|
Post by papasmurf115 on Jan 10, 2024 11:14:50 GMT
3 out of 5 for me. I enjoyed the staging & jazz music before the play. The first half was good with character development + Jared Harris as the stand out performance. Disappointed with the second half as the character arcs went AWOL + felt uncomfortable with the content (maybe I'm too woke). Although I did enjoy Joe Cole's performance post the break. Overall interesting but I was expecting better.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Jan 15, 2024 23:48:11 GMT
I really struggled with this. The characters' behaviour is so strange, and the dialogue between them so bizarre, that none of it feels even close to being real. Thus it was hard for me to care at all.
It might be me though, I don't think I really "get" Pinter.
|
|
zak
Auditioning
|
Post by zak on Jan 19, 2024 15:55:59 GMT
This strange and menacing piece by Pinter, the master of making audiences feel uncomfortable. As in his screenplay for Joseph Losey's film The Servant, the playwright forces us to contemplate ordinary human situations in new ways, asking us uneasy questions : who's the master and who's the servant? The title refers to the coming home from America of Edward, a philosophy professor, the elder of three brothers, seemingly to introduce his sexy young wife, Ruth, to a family made up entirely of men: the patriarch, Max, a retired butcher who struggles to hold on to his diminished fatherly authority; uncle Sam, a chauffeur; and Teddy's two brothers: Lenny, who we understand is a pimp, and Joey, the younger one, a boxer, and a kind of gentle brute. They all descend on Ruth like a pack of wolves, but she's no pushover, and soon controls the household, taking the role left by the deceased mother - "we have not had a whore under this roof since your mother died", says Max in a jolly voice, rather intriguingly. All make Ruth somewhat menacing sexual propositions, which she faces with easy poise, turning the wolves into lambs at her feet, to the point that Teddy eventually goes back to America alone. We understand that Ruth stays, gladly joining the gang and somehow taking the role of the absent mother. I wondered what a modern feminist/activist would make of her? Pinter doesn't deal with cosy certainties and, like Baudelaire's "Héautontimorouménos" (the self-tormenter) she is, like all of us, both victim and butcher. We leave the theatre with an awkward feeling, lost in the moral haze that director Matthew Dunster so wonderfully represents with a real fog surrounding both the stage and the stalls as we enter the auditorium. The actors are all superb, particularly Jared Harris as a magnificently stentoreous Max, Joe Cole as the sinister but sexy Lenny, and Lisa Diveney as minx turned circus ringmaster Ruth. The ambiguities of our human nature presented by Pinter with such subtle brutality made me think that is the essence of what makes any work of art great, its true social role and what makes it last in time: forcing us to face what we'd rather not face. i thought of The Homecoming as a kind of development of themes touched on by Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, but unlike Maggie -so unforgettably played by Elizabeth Taylor in the 1958 film version- Ruth's ultimate conformity is not a surrender, but a takeover. Harold Pinter was a North London Jew, and the victim-turned-butcher theme made me think of Israel's harsh dealings with the Palestinian population and its Arab neighbours, arguably the most burning case of moral dubiousness we face as humankind.
|
|
15 posts
|
Post by robwilton on Jan 19, 2024 16:25:37 GMT
Excellent comment, zak. Exactly. "[Ruth] soon controls the household... All make Ruth somewhat menacing sexual propositions, which she faces with easy poise, turning the wolves into lambs at her feet, to the point that Teddy eventually goes back to America alone."
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Jan 19, 2024 19:22:49 GMT
We understand that Ruth stays, gladly joining the gang and somehow taking the role of the absent mother. I wondered what a modern feminist/activist would make of her? and >> Ruth's ultimate conformity is not a surrender, but a takeover. Indeed. Pinter delving into exactly this aspect of a fast-changing society in the early-mid 1960s (Alfie, for example, came a year or so later in 1966).
The key, of course, is that there is no judgement. But that doesn't stop his wry social observations about the power-relationship between men and women, both in the past and the present; how things are presented, how things might actually be, why, who is changing and who is resisting. And crucially; is there a price for all this newfangled freedom ..
Billington, in his 2011 review, had this down as "an intuitively feminist play". Ruth clearly makes a deal with the men, and it is most definitely her deal her choice, without coercion (and it includes leaving her children on another continent). Pinter laying it on a little thick at that point, but maybe he needed the point to not be missed. Anyway, it's only a deal. If it doesn't work out she can always go back to the kids ..
Which, for some, might cause a glance at where it all led - to, for example, a society of social housing estates in which lone-parent households are in the clear majority.
The really sublime aspect for me is he is still influenced by Becket, but only insofar as it serves his own work.
God, it's glorious writing.
|
|
392 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Jan 20, 2024 16:31:06 GMT
Wasn't sure what to expect of this given the lacklustre reviews but in the end glad I went. I think I agree with the comments saying the cast seemed to be trying to lighten the brutality present by playing more towards the comic aspects present in any Pinter.
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jan 23, 2024 8:35:33 GMT
£12 ticket available on noticeboard for Thursday 25/1 7.30. DM if interested.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 16, 2024 2:17:27 GMT
Having listened to a dozen or so of these last year, I'd forgotten about Douglas Schatz and his commentaries on current productions.
He is always well-prepared, gets very good guests and gives them plenty of space and time. Here, he talks with director Matthew Dunster about this production of The Homecoming. Plenty of insights and interpretations emerge. The ideal companion for a session with the eyebrows or mounting another Munro >>
|
|
1,086 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Mar 16, 2024 11:17:16 GMT
Having listened to a dozen or so of these last year, I'd forgotten about Douglas Schatz and his commentaries on current productions. He is always well-prepared, gets very good guests and gives them plenty of space and time. Here, he talks with director Matthew Dunster about this production of The Homecoming. Plenty of insights and interpretations emerge. The ideal companion for a session with the eyebrows or mounting another Munro >> I'm also a huge fan of this podcast.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 16, 2024 12:30:27 GMT
|
|