Worksheet of "The Birthday Party"

I have given my response under this blog discussion thread:

http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2013/09/worksheet-film-screening-harold-pinters.html

My Response

Respected Sir,
               I am giving my interpretations about the play and the movie adaption of “The Birthday Party” by Harold Pinter.
As it is well known fact that while adapting any writing as movie, omission is inevitable. As Rushdi says in “Attenborough’s Gandhi”:
“It would have been impossible to include everything and everyone, and of course selection is central to any work of art. But artistic selection creates meaning…”
Lulu is very minor character in movie, while in the play she is given more space. I can’t find any particular reason for it except the above Rushdi’s lines. And Lulu’s that scene and conversation with Goldberg shows Lulu’s helplessness, and Meg and Lulu both are in a way shown as blank-minded and dumb women in the play. It would perhaps unacceptable at that time in that society to screen such dumbness of women. So, Pinter would not be interested in it.
  Yes, movie is in very much extent  becomes successful in giving us the effect of menace and danger. In movie, the ‘blindman’s buff’ scene ends with blackness and darkness at that time menacing effect was felt. And shouting, screaming and in very much background noises gives menacing effect in the movie. And also we can see that there is a gray atmosphere in Meg’s house and in the whole movie. In play, some dialogue gives such menacing effect when Stanley talks with Meg:
Stanley:  (advancing.) They're coming today.
MEG: You’re a liar.
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.
(A sudden knock at the door.)

In that news paper, which McCain tore it was written that “opportunity is still sought”. It perhaps indicates that they know about every step and plan of Stanley. And they also know that Stanley is trying to escape, and they will make him failed in it.  
Yes, in Blind man’s Buff scene camera is over the head of McCain, but more than it his hands are in centre from that angle. It seems as if he is desperately searching for aid or support.  And in Stanley’s turn, the camera is at the top. From that we can see scattered room, and from that surprisingly we cannot any other character standing in the room. It means that Stanley is surrounded by confusion and absurdity about his future and life.
Yes, this happened while watching the movie. We became thoughtless at that time. And boredom was at its height. But “pretence crumbles” was not for us.
Viewing movie really helped very much, esp. when it is with its original dialogues, and when it is faithful to the play. It certainly can include something more in it like sound, colors, camera’s angle, clothing, liveliness or vitality, face expressions etc. These all help a lot in bringing those painteresque qualities.
I will go with second observation.
It is very difficult to see myself in that way- as a director- and to think in that way. But I will try to answer this question.
The changes- I cannot think about it as I haven’t still read the original play. But one-two things I can say that I would make it in totally Indian background. But Yes, I would not put too many boring songs as they very badly and cruelly disturb the mood of the movie. And I would not show Meg too much irritating as this movie shows. And I would omit the scene of Lulu and Goldberg in Blind man’s Buff scene.
 In casting the actors- this is my opinion:
Stanley- Amir Khan
Petey- Anupam Kher
Meg- Kiran Kher
Goldberg- Paresh Raval
For Lulu and McCain’s character I can’t think any from our actors.
Thank you for every worksheets, it helped us a lot in internal exam and also it will help in semester’s final exam.

Worksheet of "Waiting for Godot"

I have given my responses under this blog discussion:

http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2014/09/worksheet-screening-movie-waiting-for.html

My Response

Respected Sir,
                   This are my views about the play “Waiting for Godot” and its related things.
                    In play we have ‘waiting’ and in the painting ‘longing’. Both stand for a desire. Apart from it there is a stony path in both. And the painting is inspiration for Buckett, we can see on one side there is a barren tree and on the other side a grown tree (full of green leaves). So, perhaps a person by the side of barren tree is Estragon (with blank mind) and a person by the side of grown tree is Vladimir (full of thought).
                   This second question I would like to connect with question 6 that are E.G.Marshal’s words. Whatever is happening but life goes on. The four-five leaves are the symbol of it. In First act they get despair that Godot is not coming, and just after it tree has a leaves. 
                   Night perhaps brings calmness, coolness and peace for them, who are feeling pain and despair in waiting for Godot. 
                    Apart from the debris, There is one another thing to observe. That is the setting shows only a piece of the path or way. What is behind the tree, and the way from where people go and come, we are not shown. That means at a time we cannot a full thing (whatever it is life, meaning, world or even thought). And about the debris I want to say that it shows roughness of the things, means nothing is smooth or easy going in life, meaning, world or even thought.
                    For hat and boot we saw almost all the meanings but one more thing I want to say that hat is for ambition with fear and boot is for satisfaction with peace. We saw at the end Vladimir says to the boy: “Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw me and that . . . (he hesitates) . . . that you saw ME.” Estragon hasn't any ambition to look good to Godot and as he has not powerful thinking ability he has not any fear of Godot also.
                 Actually Godot is ‘nothing’. And we all are waiting for nothing in fact, not even for the death or God. Because both we haven’t seen yet, so there can be curiosity but it is not waiting. If we are waiting for something, we are surrounded by its thought; at least we know that for what we are waiting. If you are waiting for death or God, then recall, how many times in a day you are thinking for God or Death (or whatever you are waiting for)? If the world has not any meaning then also we are not waiting for death. Now I want to tell about Buckett’s Godot and its interpretation. Perhaps ‘Godot’ stands for ‘meaning’ here. The characters are searching for some ‘meaning’ as time and again that words come “I don’t know”. 
                 I think we cannot break the title in parts like ‘waiting’ or ‘Godot’. The subject is whole “waiting for Godot”, where both ‘waiting’ and ‘Godot’ has equal importance. If the subject is only ‘waiting’ or ‘Godot’ then perhaps the writer would kept that only. But he kept both together.
                 I liked conversation of Vladimir with the boy and Lucky-Pozzo episode in the second act.
                 About existential crisis, Yes, I felt it at some extent. I can think about it but certainly I am not still at that level that I have to feel such deep things. I have not yet seen life from very near. But yes, in some dialogues we can see author’s own turmoil. For example, “I don’t seem to be able to depart”-says Pozzo. “Such is life”-answers Estragon. And it is also connected with Vladimir and Estragon’s thinking about suicide. 
 
Thank You for sharing it with various links and videos.

Worksheet of "Hamlet"

Under this worksheet I am giving my response. This is the link of it.

http://dilipbarad.blogspot.in/2013/08/worksheet-hamlet-movie-screening.html

My Response:

Respected sir,
             About movie screening of Hamlet, I am giving my answers of post view task.
             First of all thank you for movie screening of Hamlet. It was really very beautiful experience for me.
             The movie is very much faithful to the original play. Kenneth Branagh vary beautifully designed this movie. It seems that he was very near to Hamlet, while making of this movie. Though he adds his own idea, the play is not harmed. His originality makes the movie more enjoyable. He adds mirror scene in the movie, it gives more openness to audience. Then when Ophelia is tortured and she brings out a key from mouth. This scene is also Branagh’s beautiful addition. However he gives more vitality to the play by making this movie. He softly makes place for putting his originality in the movie. So he remains faithful to this play…because yet there are some minor changes we can find real Shakespeare while watching this movie.
           First I should confess that I didn’t read original play. But when I was studying it I thought Hamlet as a timid person, and can not act powerfully. But after watching movie I can understand real condition of Hamlet. Branagh has shaped character of Hamlet very artistically. I find that Laertes also comes under circumstances, otherwise he is good fellow. Branagh brings out all characters with effective personality.
           Yes, when Claudius is died rather murdered, at that time I felt aesthetic delight. At that time I was feeling that evil is destroyed, so there was feeling of relief in my aesthetic pleasure.
           And there are many moments of catharsis. First in nunnery scene I felt catharsis. Ophelia’s situation becomes very tragic at that time. Then when Ophelia gets mad and her brother comes to know this. And after singing a song she can not even cry. It means she lost her all feelings and emotions. It is height of my catharsis. Then in Hamlet’s some soliloquies I felt catharsis. Bus my most of the feelings of sympathy and catharsis is related to Ophelia.
          Yes, I deliberately say that movie screening really helps me a lot to understand the play. Branagh’s design of movie also plays important role. Before watching this movie I only knew the story of this play, But after watching it I feel that what exactly Shakespeare is. How amazingly he puts life in his characters and situations! Branagh also becomes successful to make this play full of life. So after watching this movie I come to know the hidden beauties of the play.
After nunnery scene when Ophelia feels so much pain and she is supported by her father. That scene I will cherish lifetime. How carefully her father consoles her without speaking any word. It shows the bridge of deep feeling between them. For me that scene is really heart touching.
           Branagh perfectly made this movie. Every character is grand. So I simply became fan of Branagh’s style. I would not like to make any changes, But at some point I feel that Ophelia, Gertrude and Horatio they are given less importance. So I would like to enlightened that characters with their nobility. 
          To write a play and to make a movie both are art. And when two arts are combined in such way then the greatness of both comes out wonderfully.
          Thank You,
          Regards