The Caretaker By Pinter A Play Can

The Caretaker By Pinter: A Play Can Be Confrontational, Challenging And
Disturbing To The Values And Assumptions Of An Audience. Discuss With Close
Reference Essay, Research Paper

The Caretaker by Pinter: A Play Can Be Confrontational, Challenging and

Disturbing to the Values and Assumptions of An Audience. Discuss With close

Reference

The Caretaker, written by the British playwright Harold Pinter in the late

1950’s and early 1960’s disrupts the audiences perceptions of existence and

their understandings of it. The play deconstructs perceived notions and

conceptions of reality, and disturbs the audiences perception of their own

identity and place within a world which is primarily concerned with the search

and need for identity. Pinter was clearly influenced by the fashionable

philosophic review of human condition that was prominent in the 1950’s and

1960’s . existentialism. The play attacks the notion that there are no absolute

truths or realities. Pinter is therefore concerned with what exists as unknown

and intangible to humanity. His theatre interrogates the truth of nature and

realities of language and demonstrates that much of what the audience regards as

fact is fiction as he explores the uncertainty of human existence.

When an audience of the 1960’s went to the theatre, it can generally be assumed

that they had preconceived ideas about what they expected and what they are

going to gain from the theatrical experience. The traditional attitudes towards

theatre and the conventions of realist drama are disrupted by Pinter. This

confronts the assumptions and values of the audience, an experience which would

be disconcerting and frightening to many.

Pinter divorces and exposes society’s codes, institutions and human relations.

Throughout the play the audience is rarely comfortable. This disruption is

established from the outset of the play when Mick, a character who at this stage

of the play the audience knows nothing about, sits on the bed and stares at the

audience in silence for .30 seconds’. Traditionally in realist drama such as

Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler characters use simple exposition through language

and non-verbal elements to .let the audience in’ and enlighten them on what is

happening on the stage and the results and reasons for and behind actions.

Pinter disrupts this tradition and this in itself would have been a disturbing

phenomena to the conservative audiences of post-war Britain. Mick’s arrival on

stage generates unease within the audience and the tension would only increase

as Pinter provides the audience with no explanation for him being there. Mick

leaves the stage in a state of maintained silence, hence the first images

presented in the play confront many of the assumptions of a traditional

theatrical experience.

Mick is alone in the room, sitting on the bed. He wears a leather jacket. He

slowly looks about the room, looking at each object in turn. He looks up at the

ceiling, and stares at the bucket. Silence for thirty seconds. Mick turns his

head. He stands, moves silently to the door, goes out, and closes the door

quietly.

It is not until the Act two that this character becomes known to the audience as

Mick. This deferral of information is quite confrontational as it opposes

accepted and naturalised preconceptions of power and right. Mick’s position on

the bed and his costuming – wearing a leather jacket places him in the

traditionally accepted position of power. However this idea is problematised

when Mick leaves the room and Aston enters with the key, thus demonstrating the

illusory and ambiguous nature of power. Mick not re-entering until later in the

play confronts traditional notion that as he was introduced first, he is in a

position of power. The opening scene defamiliarises the Audience with

traditional notions of power and establishes a precedent for the remainder of

the play.

Pinter does not adhere to the accepted use of dramatic conventions. There is no

traditional relation of character histories within the opening scenes and lack

of revelation is maintained throughout the play as relatively little is exposed

about the characters backgrounds. This makes events within the room conditional

phenomena, which are dependent on the individuals involved and what the audience

is able to interpret.

Pinter denies meaning in traditional places of discovery and appears to provide

it by means and in situations that are not socially acceptable or considered as

being the norm. An example of this is the obvious exposition in Aston’s long

monologue about his time within a mental institution. The discussion of such

topics with practically a complete stranger and in social conversation

definitely oversteps the mark of social acceptability. The discussion of such

topics is very .in your face’ and would be very disturbing and con

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать