After talking about Samuel Beckett’s rules that are enforced through his estate, there were a lot of people that seemed upset. I’m also against the enforcing of the rules, and there are a few things that I wanted to point out that we didn’t talk about in class.
First of all, of Beckett were still alive, I would want to suggest something to him that would diminish confusion in the theatre world. I might get in trouble saying this, but he should have written screenplays for film instead of scripts for theatre. There are many reasons why I think that his works would have fit better in film. If he wanted to dictate his texts so that everything was perfect, he could have been a part of the filmmaking process, made sure the products were exactly how he wanted them to be, and the stress that he seemed to have about people messing up or tweaking would be gone. As we learned in class, each time a Beckett play is produced they were played the same. The film versions of his plays would have the same effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the values of the theatre. However, I find that the biggest benefits of working in the theatre are collaboration and interpretation. It seems to me like Beckett was determined to not let others in the production process collaborate by adding their own ideas. Therefore, he should have used another media other than the theatre to bring his ideas to life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was thinking the same thing about the film stuff. I don't know who the cameraman would have been but i can imagine how much say Beckett had in all the shots.I really enjoyed seeing parts of Endgame, but i also miss not having the entire set in front of me, granted the camera forces our view to look at certain things at certain times, I do like the option of taking in the entire picture at once. Amy also sent us info on the actual workshops and some info about his racial conundrums.
Christine you identified an awesome point in stating the benefit and enjoyment of collabrating and interpretation in the production of scripts. However, I ask that you take a moment and think about how a writer feels when his vision/meaning has been left out of the production. I admirer writers who hand over their work in the hands of a director. I would not be comfortable doing it. When you passionately create a piece of work, you put yourself in it. I've stated before that the project is like a child. Good parents dont leave thier children with just anybody. They protect them, guard them and don't like to much critism about them from others. The liberating beauty in creating a work is that you own it. However you want to see it performed, you have the right to do so. I don't blame Beckett for having stipulations on his work. Not everyone is going to grasp his concept. By controlling who and how it is done, the integrity of the piece is kept in tack.
I actually respect him for this and think more playwrights should consider being more careful with their creation and name.
Good point about film being a medium more suited to creating and maintaining specific images. And Beckett did eventually make things for film and television. The three plays I mentioned that are in the video collection "Beckett Directs Beckett" were authorized, and he seems to have expected them to be evidence of his take on how the plays should be staged.
But considering Will's point: there's something about seeing the whole stage that seems important. And since Beckett wrote these as plays, there's something about the live body that must have interested him in creating these works; and there's also something about the audience's eye having more freedom than they would in film. My understanding is that he was very very careful about choosing the media in which he wrote ... and he did use all available to him, building the meaning into the form!
Jackie's point is also helpful, in that all writers do feel connection to their work. But I have to say that, while I love Beckett and enjoy working on his plays (exactly as they are, even!), I'm with Christine on the collaboration thing. In most cases, it's the contribution of a lot of different viewpoints that I find appealing about theatre. At the same time, actors who worked with Beckett often did so again and again (Rick Cluchey and Billie Whitelaw, for example). I think they did feel like they were contributing their voices and bodies and making discoveries, but more like a singer or ballet dancer might do so.
Post a Comment