Film and the Ecstatic Spectator

Chiang, Michelle

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91518-0_3

Michelle Chiang³

Part of the book series: New Interpretations of Beckett in the Twenty-First Century ((NIBTFC))

170 Accesses

Abstract

We continue to look at the viewer’s intuitive engagement with Beckett drama, by focusing on how Film’s spectator’s intuition is activated as she is displaced from her habitual way of knowing. There is a sense of comfort for the spectator in the ease with which she could assume the position of the invisible voyeur and vicariously trap herself in the familiar network of relations offered by a typical film spectacle. Beckett’s drama offers its audience no such delusional discomfort. This chapter maintains there is nothing comforting in Film, and the veils that its network of relations could weave are either displaced, absent or unraveling in Beckett’s only work in this medium.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 49.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 64.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 89.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Tomás Gutierrez Alea, “The Viewer’s Dialectic, part 2,” trans. Julia Lesage, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 30 (March 1985), accessed April 2, 2014, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC30folder/ViewersDialectic2.html
2.
Samuel Beckett, Film by Samuel Beckett: complete scenarios, illustrations, production shots (hereafter Complete Scenarios) (London: Faber and Faber, 1972), 68.
3.
J. M. B Antoine-Dunne , “Beckett and Eisenstein on Light and Contrapuntal Image,” in Samuel Beckett Endlessness in the Year 2000, ed. Angela Moorjani and Carola Veit, Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui, 11 (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2002), 315–23 (317).
4.
Anthony Paraskeva, Samuel Beckett and Cinema (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 121.
5.
S. M. Eisenstein, “Organic Unity and Pathos in the Composition of Potemkin,” Cahiers du Cinema in English 3, ed. by Andrew Sarris (reprint, New York: Joseph Weill/Cahiers Publishing, 1966), 36–43 (39).
6.
Eisenstein, Nonindifferent Nature: Film and the Structure of Things, trans. Herbert Marshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 28.
7.
Sergei Eisenstein, Nonindifferent Nature: Film and the Structure of Things, trans. Herbert Marshall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 28.
8.
Ibid., 178–9.
9.
Eisenstein, “The Structure of the Film,” in Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, trans. Jay Leyda (Florida: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1977), 150–78 (168).
10.
Beckett , Film, in Samuel Beckett: The Complete Dramatic Works (hereafter CDW) (London: Faber and Faber, 2006), 321–34 (330).
11.
Ibid., 101.
12.
Ibid., 323.
13.
Anthony Uhlmann, Samuel Beckett and the Philosophical Image (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 124.
14.
Ibid., 101.
15.
Complete Scenarios, 16 and 57.
16.
Colin Gardner, Beckett, Deleuze and the Televisual Event: Peephole Art (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 50.
17.
Ibid., 51.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid.
20.
Eisenstein, Nonindifferent Nature, p. 35.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid.
23.
Pyeaam Abbasi and Hussein Salimian, “Binary Oppositions and the Meaning of Joyce’s Dubliners,” Studies in Literature and Language 5, no. 2 (2012): 63–9 (68), accessed December 10, 2013, http://cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/j.sll.1923156320120502.1926/3107
24.
Francesca Valente, “Joyce’s Dubliners as Epiphanies,” The Modern Word, accessed April 2, 2014, http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/papervalente.html
25.
Eisenstein, Nonindifferent Nature, 28.
26.
Raymond Federman, “Samuel Beckett’s Film On The Agony of Perceivedness,” James Joyce Quarterly, 8.4 (1971): 363–71 (367–8), accessed April 2, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486927
27.
David Hayman, “Joyce/Beckett/Joyce,” Journal of Beckett Studies, 7 (1982): 101–7.
28.
Qtd in Federman , 366–7.
29.
Samuel Beckett, Film by Samuel Beckett: Complete Scenarios, Illustrations, Production Shots (London: Faber and Faber, 1972), 11.
30.
Gardner, 44.
31.
Jonathan Bignell, Beckett on Screen (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2009), 196.
32.
Ibid., 197.
33.
Ibid.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Samuel Beckett, “Intercessions by Denis Devlin,” in Disjecta: Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment, ed. by Ruby Cohn (New York: Grove Press, 1984), 91.
36.
Andrew Gibson, Samuel Beckett (London: Reaktion Books, 2010), 160.
37.
Gibson , Reading Narrative Discourse: Studies in the Novel from Cervantes to Beckett (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1990), 154–5.
38.
Gibson, Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996), 272–3. Quotations in the first sentence are from Michel Foucault’s “Vol 2: The Use of Pleasure” in The History of Sexuality, trans. R. Hurley (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1992), 8; the quotation in the second sentence is from Friedrich Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987), 73.
39.
Dirk Van Hulle, “‘Nichtsnichtsundnichts’: Beckett’s and Joyce’s Transtextual Undoings,” in Beckett, Joyce and the Art of the Negative, ed. by Colleen Jaurretche, European Joyce Studies 16 (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2005), 49–62 (60).
40.
Gilles Deleuze, “The Greatest Irish Film (Beckett’s Film),” in Essays Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 23–6 (25).
41.
Gardner, 44.
42.
Deleuze and Félix Guattari, What Is Philosophy? trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 164.
43.
Edward J. Ahearn, “Ecstatic Poetics: Self, Collectivity, Form,” in Rimbaud, Visions and Habitations (London: University of California Press, 1983), 161–82 (164). It is worth noting that a better translation of “On me pense,” according to Mark Taylor-Batty, is “I am being thought.” Ahearn’s “I am thought” risks a misinterpretation of “thought” as a noun, instead of a verb written in the passive voice; Uhlmann has already suggested that “one of the things that Beckett’s Film makes us see with regard to Berkeley’s formulation is that it does not allow or involve any simple connection between the eye and the I. According to Rimbaud , another favorite of Beckett is ‘Je est un autre’ (I is another)” (98). Clearly, Uhlmann cites in brief this line by Arthur Rimbaud to emphasize Beckett’s interest in the divided self, but I think it is worth looking at the sentence as a whole. That is, preceding “I is another” in Rimbaud’s shorter “letter du voyant” was “C’est faux de dire: Je pense. On devrait dire: On me pense” (It’s false to say: I think. One should say: I am thought).
44.
Ibid., 162.
45.
Simon Critchley, “To be or not to be is not the question: On Beckett’s Film.” Naked Punch, 15 Sep 2010, http://nakedpunch.com/articles/30
46.
Gilles Deleuze, “The Greatest Irish Film (Beckett’s Film),” in Essays Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 26.
47.
Ibid.
48.
Deleuze, Cinema 1, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (London: Continuum, 2005), 70.
49.
Anthony Uhlmann, “Expression and Affect in Kleist, Beckett and Deleuze,” in Deleuze and Performance, ed. by Laura Cull (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 54–70 (61).
50.
Alan Schneider, “On Directing Film,” in Complete Scenarios, 93.
51.
Ibid.
52.
Ibid.
53.
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 294.
54.
Ibid., 292.
55.
Damien Sutton and David Martin-Jones, Deleuze Reframed: Interpreting Key Thinkers for the Arts (Contemporary Thinkers Reframed) (London and New York: I. B. Tauris and Co. Ltd., 2008), 5.
56.
Ibid, 158.
57.
A Thousand Plateaus, 159.
58.
Antonin Artaud, “To Have Done with the Judgement of God,” in Antonin Artaud: Selected Writings, trans. Helen Weaver, ed. by Susan Sontag (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), 555–74 (570).
59.
Deleuze, “To Have Done with Judgement,” in Essays Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 126–35 (130–1).
60.
Ibid.
61.
Garin Dowd also puts it that “the organed body is striated” in that it “generates hierarchies and imposes structures,” whereas the Body without Organs “is rhizomatic” and free of the “arborescent model” in Abstract Machines: Samuel Beckett and Philosophy after Deleuze and Guattari (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2007), 151.
62.
Film, in CDW, 324.
63.
Paul Stewart, “But Why Shakespeare? The Muted Role of Dickens in Endgame,” in Samuel Beckett’s Endgame, ed . by Mark S. Byron (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2007), 207–26 (218).
64.
Ibid.
65.
Schneider, 73.
66.
NotFilm, directed by Ross Lipman (2015; New York: Milestone Film & Video, Inc., 2017), DVD.
67.
Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in a Psychoanalytic Experience,” in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al. (London: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2001), 1285–90 (1286).
68.
Ibid.
69.
Angela Moorjani also has it that “Beckett’s textual mirrors, doublings, and disintegrating forms echo the mirror stage’s constitution of the I as other (self-estrangement) and the introjection and projection of virtual marionettes of bodily wholeness, on the one hand, and of bodily fragmentation and the dissolution, on the other” in “Beckett and Psychoanalysis,” in Palgrave Advances: Samuel Beckett Studies, ed. Lois Oppenheim (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 172–93 (182); More specific to Film, Norma Bouchard also suggests that “[l]ike Lacan , Beckett emphasizes the shortcomings of vision” and that the confrontation scene represents the E/O protagonist’s “seeing eye’s failure in positing a homogenous, unified subject.” in “Film in Context (s),” in Beckett Versus Beckett, ed. Marius Buning, Danielle de Ruyter, Matthijs Engelberts and Sjef Houppermans, Samuel Beckett Today/Samuel Beckett Aujourd’hui 7 (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 1998), 121–34 (125).
70.
Complete Scenarios, 12 and 32.
71.
Bignell, 195.
72.
John A. Lorenc, “The Reform of the Divine Image in Augustine’s De Trinitate” (master’s thesis, McMaster University, 2008), 2.
73.
Endgame, in CDW, 101.
74.
Samuel Beckett, The Selected Works of Samuel Beckett Vol. III (Grove Press, 2010), 367.
75.
No Author Better Served: The Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider, ed. Maurice Harmon (Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1998), 184.
76.
Ibid., 188.
77.
Ibid., 189.
78.
Ibid.
79.
Bignell, 195.
80.
Ibid.
81.
Bennett Simon, Tragic Drama and the Family: Psychoanalytic Studies from Aeschylus to Beckett (Michigan: Yale University Press, 1988), 214.
82.
Ibid., 216.
83.
Paul Lawley, “Stages of Identity: From Krapp’s Last Tape to Play,” in The Cambridge Companion to Beckett, ed. John Pilling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 88–105 (102).
84.
Quoted in Ibid.
85.
Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative Function of the I as Revealed in a Psychoanalytic Experience,” in Ecrits: The First Complete Edition in English, trans. Bruce Fink (London and New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., 2006), 75–81 (79).
86.
Ibid.
87.
Ibid.
88.
Solomon E. Asch, “Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority” in Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70, no. 9 (1956): 1–70 (70), accessed April 2013, psyhc604.stasson.org/Asch1956.pdf
89.
James Knowlson, Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett (London: Bloomsbury, 1996), 175; Wilfred Bion, Experiences in Groups (London: Tavistock Publications, 1961);
90.
Steven Connor , “Beckett and Bion .” (presentation, Beckett and London Conference, Goldsmiths College, London, 1998). http://www.stevenconnor.com/beckbion/
91.
Ibid.
92.
Bion, 54.
93.
Ibid., 169.
94.
Knowlson, 181.
95.
Ibid, 224.
96.
Bion , Attention and Interpretation (London: Tavistock Publications, 1970), 26.
97.
Bion , Transformations (London : Mansfield Reprints, 1984), 148.
98.
Ibid, 12–3.
99.
Robert White, “Gelassenheit, from Three Points of View.” (Gardner Lecture, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University, May 7, 2009): 1–27 (4), accessed May 2013, http://www.robertwhitemd.com/Images/Gelassenheit.pdf
100.
Ibid.
101.
James S. Grotstein , “Bion’s Transformation in ‘O’ and the Concept of the ‘Transcendent Position’,” in W. R. Bion: Between Past and Future: selected contributions from the International Centennial Conference on the Work of W. R. Bion, Turin, July 1997, ed. Parthenope Bion Talamo et al. (London and New York: Karnac Books, 2000), accessed April 5, 2014, http://www.sicap.it/~merciai/bion/papers/grots.htm
102.
Ibid.
103.
Beckett’s interest in the veil of Maya is well-documented. Matthew Feldman has it that it is, “without doubt, a major influence on both Beckett’s artistic temperament and his philosophical outlook during the interwar period,” and I gather that this influence may have extended to his conception of Film. See Matthew Feldman, “‘But What Was this Pursuit of Meaning, in this Indifference to Meaning?’: Beckett, Hussserl, Satre and Meaning Creation,” in Beckett and Phenomenology (London: Continuum, 2009), 13–38 (23).
104.
Ulrich Pothast, The Metaphysical Vision: Arthur Schopenhauer’s Philosophy of Art and Life and Samuel Beckett’s Own Way to Make Use of it (New York: Peter Lang Pub., 2008), 14.
105.
Ibid.
106.
Judith Poxon, “Embodied Anti-theology: The body without organs and the judgment of God,” in Deleuze and Religion, ed. Mary Bryden (New York: Routledge, 2001), 42–50 (44).
107.
Ibid., 43.
108.
Deleuze, “To have done with judgement,” 132.
109.
Ibid.
110.
Ibid.
111.
Ibid., 131.
112.
Poxon, 42.
113.
Uhlmann compares Deleuze’s concepts in “To have done with Judgement” with what he deems to be Beckett’s aesthetic ideal, that is, a “non-relational art” or an artistic expression that is not constituted by distinctive connections and relations, and observes that “there can be no judgement where there is no possibility of ‘obedience’ and there is no possibility of obedience in an aesthetic system that claims to admit no relation.” The all-encompassing intuition within and without the organism admits no distinctive relation between the organism and the non-organism because it is viewed as an assemblage and this vantage point is not colored by an intention to dominate or overpower. Uhlmann defines “Obedience” as a relation of and adherence to inadequately understood terms that perpetuates ignorance and “makes judgement possible.” See Uhlmann , “To Have Done with Judgement: Beckett and Deleuze ,” SubStance, Issue 81, 25.3 (1996): 110–31 (117), accessed April, 15, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684869; Also, in a recent publication, Beckett’s non-relational aesthetics is extended by Jean-Michel Rabaté as he considers Beckett’s ethics of non-relation in Think, Pig! Beckett at the Limits of the Human (New York: Fordham UP, 2016).
114.
Deleuze, “The Greatest Irish Film,” 26.

Bibliography

Abbasi, Pyeaam, and Hussein Salimian. 2012. Binary Oppositions and the Meaning of Joyce’s Dubliners. Studies in Literature and Language 5(2): 63–69. http://cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/j.sll.1923156320120502.1926/3107.Accessed 10 Dec 2013.
Ahearn, Edward J. 1983. Ecstatic Poetics: Self, Collectivity, Form. In Rimbaud, Visions and Habitations, 161–182. London: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Alea, Tomás Gutierrez. 1985. The Viewer’s Dialectic, Part 2. Trans. Julia Lesage. Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 30, March. http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC30folder/ViewersDialectic2.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Antoine-Dunne, J.M.B. 2002. Beckett and Eisenstein on Light and Contrapuntal Image. In Samuel Beckett Endlessness in the Year 2000, Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui, ed. Angela Moorjani and Carola Veit, vol. 11, 315–323. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Artaud, Antonin. 1976. To Have Done with the Judgement of God. In Antonin Artaud: Selected Writings, 555–574. Trans. Helen Weaver, ed. Susan Sontag. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1956. Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70 (9): 1–70.
Article Google Scholar
Beckett, Samuel. 1972. Film by Samuel Beckett: Complete Scenarios, Illustrations, Production Shots. London: Faber and Faber.
Google Scholar
———. 1984. In Disjecta: Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment, ed. Ruby Cohn. New York: Grove Press.
Google Scholar
Bignell, Jonathan. 2009. Beckett on Screen. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
Google Scholar
Bion, Wilfred. 1961. Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock Publications.
Book Google Scholar
———. 1970. Attention and Interpretation. London: Tavistock Publications.
Google Scholar
———. 1984. Transformations. London: Mansfield Reprints.
Google Scholar
Bouchard, Norma. “Film in Context(s),” in Beckett Versus Beckett, Marius Buning, Danielle de Ruyter, Matthijs Engelberts and Sjef Houppermans, Samuel Beckett Today/Samuel Beckett Aujourd’hui 7. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 1998, 121–134.
Google Scholar
Connor, Steven. 1998. Beckett and Bion. Presentation, Beckett and London Conference, Goldsmiths College, London. http://www.stevenconnor.com/beckbion/
Critchley, Simon. 2010. To Be or Not to Be Is Not the Question: On Beckett’s Film. Naked Punch, September 15. http://nakedpunch.com/articles/30
Deleuze, Gilles. 1997a. The Greatest Irish Film (Beckett’s Film). In Essays Critical and Clinical, 23–26. Trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Google Scholar
———. 1997b. To Have Done with Judgement. In Essays Critical and Clinical, 126–135. Trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2005. Cinema 1. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy? Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2005. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
Google Scholar
Dowd, Garin. 2007. Abstract Machines: Samuel Beckett and Philosophy After Deleuze and Guattari. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Eisenstein, S. M. 1966. Organic Unity and Pathos in the Composition of Potemkin. In Cahiers du Cinema in English, vol. 3, 36–43, ed. Andrew Sarris. Reprint. New York: Joseph Weill/Cahiers Publishing.
Google Scholar
———. 1977. The Structure of the Film. In Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, 150–178. Trans. Jay Leyda. Florida: Harcourt Brace and Co.
Google Scholar
———. 1987. Nonindifferent Nature: Film and the Structure of Things. Trans. Herbert Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Federman, Raymond. 1971. Samuel Beckett’s Film on the Agony of Perceivedness. James Joyce Quarterly 8(4): 363–371. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486927. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Gardner, Colin. 2012. Beckett, Deleuze and the Televisual Event: Peephole Art. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Book Google Scholar
Gibson, Andrew. 1990. Reading Narrative Discourse: Studies in the Novel from Cervantes to Beckett. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Book Google Scholar
———. 1996. Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2010. Samuel Beckett. London: Reaktion Books.
Google Scholar
Grotstein, James S. 2000. Bion’s Transformation in ‘O’ and the Concept of the ‘Transcendent Position.’ In W. R. Bion: Between Past and Future: Selected Contributions from the International Centennial Conference on the Work of W. R. Bion, Turin, July 1997, eds. Parthenope Bion Talamo, et al. London/New York: Karnac Books. http://www.sicap.it/~merciai/bion/papers/grots.htm. Accessed 5 Apr 2014.
Harmon, Maurice, ed. 1998. No Author Better Served: The Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Hayman, David. 1982. Joyce/Beckett/Joyce. Journal of Beckett Studies 7: 101–107.
Google Scholar
Knowlson, James. 1996. Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett. London: Bloomsbury.
Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 2001. The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in a Psychoanalytic Experience. In The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al., 1285–1290. London: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
Google Scholar
Lawley, Paul. 1994. Stages of Identity: From Krapp’s Last Tape to Play. In The Cambridge Companion to Beckett, ed. John Pilling, 88–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lipman, Ross, dir. 2017. NotFilm. 2015. New York: Milestone Film & Video, Inc., DVD.
Google Scholar
Lorenc, John A. 2008. The Reform of the Divine Image in Augustine’s De Trinitate. Master’s Thesis, McMaster University.
Google Scholar
Moorjani, Angela. 2004. Beckett and Psychoanalysis. In Palgrave Advances: Samuel Beckett Studies, ed. Lois Oppenheim, 172–193. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapter Google Scholar
Paraskeva, Anthony. 2017. Samuel Beckett and Cinema. London: Bloomsbury.
Google Scholar
Pothast, Ulrich. 2008. The Metaphysical Vision: Arthur Schopenhauer’s Philosophy of Art and Life and Samuel Beckett’s Own Way to Make Use of It. New York: Peter Lang Pub.
Google Scholar
Poxon, Judith. 2001. Embodied Anti-theology: The Body Without Organs and the Judgment of God. In Deleuze and Religion, ed. Mary Bryden, 42–50. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Rabaté, Jean-Michel. 2016. Think, Pig! Beckett at the Limits of the Human. New York: Fordham UP.
Google Scholar
Simon, Bennett. 1988. Tragic Drama and the Family: Psychoanalytic Studies from Aeschylus to Beckett. Michigan: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Stewart, Paul. 2007. But Why Shakespeare? The Muted Role of Dickens in Endgame. In Samuel Beckett’s Endgame, ed. Mark S. Byron, 207–226. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Sutton, Damien, and David Martin-Jones. 2008. Deleuze Reframed: Interpreting Key Thinkers for the Arts (Contemporary Thinkers Reframed). London/New York: I. B. Tauris and Co. Ltd.
Google Scholar
Uhlmann, Anthony. 1996. To Have Done with Judgement: Beckett and Deleuze. SubStance 25.3(Issue 81): 110–131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684869. Accessed 15 Apr 2013.
———. 2009. Expression and Affect in Kleist, Beckett and Deleuze. In Deleuze and Performance, ed. Laura Cull, 54–70. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
Valente, Francesca. Joyce’s Dubliners as Epiphanies. The Modern Word. http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/papervalente.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
Van Hulle, Dirk. 2005. ‘Nichtsnichtsundnichts’: Beckett’s and Joyce’s Transtextual Undoings. In Beckett, Joyce and the Art of the Negative, European Joyce Studies, ed. Colleen Jaurretche, vol. 16, 49–62. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Chapter Google Scholar
White, Robert. 2009. Gelassenheit, from Three Points of View. Gardner Lecture, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University 1–27(4), May 7. http://www.robertwhitemd.com/Images/Gelassenheit.pdf. Accessed May 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Michelle Chiang

Authors

Michelle Chiang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chiang, M. (2018). Film and the Ecstatic Spectator. In: Beckett's Intuitive Spectator. New Interpretations of Beckett in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91518-0_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91518-0_3
Published: 17 July 2018
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91517-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91518-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics