Rating: 
Summary: WHO, WHAT IS THAT STRANGE FIGURE IN THE CHAIR?
Review: There is a curious tendency in American 'culture' to think that the function of art is to entertain. Therefore if one is not entertained by a work of art then it can not possibly be good art. And along with being entertaining, the work of art must be agreeable. Therefore if one does not find the artist's apparent view of reality agreeable then the work in question can not possibly be good art. And of course all art must express a 'philosophy' and if one finds this 'philosophy' confusing or unappealing then the work in question can not possibly be good art.
In contrast to all this I would like to posit that Samuel Beckett
is a very great artist and he is not an entertainer. Art is one creature. Entertainment is another.
Also: Whether one finds Beckett's 'ideas', sensibilty, or tone agreeable is utterly irrelavant to whether or not he is a good artist. Art is not a popularity contest.
Finally, Samuel Beckett is not a PHILOSOPHER, he is an ARTIST. He is not an existentialist or any other sort of philosopher. Nowhere in his work does he present anything resembling a philosophy. This is difficult for some readers to comprehend because they think that everything that Beckett writes is an intellectual attempt to explain life; and it must express a philosophy because everyone has a philosophy and loves to expound on it.
None of these common assumptions applies to Samuel Beckett.
His work ENDGAME does not present us with a 'philosophy of life'.
It presents us with an ARTISTIC VISION that you are free to attempt to derive some philosophy from if you choose to, but Beckett doesn't have to answer for it.
All of the negative reviews of ENDGAME here give an 'explanation'
of what the play is 'about' then hold up this explanation as evidence of the fact that the play is not good. Well, all of the explanations given are mediocre intellectual interprtations that do not address ENDGAME as a work of art.
Let's start with a simple question: Why is it so often assumed by readers that Hamm is a man who is merely a reflection of
Beckett himself? Why?
And is Hamm really even a man, a human being? Do you actually know a man who sits constantly in a darkened room, wearing a toque and a gown, in a chair with castors, with blood-stained linen covering his face? I doubt it. Hamm is not a man. He is a fluid artistic image masterfully moved and sustained through the duration a theater drama. What is the meaning of this artistic image? Well, what is the meaning of an eclipse of the sun to a primitive or to you, for that matter. What is the meaning of the first nightmare you ever had? If you try to give a complete, conclusive, general sort of answer then can't you honestly feel that the answer is not quite true, that you are really only guessing about the meaning, at least in part. Aren't you really selling your experience a little short?
What makes Hamm (and everthing else in the play) a great creation is that 'he' has the power to reach so deeply into you without you really understanding what is happening. Beckett called this "the power of the text to claw." Then before you proceed to explain what is happening, please stop and give Beckett credit for creating something that could do that to you, because that is what ART is. Try actually experiencing ENDGAME before you explain it and judge it.
Rating: 
Summary: The bleakest of them all...
Review: Totally bare in the conventional aspects of drama, Beckett's skewed humor depicts a meaningless world without hope or happiness. Taking the uncertainty of the human situation to the edge, Beckett summarized his views at his deathbed "What did you find to enjoy about life?"....."Very little." (approximately)
As such, Beckett's repitiveness shows the monotony and boredom of existence. Some people, who find his plays painful, would be in a state totally akin to Beckett himself. I get more enjoyment out of reading the plays than watching them performed. They are too slow and devoid of action to be filmable. The sense of humor is not redemptive to life, but merely shows the bleakness more sharply by contrast. I personally prefer Camus to Beckett, who at least has a slightly more balanced view of life, if not more meaningful.
Rating:
Summary: isolation and the loss of idealism in the modern world
Review: Ultimately more pessimistic that Beckett's "Godot," in many ways "Endgame" can be seen as a much fuller and altogether more haunting piece of theater. Beckett tirelessly explores our greatest fears--isolation, mortality, loss of idealism--until the play becomes a barebones expression of what it means to be human in the existential uncertainty of the post WWII western world. It is a critique of our own social values; we see ourselves, in our most potent form, in its characters.This is a Beckett play; no one else could write it. Sometimes uneven in language, inconsistent in style, such conventions do not matter here. Like "Godot" however, occasionally Beckett overplays his message, and that at points the play is too cryptic to follow, especially when read. However, Beckett's vision in undeniably brilliant; we see ourselves in "Endgame" and we are inconsolably frightened by what we see.
|
