In what ways do the language rituals in "The Homecoming" and "Waiting for Godot" suggest the play wrights' respective perceptions of the human condition?
In what ways do the language rituals in "The Homecoming" and "Waiting for Godot" suggest the playwrights' respective perceptions of the human condition? Introduction The role of language and communication is a central issue in both plays on a purely theatrical level, serving to advance the plot and enhance characterisation, yet it achieves far more than simply forming an entertaining piece of drama. Throughout the plays there are periods where dialogue between the characters manages to display human language's most powerful capabilities, yet others where its shortcomings are dramatically exposed. Behind the conversations, hidden in the silences, both plays offer far more to the audience than can be gathered from the words alone. What is stated, what is implied and what is left unsaid are all of equal importance, as each simple line provokes thoughts on a series of deeper issues. The use of language and language rituals offers an insight into wider thoughts than simply those concerning the characters in the play. Both playwrights' ideas and suggestions concerning the human condition may be interpreted from these rituals; the interaction of the characters and the way they choose to communicate with one another present perceptions of our very existence as human beings. When seeking to compare the ways in which this is achieved by the playwrights, a fundamental difference
As well as being one of the most popular, The Homecoming (1965) has proved to be among the most controversial of Harold Pinter
As well as being one of the most popular, The Homecoming (1965) has proved to be among the most controversial of Harold Pinter's plays, at least as far as newspaper critics and academic commentators are concerned. There is no doubt that the action on stage continues to draw and hold audiences, as the play is frequently revived. The Homecoming shares a number of characteristics with Pinter's earlier comedies of menace. It is set in a dingy interior; there is throughout the play a sense of (largely) suppressed violence; the exchanges between the characters seem to be composed substantially of non sequiturs; the words that the characters actually say are divorced from what they mean (the meaning being discernible only by piercing what has been described as the irony and indifference of the surface); the naturalistic setting houses actions that smack of the surreal; the dialogue is conducted in language whose naturalism is subtly undermined, tuned, and poeticized. These are among the hallmarks of a theatrical style for which the term "Pinteresque" has been coined. The play is concerned with the return of Teddy, a professor of philosophy at an American college, to the North London house occupied by his father, uncle, and brothers, all of whom seem to operate on the fringes of working-class society, some distance from respectability. Teddy is accompanied by his wife, Ruth, who
'The Birthday Party' by Harold Pinter is a study of power- where it comes from and how it is wielded.' Discuss with particular reference to Act One.
English Coursework Harold Pinter and Power By Jodie Gloster 'The Birthday Party' by Harold Pinter is a study of power- where it comes from and how it is wielded.' Discuss with particular reference to Act One. The Birthday Party is a play right written by Harold Pinter. The play is based on power. The dictionary definition of power is' The ability to act or produce an effect' or 'possession of control, authority, or influence over others' In the play there are several characters. These include Petey, a man in his sixties and his wife Meg, who is also in her sixties. Stanley is a man in his late thirties and a guest at Petey's and Meg's hotel. Goldberg and McCann then later become guests. Goldberg is a man in his fifties and McCann is a man of thirty. Lulu occasionally visits in the play; she is a young lady in her twenties. In the play right everyone seems to have power over everyone at some point apart from Meg and Lulu. From the start of Act One Petey pays no attention to Meg. He reads his newspaper and acts really disinterested towards her. An example of this is on page 10. Meg says "What does it say" and Petey simply replies "Nothing much." He makes her feel like she has to make conversation with her. This type of power is used without any effort. It is gained by silence towards the other person. You can imagine this one stage with Meg being very enthusiastic and
Finding the Function in Dysfunction.
Finding the Function in Dysfunction In a token moment of Irish brogue, Phil Hogan vividly professes "Be God, look at you standing there with the club! If you ain't the damnedest daughter in Connecticut, who is (O'Neill 297)?" Without question, no statement could more clearly define the chaotic relationship between Phil and Josie Hogan in Eugene O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten than this. The analysis of this parent-child relationship proves to be quite a paradox in nature, a love/hate bond of sorts between a father and his daughter. These two characters come to express their emotions in such crude terms that one would wonder about the functionality of their relationship, yet Phil and Josie seem strangely comfortable with this perpetual saga of slander and subtle jabs. However, the harsh reality of their interaction will in fact reveal the deeper meaning of Eugene O'Neill's chaotic life through dramatic means. The character of Josie Hogan carries a true aura of dominance wherever she goes. A strapping woman of unusual size and strength, Josie is everything her brothers--Mike, Thomas, and John--never were. Without question, the script of A Moon for the Misbegotten is full of awkward references to the blatantly obvious lack of Josie's femininity. Statements from her own father such as "To hell with your temper, you overgrown cow!" leave the impression that Josie is
"The Caretaker" is either about nothing or everything! How far do you agree with this statement?
The Caretaker Tom Spooner "The Caretaker" is either about nothing or everything! How far do you agree with this statement? "The Caretaker", written by Harold Pinter, is a rather bizarre play that belongs to Theatre of the Absurd, a theatrical tradition that surfaced in the 1950s with a group of playwrights that included Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet and Harold Pinter. Their plays expressed a common atheistic and pessimistic belief in a godless universe where human existence has no meaning or purpose and human beings are unable to communicate. This led to the abandonment of coherent, logical dialogue and was replaced by both irrational and illogical speech where the characters in the play would talk at each other rather than with each other, which helped to convey the futility of human existence. Theatre of the Absurd derived from Existentialism. This was the theory of Jean-Paul Sartre who argued that if the past is fiction and the future un-knowable, then all that remains is the present. This frees man from worry about God, tradition or hope. Existence now is all that matters. If we agree that existence is absurd and that theatre is a mirror of life, theatre also must be absurd with no plot, no meaning, no beginning or end and no purpose. The Caretaker can be seen as about nothing or absolutely everything. On the surface, it seems to be like most
Rationality and reality under absurdity - book report on The Dumb Waiter.
Chaoxiaoqian (???) Professor Heqishen British Drama Dec. 28th 2001 Rationality and Reality Under Absurdity Book Report On The Dumb Waiter Pinter is a well-known dramatist of the second half of 20th century with many plays, among them The Dumb Waiter didn't bring him as much fame as the other plays, such as The Birthday Party and The Caretaker. Pinter was first labeled as Kitchen Sink Dramatist, then more generally assigned to the Theater of the Absurd. Actually it is unwise to label him because most of Pinter's plays are more often combinations of these two categories, using the typical life of the little as the background, against which abnormal, even mysterious or absurd events take place. For example, The room and The Birthday Party unfold uncommon events on common people. Pinter himself rejects both labels. Maybe he wants to establish his own genre in drama creations? Maybe that is the way he voices against the Establishment? De facto he blazes a new trail in British drama and offers the reader a new perspective to perceive the society. The Dumb Waiter contains many of the elements that characterize Pinter's later works: the acutely naturalistic (Pinteresque) dialogue, which carefully registers the repetitions, hesitations and equivocations of colloquial speech without ever quite sounding natural; ordinary settings in which abnormal events occur; characters with
Since its first production in 1965 by the Royal Shakespeare Company, The Homecoming has caused much controversy, and to this day still raises much debate.
Since its first production in 1965 by the Royal Shakespeare Company, The Homecoming has caused much controversy, and to this day still raises much debate. Critics often hold different views on the play, and while some critics regard the examination of power as posing a feminist viewpoint by the end of the play, others would argue that the world of the play is profoundly misogynistic and rooted in a male fantasy of women as saints or sinners, Madonna's or tarts, mothers or whores... Martin Esslin believes that the play is indeed misogynistic and fixed in oedipal fantasy, but others such as Billington and Walker take a very different stance. These critics argue that Ruth is, in fact portrayed as the most powerful character, and through her actions is making a bold, feminist statement. Pinter paints a portrait of a male household, in the total absence of women and illustrates the effect that a woman has on that environment. He demonstrates how the male characters are torn between idealisation and vilification of the female sex, consciously exposing the whole mother-whore dichotomy. Pinter's play works on two levels, on a realistic level that reflects a socially accurate study of an all male and predatory family structure, but also on a metaphorical level that challenges the stereotypical role of women and male dictatorship. Ruth's rise to power and triumph is the main
Form and Structure in "The Homecoming"
Form and Structure Form is a convention an actor will use to get point across. Some examples used in "The Homecoming" are pauses and Juxtaposition. Pinter uses a lot of pauses in speech. This is a great tool to build up tension as that is what a lot of the play is based on. Pauses and silences give you time to see the feelings and expressions in the characters faces, as that can be more powerful than words. Pauses can show different feelings, for example awkwardness between people. "Teddy: Hullo.....Dad.....We overslept. Pause What's for breakfast? Silence Teddy Chuckles Huh. We overslept This shows there being awkwardness between Max and Teddy as Teddy has just shown up out of know where after six years. The use of the ...... is also frequently used by Pinter in "The Homecoming". This has the same effect as the silences except it is used in the middle of speech and give off a few more emotions. Sometimes when there are gaps in the sentences it implies that that person is lying, and in this play in particular, a lot of lies are told and the topic of them is quite ominous. "Ruth: We used to pass a.....a large white water tower. This place.....this house.....was very big.....the trees....there was a lake, you see..." Ruth may not be lying here but it shows that she is a very open person to be enclosing this information to someone she barely knows. "Joey: And
Contextualising the play - A Night Out by Harold Pinter
Stephan Seiler Contextualising the play The Playwright (Harold Pinter) * Harold Pinter was born in the working-class neighbourhood of East London's Hackney in 1930, the son of a Jewish tailor. He evacuated to Cornwall, England, at the outbreak of World War II in 1939, and returned to London when he was 14. * He began acting in plays at his grammar school, and later received a grant to study at London's prestigious Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. He left the school after two years, and spent most of the 1950s writing poetry and acting in small theatre productions. * In 1957, he wrote his first play, The Room. His first produced play; The Birthday Party came a year later. The reception was unfavourable, it closed within a week, but Pinter's next full-length play, The Caretaker (1960), was more successful. * The Dumb Waiter also staged in 1960, helped Pinter become more well known. He frequently directed, and sometimes acted in his own work in the 1960s and 1970s. This work was radio, television, and film based. * Pinter often acted in "who done its?" So this was a major influence in his work to do with gangsters and that lifestyle. He acted for Television drama: - * A Night Out by Harold Pinter, ABC TV Armchair Theatre, 24 April 1960 * Directed by Philip Saville (Assheton Gorton - Designer.) Seeley - David Baron [Harold Pinter] * He also acted in films, * The
Using the attatched passage, The Birthday Party, Harold Pinter, 1960, examine the similarities and differences between the dramatic speech found here and naturally occurring conversation.
Using the attatched passage, The Birthday Party, Harold Pinter, 1960, examine the similarities and differences between the dramatic speech found here and naturally occurring conversation. The importance in Harold Pinter's work is what he is trying to say to the audience via his chosen style of language, action and silences. Initially, Pinter's dramatic dialogue appears to be similar to natural occurring conversation, the two speakers ask questions, respond and repeat utterances. The stage setting, devoid of props other than a table emerges as a blank page enabling Pinter's specific language of oblique dialogue to be foregrounded. With the pauses, interactions and dislocated conversation, Pinter creates incoherence; the audience is not sure what is going to happen next. In Pinter's own words: 'A threat is constantly there: it's got to do with this question of being in the uppermost position, or attempting to be.' Pinter's style at first appears to emulate a natural conversation in the basic picture of everyday occurrences. To a certain extent in The Birthday Party, the colloquial language gives the audience the impression that the play is unrehearsed and that it is similar to natural conversation. The deficiency of normal non-fluency features demonstrates how the script is unlike natural occurring conversation. There is no mispronunciation, overlaps or interruptions. The