Harold Pinter's The Birthday Party: Thinking Activity
This post is in response to the questions asked here
Absurd. Strange. Curious. Doubtful.
Such is the world of Harold Pinter's play, The Birthday Party. A great example of The Theatre Of The Absurd convention, The Birthday Party is open to varied and numerous interpretations. Considering the fact that Pinter himself was the screenplay writer of the film version of the play, the viewers are prepared beforehand for some distinct and intriguing dissimilarities from the original text. In my opinion, the incoherence and strangeness of the situation which Pinter portrays in his play are intensified in the film version since opportunities to do that are greater while making the film. Whether it is the camera angles or the sounds and visuals, the film version of the play can be considered a better version of the plot-line which Pinter narrates. However, there are instances which might be considered as loopholes to this assertion. I will be justifying this statement while answering the questions.
Post-viewing task:
1) This instance is one of the loopholes, I mentioned above. One of the major reasons for omitting Lulu's scenes would be to heighten the absurdity or strangeness regarding Stanley's birthday party. By omitting Lulu's scenes Pinter keeps the viewers perpetually confused and disturbed. This is because, there are enough instances to suggest the assertion that Lulu was either harassed or raped that night. By whom? we don't know. Probably, Nat Goldberg, whom she finds attractive. However, the movie leaves the issue unresolved by omitting the scene wherein, on the next day of the party, when Goldberg and McCann are about to leave with Stanley, Goldberg visits Lulu's house and the entire conflict comes to light. Though it isn't solved and is left incomplete for our interpretations.
2) The play as a comedy of menace, is by far, the easiest interpretation to make, in my opinion. Whether it is the unkempt appearance of the protagonist at the beginning of the play or the never-ending meaningless conversations between the characters, menace is at the center of Pinter's play. This menace is heightened by the audio-visual apparatuses in the movie. For instance, the scene wherein McCann tears the newspaper into strips slowly, just to annoy or irritate Stanley.
3) Just like the menacing situation, the feeling of lurking danger is heightened in the movie through the audio-visual techniques employed by the director, as well as the camera angles. The silences, the darkness during the party, the constant confusion regarding the curious visitors to the Boles house, etc contribute to the feeling of uneasiness which culminates into the feeling of lurking danger.
4) Pinter uses the newspaper as a symbol for many things. Petey and Meg's conversation regarding what's in the newspaper, reflects how ignorant Meg is from the dark realities of the world and is curious only about 'nice bits'. Newspaper, for Pinter, is no longer a means of communication. It is rather a medium to avoid conversations by hiding behind it. Similarly, tearing of newspaper by McCann reflects how futile is the idea of relying on the newspaper for communicating. In a world where genuine voices are often curtailed, they remain just annoying and irritating noises.
5) The camera angles are what constitutes, in Irving and Harriet Deer's opinion, the 'texture' which distinguishes the film from the play. Positioning the camera over the head of McCann during the Blind man's Buff during the Birthday Party, in my opinion, portrays him as the one who attacks or someone who is in a power position. Not much later, the camera moves to project the room from a height, when it's Stanley's turn; which obviously portrays him as a victim or someone who is trapped on all sides.
6) As far as the film remains true to the play, the enclosed places, the unpredictable dialogues, the silences and the characters being at the mercy of each other, the given statement seems true. In my opinion, the reason behind the process of restoring such elements is to intensify the element of absurdity and menace.
7) The movie helps in visualizing what happens when there is complete silence. It adds on to the feeling of menace and lurking danger through the audio-visual aids.
8) I agree with both the statements. To make a film version of a play like The Birthday Party, is a difficult task. It demands a great deal of skill and hard-work as well as precision from the makers. However, it is equally true and would be appropriate to say that the film has done justice to the play.
9) Well, I don't consider myself skilled enough for such a task. If I would have been the screenplay writer or director of the film version I would've probably not done a good job with it. I would have chosen to keep the movie true to the play at the very least.
10) Pinter's Stanley, Kafka's Victor and Orwell's Winston, all share one thing in common. And that is: they are all the victims of the hegemonic structures of various institutions of a society. They can be considered the Rosencrantzs and Guildensterns of the modern times. What makes them more miserable is the fact that they suffer for the crimes which they might or might not have committed. They represent the common individuals living at the bottom of the hierarchical structures of society and therefore it becomes easy to trap or cage them.
Absurd. Strange. Curious. Doubtful.
Such is the world of Harold Pinter's play, The Birthday Party. A great example of The Theatre Of The Absurd convention, The Birthday Party is open to varied and numerous interpretations. Considering the fact that Pinter himself was the screenplay writer of the film version of the play, the viewers are prepared beforehand for some distinct and intriguing dissimilarities from the original text. In my opinion, the incoherence and strangeness of the situation which Pinter portrays in his play are intensified in the film version since opportunities to do that are greater while making the film. Whether it is the camera angles or the sounds and visuals, the film version of the play can be considered a better version of the plot-line which Pinter narrates. However, there are instances which might be considered as loopholes to this assertion. I will be justifying this statement while answering the questions.
Post-viewing task:
1) This instance is one of the loopholes, I mentioned above. One of the major reasons for omitting Lulu's scenes would be to heighten the absurdity or strangeness regarding Stanley's birthday party. By omitting Lulu's scenes Pinter keeps the viewers perpetually confused and disturbed. This is because, there are enough instances to suggest the assertion that Lulu was either harassed or raped that night. By whom? we don't know. Probably, Nat Goldberg, whom she finds attractive. However, the movie leaves the issue unresolved by omitting the scene wherein, on the next day of the party, when Goldberg and McCann are about to leave with Stanley, Goldberg visits Lulu's house and the entire conflict comes to light. Though it isn't solved and is left incomplete for our interpretations.
2) The play as a comedy of menace, is by far, the easiest interpretation to make, in my opinion. Whether it is the unkempt appearance of the protagonist at the beginning of the play or the never-ending meaningless conversations between the characters, menace is at the center of Pinter's play. This menace is heightened by the audio-visual apparatuses in the movie. For instance, the scene wherein McCann tears the newspaper into strips slowly, just to annoy or irritate Stanley.
3) Just like the menacing situation, the feeling of lurking danger is heightened in the movie through the audio-visual techniques employed by the director, as well as the camera angles. The silences, the darkness during the party, the constant confusion regarding the curious visitors to the Boles house, etc contribute to the feeling of uneasiness which culminates into the feeling of lurking danger.
4) Pinter uses the newspaper as a symbol for many things. Petey and Meg's conversation regarding what's in the newspaper, reflects how ignorant Meg is from the dark realities of the world and is curious only about 'nice bits'. Newspaper, for Pinter, is no longer a means of communication. It is rather a medium to avoid conversations by hiding behind it. Similarly, tearing of newspaper by McCann reflects how futile is the idea of relying on the newspaper for communicating. In a world where genuine voices are often curtailed, they remain just annoying and irritating noises.
5) The camera angles are what constitutes, in Irving and Harriet Deer's opinion, the 'texture' which distinguishes the film from the play. Positioning the camera over the head of McCann during the Blind man's Buff during the Birthday Party, in my opinion, portrays him as the one who attacks or someone who is in a power position. Not much later, the camera moves to project the room from a height, when it's Stanley's turn; which obviously portrays him as a victim or someone who is trapped on all sides.
6) As far as the film remains true to the play, the enclosed places, the unpredictable dialogues, the silences and the characters being at the mercy of each other, the given statement seems true. In my opinion, the reason behind the process of restoring such elements is to intensify the element of absurdity and menace.
7) The movie helps in visualizing what happens when there is complete silence. It adds on to the feeling of menace and lurking danger through the audio-visual aids.
8) I agree with both the statements. To make a film version of a play like The Birthday Party, is a difficult task. It demands a great deal of skill and hard-work as well as precision from the makers. However, it is equally true and would be appropriate to say that the film has done justice to the play.
9) Well, I don't consider myself skilled enough for such a task. If I would have been the screenplay writer or director of the film version I would've probably not done a good job with it. I would have chosen to keep the movie true to the play at the very least.
10) Pinter's Stanley, Kafka's Victor and Orwell's Winston, all share one thing in common. And that is: they are all the victims of the hegemonic structures of various institutions of a society. They can be considered the Rosencrantzs and Guildensterns of the modern times. What makes them more miserable is the fact that they suffer for the crimes which they might or might not have committed. They represent the common individuals living at the bottom of the hierarchical structures of society and therefore it becomes easy to trap or cage them.
Comments
Post a Comment