Advertisement

Film and the Ecstatic Spectator

  • Michelle Chiang
Chapter
Part of the New Interpretations of Beckett in the Twenty-First Century book series (NIBTFC)

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.

Bibliography

  1. 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.
  2. Ahearn, Edward J. 1983. Ecstatic Poetics: Self, Collectivity, Form. In Rimbaud, Visions and Habitations, 161–182. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckett, Samuel. 1972. Film by Samuel Beckett: Complete Scenarios, Illustrations, Production Shots. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1984. In Disjecta: Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment, ed. Ruby Cohn. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bignell, Jonathan. 2009. Beckett on Screen. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bion, Wilfred. 1961. Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 1970. Attention and Interpretation. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1984. Transformations. London: Mansfield Reprints.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Connor, Steven. 1998. Beckett and Bion. Presentation, Beckett and London Conference, Goldsmiths College, London. http://www.stevenconnor.com/beckbion/
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. ———. 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
  18. ———. 2005. Cinema 1. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy? Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2005. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dowd, Garin. 2007. Abstract Machines: Samuel Beckett and Philosophy After Deleuze and Guattari. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. ———. 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
  24. ———. 1987. Nonindifferent Nature: Film and the Structure of Things. Trans. Herbert Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Gardner, Colin. 2012. Beckett, Deleuze and the Televisual Event: Peephole Art. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, Andrew. 1990. Reading Narrative Discourse: Studies in the Novel from Cervantes to Beckett. New York: St Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 1996. Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2010. Samuel Beckett. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Harmon, Maurice, ed. 1998. No Author Better Served: The Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hayman, David. 1982. Joyce/Beckett/Joyce. Journal of Beckett Studies 7: 101–107.Google Scholar
  33. Knowlson, James. 1996. Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lipman, Ross, dir. 2017. NotFilm. 2015. New York: Milestone Film & Video, Inc., DVD.Google Scholar
  37. Lorenc, John A. 2008. The Reform of the Divine Image in Augustine’s De Trinitate. Master’s Thesis, McMaster University.Google Scholar
  38. Moorjani, Angela. 2004. Beckett and Psychoanalysis. In Palgrave Advances: Samuel Beckett Studies, ed. Lois Oppenheim, 172–193. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paraskeva, Anthony. 2017. Samuel Beckett and Cinema. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Rabaté, Jean-Michel. 2016. Think, Pig! Beckett at the Limits of the Human. New York: Fordham UP.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, Bennett. 1988. Tragic Drama and the Family: Psychoanalytic Studies from Aeschylus to Beckett. Michigan: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. ———. 2009. Expression and Affect in Kleist, Beckett and Deleuze. In Deleuze and Performance, ed. Laura Cull, 54–70. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Valente, Francesca. Joyce’s Dubliners as Epiphanies. The Modern Word. http://www.themodernword.com/joyce/papervalente.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2014.
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Chiang
    • 1
  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations