Film

Samuel Beckett is popularly known for his absurdity in theatres what we can see in the case of " Waiting for Godot" which is considered as the benchmark for absurdism in literature. Same kind of literary trends can be easily assessed in the case of 'Film' as well , there is not any dialogue between any character. Protagonist of the ' Film' is an oldman who seems in the last stage of his life , feels himself alienated or I can say that keeps himself alienated from external world, he seems very frustrated from Old aged life , and keeps himself checking that whether he is alive or not...

I was in art school in 1971 when my Persian art teacher who was well connected in the New York scene showed us this remarkable piece of black-and-white art. It was pristine 16mm print, and from the first frame I found it funny, disturbing and masterful. Keaton is one of the gods of physical comedy and he says more with his body in this short piece of film than many comics can say in a lifetime of work. The irony of this piece is that it is pure art, with nothing "arty" about it; The production is first rate, but nothing is out of place or over-the-top. It is part allegory, part silent shtick and pure Beckett, as well as pure Keaton. The plot is so simple, any description will spoil it.If you have the rare privilege to see it, do.

A bizarre short experimental film penned by author Samuel Beckett, Film is based on his interest of philosopher George Berkeley's concept of "subjective idealism", an 18th century philosophical notion which suggests that the existence of material substance cannot exist without being perceived. As "O" – the Observer, Keaton attempts to escape "E" – the Eye of observation, which includes the camera – to which his back is turned throughout much of the production.

Largely indecipherable without Beckett's explanation, "O" hides from the gaze of every living thing, including himself, in a small cell-like room as both precursor and condition for his character's death.

And, if you are the least bit curious about Film, be sure to watch Ross Lipman's fascinating Kino Essay "Notfilm" (2015).

Samuel Beckett's only film--appropriately titled Film--is a short (26 minutes) near-silent piece. Because of that, and because the work invokes the feel of the silent era, albeit in Beckett's peculiar way, it's perfectly fitting that Beckett chose Buster Keaton as the main character (for almost the entire film, the only character). The black-and-white photography, the old furniture, and the peculiar garments of the just-as-old apartment building's tenants all contribute to the mise-en-scene that harkens back to a time when automobiles had only been around for about 20 or 30 years.

There's a perfect link of Beckett's intense focus on the self with Keaton's now-wizened features. When the screen is filled with Keaton's eye alone, you can see the wrinkles surrounding it; you can tell Beckett has more in mind than just doing a close-up. As Keaton arranges and rearranges the things in his sparse living quarters, and goes through pictures of himself, often hiding from the camera, you begin to see what's going on: is he, the character, only who he sees in the mirror, and in pictures, or is he other than that?

For this emphasis on the solipsistic, the length of Film is perfect. Any longer and it could have been a bit tedious. But Keaton lends it a few touches of his by now archetypal humor--wholly improvised--which Beckett found delightful, and Alan Schneider, the director, applauded. This is a unique work that any serious student of film should have in her/his library. It was formerly included in a VHS collection of Keaton's work but now, alas, does not seem to be available any longer.

This is one of the most rewarding short films I have ever seen - and I have seen many! - and it haunts me even now, more than 35 years after I saw it for the first (and only) time. That was during a cinema club season in Bergen, Norway, where part of the program was a "short film night" devoted to silent movies, short movies, and various combinations of these. The audience was clearly confused, since "Film" was obviously not what most had expected. And in company with "Nosferatu" (l922), "Freaks" (1932) and "Terminus" (1961 - a documentary of a British railway station) it did strike a very different chord than sheer horror and sober facts did.

Beckett's work at that time was slowly gaining ground in Norway, as did Pinter's - trying to promote either was an uphill task in a mountainous country unused to modern drama and more tuned to sports. The discussions in a seminar after the showing proved this... But this resistance to something obviously alien did not detract from my pleasure (and several others') in relishing a masterpiece, where nothing could have been improved on. A book called "Film by Samuel Beckett" was published by Faber in 1971, and generously offers complete scenario and a profusion of illustrations and production shots. It has also comments by Beckett and an essay by Schneider, and is a useful substitute for anybody without access to the Film itself.

Agreeing with other commentators, I can only say that this is really an absorbing and disturbing experience - quite unique! And one that leaves you thinking and wondering and shuddering for a long time.