Just watched this now. With only one viewing, the combined power of the words, Irons' voice and delivery is overwhelmingly powerful. I reckon I'll be watching this many times again to fully "get it", as it were.
I always felt this was about becketts relationship with james joyce, the two were quite close during the writing ofinnegans wake, and it is believed that during this period joyce was both mentally and physically falling to pieces. Joyce and Beckett would walk the length of the isle of swans near his home in france (Zurich) often times never a word shared between them, it should be noted that on some of Becketts visits to joyce the two would often sit together in complete silence for hours
If the interpretation of Beckett's play moved people deeply, then why would Beckett mind? While the character in the play's directions is supposed to be old (correct?), there are some of us who feel very old at a younger age. Jeremy Irons did an amazing job with the text.
I believe it is lovely, that as readers, we enjoy this. One can simply fall into a void, reading, listening, perhaps even living dialogue, awaiting a shade to comfort one. Nothing ever dies, does it?
I know Beckett prefered a more minimalist, "colourless" approach to acting his work, but something these filmed versions of his more abstract plays have shown me is that they're really, really effect when the actors are allowed to actually express emotion. I haven't seen any other version of OI yet, but compare the Beckett On Film "What Where" to the video production Beckett himself was involved in. I like to have some sort of human connection to the work; but I think both approaches are valid.
why is it that with two of them, one of them, not getting bogged down by that element. why is it that there is only the one hat on the table, ?? maybe i should watch the piece entire, i will do at a later stage , but just flicking through the choice of his works for now,Is there a deliberate ,specific reason for a single hat?or is it just an element the director chucked in to add a touch of colour to the scene?if you trully know please enlighten me
It's because Beckett typically leaves it ambiguous as to whether there are two different people, or that the two characters - 'reader' and 'listener' are actually two aspects of one person's psyche. Beckett specifies that there should be only one hat on the table. I believe that this suggests that the two characters represent one character, and the 'reader' has been imagined or dreamt by 'listener', in an attempt to find comfort. There is quite a good article about this on Wikipedia.
@stucoy1 I think it's quite obvious that the two characters represent one person. The reader is clearly himself and every night over and over he tells himself this sad tale. I think the point is that he feels the pain of what the reader says every day, never deminishing in severity.
this is one of Becketts most personel plays, its dedicated to his wife and theres a beautiful passage about walking up the side of a river in Paris with James Joyce
Whilst I accept that Beckett wanted very specific instructions followed I'm not sure that they allow for enough interpretation. If you're not going, as director, to interpret a text and try and allow that interpretation to flow to an audience then why bother EVER doing any Beckett? I agree that Irons, though a fine actor, is too young for the role. The suggestion that it's one man is a clever one and though Beckett would've hated it does that mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
Beckett said about "Waiting for Godot" that it was a play "striving at all costs to avoid definition". The problem with directors imposing a certain definite concept on a Beckett play (such as the "ghost story" in the present rendition of OI) is that it removes the intended ambiguity which throws all our questions back at us. Hence, the imposing director is actually depriving the audience of interpretative freedom. E.g. the text here says "they became as one"; the AS is elided in this version.
You make some fine, lucid points. However, you mention Beckett's instruction that "they become as one." In a way the film shows that, no? Besides, I showed the film to some of my (admittedly bright) students. One felt that the listener had imagined the reader. One suggested the reader was a ghost but tangible and visible nonetheless. Another said he felt the reader was somehow seeing a vision of what he would become in the future and that Beckett is showing our "stories are already written."
Surely their differing interpretations show that Beckett's intended ambiguity is powwerful enough to come through some clever directorial tricks and a bit of film "magic."
In spite of liking Irons' voice I would agree with the 'overacting' comment below (SB requires expressionlessness, and there is too much fidgeting and breach of the basic posture required by the stage directions). Read Jonathan Kalb, "Beckett in Performance", for a fine account of the minimalist acting SB asks for and what it achieves. Also, note that the final fade-up on the single figure before the window would have had SB suing the producers before you could say "Fail better".
A bit of shameless self-advertisement (which may however help those studying the play for a course): See my book "Samuel Beckett's Abstract Drama: Works for Stage and Screen 1962-1985" (Peter lang, 2007) for a very detailed new reading, based on insights from manuscript study.
Jeremy Irons' play is excellent, direction and dramaturge is perfect. What I like is their acts, gestures showing emotions.They are naturally reacting to each other.These tiny signs are the clue to the play. I guess, though, enough ambiguity is left for us to enjoy it
It is always wiser to follow Beckett's directions if one hasn't anything superior to offer (and as this production proves again, technology isn't the answer).
The double Mr Irons is a promising start but without deep make-up work he is too young for the role on film (this is Beckett's last personal "impromptu" as an old dying soul before his last, final, parables) and Listener's over acting and Reader's glimpses (and the production's overall effort at beeing "meaningful") are just in vain.
beeing is spelt being. Over acting is spelt overacting. Listener's is plural and does not need an apostrophe. By the way I can't wait to see your production.
It is always wiser to follow Beckett's directions if one hasn't anything superior to offer (and as this production proves again, technology isn't the answer).
The double Mr Irons is a promising start but without deep make-up work he is too young for the role on film (this is Beckett's last personal "impromptu" as an old dying soul before his last, final, parables) and Listener's over acting and Reader's glimpses (and the production's overall effort at beeing "meaningful") are just in vain.
Im studying this for university. very interesting.. would anyone agree the two people are one person? One being the reading voice, the other being the concentration?
well i kind of agree with your theory, but i want to take another step deeper. i think it is Beckett himself. he is the character playing to parts, the part of an author and the part of an outsider(aka the listener)i'm also studying this for a college course.
En 1997 una chica llamada lauren, estaba caminando en un bosque,despues desaparecio de repente nunca nadie la encontro hasta el 2000 cuando otra chica llama Mary encontro su cuerpo y unas marcas en su pecho decian: no era lo suficiente hermosa" y ahora que haz leido esto ella aparecera en tu espejo diciendo que no eres lo suficientemente hermoso y te matara!(por cierto la chica llamada Mary murio poco despues)Para poder salvarte pega esto en otros 5 videos.ESTO ES CIERTO
what's great is that irons has the subtlety + sensitivity 2 make the "absurd" real to both characters, not just intellectual "choreography" where characters blab "intellectual poetry" +move mechanically as a mockery of human communication. thats part of beckett's idea, but absurdism can't be understood if not played realistically like irons does.
ohhhhhhhhhhh this is so amazing .... and his face his voice he is genius for playing Beckett things did anyone see a film whit Jeremy Irons I don't remember titel but it was a story bassed on Kafka's life and books greate film
Genius actor! Last of the Mohicans Grand Theatre Arts
DocSebastianShaw 3 months ago
Just watched this now. With only one viewing, the combined power of the words, Irons' voice and delivery is overwhelmingly powerful. I reckon I'll be watching this many times again to fully "get it", as it were.
Brilliant.
LFCzeppelin8 7 months ago 2
Steve is not happy with the process so far.
benofoz 10 months ago
I always felt this was about becketts relationship with james joyce, the two were quite close during the writing ofinnegans wake, and it is believed that during this period joyce was both mentally and physically falling to pieces. Joyce and Beckett would walk the length of the isle of swans near his home in france (Zurich) often times never a word shared between them, it should be noted that on some of Becketts visits to joyce the two would often sit together in complete silence for hours
colm144 1 year ago
@colm144 He did, most of the things stipulated above, dates excluded, also, with his Father. Splendid recognition though. All the best.
TheOldEchoes 1 year ago
If the interpretation of Beckett's play moved people deeply, then why would Beckett mind? While the character in the play's directions is supposed to be old (correct?), there are some of us who feel very old at a younger age. Jeremy Irons did an amazing job with the text.
guyblank 1 year ago 2
I love Jeremy Iron's voice. It sounds so awesome for this.
TehManofMusic 1 year ago
I believe it is lovely, that as readers, we enjoy this. One can simply fall into a void, reading, listening, perhaps even living dialogue, awaiting a shade to comfort one. Nothing ever dies, does it?
parksy010101 2 years ago
Beautiful. Genial. Amazing.
Beckett was the greatest writer ever!
MountAnalogue 2 years ago
I know Beckett prefered a more minimalist, "colourless" approach to acting his work, but something these filmed versions of his more abstract plays have shown me is that they're really, really effect when the actors are allowed to actually express emotion. I haven't seen any other version of OI yet, but compare the Beckett On Film "What Where" to the video production Beckett himself was involved in. I like to have some sort of human connection to the work; but I think both approaches are valid.
Nkerklaan 2 years ago
*effective, rather
Nkerklaan 2 years ago
James Joyce wore a hat like that
villiparis 2 years ago
pure art!! Great work!!
Chopin1986 2 years ago
why is it that with two of them, one of them, not getting bogged down by that element. why is it that there is only the one hat on the table, ?? maybe i should watch the piece entire, i will do at a later stage , but just flicking through the choice of his works for now,Is there a deliberate ,specific reason for a single hat?or is it just an element the director chucked in to add a touch of colour to the scene?if you trully know please enlighten me
bryngOneOn 2 years ago
It's because Beckett typically leaves it ambiguous as to whether there are two different people, or that the two characters - 'reader' and 'listener' are actually two aspects of one person's psyche. Beckett specifies that there should be only one hat on the table. I believe that this suggests that the two characters represent one character, and the 'reader' has been imagined or dreamt by 'listener', in an attempt to find comfort. There is quite a good article about this on Wikipedia.
stucoy1 2 years ago
@stucoy1 I think it's quite obvious that the two characters represent one person. The reader is clearly himself and every night over and over he tells himself this sad tale. I think the point is that he feels the pain of what the reader says every day, never deminishing in severity.
CCDevlin 1 year ago
@CCDevlin Splendid.
TheOldEchoes 1 year ago
this one always haunts me
bronlokis 2 years ago
Incredibly good.
averit 2 years ago
sensual and poignant.... brilliant!
surfcottage 2 years ago
this is one of Becketts most personel plays, its dedicated to his wife and theres a beautiful passage about walking up the side of a river in Paris with James Joyce
villiparis 2 years ago
there are no words to describe my deep admiration for beckett
bwayguy17 2 years ago
Just unspoken words.
adevezar 3 years ago
this was the best direction i ever seen about a play from Samuel Beckett.
behond beutifull. Real.
adevezar 3 years ago
im feeling emo
nom nom nom!!!!! hehekekeke I feel like cybring! 5Y
05119911 3 years ago
It's an interesting video... I like it... sorry for being off topic, but...
wasn't Jeremy Irons the voice of Scar in The Lion King?
wc3breakabone 3 years ago
Yes, he was!
CultMovieFreak 3 years ago
Sorry I meant '...again his portion.'
stucoy1 3 years ago
I love this, but I've never quite figured out what is meant by 'white nights now agin his portion.'
stucoy1 3 years ago
"spelt" is not a word
wrachel745 3 years ago
it's the irregular variant of spelled and a type of corn as well
IpsaPaphum 3 years ago 2
Whilst I accept that Beckett wanted very specific instructions followed I'm not sure that they allow for enough interpretation. If you're not going, as director, to interpret a text and try and allow that interpretation to flow to an audience then why bother EVER doing any Beckett? I agree that Irons, though a fine actor, is too young for the role. The suggestion that it's one man is a clever one and though Beckett would've hated it does that mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
tvdd1973 3 years ago
Beckett said about "Waiting for Godot" that it was a play "striving at all costs to avoid definition". The problem with directors imposing a certain definite concept on a Beckett play (such as the "ghost story" in the present rendition of OI) is that it removes the intended ambiguity which throws all our questions back at us. Hence, the imposing director is actually depriving the audience of interpretative freedom. E.g. the text here says "they became as one"; the AS is elided in this version.
ErikTonning 3 years ago
You make some fine, lucid points. However, you mention Beckett's instruction that "they become as one." In a way the film shows that, no? Besides, I showed the film to some of my (admittedly bright) students. One felt that the listener had imagined the reader. One suggested the reader was a ghost but tangible and visible nonetheless. Another said he felt the reader was somehow seeing a vision of what he would become in the future and that Beckett is showing our "stories are already written."
tvdd1973 3 years ago
Surely their differing interpretations show that Beckett's intended ambiguity is powwerful enough to come through some clever directorial tricks and a bit of film "magic."
I love this piece, absolutely love it.
tvdd1973 3 years ago
In spite of liking Irons' voice I would agree with the 'overacting' comment below (SB requires expressionlessness, and there is too much fidgeting and breach of the basic posture required by the stage directions). Read Jonathan Kalb, "Beckett in Performance", for a fine account of the minimalist acting SB asks for and what it achieves. Also, note that the final fade-up on the single figure before the window would have had SB suing the producers before you could say "Fail better".
ErikTonning 3 years ago
I disagree. I don't care what the books say.
Carrieloo 3 years ago
A bit of shameless self-advertisement (which may however help those studying the play for a course): See my book "Samuel Beckett's Abstract Drama: Works for Stage and Screen 1962-1985" (Peter lang, 2007) for a very detailed new reading, based on insights from manuscript study.
ErikTonning 3 years ago
Jeremy Irons' play is excellent, direction and dramaturge is perfect. What I like is their acts, gestures showing emotions.They are naturally reacting to each other.These tiny signs are the clue to the play. I guess, though, enough ambiguity is left for us to enjoy it
nettos9 3 years ago
STRAORDINARIO...
sidecar9000 3 years ago
It is always wiser to follow Beckett's directions if one hasn't anything superior to offer (and as this production proves again, technology isn't the answer).
The double Mr Irons is a promising start but without deep make-up work he is too young for the role on film (this is Beckett's last personal "impromptu" as an old dying soul before his last, final, parables) and Listener's over acting and Reader's glimpses (and the production's overall effort at beeing "meaningful") are just in vain.
critics1 4 years ago
Oh you silly postmodern deconstructionists and your putting quotation marks around "meaningful". Why do you hate meaning so much, postmodernism? Huh?
...comon, you know you can't escape it
Mints1986 3 years ago
beeing is spelt being. Over acting is spelt overacting. Listener's is plural and does not need an apostrophe. By the way I can't wait to see your production.
dylanesque2100 3 years ago
It is always wiser to follow Beckett's directions if one hasn't anything superior to offer (and as this production proves again, technology isn't the answer).
The double Mr Irons is a promising start but without deep make-up work he is too young for the role on film (this is Beckett's last personal "impromptu" as an old dying soul before his last, final, parables) and Listener's over acting and Reader's glimpses (and the production's overall effort at beeing "meaningful") are just in vain.
critics1 4 years ago
Im studying this for university. very interesting.. would anyone agree the two people are one person? One being the reading voice, the other being the concentration?
FullMetalKenna 4 years ago
well i kind of agree with your theory, but i want to take another step deeper. i think it is Beckett himself. he is the character playing to parts, the part of an author and the part of an outsider(aka the listener)i'm also studying this for a college course.
blueberrysour12 4 years ago
Does anyone have Rockaby? This is a wonderful play. I saw it in UCLA's Powell library.
lynnsheppardbowieart 4 years ago
i don't get it
marbeque 4 years ago
I wish I had 70 years old...
rcanento 4 years ago
Oh God, this brings back bad memories!
PisceanBeautyy 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
En 1997 una chica llamada lauren, estaba caminando en un bosque,despues desaparecio de repente nunca nadie la encontro hasta el 2000 cuando otra chica llama Mary encontro su cuerpo y unas marcas en su pecho decian: no era lo suficiente hermosa" y ahora que haz leido esto ella aparecera en tu espejo diciendo que no eres lo suficientemente hermoso y te matara!(por cierto la chica llamada Mary murio poco despues)Para poder salvarte pega esto en otros 5 videos.ESTO ES CIERTO
rixygr 4 years ago
"nie ma hafciarka" - writing this sentence in youtube and watching polish film was a screening of dramas by Samuel Beckett.
Hafciarka 4 years ago
nothing is left to tell... to tell its meaningfullness... thank u for sharing this excellent video...
tawshi 4 years ago 2
Descartes.
NihilAdmirari 4 years ago
Ah, the subtleties of it all...
melsewhere 5 years ago
what's great is that irons has the subtlety + sensitivity 2 make the "absurd" real to both characters, not just intellectual "choreography" where characters blab "intellectual poetry" +move mechanically as a mockery of human communication. thats part of beckett's idea, but absurdism can't be understood if not played realistically like irons does.
s4mth16ngstr24nge 5 years ago
Hear hear! Very well said. There's only one Irons.
Thank you for loading this, Adani.
sjoes 5 years ago
finally i find some fine art...thank you
neckintube 5 years ago
Visit Buster Keaton (Film By Samuel Beckett-Silent)(1)
nemozen1 5 years ago
S'wonderfull it's marvelous rythme of emptyness... Nothing left... What Sturridge wait to put Peter O'Toole in a work like this ? Thank's Adani.
nemozen1 5 years ago
This is wonderful. Thanks for loading it.
veggiewendy 5 years ago
Utterly superb! Jeremy Irons is the Listener/Reader (RTE, 2001). Huge thanks for this.
chaplin61 5 years ago
ohhhhhhhhhhh this is so amazing .... and his face his voice he is genius for playing Beckett things did anyone see a film whit Jeremy Irons I don't remember titel but it was a story bassed on Kafka's life and books greate film
atramentu 5 years ago
Better than Numa Numa!
captaincarl 5 years ago
thanks for that.
crowe 6 years ago
I love Beckett, and this is an excellent version of a brilliant play. Enjoy!
emperormikey 6 years ago