July 26th, 2010 / 12:24 pm
Film
Whitelaw’s Beckett’s Not I
[For the full performance, plus an intro by Whitelaw, as well as the text transcribed, see Ubu]
Tags: not i, samuel beckett, whitelaw
Blake Butler
July 26th, 2010 / 12:24 pm
Film
July 26th, 2010 / 12:24 pm
Film
There’s a similar video of a Beckett’s Play with Snape in it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k
I feel unable to watch these Beckett videos. All of those British accents and fast-talking… Fuck.
reply
July 26th, 2010 / 12:41 pmmarshall—
There shouldn’t be an “a” in that first sentence.
reply
The version of Not I with Julianne Moore (as part of the Beckett on Film series) is much better than this version.
reply
July 26th, 2010 / 7:01 pmCorey—
You really believe that? The staging her as an actor, first of all? I mean, I’m not saying that Moore did a bad job, but in comparison to Billie Whitelaw? The woman who I would argue is responsible for a certain interpretation of Beckettian diction (the keen understanding of pace, the impeccable clarity and pronunciation of words amongst the extreme degrees of slowness and speed she manages) that is now taken for granted. You are the first person I have ever read or heard feeling this way. I would be very interested in hearing your reasons.
reply
July 27th, 2010 / 8:38 amRich—
Yes. But I shouldn’t have been so flippant. Instead I should have said that as far as comparing film versions, I prefer the Neil Jordan-directed Moore to Whitelaw’s lips surrounded by black. I think the latter is an acceptable adaptation of the stage play. But the former is a much better film, using different angles to highlight different moods and themes. It doesn’t bother me that I see Moore take a seat in the chair, that I can see her whole face, etc. I realize these liberties probably offend a good number of Beckett fans. Oh, well. But I’m not watching a play at this point. I’m watching a movie.
Though if I were to see it on the stage, yes, I’d go with Whitelaw over Moore.
reply
July 27th, 2010 / 6:13 pmCorey—
I guess it does succeed as more of a film, but that isn’t a difficult gesture when you consider you must deal with two bodies in a space (there is of course the hooded figure) in pitch darkness, bar the mouth. If I were to make a film version I think I’d deal with the relative possible sizes of the mouth in darkness, since all that shifting standstill shots do is offer a different hypothetical audience position. I would have had the viewer become lost in the dark, since this play makes it the otherwise most present ‘presence’. Interesting thoughts though on the success as a film version.
July 28th, 2010 / 7:39 amRich—
Corey, apparently, Beckett had a difficult time finding a place for the Auditor on the stage, not feeling there was an adequate place for the character.
I get what you’re saying about finding a way to have the viewer “lost in the dark.” It’s the voice emanating from Mouth that is so important, so insistent, and completely fascinating. Beckett finds a way to compress an entire life into a short monologue where you’re only allowed to see the mouth. It’s a powerful work, and one of my favorite pieces by Beckett.
… then of course there’s the Italian version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_JQkDAo8Hk
reply
Blake, thanks for posting. Marshall, he wrote a couple “Play w/out Words;” try one of those.
reply