Festa di compleanno

If one has never seen a Pinter play, this one is a hard one to start with. I studied numerous playwrights in college and nearly wrote a dissertation on this guy, but my advisers turned down my proposal. Absurdist theatre is a hard business from Ionesco to Beckett, but Pinter paved his own way. It was interesting to see Robert Shaw, the skipper in Jaws and a bad guy in The Sting, the victim here. He lives in a house (not really a boarding house) and is a harsh, depressed man. The woman who runs things is a clueless nit. Out of nowhere come a pair of men, who decide to stay there, but their target is Stanley (Shaw). Their motives are unclear, other than to turn him into a relative vegetable with intense nonsense interrogation. The title comes from what would seem a benign celebration of Stanley's life which then turns into a nightmare. The film is pretty well crafted with "good" performances. But like every Pinter play I've seen, it leaves one unsettled and spooked.

I think that Roger Ebert pinned this work down when he said that adapting the Pinter play would inherently cause some problems - what one can buy as a little more fantastical and hermetically sealed on a stage, where one can be just stuck with these two people on the 'job' with their assignment as Mr. Stanley Webber (Robert Shaw) is a little harder to buy in a film because the reality is different (at least in this case. While I would recommend the film to people, especially for those who want to seek out Friedkin's oeuvre, and it has some terrific performances, it is an exceedingly strange and odd sit.

The film is about... well, what is it really? I suppose it's about what happens to a man when he cracks under the weight of pressure and has a nervous breakdown, but that's the sort of main-ultimate point, if there is one. I felt like Pinter was challenging me and the audience, though to what end I am sure I don't know. Of course there is a great deal of suspense - what Shaw knows that the owners of the house don't about these two stranger-boarders (Patrick Magee, who you may recall as the Writer from Clockwork Orange, and Sydney Taffler who is really razor-sharp and wonderfully sadistic as Nat Goldberg) - amid this 'birthday party' which is now really on his birthday.

Of course this is what is called 'theater of the absurd'. And to this point there are a few funny moments, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a comedy, at least in Friedkin's hands. Perhaps it's because of the edge of Robert Shaw, who is probably the main reason to watch the film is for his startling performance that keeps an emotional through-line. When he first starts off in the movie he's mad at Dandy Nichols for... something or other (the tea, the corn flakes, the milk, for not, uh, talking to him in a particular way). One almost wonders if he's about to strike her, it's that sort of intense screen persona. But there's a lot more to his character and Shaw conveys this in this big early scene (he's also, I think, an ex-concert pianist or something).

You have to be set in the right frame of mind for this movie, and it definitely won't spoon-feed you easy dramatic answers to questions that are posed. By the end I was still not sure who Goldberg and McCann represented (my first thought was they were in some criminal organization - the "job" aspect made me think of a heist, and perhaps that's not that far from the truth by the very end, in a sense). Maybe it's a metaphor for how easily people can crack up, how manipulation and torture are so insidious, especially when pressed hard enough, and meanwhile the mostly happy old Mrs Bowles has her own dimensions too and works as a counterpoint for everyone else (she, along with her husband, has nothing to hide).

There's also some dazzling and bizarre camera and lighting choices, though these mostly come in the last couple of reels as the birthday party 'amps up' so to speak, with a camera at one point latched on to a character's head for dizzying perspective and when the lights go out at one point it's... I can't even. The point is, The Birthday Party is a good little find that is Friedkin in love with a piece of material that is bold, difficult and gives himself some chance to take what he learned directing television (I'm not sure if he did live theater but it wouldn't surprise me) into cinema and make it alive and thrashing. Whether it all makes sense is another story.

This is the first Harold Pinter play i watched. It's weird, claustrophobic and interesting, i mean, first 40 minutes are somewhat slow-paced but then, it speeds up and raise the stakes. Biggest quality here is acting, every actor did a tremendous job. It's not easy to categorize it, it is something like a black comedy +psychological drama thriller+ Absurdism. I could have rated it higher but it's too ambiguous and i don't love movies which are being intentionally so vague. It's so easy to create a mystery, every writer can do it but it takes a lot of skill to give also the right-mindblowing- answers to the questions you just raised. Pinter doesn't give any answers, so my rating won't be that thigh. Yet, it was a fun ride, almost Kafkaesque in a way, and those comedic moments were almost brilliant. In any case, this is a good movie.

Reportedly the first film William Friedkin directed that he was really, truly excited about, The Birthday Party is an adaptation of Harold Pinter's play of the same name, adapted into a script by Pinter himself. Having never seen a Pinter play or read much of anything about him, I think I can still suss out the meaning of the play's intentions, but I was generally not that engaged by what was going on. The only thing that really kept my interest was Friedkin's ability to find new ways to shoot a very confined space, keeping the film visually interesting from start to finish in a small two-room set that occupies about 95% of the film's runtime.

The film only has six characters. The central character is Stanley (Robert Shaw), a former piano player, currently out of work and spending all of his time in the boarding house he lives in in a seaside town on the English coast. The boarding house is run by Meg (Dandy Nichols) who is married to Petey (Moultrie Kelsall) who reads his newspaper, eats his corn flakes, and wishes for more to eat than corn flakes for breakfast. Being a Pinter play (I assume), there's a lot of talk to set up these characters in their routines, to establish the scene through character actions and dialogue. Essentially, they live a quiet, repetitive life with little excitement, the only real interesting things being the mystery around their boarder, Stanley. Meg decides that that day is his birthday, even though, after he eventually gets down for breakfast, he disagrees, and she's going to throw him a birthday party.

Into this mix come two strangers, McCann (Patrick Magee) and Goldberg (Sydney Tafler). Who they are never becomes clear, though their motives become clear enough as they butt into the little existence with a clear-eyed focus on Stanley. From the moment they enter the scene, they have an obvious motive of breaking Stanley down, but it doesn't become terribly clear why until very late in the film. Essentially, what I can figure out is that Stanley represents a kind of harmless non-conformism that cannot be tolerated, so advocates of conformity come in to clear that up and make him fly straight. He's something of a loser, clinging to half-remembered and perhaps incorrect memories of professional heights from years past. The two break him down by questioning the past, even his very name, and Stanley, being in no good mental shape, is an open target to be harassed and broken down.

It all crescendos at the titular party, the neighbor Lulu (Helen Fraser) having brought a toy drum for Stanley as a present which becomes the central visual motif of the film as it represents his lowered status and even that gets broken in its own way before Stanley himself is completely broken. There is still a half hour of the film left where we get insights into Goldberg, in particular, and Petey standing up slightly for Stanely before being shooed out of the house to deal with some business at the beach.

So, I find it kind of obvious. Most of the character beats are people just talking about themselves in extended soliloquies that never feel natural despite the emphasis on character and realistic setting which are obviously meant for naturalism on some level. The actual action extends into some level of absurdism and surrealism which Friedkin enhances through conscious filmmaking techniques.

Which takes me to Friedkin himself. I don't know what I was expecting when I started going through his work chronologically, but whatever it was, it wasn't going to be actor-focused theatrical adaptations. And yet, that's exactly what I'm getting. What's surprising beyond that is that Friedkin is taking this stage-bound production and really making it feel cinematic. The focus is very much on the actors and their characters, so it's not like our eyes are wandering to the backgrounds and compositions, but that doesn't stop Friedkin from finding new ways to keep his actors in the frame. This has an advantage over something like The Zero Theorem in that there are multiple subjects, so when Friedkin uses something like a camera move from the living room through the window to the kitchen, following two actors as they go and talk, the visual composition is changing, evolving, and continuing to be interesting as he moves from one composition to the next (evoking Wyler to a great degree) while the focus is very much on the two actors.

Those actors are uniformly very good, of course. I always get a kick out of seeing Magee because it makes me think of his performance in A Clockwork Orange, but it's Shaw who's the focus as the broken man broken further by the outside presence intruding upon his little life.

So, it's well-made and it's well-acted, but I just generally can't get into it. I find extended monologues about the self to be less interesting than Pinter does, it seems, and the central point feels both too on the nose and too thin for the running time. Maybe it works better on the stage.

As one of this world's more zealous Robert Shaw fans, I feel obliged to put this gem in every once in a while and follow Shaw's every move. I must say, this film amazes me; it confounds me every time. There's only one emotion that overwhelms my passion for Mr. Shaw's gift in front of the camera--irritation--and it's aimed right straight at the storyline. You will find yourself wondering what's going on and why, as the actors' performances blind you with their shabby, touching directness. Don't let the story creep and seep too far into your brain. The story will cloud your ability to appreciate what this film is full of--brilliant, golden performances. They all shine, especially Shaw as poor Stanley. I enjoy watching films that take me to England in the 60s. The surroundings are dreary and depressing and totally marvelous. This film is well worth seeing; but, once again, I warn you--ignore the story; adore the actors! Oh, and an extra bonus (for what it is worth)-- After watching this film, you'll never look at a newspaper the same way again, I guarantee you. Enjoy!