the great Robert Lang

@@dannylester3597 Yes. I fully agree. Somewhat underrated. Always turned in a good performance. Excellent diction.

So many issues going on here, the usual Pinter dialog of obsfuscation/avoidance, the universal issue of parents treating their adult offspring as children, and the hard expectations of 'masculinity' for males in society

Hilarious lines in a play that is filled with them. Particularly funny is the advice Uncle Barney provides to Goldberg. "We weren't like men in those days these days." And, of course, Goldberg ' s speech about birthdays is one of the best in modern drama. "Ah, birth! What a thing to celebrate! Like waking up on the morning! Some people don't like the idea. I've heard them.....they say you wake up, you're head's groggy, your nose is clogged, your mouth is like a boghouse, your feet stink, ....what are you but a cor

britteach what are you but a corpse waiting to be washed?

britteach I concur :-)) Thanks for uploading this!

You mustn't use that word.

I don’t think Plowright has got the slightest idea what’s going on

+Vidar Larsen. Absolutely. I have learned so much from reading and watching Pinter. I like the line you pulled below. "How often do you meet someone who it is a pleasure to meet?" I could have never written a line that good but I wish I had. His early trilogy -the Caretaker, the Birthday Party, and the Homecoming - are chock full of great lines, some of which are funny in that scary way you mentioned. And if you are interested in his genius, his later play, "Betrayal" is structured so that you can read it forward and backward and the story still makes sense. I just love Pinter.

Which character did pinter act upon

@@swastikar7923 Mr. Goldberg

@@agustinaaceto3518 thanks a lot mam

Pinter was a genius and a proper human being

That's nice love...

Written anything we'd know?

She's too stagey in this. Check out Dandy Nichols in the film, she was brilliant.

I agree. People on YT are always trying to compare actors and actresses. Both, bring their own qualities to the role.

Same thing iam doing today for my ma exam 😂

❤

Yes I am also Ghelpian😂

Yes

Yeaa😂

Yess..😊 second time 😁

Hi Andy - Two things Pinter does well. First is create dramatic tension, usually achieved by setting action in confined corners like a room. And second are his humorous riffs that attempt to mimic the way people actually think and behave. Rarely do we think in a straight line; our expressions are sometimes incoherent. There is also a tendency to speak in cliches and idioms which is effectively a form of communication without thought. Best of all is the dialogue that reproduces quite accurately the mundane and sometimes inane conversations like those between Meg and Petey at the very beginning of the play. ( Meg: "You've got your paper." Petey: Yes. Meg: Is it good? Petey: Not bad.) Pinter's plays have been called "aburdist comedies" which is as close to an accurate reflection of "reality" or the world that most of us inhabit as I have ever seen. As a long-time admirer of Harold Pinter's plays, I appreciate his sense of humor. He is very funny. I still chuckle at specific lines in this play.

Thanks for the reply, I agree about the humour. It must be difficult to write a play that mixes humour and horror in the way Pinter does. I can't decide which version of The Birthday Party is best. The 1968 version is very good, but it's nice to see Pinter actually playing one of his own characters here. Patrick Magee is very intense as McCann in the 1968 version; I remember seeing him in A Clockwork Orange where he had the same sort of demeanour. Although I like Joan Plowright I agree with many of the other comments that she isn't quite right as Meg, she's a little too posh and prim, although she's obviously trying hard to be a bit of an idiot which is what the play calls for. Dandy Nichols nails it in the other version.

Hi Andy - Excellent observations. You are right about the difficulty of choosing between the 1968 version and the one here. I'm a big fan of Robert Shaw beginning with his performance in The Sting and later in Jaws. As good a performance as he gives in the '68 Friedkin directed version, Shaw gives an even better performance as Aston in Pinter's The Caretaker with Donald Pleasance and Alan Bates, a version of which appears on KZfaq. If you haven't seen it yet, I think you will enjoy it. I happen to prefer the version of The Birthday Party starring Joan Plowright and Harold Pinter for a few reasons. The first is that this was my introduction to Harold Pinter and so I have a sentimental attachment and still hold fond memories of seeing the play for the first time. As a result, I am enthusiastic about Joan Plowright's performance as Meg. Her timing is excellent. She plays a self-assured ditz that still makes me laugh. Incidentally, I have read harsh criticisms of Kenneth Cranham as Stanley, but again, he is the first actor I saw in the role. He defined the character for me in a way that is hard to shake. He is compelling as a miserable manic-depressive artist caught between fantasy and reality. Cranham's delivery of Pinter's lines seems smoother and slightly slower paced than Shaw's. As for Pinter, I agree with you. It's a treat to see him perform. But, of course, this is a preference that is highly personal. I enjoy the 68 filmed version as well even if it has a slightly faster pace and the dialogue a little more difficult to hear. You're right about Magee. He is the better McCann. Both versions of the play though are fun to compare.

Hey I think you’re on to something.

Stanley is like K in "The Trial". Whether they are bad or good is irrelevant. They are irrevocably guilty in the eyes of the wrathful deity who remains invisible but oppressive throughout their lives from their birth to their death. The auto-da-fé that will end Stanley's life occurs on his birthday. See the following descriptions of the characters of Stanley, Goldberg and McCann: "Stanley Webber - "a palpably Jewish name, incidentally" "Goldberg and McCann "represent not only the West's most autocratic religions, but its two most persecuted races"". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birthday_Party_(play)#

PEUX pas trouver ses pièces en francais sur TOUTUBE

While what you say is true, I'm not sure that makes it funny.

@@dantean The dialogues and language are very funny.

there is a lot going on here - real, symbolic, absurd ... much to assess and speculate on

And sadly Blakely died the same year this was shown.

still?

interesting, i guess should check out film someday, but I found this version fascinating. only Pinter play I've seen thus far but I felt a fair amount of O'Neil's Long Day's Journey Into Night here, in my fairly naive view

on the petty competitions and rivalries that give us ephemeral distinctions and silly psychological assurances in our lives

Me too, about to watch this one for the first time, loved the movie version, which did you prefer?

@@suzannewarkable Bizzarly, having made that comment, I never did watch this version. Just a few minutes. Then I entirely for got about it. All the actors are top notch. Well thanks for responding and reminding me. It is now on my to-do list!

@@kipling1957 I was all set to revisit the Friedkin movie this evening (after watching another movie that reminded me of it last night) when I stumbled across the existence of this BBC version and was torn which one to put on but I’ve decided I will give this one a try for comparison, as you say. Seems half the folks prefer this one and half prefer the Friedkin one.

Shaw was brilliant. Cranham, not. Julie Walters is terrible.

yes, lot of small nuances, a main parts are distinct, as they are emphasizing different tropes or examples of language that is repetitive, vacuous, or absurd in turn, etc.

the drum, the torch, the whiskey, the package, the tea, the cornflakes, the fried bread, the woman, the glasses, and Stanley's 'funeral attire' at the end

I've got mine on this Wednesday! How did you get on?

I wrote a fine analytical essay on one of the themes of the play. Break a leg ^^

I played Jerry :) Great play!!

difficult role, was it?

matias cocó Oh yes! It exhausted me every night, but wow what a trip it gave me! I loved digging into Albee's script so much. That's the most pleasurable part of acting for me: when you get a good script by a good playwright, and as you work on the part, you uncover so many things that you didn't see before.

matias cocó ńi

note that 100,000 started watching this, but 70,000 didn't finish it.

@@edmund184 That is a determinant of peoples’ attention span and the specifics of the medium the play was posted on, rather than a determinant of the quality of the play, obviously

it's perhaps about a lot of the meaningless routine and chatter that fill our days, intentionally avoiding convos on deeper meanings or issues that cause us too much pain or confusion

i picked up on that line too ... actually a good distinction, as different 'truths' seem relative, but facts are measured events objective to all parties ... an ever more important clarification in modern political and existential dilemmas

Stanley wouldn't appreciate their wholesome goodness. As Meg tells him, "they are good.... it says so on the box...." Pinter cracks me up.

I think he was assessing humanity broadly

Tafler was pretty amazing in the 1968 version so it would be difficult to match that performance.

Pinter is very good in this but it's a more showy performance than Tafler's - Tafler's performance is definitive, in my opinion. Goldberg is the plum role in the play, he gets most of the best lines, so I imagine any actor would be delighted to play him.

It's a pity Pinter didn't act himself in that earlier version.

Yes. You should knock a couple of Prizes out for yourself. Can't hurt, right?

catchsomenicebass Well, and 28 other plays.

Very immature critique. Meg speaks exactly like a woman of her education and station would back in the late 50's.

too bad innit

@@starduck8014 Yeah but nah, you can get into trouble these days, by talking to somebody with an unpleasant tone. Wasn't a problem in the old days, but then that didn't make it alright, I suppose.

but men can still be belittled by other men

it's complicated ... he's an everyman and a devil at the same time, probably not a good compliment on humanity/male-ness