Now that you've finished reading this play, what is your reaction to it? Explain what you like about it and what you dislike. Be specific. Does it deserve the critical and popular reception that it has received over the years? Why or why not?
My first reaction as I was reading was that the play was very boring and pointless. It seemed to me as if Pinter was sitting in a room observing what was happening between three people and writing down every mundane and dull event which took place. Although the obvious description of the surroundings and the introduction of characters is a characteristic of absurdist plays, Pinter’s excessive and meticulous description is unnecessary and makes it tiresome to read. On the other hand, it is understandable that Pinter might have a particular view which he wants to come alive on stage. Since an audience would not have to read all the description I can see why he might be so meticulous. The play also lacked any humorous elements. There was nothing amusing about the repetition or any of the few events which did take place. The reader is also never certain if what Daves is saying is true which I found to be very frustrating.
It was only until we discussed the play in class that I began understanding the hidden and subtle messages imbedded in the dull dialogue in addition to the meanings found in the character's actions. Without knowing the historical context in which the play was written it is very difficult to understand what the writer is trying to say. Perhaps for the intended audience at the time, only a few years after WWII, this play may have been amusing. However, for someone reading or watching the play today, it is very dull and I personally was unable to relate to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your reflection of The Caretaker is very similar to mine. Your opinion was very bluntly put and I agree that the stage directions are overly meticulous and unnecessary at times. I think it interrupts the flow of the play. I could not agree more about Davie's character being very confusing but I do not think that it took away from the play. If anything, it added an element of intrigue and actually made me curious as to his past and why he felt the urge to incessantly tell lies.
It would be unfair to say that there wasn't any humor to it as there are quite a few comic elements in my opinion (e.g. Davie's absurd obsession with finding shoes). Anyway, I don't think that Pinter's goal was to humor his readers/audience. All in all, I strongly agree with you on most of the points that you made.
I agree with everything you said, I also found the excessive description useless and boring. However, I didn't realize that it is different when acted out until I read you post. Pinter didn't write The Caretaker for people to read, for when it is acted out, it won't seem as boring. All the description would be part of the set, and all the stage directions would be acted out.
Also, I think Pinter purposely wrote it to be boring and pointless. The whole play gives the reader (or audience) a boring feel, and I think this is Pinter's purpose. Hence, like you mentioned, it is important to understand the historical context of the play.
Post a Comment