Audience Member
Folgorante parabole sulla morte e riflessione sull'occhio, più che sullo sguardo. Puro cinema e puro teatro: puro Beckett.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/07/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Well as Beckett put his thought on his movie: it was an "interesting failure."
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/30/23
Full Review
Audience Member
It was interesting, a nice idea, nicely played, but ultimately boring... and that's sad... Still, an old Buster Keaton gives a nice silent performance that might be worth seeing, it's really short anyway.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/18/23
Full Review
Audience Member
odd, bleak, yet fascinating and thought-provoking short film by Samuel Beckett featuring Buster Keaton - it lends itself well to initiating philosophical discourse on the nature of perception and perceptiveness, and the illusion of (personal) identity
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
02/08/23
Full Review
Audience Member
From wikipedia's entry on <i>Film</i>:
"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."
I'm kind of falling in between the film and theater scholars on this one.
On one hand, this short is beautifully well made. It opens with a shot which, upon first glance, looked to me like an endless ocean seen from above. Gradually, it becomes clear that it is in fact an extreme close-up of a person's eye.
The eye becomes the camera, looking casually about its surroundings until it focuses on a man rushing down the street, huddling as close to the wall as possible and hiding his face. Of course, the audience is aware that the man is Buster Keaton. The man (named 'O' in the script) rushes to his house, trying to avoid the all-seeing eye that is following him, scaring the people he passes along the way.
At his apartment -- furnished only with a bed, a few small animals, a rocking chair, and a picture of God -- O sets about deconstructing his apartment (and his life?) in a way that is at once rife with symbolism and the humor of the Buster Keaton that we know and love.
Considering that Keaton was nicknamed "The Great Stone Face", it is important to note that his face is not shown on camera until the very end of the short. I don't think that this was completely intentional, given that Keaton was not the first choice for the role, but it certainly does add an extra layer of mystique to the whole proceeding.
On the other hand, there are a few scenes that don't make a lot of sense to me -- an old woman carrying flowers on a staircase, for example -- and although I appreciate that the humor in <i>Film</i> was very indicative of Buster Keaton's style, it kind of felt out of place with the philosophical(?) musings of the later scenes.
<b> < SPOILERS > </b>
There is plenty of room for interpretation as to the meaning of this seventeen minute short, which is part of its charm. Keaton himself said that the theme of <i>Film</i> is the idea that "a man may keep away from everybody but he can't get away from himself." This explains why, although O prevents everything around him from being able to see him -- including both God and the curtains -- he still finds himself face to face with <i>himself</i> at the end. It's also worthwhile to look at O as the product of an unhealthy and undiagnosed paranoia, checking his pulse compulsively and refusing to walk in front of mirrors for fear of being seen by... well, the ending doesn't work as well with this interpretation. Why doesn't he blind the "eyes" of the rocking chair? Should we look at the bookend close-ups of an eye at the beginning and close of the movie as one set: are these eyes watching everything that happens in between? Are they the eyes of God? Does O <i>need</i> to be watched (a la Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived") and is therefore projecting a God/<i>watcher</i>?
<b> < /SPOILERS > </b>
In short (pun totally intended!!!!), it's a very thought-provoking and interesting movie, made even more meaningful by the mortality of its star. According to wikipedia, which is where I've gotten all of the information I've used in this review, Keaton died just 18 months after <i>Film</i> was released.
It's a tad confusing, but ultimately a very interesting viewing experience.
P.S. For those of you who are wondering where to see this short, it is available in its entirely on YouTube.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
01/15/23
Full Review
Audience Member
The only incursion on cinema by the great Samuel Beckett...
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/22/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
