Benutzer Diskussion:MSGrabia/temp1

Quelle: Kline

Gleich, nachdem ich gesehen habe, dass du den Artikel nun doch noch beim SW nominierst, habe ich mich wie versprochen drangemacht, von dir noch nicht verwendete Quellen einzutippsen, namentlich und speziell Jim Klines Angaben und Interpretationen aus seinem Buch The Complete Film of Buster Keaton, S. 211-213 (genaue Lit.-Angaben zB. bei Der General (1926) zu finden...):

FILM

To be is to be perceived. - Samuel Beckett, on the meaning of Film

A man may keep away from everybody but he can’t get away from himself. - Buster Keaton, on the meaning of Film

Buster meets Beckett, or the Pratfall King meets the Emperor of Ennui. Buster himself would have been the first to admit that his and Beckett’s artistic styles are slightly different. Make that totally different. Make that not even in the same galaxy.

In an essay written to accompany Beckett’s published script, the author’s longtime friend Alan Schneider, the director of Film, spoke on his experiences with Buster during the making of the short. His comments, for the most part, are quite condescending toward the star, who comes across as a burnt-out old Hollywood dolt. While belittling Buster for his unfamiliarity with Beckett, Schneider reveals his own general unfamiliarity with Buster’s artistic achievements. He also admits that, after his first conversation with Buster, he was quite worried about working with him. He felt that Buster’s confessed bafflement over the material would harm the production. Schneider and Beckett had originally wanted to get either Chaplin, Zero Mostel, or Jack MacGowran for the essentially one-character film. Only after their first choices proved to be unavailable did Beckett himself suggest Buster. However, despite their differences in attitudes, opinions, hobbies, hats, and generally everything else, Buster proved to be the perfect choice for Beckett’s study in despair and isolation.

[Handlungsbeschreibung]

The most fascinating aspect about Film is how Buster manages to adapt to Beckett’s bleak view while maintaining his own strongly identifiable persona. Although he is filmed almost exclusively from behind, his performance is amazingly expressive, his distinct physical mannerisms communicating an animated aliveness while surrounded by dread and despair. The contrast between Film’s deliberately slow pacing and Buster’s movements result in a perfect blending of two disparate styles that ultimately complement one another and give the constricted action a sence of urgency while the film maintains its unhurried pace.

Buster’s interpretation of the film – you can’t escape from yourself – although not as highfalutin as Beckett’s, seems to be accurate, very much in line with the author’s favorite themes of isolation, alienation, and despair. Although hardly reflective of Buster’s stylistic approach to filmmaking, the film reflects many of his favorite themes of multiple images and false first impressions. However, in the end, the film is too single-minded, its theme too minuscule, for Buster’s more irreverent tastes. If Film had been a more truly collaborative effort between the two men, Buster would have picked up where Beckett left off, having his cringing character recovering from the shocking sight of his leering double, then standing up to examine this curious specter, possibly even staging a reprise of the scene from The Playhouse where the two minstrel-show Busters dance together onstage. As for the film’s final image of the wrinkled, unblinking eyeball, a much more Keatonesque ending would have been for the ancient peeper to be splattered with a custard pie.

In September 1965, Film premiered at the Venice Film Festival with Keaton in attendance. Schneider had been worried that the audience would come expecting to see a Keaton film rather than a Beckett film. Schneider’s worst fears were realized when Buster received a tumultuous standing ovation, which left the veteran actor visibly moved. Obviously, the applause was for Buster’s brilliant, lifetime contributions to the screen and had little to do with the merits of Film, which remains Beckett’s and Schneider’s only filmmaking effort.

• Tippfehler vorbehalten; hoffe, du kannst es brauchen. Wenn sich noch Zeit (selbst im SW-Artikel-schreib-Stress) und Infos finden, teile ich sie dir mit. Viel Erfolg! --DrTill 17:42, 18. Mär. 2008 (CET)

Dankeschön! Das eine Zitat wird's sicher auch noch in den Artikel schaffen. Ich war mittlerweile auch nochmal bei uns in der Bibliothek und habe schon mal Originalkritiken gewältzt, das war überaus interessant, auf Mikrofilmen ist doch eine Menge verfügbar. Vielleicht auch eine Idee für Brian? -- MSGrabia 21:03, 18. Mär. 2008 (CET)

Bewertung von Julius1990:

Film (Film)

• Einleitung: ok, die bedeutung der o– und e-benennung wird mir hier noch nicht klar

• Gliederung: gut

• Quellen und Belege: gut

• Stil: gut und angenehm

• Einzelheiten:
  • Fokus auf keaton zu stark, welche bedeutung hat der film denn für beckett? welche position in dessen werk nimmt er ein?

• Bebilderung: nix, ist aber auch schwer bei dem thema

• Fazit: gut, für eine platzierung und lesenswert. zu exzellent ist es mir noch eine wichtige lücke