And they said I will adore you always.
Saying I will adore you always.
This is a fragment from Harold Pinter's 'Night' which was first performed on 9th April 1969 and is part of his catalogued "Memory plays", which major and common theme is the conflicting versions of reality between two people. The dramatic principles are tension and silences and it portrays a couple and their difficulties of expression, their lack of communication, as an example of contemporary society. This is very characteristic of the generation of 56, which Pinter was part of.
This fragment is located at the last part of the play, a couple in their forties are discussing how they met but do not agree and in this part is where they finally reach a common point. That is the main theme of the play, the idea of how each person has a different version of reality, their own truth, which is a recurrent theme in most of Pinter's plays, stating that there is not one truth, as he said in his speech during the Nobel Prize 2005, which he received: "There are not hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false; it can be both true and false". Another typical feature of Pinter is placing the action in a small, closed-in set, clearly influenced by Kafka's claustrophobic atmospheres, we do not really know where are these two characters having a discussion but we can assume, as they are sitting, having coffee, that they are in a living room or a kitchen, but the action only takes place in a single room, which makes the scene more isolated and oppressive. That is what readers can guess about the setting. As for the actors, there are no stage directions in the fragment, it is one character answering to the other. The couple must belong to the middle class as their language it is not complex, it's an everyday language and Pinter usually portrays these kind of characters, especially at this stage because he only uses middle class characters which one can easily get identified with.
The "Yes" at the beginning of the fragment marks a change in the tone and the rythm of the conversation that the two characters are having, they seem not to be arguing anymore and start talking more sweetly, there are no more pauses or silences in this part, their moods change. She os the one leading the conversation now and he is accepting what she is explaining, in fact, he says "Yes" two more times ("Yes I did", "Yes I do"), he repeats that he remembers her story and that repetition is used to assure her that he really does, when he probably doesn't. In Pinter's world what is not said it is even more important than what is actually said so that is why it is not sure what he is saying is really what he feels or thinks. Here it is more obvious that what he is not telling it's really what he thinks, and the reader and the woman do not really get to know what it is, he tells her what she wants to hear. This also seems apparent by the use of "And" to start their responses, he continues her story by complementing it. same On the other hand, the woman is no longer talking about emotions but about feelings, as he has been doing all over the conversation, so in a way she is also contributing to that sort of acceptance that they are trying to reach, both are now at the same level. The text is full of words that refer to body parts, ("back", "eyes", "thighs", "breasts", "hands"...) which also emphasizes the importance of feelings at the end of the play.
They are no longer talking about the bridge, they continue their story and leave it behind, which also marks their beginning as a couple during all these years, "And then we had children..."
It can be applied the Actantial model which focuses on functions; this way the woman would be the subject of the model and her objective is to make her partner remember her version of events that happened the first time they met. The opponent would be the man because he does not agree with what she is saying but at the time he ends up being the helper as he finally "accepts" her version of the story. The other way round with the man as the subject would have the same object, to make his partner believe of what he is saying about their first meeting and as the woman would be the opponent, because she does not agree with him, here there would not be a helper because he fails to get to the point he wants.
The last part of the play it is definately the turning point. I personally liked the play and the ending, mainly because it is an open one, you cannot really know for sure what's going on in their minds or what did really happen, which again, makes you participant of Pinter's idea that there is not one truth but each of us has their own, even with his play.
Very incomplete; no use of theory (Actantial Model, Pinter's world); very weak contextualization in the introduction. You have some very valid examples, but your analysis needs a lot more theoretical background.
ReplyDeletePlease see the MODEL in your file and revise your notes.