PINTER'S THE BIRTHDAY PARTY Part 1 of 4
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 авг 2012
- BBC production from the late 80s, starring the playwright, Harold Pinter, and a stellar ensemble including Julie Walters, Joan Plowright, and Kenneth Cranham as Stanley Webber. Along with his plays, "The Caretaker," and "The Homecoming", "The Birthday Party" ranks among the best in his long career. Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 2005.
William Friedkin directed a film version of this play in 1968 starring the great English actor, Robert Shaw as Webber.
I am posting this production for educational purposes and not for profit.
![MAF Teeski - Whole Thing (feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SHWEj-ndz6g/mqdefault.jpg)
The actor who plays 'Petey' deserves more credit for playing a non
descript part and making such a sterling job of it. So realistic in his portrayal of an ordinary chap.
the great Robert Lang
@@dannylester3597 Yes. I fully agree. Somewhat underrated. Always turned in a good performance. Excellent diction.
"This isn't tea, it's gravy. Get out of it, you succulent old washing bag!"
Hilarious shit.
Hilarious lines in a play that is filled with them. Particularly funny is the advice Uncle Barney provides to Goldberg. "We weren't like men in those days these days." And, of course, Goldberg ' s speech about birthdays is one of the best in modern drama. "Ah, birth! What a thing to celebrate! Like waking up on the morning! Some people don't like the idea. I've heard them.....they say you wake up, you're head's groggy, your nose is clogged, your mouth is like a boghouse, your feet stink, ....what are you but a cor
britteach what are you but a corpse waiting to be washed?
britteach I concur :-)) Thanks for uploading this!
You mustn't use that word.
I don’t think Plowright has got the slightest idea what’s going on
Stanley as a protagonist has to be one of the most intresting in theatre a man trying to run away from his past by mental shutting himself off from the world, only for the past to come back to haunt him and break him down to the point that he is permantly trapped in a state of shock.
So many issues going on here, the usual Pinter dialog of obsfuscation/avoidance, the universal issue of parents treating their adult offspring as children, and the hard expectations of 'masculinity' for males in society
Joan Plowright, is ALWAYS fabulous.
She's too stagey in this. Check out Dandy Nichols in the film, she was brilliant.
I agree. People on YT are always trying to compare actors and actresses. Both, bring their own qualities to the role.
along with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, this is my favorite play. I'm a playwright and Pinter and Albee are my greatest influences.
That's nice love...
Mister Pinter was a genius not only as a playwriter but also as an actor.
This is very very funny in a scary way.
+Vidar Larsen. Absolutely. I have learned so much from reading and watching Pinter. I like the line you pulled below. "How often do you meet someone who it is a pleasure to meet?" I could have never written a line that good but I wish I had. His early trilogy -the Caretaker, the Birthday Party, and the Homecoming - are chock full of great lines, some of which are funny in that scary way you mentioned. And if you are interested in his genius, his later play, "Betrayal" is structured so that you can read it forward and backward and the story still makes sense. I just love Pinter.
Which character did pinter act upon
@@swastikar7923 Mr. Goldberg
@@agustinaaceto3518 thanks a lot mam
Pinter was a genius and a proper human being
Love this, brilliant characterisation, great acting, and of course... Printer's plays. What's not to like.
When I first saw this I was impressed...now after so long I see it as a very rich portrayal of life.
How often do you meet someone who it is a pleasure to meet?
Never
But today is different.
This was the first time I encountered Pinter and what a wonderful production and just look at the cast!! Kenneth Cranham is outstanding in it!! I remember feeling so shocked by the transparency of Human fear laid bare by Pinter!!
Great piece of drama!! Thanks for sharing, I'd never seen this version before, only the late 60s one, this is superb, though. And Harold Pinter's in it!
massive thanks for putting this up )
Thank you so much !!
It is exactly that I was looking for !!☺️👍
This is amazing ,its so surreal but normal,,,, its like a nightmare but real if you know what I mean. Pinter was a genius but a bit like Marmite you either luv it or hate it and I fucking luv it !!!!!!
Fantastic - excellent, intimate little dramatization with some key close-ups and camera positioning, great cast. My first Pinter play!
Thank you for uploading:)
I studied theatre in French I m happy to listen Pinter in the english language
PEUX pas trouver ses pièces en francais sur TOUTUBE
This is my favourite version by far, actually Stan reminds me of my late uncle Brian. very dry sense of humour
Every speech -- even the by-play with the corn-flakes -- is as fully realized as an aria or a bowel-movement.
fine play and creation
I found this randomly while searching summary description of Birthday party... It 's my syllabus in english literature.
Same thing iam doing today for my ma exam 😂
As relevant now as when it was written: the feared knock at the door and the subsequent interrogation. Pinter was a very fine and, in this instance, truly frightening actor. Kenneth Cranham, also superb, went on to great things
Joan Plowright surely got a CBE or whatever accolade indicates one is a national treasure.
Pinter himself as Goldberg ! Absolutely outstanding.
At first I didn't understand this play, but I realise now the whole thing is a metaphor for other things and states of being. It's a masterpiece when viewed in that way in my opinion. In fact most of Pinter's best plays are essentially metaphors: The Room, The Caretaker, The Homecoming, The Dumb Waiter. So in this play for instance, McCann and Goldberg are in fact (probably) demons inside Stanley's head. Pinter makes them real people in the play to clarify and exaggerate the way Stanley's feeling. A realistic version of the play would therefore probably just consist of Stanley sitting in the boarding house by himself doing nothing except thinking with a tortured expression on his face. At the same time, it is possible to view the play in other ways: for example it's even possible that Stanley is in fact a bad person and Goldberg and McCann are justified in taking him away. We don't know what he might have done. He might have compromised national security for instance when he was working for the secret service.
Hi Andy - Two things Pinter does well. First is create dramatic tension, usually achieved by setting action in confined corners like a room. And second are his humorous riffs that attempt to mimic the way people actually think and behave. Rarely do we think in a straight line; our expressions are sometimes incoherent. There is also a tendency to speak in cliches and idioms which is effectively a form of communication without thought. Best of all is the dialogue that reproduces quite accurately the mundane and sometimes inane conversations like those between Meg and Petey at the very beginning of the play. ( Meg: "You've got your paper." Petey: Yes. Meg: Is it good? Petey: Not bad.) Pinter's plays have been called "aburdist comedies" which is as close to an accurate reflection of "reality" or the world that most of us inhabit as I have ever seen. As a long-time admirer of Harold Pinter's plays, I appreciate his sense of humor. He is very funny. I still chuckle at specific lines in this play.
Thanks for the reply, I agree about the humour. It must be difficult to write a play that mixes humour and horror in the way Pinter does. I can't decide which version of The Birthday Party is best. The 1968 version is very good, but it's nice to see Pinter actually playing one of his own characters here. Patrick Magee is very intense as McCann in the 1968 version; I remember seeing him in A Clockwork Orange where he had the same sort of demeanour. Although I like Joan Plowright I agree with many of the other comments that she isn't quite right as Meg, she's a little too posh and prim, although she's obviously trying hard to be a bit of an idiot which is what the play calls for. Dandy Nichols nails it in the other version.
Hi Andy - Excellent observations. You are right about the difficulty of choosing between the 1968 version and the one here. I'm a big fan of Robert Shaw beginning with his performance in The Sting and later in Jaws. As good a performance as he gives in the '68 Friedkin directed version, Shaw gives an even better performance as Aston in Pinter's The Caretaker with Donald Pleasance and Alan Bates, a version of which appears on RUclips. If you haven't seen it yet, I think you will enjoy it.
I happen to prefer the version of The Birthday Party starring Joan Plowright and Harold Pinter for a few reasons. The first is that this was my introduction to Harold Pinter and so I have a sentimental attachment and still hold fond memories of seeing the play for the first time. As a result, I am enthusiastic about Joan Plowright's performance as Meg. Her timing is excellent. She plays a self-assured ditz that still makes me laugh. Incidentally, I have read harsh criticisms of Kenneth Cranham as Stanley, but again, he is the first actor I saw in the role. He defined the character for me in a way that is hard to shake. He is compelling as a miserable manic-depressive artist caught between fantasy and reality. Cranham's delivery of Pinter's lines seems smoother and slightly slower paced than Shaw's. As for Pinter, I agree with you. It's a treat to see him perform.
But, of course, this is a preference that is highly personal. I enjoy the 68 filmed version as well even if it has a slightly faster pace and the dialogue a little more difficult to hear. You're right about Magee. He is the better McCann. Both versions of the play though are fun to compare.
Hey I think you’re on to something.
Stanley is like K in "The Trial". Whether they are bad or good is irrelevant. They are irrevocably guilty in the eyes of the wrathful deity who remains invisible but oppressive throughout their lives from their birth to their death. The auto-da-fé that will end Stanley's life occurs on his birthday.
See the following descriptions of the characters of Stanley, Goldberg and McCann:
"Stanley Webber - "a palpably Jewish name, incidentally"
"Goldberg and McCann "represent not only the West's most autocratic religions, but its two most persecuted races"".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birthday_Party_(play)#
My fav play
I see a few comments here regarding Joan Plowright. I have never seen the Friedkin version (except in stills) but I think she's really good. She has down the banal, cloying quality of Mrs. Bowles and her pseudo sexual/motherly domination of Stanley. With Pinter I think you play it one of two ways. You either play up the 'menace' angle of the 'comedy of menace', in which case you loose more comedy but gain atmosphere, or emphasise the banal (as here) and its more comic but less atmospheric.
I like how she takes the food to the serving hatch, then walks in the room. She could have taken it to him, instead of him getting up.
Only ever saw the version with Robert Shaw, which I love. It’s good to compare & contrast.
Me too, about to watch this one for the first time, loved the movie version, which did you prefer?
@@suzannewarkable Bizzarly, having made that comment, I never did watch this version. Just a few minutes. Then I entirely for got about it. All the actors are top notch. Well thanks for responding and reminding me. It is now on my to-do list!
@@kipling1957 I was all set to revisit the Friedkin movie this evening (after watching another movie that reminded me of it last night) when I stumbled across the existence of this BBC version and was torn which one to put on but I’ve decided I will give this one a try for comparison, as you say. Seems half the folks prefer this one and half prefer the Friedkin one.
it's not tea, it's gravey hahaha i love the comic component of it
Kenneth Cranham is perfection - channeling David Bowie.
Thank you for uploading this! I consider "The Birthday Party" to be one of the most brilliant plays of 20th century british drama and it is truly fascinating to see Pinter himself as Goldberg. I must agree though that this doesn't even come close to the 1968 version by William Friedkin which captured the 'Pinteresque' atmosphere of menace just perfectly. One of the very few cases in which I must say that the screen adaptation really added to my understanding of the play itself.
interesting, i guess should check out film someday, but I found this version fascinating. only Pinter play I've seen thus far but I felt a fair amount of O'Neil's Long Day's Journey Into Night here, in my fairly naive view
I think this is quite funny because if you are looking at this play purely from a entertainment view, not looking into Pinters other work or style of work you would see it completely different perspective than someone looking at it from an existentialist point of view
While what you say is true, I'm not sure that makes it funny.
@@dantean The dialogues and language are very funny.
there is a lot going on here - real, symbolic, absurd ... much to assess and speculate on
this part 1 is hilarious ! the dialogue is either terse or absurd, i love it !
yes, lot of small nuances, a main parts are distinct, as they are emphasizing different tropes or examples of language that is repetitive, vacuous, or absurd in turn, etc.
This production was first screened in 1987. Sadly Harold Pinter passed away in 2008 while Robert Lang who played Petey Bowles died in 2004 aged 70. Joan Plowright is still alive at 81 while Kenneth Cranham (Stanley) Scottish born, is still with us at 69.
And sadly Blakely died the same year this was shown.
still?
Take a seat, McCann.
What about you?
What about me?
Are you gonna take a seat?
We both take a seat.
on the petty competitions and rivalries that give us ephemeral distinctions and silly psychological assurances in our lives
Yes
Bring on the cornflakes!
Nice video
Any G-helpian here?
❤
Yes I am also Ghelpian😂
Yes
Yeaa😂
Yess..😊 second time 😁
almost as good as the 1968 film, maybe as good ; Joan Plowright is excellent.
i’m in 5th year of high school and we are doing this as a higher drama study
William Friedkin did a version of this and it is so enjoyable. Maybe it's just because I loved that one but this one is really, really annoying me. Pinter himself is spot on but even the camera on him grinds my gears!
I prefer the William Friedkin directed version. But I agree that Harold is brilliant. This one seems a bit wooden. Whether that's the intention, I don't know but all the dialogue seems mechanically delivered.
Cranham isnt as good as Robert Shaw (who would be) but he does a pretty good job in my opinion.
Shaw was brilliant. Cranham, not. Julie Walters is terrible.
Intriguingly Dry
♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Hey man, I'm attempting an analysis of this play. I need to use the text as a point of departure and also refer to this production. Would you mind sharing more information concerning this production?
Drama and Poetry Exam :-)
I've got mine on this Wednesday! How did you get on?
I wrote a fine analytical essay on one of the themes of the play. Break a leg ^^
I think that is the intention.
Pinter use of no language is scary,props play a big part here.
the drum, the torch, the whiskey, the package, the tea, the cornflakes, the fried bread, the woman, the glasses, and Stanley's 'funeral attire' at the end
pintores plantas
You will never ever ever beat the original this idea of trying to do a, second version never ever works the original is the real deal
Nice upload! But one small factual error: this wasn't a BBC Four production (there wasn't a BBC Four in the 1980s) but was simply repeated on that channel in the 2000s.
ah, goldberg. thats me
It's more than true - it's a fact.
i picked up on that line too ... actually a good distinction, as different 'truths' seem relative, but facts are measured events objective to all parties ... an ever more important clarification in modern political and existential dilemmas
Nader Valian Have you read/watched Albee's "The Zoo Story"?
I played Jerry :)
Great play!!
difficult role, was it?
matias cocó Oh yes! It exhausted me every night, but wow what a trip it gave me! I loved digging into Albee's script so much. That's the most pleasurable part of acting for me: when you get a good script by a good playwright, and as you work on the part, you uncover so many things that you didn't see before.
matias cocó ńi
There's something so reassuring and lovely about Dandy Nichols ....... the actress here ..... not the racehorse trainer. Having said that ....this looks more like Joan Plowright ! Muddling along here as best I can :(
funny enough exactly how I read it is how it's being acted same voices and tones, how odd lol
HEGEL E' VIVOOOOOOOO
At the heart of all Pinter's work it is hollow. The characters are soulless
note that 100,000 started watching this, but 70,000 didn't finish it.
@@edmund184 That is a determinant of peoples’ attention span and the specifics of the medium the play was posted on, rather than a determinant of the quality of the play, obviously
it's perhaps about a lot of the meaningless routine and chatter that fill our days, intentionally avoiding convos on deeper meanings or issues that cause us too much pain or confusion
Pinters fantastic as Goldberg though
There should be a law in television thats its illegal to copy other people's productions its totally crazy
Why would anyone not know what fried bread is? The woman's daft.
Pinter is just a little too sparkly -bright here; having too much fun in his own play. Not bad tho.
that woman's voice is like an
icepick driving into my eardrums
who is here from chouaib doukali
Harold Pinter ,brilliant! Better than Shakespeare!
Cranham really doesn't seem to work here but I can't really work out why not - normally he's a good actor...
Why didn t she bring him his cornflkes?
Stanley wouldn't appreciate their wholesome goodness. As Meg tells him, "they are good.... it says so on the box...." Pinter cracks me up.
Stanley is being treated as the own son of mag although he is just in rent at their house. Weird
Did Harold Pinter hate England or something?
I think he was assessing humanity broadly
And Patrick Magee is better as McCann.
May be I think that ,there is a reson lie behind wort this play ,enen it looks simple and has no sens !
This is all it takes to win a Nobel Prize these days?
Yes. You should knock a couple of Prizes out for yourself. Can't hurt, right?
catchsomenicebass
Well, and 28 other plays.
far superior to the friedkin attempt....
part theatre of the absurd and satire and nonsense ?
No sense? Like your grammar, you mean?
Harold Pinter as an actor is not as convincing as Sydney Tafler.
Tafler was pretty amazing in the 1968 version so it would be difficult to match that performance.
Pinter is very good in this but it's a more showy performance than Tafler's - Tafler's performance is definitive, in my opinion. Goldberg is the plum role in the play, he gets most of the best lines, so I imagine any actor would be delighted to play him.
Can't talk to women like that today
too bad innit
@@starduck8014 Yeah but nah, you can get into trouble these days, by talking to somebody with an unpleasant tone. Wasn't a problem in the old days, but then that didn't make it alright, I suppose.
but men can still be belittled by other men
Joan Plowright was too attractive for the part of Meg, and Robert Shaw was better cast as he was odd in real life
Miscast.
I don't think I have ever heard less convincing dialogue. On the other hand, the acting is actually worse. However, both are superior to the clunking exposition: "they must have heard this is a very good boarding house".
It's on a par with a film about Hitler set in 1933 where someone says "Adolph, do you think if you become leader of Germany you might invade Russia in June 1941 with about 168 divisions including around 6,867 armoured vehicles?" and getting the reply "Yes, but only after I would have secured my southern flanks against a British invasion of Greece after my probable ally, Mussolini has made a mess of his invasion of Albania and Greece delaying an attack on Russia which I would have planned for May".
Very immature critique. Meg speaks exactly like a woman of her education and station would back in the late 50's.
Much less good than the version, also on RUclips, in which Robert Shaw is so unforgettable and Dandy Nicholls so much better than Joan Plowright, who was miscast. Some of the speeches delivered here by Pinter work better and suggest more meaning, yet this version lacks life.
It's a pity Pinter didn't act himself in that earlier version.
Goldberg is one of the most repulsive characters in dramatic history.
it's complicated ... he's an everyman and a devil at the same time, probably not a good compliment on humanity/male-ness
worst novel i have ever read in my life totally worthless and a waste of time I just wanna throw up when reading it its sooooo boring I bet the writer had so much extra time and he suddenly decided to write some shitty things I was not supposed to read it but they made us read it as a part of our literature list at university
Cranham is horrible