What do you think?
Rate this book
No Man's Land
Do Hirst and Spooner really know each other, or are they performing an elaborate charade? The ambiguity - and the comedy - intensify with the arrival of Briggs and Foster. All four inhabit a no-man's-land between time present and time remembered, between reality and imagination.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
About the author
Harold Pinter
334 books733 followersPlays, including
The Birthday Party
(1958) and
The Dumb Waiter
(1960), of British playwright, screenwriter, and director Harold Pinter create an atmosphere of menace; people awarded him the Nobel Prize for literature in 2005.
This English actor, political activist, and poet ranks of the most influential of modern times.
After publishing poetry and acting in school plays as a teenager in London, Pinter, touring throughout Ireland, began his professional theatrical career in 1951. From 1952, he acted in repertory companies throughout England for a dozen years; he used the stage name David Baron in the late 1950s. Beginning with The Room (1957), first play, of Pinter, his writing career spanned over a half-century and produced 29 original stage plays, 27 screenplays, many dramatic sketches, radio plays, television plays, poetry, one novel, short fiction, essays, speeches, and letters. His best-known plays include The Caretaker (1959), The Homecoming (1964), and Betrayal (1978), each of which he adapted to film. His screenplay adaptations of others' works include The Servant (1963), The Go-Between (1970), The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981), The Trial (1993), and Sleuth (2007). He directed almost 50 stage, television, and film productions and acted extensively in radio, stage, television, and film productions of his own and others' works. Despite frail health after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December 2001, Pinter continued to act on stage and screen, last performing the title role in a critically-acclaimed stage production of Samuel Beckett's one-act monologue Krapp's Last Tape, for the 50th anniversary season of the Royal Court Theatre, in October 2006.
Pinter's dramas often involve strong conflicts among ambivalent characters who struggle for verbal and territorial dominance and for their own versions of the past. Stylistically, these works are marked by theatrical pauses and silences, comedic timing, irony and menace. Thematically ambiguous, they raise complex issues of individual identity oppressed by social forces, language, and vicissitudes of memory. In 1981, Pinter stated that he was not inclined to write plays explicitly about political subjects; yet in the mid-1980s he began writing overtly political plays, reflecting his own heightening political interests and changes in his personal life. This "new direction" in his work and his left-wing political activism stimulated additional critical debate about Pinter's politics. Pinter, his work, and his politics have been the subject of voluminous critical commentary.
Pinter received numerous awards. In addition to the Nobel Prize, he received the Tony Award for Best Play in 1967 for The Homecoming. He was given BAFTA awards, the French Légion d'honneur and 20 honorary degrees. Festivals and symposia have been devoted to him and his work. In awarding the Nobel Prize, the Swedish Academy noted, "That he occupies a position as a modern classic is illustrated by his name entering the language as an adjective used to describe a particular atmosphere and environment in drama: 'Pinteresque'". He died from liver cancer on 24 December 2008. He was buried the following week at Kensal Green Cemetery in North West London.
This English actor, political activist, and poet ranks of the most influential of modern times.
After publishing poetry and acting in school plays as a teenager in London, Pinter, touring throughout Ireland, began his professional theatrical career in 1951. From 1952, he acted in repertory companies throughout England for a dozen years; he used the stage name David Baron in the late 1950s. Beginning with The Room (1957), first play, of Pinter, his writing career spanned over a half-century and produced 29 original stage plays, 27 screenplays, many dramatic sketches, radio plays, television plays, poetry, one novel, short fiction, essays, speeches, and letters. His best-known plays include The Caretaker (1959), The Homecoming (1964), and Betrayal (1978), each of which he adapted to film. His screenplay adaptations of others' works include The Servant (1963), The Go-Between (1970), The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981), The Trial (1993), and Sleuth (2007). He directed almost 50 stage, television, and film productions and acted extensively in radio, stage, television, and film productions of his own and others' works. Despite frail health after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December 2001, Pinter continued to act on stage and screen, last performing the title role in a critically-acclaimed stage production of Samuel Beckett's one-act monologue Krapp's Last Tape, for the 50th anniversary season of the Royal Court Theatre, in October 2006.
Pinter's dramas often involve strong conflicts among ambivalent characters who struggle for verbal and territorial dominance and for their own versions of the past. Stylistically, these works are marked by theatrical pauses and silences, comedic timing, irony and menace. Thematically ambiguous, they raise complex issues of individual identity oppressed by social forces, language, and vicissitudes of memory. In 1981, Pinter stated that he was not inclined to write plays explicitly about political subjects; yet in the mid-1980s he began writing overtly political plays, reflecting his own heightening political interests and changes in his personal life. This "new direction" in his work and his left-wing political activism stimulated additional critical debate about Pinter's politics. Pinter, his work, and his politics have been the subject of voluminous critical commentary.
Pinter received numerous awards. In addition to the Nobel Prize, he received the Tony Award for Best Play in 1967 for The Homecoming. He was given BAFTA awards, the French Légion d'honneur and 20 honorary degrees. Festivals and symposia have been devoted to him and his work. In awarding the Nobel Prize, the Swedish Academy noted, "That he occupies a position as a modern classic is illustrated by his name entering the language as an adjective used to describe a particular atmosphere and environment in drama: 'Pinteresque'". He died from liver cancer on 24 December 2008. He was buried the following week at Kensal Green Cemetery in North West London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
February 11, 2017
No Man's Land is by turns mysterious, poetic, funny and alienating, but mostly it is just mysterious. Pinter's plays do tend to be somewhat open to interpretation, but this one in particular strikes me as gratuitously enigmatic, impenetrable even.
A man, Spooner, an odd-job man and poet, is just someone from the pub who may or may not have known the central character, Hirst, at university, may or may not have had lovers in common or may just be a total stranger. Possibly Hirst, a writer of fame and glory, in his extreme inebrity, just mistook him for someone he once knew, with Spooner playing up to that. What Spooner certainly does is attempt to shake up the placid and unthinking stagnation of Hirst's luxurious life in leafy, expensive and unchanging Hampstead, where Hirst who no longer writes, but waits for death, forever drunk, forever indulged.
Hirst's two manservants, Foster and Briggs might be lovers or might be sleazy accomplices in keeping Hirst drunk and incapable whilst they do whatever it is they do without his knowledge. One is charming, one is a thug, does this have any bearing on anything or are they just (un)consciously the 'light' relief?
Is this about memory, or truth, or the battle for power, or how money is a cushion against existential crises such as nowhere to live, no money for food, or another bottle of whisky? Or is it about how no matter what changes, nothing changes, we are all alone in a no-man's land which 'remains forever, icy and silent'?
Rewritten Feb 11th 2017
A man, Spooner, an odd-job man and poet, is just someone from the pub who may or may not have known the central character, Hirst, at university, may or may not have had lovers in common or may just be a total stranger. Possibly Hirst, a writer of fame and glory, in his extreme inebrity, just mistook him for someone he once knew, with Spooner playing up to that. What Spooner certainly does is attempt to shake up the placid and unthinking stagnation of Hirst's luxurious life in leafy, expensive and unchanging Hampstead, where Hirst who no longer writes, but waits for death, forever drunk, forever indulged.
Hirst's two manservants, Foster and Briggs might be lovers or might be sleazy accomplices in keeping Hirst drunk and incapable whilst they do whatever it is they do without his knowledge. One is charming, one is a thug, does this have any bearing on anything or are they just (un)consciously the 'light' relief?
Is this about memory, or truth, or the battle for power, or how money is a cushion against existential crises such as nowhere to live, no money for food, or another bottle of whisky? Or is it about how no matter what changes, nothing changes, we are all alone in a no-man's land which 'remains forever, icy and silent'?
Rewritten Feb 11th 2017
December 17, 2016
Talk about dream casting:
I saw a live screening of this last night at the theatre I work at. Yes, I work at a theatre. I get paid to watch shows. I’m supposed to be keeping an eye on the audience to make sure they behave themselves. They almost always do, so I can sit back and enjoy the performance. It’s not a very hard job.
I read this play a number of years ago now, and all it did was bewilder me. I had no idea what was going on. Well, I had some ideas, but it’s one of those plays where there is no definitive interpretation: its left open for the audience to try and decipher what is going on. Watching a performance of it did help things. I can make a few guesses as to what I think this play is about, but that could be just this particular version's interpretation of certain events. They could have leaned on certain aspects and presented them slightly differently.
So here’s what we know: two old men return from a pub. They’ve just met each other for the first time. They have a few drinks and spend some time getting to know each other. They have a similar past, they’re both poets and both of their wives have left them at some point in their lives. Hirst (Sir Patrick Stewarts’ character) has an emotional breakdown as Spooner breaks through the surface of his cold shell. They still act like they don’t know each other. They go to bed, Spooner is locked on the stage (front room) for the night and darkness ensures.
The next day Hirst greets Spooner like he is an old friend; he recollects this man from his past and begins to reveal secret affairs he was involved in under his friend’s nose. So why the sudden shift? There are a few ways to take this. Either the characters were pretending- playing a little dance with one and another- or Hirst is mentally ill. There are suggests of early on-set dementia in his dialogue. The set used in this version reminded me of a prison or a closed-in mind where the walls are slowly coming in. The characters are trapped here for their own reasons.
“You are in no man's land. Which never moves, which never changes, which never grows older, but remains forever, icy and silent.”
Hirst has some incredible lines; lines that make you question the reality of this play. At one point I considered that the entire thing may be a fabrication of his consciousness. None of these people are here, only he sits in this room working out his daemons. The characters are people from his past, people he once met, people he could have once been and people he wants to reconcile with. It’s hard to decipher. But I think this reading does have some faults and merits. Then there are the war associations, the nuclear disarmament badge that Spooner wears and the frequent reference to what the characters were doing during the war. How does this tie in with the title? The true remarkability of this play is that is there so much more to it than it initially appears. I want to watch it again, and read it again to see if I can read between the lines and figure it all out. I don't think I'll be able to though!
I saw a live screening of this last night at the theatre I work at. Yes, I work at a theatre. I get paid to watch shows. I’m supposed to be keeping an eye on the audience to make sure they behave themselves. They almost always do, so I can sit back and enjoy the performance. It’s not a very hard job.
I read this play a number of years ago now, and all it did was bewilder me. I had no idea what was going on. Well, I had some ideas, but it’s one of those plays where there is no definitive interpretation: its left open for the audience to try and decipher what is going on. Watching a performance of it did help things. I can make a few guesses as to what I think this play is about, but that could be just this particular version's interpretation of certain events. They could have leaned on certain aspects and presented them slightly differently.
So here’s what we know: two old men return from a pub. They’ve just met each other for the first time. They have a few drinks and spend some time getting to know each other. They have a similar past, they’re both poets and both of their wives have left them at some point in their lives. Hirst (Sir Patrick Stewarts’ character) has an emotional breakdown as Spooner breaks through the surface of his cold shell. They still act like they don’t know each other. They go to bed, Spooner is locked on the stage (front room) for the night and darkness ensures.
The next day Hirst greets Spooner like he is an old friend; he recollects this man from his past and begins to reveal secret affairs he was involved in under his friend’s nose. So why the sudden shift? There are a few ways to take this. Either the characters were pretending- playing a little dance with one and another- or Hirst is mentally ill. There are suggests of early on-set dementia in his dialogue. The set used in this version reminded me of a prison or a closed-in mind where the walls are slowly coming in. The characters are trapped here for their own reasons.
“You are in no man's land. Which never moves, which never changes, which never grows older, but remains forever, icy and silent.”
Hirst has some incredible lines; lines that make you question the reality of this play. At one point I considered that the entire thing may be a fabrication of his consciousness. None of these people are here, only he sits in this room working out his daemons. The characters are people from his past, people he once met, people he could have once been and people he wants to reconcile with. It’s hard to decipher. But I think this reading does have some faults and merits. Then there are the war associations, the nuclear disarmament badge that Spooner wears and the frequent reference to what the characters were doing during the war. How does this tie in with the title? The true remarkability of this play is that is there so much more to it than it initially appears. I want to watch it again, and read it again to see if I can read between the lines and figure it all out. I don't think I'll be able to though!
February 11, 2017
[A claustrophobically enclosed room. HIRST, SPOONER, FOSTER, BRIGGS]
HIRST: Well?
SPOONER: Oh, quite, quite, don't mind if I do.
[He ambles towards the open bottle of scotch on the buffet, but finds FOSTER in his way]
FOSTER: That's not what the boss means.
[BRIGGS nods, but HIRST shakes his head disapprovingly]
HIRST: I'm sorry Spooner. No way to treat a friend. We would never have tolerated this behaviour at Oxford, would we old chap? [He has taken the bottle himself and poured out a couple of glasses] There you go. Now get on with it.
SPOONER: Get on with it?
HIRST: Interpret the play! Show us your learning, your breadth of culture, your eloquence, your insight and understanding! Dazzle us with your verbal pyrotechnics and metaphysical conjuring tricks! [He pauses to swallow a good half of his drink] Or not.
BRIGGS: As the case may be. Depending on your mood.
FOSTER: And your capabilities.
HIRST: Exactly.
SPOONER: Well... er... [he takes a sip from his glass] evidently, er, evidently one is reminded of Sartre. Huis clos. L'enfer, c'est les autres. Hell... [he takes another sip] is other people.
BRIGGS: But that depends, don't it?
FOSTER: On whether other people are hell.
[He and BRIGGS move menacingly towards SPOONER, but HIRST stays them with a wave of his hand]
HIRST: Gentleman, please. I am sure our guest's reflections were generic and philosophical rather than coarsely personal. Continue.
SPOONER: And, er, needless to say one is impressed by Pinter's skill as a writer. One might say overwhelmed even. Watching him standing nonchalantly in front of the wicket, thwacking every ball towards the boundary, you're happy if you even manage to field a couple of them.
HIRST: Well done sir, well done!
SPOONER: In fact, the whole play is about language.
FOSTER: [sarcastically] Oh yeah, right. Missed that.
SPOONER: [starting to hit his stride] But of course it is! From a deconstructionist viewpoint, from the angle of archi-écriture, we can see how more often than not the characters do not use language, but are used by it. Submerged in a dense web of habit and allusion, their lines make local sense but are globally meaningless. In this way, Pinter suggests--
FOSTER: I don't like "submerged in a web". It's a, wotsit--
HIRST: Mixed metaphor.
BRIGGS: That's it. The cricket's fine, yer know, thematic like. But this--
HIRST: A good point, Foster, but we must let our guest conclude.
SPOONER: Thank you. [He gulps down the rest of his drink and dashes on] And finally, from the standpoint of feminism and post-colonialism, doesn't the play at every moment underline the centrality of the relationship between violence and language? In the exchanges, suffused with unstated but tangible menace and carried out in a Saussurian no man's land where all normative links between signifier and signified have been cut, we see how the parameters of communication, the semantic framework itself, are determined by hegemonic rather than linguistic structures.
[A long pause]
HIRST: And?
SPOONER: And... and nothing. That's it. I'm finished.
HIRST: [to BRIGGS and FOSTER] So what did you make of that, boys?
BRIGGS: Bollocks.
FOSTER: Complete fucking bollocks.
HIRST: I'm afraid I must agree with you. I have never heard such cunt-faced lunacy in my life.
[He gets slowly to his feet. As HIRST, FOSTER and BRIGGS advance on SPOONER, the lights abruptly go out, leaving the stage in pitch blackness]
CURTAIN
HIRST: Well?
SPOONER: Oh, quite, quite, don't mind if I do.
[He ambles towards the open bottle of scotch on the buffet, but finds FOSTER in his way]
FOSTER: That's not what the boss means.
[BRIGGS nods, but HIRST shakes his head disapprovingly]
HIRST: I'm sorry Spooner. No way to treat a friend. We would never have tolerated this behaviour at Oxford, would we old chap? [He has taken the bottle himself and poured out a couple of glasses] There you go. Now get on with it.
SPOONER: Get on with it?
HIRST: Interpret the play! Show us your learning, your breadth of culture, your eloquence, your insight and understanding! Dazzle us with your verbal pyrotechnics and metaphysical conjuring tricks! [He pauses to swallow a good half of his drink] Or not.
BRIGGS: As the case may be. Depending on your mood.
FOSTER: And your capabilities.
HIRST: Exactly.
SPOONER: Well... er... [he takes a sip from his glass] evidently, er, evidently one is reminded of Sartre. Huis clos. L'enfer, c'est les autres. Hell... [he takes another sip] is other people.
BRIGGS: But that depends, don't it?
FOSTER: On whether other people are hell.
[He and BRIGGS move menacingly towards SPOONER, but HIRST stays them with a wave of his hand]
HIRST: Gentleman, please. I am sure our guest's reflections were generic and philosophical rather than coarsely personal. Continue.
SPOONER: And, er, needless to say one is impressed by Pinter's skill as a writer. One might say overwhelmed even. Watching him standing nonchalantly in front of the wicket, thwacking every ball towards the boundary, you're happy if you even manage to field a couple of them.
HIRST: Well done sir, well done!
SPOONER: In fact, the whole play is about language.
FOSTER: [sarcastically] Oh yeah, right. Missed that.
SPOONER: [starting to hit his stride] But of course it is! From a deconstructionist viewpoint, from the angle of archi-écriture, we can see how more often than not the characters do not use language, but are used by it. Submerged in a dense web of habit and allusion, their lines make local sense but are globally meaningless. In this way, Pinter suggests--
FOSTER: I don't like "submerged in a web". It's a, wotsit--
HIRST: Mixed metaphor.
BRIGGS: That's it. The cricket's fine, yer know, thematic like. But this--
HIRST: A good point, Foster, but we must let our guest conclude.
SPOONER: Thank you. [He gulps down the rest of his drink and dashes on] And finally, from the standpoint of feminism and post-colonialism, doesn't the play at every moment underline the centrality of the relationship between violence and language? In the exchanges, suffused with unstated but tangible menace and carried out in a Saussurian no man's land where all normative links between signifier and signified have been cut, we see how the parameters of communication, the semantic framework itself, are determined by hegemonic rather than linguistic structures.
[A long pause]
HIRST: And?
SPOONER: And... and nothing. That's it. I'm finished.
HIRST: [to BRIGGS and FOSTER] So what did you make of that, boys?
BRIGGS: Bollocks.
FOSTER: Complete fucking bollocks.
HIRST: I'm afraid I must agree with you. I have never heard such cunt-faced lunacy in my life.
[He gets slowly to his feet. As HIRST, FOSTER and BRIGGS advance on SPOONER, the lights abruptly go out, leaving the stage in pitch blackness]
CURTAIN
August 3, 2016
After reading this play three times in the last 24 hours, I'm convinced that it is one of the great modern feats of language. It's at once an absurdist comedy and a surreal drama, though neither of those definitions do justice to the play whatsoever. It's just so weird, so funny, so profound and beautifully poetic. There are numerous memorable lines that are both hilarious and insightful. This is a comedic and linguistic masterpiece.
December 1, 2014
3.5, really. I should think this was a solid 4 stars if I understood it more. As is, I loved the word play and trickery and the way the characters sympathized yet antagonized each other in a playful but malicious manner. Ultimately, it reminded me of when my siblings and I meet for the holidays. While we all "know" each other because of the common denominator of all coming from the same womb, none of us truly know who each other are. Perhaps that is the point of this play. What is it exactly that we know of another person?
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
August 14, 2019
I don't understand it, but I think I like it. Not as much as I like Beckett, who is also bleakly funny and hard to assign definite meanings to.
A few years ago in our little town this was put on with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan as the principals. Needless to say, it became quite a hot ticket. People who normally don't go to the theater, let alone go see a Pinter play, were scrambling for tickets, perhaps expecting Captain Picard and Gandalf.
Because this audience wasn't sure how to react, so they laughed. A lot. A bit uncomfortably, but they laughed. Interviews with the actors indicated that they were a bit surprised by the reaction, but enjoyed it. It gave them a chance to ham it up and maybe see the show differently themselves.
After the little try-out in our town, they moved on to NYC and London, where I suspect the audience reaction wasn't quite the same.
I'm hearing Patti LuPone singing: ... A matinee, a Pinter play, Perhaps a piece of Mahler's. I'll drink to that.
A few years ago in our little town this was put on with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan as the principals. Needless to say, it became quite a hot ticket. People who normally don't go to the theater, let alone go see a Pinter play, were scrambling for tickets, perhaps expecting Captain Picard and Gandalf.
Because this audience wasn't sure how to react, so they laughed. A lot. A bit uncomfortably, but they laughed. Interviews with the actors indicated that they were a bit surprised by the reaction, but enjoyed it. It gave them a chance to ham it up and maybe see the show differently themselves.
After the little try-out in our town, they moved on to NYC and London, where I suspect the audience reaction wasn't quite the same.
I'm hearing Patti LuPone singing: ... A matinee, a Pinter play, Perhaps a piece of Mahler's. I'll drink to that.
April 27, 2016
I'm going to the theatre to see the marvellous Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart perform this play, and thought I should actually read it before I see it so I have an idea what it's about.
This is a very funny play - excellent word-play and comedic stance, which I find very typical of Pinter generally. It's also very poignant about depression and hints to past horrors that all characters have witnessed or partook in.
An excellent play and I can't wait to see it performed, even if I can't figure out which character Stewart and McKellen will be portraying.
This is a very funny play - excellent word-play and comedic stance, which I find very typical of Pinter generally. It's also very poignant about depression and hints to past horrors that all characters have witnessed or partook in.
An excellent play and I can't wait to see it performed, even if I can't figure out which character Stewart and McKellen will be portraying.
March 30, 2016
Read this now in anticipation of the McKellan/Stewart production which we have just got tickets for. Found it very funny at the beginning; it gets wonderfully strange - just as things start to fall into place there is a shift. Off to read more Pinter!
November 10, 2021
In this two-act play, a well-off mature gentleman, Hirst, is hosting another man, Spooner, of similar age but from a more humble background. Topics like language, memory, youth ,and the past come up in their chats. Our two leads are then joined by two younger men who appear to be Hirst's caretakers. But when the curtain goes up again for Act II, everything about Hirst and Spooner seem to contradict what we know...
Reading this short script can be a curious, disorienting experience but watching the performance, even only on a screen*, is a far richer experience with all the facial expressions and body languages adding subtleties and so, so much humor. I almost yelled "Bravo" after the viewing, an unexpected reaction as I had read (and mildly disliked) the script. Perhaps unconventional plays are just meant to be performed and watched, more so for plays with little stage direction, like Pinter's .
*A recorded performance by National Theatre of the UK
Reading this short script can be a curious, disorienting experience but watching the performance, even only on a screen*, is a far richer experience with all the facial expressions and body languages adding subtleties and so, so much humor. I almost yelled "Bravo" after the viewing, an unexpected reaction as I had read (and mildly disliked) the script. Perhaps unconventional plays are just meant to be performed and watched, more so for plays with little stage direction, like Pinter's .
*A recorded performance by National Theatre of the UK
Read
March 20, 2024How much do I adore plays I cannot comprehend even after consuming them only twice!! (Part 2)
February 16, 2022
FEBRUARY
25.
by
Harold Pinter
Finish date: 15 February 2022
Genre: Play
Rating: B
Review:
Good news: Two ageing writers: Hirst is a wealthy but crippled by his memories
...early stages of dementia. Spooner re-invents himself from memory as he goes along. The two old men reminisce about cottages they may have had. Pinter mocks social privilege of the upper class in England The lively conversation soon turns into a revealing power game. when two servants, Briggs and Foster enter the room. The relationships among these men are exposed, with trouble and hilarity. It’s a bleak, disturbing, small, intense and bitter play also very funny!
Good news: Style: Witty banter; awkward pauses (intentional to "wake up the audience".
Language is used as a weapon. Memory...or lack of is not just as a dramatic device ....but as a key to understanding of the play. Title and end of play: No Man's Land (reference to dementia)
Personal:
Strong point: this play whose dialogue is 'fueled with alcohol'
It will make you laugh....and touch a heart string.
Strong point: Language is a like a cross-word puzzle...at times confusing.
Weak point: it must be seen on stage...and preferably with
...great actors like McKellen and Stewart!
What did I learn by reading this play?
Literary device: subtext
Pinter, however, preferred to focus on the subtext and tension beneath dialogue.
Example subtext in No Man’s Land:
Spooner asks Hirst if he often hangs "around Hampstead Heath"
and the pub Jack Straw’s Castle.
Both are notorious for homosexual activity in the 1960s and ‘70s.
Something one might miss...but this subtext is there.
25.
by
Harold PinterFinish date: 15 February 2022
Genre: Play
Rating: B
Review:
Good news: Two ageing writers: Hirst is a wealthy but crippled by his memories
...early stages of dementia. Spooner re-invents himself from memory as he goes along. The two old men reminisce about cottages they may have had. Pinter mocks social privilege of the upper class in England The lively conversation soon turns into a revealing power game. when two servants, Briggs and Foster enter the room. The relationships among these men are exposed, with trouble and hilarity. It’s a bleak, disturbing, small, intense and bitter play also very funny!
Good news: Style: Witty banter; awkward pauses (intentional to "wake up the audience".
Language is used as a weapon. Memory...or lack of is not just as a dramatic device ....but as a key to understanding of the play. Title and end of play: No Man's Land (reference to dementia)
Personal:
Strong point: this play whose dialogue is 'fueled with alcohol'
It will make you laugh....and touch a heart string.
Strong point: Language is a like a cross-word puzzle...at times confusing.
Weak point: it must be seen on stage...and preferably with
...great actors like McKellen and Stewart!
What did I learn by reading this play?
Literary device: subtext
Pinter, however, preferred to focus on the subtext and tension beneath dialogue.
Example subtext in No Man’s Land:
Spooner asks Hirst if he often hangs "around Hampstead Heath"
and the pub Jack Straw’s Castle.
Both are notorious for homosexual activity in the 1960s and ‘70s.
Something one might miss...but this subtext is there.
May 8, 2017
45. No Man’s Land by Harold Pinter
I was terribly disappointed in this after the great screenplay he did for the French Lieutenant’s Woman. This four male character play is not very engaging unless you are fond of trying to carry on a conversation in a dementia ward. Maybe it had something going for it when it was released in 1974 or maybe I expect too much (e.g., plot, action, interesting characters), none of which were evident in the script. Two old geezers, who may or may not know each, drink through a night, and reconnect in the morning, talking about their earlier lives and not very interesting regrets. They are accompanied by their servants, who might as well be keepers. There was a recent revival of the play in Britain, starring Ian MacKellan and Patrick Stewart, but I don’t think that even they could rescue the torpid script. It is said that this play explores the limbo between life and death and reading it was purgatory. This one should be no reader’s land.
I was terribly disappointed in this after the great screenplay he did for the French Lieutenant’s Woman. This four male character play is not very engaging unless you are fond of trying to carry on a conversation in a dementia ward. Maybe it had something going for it when it was released in 1974 or maybe I expect too much (e.g., plot, action, interesting characters), none of which were evident in the script. Two old geezers, who may or may not know each, drink through a night, and reconnect in the morning, talking about their earlier lives and not very interesting regrets. They are accompanied by their servants, who might as well be keepers. There was a recent revival of the play in Britain, starring Ian MacKellan and Patrick Stewart, but I don’t think that even they could rescue the torpid script. It is said that this play explores the limbo between life and death and reading it was purgatory. This one should be no reader’s land.
February 1, 2014
I gave this five stars because I'm such a fan of the way Pinter writes - even if I haven't really got a clue what he's going on about.
At first I started thinking it was some kind of post-traumatic stress thing happening, then I remembered who I was reading and thought more likely it was just some elaborate ploy that all the characters are involved in. Still, who knows?
Anyway, I really enjoyed the writing and the characters, and can't wait to see it come to life when I watch it performed on Broadway next week :D
At first I started thinking it was some kind of post-traumatic stress thing happening, then I remembered who I was reading and thought more likely it was just some elaborate ploy that all the characters are involved in. Still, who knows?
Anyway, I really enjoyed the writing and the characters, and can't wait to see it come to life when I watch it performed on Broadway next week :D
October 21, 2014
" بعض الناس يبدو لك أنهم أقوياء، بل و يستطيعون إقناعك بوجهة نظرهم و رأيهم في مقومات القوة..
و لكنهم مع ذلك يعيشون داخل فكرة القوة فحسب دون أن يكونوا أقوياء حقًا .. فكل ما لديهم هو الحنكة المكتسبة لا القوة الحقيقية . أي أنهم استطاع��ا أن يخلقوا لأنفسهم أدوارًا محسوبة بدقة و أن يحافظوا علي هذه الأدوار .. و لا يستطيع إلا الأذكياء و النبهاء أن يزيلو الأقنعة عن هذه الأدوار.. و يكتشفوا حقيقة الضعف الذي يخفونه تحتها "
و لكنهم مع ذلك يعيشون داخل فكرة القوة فحسب دون أن يكونوا أقوياء حقًا .. فكل ما لديهم هو الحنكة المكتسبة لا القوة الحقيقية . أي أنهم استطاع��ا أن يخلقوا لأنفسهم أدوارًا محسوبة بدقة و أن يحافظوا علي هذه الأدوار .. و لا يستطيع إلا الأذكياء و النبهاء أن يزيلو الأقنعة عن هذه الأدوار.. و يكتشفوا حقيقة الضعف الذي يخفونه تحتها "
October 5, 2016
Reading this for the play starring Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart in London. I don't think much of the script itself, but perhaps the performance will change that. I imagine Ian McKellen as Spooner, the homeless, and Patrick Stewart as Hirst, the wealthy one.
August 2, 2022
fantastic
This play explores the subtext of language and familiarities to present a story of two men, possibly lovers, definitely friends and romantic rivals, who are connecting for the first time and reconnecting for the first time in a long time.
This play explores the subtext of language and familiarities to present a story of two men, possibly lovers, definitely friends and romantic rivals, who are connecting for the first time and reconnecting for the first time in a long time.
September 4, 2016
Two men drink and talk bs. Two more men enter. Nothing happens, except they drink more. I don't get it.
Sorry, Mr. Pinter, you're not my cup of tea.
Sorry, Mr. Pinter, you're not my cup of tea.
April 14, 2023
Deeply, deeply complex, fascinating, insightful, and… complex. I can tell I’ll be reading and marvelling over this for the rest of my life.
September 10, 2023
Linguists have suggested that both the language we speak & the the manner in which we speak it shape the way we view the world, influence the way we think. Obviously, there are languages that put an English speaker at a distance in the process of translation because of the lack of clear equivalences. Things can be treated differently depending on the syntax of a particular language.
But what if language acts as a barrier even within a common language, as is the case with Harold Pinter's plays? In No Man's Land, the two main characters, Hirst & Spooner, hold language in common but always seem to be translating the other's words. It isn't ever clear if in fact they even know each other, or have merely invented a shared past, perhaps out of boredom, or even harbor nefarious intentions.
Such settings that are labeled "Pinteresque", with language a kind of verbal jousting, words in search of some advantage & with roles at times reversed in the process. The words can convey a sense of menace that may be real or imaginary, with long pauses to emphasize the potential impact of the words, while never appearing to deliver greater meaning. And at the same time, the situations can also seem quite comic, if only because the language employed lacks clarity.
I saw No Man's Land with Sir John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson in the lead roles at Wyndham's Theatre in London ages ago but remembered virtually nothing, in spite of the superior cast. I only recalled that it seemed to involve a kind of linguistic see-saw. Viewing the play again with a much less-heralded cast, the play seemed far more potent, perhaps because I am now closer to the age of the main characters.
Two older English men are having drinks in the home of one of them, a man named Hirst, with the guest, Spooner, either an old friend or a hanger-on in search of some advantage. They exchange thoughts about their past that seem not to point to any real bond between them. Or, do they in fact have a shared past, perhaps as classmates at Oxford &/or as members of the same club?
The words have a latent potency however:
Early on, Hirst speaks of his role in the war & seems fascinated that in his church, there are garlands hung for unmarried women who died as virgins, “wearing the white flower of a blameless life.” To this Spooner, who later dialogue reveals may have had an intimate relationship with Hirst's former wife, responds:
There are also two younger men, Foster & Briggs, hovering about & it is unclear if they are officially servants, factotums/odd-job men, personal assistants or something more complex, except that one of them serves as a cook. Both men appear in league with each other & seem to exert authority in the household but in a vague sort of way, sometimes subservient & at other moments brash & dismissive of their employer, Hirst.
In the midst of an exchange with Spooner, Hirst comments: "I'm in the last lap of a race I'd long since forgotten to run." He goes on to relate to Spooner a strange dream in which he is walking towards a lake & being followed through the trees. He then sees a body floating in the water. But upon closer inspection, he is mistaken. There is in fact nothing in the water. "I saw a body drowning but I am mistaken. There is nothing there."
After another pause & at play's end, Spooner responds:
Ultimately, the fluidity & ambiguity of roles within No Man's Land seem less important than the words Nobel laureate Harold Pinter uses to color his characters. Is memory in any sense reliable, or do we often fictionalize real-life events? Beyond that, do words matter as much as the individual interpretation of them?
No Man's Land is a play that either before or after viewing is much-enhanced by a reading of the playscript, perhaps more than once. It is quite definitely a dramatic work I was glad to get back in touch with. What caught my attention was that the play seemed less menacing than other Pinter works, while at the same time full of a particular kind of counter-balancing humor.
*Within my review is a photo image of Harold Pinter and two images from productions of the Pinter play, the 2nd during the summer of 2023 at Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago.
But what if language acts as a barrier even within a common language, as is the case with Harold Pinter's plays? In No Man's Land, the two main characters, Hirst & Spooner, hold language in common but always seem to be translating the other's words. It isn't ever clear if in fact they even know each other, or have merely invented a shared past, perhaps out of boredom, or even harbor nefarious intentions.
Such settings that are labeled "Pinteresque", with language a kind of verbal jousting, words in search of some advantage & with roles at times reversed in the process. The words can convey a sense of menace that may be real or imaginary, with long pauses to emphasize the potential impact of the words, while never appearing to deliver greater meaning. And at the same time, the situations can also seem quite comic, if only because the language employed lacks clarity.
I saw No Man's Land with Sir John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson in the lead roles at Wyndham's Theatre in London ages ago but remembered virtually nothing, in spite of the superior cast. I only recalled that it seemed to involve a kind of linguistic see-saw. Viewing the play again with a much less-heralded cast, the play seemed far more potent, perhaps because I am now closer to the age of the main characters.
Two older English men are having drinks in the home of one of them, a man named Hirst, with the guest, Spooner, either an old friend or a hanger-on in search of some advantage. They exchange thoughts about their past that seem not to point to any real bond between them. Or, do they in fact have a shared past, perhaps as classmates at Oxford &/or as members of the same club?
The words have a latent potency however:
I have seen this before. The door unlocked. The entrance of a stranger. The offer of alms. The shark in the water.Followed by silence & then later:
I have known this before. The voice unheard. A listener. The command from an upper floor.I sensed more than faint echoes of T.S. Eliot's "Prufrock", while some of the verbal interchange seems lifted from the Theater of the Absurd.
Early on, Hirst speaks of his role in the war & seems fascinated that in his church, there are garlands hung for unmarried women who died as virgins, “wearing the white flower of a blameless life.” To this Spooner, who later dialogue reveals may have had an intimate relationship with Hirst's former wife, responds:
I am enraptured. Tell me more. Tell me about the quaint little perversions of your life & times. Tell me more, withal the authority & brilliance you can muster, about the socio-economic-political structure of the environment in which you attained to the age of reason.
There are also two younger men, Foster & Briggs, hovering about & it is unclear if they are officially servants, factotums/odd-job men, personal assistants or something more complex, except that one of them serves as a cook. Both men appear in league with each other & seem to exert authority in the household but in a vague sort of way, sometimes subservient & at other moments brash & dismissive of their employer, Hirst.
In the midst of an exchange with Spooner, Hirst comments: "I'm in the last lap of a race I'd long since forgotten to run." He goes on to relate to Spooner a strange dream in which he is walking towards a lake & being followed through the trees. He then sees a body floating in the water. But upon closer inspection, he is mistaken. There is in fact nothing in the water. "I saw a body drowning but I am mistaken. There is nothing there."
After another pause & at play's end, Spooner responds:
No. You are in no man's land. Which never moves, which never grows old, but which remains forever icy & silent.To which Hirst says, "I'll drink to that."
Ultimately, the fluidity & ambiguity of roles within No Man's Land seem less important than the words Nobel laureate Harold Pinter uses to color his characters. Is memory in any sense reliable, or do we often fictionalize real-life events? Beyond that, do words matter as much as the individual interpretation of them?
No Man's Land is a play that either before or after viewing is much-enhanced by a reading of the playscript, perhaps more than once. It is quite definitely a dramatic work I was glad to get back in touch with. What caught my attention was that the play seemed less menacing than other Pinter works, while at the same time full of a particular kind of counter-balancing humor.
*Within my review is a photo image of Harold Pinter and two images from productions of the Pinter play, the 2nd during the summer of 2023 at Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago.
August 25, 2020
What to say, what to say? Well, I can start by saying that I never had any intention of reading this book, or play rather, primarily because I had no idea of its existence until 1 minute before I started to read it. You see, I had some time to kill in between classes, and instead of doing my classwork like a normal or responsible student, I decided to drop by the library and browse the shelves. In doing so, my eye happened to land on this unassuming book, and, seeing it was a short play (a mere 95 pages), I decided I would read it, with the possibility of finishing it before class started.
Well, read it I did and I must say I was actually enjoying myself at the start, not overwhelmingly so, but to a reasonable degree. However, what began as interest slowly devolved into confusion and bemusement. The story and conversation (for that's really all this play is, two separate conversations taking place one night and the following morning respectively) were repeating themselves, almost unnaturally so, and the characters weren't developing all that much.
Now, before I digress any further, an important note to make is this: there are only four characters in the entirety of this two-act play. Four. and we don't meet two of these characters until the first act is nearly complete. Because of this, the back and forth between the first two characters, Hirst, a successful and renowned poet, and Spooner, a failed poet, both in their sixties, is rather flat at times. Now, Spooner is quite a bit more talkative than Hirst is, and as a result has a lot more dialogue, much of it monologues, which tends to be him rambling in the most literal sense. The sentences are less fully formulated thoughts, and more of a snowball of his thoughts, which is interesting the first 2-3 times, but quickly gets old.
Now to the primary reason I did not enjoy the experience of reading this play. The second act, taking place the morning after the first act, as I stated previously, is short, roughly thirty pages long, and as a result feels rushed in several places. We see the four characters discuss certain topics, and then the ending appears. I say, it appears, because the last two pages come out of *nowhere*. And I mean nowhere. The characters are having a normal discussion, and all of a sudden their dialogue makes you feel like you are no longer watching a four way discussion in North-West London, but a discussion in the Twilight Zone. The dialogue becomes dissonant and disconnected, and the play just ends. I don't think getting hit by a train would be half as sudden as this ending was. Unfortunately, the author of this play decided it best to not resolve a single point, rather he went for the ambiguous ending. This would be far from the first play I would recommend someone, unless they wanted an odd afternoon read.
Well, read it I did and I must say I was actually enjoying myself at the start, not overwhelmingly so, but to a reasonable degree. However, what began as interest slowly devolved into confusion and bemusement. The story and conversation (for that's really all this play is, two separate conversations taking place one night and the following morning respectively) were repeating themselves, almost unnaturally so, and the characters weren't developing all that much.
Now, before I digress any further, an important note to make is this: there are only four characters in the entirety of this two-act play. Four. and we don't meet two of these characters until the first act is nearly complete. Because of this, the back and forth between the first two characters, Hirst, a successful and renowned poet, and Spooner, a failed poet, both in their sixties, is rather flat at times. Now, Spooner is quite a bit more talkative than Hirst is, and as a result has a lot more dialogue, much of it monologues, which tends to be him rambling in the most literal sense. The sentences are less fully formulated thoughts, and more of a snowball of his thoughts, which is interesting the first 2-3 times, but quickly gets old.
Now to the primary reason I did not enjoy the experience of reading this play. The second act, taking place the morning after the first act, as I stated previously, is short, roughly thirty pages long, and as a result feels rushed in several places. We see the four characters discuss certain topics, and then the ending appears. I say, it appears, because the last two pages come out of *nowhere*. And I mean nowhere. The characters are having a normal discussion, and all of a sudden their dialogue makes you feel like you are no longer watching a four way discussion in North-West London, but a discussion in the Twilight Zone. The dialogue becomes dissonant and disconnected, and the play just ends. I don't think getting hit by a train would be half as sudden as this ending was. Unfortunately, the author of this play decided it best to not resolve a single point, rather he went for the ambiguous ending. This would be far from the first play I would recommend someone, unless they wanted an odd afternoon read.
February 18, 2024
This play deals with a social situation, that of a prosperous and opulent, aging literary figure who lives with his servants, being reliant on them, and steadily becomes their slave. This situation is intensified by the suggestion that the master is a homosexual, at the mercy of his domestics not only for home service but also for ‘other’ favours.
Incidentally, the names of all the four characters in the play are those of celebrated international cricket players. Pinter has himself long-established this fact. There is thus the tautness of a cricket match in the play; and cricket is a game of delicate positioning and unforeseen approaches; and a game subject on huge stamina and team spirit.
Hirst, Foster, and Briggs have to defend themselves against a powerful and subtle intruder, namely Spooner.
The plot schemes and reconnoiters the dread of old age. Hirst’s situation is that of an old successful writer whose marriage has miscarried, or who has never been married, and who is convicted to a solitary old age, the prisoner of his domestic servants, with liquor as his only luxury.
Spooner also has grown old, his marriage to having nose-dived or having never taken place; but he is ineffective and poor. Spooner is a free man longing for the bondage of a home, while Hirst is the prisoner of his domestic situation, trying to break out into freedom but unable to muster the bravery to break his bonds.
Throughout a man’s life there remains at least the likelihood of choice as long as some of youth’s flexibility is available. But there comes a point, with the coming of old age, when that possibility disappears.
Then life freezes into the boundless winter of the “No Man’s Land” between life and death.
I usually finish a normal working day of mine with a lengthy poem or pages from a drama – either a new one I’m reading or something previously read. As this play was drawing to a close, and I had dedicated my mind to the characters pretty intensely, I was feeling a sense of forfeiture – much like one feels at the vision of having to leave family for work and travelling to a new land.
Incidentally, the names of all the four characters in the play are those of celebrated international cricket players. Pinter has himself long-established this fact. There is thus the tautness of a cricket match in the play; and cricket is a game of delicate positioning and unforeseen approaches; and a game subject on huge stamina and team spirit.
Hirst, Foster, and Briggs have to defend themselves against a powerful and subtle intruder, namely Spooner.
The plot schemes and reconnoiters the dread of old age. Hirst’s situation is that of an old successful writer whose marriage has miscarried, or who has never been married, and who is convicted to a solitary old age, the prisoner of his domestic servants, with liquor as his only luxury.
Spooner also has grown old, his marriage to having nose-dived or having never taken place; but he is ineffective and poor. Spooner is a free man longing for the bondage of a home, while Hirst is the prisoner of his domestic situation, trying to break out into freedom but unable to muster the bravery to break his bonds.
Throughout a man’s life there remains at least the likelihood of choice as long as some of youth’s flexibility is available. But there comes a point, with the coming of old age, when that possibility disappears.
Then life freezes into the boundless winter of the “No Man’s Land” between life and death.
I usually finish a normal working day of mine with a lengthy poem or pages from a drama – either a new one I’m reading or something previously read. As this play was drawing to a close, and I had dedicated my mind to the characters pretty intensely, I was feeling a sense of forfeiture – much like one feels at the vision of having to leave family for work and travelling to a new land.
April 17, 2022
«На безлюдье» - первое мое знакомство с творчеством Пинтера. По большому счету, выводов два: 1) Пинтер – хороший драматург; 2) Пинтер – сложный драматург. Чтобы прояснить некоторые моменты пьесы, я посмотрела в оригинале запись спектакля Национального театра с Иеном Маккелланом и Патриком Стюартом в главных ролях. Это был правильный и нужный шаг, так как очень много аспектов в печатном варианте просто не увидеть. Таким образом, пьеса эта будет намного лучше смотреться, нежели читаться.
Не смотря на то, что было сложно, местами как-то слишком сюрреалистично, есть в пьесе один момент, который меня просто поразил до глубины души. Пинтер фантастически работает с понятиями времени и памяти. Это гениально! В пьесе есть два главных героя (за шестьдесят), и еще два чуточку более второстепенных (помощники одного из главных героев, хозяина дома, где происходит действие). Одному из них за тридцать, другому за сорок. Все разговоры этих персонажей, все эти диалоги, все монологи выливаются в одно – нет никакой правды, нет объективности, когда дело доходит до воспоминаний. Да, когда тебе за шестьдесят, ты идешь по скользкому льду, но поскользнуться можно и в том варианте, что «за тридцать». Самая шикарная сцена – это момент, когда Херст начинает вспоминать свою интрижку с «женой Спунера», а тот ему потом рассказывает, что он им сам был ого-го. Ох, как же шикарны в этом эпизоде Маккелан и Стюарт! Еще очень понравилась метафора алкоголя. Герои пьесы постоянно пьют – виски, водку, шампанское. Казалось бы, их память после N-ной бутылки должна вообще отказать. И глядя на поведение персонажей, думаешь: «А она отказывает? Или нет?» Для меня вообще вся эта попойка была какой-то общей метафорой на старение, ведь между опьянением и деменцией не так уж мало общего.
Пинтер меня заинтересовал, и я обязательно прочитаю другие пьесы этого автора. Думаю, что я теперь лучше знаю, что брать с собой в эту сложную экспедицию.
8 / 10
Не смотря на то, что было сложно, местами как-то слишком сюрреалистично, есть в пьесе один момент, который меня просто поразил до глубины души. Пинтер фантастически работает с понятиями времени и памяти. Это гениально! В пьесе есть два главных героя (за шестьдесят), и еще два чуточку более второстепенных (помощники одного из главных героев, хозяина дома, где происходит действие). Одному из них за тридцать, другому за сорок. Все разговоры этих персонажей, все эти диалоги, все монологи выливаются в одно – нет никакой правды, нет объективности, когда дело доходит до воспоминаний. Да, когда тебе за шестьдесят, ты идешь по скользкому льду, но поскользнуться можно и в том варианте, что «за тридцать». Самая шикарная сцена – это момент, когда Херст начинает вспоминать свою интрижку с «женой Спунера», а тот ему потом рассказывает, что он им сам был ого-го. Ох, как же шикарны в этом эпизоде Маккелан и Стюарт! Еще очень понравилась метафора алкоголя. Герои пьесы постоянно пьют – виски, водку, шампанское. Казалось бы, их память после N-ной бутылки должна вообще отказать. И глядя на поведение персонажей, думаешь: «А она отказывает? Или нет?» Для меня вообще вся эта попойка была какой-то общей метафорой на старение, ведь между опьянением и деменцией не так уж мало общего.
Пинтер меня заинтересовал, и я обязательно прочитаю другие пьесы этого автора. Думаю, что я теперь лучше знаю, что брать с собой в эту сложную экспедицию.
8 / 10
September 1, 2019
A wealthy, revered author invites a poor, unknown author of the same age to drinks. The successful author has lost his muse and fills the emptiness with alcohol, rendering him a pathetic remnant of former greatness. Artistic fire is still fully alive in his counterpart though, who admits a mixed record of poetic productions while declaring himself a veteran knight of the pen, possessed of every literary qualification except public recognition. The starving poet has kept his muse, his motivation and his self-respect, but economic desperation drives him to offer himself as secretary to the decadently reigning man of letters, also to cook and clean, play billiards and piano, and read aloud to him.
This threatens the position of a pair of younger men acting as caretakers to the golden lion of literature, and they bully the fearless poet about his lowly status as a tavern waiter, bathroom attendant, prostitute, writer of rubbish. The young pair of toughs make it clear that the alcoholically demented man of wealth is their prize territory, from which the poet will presumably be forced to retreat, leaving the established author to his barren well.
This threatens the position of a pair of younger men acting as caretakers to the golden lion of literature, and they bully the fearless poet about his lowly status as a tavern waiter, bathroom attendant, prostitute, writer of rubbish. The young pair of toughs make it clear that the alcoholically demented man of wealth is their prize territory, from which the poet will presumably be forced to retreat, leaving the established author to his barren well.
January 1, 2017
There's a poignant core to this play that has to do with how a variety of factors such as the loss of love, the waning of talent, the decline of reason, the sponging of unethical folks (Foster and Briggs), conspire to age us into an irrelevant limbo.
I just saw the recent Patrick Stewart/Ian McKellan broadcast of the play, and as enjoyable as it was to watch those two actors, I think the production revealed the challenging nature of the work as a performance piece. Unless a few choice moments are given emotional emphasis at the end of the play, the whole thing feels like a flat intellectual exercise. I think the opportunity for a powerful ending is there, but this might be the truth of most of Pinter's work: that it plays best on the page, where one's imagination is free to provide the narrative and the emotional climax.
I just saw the recent Patrick Stewart/Ian McKellan broadcast of the play, and as enjoyable as it was to watch those two actors, I think the production revealed the challenging nature of the work as a performance piece. Unless a few choice moments are given emotional emphasis at the end of the play, the whole thing feels like a flat intellectual exercise. I think the opportunity for a powerful ending is there, but this might be the truth of most of Pinter's work: that it plays best on the page, where one's imagination is free to provide the narrative and the emotional climax.
January 2, 2018
Funny and menacing…still, then suddenly violent. The audience (or reader) is in a No Man's Land, stumbling through the various possibilities of who these men are and what they mean (or not) to each other. As in other Pinter plays the power differential is constantly shifting. The man who seems in charge crashes suddenly to the bottom of the heap, and the other takes over. Brilliant writing, worthy of multiple readings—and viewings. I recently was lucky enough to see the broadcast version of the play from the National Theatre, with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, and consider it one of the best things I have seen in years. Great playwright, combined with great actors and an imposing, disorienting set. A wonderful experience.
Read
December 10, 2017You are in no man's land. Which never moves, which never changes, which never grows older, but remains forever, icy and silent.
Колкото талантливи и разкошни бяха актьорите, толкова трудносмилаеми и с разнолики послания ми се сториха сюжетът и текстът. За Пинтър не знам, но екипът единодушно посъв��тва читателите/ зрителите да не правят опити да вникват отвъд обозримото.
Пиесата не е за всеки, определено.
Wyndham’s Theatre, London.
Колкото талантливи и разкошни бяха актьорите, толкова трудносмилаеми и с разнолики послания ми се сториха сюжетът и текстът. За Пинтър не знам, но екипът единодушно посъв��тва читателите/ зрителите да не правят опити да вникват отвъд обозримото.
Пиесата не е за всеки, определено.
Wyndham’s Theatre, London.
August 27, 2017
I saw the production from 2016 with sirs Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart and it was really good. I couldn't tell you wat it was about with absolute certainty, but it makes you sympatize with the two main characters, mainly Hirst, who clearly is suffering from dementia. You get this feeling of how being old and sick feels like - for me it felt like i was trapped in a neverending loop of uncertainty left only with your half lost memories.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 13, 2022
Oh Lord! Pinter's plays are so awful...and pointless...and mean-spirited. A friend of mine was in this play so I thought I would go, but having hearing problems I decided to read the script first so I would not be frustrated worrying that I had missed something important if I didn't hear all the dialogue. I needn't have worried! Nothing was important and it just reminded me that I strongly disliked every Pinter play I was ever subjected to.
September 17, 2017
Not quite sure how I feel about this. It seems a crime to give such a revered piece of work only 3 stars (damn you 5 star rating system). I'll have to reread it when I have time to appreciate it a bit more. Although I have to say, Pinter's ability to conjure up so many different interpretations and arguments with such small amounts of dialogue is fascinating.
February 5, 2024
I’ve enjoyed other Pinter works, and the acclaim for this one is mighty, but I have to admit it missed me entirely. The absurd rambling is a lot more palatable when it's coherent, at least (e.g., the speech to start Act 2). When the characters are interrupting themselves repeatedly with contradictory information, it's just a mess.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews