorer, in a game very close to the circus and commedia dell'arte style. At last we have Sam McGovern, who emerges as Godot's boy of errands, the boy who ends his acts in the promise of a delayed but hopeful arrival, moreover, this boy is full of meanings, languages, and metaphors.
I believe that all experience is valid and it is up to each person to draw on personal experience of their own, because in this way, it is possible to arise and visualize points that touch him, which are more important and urgent to him, but in my experience, Relevant to Hogg's achievement. I invite others to go further in the experience of reading the book or watching Beckett's play because the film can frustrate and even generate false understandings for those who seek a first contact with Beckett's theater, and if it is desired to accompany The film, that does not do it exclusively, but if it looks for the other and original ways for the theatrical work that in no way manages to assimilate with this work realized in the cinema.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/28/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Don't expect to spend the whole time on the edge of your seat. But expect to be provoked. The film is surreal. The actors are on point. The simplicity of the film's cinematic aspects harmonizes with the complexity and mystery of the literary aspects. This film may bore some viewers, but the active and thoughtful viewer will be challenged and interested.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
01/23/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Probably one of the worst plays every to be written and made famous. It is not only about nothing it contains absolutely zero substance. Like Stockholm Syndrome, you almost convince yourself at the end that their may be something good to it, but given space you realize...someone just handed you a pile of shit that everyone else thinks is gold.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
01/28/23
Full Review
Audience Member
i was tired of their conversation...ahhhhhhhhhh
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
01/19/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Wonderfully directed and acted. The story plays like an infinity symbol. Where does it start, end, or does it ever? The dialogue plays on a lot of philosophical dilemmas/ideals.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
01/20/23
Full Review
Audience Member
All of the possible interpretations are fun. But the reason this movie is worth watching is because of man's search for meaning. In this, their only true meaning is waiting for Godot, and they fill the rest of their lives with whatever will pass the time. An insightful commentary into the human condition.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
01/18/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
