Sunday, March 22, 2009
Reaction to The Caretaker
This play containing three characters with an exceedingly simple plot ling and basically no comedic value whatsoever was an extremely boring read. Certain aspects of the dialogue were tortuously tediously such as the conversation about Davies’ shoes and his nagging in general. Another tedious aspect of this play was the stage direction which explained the position of every object in a cluttered room in relation to another aspect. This being said however it must be noted that all these elements which make the play so un-enjoyable are also what inform on the major theme. The recurring dialogue of Davies inspecting a handout such as the shoes and the bag and then rejecting it is intended to parallel England after WWII and the way it dealt with other countries. Even the unreadable stage directions indicate important symbols such as the statue of Buddha and the toaster. Aston’s continuous fiddling with the toaster could emphasize the repetitive nature of life and is an example of how the seemingly boring and useless repetition does in fact serve a purpose in this play. I can understand why such a play due to its underlying theme and hidden meaning would be a hit with literary critics but I cannot imagine why it would be a popular commercial success due to its obtuseness and un-amusing nature. This play contrasts with the other absurdist plays which contain funnier comedic moments with the scene with the bag being passed around failing to arouse my interest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hani..we both agree!
Yes, the plot is too simple, there is indeed no comedic value, the stage directions got on my nerves while reading, the dialogues were fully uncaptivating, and finally, the author was trying way to hard to insert funny parts such as, as you have meantioned, the throwing of the bag incident yet he failed to do so. There were elemts that enhanced the parralel to reality and that was quite nice yet as an overall play i don't think at all that i deserves the acknolegement it has recieved.
I also understand why the author chose to present everything in the way that he did (stage directions, dialogue, characters, etc.), but I feel the result was not interesting enough for the reader to be able to appreciate such important themes. I feel the play would be a lot more well-received in the literary and, possibly, historical community rather than the general public. However, even as a work meant to be studied, it lacks certain elements that make it an enjoyable and interesting read. The overly dull plot and lack of any comedic effort completely ruins the play, especially as a member of the Theatre of the Absurd.
I think it's funny how very few of us liked it...
I like how you linked the play to England after WW2 which makes a lot of sense. I disagree with you about the uselessness of the stage directions. I found them very helpful in that they give an absurd play a very specific and exact (non-absurd)element. The fact that his stage directions are so detailed and specific may link to a motif of how people continuously search for something and yet they are never satisfied with it; like Davies and the shoes.
Post a Comment