There are people that say that "a picture is worth a
thousand words." Generally, I would agree, but in the case of Waiting
for Godot, I wouldn't be so sure. After having watched the film, I am now
forced to look at the play through someone else's eyes. I see things the way
the director imagined them, and this alienates me from the play, and from what
I felt and saw as I was reading it. The fact that it is a play means that Beckett
wanted this to happen. He wanted the actors to interpret the emotions and
actions of the characters a certain way and try their best to portray that, but
at the same time leaving a large grey area so that the audience can replay the
entire thing in their heads and have it come out completely different.
How can I know what you see? How can I know what you feel?
Every single person experiences things in unique ways, so there is no way of
knowing whether what the author intended you to feel is actually what you are
experiencing.
If we take Lucky's speech from the play, there are a
thousand different ways that an actor can choose to interpret it. I had
imagined Lucky as a worn down, shaky, small old man that would just start to
ramble on and on about nothing, with occasional lapses in judgment. However,
the way it is presented in the movie, Lucky talks with passion and conviction.
He makes pauses, and when he reaches the middle he starts to get really into
it.
Whether you are like me, and imagine a life-less Lucky
babbling about inconsequential things, or whether you agree with the
impersonation he was given in the movie, no one can tell who is right and who
is wrong because there is no right or
wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment