Festa di compleanno

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.

Friedkin does an excellent job of turning Harold Pinter's crunchy little Comedy of Menace into a suitably dank, dreary-looking movie full of dark corners, both visual and characteristic. Cast is spot-on, but Sydney Tafler's Goldberg is outstanding; alternately affable and deeply threatening with sublime ease. Even better is Dandy Nicholls as Meg, a truly pitch-perfect performance in one of Pinter's few sympathetic (and substantial) female roles. This reading does invite comparison with the 1987 TV production, in which Pinter himself plays Goldberg and Joan Plowright the daffy Meg. For my money, this movie is the winner by a length. Highly recommended.

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!

I must say I will take a little umbrage at the meagre critical reception this film has got; it seems to have largely been just written off as "well acted, *but* not suited/adapted to film". I would have to say it's a good thing to try and broaden the audience for what is undeniably a fine play in my opinion, by making a film. The film sticks very closely to the dramatic text, and it's a critical truism to say that the immediacy of theatre performance is lost. It may well be that Pinter is particularly good on stage (certainly judging by a recent run of "The Collection" that I saw in September), but he's also been very effective cinematically, in the adaptations of "The Servant" and "Accident". This is certainly a more constrained film than "Accident", and a little more so than the claustrophobic "The Servant"; one could say the director and others involved with the film are playing it safe, but that's no problem really, as the formula was excellent to begin with. Certain exterior shots do add a lot I feel, as does the subtle, suggestive opening in the car. For a film as "theatrical" as this is claimed to be, it has good camera sense, and handles the dialogue neatly. The scene where it shifts to monochrome in the dark light I did like. I feel that the scotched, grim, mundane colour stock of the film is certainly in tune with the play and the though.

Most important perhaps, in a performance of Pinter on film, are the performances, and I must declare them to be excellent and overlooked. Robert Shaw, an actor I always enjoy ("A Man for all Seasons" and "From Russia With Love" making up a decidedly contrasting threesome of Shaw films I've seen...), is proficient as Webber, the absurd "mystery man" laying low in a seaside boarding house. Most impressive to my mind though, are Dandy Nichols, Patrick Magee and Sydney Tafler. Nichols certainly plays the darkly hilarious role of the unknowing, deluded Meg to a veritable tee. Magee and Tafler define the roles of Goldberg and McCann, the sinister, well-versed double-act, to such an extent that I'll definitely think of them in the roles from now on, when I think of the play. Magee is a foreboding, but often unwittingly droll presence in the film, timing his acting brilliantly. His Irish tones contrast finely with Goldberg's sophisticated Jewish-London accent. Tafler is an absolute marvel in this role, walking away with the film in many ways, embellishing another elusive, odd Pinter character, the most erudite in the play. He fills the screen amply and times the dialogue perfectly; a stunning performance, by a somehow obscure actor. The chap who played Petey Boles is also good, in a small but certainly necessary part.

Of course, one unfamiliar with Pinter may be bemused by the oddball plot, struggle to come up with instant meanings and then describe it as weird and incoherent, as if those were bad things... Of course, it isn't truly incoherent; there are meanings and interpretations to be made if one pays close attention to the dialogue. And it is the dialogue, that, as ever with Pinter, dazzles. Suffice to say, I am not truly in a position to analyze and describe why his dialogue is so brilliant in a mere film review such as this is, but trust me, his dialogue is remarkable; making the banal seem rich and sinister, and the rich seem banal and ritualistic (in Goldberg's case). A worthy effort really, this film, I'd say, as it captures so much of the Pinter brilliance.

Rating:- ****/*****