Worksheet: Film Screening - Harold Pinter's The Birthday Party

Worksheet: Film Screening 

Film Screening: ‘The Birthday Party’ - a British drama film (1968)- directed by 

William Friedkin (The Birthday Party) -  based on an unpublished screenplay by 2005 Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter, which he adapted from his own play The Birthday Party (Pinter, The Birthday Party).

Click here to download the play

Online Quiz on 'The Birthday Party'

Pre-Viewing Tasks:

• ·         Harold Pinter – the man and his works (Pinter, The Birthday Party)
• ·         Comedy of Menace: Whose plays are known so? Who termed it? What are its peculiar characteristics? How is it different from Absurd Theatre?
• ·         Explain ‘Pinteresque’ – Pinter pause and use of ‘Silence’ in the play: a particular atmosphere and environment in drama.
• ·         ‘The Birthday Party’ – an allegory of ‘artist in exile and other interpretations
• ·         ‘The Birthday Party’ as a Political Play with reference to Harold Pinter’s Noble Speech: ‘Art, Truth & Politics[1]’. (Pinter, Art, Truth & Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture)

While – Viewing Tasks:

• ·         Harriet Deer and Irving Deer’s article[2] on Pinter's "The Birthday Party": The Film and the Play. (Deer and Deer)
• ·         A comparison of the film and play versions of ‘The Birthday Party’ affords us a rare opportunity to gain insight into how a reconception of a play into film may affect the dramatic experience it communicates. Mark the way Pinter treats the texture of the play.
• ·         Observe how Pinter gives us the texture-the sounds and sights of a world without structure, which is the heart and soul of the play also.
• ·         How many times the ‘knocking at the door’ happens in the play? Is it creating menacing effect while viewing the movie?
• ·         How are ‘silences’ and ‘pauses’ used in the movie to give effect of lurking danger – how it helps in building the texture of comedy of menace.
• ·         Comment upon the use of things like mirror, toy drum, newspapers, breakfast, chairs, window-hatch etc in the movie. What sort of symbolic reading can you give to these objects?
• ·         How effective are scenes like ‘Interrogation scene’ (Act 1), ‘Birthday Party scene’ (Act 2) and ‘Faltering Goldberg & Petey’s timid resistance scene’ (Act 3) captured in the movie?
• Post-Viewing Tasks:
• ·         Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?
• ·         Is movie successful in giving us the effect of menace? Where you able to feel it while reading the text?
• ·         Do you feel the effect of lurking danger while viewing the movie? Where you able to feel the same while reading the text
• 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.
• 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? 
• "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?
• ·         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)?
• ·         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”[3]. (Ebert)

• ·        If you were director or screenplay writer, what sort of difference would you make in the making of movie?
• ·         Who would be your choice of actors to play the role of characters?
•      Do you see any similarities among Kafka's Joseph K. (in 'The Trial'), Orwell's Winston Smith (in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four') and Pinter's Victor (in 'One for the Road')?  

The famous interrogation scene from the movie 'The Birthday Party':

The film version of the play can be viewed here:

Want to listen amazing video-speech by Harold Pinter on the occasion of his being awarded Nobel Prize in 2005? 

Kafkaesque?

Bibliography

Deer, Harriet and Irving Deer. "Pinter's 'The Birthday Party': The Film and the Play." South Alantic Bulletin 45.2 (1980): 26-30.

Ebert, Roger. Movie Review: The Birthday Party. Ed. Roger Ebert. 23 Sept. 2013 <http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-birthday-party-1969>.

Pinter, Harold. "Art, Truth & Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture." World Literature Today May-Jun 2006: 21-27.

—. The Birthday Party. New Delhi: Faber And Faber (penguin India), 1960, 1991.

The Birthday Party. By Harold Pinter. Dir. William Friedkin. Perf. Robert Shaw, et al. Prods. Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky. Continental Motion Pictures Corporation, 1968.

The film can be viewed online here: http://www.fulltvguide.com/the-birthday-party.html

---

[1] Art Truth &Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture Author(s): Harold Pinter. Source: World Literature Today, Vol. 80, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2006), pp. 21-27Published by: Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40159078.

[2] Pinter's "The Birthday Party": The Film and the Play. Author(s): Harriet Deer and Irving Deer. Source: South Atlantic Bulletin, Vol. 45, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 26-30Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language Association. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3199140

[3] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-birthday-party-1969

Story Writing Skill: English Language Writing Styles

This was the writing task given to the students to work in a group. They were asked to develop a story from the given image. It was famous Panchtantra fable - The Lion and the Rat. The story written was to be submitted in 'Comments' section below the blog post.
You will find three comments below the blog and all three have different writing style. It ranges from simplistic writing in matter-of-fact style to highly literary style of giving an effect of emotions to environment. I hope you will enjoy reading the difference in three styles of writing.

Visit this 'Blog 4 Teaching & Learning: Story Writing' to give your comments.
The content of this blog with comments are copy-pasted here:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Story Writing

Develop below given points into a story:

Write your story in the 'comments box'. To write in the 'coment box', clik on 'comments' at the end of this blog. Wait for the new page to open. Write in the given space and publish your comment. Use your google account for log in and identification. Publish one post named as 'Feedback on Story Writing'. Teacher's comments on your story will be published in the 'comments' of your blog.

* Lion sleeping beneath a tree - rat came to play - climbed over the body of the lion - unknown to dangers, rat started playing with whiskers of the lion - lion wake up - angrily roared - rat trembled - lion ready to savour the rat - the rat begged to be pardoned - promised to help him in the hours of need - arrogance of lion smugged at rat - left alive - lion trapped by hunter in the net - roared for help - rat came with fellow friends - lion saved - friends forever.

The moral of the story is:

1. Friend in need in friend indeed.

2. Never trust mousy friends.

3. One never knows how one can be helpful to others.

Worksheet - 'Hamlet' Movie Screening

Worksheet

Screening Movie: Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Hamlet’. Based on William Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’

Please click here to appear in Online Test on 'Hamlet'

Pre-Viewing Tasks:

• · View presentations on Hamlet: 

http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/09/presentations-on-william-shakespeares.html

•          Genre of the Play – Tragedy  > Shakespearean Tragedy > Revenge Tragedy
• ·         Plot Overview of the Play
• ·         Play as Renaissance Text – Renaissance Humanism: “What a piece of work is man . . .”
• ·         Why delay in taking revenge? Moral anxiety, uncertainty of truth, appearance and reality, human predicament. Oedipus complex.
• ·         Plot Structure of the Play: T.S. Eliot: ‘artistic failure’ & Freytag’s pyramidical plot structure.
• Various approaches to Hamlet: i) Textual Analysis, ii) Genre Study, iii) Historical & Biographical Study, iv) Moral Philosophical Approach, v) Psychoanalytical Approach, vi) Mythological & Archetypal Approach, vii) Feminist Approach, viii) Cultural Studies, ix) Formalist Approach: Dialectic as Form

While - Viewing Tasks:

• ·         Hamlet’s Madness – his dual personality – when with himself/Horatio (Ego/alter-ego) and when with ‘Others’.
• ·         The beginning. Symbolic significance of Ghost Scene.
• ·         Scene: This too too solid flesh . . . Frailty, thy name is women.
• ·         Scene: What a rogue, slave ass am I . . . bloody, bawdy villain!  Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindles villain! , vengeance! . . . The spirit that I have seen  May be the devil
• ·         Scene: Play within the play
• ·         Scene: Polonius – the father: a man of practical affairs – his advises to son and daughter – spying son.
• ·         Scene: To be or Not to be, that is the question!
• ·         Scene: Nunnery Scene: Mirror Scene
• ·         Scene: Claudius’s Prayer Scene & Hamlet’s moral dilemma: Pray can I not -
• ·         Scene: Gertrude’s bedchamber scene: Second appearance of Ghost – visible only to Hamlet and murder of Polonius.
• ·         Scene: Ophelia’s madness
• ·         Scene: Laertes’ s anger & motives to avenge his father’s murder
• ·         Scene: How all occasions do inform against me, And spur my dull revenge! What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more . . . O, from this time forth, 
• My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
• ·         Scene: Grave Digging Scene
• ·         Scene: Fencing scene: Duel between Hamlet and Laertes.
• ·         Scene: The End: Fulfilled the call for sacred duty to avenge the murder of father.

Post – Viewing Tasks:

(Give responses to these questions in the comment section below this blog-post)

• ·         How faithful is the movie to the original play?
• ·         After watching the movie, have your perception about play, characters or situations changed?
• ·         Do you feel ‘aesthetic delight’ while watching the movie? If yes, exactly when did it happen? If no, can you explain with reasons?
• ·         Do you feel ‘catharsis’ while or after watching movie? If yes, exactly when did it happen? If no, can you explain with reasons?
• ·         Does screening of movie help you in better understanding of the play?
• ·         Was there any particular scene or moment in the movie that you will cherish lifetime?
• ·         If you are director, what changes would you like to make in the remaking of movie on Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’?
• In the beginning of the movie, camera rolls over the statue of King Hamlet out side the Elsinore castle. The movie ends with the similar sequence wherein the statue of the King Hamlet is hammered down to the dust. What sort of symbolism do you read in this? (Clue: In Book IX of 'Paradise Lost', Satan reflects on his revenge motive:       "But what will not ambition and revenge; Descend to? Who aspires must down as low; As high he soared, obnoxious, first or last, To basest things. Revenge, at first though sweet, Bitter ere long back on itself recoils." Is it not King Hamlet's ambition to avenge his death responsible for the downfall of his kingdom which is symbolically pictured in last scenes?)
• While studying the play through movie, which approach do you find more applicable to the play? Why? Give reasons with illustrations.
• Which of the above mentioned approaches (in Pre-viewing task) appeals you more than other?Why? Give reasons.
• Take this QUIZ on the play 'Hamlet' to check your understanding of the play:
  

Bibliography

• Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Perf. Kenneth Branagh. Prod. David Barron. Warner Home Video, 1996.
• —. Hamlet. Ed. Charles Kean. 10 January 1859. 24 August 2013 .
• Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Mrogan, Jeanne C Reesman, John R. Willingham, ‘A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature’, OUP. 2006.
• Eliot, T.S. Hamlet and His Problems. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism.  1922.
• Freytag, Gustav. Die Technik des Dramas (Technique of the Drama). 1863
• The Films of Kenneth Branagh by Samuel Crowl. Shannon Blake Skelton. Theatre Journal, Vol. 58, No. 4, Film and Theatre (Dec., 2006), pp. 714-715 (article consists of 2 pages) Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.2307/25069943 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25069943
• Shakespeare at the Cineplex: The Kenneth Branagh Era by Samuel Crowl. Peter Parolin, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 1185-1186, (article consists of 2 pages) Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal DOI: 10.2307/20477651. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20477651
• Thank You, Kenneth Branagh. Brenda Walton. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Vol. 49, No. 7 (Apr., 2006), pp. 556-559. Published by: Wiley. Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017622
• A Touch of Vaudeville. Steve Vineberg. The Threepenny Review. No. 71 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 19-21.  Published by: Threepenny Review. Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4384659
• Sharing an Enthusiasm for Shakespeare: An Interview with Kenneth Branagh. Gary Crowdus and Kenneth Branagh. Cinéaste, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1998), pp. 34-41. Published by: Cineaste Publishers, Inc. Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41689105
• HAMLET by Kenneth Branagh. Manuel Quinto. El Ciervo. Año 46, No. 556/557 (julio-agosto 1997), p. 38. Published by: El Ciervo 96, S.A.. Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40821727
• 
  

4. Aristotle to Beckett: From Greek Theatre to Absurd Theatre

Academic Year 2013-14: 

Post 4: Meaning of Literature to Meaninglessness in Literature

During last two weeks (29 July to 10 August 2013), I passed through a Tiresian sort of  experience  - 'throbbing between two lives' - from Aristotle's concept of literature, his 'canonization' of literature, his giving meaning to literature, his optimism in deathly tales of tragedies, his Oedipus- the defiant against the Destiny; to Samuel Beckett's 'Nothing to be done', his meaninglessness in literature, his pessimism in nothingness of human condition, his Sisyphean happiness in human predicament of life where - "They give birth astride the grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more".

Samuel Beckett

Aristotle

In Semester 1, we ended our discussion on Aristotle's 'Poetics'. I 'pitied' students' predicament and concluded rather hurriedly, without giving more time for discussion and engaging them in brainstorming age old Aristotelian concepts. I will show them 'fear' in the handful of dust when it comes to discuss 'possible and necessary' questions. The presentations of important points discussed will be embedded soon on this post so that late admissions and absent (physical as well as mental) students can get themselves abreast.

In Semester 3, we are still debating meanings in meaninglessness. Yes, it is, indeed, a difficult task to switch over from Aristotle to Samuel Beckett. They both stand wide apart in the basic concept of literature. Aristotle attempts, and quite successfully, to defend and define first ever definition of Tragedy in particular, and literature in general. Beckett’s plays presented life as meaningless, and one that could simply end in casual slaughter[1].

Nevertheless, their difference and polarization of ideas seems to be locking horns at each other. But in fact, they deal with one and the same thing. Aristotle heavily relied on Sophocles’s ‘Oedipus the Rex’ to bring home his arguments. And William Hutchings helps to connect the dots. Let me quote at length from his book ‘Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot: A Reference Guide’ (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005): “Since the beginning of Western drama in ancient Greece in the 5^th century B.C., three plays have generated, captivated more diverse interpretations, raised more profound questions, captivated more audiences’ imaginations, and provoked more arguments than any others – or even, quite possibly, more than all others combined.” (I like the ‘shape of this sentence’. I borrow this from what Samuel Beckett once wrote: “I am interested in the shape of ideas even if I do not believe in them. There is a wonderful sentence in Augustine. . . “Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was damned.” That sentence has a wonderful shape. It is the shape that matters.”).  Let us continue with Hitchings: “The fist, Sophocles’s ‘Oedipus Rex’ (also known as ‘Oedipus Tyrannus’ or ‘Oedipus the King’, was written in the fifth century B.C. in ancient Athens; the second, William Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’, was first performed in London circa 1602; the third is Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, which had its premiere in a very small theatre in Paris in 1953. Each of these plays has a seemingly endless ability to fascinate – and to perplex – its audiences, in part because its plot raises questions for which there can be no easy answers or final resolutions: Did Oedipus have free will in taking the actions that he did, even when he unknowingly killed his father? Or was his fate entirely determined or predestined by the Gods? Is Prince Hamlet mad, or is he not? Is the Ghost that he sees real, or is it NOT? If real, is it telling the truth, or is it not? And, most strangely of all, why are these two trams on this desolate landscape waiting beside a tree for Mr. Godot whom they might not recognize and who does not – and may not – arrive? Why isn’t much ‘happening’ here? What’s it meant to mean?”.

He further writes: “One reason for the three plays’ continuing appeal is that each challenges its audiences and its readers to think about profound questions about the naute of the world in which we live; about the meaning of life itself; and , especially, aobut how we know what we think we know about the universe, about other people, and even about ourselves. Each in its own way embodies issues that have vexed philosophers and theologians for years. ‘Oedipus Rex’ asks us to consider whether gods or humans are fundamentally in control of the world; whether we all have destinies that are inexorable, unavoidable, and preordained; and whether there are circumstances in which we can – or even should – try to defy the will of the gods and the edicts that they issue. ‘Hamlet’, similarly, questions the ‘kind’ of universe we live in – whether justice can be found in this world or the next (if at all), and whether we can ever know with certainty the truth of our situations and then act with moral responsibility when and if we think we do. ‘Waiting for Godot’, in many ways, simply extends those uncertainties: why are we here? Are we alone in an uncaring universe, or not? What are we to do while we are here? How can we know? And, ultimately, what does it matter?

However profound the questions that they raise and however disturbing the answers that they provoke, these plays are fundamentally ‘not’ philosophical treatises or sermons. The source of their perennial popular appeal lies, emphatically, elsewhere: despite quite dissimilar styles, they share uniquely theatrical eloquences, a poetry that is embodied in performance, conveyed not only through language but through the predicament which Oedipus, Hamlet and two Tramps suffers”.(Italic words are mine.)

(More to follow . . .)

Questions from students: 
However, there were many questions raised and settled in the class, some dusted off, the two with which I came home are: 
1) If patriarchy 'conditions' languages, why is it called ‘mother language’ and 
2) If ‘Waiting for Godot’ deals with meaninglessness, why do we say that the meaning of the play in meaninglessness and nothingness and . .  so and so on?

  

   

---

[1] http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm