Analysing Dialogue — Paper 2 — IB English Literature (2015)
In theatre, there are two lines of communication. First, there is communication between characters and second, there is communication between the stage and the audience. An action is something which changes the situation and is often accomplished through words. An effective dramatist knows that great drama can be produced through the inclusion of requests, vows or commands since they require an action that can be satisfying and or troubling for the audience. In ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, written by Tennessee Williams and first performed in 1947, many of the key moments of the play are heightened by the commands and requests made by the major characters, and the key themes of the play: desire and fate, death and madness, are best reflected at these points. ‘The Birthday Present’, written by Harold Pinter and first performed in 1957, is set in an unspecified time and place in Britain and the themes of state oppression, anonymity along with the internal conflict that some of the characters suffer, are reflected by the linguistic techniques they employ either to remain anonymous, which is particularly true for Stanley, or execute power, which is more so the case for Goldberg and McCann.
More than any other character in the play, Blanche makes commands that both reveal elements of her profoundly complex character and reflect the key themes of the play. Blanche’s internal conflict causes her often to be self-contradictory. She clings onto a past ideal of purity and refinement, and yet is sexually promiscuous and accedes to the demands of the flesh and body. In Scene 6, Blanche purports to not being “accustomed to having more than one drink” during her dialogue with Mitch, but the audience will recall her consuming much of Stanley’s beverages earlier in the play. In Scene 8, Blanche demands that she be treated like a respectable Southern belle by Mitch once they become more intimate, exclaiming that he “unhand” her and that Stanley and Stella’s absence does not mean “[he] shouldn’t behave like a gentleman.”. Here, Blanche’s diction mirrors that of an upper-class debutante: she likens Mitch to a “gentleman” by awarding him the unseemly title of “Sir”, which highlights the extent to which her cultural pretensions cloud her from accepting the reality that Mitch is far from her ideal chevalier. Furthermore, the dialogue conveys the self-contradictory aspect of Blanche’s character as the audience will recall her flirting with Stanley earlier and the episode with the young man in Scene 5. Both scenes represent the conflict between the old South, which is characterised by Blanche’s need to uphold a veneer of social propriety as a means to win Mitch’s heart, and the new America, which is represented by the social and cultural developments that America has made, many of which sit in marked contrast to Blanche’s ideals.
Blanche is obsessed with her noble heritage and demands the same from Stella who conversely has relinquished her upper-class origins. In Scene 1, Blanche delivers an extensive monologue describing the horrors she experienced at Belle Reve, accusing her sister of not being there when the DuBois family needed her as an attempt to cause Stella to relive her past. During this monologue, Blanche speaks of the deaths she had witnessed while at Belle Reve, remarking that “the Grim Reaper had put up his tent on [their] doorstep!” and that “Belle Reve was his headquarters!”. Blanche’s tendency to self-dramatise is illustrated through her allusion to the personified figure of death. This verbal outburst also reveals her ability to devise spontaneous narratives that are often whimsical in their nature but can often upset her listener such as Stella who is brought to tears once Blanche has stopped ranting.
Soon after, Blanche condemns both Stella and Stanley, saying “…Yes accuse me! Sit there and stare at me, thinking I let the place go! Where were you. In bed with your — Polak!…”. Here, Blanche’s invitation to be deplored by her sister is a subtle means to instill more guilt in Stella. Moreover, Blanche’s accusations not only convey her condemnation towards Stella’s absence during the deaths, but also underscores her profound disgust for Stella’s new found love as she reduces him to nothing more than an ethnic slur: ‘Polak’. Her contempt is punctuated by her struggle to utter this remark signified by the brief pause she takes before finally labelling him so contemptibly. Blanche seeks to remind Stella of her noble past in order to undermine her present.
Throughout The Birthday Party, the major characters employ various linguistic strategies to overcome their opponent and to conceal information, which is often supplemented by an action. When Stanley and McCann first meet in Act Two, McCann behaves as if nothing is untoward despite Stanley’s desperate requests that McCann inform him of the purpose of both he and Goldberg being at Stanley’s house and whether Goldberg has “told [him] anything?” Stanley is convinced that Goldberg knows more than he’s letting on and what makes this scene particularly riveting is that Stanley’s expressions of self-justification cast a shadow of guilt. His banal attempts at appeasing McCann through pleading innocent: “I mean you wouldn’t think […] that I was the sort of bloke to — to cause any trouble, would you?”, make him sound increasingly suspect, which is punctuated by the brief pause he takes (represented by the hyphen) before completing his questionable plead. The brief pauses suggest hesitance and imply that he is in fact lying, which is a typically Pinteresque technique.
McCann’s diversion of Stanley’s request for information and his non-committal response to Stanley’s attempts at being seen in a positive light heightens the suspense in this scene. When Stanley informs McCann that he “wants[s] to go out”, McCann’s reply which is in the form of a apparently polite and solicitous request: “Why don’t you stay here?”. McCann’s controlled violence along with his refusal to expressly accuse Stanley of a crime builds even more tension and suggests an impending and more violent action. The scene becomes more intense when McCann’s quietly menacing nature begins to manifest itself in the form of deadpan replies that Stanley “mind” and “leave” the “strip of paper” he had torn into “five equal strips” earlier. McCann’s command has an undercurrent of violence, which is suggested by his monosyllabacy and brusqueness when delivering the command.
Once Goldberg joins the scene, the implicit threat suggested by Stanley’s earlier exchange with McCann is heightened. The three men play a game of ‘sitting down’ in a cat-and-mouse fashion, which precedes the interrogation. Goldberg requests that McCann “sit down” but Stanley stoutly declines. His refusal to concede to Goldberg’s commands demonstrate his defensiveness, however minimal, and Goldberg, who makes these requests through McCann as though McCann were his henchman, is made to appear even more menacing given that McCann, who according to an earlier description is much larger than Goldberg, seems to be at his whims. Until the interrogation, Stanley has made an effort to resist but the implied threat of physical violence, with two against one, makes a disturbing stage picture and Goldberg ends Stanley’s remote sense of authority by sternly commanding him to “sit down” before the scene morphs into a positive verbal and physical assault on Stanley.
The interrogation scene in Act Two moves the play into a shockingly different level of ‘realism’, and by Act Three, Stanley is reduced to the status of an absolute victim, unable to communicate his pain or to protest. Petey’s final statement which is in the form of a request and is made before Stanley is eventually taken: “Stan, don’t let them tell you what to do” is particularly poignant as it wholly captures the play’s portrayal of the destruction of an individual and their ability to adopt their own identity as a result of state oppression. What makes this line even more moving is the fact that Petey refers to Stanley using the contracted and affectionate form of his name “Stan”. The sentiment in his words mirrors how a father would advise his son. In addition, this line has been said to be symbolise Pinter’s own feelings towards conformity.
