‘The Birthday Party is a play of DOMINATION and SUBMISSION hidden in the most mundane of conversations .’

1. ‘The Birthday Party is a play of DOMINATIONand SUBMISSIONhidden in the most mundane of conversations.’ Domination and submission hidden in the family dynamic

2. Domination and submission hidden in the family dynamic Mundane conversations of Petey and Meg of everyday occurrences like breakfast • Opening of Act 1 Meg asking many questions on the mundane topic of breakfast seems to suggest her dominance over Petey in the husband- wife relationship • However it can be seen that Petey is dominant over Meg as well through his monosyllabic answers: ‘very nice’ p10 • The use of the adverb very suggests possible annoyance and is suggestive of Peteypatronising Meg, showing the dominance of Petey over Meg.

3. Meg-Petey • Further supported by dramatic staging • The mundane setting of Act 1; ‘living room’ • Significance of the use of mundane conversations: presents the game of domination and submission in the household, spousal domination and submission • Effect on the audience: audience is provoked to think about reality and how domination and submission is also hidden in marital relationships

4. Meg-Stanley • Meg and Stanley’s relationship is representative of a mother-son relationship • Stanley is set of to be the child-figure through Meg referring to Stanley as ‘boy’ several times before he enters the scene. P13 • This suggests Stanley to be submissive to Meg like a child to a Mother. • However, upon Stanley’s entrance we see that he is not a ‘boy’ but a man. • Stanley is more dominant than Meg as seen through the mundane conversation of ‘What are the cornflakes like?’ • Stanley’s accusatory answers like ‘horrible’ p14 and calling Meg a “bad wife’ p16 is suggestive of his dominance over the mother-figure • Presents Stanley as the rebel figure

5. Meg-Stanley • Further supported through dramatic staging • ‘Stanley yawns broadly’ p15: suggestive of Stanley asserting himself and challenging the authority of Meg as the mother-figure • Stanley’s acts of violence against Meg- ‘Stanley exclaims and throws [Meg’s] arm away’ • Emphasises the domination of the child rebel- figure that is presented through Stanley • Significance: game of domination between mother and son • Effect: thought provoking for the audience about the realities of family dynamics and the real- life game of domination and submission

6. ‘The Birthday Party is a play of DOMINATIONand SUBMISSIONhidden in the most mundane of conversations.’ "represent not only the West's most autocratic religions, but its two most persecuted races" (Billington, Harold Pinter 80)

7. Domination of RELIGIONSubmission of Goldberg and McCann Beliefs Moral Values Laws Despite being figures of authority, we see that as the play unfolds, Goldberg and McCann are enslaved by religion.

8. Pg 77-78: “You know what?... Your great-grand-granny.” • Use of biblical allusions (dramatic language) • Hidden as characters weave religious elements into seemingly non-religious conversations Egs. ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ ‘Follow the line’ ‘I knelt down, I swore on the good book.’

9. Domination of religion expressed in the core values Goldberg and McCann appears to uphold, or at least appear to portray Evidence #1. GB’s breakdown when MC addresses him as Simey(Pg 76)  ‘Nat’ (means Gift of God) as the religious upright individual as opposed to Simey, a name with no religious origins Evidence #2. GB’s constant need to assert his morality, despite it being a mere pretence  Wants to create an identity that conforms to religious expectations Eg. ‘I’ve never touched another woman.’ (Pg 79) • Domination enhanced by the submission of GB & MC  kneeling (through stage directions/dramatic staging)

10. Domination of RELIGION through figures of authority GB&MC (Pg 80-81) • MC introduced at the end of the play as an unfrocked priest  Represents oppressive Catholicism over womankind • Further reinforces ‘kneeling’ as an act of spiritual/religious submission - ‘Down on your knees and confess’ (Pg80) • GB does not question MC’s authority as a religious figure and urges Lulu to submit – ‘Confess. What can you lose?’; ‘He’s only been unfrocked six months.’

11. However, unlike the previous scene in which GB and MC kneeled willingly, even w/o any instigation, Lulu refuses to submit willingly – chooses to not kneel • Yet, her retreat suggests the authoritative implications of religion, and therefore while an individual may not choose to obey, they must still acknowledge the domination and submits passively • MC as failed religious figure  legitimacy of authority with and without the religious element  religion provides the legitimacy and authority to dominate

12. EFFECTonaudience By masking domination and submission (in religion) in the most mundane of conversations, Pinter • Suggests that even in our everyday life, we are not conscious of how religion dominates us and our submission to it whether is it in the moral values we uphold or beliefs • Provokes us to consider the legitimacy of religious authority and our submission to it

13. Other possible points to consider about RELIGION in the play • Allusion to Peter (Pg29) – Denies thrice • MC calling GB ‘Judas’ (Pg52) • Use of (possible) biblical references/jargon Eg. The number 846, Notion of salvation etc • GB being Jewish and yet portrays himself as a Christian

14. ‘The Birthday Party is a play of DOMINATIONand SUBMISSIONhidden in the most mundane of conversations.’ →The State’s oppression and the individual’s (enforced) submission.

15. Setting the context for state domination • Act 1 – The entrance of GB and MC (pg 27) : • What appears to be innocent albeit comical exchange between GB and MC subtly exposes the presence of a higher body governing GB’s actions. • Uncle Barney – a political figure bearing the guise of a familial figure

16. Uncle Barney • “Uncle Barney” – a constant fixture in GB’s monologues • Appears to be simply a mentor/father figure of sorts to GB • “Uncle Barney taught me…” “Uncle Barney wasn’t particular…” • Placed as the subject of the sentence, audience’s focus is drawn to “Uncle Barney” • Establishes Uncle Barney as a moral benchmark against which GB’s actions are measured • Reminiscent tone – imparts a sense of awe and importance to Uncle Barney • A series of declaratives – sense of finality which serves to cull any challenge to the legitimacy of Uncle Barney’s authority and by extension, GB’s past. • Yet GB’s unnatural and intense admiration/fixation on him ironically creates an emptiness and sense of distance in their relationship; politicizing of “Uncle Barney” • Not simply a familial figure but possibly an representation of the State

17. Political Overtures • “respected by the whole community” (pg 27) • Reminds audience of Stanley's words, “They were all there” (pg 22) • Sense of domination and submission starts to surface • Uncle Barney as a representation of the State who is universally and unconditionally “respected by the whole community” • Stanley’s repeated emphasis on his large audience • The individual’s identity is contingent upon the approval of “the whole community” who are then agents of the State. • The role of the individual in deciding his/her identity is entirely abdicated to the state

18. State-endorsed values • GB and Meg’s conversation (pg 30 – 31) • Starts out as a typical, casual conversation • GB quickly emerges as the dominant party in the dialogue • Abrupt change in topic signal a change in tone • Set against the previous scene, the conversation starts to take on an interrogative element

19. “What does he do, your husband?”, “Does he work here?” • GB’s questions focus on the topic of work • His replies “Oh, very nice.” and “Oh yes?” subtly indicate a passing of judgments • His reaction to Meg’s disclosure that Stanley no longer works reveal a sense of skepticism and disapproval • Stanley does not measure up to GB/State’s standards

20. Domination of the State • “We will bring him out of himself.” (pg 33) • Sinister tint to the literal image conjured by this expression • Extracting the essence of Stanley • Sinister domination of the state is brought out • Supported by Stanley’s reaction to GB and MC’s arrival • His shock and fear is palpable amidst his silence (pg 34- 35), a stark contrast to his witty jabs at Meg earlier in Act 1

21. Stanley VS State-endorsed values • GB’s monologues A2 pg43- 45 • Appears to be an innocuous reflection • Anaphora – repeated use of “I’d” prompts audiences to draw comparisons between GB and Stanley • The audience starts to realize how far Stanley deviates from GB’s moral benchmark • GB’s judgment of Stanley on pg 45 • His words have no specific direction • Yet the implicit reference to the likes of Stanley is exceedingly obvious to the audience and becomes extremely unsettling because of the deliberate ambiguity created • “a corpse waiting to be washed?” • The audience is confronted with the full extent of State domination • Stanley will be reduced to a passive, lifeless product of the State’s “washing”

22. Submission of the individual • Stanley becomes increasingly distressed as his ‘washing’ in Act 2 progresses • The process of submission is embedded within the birthday party, a relatively common occurrence in daily life • Stanley gradually becomes silent • The destruction of the drum and the blind-folding of Stanley (symbolic of the destruction of his identity) all take place in silence and under the guise of a common childhood game [Dramatic Presentation] • By the end of Act 2, the audience is abruptly assaulted by the reality of Stanley’s forced submission as his animalistic and erratic outburst unfolds • Stage directions (pg 65) show Stanley’s descent into madness • Swiftness of the submission unsettles the audience • The swiftness of the submission and the ‘coziness’ of the Birthday Party exemplifies the reach of the State • Permeates even the most mundane of everyday occurrences

23. Why? • While the elements of domination and submission are hidden beneath a of veneer of mundane conversations, the insidious nature of Goldberg’s words becomes obvious as the play progresses • The initial comfort induced by the everyday domestic setting is lost amongst the increasingly absurdist nature of the play and the audience’s awareness to the more sinister undertones of the play is consequently heightened • While the role of the State is deliberately obscured by Pinter, the audience is prompted to make this connection between GB and the State (See the use of incongruously technical language on pg 30 + use of interrogation in Act 2 which is a distinct feature of governmental law enforcement agencies) • The domestic setting serves to cover up the malevolence of the State but once exposed, the setting elevates and emphasizes the savage nature of State domination and exposes the hypocrisy of the government • The mundane nature of the conversations and situations constructed by Pinter and the familiarity of the domestic setting thus prompt the audience to reflect on their daily lives, warning them of their susceptibility to the State’s pressure and how the state’s domination can take place so silently and transparently.

24. A Higher Power? • ‘Confess. What can you lose?’ • The state’s actions guided by religion? • Subtle references to religion (Christianity/ Catholicism) made consistently throughout the play • GB does not question MC’s religious authority despite his earlier dominance over MC as an individual • The superiority of Religion? • The moral values espoused by GB reminiscent of traditional religious ideals • Just like how GB is ultimately a mouthpiece for the State, is the State also an agent of Religion? • Incongruence between the ideals espoused and the brutality of the State • Most sinister form of domination and submission is ironically that of religion • Most subtle, easily overlooked