great works in literature II 2850 kta 2:55-4:35— Shades of Truth . . .

In Endgame by Samuel Buckett, isolation was a big part of the theme. In my opinion, the way the actors presented on stage was really similar to the short film, Breathe. Before the play, the director informed us to pretend that the background is filled with black and white with two windows on top. In Breathe, it was shot in a dark cramped place, where you can even hear your thoughts talking to you. The way the sound is played, I can imagine the frustration and loneliness behind it just like in the Endgame. Clov said, “I can’t be punished anymore.” It expressed his frustration and loneliness he has been trying to hide it from Hamm when it was so easy to detect. Both the text and the video shows that they are isolated from the outside world and are closed inside with no way out. In the beginning of Endgame, Clov was trying to go to the kitchen to clean while in Breathe, it shows the kitchen sink. It was filthy and it was as the person in Breathe was trying to force himself to do something about it with his last “breathe”. Similarly, Clov seems like he’s trying to do something before he literally loses his humanity or maybe it’s another way of waiting for the last day to come – Endgame.

Crystal Wong

The settings in both of the Endgame and in the short film “Breath” are very similar to each other and create the same sense of hopelessness. In the short film breath, there is a dark room with little light, which is what the setting is in the endgame as well. There is this constant felling of hopelessness in both. In The short film “Breath” the man is straining for his last breaths, as if he is in a sense dying. He takes a couple of long breaths until he finally gives up and is at peace. In the Endgame all of the character are also in a way holding onto their last breath. They all feel trapped with one another. There are no other options left for any of them. The setting in the short film “Breath” seemed very cluttered and confined space, just like Endgame. The characters in the Endgame are simply existing and not really living. They are almost waiting to die. This all relates to Humanity’s essential isolationism. Each character from both the short film and the Endgame have isolated themselves from their surroundings. Whatever the circumstances are, they all are kept to themselves and don’t really have any regards that are sincere to each other. In fact, you get the opposite in Endgame. In “Breath” it feels as though there is no one around either, and if there was, they would not be compelled to care for the person straining to breath.

-Kelly Kay

Hello guys,

Jonathan Kerstein and I (Rosshelle Munoz) have completed our project due on May 2, 2017, based on “The Metamorphosis”

The video is attached on youtube .The video was treated as if it was presented to a live audience, therefore we did not make any edits, along with the fact that we lack the knowledge and tools to edit the video.

Enjoy!

Ps. Hit the word youtube to see the video.

Rosshelle Munoz

Your Responses on April 28^th: Comparing a scene from the text of Endgame with a production. As you all have remarked, the choices of the director and actors greatly influences our interpretation of the text. Remember, those are just choices, and would not necessarily be sanctioned by the author. Your own interpretations and expectations of how things should be done are also quite valid! We’ll talk more about this in class.

Remember, too, that just because your name is listed in the group (or just because you actually put the comments on the site) doesn’t mean you’ll get credit. You need to have posted twice.

Acting: Yes, a performance certainly brings the words to life (Roshelle and Sabera)! Crystal points out that the actor playing Clov emphasizes his loyalty to Hamm, and this helps to make his staying with Hamm more understandable. Yes, I agree, the performance doesn’t emphasize the tension between Hamm and Clov until pretty late in the play.  Kelly agrees, too.   Myra points out that Nagg and Nell also seemed livelier in the performance (interesting, are we beginning to see the director’s interpretation?) Chi points out, too, that Clov seems much more serious (and Radia uses the word “grumpy”) in the text than the director portrayed in the performance, and Denny seems to agree. Borys point this out, too (the difference between the text and the interpretation) but you are certainly not wrong, Borys! I also like what you said, Borys, about the “claustrophobic existence” that we see in the play. Emily adds that she actually seemed to feel the walls “closing in” on her, thanks to the production.   Everyone interprets differently. Mel make the very astute comment that the actor plays the character much more “human” than she imagined. Yes, I definitely agree. We’ll talk about this in class. Mel also make the interesting observation that the play is “sprinkled” with “touching qualities” of life, that it is not just Nihilistic, and we’ll talk about this, as well. Brian feels both the tone of voice and costume choices help to create the character. Zusanna points to the ever shifting balance of power between Hamm and Clov, and this is an important observation about the play.

Directing: Mel points our an important theme that is brought out with the odd/artificial going from one window to the next, and that is the “repetitive, routine of (our) human lifestyle,” and the bleak fact of the meaninglessness of that lifestyle. William makes the important observation that the humor that Beckett is using emerges through the performance. Yes, it’s funny, albeit a very dark, actually mirthless humor, for me, at least. Zeyu makes a very perceptive comment about the directorial choice of collapsing the “pauses” in the performance. Yes, I agree, I feel a lack of quiet “white space” takes away from the overall bleakness that Beckett, I feel, wants to present. Yes, I agree, Tarkovsky would create an interesting film version!   I wonder if this was a practical choice of the director, simply to not take up too much time? Just a thought. Jonathan comments that the performance emphasized, for him, a major theme in the play, that of isolationism, which is indeed, an important theme.

Set: Sabera makes an interesting comment when she reminds us that the director says the set is like a “bomb shelter.” Honestly, that’s possibly helpful of the director, but Beckett never said this was a bomb shelter, and I’m wondering if the director is making the choice to interpret this play more literally than Beckett had intended? As Kamran notes, this was very “low budget” and there are not many visuals.   What should necessarily be included, does everyone think?

Writers often write many pieces of literature such as a novel, script, or anything else to help make a point across in the real world and this often leads to creating a dynamic image for the reader. This was seen through the play Endgame, as I had first read it and then I watched an excellent play about the Endgame. I personally enjoyed the play of the Endgame very much but I honestly preferred reading it rather than watching the play. I felt that the play could have been done better if there was a bigger budget for visual effects but nonetheless it was still a great play. The reason I preferred reading the Endgame rather than watching the play is because I can visualize everything that is happening throughout the story which I prefer much more than watching any type of movie or play. 

As someone who admires theatre and has seen many intricate plays growing up, I have found The Endgame especially intriguing. Throughout the story, the element that I have found the most compelling is the complicated relationship between Hamm and Clov with the recurring question of whether Clov will leave Hamm. The two men seem to possess very little chemistry, as they are constantly annoyed and tired of each other. Clov seems to act in a robot-like way towards Hamm’s commands, and Hamm seems to grow tired of Clov’s lack of real companionship. Both of the characters are clearly suffering, and yet they continue their daily miserable routines. Their relationship could allude to the numerous marriages in which both partners are unhappy, yet cannot seem to gather the courage to leave each other. Clov does not seem to be emotionally involved in any way, yet continues to listen to Hamm’s demanding orders; Hamm continuously shifts from either being cold to Clov to demanding his affection. The two characters seem to have a strong dependency on one another, in a very unhealthy and irritable relationship.

One of the key aspects of this work revolves around the fact that these individuals are stuck in their bunker, indefinitely. They are stuck with one another, stuck in the same routine because there is nowhere else to go, nothing else to do but “finish living” whatever span of time is left before them. And I commented at the end of the performance on just how well I believed the actors were able to depict this sense of an inescapable and claustrophobic existence. While I was reading the play myself, I did not fully grasp just how confined their situation was, as I focused more on the interactions between characters than the setting that they were in. But as I was watching the play onstage, I had a completely different experience. I felt the walls closing in as time went on, I could both physically and mentally feel the frustration and the exhaustion and the loss of hope that Hamm and Clov especially felt over the course of their days together. Like Borys pointed out, it was clear how they could not handle being locked up together much longer. I don’t think I could’ve managed watching them struggle much longer, either!

• Emily

Seeing the play live had given me a whole new perspective on the written play. There are things that just can’t properly be explained through text that can be portrayed more easily in real life. An example of this would be the desperation and sense of built-up frustration that all of the actors portrayed during the play. The text didn’t put as strong of an emphasis on the way the characters are all fed up and tired of their living conditions, as the actors have done on stage. We could see it through the actor’s body language, their tone of voice, and their choice of lexicon; accentuating the fact that they can’t handle being locked up with each other for much longer as Emily mentioned. Their incarceration in this shelter over the past few years has led to all the characters having a “inescapable and claustrophobic existence,” which over time takes a major toll on their psyche. This was particularly visible in Clov and Hamm, who as the play progressed became increasingly irritated with each other; to the point where Hamm suggested the maybe Clov should leave the shelter and go out into the unknown.

• Borys

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.

(Post 1 – Roshelle’s Group)

In Endgame by Samuel Beckett, one of the themes that was very clearly outlined during the staged reading was the isolation experienced by Hamm and Clov. When reading the play, I did not necessarily feel the isolation they experienced, in part because I assumed that an ongoing dialogue between two people could not really result in a sense of isolation. The staged reading made the isolation they experienced in their “universe” far more tangible to the viewer. In the reading of the play itself, Clov expresses that “there is no more nature”, however it was not until the staged reading of the play that the weight of that realization fully resonated with me. Additionally, the staged reading allowed me to break up the characters into groups based on their spacing, whereas I had not previously imagined Nagg and Nell to occupy a small corner of the room together, their interdependence actually made the spacing used during the staged reading all the more effective.

There were many differences from what I saw/heard then from what I read. First, when I read it in my head there aren’t many emotions in the voice that I’m hearing, I’m busy trying to make a mental image, imagining what is going on. This isn’t the case with the play that I saw. Because they were an image in front of me, I could focus on the emotions and the how the characters interacted with each other, It was like I was watching a movie for the first time, but I knew what was going to happen. There were also differences from what I imagined in my head, like watching a movie after reading the book, you pick up on what you and the movie had differentiated. For example, some of the characters I had a different view one, Clov I thought was going to look or be a bitter person because of all the negative things that he thought was funny and only speaking to Hamm. In the play, he was not close to what I imagined but the opposite. This applied to most of the characters, including Nagg and Nell. I think they had to do it this way to intrigue the audience, give a different light on the characters.

-Denny Huang