Paper 4, Module 31: Text

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Tutun Mukherjee University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Hariharan Institute of English, University of

Balagovindan Kerala

Content Writer/Author Dr. Liji Varghese All Saints’ College,

(CW) Thiruvananthapuram

Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Jameela Begum Former Head & Professor, Institute

of English, University of Kerala

Language Editor (LE) Prof. Hariharan Institute of English, University of

Balagovindan Kerala
 2

The Birthday Party

1.1 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.
 3

1.2 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.

1.3 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
 4

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.

1.3.1 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.

 5

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.

 6

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.

1.4 Pinterian Silences and Pauses

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.

 7

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
 8

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.

1.5 Major Themes and Motifs in The Birthday Party

1.5.1 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
 9

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.

1.5.2 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
 10

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.

1.5.3 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
 11

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
 12

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.”

1.5.4 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
 13

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’
 14

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.

1.5.5 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
 15

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.

1.6 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
 16

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.