The Theatre of Harold Pinter Author(s): Bernard Dukore Source: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Mar., 1962), pp. 43-54 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124934 Accessed: 07-05-2015 14:44 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane Drama Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Thu, 07 May 2015 14:44:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Theatre of Harold Pinter By BERNARD DUKORE The so-calledavant-garde theatre in the United States and England is generallya case of new wine in old bottles.The plays of most of the young Anglo-Americanplaywrights do not break new ground. Edward Albee's The Zoo Story,to begin with one of the betterknown examples, is essentiallya realisticpsychological melodrama. His Sandbox and The AmericanDream utilize conventionsof the traditionalnon-realistic thea- tre.Jack Gelber's The Connection exploresa segmentof societythat has been previouslyunexplored in the theatreexcept in termsof melodrama, but themanner of presentationgoes back to Pirandello. Jack Richardson bringsto The Prodigal a unique intelligenceand virtuositybut uses fa- miliar techniques.In England as well, thereis vitalitywithin traditional forms.Although John Osborne's observationsof the temperof postwar England are vividlyrealistic, he blazes no new paths of dramaturgy.His charactersare recognizable,not of the English theatre but of English life. His formis recognizable,and of the theatre.Neither the socially- orientatedrealism of Arnold Wesker,the flamboyanceof Bernard Kops and John Arden,or the mixtureof realistnand theatricalityof Brendan Behan and ShelaghDelaney imposegreat difficulties upon audiences.The worksof theseplaywrights reflect traditional practices, either of the realis- tic or the non-realisticvariety, rather than radical departuresin form. The theatreof Harold Pinter,however, is quite anothermatter. Pinter's theatre,to apply what Jacques Lemarchand said of Ionesco's theatre,is one of the strangesttypes of theatreto have emergedduring the atomic age. It is certainlyone of the most bizarreand unique to have emerged in the English language. The only other playwrightwhose plays seem similarin textureis Samuel Beckett,and his major plays were originally writtenin French. Pinter'splays are frequentlyfunny. They are also frequentlyfrighten- ing. Their meaning usually seems obscure.They are realisticplays, after a fashion,but not realisticin the sense thatRoots or Look Back in Anger is realistic.The charactersbehave in a "believable" manner,but theyare shrouded in a twilightof mystery.We are never preciselysure who they are, whythey are there,or what theyhave come to do. Their motivesand backgroundsare vague or unknown.We recognizethat thereis motiva- 43 This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Thu, 07 May 2015 14:44:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 44 The Tulane Drama Review tion, but we are unsure what it is. We recognize that there is a back- ground, but that backgroundis clouded. Each piece of knowledge is a half-knowledge,each answer a springboard to new questions. In The Room, it is nevercompletely explained why a blind Negro named Riley comes to visit Rose Hudd, what his message to her means, or even why Bert Hudd, Rose's husband, kills him. In The BirthdayParty, we never reallyknow whythe strangevisitors, Goldberg and McCann, intimidate Stanleyor whythey take him away with them.In The Caretaker,we do not know the preciserelationship of the brothersor even the reasons for the younger brother'schanging attitudes toward their visitor,Davies. In The Dumb Waiter,we do not know the reasons Gus and Ben have been hired to do theirjob. Yet at the same timewe accept Riley's need to deliverhis messageand Bert Hudd's need to kill him; we accept the fact that Goldberg and McCann must do somethingto Stanley;we accept as logical the youngerbrother's treatment of Davies; and we accept the factthat Gus and Ben have been hired to do a job. Pinter'splays are not constructedin the familiarIbsenite fashion,and yet theyhave a recog- nizable beginning,middle, and end. His charactersare recognizablehu- man beings who seem to behave according to valid psychologicaland sociologicalmotives, and yet there is somethingbizarre about theirvery reality.They seem to be "real" people, for theirspeech, their concerns, theirbehavioral patterns, and theirrhythms of daily livinghave the ring of truthto them.But it is the details of living and the individual sections of dialogue which have this ring of truth,not the overall patternitself. They exist within the given frameworkof the play, and their overall pattern of realityis the bizarre world of the play. Pinter seems to be makinga statementabout life and the world we live in, but at the same time he seemsto be sayingsomething merely about a grotesqueworld of his own creation.Pinter's plays are obviouslysymbolic, but theyare un- like otherplays which we have come to associate with symbolism.Unlike the plays of, say, Maeterlinck,the charactersare part of a recognizable world of social forcesand class values. They do not functionsolely as symbols.Unlike the symbolicelements in the plays of, say,Ibsen, symbol and realityare not fused to the point that each clarifiesand reinforces the other.No symbolfunctions in Pinter'splays as does, forexample, the orphanage in Ghostsor the pistols in Hedda Gabler. In brief,the refer- entsare vague. The objects,-thecharacters, and the behaviorof the char- acterssymbolize something, but we are neverquite sure what that "some- thing"is. Ibsen carefullyand clearlyrelates his symbolsto plot, character, and theme:he methodicallycrosses his t's and dots his i's. Pinter uses his This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Thu, 07 May 2015 14:44:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BERNARD DUKORE 45 symbolsin as carefula manneras Ibsen, but he methodicallyleaves his t's uncrossedand his i's undotted. Pinter's plays have an unreal reality,or a realisticunreality. His sym- bols are unclear but pertinent,or pertinentbut unclear.This description mightmake theseplays seem dull and pretentious.But theyare not: they are engrossingand exciting.A neoclassicalcritic would have no difficulty judging Pinter's theatre: "He does not write according to the Rules." Our currentlyfashionable phrases--"These aren't plays: they'resketches forrevues" or "I don't know what the hell this play is all about"--come to the same thing.Pinter's plays seem to be productsby Maxim Gorky out of Charles Addams with Samuel Beckett as midwife.He has been called an egg-headHitchcock, and his plays have given rise to a new label, "Comedyof Menace," a termwhich is appropriate,which explains little,but which servesas a convenientlabel forpeople who need labels. The plots of Pinter'splays are straightforwardalmost to the point of simplicity.A recountingof the plot of The Caretakerleads one to expect the type of treatmentfound in Kind Lady. Davies, a filthyold bum, is rescued froma fightin a cafe by Aston,who takeshim to his house and giveshim lodginguntil he will be able to move on. Aston'syounger bro- ther, Mick, appears, and each-separately--offersDavies a position as caretakerof the house. Davies triesto play one brotheragainst the other, attemptingto establishhimself permanently in the house. Finally, the tables are turned and both brothersreject him. The storiesof Pinter's other plays are no more complicated,and, in fact,the storylines are, in theirbarest forms, quite conventional.In The BirthdayParty, Goldberg and McCann visit a lodging house in a seaside resorttown, where they drive Stanley Webber, a lodger, to a nervous breakdown,and finally abduct him. In The Dumb Waiter,two hired killers, Gus and Ben, arrive in Birminghamto do a job. When Gus leaves to go to the lavatory,Ben receives instructionsfrom someone talking to him on a speaking-tube, and Gus returnsto findBen pointinga gun at him. In The Room, a blind Negro named Riley has been waitingin the basementuntil Rose Hudd's husband Bert leaves forwork. When Bert leaves,Riley tellsRose thather fatherwants her to come home. Bert returnsand killshim. These plays are often as frighteningas Hitchcock'sfilm Psycho. The scenes in The BirthdayParty wherein Goldberg and McCann intimidate Stanleyare horrifying.At the end of The Room, when Bert Hudd strikes the blind Negro,kicks his head againstthe gas stoveuntil he is dead, and when Rose immediatelyclutches her eyes and cries out that she cannot see, the resultis positivelyblood-curdling. Pinter does not alwaysrely on This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Thu, 07 May 2015 14:44:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 46 The Tulane Drama Review physicalviolence to produce the sinister.He frequentlyachieves it in the mostchillingly quiet manner,as in The Room: ROSE.YOU won't find any rooms vacant in thishouse.... MR.SANDS. The man in the basement said there was one. One room. Num- ber sevenhe said. ROSE.That's this room.* But even more frequently,Pinter's plays are uproariouslyfunny. Oc- casionally,the humoris in the formof the simple "gag," as in the follow- ing dialogue from The Birthday Party. STANLEY.How long has that tea been in the pot? MEG.It's good tea. Good strongtea. STANLEY.This isn't tea. It's gravyl Usually,however, the humorarises fromPinter's acute perceptionof the rhythmsand nuancesof contemporaryspeech.