Watching Godot in class was somewhat eye opening. If you don't go into the play with an open mind you automatically shut off from the humor that occurs within the first few seconds of the play. In the movie, it seems like it goes faster on the screen as opposed to reading the story in Beckett's book. The two men in the beginning during the film seem even more in depth than I could've possibly imagined when simply reading the play in a book.
Usually I am one of those people that likes to read a story before hitting the theaters, but in this case I think the film adaptation really strikes a literary cord. I found all the characters to be astounding. It kept you wondering why the characters asked what they asked, or did what they did. At one point I felt incredibly sorry for Lucky who has to carry all of Pozzo's things. In the book for some odd reason I did not feel as sorry for him. Also, I thought it ironic that his name is Lucky...
Because we did not get to finish the film in class, I was somewhat disappointed. I really was getting into understanding the characters. The fact that the play is very "short" answered and a question is usually answered with another question leads to the assumption that this play is obviously talking somewhat about God. The title itself has the word God in it!
In my opinion the film was good. I thought it would be boring. I thought it would be like watching an old 1920s silent film. The actors did a great job at portraying the characters and they did great with what little plot was given.
I agree that the film was better than reading the book. I think the film captures the visual aspect of the characters, and that the characters are better understood through what they do, then what they say. This is why I thought the book was wierd and hard to understand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you.
ReplyDeleteI think watching the world opens your eyes to the viewpoint of the two characters which helps immensely and it did stink not to get to watch the rest.
ReplyDeleteI loved the movie. I came to appreciate the play upon the second reading but watching the play brought a whole new depth to it. I think the acting was incredible - to be able to do this play with so much emotion yet not over doing it is truly an art. I thought there was no chance I would have like this play and in the end I think its one of my favorites - who would've thought?
ReplyDeleteTo me this is one of the beautiful part of live theatre, and especially non-Aristotelian theatre. since theatre is basically a composite of several different participant's creation it takes on a multi-dimensional life that is not easy to achieve in other mediums. what i enjoyed most about watching the movie in class and now reading the blogs on it, is my classmates reactions. i think its so cool how you guys get it now because you can see how rich this text is once it becomes about a communication through participation rather than a communication between text and reader. this is what i love about theatre; the more people creating it the more life and excitement it has...a real community art pices, you know what i mean?
ReplyDeletegood posting, this was a very confusing story for me, maybee not so confusing but it just had no point (like seinfield, or friends).
ReplyDeleteI found watching the film much easier to understand than the book. The book often times seemed more jumbled and confusing.
ReplyDelete