Abstract
“Well, well, and they didn’t even take their clothes off!” As the curtain closed on a performance of Pinter’s Old Times at Guildford,1 this was the first response that floated over to me across the auditorium. The tone was bewildered and somewhat aggrieved and, to a point, one could sympathize: there were two beds all ready, a mood of intense desire, and any number of sexual variations that had been suggested as a possible resolution to the situation. Yet the final tableau presented one woman lying stretched out on one bed, fully clothed; another woman sitting buddha-like on another bed, fully clothed; and one man sitting slumped and bowed over an armchair. In fact the remark pointed to more than taking off clothes; it raised the essential question of the play — what was it that had kept the audience in rapt attention for one and a half hours? In the bewilderment was a demand for some kind of certainty of action, but the play offered neither certainty nor action; only three people talking and disagreeing about their past in post-war London. This past was a time when Kate and Anna seemingly shared a flat together; when Kate and Deeley seemingly met for the first time; when Deeley met Anna at the Wayfarer’s Tavern just off the Brompton Road — or was it at a party in Westbourne Grove? Or both? One of the few things that the three of them seem to agree about is seeing Carol Reed’s film, Odd Man Out, in a fleapit in some obscure neighbourhood of London; but whether Deeley met Kate there at one time or Anna went there with Kate at another, or whether these two times were one time is really another matter altogether.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Harold Pinter, Old Times, (London, 1971), pp. 29–30. All future references to Old Times will be to this edition and included in the text.
It is interesting to note how recent critical studies of Pinter (Martin Esslin, The Peopled Wound: The Work of Harold Pinter, New York, 1970
Katherine H. Burkman, The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter: Its Basis in Ritual, Ohio State University Press, 1971
Alrene Sykes, Harold Pinter, University of Queensland Press, 1970) are least satisfying in their treatments of Landscape and Silence. The reason, I feel, is that none are willing to interrupt fully the pattern of approach they have established for his earlier work and admit Pinter’s total change of emphasis in these plays. Martin Esslin shows himself particularly weak in his approach to Silence (pp. 188–196): despite its deliberately elusive quality, he uses the same approach as he does for the earlier plays, attempting in vain to piece the fragments together to form some kind of coherent narrative on which to base his ideas.
Lois G. Gordon, Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness, University of Missouri Press, 1969 and
Herman T. Schroll, Harold Pinter: A Study of His Reputation (1958–1969) and a Checklist, The Scarecrow Press, 1971 both note perceptively how Pinter has been so subject to “pigeon-holing” and categorization: Landscape and Silence seemed to be his own way of escaping this confinement, and the extensions of Old Times continue this movement outwards.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1993 Hersh Zeifman and Cynthia Zimmerman
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martineau, S. (1993). Pinter’s Old Times: The Memory Game. In: Zeifman, H., Zimmerman, C. (eds) Contemporary British Drama, 1970–90. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10819-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10819-0_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-10821-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-10819-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)