Film

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.

This is a very odd film. Samuel Beckett's only venture into the motion pictures, oddly enough stars "The Great Stone Face", silent/sound star, Buster Keaton. This film, which is only 20 minutes in length, is Buster Keaton's only venture into the psychological part of the cinema. It has no music, dialogue or sound effects which makes this a truly "silent" film. It is a unique piece of motion picture history.

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.

I was under the impression this film is titled, The Goad, as a theatre prof. in college (who did her dissertation on Beckett) told my class. At the time I saw this film I thought it was weird, but I still remember it and it is an inspiration to my own short-film writing even now.