Making Pictures the Pinter Screenplays
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Joanne Klein Making Pictures The Pinter Screenplays MAKING PICTURES The Pinter Screenplays by Joanne Klein Making Pictures: The Pinter Screenplays Ohio State University Press: Columbus Extracts from F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Last Tycoon. Copyright 1941 Charles Scribner's Sons; copyright renewed. Reprinted with the permission of Charles Scribner's Sons. Extracts from John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman. Copyright © 1969 by John Fowles. By permission of Little, Brown and Company. Extracts from Harold Pinter, The French Lieutenant's Woman: A Screenplay. Copyright © 1982 by United Artists Corporation and Copyright © 1982 by J. R. Fowles, Ltd. Extracts from L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between. Copyright © 1954 and 1981 by L. P. Hartley. Reprinted with permission of Stein and Day Publishers. Extracts from Penelope Mortimer, The Pumpkin Eater. © 1963 by Penelope Mortimer. Reprinted by permission of the Harold Matson Company, Inc. Extracts from Nicholas Mosley, Accident. Copyright © 1965 by Nicholas Mosley. Reprinted by permission of Hodder and Stoughton Limited. Copyright © 1985 by the Ohio State University Press All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Klein, Joanne, 1949 Making pictures. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Pinter, Harold, 1930- —Moving-picture plays. I. Title. PR6066.I53Z713 1985 822'.914 85-326 Cloth: ISBN 0-8142-0378-7 Paper: ISBN 0-8142-0400-7 for William I. Oliver Contents Acknowledgments ix Chronology of Pinter's Writing for Stage and Screen xi 1. Media 1 2. The Servant 9 3. The Pumpkin Eater 27 4. The Quiller Memorandum 42 5. Accident 50 6. The Go-Between 77 1. The Proust Screenplay 103 8. The Last Tycoon 129 9. The French Lieutenant's Woman 145 10. Patterns 185 Notes 199 Bibliography 205 Index 209 Acknowledgments Throughout the preparation of this book, I have been nourished by the assistance and encouragement of others, and I am grateful for the op portunity to thank them for their contributions. The incisive comments and illuminating exhortations of William I. Oliver have enriched this project from start to finish. His faith and fomentations, together with innumerable perusals of manuscript drafts, have inspired this study and made its writing a joy. For their helpful criticisms of various drafts, I wish also to thank George House, William Nestrick, Charles R. Lyons, and Ernest Callenbach, each of whom advised distinct revisions that have enhanced the final version of this study. Weldon A. Kefauver, the Editorial Board of the Ohio State University Press, and their readers have provided generous support and advice, for which I am grateful as well. The process of researching and preparing this book has been indis pensably facilitated by an Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship at Stanford University and by faculty research grants from Middlebury College and the University of Denver. I am pleased to acknowledge their investment in this book, which has profited also from the hospi tality of the American Film Institute in Los Angeles and the Pacific Film Archives in Berkeley. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following for permission to reprint from their publications: Associated Book Publishers; The Bodley Head; British Film Institute; Corporate Trust N.V.; Grove Press, Inc.; Hamish Hamilton Limited; Harlan Kennedy; Methuen London Ltd.; Ran dom House, Inc.; Stein and Day Publishers; and Anthony Sheil Associates Ltd. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Mark A. Rhoda, whose pa tience, generosity, keen eye, and hard work have contributed liberally to the production of this text. His devotion and labor have served me im measurably in this task and in others. Chronology of Pinter's Writing for Stage and Screen 1957 The Room 1968 Silence 1957 The Birthday Party 1968 Film of The Birthday 1957 The Dumb Waiter Party 1958 A Slight Ache 1969 Night 1959 Revue Sketches 1969 Film of The Homecoming 1959 A Night Out 1969 The Go-Between (Cannes 1959 The Caretaker Palme d'or Award; British 1960 Night School Film Academy Award) 1960 The Dwarfs 1970 Old Times 1961 The Collection 1972 The Proust Screenplay 1962 The Servant (Best Screen (first published 1977: no writing: Los Angeles Film film made of screenplay Critics; New York Film to date) Critics Award; British 1972 Monologue Screenwriters Guild 1974 No Man's Land Award) 1975 The Last Tycoon (National 1962 Film of The Caretaker Board of Review Best 1962 The Lover English-Language Film 1964 Tea Party Award) 1964 The Homecoming 1978 Betrayal 1965 The Pumpkin Eater 1980 The Hothouse (revised: (British Film Academy originally written 1958) Award) 1981 The French Lieutenant's 1965 The Quiller Memorandum Woman 1966 The Basement 1981 Family Voices 1967 Accident (Cannes Film 1982 Film of Betrayal Festival Special Jury 1982 A Kind of Alaska Prize) 1982 Victoria Station 1967 Landscape 1 Media Harold Pinter's reputation as a playwright precedes and surpasses his work in the cinematic medium. His screenplays, however, have prolif erated steadily to dominate his later career, in terms both of quantity and celebrity. Although studies of Pinter's work as a playwright have reached epidemic proportions in published criticism, scholars have gen erally neglected his career as a screenwriter. To date, the screenplays have received only superficial attention through reviews, in narrowly focused articles, or as obligatory and often cursory portions of Pinter monographs. The need for a closer examination of these film scripts has arisen from their prominence, their quality, and their utility as illumina tions of Pinter's dramaturgical practices. Furthermore, since all of Pinter's screenplays are adaptations of material written originally for other media, analysis of his screenwriting process will promote generic distinctions among the various media implicated in their development. The material for Pinter's screen adaptations originates in one of two sources: his own stage plays {The Caretaker, The Birthday Party, The Homecoming, Betrayal) or novels written by other authors. The present study will address exclusively this latter category of adaptations, thereby limiting itself to evaluation of narrative discourse peculiar to the novel and film media. Those distinctions between the medium of stage and that of screen which emerge from examining Pinter's film adaptations of his own work will remain prospects for a subsequent study. Because Pinter's adaptations of the novels provide a capital basis for revealing certain aspects of his original dramaturgy, however, the exegeses in this study are intended partly for that purpose. His personal aesthetic and technique become clear through comparison of the adapta tions to their original sources. Where unilateral studies of Pinter's stage plays have sometimes found them mystifying and unyielding, scrutiny Media of his method as an adapter may facilitate comprehension of his prac tices as a dramatist. Thus, although this volume will serve primarily as an explication of his screenplays as adaptations of the novels, it will also yield certain insights into the less accessible dimensions of Pinter's work for the stage and trace correspondences between his writings for each medium. Fundamental similarities exist between Pinter's original work and his eight adaptations. These resemblances occur due partly to Pinter's idio syncratic manipulations of the source material, but due chiefly to the novels' ideological and methodological consonance with Pinter's own evolving precepts. When questioned, during his work on The Proust Screenplay, about his method of selecting the novels, Pinter replied: "They've been proposed to me. It's always been Joe Losey who's given me the books to read. But of course I have been asked to do many other things and declined. These are quite rare items. I've chosen them because I thought something sparked."1 The eight novels promulgate, or at least accommodate, a view of perception that allows Pinter to deploy his own approach to phenomenological complexity in the screen adaptations. Because Pinter's artistic biases figure prominently in both his selection and revision of the novels, a summary of his characteristic practices will prove helpful at this juncture. Obfuscation has become Pinter's trademark. His habit of obscuring motives and situations has provoked innumerable tempers and inspired a broad spectrum of extravagant criticism. Bert O. States exemplifies this frustration when he defines Pinter's mystique as "a peculiar activity of mind. We have invented special words for this activity ('Pinter course,' 'Pinterism,' 'Pinterotic,' etc.), which Pinter understandably detests, but it seems we have needed them as semantic consolation for his having hidden from us the thing they refer to."2 Typically, mis construances of Pinter's work arise when critics offer their perplexities to extrinsic formulas for resolution.3 Since the impact of his drama depends on certain carefully developed doubts, these misguided efforts to decipher puzzlements by imposing patterns from outside the plays yield distorted impressions of the action. Designs of certitude and in certitude in the scripts contrive to engender special recognitions by the audience, and any importation of accessory perspectives, however well- intentioned, upsets this balance. The preponderance of exotic interpretations of his plays has contrib uted to Pinter's valuation of the film medium. The advantages of film over stage, he claims, lie in its increased possibilities for articulating reality. He describes these advantages in the following two statements, which refer to the filming of The Caretaker and are taken from different sources. Media What I'm very pleased about myself is that in the film, as opposed to the play, we see a real house and real snow outside, dirty snow and the streets. We don't see them very often but they're there, the backs of houses and windows, attics in the distance. There is actually sky as well, a dirty one, and these characters move in the context of a real world—as I believe they do.4 .