Skip to main content

Cinematic Fidelity and the Forms of Pinter’s Betrayal

  • Chapter
Contemporary British Drama, 1970–90
  • 79 Accesses

Abstract

Pinter’s characters in Betrayal are boring. Preoccupied with children, home, extramarital affairs, tablecloths, and happiness, they recite the lines that have been assigned to them as educated, pampered, polite, moderately cultivated, upper-middle-class Londoners. Even their taste in modern literature is as unexceptional as it is predictable. Though they may occasionally feel obliged to read Yeats on Torcello or to take their summer holidays in the Lake District, what they really enjoy are the mundane little novels about ordinary people much like themselves in “the new Casey or Spinks.”1 Here everything is ordered, fixed, and, above all, contained. Life does not pass these people by; it merely goes on for them. “Betrayal” is in this context a rather lofty word for such bourgeois and unimaginative infidelities. For Pinter’s people in this play only think there is depth to their passions: though their lives are not exactly meaningless, the fact is they are not especially interesting. What is there about this trio, then, that compels us to study in detail every move they make as we reconstruct their sad, sometimes comic, and always ironic chronicle for who-did-what-to-whom, when, where, and under-what-circumstances? To answer these questions we must first take a hard look at some of the dramatic forms Pinter employs so skillfully in this work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Harold Pinter, Betrayal (New York, 1978), p. 116. All subsequent quotations from the play are from this edition.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Harold Pinter and Lawrence M. Bensky, “The Art of the Theater III: Harold Pinter — An Interview,” Paris Review, 10 (Fall 1966), 20.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harold Pinter and Mel Gussow, “A Conversation [Pause] with Harold Pinter,” New York Times Magazine, 5 December 1971, p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Harold Pinter and Mel Gussow, “Harold Pinter: ‘I Started with Two People in a Pub’,” New York Times, 30 December 1979, Sec. 2, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harold Pinter, quoted in John Russell Taylor, “Accident,” Sight and Sound, 35 (1966), 183.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harold Pinter, “Writing for the Theatre,” Evergreen, 8 (Aug.—Sept. 1964), 81.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Enoch Brater, “Time and Memory in Pinter’s Proust Screenplay,” Comparative Drama, 13 (1979), 124.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harold Pinter, quoted in Leslie Garis, “Translating Fowles Into Film,” New York Times Magazine, 30 August 1981, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1993 Hersh Zeifman and Cynthia Zimmerman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brater, E. (1993). Cinematic Fidelity and the Forms of Pinter’s Betrayal. In: Zeifman, H., Zimmerman, C. (eds) Contemporary British Drama, 1970–90. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10819-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics