Comment #1 – Radia
During my initial read of the play, I was confused about the purpose or message of the play. However, while watching the play, it brought the stories of the character to life. I imagined
Clov as younger than the actor that was present at the play. In addition, the actor who
played Clov added extra gestures that I didn’t imagine. For an example, the way the actor
walked. I didn’t realize that he has a staggering walk, but then I did look back at the text and it’s explained in the beginning: “Stiff, staggering walk.” I imagined Clov as a grumpier person. He seemed fed up with Hamm; “Why this farce, day after day?” While watching the play, I realized how heavily Clov depends on Hamm. Clov could be fed up, but truly this same routine keeps him going. Watching the play gave me a better perspective of the play, I could sympathize with the characters and understand the character’s turmoil.
Coment #2 – Mel
Radia’s point synced with a difference that I noticed as well about Clov. Radia said that the actor of Clov added extra gestures during the play such as the staggering walk. This was something that surprised me as well. Clov, as the first character to speak in the play, was said to be talking tonelessly. This gave me the feeling that Clov, as a servant, is probably a rather calm character. In the text, Clov’s lines are mostly concise statements, which limited the amount of feelings that I distributed to each line. It definitely blew my mind when I saw a Clov on stage, that did not fit the one in my imagination. The actor of Clov made Clov seem more human, with the staggering walk, the amount of emotion expressed through each line, and the way he dealt with all the situations made Clov, the character, seem like a fed-up parent. But no matter how fed up Clov is, Clov doesn’t want to leave Hamm alone, despite how much Clov hates tolerating Hamm. On page 780 alone, Clov has said “I’ll leave you” three times, but doesn’t end up leaving until the very end. Just by adding these details to Clov makes the play much more relatable to life than the text. Although Beckett wanted to express existentialism through his text (which I very much believe he succeeded), the play adds a little sprinkle of touching qualities in humanity that made me wonder more about whether the purpose of life is influenced by humanity at all. Perhaps we are born on with the purpose to experience the different flavors of life and dealing with humanity.
I resonated a lot with your perspective, Mel, in that the characters in the actual performance made Clov and Hamm more relatable to the audience. Reading a play, especially one as this where the audience may not be able to fully grasp at first the full extent of their situation and “turmoil” as many people have referred to it as, and watching it are very different experiences. As you pointed out, “The actor of Clov made Clov seem more human, with the staggering walk, the amount of emotion expressed through each line, and the way he dealt with all the situations made Clov, the character, seem like a fed-up parent.” These little qualities may not have been conceivable through text, but the actors onstage did a great job of including such quirks in order to bring the characters to life.