Harold Pinter as a Modern British Playwright

Pinter’s life spans three distinct periods in British history: the period prior to the outbreak of the second world war in 1939, the post-war period, and the time from the mid-1960s to the present day. Vast changes have occurred during this time, including severe economic depression, World War, the loss of Britain Empire, and a continuing process whereby the country has ought to come to term with its new status in the world, and allied itself to Europe. Dramatists are not simply social historians, and Pinter has firmly resisted any attempt to interpret his place on a purely political or social level. Nevertheless, an author cannot help been influenced to a certain extent by the age in which he lives. This can occur on a superficial level, as when an author uses slang or colloquial language that is firmly linked to one particular society or time; and on a deeper level when an author chooses to examine in his works subjects or ideas that are a particular concern of the age in which he lives. Thus, Shakespeare is very concerned in many of his plays with the role and nature of kingship, naturally enough in an age when the well-being of every person in a country would depend on the efficiency with which a Monarch did his job. Great authors have tended to write on subjects which, though, they might be the concern of their own age, also have a universal significance. Thus, whilst Shakespeare wrote for his contemporaries on the subject of kinship, modern audiences can see in his work wide-ranging comments on the whole nature of good government, a subject which is relevant to every age and generation. This forms one reason so few critics are willing to commit themselves to say that an author such as Pinter will continue to be admired and halted as a great playwright in the future. He is undoubtedly admired today but is often very difficult for people who are themselves a product of the same age as the author to see whether what he is writing significance for theatre audiences.





The possible influence of the 1930s on Pinter's writing appeared in terms of suppressed violence and a sense of menace. The Second World War may well have been an equal influence. Britain occupied an almost unique position in this conflict. It was not invaded, as were France and many other European countries: nor was it left unmarked by direct conflict, as were the United States and many Commonwealth countries. Instead, it was under constant threat by incessant bombing raids. It is not difficult to see the particular atmosphere of these times pervading printers play, especially the early ones. In particular the hidden menace and sudden eruption of violence that has a feature of Pinter's early plays could almost act as an emblem for the state of mind of many Londoners in the 1940s, when air raids could come at any time, people lived constantly under threat, and a few seconds could turn what had been a home into bombs blasted ruin. Here, as in Pinter's play, the enemy was faceless, hostile, and always waiting to pounce. Pinter himself was evacuated and had to leave his home in the war, and the sense of rootlessness, loneliness and isolation that can be seen in a character such as Davis in “The Caretaker” may have its origin in printers own experience as an evacuee. However, it is always dangerous to push the links between an author's work and his life too far, and any suggestion that Pinter’s plays are an attempt to study or evoke the mode of any one particular time should be dismissed. Whatever his plays are, they are much wider in scope than that.






Pinter is often linked with the so-called new wave of British dramatist who came to prominence after 1956. There is no doubt that in the mid-1958 British Drama, which has been relevantly stagnant and backwards-looking for a number of years, was revitalized by the periods of several new young dramatists, with perhaps the most notable being John Osborne, Arnold Wesker and John Arden. During the time the experimental drama was in Vogue.printer has come to be linked with these dramatists. He was born at roughly the sometimes as many of them. He came from a working-class background and started to write plays in mid-1950. Some of his plays were presented at the royal court under the auspices of the English stage company, and much of his work was clearly experimental.However, a glance at some of the major place of the New Wave dramatists, such as Wesker’s “Chicken Soup With Barley”( 1958) and “Chips With Everything” (1962), and Arden’s “Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance’(1959), shows how wide the Gap is that exists between them and Pinter.Their work is often directly political, rebellious and a complaint against class-ridden and hollow society. Many of this is lost on pinter, he is rarely political in his place, hardly concerned about class except directly, and writes about individuals rather than society as a whole.




Much more relevant to the pinter is a study of Samuel Beckett “Waiting For Godot” and those plays which have been described as the drama of absurd. This whole area can be a Nightmare for the inexperienced student, largely because the authors oppositely involved in the movement are often very dissimilar, frequently highly obscure, and have caused some critics to write explanatory books more obscure then the works they were meant to clarify. This school of thought stressed that man is a hollow shell; when non-essential are taken away, there is nothing left at all. people are seen to be filling their lives with routine, trivial things so that they do not have to think about the essential hopelessness of their situation and the basic emptiness of their lives. Seen in this light, man's life is absurd because it is totally without purpose or any aim except that of surviving the next day without coming face to face with the meaningless of existence. This thing need not necessarily be gloomy, as the dramatist point is often that life is only meaningless because its basic nature is not understood. If humans could only face up to the fact that they were alone in the universe with no divine purpose to their lives, then a realistic mode of living could be thought out. However, it is true to say that most of the dramatist show their audience the meaninglessness of life, but give little idea of there being any hope for a new life.




Dramatists of the absurd believed that life was not rational; that it did not follow any law or logical patterns. Their plays often have no plots as such, make nonsense of chronology, and contain obscure or unexplained incidents. Plays of this nature was a great shock to the audiences when they were first performed. Becket’s “Waiting For Godot” has been seen as a play about religion, as a criticism of capitalism, and a play about German-occupied France in the Second World War, to name but a few views. The similarities between the style of Drama and Pinter’s plays such as “The Birthday Party” and “The Caretaker” is clear: the latter are comic, leave audiences confused about the very nature of characters and could not judge the reality of what they say, and their disposition is utterly absurd and pointless. At the same time, they are open to different interpretations. The differences are also there, and that printers plays are more tightly constructed, psychological more probing, and outwardly closer real-life in what they portray. HoweverPinterer has admitted that Becket was a major influence on his writings, and no student of Printer can afford not to have read waiting for Godot if he does so, he may well feel that he is on the ground that is at least partially familiar.




In short, we can say that pinter has been a major influence on modern British Drama and he was something of a revolutionary. Though he has followed Samuel Becket to a little extent, we see that he has relied less on gimmicks and melodramatic stage effects told his audiences more about his characters and made his plays more naturalistic. In physical, outward terms less happens in a latter pinter play, but the difference is merely one of emphasizes just as much is happening inside the minds of his characters. He has managed to keep on surprising his audiences and critics after his first breakthrough, and he cannot be described as anything other than a major figure in the 20th-century drama.