Film is a 1965 short by the playwright and novelist Samuel Beckett and his frequent collaborator Alan Schneider. It stars the silent film actor Buster Keaton in his final film role, just months before his death, and centres around a man who is followed by a mysterious eye. While it is little known and relatively obscure, the creative collaboration between Keaton and Beckett alone makes the film an interesting cultural artefact that is worthy of conversation.
In terms of its star, Keaton is a strong choice for the main role. His weathered, anxious face suits perfectly for the paranoiac main character. There are rumours that at one stage Chaplin was asked to take the role instead, and I would have been very interested to see how that turned out. Chaplin was always, in my opinion, a better filmmaker than Keaton, and for that matter, a stronger actor. However, there is no question that Keaton was one of the major players of his day. He was a heavy hitter whose films are relevant to culture even now. He remains an iconic figure in film history and was ultimately a good fit for this role.
Beckett, I consider one of the finest playwrights that history has ever produced. He ranks among Shakespeare and Sophocles in his use of the theatrical medium and was perhaps matched only by Arthur Miller in the 20th Century. Waiting for Godot is not only a world class play but also a striking philosophical work, and Endgame is a similarly iconic effort. His numerous novels are also of high acclaim.
His writing of this film is, as to be expected, strong. It touches on themes of perception and is fundamentally about the unease that comes with being watched. Film Historian Ross Lipman regards the film as a response to and debate with the Berkeleyan premise that ‘to be is to be perceived.’ Beckett explores this theme to its full potential, and the film as a result has a sort of prescient quality. Beckett’s exploration of being watched is unsurprisingly resonant in the modern age of digital surveillance.
I was however saddened by the lack of levity in the film. Beckett, as I know him, is as effortlessly funny as he is hopelessly depressing. So, to work with one of the great comic actors in an utterly humourless film like this one is a strange choice indeed. The film’s lack of wit will unfortunately be a thorough disappointment for anyone familiar with Beckett’s usual work.
Ultimately though, seeing the two men collaborate artistically is an event akin to Marilyn Monroe’s collaboration with Arthur Miller on The Misfits. A truly iconic Hollywood actor working with an original screenplay by one of the great playwrights is something that does not happen often. It is a cultural event, and a moment of significance irrespective
of the drab final product. For a more interesting depiction of Beckett on film, see his ‘Mute Interview’ for Swedish Television.
3/5 Stars.
