This blog is part of my academic activity. For more details about task click here.
Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?
It is very difficult to know director’s intention behind omitting Lulu’s scene. Because it does not make any difference may be the scenes are omitted. Lulu is a girl who can be impressed very easily and we can see in the movie that she is actively participating with Goldberg. Goldberg is not doing it forcefully or Lulu is not in position where she has to be submissive, she is doing it willingly and after that complaining. May be her complain is right but no one will believe her. The centre of the play is Stanley and symbolically Lulu is his inspiration. When Lulu goes near to Goldberg, it is enough to see that how Stanley is left alone now and after this may be there is no need to show the scene of Lulu blaming Goldberg. May be because of this reason director omitted the scene of Lulu.
Is movie successful in giving us the effect of menace? a you able to feel it while reading the text?
Yes, while watching movie we do feel the effect of menace. The pause between dialogues we can feel while watching, but while reading we don’t take pause and we can’t feel also. The effect of menace come when we watch the expression of actors and by that we also can feel. The pause and silence of Pinter is hard to understand while reading. When we have audio visual effect the menacing effect becomes stronger. But while reading some time it happens that we don’t understand effect and so we can not feel.
Do you feel the effect of lurking danger while viewing the movie? Where you able to feel the same while reading the text?
Yes, I do feel lurking danger while watching movie. In movie I feel it when Stanley hide in kitchen and then they all are playing blind man’s buff and this danger remain as it is when Goldberg and MacCann take Stanley away. While reading for the first time we feel this when Meg ask to Petey that is it him or not and for some time Petey don’t answer we feel the danger there. Then again when interrogation scene came and at last when they take Stanley away.
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.
Newspaper is one of the symbol in movie. Newspaper is something which shows us the reality of world. Petey is reading newspaper to Meg at that time he exercising his power over his wife. Meg is the person who mostly live in her goody goody world. She also ask Petey to tell her some good news only. Petey is different person than Meg so while reading newspaper he is trying to have his own separate world from Meg. MacCann is tearing the newspaper, it shows that he is trying to destroy the reality, may be his real self. He is very disturbed by the job which is given to him and by tearing the newspaper he is trying to tear his fear and frustration. At last Petey hides the pieces of newspaper from Meg. To keep Meg in her imaginative and happy world and to hide the reality of Goldberg and MacCann and 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?
The director of the movie ha taken very effective work from camera. During the blind man’s buff scene also it works effectively. MacCann was there in that house because he want to grab Stanley. When it come to blindfold MacCann the camera was over the head of MacCann and his expression was also savage. It is like he is trying to get his prey. But when it comes to Stanley the camera is on top of the room and room is looking like cage and Stanley is trying to escape. So it is symbolically said that now Stanley is in trap and he can not escape because Goldberg and MacCann will not allow him to escape.
"Pinter restored theatre 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, this do happen in movie. Most of the scenes are in drawing room the space is so narrow and the dialogues are also unpredictable. We can not imagine what is going on in the mind of characters. Every character is on the mercy of each other, weather it is Stanley, or Petey, Meg, Goldberg, MacCann, or Lulu. Every character is living on other. At some point of time every one’s false faces falls down. They became what they really are. So yes this lines do happen in 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)?
The movie is really great help to understand its typical characteristics which most of them while reading is hard to get. Like there is two Silence in Pinter’s play which gave better understanding rather than reading. The pause we can feel while watching but while reading it is just like a word. So yes it is better to watch movie of this play then the reading and it also give deeper understanding of Pinter’s characteristics.
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 Friedkin3]. (Ebert)
Though I haven’t seen any other version of play but I will go with second observation. Because by this movie we feel all the effect which Pinter wants to create. Director has take good work from camera and all actors are also does very good job. So I can’t imagine a better film than this one.
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?
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 Singh
Goldberg – Paresh Rawal
MacCann – Manoj bajpayee
Petey – Anupam Kher
Meg – Kiran Kher
Lulu – Kangana Ranaut
Thank you.
Why are two scenes of Lulu omitted from the movie?
It is very difficult to know director’s intention behind omitting Lulu’s scene. Because it does not make any difference may be the scenes are omitted. Lulu is a girl who can be impressed very easily and we can see in the movie that she is actively participating with Goldberg. Goldberg is not doing it forcefully or Lulu is not in position where she has to be submissive, she is doing it willingly and after that complaining. May be her complain is right but no one will believe her. The centre of the play is Stanley and symbolically Lulu is his inspiration. When Lulu goes near to Goldberg, it is enough to see that how Stanley is left alone now and after this may be there is no need to show the scene of Lulu blaming Goldberg. May be because of this reason director omitted the scene of Lulu.
Is movie successful in giving us the effect of menace? a you able to feel it while reading the text?
Yes, while watching movie we do feel the effect of menace. The pause between dialogues we can feel while watching, but while reading we don’t take pause and we can’t feel also. The effect of menace come when we watch the expression of actors and by that we also can feel. The pause and silence of Pinter is hard to understand while reading. When we have audio visual effect the menacing effect becomes stronger. But while reading some time it happens that we don’t understand effect and so we can not feel.
Do you feel the effect of lurking danger while viewing the movie? Where you able to feel the same while reading the text?
Yes, I do feel lurking danger while watching movie. In movie I feel it when Stanley hide in kitchen and then they all are playing blind man’s buff and this danger remain as it is when Goldberg and MacCann take Stanley away. While reading for the first time we feel this when Meg ask to Petey that is it him or not and for some time Petey don’t answer we feel the danger there. Then again when interrogation scene came and at last when they take Stanley away.
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.
Newspaper is one of the symbol in movie. Newspaper is something which shows us the reality of world. Petey is reading newspaper to Meg at that time he exercising his power over his wife. Meg is the person who mostly live in her goody goody world. She also ask Petey to tell her some good news only. Petey is different person than Meg so while reading newspaper he is trying to have his own separate world from Meg. MacCann is tearing the newspaper, it shows that he is trying to destroy the reality, may be his real self. He is very disturbed by the job which is given to him and by tearing the newspaper he is trying to tear his fear and frustration. At last Petey hides the pieces of newspaper from Meg. To keep Meg in her imaginative and happy world and to hide the reality of Goldberg and MacCann and 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?
The director of the movie ha taken very effective work from camera. During the blind man’s buff scene also it works effectively. MacCann was there in that house because he want to grab Stanley. When it come to blindfold MacCann the camera was over the head of MacCann and his expression was also savage. It is like he is trying to get his prey. But when it comes to Stanley the camera is on top of the room and room is looking like cage and Stanley is trying to escape. So it is symbolically said that now Stanley is in trap and he can not escape because Goldberg and MacCann will not allow him to escape.
"Pinter restored theatre 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, this do happen in movie. Most of the scenes are in drawing room the space is so narrow and the dialogues are also unpredictable. We can not imagine what is going on in the mind of characters. Every character is on the mercy of each other, weather it is Stanley, or Petey, Meg, Goldberg, MacCann, or Lulu. Every character is living on other. At some point of time every one’s false faces falls down. They became what they really are. So yes this lines do happen in 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)?
The movie is really great help to understand its typical characteristics which most of them while reading is hard to get. Like there is two Silence in Pinter’s play which gave better understanding rather than reading. The pause we can feel while watching but while reading it is just like a word. So yes it is better to watch movie of this play then the reading and it also give deeper understanding of Pinter’s characteristics.
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 Friedkin3]. (Ebert)
Though I haven’t seen any other version of play but I will go with second observation. Because by this movie we feel all the effect which Pinter wants to create. Director has take good work from camera and all actors are also does very good job. So I can’t imagine a better film than this one.
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?
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 Singh
Goldberg – Paresh Rawal
MacCann – Manoj bajpayee
Petey – Anupam Kher
Meg – Kiran Kher
Lulu – Kangana Ranaut
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.