> Although I don't believe a Beckett play can > ever be reduced to a single interpretation, > Spoiler Alert.
> Judy, > > Thank you for posting this, I found it > compelling to watch. > > It's not easy to admit that we're all Krapp > (smile), and, in the end, alone. I must confess my intention in posting it was fairly literalist. Don't know when you tuned in to FFL this time around, but there was a discussion of time travel to the past: When in history would you most like to go back to? Seraphita pondered: "As your rules don't allow one to change the future, I wouldn't want to go back and meet an earlier version of myself. Not being able to offer advice or change the odds behind the scenes would be cruel. "'If youth only knew: if age only could.' - Henri Estienne (1470 - 1520)" I thought there was a resonance there with Krapp. > I liked the way the monologue, and silence, > framed and accentuated what was not said. I > thought Pinter's characterization---much of > the time using nothing more than facial > expressions---was transporting." Definitive, IMHO. And much of the time you couldn't even see his eyes. I had no idea he did any acting. Sure gives you a new perspective on Pinter and his own plays. His Krapp was deeply felt. > Everything in the room seemed burnt, > possibly from a blaze caused by the > narcissism of Krapp's younger years (alcohol > adding fuel to the fire of his self > absorption); even his wheelchair seemed > scorched, I could almost smell the smoke > hanging stale in the air. Ah, that must have been what I was smelling. I wasn't sure... > It's been said that Beckett's choice of > structure* was influenced by Manichaean > (Gnostic) doctrine, which teaches, among > other things, that the world has been ruled > by evil since God lost control of his > creation. I think this could explain the > choreography. Could well be, but I'm a little skeptical. Light vs. dark, and the three seals cited by Cronin as evidence, seem to me too nonspecific. > At about 42:40 of this clip there is a short > piece on the Yazidis, a sect in Kurdistan > who were influenced by the Gnostics; I watched all of this video, then wished I hadn't. So depressing. I was > reminded of it when I read* about the > possible influence of the Manichaeans on the > structure of the play, the burns on the > walls of the temple are reminiscent of > Krapps burnt wall paper (i loved the > wallpaper pattern underneath the smoke > damage, I could see the flames of his life > licking up the wall). Wow. I didn't pay all that much attention to the visuals, to be honest, but that's quite an observation. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wu0CTPeQjA > > As dark as the play is, I found hope in the > fact that Krapp seems to have no time for > his intellectual insights as a younger man, > but is drawn to his past failures in love; > it seems to be dawning on him that in these > previous experiences of love he may find > some purpose to his existence. > > "We lay there without moving, but under us > all moved and moved us gently up and down > and side to side." The images of the various women are so vivid because everything else is so drab. As you say, you can't pin down a single interpretation of the play, but I have to think it was intended to put an intense focus on those images and what they mean to Krapp. In any case, I'm pretty sure that was what Pinter and the director had in mind. The second-most vivid image, I thought, was in the play's present: his drinking. Terrific Beckett quote from the Wikipedia page on the play: "I realised that Joyce had gone as far as one could in the direction of knowing more, [being] in control of one’s material. He was always adding to it; you only have to look at his proofs to see that. I realised that my own way was in impoverishment, in lack of knowledge and in taking away, in subtracting rather than in adding." > I think "spool" is a wonderful metaphor for > life "Be again...be again. All that old misery. Once wasn't enough for you." > and I enjoyed the way Pinter played > with the word. I thought the choice of the > word "last"*, which could mean previous or > final, was brilliant. You *are* an optimist, aren't you? It could mean either, but I think it means final. I don't think Krapp has anywhere to go in this life. And at the end he's just sitting there listening to the blank tape at the end of the spoooooooool. * > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krapps_Last_Tape > > Here's a link to a small European film > ("Nothing Personal") I enjoyed watching > recently. For me, it's about reconciling the > desire to be alone with loneliness, and love, > and the "oh so human" need to be with someone > else. > > http://tinyurl.com/m5l24wu I watched this too. Just beautifully done, and a good complement to the Beckett. > Thanks again Judy. I try to read all your > posts, I am flattered out of my gourd. > but unfortunately my other commitments keep me > from posting as often as I'd like to. Boo hiss...! > Is it possible The Holy Spirit became a gnostic > when she left the world after the bombing of > Monte Cassino; Why would the Holy Spirit become a gnostic? another question to ask Robin if > he ever returns. I'd be astounded if he ever did, alas, especially considering recent developments (Neo, among others). I've just been reading a lot of stuff on apophatic theology, which can get very deep indeed. Gives me a new perspective on the notion that God/the Holy Trinity has gone missing. But that's a whole other kettle of fish...or does it somehow relate to your idea about gnosticism? > ***I make this burnt offering to the god Neo, > ruler of FFL and provider of crops of words > without the fertility of his name; oh great Neo, > I bow down to you---the antonym of Nemo---and > beseech you to deliver this post to FFL as close > as possible to my intentions (the fruit, flowers, > hanky and donation are in the mail). If your intentions were to fascinate me, it seems your offering was accepted. Fabulous to hear from you.
