We chose to look at the last 20-30 minutes of the movie End Game. I focused on the acting during the final scene and how it compared to the writing in the book. One thing that stood out to me right away was the emotion and anger between Hamm and Clov in the production. It was hard to sense that emotion while reading the book. Although I could tell that they weren’t happy with each other while reading the book, I wasn’t able to get a full grasp of their emotions. It almost seemed like a regular conversation in the book. However once I watched the production, I was able to see that there was more anger and animosity between them than what was portrayed in the book. This difference is what stood out most to me while watching the production of End Game.
-Muneeb Khan
3 responses so far ↓
j.yatcha // Apr 28th 2017 at 12:27 am
In the very end of the play, just as Clov gets his rain jacket umbrella and other things as if he’s about to leave. While Clov does this Hamm has this really abstruse soliloquy; Hamm goes on and on, seeming jumping from one topic to another. In the written form of the play Hamm’s speech is interrupted by a bunch of notations to pause and so the reader simply imagines a pause between each of Hamm’s lines. In the play however, Hamm takes on a different tone of voice with each new line that cannot possibly reproduced in the written form. On one hand the actors tone can help the audience make some sense of this really complicated speech, while at the same time I think there is a downside by the fact that the audience is hearing the actor or directors interpretation of what he or she thinks the speech would sound like. Although reading this dialogue leaves a lot more room for confusion and uncertainty, I don’t know if I am comfortable with giving an actor or director the power to fill in these gaps of uncertainty.
j.guzman3 // Apr 28th 2017 at 10:24 am
Jorge G, Muneeb,Jamie
—————————————————————-
In Endgame, Beckett describes a post-apocalyptic world with supply of pain medication and food on the decline, and most of the natural resources gone, Beckett those great job when depicting the unusual yet symbiotic relationship between Hamm and Clov; But I also believe the movies helps to fill in the gaps and provided a deeper understanding of Endgame. Jamie states “I don’t know if I am comfortable with giving an actor or director the power to fill in these gaps of uncertainty.” But I feel this is what actually helped the story come to life for me. Through the film’s ending I able to capture Beckett’s nihilistic themes where humans are pictured in a hopeless and repetitive daily routine but it was only hammered in when Clov looks directly at the camera and says, “Finished, it’s nearly finished, it must be nearly finished”. Hamm and Clov are indebted to each other, out of fear of being alone they have kept each other company. This understanding only came to me through the film when Hamm would often ask for forgiveness from Clov, and he often shrug it off and say “I know” as you would a best friend.
r.klamen // Apr 28th 2017 at 11:40 am
I really liked Jamie’s point about what fills in the pauses of the play. When reading it, much is left to interpretation and imagination, but while watching the play, that is not an option because it is already decided by the director and actors. I realized while reading Jamie’s comment, that I too did not picture the change in tone of voice that was displayed in the play. I don’t know if I agree, however, that this is a downside. For me, I found it made the play and it’s messages clearer when played out like this.
You must log in to post a comment.