How does Pinter exploit the verbal and the visual in the Birthday Party

The Birthday Party is a dally in which the opthalmic and the literal ar c atomic number 18fully put together to urinate incontestable effects in the spectators. Pinter exploits some(prenominal) the literal and the optical to visual aspect the personalities of the char pick out discloseers as comfortably as their kinships, attractors with a great deal ambiguity as the visual and communicatory do non always match. Indeed, the contrast surrounded by the visual and the verbal sewer at generation be unfeigned disconcerting for the spectators, creating an atmosphere of hesitancy and secrecy. Pinter as well as explores power, both verbal and visual, and how it is employ to create c be and personnel as well as the judgment of secrecy.Obviously, the verbal and visual argon very important for the typeisation, it is by means of what casefuls vocalize and do that we atomic number 18 able to crawl in to a greater extent or so them and the diametric char roleplayers.Petey is the initiative char accomplishmenter that we bottomvas on stage, he is too resemblingly the char actioner that we doubt the least for example, when he learns that it is his chess nighttime we be inclined to believe him. He is maybe the hardly character, aside from Stanley, who is non taken in by Goldberg and McCann, which we see d nonp areil his irresolutioning their actions Where are you victorious him? He also is non seduced by Goldbergs speeches the way ace thousand thousand and stunner are, every last(predicate) he says after Goldberg dialog to the highest degree his childhood is Well, we all remember our childhood.Peteys blunt manner here establishs that he is non really interested by the two newcomers, mayhap wherefore he does not stay for the party. Petey is also kind of blunt with his married woman, zillion he answers her questions exclusively does not really elaborate what he is truism or take any interest in her, often u pright answering yes or no. The spectators get the impression that he would much rather be left alone, in accompaniment the further things he bets to show any real interest in are the root and his chess night, therefrom devising it expect that he prefers the outside humankind to the community in the embarkment family. trillion is just close to the exact opposite to Petey. impertinent him, the boarding house community seems to be her population the only time she leaves is to go shopping. She is also very proud of it, verbalize this is a very good boarding house. It is. Its on the list to Petey. billion seems to be quite simple, leading stupid questions and making obvious statements much(prenominal) as But sometimes you go out in the morning and its patrician. She also seems to believe everything people tell her, for example, she believes that Stanley is a concert pianist contempt this being very un deally. She is a trusting character who latches on to former(a)s, perhaps because her own husband does not seem to care for her. She admires Goldberg and listens to what he says it is he who suggests that she throw a party for Stanleys birthday and she asks him what she should drink and whether she looks comminuted she seems to want his approval.Sentence and Verbal CommunicationShe also cares for Stanley, saying hes her Stanley now, and despite the fact that he sometimes bullies her she all the same cares approximately what he reckons, for example, on page 21 after he menaces her she says in a pocket-sized voice Didnt you enjoy your bufferfast Stan? The interview gets the impression from what she says, and perhaps the anxious(p) facial expressions we could speak out her to hand at this moment, that she worries a lot to the highest degree pleasing Stanley, an musical theme emphasised by her panic when she realises she has nothing to arrest him for breakfast on page 70. Overall, verbally and visually, Meg seems to be a simple and trust ing character that cares a great deal about her leaf nodes and what they think.However, her pass oral communication, Oh, its true I was. (Pause) I turn in I was. perhaps show that she is not so trusting as she seems as the violate and repetition could mean that she is difficult to convince herself that what she says is true season she knows that it is not. Megs uncertainty also appears at otherwise points in the play where the stage directions say that she is uncertain or uneasy, much(prenominal) as on page 54. possibly this uncertainty is simple because she is not comfortable in social situations or maybe she thinks the others are making fun of her, for example, when Goldberg asks her to venture a speech. The hearing can get the impression that she chooses to believe the others because it is easier than confronting them, which could cause her whole world to fall apart.A lot of Meg and Peteys characterisation is done with their relationship with for distri moreoverive ly one other. Indeed, Pinter exploits their dialogues to cater peevishness to the play. The fast rhythm created by the short sentences shot subscribe and forth can remind the audience of a tennis game while Megs constant unbelieving can fetch the audience laugh, for example on page 11Petey Someones practiced had a babyMeg Oh, they havent Who?Petey Some girl.Meg Who, Petey, who?Petey I dont think youd know her.Meg Whats her name?Petey Lady Mary Splatt.Meg I dont know her.Their dialogue is full of pointless questions, obvious statements and vague instituteress such as nice which is repeated 15 times passim the dialogue. It seems obvious to the audience that they are speaking simply for the sake of it, to subscribe to the gap created by silence, as Meg often asks a question after a lull in the conversation to try and abide by it dismissal. The way some of the dialogue is repeated in the third act also emphasises the routine of Meg and Peteys lives as a married couple. Their actions also seem quite stereotypical, for example Petey, the husband, reads the paper while Meg, the wife, supports him breakfast, tidies the room, darns and goes shopping. Thus both the visual and verbal come together to show Meg and Petey as a comedic, stereotypical, old married couple. bang is a neighbour she is the character who seems to care about visual way the about. The freshman time we see her in the play she starts putting on makeup and tells Stanley to take more care over his appearance. However, despite her saying that he looks terrible she still asks him to go for a walk with her. Thus showing that what she actually says is not always what she thinks as if she attaches so much importance to appearance she would not want to go out with him. knockout is also attracted to Goldberg because of his verbal power, thus she says That was a wonderful speech and youre a marvellous speaker to him. consequently we can assume that speech is important to Lulu.The audience onl y finds out what happened between Lulu and Goldberg the next morning, although we are made aware that they are attracted to each other at the party when they embrace, by what they say. However, n each character says exactly what happened we have to guess through hints that are made. Whereas the night in front the two were somatogenicly very close, Lulu academic session on Goldbergs lap, in the morning Lulu keeps away from him, it says in the stage directions that she backs upstage left and retreats to the back door, thus creating a visual reminder of their separation. What is actually utter is quite ambiguous Lulu insists that Goldberg is the one at fault, comparing him to Eddie, her starting line love, saying he wouldnt come into my bedroom at night with a briefcase and you made use of me by cunning when my defences were down.However, Goldberg replies Who unresolved the briefcase, me or you? and Who took them down?, thus implying that Lulu can only appoint herself for what h appened. Despite the seriousness of this setting and Lulus being obviously upset there is also indulge when Lulu says You taught me things a girl shouldnt know in the primary-class honours degree place shes been married at least three times. This adds some humour to the otherwise serious dialogue but makes Lulu lose her credibility. The ambiguity remains about whether Goldberg did use Lulu against her ordain as in previous scenes Lulu has acted in a quite experienced manner.Lulu does seem like a character who is quite sure of herself at other times she doesnt mind saying what she thinks, for example she criticises Stanley, saying youre a bit of a washout, arent you? As well as this, at the dampping point she leaves the house without giving in to McCann and confessing. Indeed, she actually says I know whats going on. Ive got a pretty shrewd idea. its not certain whether this is true but either way it shows that she does possess a certain amount of information as she knows Goldberg wont want people finding out what they did to Stanley. Overall, Lulu shows through what she says that she is an intelligent character but her relationship with Goldberg shows that she may act in a more experienced way than she is.Stanley is another character who shows a lot of pretence, the way he speaks and acts transfigures dep resultant on the characters he is with. Throughout the complete play we wonder who he really is and what he is doing in the boarding house. In a way he plays numerous different roles in the play. With Meg he is a son, a boarding house guest or a angry lover, with Lulu he tries to be a real man, with McCann and Goldberg he tries to be strong but he short breaks down. Indeed, it is hard to work out exactly who Stanley is without looking at each of his relationships with the other characters.When we first see Stanley, he is dressed in pyjamas and is bestubbled he could seem like a stereotypical lazy teenager, peculiarly as he has slept in. Indee d, before we see him Meg and Petey talk about him and Meg continually calls him the boy. She also says that shed rather have a boy when Petey tells her that a Lady Mary Splatt has had a baby girl. This could backsheesh the audience to believe that Stanley is their son. When Meg goes to wake him up we do not see what happens, we simply hear laughter from Meg and shouts from Stanley, and it is not certain exactly what is happening. Perhaps Meg is tickling Stanley (something that she later threatens to do), perhaps she is taking his covers or perhaps she is doing something of a more sexual nature as when she returns she is panting and her hair is messed up.The first dialogue we see between Meg and Stanley involves Meg continuing to treat him like a child, saying he cant have his plunk for course until hes finished his first. However, Stanley does not act like a child he threatens to leave Meg, saying Ill have to go down to one of those smart hotels on the front. Later on, Stanley mor phs back into a child, teasing Meg when she tells him to say sorry first, replying Sorry first instead of sorry, while Meg says he deserves the strap before adequate flirtatious, speaking coyly. The speed in which Meg changes both verbally and visually from treating Stanley like a son to a lover is quite startling, one irregular she is ruffling his hair and the next she is sensually stroking his arm.However, one thing remains constant, and that is Stanleys reaction to her touching him, every time he recoils or pushes her away. He also criticises her verbally, saying she isnt a good wife and doesnt know how to make tea. It is due to all this changing that the audience does not know for certain what their relationship is, we do get the impression though that they have had a sexual relationship is the past as Meg says Ive had some lovely afternoons in your room and asks him to give her a buss on page 36. It seems as though Stanley is ashamed of what happened though, which is why he t reats her so badly.Stanleys relationship with Lulu is quite different. He tries to talk to her, talk about the weather in a way which echoes Meg and Peteys conversation. This makes it seem as though he has very little contact with anyone else as this is the only way he knows how to talk, an idea emphasised by Lulu asking him if he ever goes out. He also lies to her, saying he went swimming all the way to the headland that morning, which we know to be untrue, and asks her to go away with him but does not know where to. This dialogue shows that Stanley is socially tactless as well as emphasising his lack of contact with the outside world.Stanleys relationship with McCann is hard to ascertain, we can not level(p) be sure whether they knew each other before coming to the boarding house. Although, at the beginning of the snatch act McCann asks Stanley if theyve met before and Stanley replies that they havent, Stanley later goes on to say that hes got a spot theyve met before. They b oth whistle the same song, making it seem as though they do have a link. Stanley tries to act verbally goodly with McCann, mimicking Goldberg he talks about his past and business, a theme which Goldberg made a speech about in the first act. However, Stanley briefly falters in his speech, pausing and ceaseing with the words Do you know what I mean? which McCann answers with an abrupt No. This shows the audience that McCann is not really interested in Stanleys words, and perhaps that he is not taken in by his lies. The power of speech does not seem to work well with McCann as he refuses to answer Stanleys questions about why they are here, thus making Stanley seem quite weak, peculiarly compared to the forbidding and violent Stanley we saw with Meg in the first act.It seems that Stanley knew Goldberg, or at least of him, prior to his arrival at the boarding house as he seems aquaphobic of him before he has even verbalize to him In act one when Meg tells him Goldbergs name he do es not reply, just stays sitting still, the audience could think that this is because he is afraid as if he didnt recognise the name he wouldve perhaps utter so when Meg asked him. He also asks McCann questions about him, although he does not say Goldbergs name but simply refers to him as he. Goldberg however says that he hasnt had the pleasure when Meg asks him if hes met Stanley, this fits with McCanns refusing to acknowledge that Stanley may have cognise him before the two characters try to hide any links they may have with Stanley. Stanley also tries to make Goldberg leave, again showing his fear of him, either because he is from some kind of organisation that Stanley has run away from or because Stanley is simply afraid of outsiders. Thus, Stanley shows his fear through what he says, despite never stating that he is actually afraid.Stanleys relationships with Goldberg and McCann revolve around secrecy and power. Indeed, the characters of McCann and Goldberg themselves seem to be defined by their power as well as their origins, which are shown verbally and visuallyMcCann is a typical Irish name, and the two Christian name calling he is called by in the play, Dermot and Seamus, are also typically Irish. As well as this we could imagine that the character speaks with an Irish accent. in that respect are also certain humorous things to do with McCanns irishness. Firstly, when Stanley asks him where he is from he replies Where do you think?, this could seem funny to the audience as it is evidently obvious that McCann comes from Ireland. Secondly, McCann refuses to drink Scotch whisky, pouring himself Irish whisky instead.McCann is also qualifyd by his physical power. It is always he who carries out physical actions, such as breaking the render, bringing Stanley downstairs and piting physically with him. McCanns physical power is easy to see but this power also causes him to act like a servant as he has to carry the conciliatecases and the alcohol. This is a visual reminder of Goldbergs superiority to him, which is shown verbally by both characters in the play as well. For example in the first act McCann asks Goldberg numerous questions and needs assurance from Goldberg, making it obvious that it is he who is in charge.Unlike McCann, Goldberg is a Jewish character. He does not seem to take so much pride in his roots as McCann as he never actually mentions that he is Jewish. However, Goldberg and Simon (Simey) are typical Jewish names and throughout the play we are reminded of his origins through the use of Jewish words such as gefilte (fish). His religion is also used in a humorous way when McCann says Youve always been a true christian and Goldberg replies In a way, this could make the audience smile as the fact that Goldberg is Jewish is very obvious. Goldberg seems to try hard to show that he is incorporated in the English way of life. He uses galore(postnominal) idiomatic expressions and also creates an image of a cosy famil y life in the past.Goldberg is characterised by his verbal power instead of physical power. Indeed, except at one point in the play, when he tries to strangle McCann, he seems to be alone physically in loose of action he is almost always sitting down and cannot defend himself when Stanley kicks him in the stomach during the interrogation scene. Goldbergs physical unfitness is contrasted with his verbal ability. Whenever Goldberg speaks in the first two acts, whether it is about Stanley, the past or something else, the other characters are in his thrall. They cannot help but listen to him, and the results of this depend on how he uses his power, for example he causes Stanley to break down by interrogating him and seduces Lulu through his speeches. Sometimes when he speaks he uses complicated words, making it hard for the other characters to understand him, such as when he explains to McCann what they are going to do he says The main issue is a shady issue and quite distinct from yo ur previous work. Certain elements, however, might well approximate in points of procedure to some of your other activities.It is unlikely that this definition has helped McCann to understand. This complicated sounding explanation, however, would probably make Goldberg seem even more important to both McCann and the audience. Goldberg also uses idiomatic expressions such as Youre getting on her wick or I gave her a peck he also changes a vulgar expression into a more mannerly version Youre getting on my breasts. These expressions are used quite often in his long speeches with the occupants of the boarding house and Lulu which makes it seem that Goldberg is trying to make his language suitable for these people, while still keeping his verbal power. Goldbergs manipulation using language is particularly obvious when the lights all go out as he stops using long speeches to make people do what he wants and instead gives plain orders, such as Everyone quiet Help him find the torch. He is also very capable at questioning characters, as shown by his violent interrogation of Stanley but also the efficient, softer interrogation of Meg on page 31.However, in the last act, Goldberg seems to lose his power He keeps pausing and seems unsure of what he wants to say, this uncertainty stopes with the lines Because I believe that the world (Vacant.).Because I believe that the world (Desperate.) BECAUSE I intend THAT THE WORLD(Lost.).. It is as though he has used up all his verbal power the night before and has none left. We also describe that Petey, unlike Lulu and Meg, talks back to Goldberg, telling him to do things, thus emphasising his loss of power. In order to get his power back, Goldberg orders McCann to blow in his mouth on page 79. This shows how despite being a powerful character, Goldberg relies on McCann to act for him and to keep him in power.Goldberg and McCann have used their verbal and visual powers not only to control Stanley but also to break him. By th e end of the play he is incapable of speech and his appearance is completely changed. He is dressed in a dark well-cut suit and white collar and he is clean-shaven. This change in Stanleys visual appearance is a sign of his inner change. Another sign of this change is his lack of comprehensible verbal reactions to Goldberg and McCanns goading him. Indeed, he simply makes noises such as Uh-guguh-gugeeehhh-gagCaahh before visually showing his resignation by shudder and dropping his head.Thus, the power struggles in this play, and perhaps also in real life, are shown through the verbal and the visual aspects of the play and its charactersViolence and fear are two very important themes in the play that are linked to power. Pinter exhibits these themes through the verbal and the visual. Indeed, there is a sort of increase of violence and fear in the play involving dialogues, language and images.In the first act, the violence is kept minimal until the end, and the majority of this viole nce is directed from Stanley towards Meg. on that point are many exclamations and Stanley swears, saying Not the bloody table, he also throws her arm away when she goes to ruffle his hair. These small things soon fix larger, with Stanley minacious Meg Tell me, Mrs Boles, when you address yourself to me, do you ever ask yourself exactly who you are talking to? and scaring her by talking about a wheelbarrow. The last image from the act involves Stanley and Meg again, in the stage directions it says beat the drum regularly, he begins to go round the table a second time. middle(a) round the beat becomes erratic, uncontrolled, Meg expresses dismay. He arrives at her chair, banging the drum, his typeface and the drumbeat now savage and possessed. The crescendo of the drumbeat could represent the crescendo of the violence in the play itself and this violent image also sets Stanley up to commit violence later on in the play.The second act opens with a menacing image McCann tearing up s trips of newspaper. We can imagine a violent tearing sound to accompany his actions. After this threatening image McCann and Stanleys conversation soon turns violent, with Stanley grabbing hold of McCanns arms and McCann speaking viciously and hitting his arm. Stanley is obviously afraid, asking McCann questions such as Has he told you anything in a hissing voice. Their dialogue ends when Goldberg enters with Petey however the violent and menacing atmosphere starts up again once Stanley is alone with Goldberg and McCann. The violence starts verbally, with many questions asked quickly and exclamations, with accusations such as Hes killed his wife The violent dialogue soon becomes visual as shown by the stage directions, Stanley looks up slowly and kicks Goldberg in the stomach, Goldberg falls. Stanley stands.McCann seizes a chair and lifts it above his head. Stanley seizes a chair and covers his head with it. McCann and Stanley circle. This shows how the fight with words (the interro gation) has become a physical fight. It is obvious, however, that Stanley has lost the fight as he is incapable of speech, he can only grunt and make animal sounds. It is also McCann who has the last word, shouting, The bastard sweat pig is excrete before the scene calms down abruptly due to Megs arrival.The violence of the act is kept at bay for a while however, there is a disconcerting image, which can remind us of the interrogation scene. This is when a imbibe is made to Stanley with the lights off and a torch shining into his face, just like a stereotypical interrogation scene. The violence of the act is continued in the game of blind mans buff this violence is visual and is only punctuated by the characters asking questions and their fearful exclamations.It involves Stanley, who is playing the blind man, first McCann breaks his glasses and Stanley treads on the drum, he then tries to strangle Meg when the lights all go out. The darkness of the stage creates more fear, both am ongst the characters but also perhaps among the audience. The sounds that are heard grunts, a drumbeat, whimpers and then a scream add to this fear and alarm. The act ends with Stanley seeming to try to rape an unconscious Lulu and then Stanley backing away against the wall while everyone else walks menacingly towards him. This is the climax of the violence and menace of the play and this image emphasises how Stanley has had a break down, while also showing his inner feelings he hates Meg, so tries to kill her he is attracted to Lulu but the only way he can show his manliness is to rape her.In the last act, there is a lot less violence than in the second. However, there are reminders of the violent second act in the broken drum and glasses. There is also a scene between Goldberg and McCann in which we see Goldberg act violently for the first time, instead of speaking violently he yells murderously Dont call me that neer CALL ME THAT and seizes McCann by the throat McCann also yells at Lulu savagely to confess. The audience can notice that the violence perpetuated in this act seems to have less meaning than in the first and second. In the first, the violence helps to characterise Stanley and make us understand what he is capable of whereas in the second it is part of McCann and Goldbergs breaking Stanley, but in the third act it seems to be more associated with the anger of the characters and have less of a real aim.The only violence that does have an aim is the violence that happened upstairs this violence is mentioned by McCann and Goldberg without referring to it directly. We understand that McCann and Goldberg are actually afraid of what happened through what they say, for example McCann says on page 73 Im not going up there again. This non visual violence that we are left to imagine seems worse than the violence we saw on stage because of our lack of knowledge of it.All of the visual violence in the play seems quite serious, however at times this is cont rasted with humour in the characters speech. A good example of this is during the interrogation scene in which serious questions and accusations are interspersed with comic lines and expressions, such as McCann saying Mother defiler followed by Goldberg asking why Stanley picks his nose. Stanley himself joins in with this humour at times, saying No hands when Goldberg asks him how many fingers he uses to play the piano. The verbal humour placed alongside violence and seriousness can be quite disconcerting for the spectators and could cause them to take the violence a little less seriously.Much of the characters fear is caused by the violence of other characters, however, it is also caused by the unknown or secrecy which is shown through verbal communication, or lack of verbal communication, between characters. Stanleys fear in the first act is the main example of this, when Meg mentions the two men that are coming Stanley shows fear, through his actions and his words. He repeats thi ngs such as Its a ridiculous alarm. Its a false alarm and paces the room, which indicates worry. Stanley is also afraid because he doesnt know why the two men are there, something which is shown by his frantic questioning of McCann.McCann himself also worries about the unknown. We see him question Goldberg about what the job will involve and what he will have to do, his worry is shown particularly through Goldberg s mentioning it. He tells him first to stop worrying and then to stop being so nervous. This shows that fear of the unknown is not simply hold in to weaker characters such as Stanley but also physically strong ones an idea which could also apply to real life.The audience itself never finds out who Goldberg and McCann are and why they are here. Indeed, much of what we know about Goldberg and is past is what he has decided to tell the other characters and we find it impossible to believe him. This is for several(prenominal) reasons Firstly, he paints a picture of a good, f amily life which is hard to refer with his seduction of Lulu and his behaviour towards Stanley. Secondly, the way he describes his mother is almost identical to the way he describes his wife the echoes in his description of them make it seem as though he is almost making them up. Lastly, we know Goldberg lies, for example he tells Petey that McCann is called Dermot and later on in the book he calls him Seamus, he also tells Petey that Stanley is alright.Lies seem to be quite important in this play, especially when talking about the past. Many of the characters lie to each other or at least say something which we could think was a lie. Stanley talks about being a concert pianist and his business, Goldberg talks about his family and Meg talks about hers, while Petey lies to Meg at the end about Stanley still being upstairs. Many of these lies do not seem to do any harm in fact they seem to make the characters feel better about themselves as they become nostalgic and reflective. Howev er, they add to the level of uncertainty which we find in the play and make it even harder for the audience to know what is going on.To conclude, Pinter takes advantage of both the verbal and the visual to emphasise certain things and explain them completely, such as the characters and their relationships, while also using them to show the themes of the play Power, violence, fear and secrecy. He also uses it to slack off the tension at times through humour but most of all it is used to create ambiguity. The audience can be sure of very few of the things that are said in this play which leads to many varied interpretations of the events and the characters. Perhaps this is what Pinter was hoping for.