Worksheet : Film Study of Harold Pinter's The Birthday Party
This blog is apart of task assigned in the google classroom. CLICK HERE to get more information about the task.
The Birthday Party
The Birthday Party” is a play written in three acts by Harold Pinter and known as second full lengths play written in 1957 by him. Harold Pinter’s first full-length play established his trademark “Comedy of menace” in which character is suddenly threatened by the vague horrors at large in the outside world.
Watch the Full Movie Here
The plot revolves around the life of Stanley Webber who lives in boarding house and showcases how his life is being disturbed by the unexpected arrival of two mysterious and sinister stranger called Goldberg and McCann, who terrorize him and eventually take him away. Besides being a play, “The Birthday Party” is a 1968 British drama film directed by William Fiendkin based on the 1957 play “The Birthday Party” by Harold Pinter. The screenplay of the film was also done by Harold Pinter himself as well. At the same time it’s impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter’s play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Fiendkin.
The play, and the film “The Birthday Party” both are
considered greatest examples of “comedy of menace”, a
genre
associated with Harold Pinter.
Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?
In the play we there are scene of Lulu in which a kind of sexual attack happen on her, it happen twice with her. But these scenes are omitted from the movie. As a part of audience we may interpret it in different ways but its become difficult to know the intention of director behind omitting these scenes from movie. Rather in the movie we can see that Lulu is willingly flirting with Goldberg. Here if we try to read it through feminist lens it can be interpreted as director did not want to portray female character-Lulu as being victim of this act. It also seems that director tries to justify the act by doing this as well.
Is movie successful in giving us the effect of menace? Where you able to feel it while reading the text?
A comedy of menace is a term used to describe the plays of David Campton and Harold Pinter by drama critic Irving Wardle. A comedy of menace, what we mean by this term is that, it is a tragedy with number of comic elements. While watching the movie I certainly felt the effect of menace. It can be felt in use of pauses and dialogues of characters as well. There is a scene in which Goldberg and MacCann asked a torrent of questions to Stanley, at that time use of pauses and expressions of Stanley give effects of menace. The use of unnecessary or rather seems stupid questions gives comic and threating effects at the same time. This effect is conveyed stronger in the movie which may not possible in reading of the play. A visualization always gives strong effects than only reading. In reference to this the use of pause and silence may not give that effect in reading which we can get while watching the movie.
Do you feel the effect of lurking danger while viewing the movie? Where you able to feel the same while reading the text?
Yes, while watching the movie I feel the effect of lurking at
certain scenes. At the very first place when Stanley was beating a drum very harshly and we almost feel that its going to be broken because of heavy beaten. This sound of beating drum gives a sign that something dangerous may happen. Along with it a game of blind man’s buff gives a terror feeling and it is followed by the screaming of Lulu which pinpoints that something terror would have to be happen. The scene when Stanley hide in kitchen also gives a terror feeling while watching the movie.
How does viewing movie help in better understanding of the play ‘The Birthday Party’ with its typical characteristics (like painteresque, pause, silence, menace, lurking danger)?
As the audio visual format gives a great impact rather than to only reading. In the same way the movie, “The Birthday Party” helps in better understanding of the play with its typical characteristics such as painteresque, pause, silence, menace, lurking danger and so on. These all are the characteristics not able to create such effects in reading which we can feel in watching the movie. As a general characteristic of Pinter’s play here we find a use of two pauses; one when no word is spoken and the other when perhaps a torrent of language is being employed. This could only be felt in viewing movie, its not possible to feel while reading the play. So we can say that complete satisfaction of all characteristics are possible while viewing the movie only not only by reading it.
With which of the following observations you agree:
“It probably wasn't possible to make a satisfactory film of "The Birthday Party."
“It's impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter's play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Friedkin”[3]. (Ebert)
I am agree with the second observation that,
“It's impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter's play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Friedkin”[3]. (Ebert)
“The Birthday Party” is an absurd play, it’s not at all easy task to make an interesting and sensitive version of any absurd play. All these typical characteristics painteresque, pause, silence, menace and lurking danger create their own effect in the movie which Pinter wants to create in play as well. Along with it the use of camera is quite appropriate and very significant which helps in giving a powerful effect of certain characteristics.
If you were director or screenplay writer, what sort of difference would you make in the making of movie?
If I am director or screenplay writer I would like to do several changes in the movie. First of all I would like to add some more tension in the plot and i will also show the struggle of Lulu while she is being sexually abused , because in the movie only the voice of Lulu resisting is heard nothing else.
Who would be your choice of actors to play the role of characters?
The following mentioned Bollywood actors should be my choice if I have to choose actors for “The Birthday Party” play…
Hello Folks , i am composing this blog on the grounds of a task assigned to me by my teacher , for the detailed information about the task CLICK HERE.
You Can watch the full movie here :
Director : Michael Lindsay- Hogg
Screenplay : Samuel Beckett
Producer :Alan Moloney
Cast : Barry McGovern
Stephan Bennan
Alan Standford
Johnny Murphy
Carl Raddatz
Klaus Herm
Why Should One read Waiting for Godot :
What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree. Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?
The painting- “Longing” is of Casper David Fredrich. The major connection between this painting and the Samuel Beckett's “Waiting for Godot” is that, this absurd play was inspired by this painting. There is a sameness in both images’ background rather the nature is at the center which keeps on moving. Though play was inspired from David Fredrich’s painting, the intention of Samuel Beckett is entirely indifferent. David Fredrich was allied to romanticism in Germany that’s why he embraced the Romantic notion of nature through his sensitive depictions of fog, mist, darkness and light as well. Being an romanticist he seeks to capture the infinite experience of nature. While there is nothing like these in Samuel Beckett’s play, he depicts nature as it always remains indifferent, time keeps on moving the night comes after the day but the characters have stayed as it is. In a way nature has to do nothing with characters of play, it keeps on moving without waiting for anybody.
The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves - ?
Beckett in both the acts used the tree as a part of natural phenomena , but there a twist in the portrayel of the TREE in both the acts of the play. when we see or read the play , we come to know that in the first act the tree has only two or three leaves .Generally we see and even in most of the literary works we depict nature as something very supportive and kind to humans but here one can interprit that Beckett tried to break this human beliefe .In this play nature has nothing to do with humans, it keeps on growing without taking into consideration human beings. In both the acts Estragon and Vladimir have been waiting for the Godot , but does the tree is also waiting with them ? the answer is No, nature waits for none . The growing of the leaves can be interpreted as it gives a hope to Vladimir and Estragon that, God may come , but waiting for God is a meaningless hope, an illusion. One can also interpret the Tree as a Symbol of strong will power , maybe throw the leaves and barren tree Beckett is trying to give a message that in every situation of life one must keep growing .
In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?
In both the acts of the play evening falls into night and moon rises , this can be connected with the Hope of Estragon and Vladimir . With the setting of the sun and coming of the moon and night , they are both were disappointed because from the morning they were waiting for The Godot and he never didn't come, but still they have a hope that next day Godot will come. They both wasted their time in waiting for Godot but the moon and son as a part of nature never waits for them , they keeps on rising and setting as per their routine .
· The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?
Debris means remaining pieces of something or rubbish , when we see rubbish , we consider it as useless but if we think deeply we come to know that if one uses this rubbish or debris wisely they can be very useful and for that one must require positive as well as sharp mind .The director feels the setting with some debris which have certain meanings , it is not useless or a kind of waste .Each and every debris which has been used in the background carries a certain meaning. Maybe the director wants to show that Meaninglessness also has it's own meanings.
· The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?
Both the tramps, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot , who never comes, this act of waiting itself speaks about the nothingness of waiting for someone. In the process of Waiting for the God both pass their time by doing certain activities , does it have any meaning at all ? whatever they do is meaningless but there is another interpretation also, Nothingness also has it's own meaning .
· Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshal who played Vladimir in original Broadway production 1950s)?
Yes , I strongly agree with this statement , the play is positive and pessimistic play. this play give us a very true picture of life ,through the character of Estragon and Vladimir , they were waiting for Godot , but he never came, in the process of waiting they used to kill their time by doing certain activities but after that when the Godot didn't come they got depressed and even thought to commit suicide. In our life we all wait to achieve something and for that we wait for it but in the path of waiting to achieve something one must have patience and less expectations , one must keep on working to achieve it rather than to just wait for it, it is said that time and tide wait for none. Beckett has given the examples of Tree and NIGHT and MOON. usually what happens while people don't get what they want they easily come to an conclusion of committing suicide , they stop thinking and doing as well.
In a nutshell if we waste our life by waiting or rather by killing ourselves , it dose not make any difference to others, they will keep on living either with happiness or sadness , it's up to us rather we choose to wait or use the time of waiting for our own good. Why we always need others ? why to waste time for waiting for someone whose arrival is not fixed ?
· How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolical significance of these props?
The props like hat and boots are very well symbolically used in the play. Vladimir and Estragon to some trivial things with hat and bootsin order to killing time. In the play Vladimir is portrayed as practical and rational character while Estragon is portrayed as volatile character. Symbol of hat is connected with intellectuality of man, in this manner we find a Vladimir putting his hat over head. The symbol of hat symbolizes the intellectuality of Vladimir. Estragon also has a hat but he is more concerned with boot which doesn’t fit in his feet. In the first act boot doesn’t fit on him but in the second act it does, which symbolize that Estragon is more interested in making himself happy with materialistic things rather to think rationally as Vladimir used to do.
Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nausea tic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?
Yes, of course the obedience of Luck is extremely irritating and nausea tic. The master slave relation is reflected through the relation between Pozzo and Lucky. Lucky is a slave who started to love himself as being slave and gives rope(tied in his neck) in his master’s hand through which Pozzo treats lucky as he is an slavish animal. Even when Pozzo becomes blind Lucky keeps on doing what his master says him, he doesn’t even think about to go away and leaves his master. It becomes dangerous when as a slave we start to love our master rather he obediently hands the whip in his blind master’s hand. Through this we can say that Lucky’s such a capacity of slavishness in unbelievable. Even when Estragon tries to help him he hurts him by kicking which shows that he is habituated with slavishness.
Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or . . .
According to me Godot is an object of our desire. Desire for something or someone is never ending notion. If one desire is being fulfilled, certainly the other may arise in our mind. To fulfill these desire we rely on certain object. This is reflected in play, Vladimir and Estragon keeps on waiting for Godot in between this act they also met with some other characters but they do not care about it. In a same way our life is full of desire, in between to fulfill our desire there are lots of things come in our life but we do not care about them. The ultimately end of life is death then why there is a need of desire? Desire is something through which we keeps on living no matter whatever difficulties come in our path, we always think for better tomorrow than today.
“The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?
The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’, yes, I am agree with what Martin Esslin pointed out. In the play Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot, but did Godot come? No Godot did not even appeared at ones in the play. If the subject of the play is Godot than certainly we find a glimpse of Godot in the play. But it isn’t which shows that Godot is not the subject of the play. Through this waiting we can also interpret that, though waiting is meaningless, it has its own meaning as well.
Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?
Yes, the play like “Waiting for Godot” requires a lot of thinking. What I think is that this kind of play requires both reading of the play and film viewing of the play. Certain things which can not understand in reading, we may understand while watching it in a movie form. Visualization in a form of using of lighting and use of sound may help in understanding in the certain things which may not understand by reading the play. Firstly read the play and than watch the movie is best way to understand the absurd play like “Waiting for Godot”. Because it helps in understanding the background of the play. The deep thinking is not possible while viewing it but it can be done while reading it allows us to ponder on some philosophical idea.
Which of the following sequence you liked the most: ~Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting ~Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts ~Converstion of Vladimir with the boy
I liked the conversations between Estragon and Vladimir when they killing time while waiting for Godot. Though these tramps do many trivial things in order to kill time, they give a certain meanings and philosophical ideas also. When the Vladimir plays with his hat or Estragon tries to make himself comfortable with Boots. This humorous act is full of meaning as Vladimir presents mind as an important part of body while Estragon represents body who always in search of how to make himself comfortable.
Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?
Yes, I did feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of movie. This could be felt at the ending of both play when the boy as a messenger of God came and Vladimir have a small conversation with him. Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot and ask,
when Godot will come?
But boy said that,
Godot would not able to come today, but surely he will come tomorrow.
This happens in both acts at the end. Their waiting for Godot is meaningless which only makes them disappoint at the end. This showcases that waiting is meaningless. To wait for godly figure is also meaningless which should not never come.
Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?
As a human being we always tries to find a meaning of our life. When life becomes meaninglessness, Do there anything leave for living? Vladimir and Estragon’s act for waiting for Godot is also a meaningless and after realizing that or out of getting disappointment at last they decides to hang themselves. It is the act of waiting which leads them towards this idea of suicide. They didn’t do this because they would not have equipment. But what I believe is that this act of not dying showcases existentialist idea, suicide is not a solution of any problem. If the life is meaningless yet it is for living because meaningless has also meaning.
Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'.
We can do the political reading of “Waiting for Godot”, through all the names of characters European countries are presented in the play. The play was written in 1949 that’s why it also reflects the post war effect also. Politically Vladimir represents Russia and Estragon represents France. In order to get political power benefits, there were many Russians who favored France while some didn’t. Though they have different understanding and point of view, they live together as Vladimir and Estragon stay. Pozzo represents Italy and Lucky stand for England. Same as a master slave relation between Pozzo and Lucky, after world war Italy ruled over England by imposing its power and encroached the power of Italy. Germany reminds us about Hitler. Who remove the Jews territory. In a same way Vladimir and Estragon were eliminated from their nations and waited for Godot in a hopeful manner as well.
The more the things change, the more it remains similar. There seems to have no change in Act I and Act II of the play. Even the conversation between Vladimir and the Boy sounds almost similar. But there is one major change. In Act I, in reply to Boy;s question, Vladimir says: "BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
VLADIMIR:
Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?
How does this conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify?
Though the conversation almost seems the same, there is a very much significant change in the conversation of act I and act II. In the ending of very first I act when boy as a messenger of God arrives, Vladimir says that tell the god that we(Vladimir himself and Estragon) are waiting for Godot. Here he refers the word ‘WE’.
BOY: What am I to tell Mr.Godot, sir?
VLADIMIR: Tell him...(he hesitate)..tell him you saw me and that…(he hesitate)..that you saw me.
In the second act Vladimir turns out as selfish man. He refers the word ‘I’ only. From this we also can get idea of one thief was saved and the other was damned. Vladimir wants to live his life, may be because of this he says that tells the god you see me. So that he could be saved.
