Distortion

Well-acted yet weird, different but clear, the movie presents a different feelings as to the original play. While reading WFD, I felt no significant emotion coming from the characters: no clarity as to what was really going on in the characters´ minds. The monotonous tone produced an extreme level of boredom, as to which impaired the act of actually being able to analyze the character´s thought. 

But in the movie, this impairment of not begin able to "read" the character is nonexistent. The movie expresses the characters in an obvious matter: a way in which the viewer can interpret what the actor feels. This ability of knowing exactly what the character is trying to say, or more importantly what the character feels, conveys a varying perception to the viewer. The act of questioning is extinct, the director eliminates any doubt, and expresses  his perspective on how he questioned and analyzed the play. While reading Lucky´s speech, I pictured a man, a man with deep thought, surprisingly intellectual with his long redaction of speech, an overall philosophical man is conveyed. I interpreted Lucky for the first time as a man of wisdom. But the same speech in the movie, is not the same character that I interpreted. The director transforms Lucky into a schizophrenic-like figure, a possessed man, speaking as thought the lines had been memorized before, a robotic sentiment is acted: the eyes and the frozen body. 

This makes me feel as though the whole point of WFD is: eradicated. The entire play is so boring and simple that it obligates the reader to think deeply, ask questions, and leave the reader to conclude what he/she conclude what Beckett wanted to say. The movie cheats the viewer from what WFD signifies. Boring yet interesting, simple but profound, the play must be read before watching the movie, the reader must have his own idea before being spoon-fed what a director thought Beckett was trying to portray. 

A movie in color?  Don't even think about it.