Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Buster Keaton
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
W swym artykule Masłoń argumentuje przeciwko takim interpretacjom „Generała” (1926) Bustera Keatona, które przedstawiają ten film jako krytykę mechanizacji, a co za tym idzie – dehumanizacji ludzkiego życia w nowoczesnym świecie. Wychodząc od definicji Bergsona, dla którego esencją komedii jest „mechaniczność powlekająca życie”, i uwzględniając romantyczną proweniencję tej definicji (idee organicznego dzieła sztuki, sentymentalnej wewnętrzności itp.), autor stara się pokazać, że wbrew tej tradycji to właśnie „bezduszne” ciało jest przedstawione w filmie jako interesujące oraz że owo ciało, a nie spontaniczna duchowość, jest źródłem autonomii głównego bohatera i jego poetyckiego uroku. Co więcej, jeśli wziąć pod uwagę formę filmu, tylko „mechanicznie” skonstruowany slapstickowy wątek – oparty na pogoni, ukazujący stawanie się Johnny’ego maszyną – można uznać za samowystarczalny, choć zostaje on „zanieczyszczony” przez narzucone mu, rzekomo organiczne, sentymentalne i heroiczne konwencje. W ten sposób (zarówno w treści, jak i formie) film ten nie tylko odnosi się do uroszczeń spontaniczności i sentymentalnej organiczności, lecz także może być uznany za ocenę tej strony walczącej w wojnie secesyjnej, której tożsamość odwołuje się do tego rodzaju wartości.
EN
In his article, Masłoń argues against such interpretations of Buster Keaton’s “The General” (1926), that portray the film as a criticism of mechanization, and thus the dehumanization of human life in the modern world. Starting with Bergson’s definition, for whom the essence of comedy is “the mechanics of life”, and taking into account the romantic origins of this definition (ideas of organic art, sentimental interior, etc.), the author tries to show that, contrary to the tradition, it is precisely “soulless” body presented in the film that is of interest, and that that very body, rather than spontaneous spirituality, is the source of the autonomy of the main character and his poetic charm. Moreover, taking into the account the form of the film, only the “mechanically” constructed slapstick theme – based on the chase, and the process of Johnny becoming a machine– can be considered self-sufficient, even though it is “polluted” by the allegedly organic, sentimental and heroic conventions. In this manner (both in content and form) the film refers to simplifications of spontaneity and organic sentimentality, and can also be considered as an evaluation of this side fighting in the American civil war whose identity refers to this type of values.
EN
“How Beckett’s Man Was Born from Keaton, or an Absurdist Book of Genesis” is an attempt to find the origins of Beckettian characters in cinematic tradition. The choice of Buster Keaton is intentional, as it was him – proud and headstrong and not the overly sentimental Chaplin – who introduced the sphere of the essence of existence (stemming from the antic tragedy) into the world of slapstick (a part of low culture). Keaton – the deadpan comedian from his serious comedies and Samuel Beckett – the creator of the theatre where lack of action forms the bulk of the action both entered the field of eschatological reflections while contradicting the form they both had been using. Experimenting with Time as a matter in the work they achieved a narrative breakthrough – Beckett by stretching it to the unbearable, never-ending “here and now”, Keaton by shrinking it, so that the hero could never keep up with the events or the viewer’s perception. All in the name of absurd, the sense of which both Beckett and Keaton shared to a surprising extent.
PL
How Beckett’s Man Was Born from Keaton, or an Absurdist Book of Genesis “How Beckett’s Man Was Born from Keaton, or an Absurdist Book of Genesis” is an attempt to find the origins of Beckettian characters in cinematic tradition. The choice of Buster Keaton is intentional, as it was him – proud and headstrong and not the overly sentimental Chaplin – who introduced the sphere of the essence of existence (stemming from the antic tragedy) into the world of slapstick (a part of low culture). Keaton – the deadpan comedian from his serious comedies and Samuel Beckett – the creator of the theatre where lack of action forms the bulk of the action both entered the field of eschatological reflections while contradicting the form they both had been using. Experimenting with Time as a matter in the work they achieved a narrative breakthrough – Beckett by stretching it to the unbearable, never-ending “here and now”, Keaton by shrinking it, so that the hero could never keep up with the events or the viewer’s perception. All in the name of absurd, the sense of which both Beckett and Keaton shared to a surprising extent.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.