Thinking activity :Harold Pinter's "The Birthday Party"

Hello Readers,

            This blog is part of my study .For more details click here,

• ·         Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?

                     As we discussed in the article that there is absence of Lulu’s in two scenes from the movie, because changes in the film have to do essentially not with the sequence of events or the dialogues but it depends on how we read the texture of the play or find the distinctive characteristic in the character is more important. 

                As per my understanding, sometimes it happens that some scenes are relevant to the film that’s why it remains in the film. There is nothing deep into absence of some scene from the text or in the film. It is just because Director can’t omit those scenes from the film because somehow it shows human nature, characteristic and condition of the society in his time.

• ·         Is movie successful in giving us the effect of menace? Where you able to feel it while reading the text?

                        We can see the effect of menace in the movie, because while reading the play we can sense that Stanley has a mysterious past which we are not informed about. I felt this while reading the long conversation between McCann, Stanley and Goldberg.

• ·         Do you feel the effect of lurking danger while viewing the movie? Where you able to feel the same while reading the text.

                         While watching the movie I felt the effect of lurking danger because as movie proceeds towards the end and other side lurking danger also rises in my mind. It is obvious that noise of things like constant beating of the drums and knocking door, humming sound, voice of characters creates danger in mind but silence creates more danger than noise of something. 

                     In act Two I founded many pauses and silence where nobody speaks it arouses curiosity and at the same time the response that comes after the silence is equally mysterious. That creates danger in my mind. Or in the text where at last Stanley shows up as clean-shaven, well dressed and yet is forcibly taken to some unknown destination. It created danger in my mind. It shows that when things are in order it doesn’t mean that it goes smoothly, here we can see that everything is alright but vitality of life is not there.

• What do you read in 'newspaper' in the movie? Petey is reading newspaper to Meg, it torn into pieces by McCain, pieces are hidden by Petey in last scene.

                      In the movie we find that Petey reads newspaper everyday in the morning and so it becomes routine for him and the news which contains so many emotions but as a regular reader he cannot feel it. Same if we connect it with life of Stanley then we would be able to realize that Stanley’s life contains so many pain as an artist but how it is torn by McCann and Goldberg it goes appropriate with the symbol of newspaper. 

               When acts opens we find Petey reads newspaper and at last scene we find same situation but slight change in it is that torn pieces of newspaper are hidden by Petey because it shows that habit of reading newspaper kills his sensibility to feel pain of others. And he has no courage to accept the reality that’s why he hides the pieces of newspaper and acts like nothing has happened with Stanley.

• Camera is positioned over the head of McCain when he is playing Blind Man's Buff and is positioned at the top with a view of room like a cage (trap) when Stanley is playing it. What interpretations can you give to these positioning of camera? 

                      When camera moves over the head of McCann while he was playing the Blind Man’s Buff, it showed that he is in power position and can destroy anything that he wants. Angle of camera is over the head of McCann that symbolically represents the power position. We can connect it with history and McCann with Adolf Hitler. 
     
                 When camera moves over Stanley we can see a view of room like cage that shows actual condition and state of mind of Stanley that how he is imprisoned by his past as an artist and he has no hope to come out from that, uncertainty of life is lurking over him like a cage. Because as an artist he feels the same uncertainty in the past and now he is going to face another reality.

• "Pinter restored theater to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of one another and pretense crumbles." (Pinter, Art, Truth & Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture). Does this happen in the movie?

                     Yes, it does happened in the movie, we can see blurred dialogues, and with this space, etc. We can't understand it without a doubt.

• ·         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)?

                       Movie helps me in better understanding of the play ‘The Birthday Party’ in the text we can’t imagine that why character takes a pause or silence there in between their constant talk and also in the text I can’t feel menacing effect or lurking danger in any situation because its above my imagination. While watching the movie audio- visual effect gives me more clear idea to understand the exact pause or silence. 

                Though they want to say so many things but rather than selecting words to express it they chooses silence or pause. In the movie we find that danger is lurking through hatch and peeping out behind door or noise of knocking door or in the blackout scene. Menacing effect is there because all the characters are suffering from the unknown fear. It may happen that they laugh because they want to forget the fear that they can’t face it.

• ·         With which of the following observations you agree:

o   “It probably wasn't possible to make a satisfactory film of "The Birthday Party."

o    “It's impossible to imagine a better film of Pinter's play than this sensitive, disturbing version directed by William Friedkin". (Ebert)
    
  According to me both has right is at its own place, because everything has its own limitation and it can’t go beyond the limitation. Same thing if we apply here in the movie or in the text of the play then we realize that both has its own charm to satisfy the minds of the readers or the viewers.

·       ●  If you were director or screenplay writer, what sort of difference would you make in the making of movie?
           
             If I was director of the movie then I would have reduced the sounds of things that constantly irritates me while watching the movie. Next I would like to change is unnecessary things that are lying in the room and I would give more space to person rather than the things.
                      

·        ● Who would be your choice of actors to play the role of characters?

              This film is great in it self, I don’t feel anything to change. But may be I will add the scene of Lulu because I don’t think Pinter has written it purposelessly. Other than that I don’t think movie needs any further change.

If I have to choose the actors for this movie I will choose…
Stanley – Ranveer Kapoor
Goldberg – Paresh Rawal
MacCann –Irfan Khan
Petey – Anupam Kher
Meg – Amrita Singh
Lulu – Priyanka Chopara