|
|
 |
|
Author
Harold Pinter
Producer
Duncan C
Weldon
Director
Lindsay Posner
Design
Peter McKintosh
Performers
Goldberg
Henry Goodman
Meg
Eileen Atkin
Petey
Geoffrey
Hutching
McCann
Finbar Lynch
Lulu
Sinead Matthews
Stanley
Paul Ritter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Duchess
Theatre
From
25 April 2005 |
|
Pinter's
first full-length play, written
in 1957, does not feel dated,
even in this new Birmingham
Repertory Theatre production,
which is set very firmly in
the 50s. Unlike the original
production at the Lyric, which
received terrible reviews
and closed within a week,
one thing Lindsay Posner's
production does get right
is the set. Pinter, a struggling
actor at the time, was inspired
to write the play after sharing
a room in a boarding-house
in Eastbourne with the place's
only other lodger. In the
1958 production the set was
a huge conservatory, something
Pinter felt contributed to
the bad reviews.
But here we have the epitome
of a slightly down-at-heel
seaside boarding-house. Playing
the landlady, Meg, is the
truly wonderful Eileen Atkins,
shuffling around with curlers
in her hair and flirting with
all the men. Despite the curlers
and the shuffling, she seems
half her age and lights up
the stage with her presence.
From the opening lines I was
smiling, and however outrageous
her behaviour, I still believed
in it. Geoffrey Hutchings
as her husband Petey was also
a real character in all senses.
But when Stanley (Paul Ritter)
entered the picture I lost
some of my belief.
Stanley is the only boarder
in this dingy place and has
been here for a year. Meg
dotes on him and believes
everything he tells her. But
this Stanley was so aggressive
in return that it was uncomfortable.
I didn't feel though, that
Stanley had something to hide,
or was nervous, only that
Ritter didn't know how to
pitch it. I also felt that
suddenly instead of real people,
whose attitudes were comical,
we had an actor playing for
laughs.
We all like to laugh, and
even the most haunting tragedies
can have moments of lightness
but there must be a balance.
Pinter can be very funny,
and certainly there are lines
that one can't help enjoying:
'You taught me things a girl
shouldn't know until she's
been married at least three
times' is just one example.
But in this play particularly,
that comedy needs to be juxtaposed
with a degree of menace which
is not present.
The two men who turn up and
begin to torture Stanley,
both psychologically and physically,
are just a bit too much of
a comedy double-act. Henry
Goodman and Finbar Lynch as
Goldberg and McCann play off
each other beautifully and
have impeccable timing but
they aren't really threatening
enough. Although we know very
little about them, who they
are or what they represent,
it is clear that they are
meant to be intimidating.
That is what is so timeless
about the play ‚ every generation
and even each individual can
mould them to fit their own
paranoias.
In this production though,
we get more of a romp than
a terrifying ordeal. Yes,
McCann can be quite scary
and we feel sorry for Stanley
when his glasses are broken
and he is pushed around, but
we should be feeling there
is a real danger there. Even
when he is brought down by
McCann in the morning, a broken,
snivelling wreck, dressed
in a suit, and is driven away
by the two men, that sense
of dread wasn't there.
There is a lot of the absurdist
in Pinter. One can feel the
influence of Beckett and Ionesco
here. And one of the underlying
themes of theatre of the absurd
is feeling bewildered, troubled
and obscurely threatened.
This
Birthday Party
was too much of a party and
too much fun. It is something
I seem to have said over and
over again but the real danger
in the West End at the moment
is directors trying to turn
everything into a comedy.
Francine
Brody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
