Harold Pinter was born on October 10, 1930 and died on December 24, 2008. He was an English director, actor, screenwriter, political activist, and last but not least, playwright. In the span of his career he produced twenty-nine original plays, twenty-seven screenplays, and many other forms of literature. His best-known plays are The Birthday Party, The Caretaker, The Homecoming, and Betrayal. All four of these plays were adapted to film. In the 1980s his work became more political. His interest in politics was very public. He spoke out particularly about the abuse of state power around the world and was highly criticized for his left-wing political activism. Even so, he received many awards including the Tony Award for Best Play for The Homecoming in 1967. In 2005 the Swedish Academy awarded him with the Nobel Prize in Literature. He was also awarded the Shakespeare Prize, the European Prize for Literature, the Pirandello Prize, and the David Cohen British Literature Prize. He was made a Companion of Literature by the Royal Society and received honorary degrees from eighteen different universities.
Pinter wrote Betrayal in 1978. The National Theatre in London first presented it on November 15, 1978 with Penelope Wilton as Emma, Michael Gambon as Jerry, and Daniel Massey as Robert. It was directed by Peter Hall and designed by John Bury. The play was inspired by a seven-year affair that Pinter had with Joan Bakewell, a BBC Television presenter of the time. The play itself shows betrayal of all shapes and sizes, relating to the seven-year affair but occurring over a nine-year time period. Pinter uses reverse chronological order to tell his story.
Questions:
1. As stated by Scott Simon of NPR, “Harold Pinter is noted for his use of ‘silence’ as a playwright. Long, tense pauses between his characters became a technique and a trademark of his plays, often making audiences squirm and wonder what people do not – and perhaps cannot – say to one another.” In other words and as put by Holly Kline, a writer for the Yale Herald, “The exchanges between the three characters are nearly always awkward, strained encounters in which each character cloaks honesty with social pretense.” Take the opening scene for example. There are pauses between nearly all of their sentences and Jerry even goes so far as to say “You remember the form. I ask about your husband, you ask about my wife.” How did you feel about this tension? Did it make you uncomfortable? Engaged? Annoyed? Do you find this cloaking of honesty with social pretenses to be a real struggle both in Betrayal and in the lives of the people you know?
2. How do you feel about Jerry’s character? Did your opinion of him change for better or worse in the last scene of the play (when he is drunk and confessing his love for Emma for the first time)?
3. What about Robert’s character? I in no way support cheating, but I personally found myself judging Emma a little less and understanding why she would cheat. There were two main things that made me feel this way. One was when he talked about how he didn’t want her around for squash or for lunch and even said to her face that he wanted to be able to talk about women at lunch without feeling weird. The second thing that really bothered me about him was when he tells Jerry that the best day on he and Emma’s trip was the day when she wasn’t with him. Burn. Did anyone else feel the same? Elaborate.
4. How did y’all feel about the fact that Emma had an affair with her husband’s best friend? And on top of that in the first scene we find out that she is seeing Casey, who we eventually find out is also someone close to her husband.
5. Why does Emma cry on Robert’s shoulder at the end of the fourth scene?
6. As I stated in the first question each of these characters cloaks honesty with social pretense throughout the entire play. Please re-read the fifth scene and pay special attention to the immense amount of passive aggression going back and forth between the characters. Comment.
7. More particularly about scene five, how did you feel about the way that Emma told Robert about her and Jerry? (“We’re lovers.” Plain and simple. Direct. To the point. Not at all like the rest of their conversations.)
8. The reverse chronology of the play creates one huge question: If they knew where they would end up after their seven-year affair would they still make the same choices? How do you think the play would have worked differently if the chronology of the story hadn’t been reversed?
8. I think that the characters would make different choices if they knew how they would end up after the seven-year affair of Emma and Jerry. The betrayal in each relationship destroys the intimacy between Jerry and Emma, the relationship of Jerry and Roger, and the marriage of Emma and Roger. In the beginning of the play, the end of their story, Emma seems cold, empty, and isolated in her life. I think this is because of the life she has lived and the choices she has made, which may have alienated her from being where she thought she would be. I thoroughly enjoyed Pinter’s use of reverse chronology, dialogue, and dramatic pauses.
ReplyDeleteSide note: While reading this play, I listened to Falling Slowly by Glen Hansard. I couldn’t help but notice that parts of the lyrics match parts of Emma and Jerry’s side of the betrayal. “And games that never amount to more than they’re meant will play themselves out.” I think Betrayal is more than a play about an affair. Rather, it is the importance of loyalty and the detrimental state which can occur when abused frequently.
8. I just want to say that I liked the pauses and I understood why they were there and for me it did work, but I really didn't need them because I kind of played it out in my head that way anyway and being told to pause repetitively started to annoy me. Anyway, if they knew what was going to happen, I think the story may have been different and the way they all reacted obviously would've changed, but I really think they would've stayed together-the real couples. Emma and Robert would probablly fight and argue more instead of sweeping things under the rug and Jerry and Judith would have their conflicts, but really think they would stay together just for the sake of the kids. We all know adult do that sometimes to save the family and before all the affairs, I'd say that all these people are innocent, normal, caring people. I mean, even after Robert knew about the affair, there was still something there; for example, the cry scene, I mean, there's still something. So I'd say the beginning and middle of the play would probablly change, but not the end (the real end-divorce coming). If this play wasn't written backwards, I don't think I would care for it to much because it'd just be another relationship that fell apart. While I was reading it, I was tryin to figure out where the hell Robert was because they always talked about him but he was barley ever there, and from the moment he came in, he was my favorite character. He was so cool with everything and I don't know if it impressed me or shocked and sickened me but either way, I liked it. He had a swagger about him, like he had all the answers without ever hearing the questions and I liked that about him, but then I wondered....was he always like this or was it just a way to deal with what he was going through. Overall, I really liked it; it was like a giant, akward (but amusing) flashback, one I hope I'll nevr have.
ReplyDeleteHello! Sorry I couldn't be in class today. I had to go to Houston for this job thing. Anyway, I'd like to address question 4. I found it very interesting that Jerry seemed to care more than both Robert and Emma that he had slept with his best friends wife. In scene two when Jerry and Robert have their little talk, Robert seems so nonchalant about the hole thing. He has known for years that his this betrayel has been happening, and yet he never let it affect his relationship with Jerry. In my mind, this speaks volumes about their relationship. Their marrige clearly had issues before the affair and it was hardly the breaking point.
ReplyDeleteIn response to number 8, I believe that if we all could predict the future we would make different choices in everything we do. Of course had they of known what the out come of their actions would have been they would have taken different paths.
ReplyDelete