The World of Harold Pinter

Author(s): Ruby Cohn

Source: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Mar., 1962), pp. 55-68
Published by: MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124935
Accessed: 26-12-2015 12:45 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 support@jstor.org.

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 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The World of Harold Pinter

By RUBY COHN

Each of HaroldPinter'sfourplaysendsin thevirtualannihilation of

an individual.In Pinter'sfirst play,The Room,aftera blind Negrois
kickedintoinertness, theheroine,Rose,is suddenly strickenwithblind-
ness.In The Dumb Waiter,thecurtainfallsas Gus and his prospective
murderer stareat eachother.StanleyWebber,theheroof The Birthday
Party,is takenfromhisrefugefor"specialtreatment." In The Caretaker,
thefinalcurtainfallson an old man'sfragmentary (and unheeded)pleas
to remainin his refuge.
AsPinterfocuses moresharply on thewriggle forexistence, eachofhis
successive hero-victims seemsmorevulnerablethanthelast.Villainas-
saultsvictimin a tellingand murderous idiom.AlthoughPinter'sfirst
twoplaysarein one act,and thesecondtwoin threeacts,eachsuccessive
dramaseemsto begincloserto itsownend,highlighting thefinalthroes
of the hero-victims.
But whoare they-thesenondescript villainsand victims, actingout
theirdramasin dilapidatedrooms?Victimsemergefroma vaguepastto
go to theirineluctabledestruction. Villainsaremessengers frommysteri-
ousorganizations-as in theworksofKafkaorBeckett.
If Pinterhas repeatedly beennamedas Beckett's heiron theEnglish
stage,it is becausethecharacters of bothlead livesof complexand un-
quiet desperation-adesperationexpressedwithextremeeconomyof
theatrical resources. The clutter ofourworldis mockedbythestinginess
of the stage-worlds of Beckettand Pinter.Sets,props,characters, and
languageare strippedbybothplaywrights to whatone is tempedto call
theiressence.
However,Pinteris not onlyBeckett'sspiritualson. He is at leasta
cousinof theAngryYoungEnglishmen of his generation, forPinter's
anger,liketheirs, is directedvitriolically the But
against System. hisSys-
temcannotbe reducedto a welfare state,redbrickuniversities, and mar-
riageaboveone'sclass.Of all theAngries, JohnWain approaches closest
toPinter'sintention whenhe statesthattheartist's function "is alwaysto
humanize thesociety he is livingin,to asserttheimportance ofhumanity
in theteethofwhatever is currentlytrying toannihilatethatimportance"
(Declaration). Pinter'sassertion, however, takesa negativeform;it is by
his bitterdramasof dehumanization thathe implies"theimportance of
55

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 The Tulane Drama Review

humanity."The religionand societywhichhave traditionallystructured

human morality,are,in Pinter'splays,theimmoralagentsthatdestroythe
individual.
Like Osborne, Pinter looks back in anger; like Beckett,Pinter looks
forwardto nothing(not even Godot). Pinterhas createdhis own distinc-
tive and dramaticversionof Man vs. the System.Situatinghim between
Beckettand theAngriesis only a firstapproximationof his achievement.

The house as human dwellingis a metaphorat least as old as the Bible,

and on thestagethathouse is mosteasilyreducedto a room (e.g. Graham
Greene's Living Room, Beckett'sEndgame). Pinter's rooms are stuffy,
nonspecificcubes,whose atmospheregrowssteadilymore stale and more
tense.The titularRoom of his firstplay is "A room in a large house"; in
The Dumb Waiter,we descend to "a basementroom"; in The Birthday
Party,we have "The living room of a house in a seaside town,"and, in
The Caretaker,it is simply"A room." Unlike the treeand road of Godot,
whichsuggestvegetationand distance;or the shelterof Endgame,which
looks out on earth and sea; unlike the realistic"one-roomflat..,.at the
top of a large Victorianhouse" of Look Back in Anger,Pinter'srooms,
parts of mysteriousand infiniteseries,are like cells withouta vista. At
the opening curtain, these rooms look naturalistic,meaning no more
thanthe eye can contain.But bythe end of each play,theybecome sealed
containers,virtualcoffins.
Within each Pinterroom,the props seem to be realisticallyfunctional,
and only in retrospectdo theyacquire symbolicsignificance.Consider,
forexample,Pinter'streatmentof such crucial details as food and cloth-
ing, in comparisonwith the casual realism of Osborne, or the frank
symbolismof Beckett.The variouspreparationsfortea in Look Back in
Anger seem to be parallelled by the prosaic cocoa, tea, bread, sand-
wiches,crackersof Pinter's plays; in sharp contrastis the farcical and
stylizedcarrot-turnip-radish"business"of Godot. So too, threemen grab-
bing for an old man's bag in The Caretakerhas few of the symbolic
overtonesof the slapstickjugglingof derbies in Godot.
It is, however,in theirrespectiveuse of that innocuous prop, a pair
of shoes, that the differentsymbolictechniques of Beckett and Pinter
are in mostgraphicevidence.Early in Godot, Vladimirestablishesshoes
as a metaphysicalsymbol: "There's man all over for you, blaming on
his boots the faultsof his feet."At the end of Godot, it is by virtue of
being barefootthat Estragonadmitshe has always comparedhimselfto
Christ. In Pinter's Caretaker,the old man keeps tryingon different
shoes that might enable him to get on the road to Sidcup, where he

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBY COHN 57
claims to have lefthis identitypapers. Each pair of shoes is rejected for
specific misfit-"a bit small," "too pointed," "no laces"-before the
curtain-linesof the play: "they're all right..,.if I was to... get my
papers.., .would you... would you let.., would you.., .if I got down
... and got my...." The finalityof the fragments indicatesthatno shoes
can ever fit,that the journey to Sidcup cannot be made. Thus, the
symbolicsignificanceof the shoes is instantaneouswith Beckett,cumu-
lative with Pinter.
Most crucial to an understandingof Pinter'stheatreis the symbolism
of his characters.For all theirinitiallyrealisticappearance, theircumu-
lative impact embracesthe whole of humanity.In so generalizing,Pinter
extends the meaning of his charactersbeyond such particularsas Os-
borne treats; nevertheless,he does not achieve the metaphysicalscope
upon which Beckett insists,from his opening lines: "Nothing to be
done."
Pinter's defenselessvictimsare a middle-agedwife, a man who asks
too manyquestions,an ex-pianist,a brokenold man. Ruthlesslyrobbed
of any distinction,they come to portraythe human condition. And
Pinter's villains, initially as unprepossessingas the victims,gradually
reveal their insidious significancethroughsome of the most skillful
dialogue on the English stage today.For it is language that betraysthe
villains-more pat, more clichd-ridden,with more brute power than
thatof theirvictims.
Even hostile criticshave commentedon the brilliance of Pinter's di-
alogue, and it is in the lines of his villains that he achieves precise
dramatictimingand economical manipulation of commonplaces.
Rep-
resentativesof the System,Pinter's villains give directexpressionto its
dogma. In the playsof Osborne and Beckett,whichalso implicitlyattack
theSystem,the oppressiveforcesare presentedthroughthe wordsof their
victims.
JimmyPorterof Osborne's Look Back in Anger garbs the Systemin
contemporarycorporatemetaphors:
JIMMY PORTER....the Economicsof the Supernatural.It's all a simple
matterof paymentsand penalties... Reason and Progress,the old
firm,is sellingout. Everyoneget out whilethe going'sgood. Those
forgottensharesyouhad in theold traditions,
theold beliefsare going
up--up and up and up. There's going to be a changeover.A new Board
of Directors,who are going to see that the dividends are
always attrac-
tive,and thattheygo to therightpeople.Sell out everything you've
got;all thosestocksin theold, freeinquiry.The Big Crashis coming,
you can't so
escapeit, get in on thegroundfloorwithHelena and her
friendswhilethere'sstilltime.And thereisn'tmuchofit left.Tell me,

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 The Tulane Drama Review

what could be more gilt-edgedthan the next world! It's a capital gain,
and it s all yours.
Vladimir and Estragon, at the beginning of Beckett's Godot, describe
the invisible deity figure in trivial human terms:

VLADIMIR. Let's wait and see what he says.

ESTRAGON.Who?
VLADIMIR.
Godot.
ESTRAGON.Good idea.
VLADIMIR. Let's wait till we know exactly how we stand.
ESTRAGON. On the other hand it mightbe betterto strikethe iron beforeit
freezes.
VLADIMIR.I'm curious to hear what he has to offer.Then we'll take it or
leave it.
ESTRAGON.What exactlydid we ask him for?... And what did he reply?
VLADIMIR. That he'd see.
ESTRAGON. That he couldn't promise anything.
VLADIMIR. That he'd have to think it over.
ESTRAGON. In the quiet of his home.
VLADIMIR. Consult his family.
ESTRAGON.His friends.
VLADIMIR. His agents.
ESTRAGON. His correspondents.
VLADIMIR. His books.
ESTRAGON.His bank account.... Where do we come in?
VLADIMIR. Come in?
ESTRAGON. Take your time.
VLADIMIR. Come in? On our hands and knees.

In Pinter's Birthday Party, Goldberg and McCann express the System

by echoing modern commonplaces of social success. Pinter damns them
with their own deadly cliches.
GOLDBERG.Between you and me, Stan, it's about time you had a new pair of
glasses.
MCCANN. You can't see straight.
GOLDBERG.It's true. You've been cockeyed for years.
MCCANN. Now you're even more cockeyed.
GOLDBERG.He's right. You've gone from bad to worse.
MCCANN.Worse than worse.
GOLDBERG.You need a long convalescence.
A change of air.
MCCANN.
GOLDBERG.
Somewhere over the rainbow.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBYCOHN 59

MCCANN. Where angelsfearto tread....

We'll make a man of you.
GOLDBERG.
MCCANN.And a woman.
GOLDBERG.You'll be re-orientated.
MCCANN.You'll be rich.
GOLDBERG.You'll be adjusted.
MCCANN.You'll be our pride and joy.
GOLDBERG.You'll be a mensch.
MCCANN.You'll be a success.
GOLDBERG.You'll be integrated.
MCCANN.You'll give orders.
GOLDBERG.You'll make decisions.
MCCANN.You'll be a magnate.
GOLDBERG.A statesman.
MCCANN.
You'll own yachts.
GOLDBERG. Animals.
MCCANN.Animals.

In comparing the three excerpts,we note that Osborne's sustained

metaphorsare almostlyricalwithrebellion,but both Beckettand Pinter
resortto pithy stichomythia.Although the passages are typical of the
techniqueof each play, the respectivetonal differences
depend upon the
dramatic structure.Osborne's satiric hostilityrecurs throughoutLook
Back in Anger,but Beckett'sattitudetowardsGodot is ambivalent.The
quoted excerpt occurs early in the play, when the tramps,in spite of
theirpathetic plight,can still attemptto definethe Systemin familiar
human terms.But by theend of thedrama,man and dietyare poignantly
reduced to theircompulsive,impossible,problematicalinterrelationship:
"in thisimmenseconfusionone thingalone is clear," saysVladimir."We
are waitingforGodot to come."
In the Pinter play, the messengersof the Systemgliblymouth its pat
phrases-increasinglypointed as the dehumanizationof the victimpro-
gresses.In the quoted excerpt,which occurs towards the end of the
drama, the seeminglyirrelevantconclusion, "Animals," corrosivelycli-
maxes the process.
The centralvictim-villainconflictmay be tracedthroughPinter'sfour
plays. In the one-act Room, where the presentationof the human di-
lemma is somewhat diffuse,victim and villain are recognized as such
only at the finalcurtain.Rose and Bert Hudd, wife and husband, alone
onstagewhen the play begins,are almost alone when the curtainfalls-
except forthe stillbody of the blind Negro,whose head Bert has kicked

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 The Tulane Drama Review

against the stove.But it is Rose who is Bert's victim,Rose whose suffer-

ing is sustained throughoutthe play, Rose who is suddenlyand finally
afflictedwith the Negro's blindness.
When the play opens, Rose is busy preparinga realistictea in their
realistic room, while Bert Hudd quietly reads a realistic newspaper.
Bert'ssilence in the face of Rose's disconnectedrambling,seems to be a
lower-class,marital-comedy silence.When Mr. Kidd, the landlord,enters
to look at the pipes, to conversewithhusband and wife,Bert's persistent
and insistentsilence takeson a threateningquality.Mr Kidd talksabout
the house, about the time he used to live in theirroom. Quite suddenly,
room and inhabitantslose their humdrumexterior,and take on new
depth. When Rose asks how many floorsthere are in the house, Mr.
Kidd replies,"Well, to tell you the truth,I don't count themnow."
Close upon thisrejectionof the numerable,Mr. Kidd reminiscesabout
his dead sister,his Jewishmother.There is a sporadic returnto small
talk,as Mr. Kidd admiresBert Hudd's van, his driving.AfterMr. Kidd
leaves, Bert Hudd, in increasinglysinistersilence,goes down to his van.
During his absence, a Mr. and Mrs. Sands come looking for a room; a
man in the basementhas told them therewas one for rent. There is a
confused conversationabout the landlord, whom Mr. Sands mixes up
with Bert,since the names Hudd and Kidd sound alike. Rose's security
is shaken,and she denies the rumorof a vacancy.Mr. Sands insiststhat
the man in the basementhas offeredthemnumberseven-Rose's room.
When the Sands couple leaves, carryingwith them all hint of social
satire,the surfaceplausibilityof thedialogue collapsescompletely.When
Mr. Kidd reinters,Rose pounces upon him to affirmher claim to the
room. But Mr. Kidd can talk only of a mysteriousman in the basement,
who has been waitingforBert Hudd to leave, so thathe can come up to
see Rose. Even as she denies any knowledgeof the man, she consentsto
see him. When a blind Negro enters,Rose screamsthatshe doesn't know
him, that his name is not Riley, as he claims. Riley announces his mes-
sage: "Your fatherwants you to come home." Calling her Sal, Riley
soon shiftsto, "I want you to come home." [My italics] AfterRiley's
final, "Come home now, Sal," Bert Hudd returnsto the room, and
speaks for the firsttime. In short,harsh sentences,he describesdriving
his van throughthe cold streets:"She took me there. She broughtme
back." When Riley addresseshim, "Mr. Hudd, your wife-," Bert cries,
"Licel" He knocksRiley down and kickshis head until he lies still.Rose
stands clutchingher eyes,moaning,"Can't see. I can't see. I can't see."
Of the rival claimantsforRose, Riley and Bert, the latter bludgeons
his way to triumph.Bert's role as villain explodes 'climactically,
forit is

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBY COHN 61

Rileywho firstappearsto menaceRose. But silence,conventional con-

nubial demands,and a van (femalein Bert'slines)are victorious over
the blind Negro father-surrogate.Earlier,the landlord,Mr. Kidd, is
nearlydriven"offhis squiff" byRiley'sinsistanceon seeingRose. With
Bert,however, Mr. Kidd seemsto havereacheda modusvivendi,even
thoughBertneveraddresses him.Mr. Kidd admiresBert'sdrivingabil-
ity;he too speaksof thevan as a woman.Theirverynames,Kidd and
Hudd, soundso muchalike thatoutsiderssuch as the Sands,confuse
themwithone another.It is thepresenceof Rileyagainstwhichboth
Kidd and Hudd react-theformer withterror, thelatterwithviolence.
Although Rileyis kickedunconsciousbyBert,it is Rose-Salwhois Bert's
ultimateprey."A womanof sixty,"garrulousand shuffling, she speaks
disparagingly offoreigners,
dwellson herphysicalcomforts,is ungracious
to theSands,and hostileto Riley.At thelast,she makesno attemptto
defendRileyfromBert,butsuccumbs to herown blindness.,Pinterhas
strippedherofall appealingqualities,so thatanysympathy sheinspires
mustbe rootedin herplight.
Pinter'ssecond play, the one-actDumb Waiter,concentrates even
morepointedly on theplightof thevictim.As in The Room,it is not
immediately evidentwhois victimand whovillain.Sentbyan offstage
Wilson"to do a job," Gus and Ben,theplay'stwocharacters, awaitin-
structionsin a basementroomwhichcontainstwobedsseparatedby a
hatch-a dumb-waiter. Whiletheywait,Gusbusieshimself withprepara-
tionsfora realistictea,and Ben readsthebloodieritemsfroma realistic
newspaper.Their life seemsto lie in theirKafka-like career;.as Gus
summarizes it,"youcomeintoa placewhenit'sstilldark,youcomeinto
a roomyou'veneverseenbefore, yousleepall day,youdo yourjob, and
thenyougo awayin thenightagain."*
Despitethemenaceimplicitin thejob itself,earlydisquieting signs
are plausibleby theirverytriviality:
thetoilethas a deficientballcock,
thebedsheetsaredirty, Gusand Ben cannotsee a football'gamebecause
all teamsare playing"away."Afteran envelopeof matchesis myste-
riouslyslippedunderthedoor,theyquarreltenselyaboutwhether one
* Compare thisdescription
withthatofJimmy Porter's
naturalistic
in Look Back in Anger:"Alwaysthesameritual.Readingthe Sundays
papers,drinking
tea,ironing.A fewmorehours,and anotherweekgone.Our youthis slipping
away."
On theotherhand,observeVladimir's routinein Godot:
clearlymetaphysical
"Tomorrow, when I wake, or thinkI do, what shall I say of today?That with
Estragon my friend,at this place, until the fall of night, I waited for Godot?
That Pozzo passed, with his carrier,and that he spoke to us?
Probably. But in
all thatwhattruthwilltherebe?"

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 The Tulane Drama Review

can say "lightthe kettle,"or mustsay "lightthe gas." Gus unobtrusively

asks a fewquestions of Ben, "the senior partner."The gas goes out be-
foretheirwater boils, and Gus begins to have mutinousthoughtsabout
Wilson, theirboss. He thinkswith distasteof their last job, a girl who
was "a mess"; he wonders who cleans up aftertheir jobs. "It was that
girl made me start to think-," Gus reflects,and is interruptedby a
sudden noise fromthe dumb-waiter.In a box is a note ordering"Two
braised steak and chips." One by one, other notes are sent down the
dumb-waiter,requesting an internationalseries of delicacies. By the
dumb-waiter,Gus sends up their meager tea supplies, comically and
sadly prosaic in the vulgarityof modern brand names: "Three McVitie
and Price! One Lyons Red Labell One Eccles cakel One Fruitand Nut!"
Ben, "the senior partner,"quickly correctsthe Fruit and Nut to "Cad-
bury's."
This task accomplished,Ben conductstheirpreparationsfor the job;
he superintendstheirattireand the cleaningof theirrevolvers.Through
a suddenly discovered speaking tube, he appologizes that they have
nothingmore to send up the dumb-waiter.Humbly, he listens to the
complaintsabout theirservice: "The Eccles cake was stale... The choc-
olate was melted... The milk was sour... The biscuitswere mouldy."
Then, triumphantly, Ben reportsthat theyhave been ordered to light
thekettle:"Not put on thekettle!Not lightthegas! But lightthe kettle!"
However,thereis still no gas.
In finalrehearsalfor the job, theyrecite theirinstructionsabout the
victim:

GUs.He won'tsay a word.

BEN. He'll lookat us.
GUs.And we'll look at him.
BEN. Nobodysaysa word.

Gus goes to the toilet a last time. "The lavatorychain is pulled.., .but
the lavatorydoes not flush."When Gus returns,he reiterateshis uneasy
questions until Ben strikeshim. The dumb-waitertray clattersdown;
Gus reads, "Scampi."
hysterically,
Ben returnsto his newspaper,and Gus exits for a glass of water. As
Ben waits,the toiletflushesbelatedly,and Ben cries,"Gus!"

The doorrightopenssharply.Ben turns,his revolver levelledat thedoor.

Gus stumblesin. He is strippedof hisjacket,waistcoat,
tie,holsterand re-
volver.He stops,bodystooping,hisarmsat hissides.He raiseshishead and
looksat Ben.A longsilence.Theystareat eachother.Curtain.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBY COHN 63

It is because he has not been contentto be a "dumb waiter" that Gus

is destroyed.Althoughonly a junior partner,perhaps because he is only
a junior partner,he has complained about the job, and begun to ask
questions; he has foundWilson "hard to talk to," has even meant to ask
questions of him. But the organizationturns upon Gus before he can
probe or expose it.
Until his firstthree-act
play, The BirthdayParty,the threatsin Pinter's
drama emanate mysteriouslyfrom a vague apparatus of master-mes-
senger-organization. But with his thirdplay, Pinter not only definesthe
enemymore explicitly,but casts a retrospectivelight upon the villains
of the earlier plays. Goldberg and McCann, who representthe System
in The BirthdayParty,do not appear on scene until the end of the
firstact, and until theydo, the livingroom of the Boles' boardinghouse
is Pinter's most photographicallyreal set. Although Stanley Webber's
reaction against the two prospectiveboarders seems disproportionate,
and his reviewof his earlier concertcareer ambiguous,we do not defin-
itivelyleave the realisticsurfaceuntil Goldberg and McCann actually
enterbytheback door. Partnerslike Ben and Gus, theycarryno revolvers,
but pose as casual vacationersin the seaside boardinghouse where
Stanleyhas taken refuge.Their firstmonosyllabicexchange establishes
their relationship:
MCCANN. IS thisit?
GOLDBERG.This is it.
MCCANN.Are you sure?
GOLDBERG.Sure I'm sure.

Their Jewish-Irishnames and dialects suggestsa vaudeville skit,and

it is not long before we realize that that skit is the Judaeo-Christian
traditionas it appears in our presentcivilization.Goldbergis the senior
partner;he uttersthe sacred clich6sof family,class, prudence, propor-
tion.McCann is thebrawnyyes-manwhosestrength reEnforcesGoldberg's
doctrine.
AlthoughMeg and Petey Boles have shelteredStanley in theirhome,
theyare unable to recognize that the sinisternew guests threatenthe
welfareof theirguest. Meg acquiesces joyouslyto Goldberg's suggestion
of a birthdaypartyfor Stanley "to bring him out of himself."Villains
and victim,Goldberg-McCannand Stanleyare not broughtface to face
in Act I, but Stanleyalready begins to feel trapped.
Before the party that fillsAct II, Stanley tries to convince McCann
thathe is not "the sortof bloke to-to cause any trouble,"that it is all
a mistake,that Goldberg and McCann have to leave because theirroom

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 The Tulane Drama Review

is rented.Having forcedStanleyto sit down, Goldberg and, secondarily,

McCann engage in a verbal fencing-match with Stanley,in whichPinter
parodies the contemporaryemptinessof the Judaeo-Christianheritage.
InterruptingStanley'sefforts Meg comesdown readyfor
at self-defense,
the party.In the maudlin mixtureof drinking,pawing,and reminiscing
that follows, a game of Blindman's Buff is played. An increasingly
desperate Stanley tries to strangleMeg, a mother-surrogate, and rape
Lulu, the sexy neighbor,but Goldberg and McCann advance upon him
each time. As Act II closes, "[Stanley's] giggle rises and grows as he
flattenshimselfagainst the wall. Their [Goldberg and McCann] figures
convergeupon him."
Act III is a virtualpost mortem.Goldberg,McCann, and Petey talk
about Stanley's"nervous breakdown."McCann complains to Goldberg
about this job, and Goldberg encourages him by an interweavingof
cliches,in which the Biblical traditionis the warp, and modern success
formulasthe woof: "Play up, play up, and play the game. Honour thy
father and thy mother.All along the line. Follow the line, the line,
McCann, and you can't go wrong."
When McCann finallyushersStanleydown, "dressedin striped trou-
sers, black jacket, and white collar," the victimhas lost the power of
speech, and his glassesare broken.Again, Goldberg and McCann attack
him verbally,in even pithier phrases,but this time they promise him
worldlysuccessif he complies.Stanleyonly gurglesunintelligibly.
"Still the same old Stan," Goldbergpronounces,and he and McCann
startto lead Stanley to an unexplained Monty. When Petey Boles ob-
jects that Stanley can stay on at the boardinghouse,the macabre pair
scornfullyinvite Petey to join them,"Come with us to Monty. There's
plentyof room in the car." An automatonpropped betweenthe partners,
Stanleyis helped out while Petey,broken-hearted, calls, "Stan, don't let
themtell you what to do!" But Goldberg'scar is heard startingup, then
fading into the distance.When Meg Boles comes down with a morning
hangover,Petey does not even tell her Stan is gone, but encouragesher
to dreamof the birthdayparty,at whichshe was the "belle of the ball."
The thread running through all Pinter's plays now appears more
clearly.If we recall The Room in the lightof The BirthdayParty,we see
resemblances between Goldberg and Mr. Kidd, who had a Jewish
mother.Both emphasize the value of property,of progress,of family,
of tradition.Similarly,the Irish names of Riley and McCann seem to
indicate a Christian continuance of the Judaic legacy; in both plays,
they are the weaker members,although never as weak as Gus of The
Dumb Waiter,who is metamorphosedinto a victim.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBY COHN 65

In The BirthdayPartyand The Dumb Waiter,there is a higher,in-

visible power behind the messengers,but Monty remains even more
mysteriousthan Wilson, and more authorityis invested in Goldberg
than in Ben. In all the plays,the motorvan becomes a clear symbolof
modern power. In the firstplay, The Room, the van belongs to Bert
Hudd, but is the object of Mr. Kidd's admiration. In The Birthday
Party,as in The Dumb Waiter, the van is the propertyof one of the
messengers--ineach case, of the dominantand senior partner.It seems
to be theolder,cruelertraditionwhichbestembracesmodernmechaniza-
tion. Only the recalcitrantindividual mustbe quashed.
As thevictim-villainconflictin The Room is somewhatdiffusedby the
sociallysatirizedSands couple, so the Boles couple in The BirthdayParty
provides a comic relief fromthe mountingtension.And yet the latter
couple functionsmore directlyin the symboliccontext,for the Boles
are not, like Mr. Kidd, mere landlords; they provide a temporaryif
tawdryrefugeforStanley.Distastefulas are theattentionsof Meg-mother-
mistress,impersonal as is Petey's presence, the Boles express affection
and concern for Stanley. But human emotions are trickedor brushed
aside by the ruthlessteam of a dogmaticsystem.
In Pinter'slatestplay, The Caretaker,as in the earlierDumb Waiter,
there are no deflectionsfrom the hunting down of victim by villain.
Although none of Pinter's victimsare sentimentalized-Rose is gruff,
Gus has performedbloody deeds beforehe has begun to question them,
Stanleyis ungratefulto Meg-the old man of The Caretakeris perhaps
the least sympatheticof all. He is ready to take anythingfromanyone,
he feels superiorto "them Blacks," he is suspicious of everyone,he re-
peatedly complains that the weather preventshis going to Sidcup for
thepapers whichhe leftthereduringthewar,and whichcan establishhis
identity.
After the opening tableau of The Caretaker,in which the leather-
jacketed Mick slowlyexamines the miscellaneousobjects in the room,
Mick exitswhen he hears voices.Aston entersin worn but conventional
clothes,and afterhim comes the raggedold man, "following,shambling,
breathingheavily."Thrown out of his job and beaten up by a younger
man, old Davies has been rescued by Aston and broughtto the room.
There seemsto be no reason forthiskindness.The old man takes stock
of the scatteredcontentsand inquires about the other rooms in the
house. When Aston replies, "They're out of commission,"we findour-
selvesin familiarPintercountry.Aston invitesthe old man to
sleep with
him in the room, until he gets "fixed up"; he gives him
money and a
key,lets him tryon some old shoes.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 The Tulane Drama Review

Aftera night'ssleep, the conversationis more erratic.When asked

where he was born, the old man replies, "I was... uh... oh, it's a bit
hard, like, to set your mind back.., .see what I mean ... going back...
a good way..,.lose a bit of track,like.., .you know...." When Aston
leaves, the old man examines the various objects in the room. Mick
enters,watchessilently,then suddenlyspringsand forcesthe old man to
the floor."What's the game?" he rasps at the old man, as Act I ends.
In Act II, Mick insistentlyquestions the old man about his name,
while the old man whines to Mick, "I don't know who you are!" Mick
comparesthe old man to variousoutlandishrelativesand acquaintances,
refusingto believe the storyof how he came to thisroom, of which he
announces himselfthe owner, and his brotherAston the tenant. After
Mick makes a long, caustic speech about the rent he intends to collect
fromthe old man, Aston reeinters. When Mick leaves the room Aston
mentionshis do-it-yourself remodeling plans for the house. Abruptly,
Aston suggeststhat the old man become caretakerof the premises,but
the old man thinkshis assumed name may create difficulties.
When the old man next entersthe room, it is dark, and he defends
himselffroman invisible enemywho proves to be Mick with an "elec-
trolux."Friendlynow, Mick confidesto the old man thathe cannot get
Aston, his elder brother,to redecorate the premises.As owner, Mick
offersthe old man a job as caretaker.This time the old man quickly
accepts, but Mick mentions the necessityfor references.Reassuringly,
the old man explains it is merelya question of gettingdown to Sidcup
forhis papers. If only he had a pair of shoes...
Aftera quick blackout,Astonwakens the old man so thathe can start
early for Sidcup, but the old man pleads that the weather is too bad.
Aston closes Act II with a long monologue about his experiences in a
mental hospital.
By Act III, theold man fallsin withthe wildlyambitiousredecorating
schemesof Mick. Since theyhave been living in the same room, Aston
and the old man are mutual sourcesof irritationto each other. Feeling
secure in his relationship with Mick, the old man carps at Aston's
idiosyncrasies. When Aston suggeststhe old man findanother place, he
retorts,"Youl You better find somewhere else." After the old man
threatensAston with a knife,the elder brotherorders,"Get your stuff."
MumblingthatMick will protecthim,theold man leaves temporarily.
But Mick turnson the old man, forAston is his brother.Only if the
old man is an interiordecoratorof great capability,can he stay.When
the old man protestshe is merelya caretaker,Mick accuses him of lying
all the time,boastingabout non-existentaccomplishments. In the future,

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUBY COHN 67

Mick intendsto leave the house entirelyin Aston'shands. "What about

me?" pleads the old man. There is no answeras Aston entersand Mick
leaves; when theypass each other,the two brotherssmile briefly.
The old man attemptsto make peace withAston,and suggestsvarious
compromisesto facilitatetheirliving together,but to all of themAston
replies, "No." He does not need the old man's help, and will not have
him as caretaker.More and more desperate,the old man begs to stay,
but Aston turnshis back on him. As the old man swearsthathe will go
down to Sidcup forhis papers so thathe will have the properreferences
to be caretaker,"Aston remainsstill,his back to him, at the window,"
and thecurtainfallson a "long silence" duringwhichAston is as stone.
AlthoughMick is slang forIrish,it is not clear in The Caretakerthat
Pinter is again designatingthe Christian traditionby an Irish name.
Rather, the two brothersjointly seem to symbolizethe familycompat-
ibilitybetween a religiousheritageand contemporaryvalues. Thus, it
is the elder, conventionallydressed Aston who is a carpenter,with its
evocation of Christ,and it is the leather-jacketedMick who is in the
building trade and owns a motorizedvan. It is Mick who destroysa
statue of Buddha, and who has grandioseschemesfor redecoratingthe
house. Aston'sprojectsare humbler;he has been restoredto competence
by modern treatmentsfor mental deviates; before the end of the play,
he does manage to tar the roof of the room, so it no longer leaks. Al-
thoughMick is presumablythe owner and Aston the inhabitantof the
house, the possessionis finallyleftin doubt. As Mick explains,"So what
it is, it's a finelegal point, that'swhat it is."
In their attitudestowardsthe old man, the human derelict,the two
brotherspresentonly surfacecontrasts.Mick begins by knockinghim
down, whereasAston,instead of allowing him to die in despair,rescues
him, shares his room with him, and opens up hope to him. Both the
brothersname the old man as caretaker,offerhim a kind of
security,
which theyboth subsequentlywithdraw.Mick turnshis back on the old
man forfailingto fulfilla role to whichhe never aspired,but Aston re-
jects him forwhat he is--cantankerous,self-deluded,and desperate.
Of all Pinter'splays,The Caretakermakesthe mostbittercommentary
on the human condition;insteadof allowing an old man to die beaten,
the Systeminsistson tantalizinghim with faint
hope, therebyimmeas-
urably increasinghis final desperate anguish. There is perhaps a pun
contained in the title: the Caretakeris twistedinto a takeron of care,
forcare is thehuman destiny.
Pinter'sdrama savagelyindictsa Systemwhichsportsmaudlin
physical
comforts,vulgar brand names, and vicious vestigesof a religious tradi-

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 The Tulane Drama Review

tion. Pinter'svillains descend frommotorizedvans to close in on their

victimsin stuffy, shabby rooms. The Systemtheyrepresentis as stuffy
and shabby;one cannot, as in Osborne's realisticdramas,marryinto it,
or sneak into it, or even rave against it in self-expressive
anger. The
essenceof the Pintervictimis his finalsputteringhelplessness.
Although Pinter's God-surrogatesare as invisible as Godot, there is
no ambiguityabout theirmessage.They send henchmennot to bless but
to curse,not to redeembut to annihilate.As compared to the long, dull
wait forGodot, Pinter'svictimsare more swiftlystrickenwith a deadly
weapon-the most brilliant and brutal stylizationof contemporary
clich6on the Englishstagetoday.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions