Catastrophe (2004) Poster

(2004)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Good even if you don't know what it means
dbborroughs23 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A man and a woman in a theater look a man over in an effort to figure out how best to display him ( humiliate him?).

Well made film with a great cast (Harold Pinter, Rebecca Pigeon and John Gielgud) in a story that seems to be the middle of some action. What is going on isn't clear, nor are the reasons behind it clear. I've read its suppose to be the humiliation of a political prisoner or something similar but clues to that effect are not really on the screen. Maybe its in the direction, which brings up the question how do you know what its about if you don't give all the clues? On the other hand, taken for what it is its a living breathing film, despite any subtext.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Far from a disaster...
Popey-617 July 2001
Not exactly what I was expecting from the final performance of John Gielgud, but nonetheless a captivating short film with Harold Pinter at his dominating best.

At first, it's difficult to know what this is really all about, but a few key glances from Gielgud let the viewer in on the secret of this apparent voyeuristic fantasy. Not for everyone I'll admit, but worth a look when it appears in the TV schedul
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
no matter try again fail again fail better
drn57 March 2003
It's quite an achievement to take a five minute play and completely miss the point, but that's what David Mamet seems to have done. Beckett's play is about a director and his assistants trying to create a stage image of abject despair. They take an actor, the Protagonist, who remains silent throughout, and adjust him and tweak him until his clothing and posture project the required image of pitiful dejectedness. Then they shine a light on him and admire their handiwork, and the applause of a vast audience echoes through the theatre. But instead of staying in his abject position, the Protagonist rebels: he lifts his head and stares the audience in the eye. The applause falters and dies. End of play.

It's probably the most optimistic play Beckett wrote and symbolises the indomitability of the human spirit in the face of totalitarianism (it was written for the imprisoned Czech playwright Vaclav Havel).

Anyway, Mamet spoils it by trying to make it naturalistic. First, he films it in a real place, which looks like a tiny theatre in a village hall, with dinky wooden chairs and a parquet floor. This means that Harold Pinter, as the Director, looks like a local amateur dramatics honcho rather than a symbol of totalitarian oppression. Secondly, Mamet ignores Beckett's stage direction about the applause of a vast audience, and instead gives us only the Director's Assistant clapping; this removes the film even further from its satire on totalitarianism. Finally, Mamet obscures John Gielgud's poignant performance as the Protagonist: we don't see him raise his head, and only see his face for a couple of seconds (whereas Beckett asks for a long pause), so the play's most powerful moment is muffled.

All I have to say, Mr Mamet, is, IT'S MEANT TO BE SYMBOLIC!! Hello...?
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
John Gielgud's swansong.
the red duchess22 May 2001
Last year, Ireland's national broadcaster (RTE), the Irish Film Board, Channel 4 and the Gate Theatre (soi-disant keepers of the Beckett flame) commissioned films of all Samuel Beckett's stage plays from the likes of Anthony Minghella, Neil Jordan and Patricia Rozema. The results were first aired in a festival at the Irish Film Centre in early February of this year, with their television premiere on RTE a month later.

These films are the Irish equivalent of Merchant Ivory, a reverant mummification of a 'great' literary figure, with more thought given to the concept than the translation of works from one medium to another. This translation is especially difficult in Beckett, which often favour static tableaux and patterns over plot and character.

Mamet is pre-eminent in culpability here, not only 'retaining' the play's stageboundness (sic?) over cinematic readjustment; not only by muffling John Gielgud's final performance by emasculating a powerful and poignant role; but by excising all political references in Beckett's one overtly political play, written in 1981 as a gesture of support for the jailed Czech dissident and playwright, Vaclev Havel.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed