32 Harold Pinter : The Birthday Party
Dr. Liji Varghese
Harold Pinter: An Introduction
Harold Pinter (1930-2008) was a Nobel laureate who distinguished himself as a playwright, actor, director and screenwriter. Pinter was a multi-faceted genius who excelled in all the fields he experimented in. He has written about twenty nine plays and fifteen dramatic sketches. In fact, his style is considered to be so unique that the adjective “Pinteresque” is now widely used to refer to works that feature some of the common traits that his art projected. Though his works have been variously classified as “comedies of menace”, “absurd drama” and “memory plays”, Pinter has vociferously denounced all such attempts to categorise his oeuvre into definitive sub-genres. His major works include The Room (1957), The Birthday Party (1958), The Hothouse (1958), The Dumb Waiter (1959), The Caretaker (1959), Tea Party (1964), The Homecoming (1964), Silence (1968), No Man’s Land (1974), Betrayal (1978), One for the Road (1984) and Celebration (1999).
Pinter’s plays are marked for its non-conformist stance and political undertones. His reactionary opinions are mirrored in the dialogues of his characters who refuse to adhere to the strict and often stagnant societal restrictions. Pinter’s works are famous for its open ended plot sequences and ambiguous themes. By infusing his plays with a rigorous originality, he defied conventional tropes of literary writing. And it is perhaps for this very reason that his plays have endured the test of time.
The Birthday Party: An Introduction to the Play
Ever since its first presentation in 1958, Harold Pinter’s magnum opus, The Birthday Party has garnered much critical appraise and criticism for its varied perspective and unique presentation. It is a brilliantly wrought work which celebrates the inherent ambiguity of human nature. Many critics have attempted to label it and fix the parameters of its artistic scope and design, but the play continues to defy such categorisations by acquiring newer levels of signification as time passes.
It is perhaps extremely difficult to arrive at a definite or logical decision regarding the play’s theme or action. Nevertheless, it is this rich ambivalence that lends The Birthday Party its innate charm. The plot sequences often seem illogical and the characters appear to be motivated by reasons that are never revealed. The title itself is steeped in layers of ambiguity as it is never made clear whether the eponymous birthday party is based on fact or fiction. It may or may not be Stanley Webber’s birthday party. The shifting realms of reality are revealed when Stanley himself denies that it is his birthday whereas Meg, McCann and Goldberg contradict him by insisting on the veracity of their claims.
Comedy of Menace
The term “comedy of menace” was coined by the renowned drama critic Irving Wardle who used it to refer to a certain kind of drama wherein the elements of comedy and menace often remain intricately interconnected. The playwright effectively combines these two diverse effects so as to create a unique and new amalgam that conveys the idea of threat but remains couched in a humorous narrative or setting. The characters often feel threatened by a force that they are unable to name or pinpoint. Often in such plays, the fear generated by the menace contributes to the effect of humour. Wardle took the term from David Campton’s play, The Lunatic View: A Comedy of Menace. The major dramatists associated with this genre are Harold Pinter, David Campton, Nigel Dennis and N.F. Simpson. Nevertheless, Pinter strongly objected to such categorisations of his plays. Later Wardle also agreed that not all of Pinter’s plays display the characteristics associated with this genre.
The Birthday Party as a Comedy of Menace
Though Pinter has denied belief in any such categorisations, one cannot negate the fact that The Birthday Party is steeped in a certain sense of impending menace that adds to the eeriness of the play. Right from the first act, there is a sense of a hidden danger, a lurking secret that threatens to upset the status quo. However, this sense of menace or danger is never actualized and the secret remains hidden. One can even argue that though there is only a hint of menace, it permeates the entire atmosphere of the play.
Meg’s conversation with Petey in the beginning of the play is marked for its prosaic and banal tone of commonality. The pace soon shifts and the tone becomes more menacing when Stanley’s character is introduced. Stanley’s conversation with Meg reveals this dramatic tension where the idea of menace is conveyed by veiled threats and insinuating remarks. Stanley behaves like a caged animal, lunging out at the slightest hint of threat. Meg seems to be oblivious to this unease within him until he threatens her by saying that somebody will carry her away in a wheelbarrow. And then the tension becomes very palpable as both seem suspicious of the other.
Stanley: (advancing upon her). A big wheelbarrow. And when the van stops they wheel it out, and they wheel it up the garden path, and then they knock at the front door.
Meg: They don’t.
Stanley: They’re looking for someone.
Meg: They’re not.
Stanley: They’re looking for someone. A certain person.
Meg: (hoarsely). No, they’re not!
Stanley: Shall I tell you who they’re looking for?
Meg: No!
Stanley: You don’t want me to tell you?
Meg: You’re a liar! (BP 24)
This atmosphere of mutual suspicion and antagonism is maintained throughout the play. The entry of Goldberg and McCann escalates the level of tension with their intricate verbal warfare with Stanley.
Pinter also introduces complex undercurrents in almost all the interactions between characters. Even in mundane exchanges, there is the presence of a hidden tension, a source of conflict that never reveals itself. Stanley’s conversation with Lulu in the first act (BP 25-26) and Petey’s conversation with Goldberg in the third act (BP 85-86) are all examples of such interactions where the primary level of signification gives way to a more complex and strategically placed secondary layer. When Stanley talks to Lulu about going away, it hints at a desperate attempt to shake off the ennui that has enveloped him.
Stanley: (abruptly) How would you like to go away with me? Lulu: Where.
Stanley: Nowhere. Still, we could go.
Lulu: But where could we go?
Stanley: Nowhere.There’s nowhere to go. So we could just go. It wouldn’t matter. (BP 26)
Stanley is so desperate that though there is nowhere to go, he would willingly take that infinitesimal possibility of a chance instead of leading the stagnant life at Meg’s boarding house. The desperation of such an exchange is masked by the casual context in which it is placed. It is also interesting to note that it is soon after this conversation that Goldberg and McCann make their first appearance.
Pinterian Silences andPauses
Pinter’s stage directions often indicated “pause” and “silence” in order to endow his plays with an extra dimension of signification. These daunting silences confounded both actors and critics as they were unable to comprehend it properly. Pinter makes effective use of silences so as to enrich the dramatic experience. He believed that silences can be employed to convey a higher level of signification that cannot be conveyed through verbal signs. He also made use of mundane conversations to convey a deeper sense of meaning that lies hidden beneath the illusion of signification. He says:
There are two silences. One when no word is spoken. The other when perhaps a torrent of language is being employed. This speech is speaking of a language locked beneath it. That is its continual reference. The speech we hear is an indication of that which we don’t hear. It is a necessary avoidance, a violent, sly, anguished or mocking smoke screen which keeps the other in its place. When true silence falls we are still left with echo but are nearer nakedness. One way of looking at speeches is to say that it is a constant stratagem to cover nakedness.
These silences aid in enhancing the “menace” that is associated with Pinter’s works.
The Birthday Party is replete with self-contradictions and multiple realities. Not only do characters contradict each other, but at times they refute their own earlier statements. In the first act itself Pinter introduces us to this theme of fluidity as Stanley’s dialogues about his past bear testimony to the fact that one should never take statements at face value even if they appear most innocuous. It almost seems as if Stanley is re-creating a past for himself and this mythopoetic nature of identities leaves the audience wondering about binary constructs like Truth/ Reality, Right/ Wrong and so on.
Meg: Have you played the piano in these places before?
Stanley: Played the piano? I’ve played the piano all over the world. All over the country.(Pause).
I once gave a concert. (BP 22)
Stanley’s disturbing revelations lead the audience to doubt the veracity of his claims. Goldberg and McCann’s appearance later on only serve to intensify these doubts. Pinter is a dramatist who often made use of pauses and silence to reveal more than dialogues ever could. When Stanley pauses in the middle of conversation, it therefore conveys a great deal more than what the dialogues anticipated. The very notion that Stanley is much more than what he claims to be is suggested rather forcefully by that well placed pause. In fact, Pinterian pauses have now become world famous for its subtle nuances and daunting presence. Though it has often been misused as well, in The Birthday Party, these pauses attain epic proportions as they seem to indicate a world of meaning.
Pinter introduces into this atmosphere of distrust and denial, an inability to communicate properly. The audience is introduced to a dramatic world wherein the ambiguity in dialogue leads to fluidity in identity formation. Stanley’s ambivalent statements and his sense of dread heighten the audience’s perception of his implied guilt. It is hinted that he has something to hide and it is precisely for this reason that he reacts violently to the idea of intrusion into his personal space. Pinter was aware of the fluctuating nature of language and once remarked that, “You and I, the characters which grow on a page, most of the time we’re inexpressive, giving little away, unreliable, elusive, obstructive, unwilling. But it’s out of these attributes that a language arises. A language, I repeat, where under what is said, another thing is being said.” Most of the characters in the play reveal much more through their silences than their actual utterances.
Major Themes and Motifs in The Birthday Party
Identity
The fluidity of identity is a major trope in Pinter’s oeuvre and here too it assumes the status of a cardinal motif.Stanley’s maniacal desire to safeguard his privacy raises questions about his identity. When Meg casually remarks about two visitors (BP 20), Stanley’s reaction is almost hostile. It is almost as if he cannot tolerate the presence of an “Other.” And it is this marked hostility that leads to the audience’s shifting perception of Stanley as an unstable character.
As the action progresses, every character in the play seems to have ulterior motives. Goldberg and McCann raise the quotient of suspicion even further by being deliberately vague. They talk about “completing their job” (BP 28-29) and endows the play with an added sense of danger and dread. The idea of their shared history with Stanley is never stated explicitly but the audience is led to believe that these two characters are inextricably tied to his life. Pinter never intended to present the story in a causal pattern. Indeed one can even argue that the essential absurdity of human condition is revealed by the actions of Goldberg, McCann and Stanley. Martin Esslin points out that, “There is the problem of the possibility of ever knowing the real motivation behind the action of human beings who are complex and whose psychological make-up is contradictory and unverifiable. One of Pinter’s major concerns as a dramatist is precisely that of the difficulty of verification” (273).
Goldberg, like Stanley becomes a shady character with a disputable past. He often waxes eloquently about the golden past and it is highly questionable as to how much of it is real. He also takes on various names like Nat and Simey and therefore assumes multiple identities.In Goldberg’s interaction with McCann, he is Nat, a superefficient person whom the latter admires in all matters of business. In his recollections of the past, he assumes the persona of Simey who behaves like a dignified gentleman who is just the polar opposite of the manipulative Nat. The juxtaposing of these diametrically opposite personalities hints at the innate ambiguity of human nature. Or it may also be argued that by structuring such a duality, Pinter is perhaps arguing in favour of the ineffable nature of reality.
Apathy and Change
Through the character of Meg, Pinter portrays how individuals can gradually develop apathy for any kind of change in their lives. Meg remains staunchly opposed to the idea of disrupting the pattern of her life. Her unwillingness to accept fluidity as an inevitable part of life is mirrored in her attitude to her house as well. It is shabby and there is a general air of stagnation everywhere. When Stanley asks her to clean it up (BP 19), she presents her own counter reality by stressing on the uniqueness of her house. Meg thus becomes a symbol of fixity; a principle that constantly tries to erase the presence of flux.
Just as Meg urges Stanley to resist change, her relationship with Petey also borders on such a sentiment. The tedious tone of their daily exchanges point towards a sheer banality of life and yet they resist change. It may be taken as an extension of their mutual agreement on resisting the inevitable flow of time. Meg and Petey exist on a different plane, a sort of spatio-temporal vacuum where they limit their existence. The element of ordinariness in their exchanges also hints at a deeper sense of spiritual numbness which has effectively curbed their imaginative prowess. Therefore, they cannot imagine a life outside their small circle. The ease and comfort associated with domestic familiarity is strangely absent in their conversations. Instead, it becomes more of a monotonous cyclical pattern, a circle of eternal repetitions from which one just cannot escape. Petey, in his own way tries to preserve their way of life as he does everything in his power to preserve Meg’s illusions. Even at the risk of being a possible cuckold, he willingly ceases to resist. The eventual change that happens in their life ushers in the elements of confusion and chaos and one wonders whether this is Pinter’s answer to the question of steadfastness represented by Petey and Meg.
Confusion and Order
Pinter advances the theme of confusion by portraying characters who are never consistent. Stanley lies about his past and behaves evasively whenever questions arise about his past. Goldberg spins elaborate stories about his past which may or may not be true. The female characters, especially Meg appear to be delusional. In such a situation where there is a clear lack of coherence in characters’ words and deeds, confusion becomes a prominent motif. However, Pinter reveals that much of this confusion is deliberately created by the characters so as to effectively camouflage their true identities. In a dramatic world dominated by characters who advocate confusion, McCann seems to be the only character who tries to preserve some semblance of order. His methodical ripping of paper into identical strips represents a somewhat ambivalent symbolical realization of creating order amidst chaos. In Act II when Stanley tries to disturb this “order” by taking one of the strips, McCann reacts savagely. Commenting on this Melanie and Cedars say that, The most prominent conflict in Act II is that between order and chaos. The act opens with a symbol of order taken to an almost perverse extreme and McCann methodically tears the newspaper into identical strips. The symbol serves as representation of how he and Goldberg approach their “job” – they are insidious and deliberate in their infiltration of the house and not too quick to make their move. Interestingly, this same symbol will represent the chaos they leave behind when it resurfaces in Act III.
McCann’s symbol of order can be directly contrasted with Stanley’s drum which can be taken as a symbol of his fragile mindset. It also stands for the confusion that is yet to be unleashed. The drum, which is Meg’s birthday present to Stanley extends the irony of the situation as Stanley does not believe that it is his birthday. His savage beating of the drum has deep psychological reverberations as it portrays a character who is posed precariously on the brink of sanity. It is also indicative of his slow descent into insanity.
Pinter also demonstrates how language generates chaos through the interrogation scene in Act II. Stanley’s gradual decline into the depths of insanity is intensified by the interrogation that he has to face. Goldberg’s and McCann’s questions drive him over the edge. The repetitive nature of the questions ensures Stanley’s eventual silence as he breaks down in the face of such a savage and vicious verbal onslaught. As the interrogation proceeds to a frantic pace, the questions lose their contextual significance and become psychological tools that are used to unnerve Stanley’s seemingly rigid composure. Pinter thus shows how language can be used as a weapon to demoralize and enslave an individual. McBride and Cedars comment on the dramatic significance of the interrogation scene and aptly point out: “In performance, this scene plays quickly and violently, with the ridiculousness of the language only reinforcing the sinister, torturous intent of the characters. Again, what they say is less affecting than the way they say it, the true motivation behind the meaningless words.”
Misogyny and Violence
Violence is a major theme in The Birthday Party but more surprisingly, much of the violence in the play is closely associated with a misogynistic attitude. Stanley never makes a formal confession regarding his crime but his guilt is taken for granted. Several of the questions asked by Goldberg and McCann suggest the possibility that Stanley’s crime is intrinsically related to women. His misogynistic attitude is revealed in his behavior towards Meg and Lulu. He is openly rude and dismissive towards Meg and even tries to strangle her. His equation with Lulu is highly problematic as it is fraught with a sexual tension that often appears to be perverse. Stanley’s attempt to rape Lulu might be seen as a manifestation of the depraved sexual fantasy that he cherished.
Stanley’s abhorrent stance towards women is perhaps indicative of a larger schema in the Pinterian oeuvre where women characters are generally sidelined. In The Birthday Party, the two female characters are marginalized and reduced to the level of stereotypes. While Meg becomes the demonized mother figure whose sexual advances are vulgar and coarse, Lulu becomes the proverbial “brainless bimbo” who succumbs to the sexual fantasies of any virile male who crosses her path. Commenting on Pinter’s negative portrayal of women, Elizabeth Sakellaridou says, “Men are taken seriously whereas women do not count. Meg proves as redundant and useless as Lulu . . . . Only Meg is confined to the loneliness of her home and Lulu to her sexuality” (44-45).
In The Birthday Party women have been sidelined to such an extent that they do not contribute to the action of the play. Meg becomes a vexatious character and Lulu in the perspective of many critics is a redundant character. Sakellaridou points out how Meg closely resembles Rose in The Room and how both these female characters appear as quite unlikeable (31). Meg is not just unlikeable; she is also stripped of common sense and is presented as a woman who is always fooled by the men in her life. Everybody takes her for granted and towards the end when she deludes herself into believing that she is “the belle of the ball” (BP 87), she becomes nothing more than a moronic and menacing female presence in the play.
Just as Meg is denigrated, Lulu also is objectified as a commodity for sex. She does not leave a lasting impression in the play or in the minds of the audience. Instead, she just becomes the repository of all perverse male sexual fantasies enacted in the play. While Stanley attempts to rape her, Goldberg takes advantage of her vulnerability. Goldberg, in spite of appearing as a moral ideologue insistent on respecting women, callously treats Lulu as an object for gratification. In the third act, her humiliation is completed when Goldberg and McCann dismiss her in the most brutal manner. McCann even tries to pinpoint the blame on her by asking her to confess her sins, implying that she is the sinner; the “femme fatale” who lured Goldberg by her sexuality. Sakellaridou points out that, “Indeed Lulu is Meg’s double in silliness and sluttishness. Her presence in the play by the side of the older woman intensifies, if anything, the disparaged image of the feminine” (43).
In fact, we can argue that the stifling image of motherhood returns again and again in Pinter’s plays. Just as Meg in The Birthday Party, Rose in The Room and Albert Stokes’ mother in A Night Out also project an image that is at once motherly and menacing. The warm love exhibited by these mother figures is complicated/negated by a wary awareness of their smothering attentions. Esslin comments on Meg’s motherliness which is “so stifling as to be almost incestuous” (270). It is quite problematic as to why Pinter resorts to such a negative portrayal of women and more specifically mothers. But true to Pinter’s style, the reasons are never revealed.
Blindness
The male characters in the play remain almost indifferent and completely blind to the predicament faced by Meg and Lulu. Though Goldberg professes about his respect for women, one can never see him putting his philosophy into practice. He easily dupes Meg and seduces Lulu and discards both women without thinking about their perspectives. Stanley too remains blind to his sins against women. Towards the end of Act II, Goldberg and McCann take away Stanley’s glasses, therefore rendering him blind in both a physical and spiritual sense. However, even before this symbolic re-enactment of blindness, Stanley cannot visualize his abominable behavior towards women. The question now rises as to whether Pinter is endorsing such an ideological blindness or is he critiquing such a callous and casual attitude towards women.
When Goldberg and McCann take Stanley’s glasses, they do not just rob him of his vision, they also take away his power to protest. The darkness that envelops Stanley robs him of his perspective and he becomes a broken man. Stanley’s crumbling self is symbolically represented by the broken drum which suggests that his individuality has now been lost. He is only a shell of his previous self. The drum becomes a very poignant symbol in the final act because it stands for the destruction of Meg’s fragile universe as well. Though she is not aware of it, her Stanley has been re-claimed and the home that she had so lovingly cherished will never be the same again. However, Meg remains symbolically blind to all these events as she never realises the truth. Meg’s macabre fear of change is materialized when Stanley is taken away. Pinter comments on the nature of blind delusions when he presents Meg who is cocooned in her own world of dreams. She believes that nothing is wrong in her perfect haven when everything has crumbled down. By depicting such an image, Pinter reveals the dichotomy between reality and imagination.
Conclusion
Esslin interprets The Birthday Party “as an allegory of the pressures of conformity” (271) and this argument is strengthened by Petey’s fervent plea to Stanley in the third act.
His impassioned plea to Stanley, “Stan, Don’t let them tell you what to do!” (BP 86) becomes crucial in its thematic and structural significance. It contains a frantic desire to restore Stanley’s lost individuality. Pinter famously remarked in his interview with Gussowthat it is one of the most important lines he had ever produced. He said, “The character of the old man, Petey, says one of the most important lines I’ve ever written. . . . I’ve lived that line all my damn life. Never more than now.” Pinter never believed in conforming to the existing social order and this sentiment is aptly expressed by Petey when he implores Stanley to break free from the fetters of an unknown fate that will turn him into a puppet.
Nevertheless, the plea remains unheard as Stanley is herded off to an unknown place of captivity. The play ends on a note of ambivalence just as it began. True to his style, Pinter never clearly enunciates Stanley’s true fate. The mysteries of Stanley’s crimes and the identities of Goldberg and McCann remain unknown and unsolved till the end. By masterfully crafting such an open ended play, Pinter is perhaps hinting at the myriad possibilities inherent in human nature. Petey’s statement becomes fiercely political in its implications; yet the realization of that potential is never shown on stage. Therefore, Pinter by refusing to adhere to the traditional norms of writing and providing neatly tied plot threads leaves us with a new vista of fluidity both in terms of narration and action. There is no didactic philosophy or moral preaching; instead, Pinter urges us to think for ourselves and come to a conclusion that lie independent of a fixed agency like the author or plot.
The Birthday Party remains one of Pinter’s most popular plays. However, when it was first performed in London many reviewers let out a torrent of savage and vitriolic indictment that nearly destroyed Pinter and his dramatic career. But, the play soon bounced back and many critics appreciated it for its innate complexity and projected air of bewilderment. The question naturally rises as to what really prompted such a powerful vindication of The Birthday Party’s artistic superiority. If the play has stood the test of time, it indicates a level of identification that can be found in the contemporary world as well. Even several decades after the play was published, we still admire it for the subtle political and ethical dilemmas it poses. Though the play eschews all categorisations, the truth remains that it has transcended such levels to attain the status of a true literary classic.