Harold Pinter’s two-act play “The Homecoming” that first appeared in print in 1965 is a predominantly family-oriented play about members of a family living in North London, provides several views about family life in England during those times. Some views are credible while others are grotesque.
The first credible view is the setting of the play. An old man lives in an old house with two of his three sons and his younger brother (Ruhayat). It is a typical 1965 working-class English family (Mohanty). The house consists of a large room with a square arch, a hall, and a staircase leading to rooms above (Wikipedia.org).
The second credible view involves the characters and their interaction. Max is an overly assertive, nagging retired butcher (Kirjasto.sci.fi), Sam is a chauffeur, Joey is a boxer and Lenny is a pimp (Wikipedia.org). An aura of dissatisfaction and hostility prevails among them that are typical of that among family members who do not approve of what the others are doing in their lives. Max is constantly at loggerheads with Lenny, apparently for the latter’s dubious choice of work. They are constantly bickering. In one example, Max asks Lenny: “What have you done with the scissors?” to which Lenny replies: “Why don’t you shut up, you daft prat?” (Pinter: 7).
In another example, Lenny derides Max’s cooking abilities by calling him a “dog cook” (Pinter: 11). In a third example, Lenny taunts Max by snidely referring to “that night” he [Max] was born as a result of his parents’ copulation. Max curses him in reply: “You’ll drown in your own blood” (Pinter: 36). Max is also dissatisfied with his brother Sam who he thinks is a homosexual, insulting him for not being able to find his own “bride” (Pinter: 15).
The third credible view begins when Max’s estranged eldest son Teddy suddenly arrives from America with his wife of 6 years, Ruth. Although their arrival sparks off events that reveal what is apparent on the surface is not what it appears to be (Ruhayat), the events are credible – in the beginning. Not knowing about Teddy’s marriage prior to his arrival, Max berates his son when he comes down with Ruth, thinking she was a whore {“Who asked you to bring dirty tarts into this house? (Pinter: 41)}.
When he learns of their marriage, Max is repentant and makes amends by giving Teddy a “cuddle” (Pinter: 43) and later giving the couple his “blessing” (Pinter: 49). It is soon apparent that the husband and wife are not at ease with one another. This perception is enhanced when Ruth displays a restless craving to go out of the house after Teddy has gone to bed (Wikipedia.org).
The first of several grotesque views of family life occurs in Act II. What began as a seemingly harmless bout of flirting with her brother-in-law at the end of Act I turns into blatant sexual interaction as Ruth turns her attention to her other brother-in-law and makes out with him on the sofa {“He leans her back until she lies beneath him. He kisses her” (Pinter: 59)} in full view of the others who do not intervene to either stop or at least express outrage at her behavior. In fact, Teddy does not even react when Joey adds insult to injury by looking up at him and the others while lying on Ruth and drooling that “it is better than a rubdown” (Pinter: 59).
The second grotesque view follows when Ruth, having got heated with her steamy interlude with Joey on the sofa, brazenly goes upstairs with him to have a two-hour sexual interlude (Wikipedia.org). It is incomprehensible that the other family members allow such blatant and adulterous carnality to take place under their very noses that also constitutes a harsh insult and disregard of the marriage status of one of their own family.
The third grotesque view occurs when Max and the others, realizing that Teddy’s marriage to Ruth is in shambles, begin discussing her not going with Teddy but remaining behind with them to work as a prostitute {“put her in the game” (Pinter: 72)} apparently under the direction of Lenny. They talk about setting her up in a flat (Pinter: 76) to conduct the nefarious occupation and even go to the extent of asking Teddy to recommend her to his American friends whenever they visit England in the future (Wikipedia.org).
The fourth grotesque view involves the married couple’s reaction to the family’s plan. Teddy agrees to it and encourages his wife to remain behind. Ruth readily agrees and bids him goodbye as he sets out to America with the callous words: “Eddie, don’t become a stranger” (Pinter: 80), using the strange nickname to imply he has already gone out of her life and already become a ‘stranger’ to her. The couple apparently has no qualms about breaking up their family and they either do not consider or do not care about what it would do to their three children back in America.
The last grotesque view occurs when Sam collapses on the floor and is apparently near death. Nobody bothers to give him first aid or call an ambulance. They callously ignore him, believing that he is only suffering from a diseased imagination and that there is nothing wrong with him physically (Wikipedia.org).
In conclusion, it must be said that Act I of “The Homecoming” – which contains the three credible views of family life – is typical of all other Pinter plays in that it is spawned by one strong visual image, it is set in a single room, the persons in the room are menaced by forces or persons whose exact objectives neither the actors nor the audience can properly comprehend, and the actors who are preoccupied with the struggle to survive or prove their identity use words as weapons while beneath the words lurk feelings of dread, anger, and fear of familiarity (Kirjasto.sci.fi).
But Act II is a radical mockery of traditional life and values of a typical English working-class family (Mohanty). The five grotesque views of family life portray the indifferent way in which sex, adultery, prostitution, and familial healthcare are regarded, totally giving an extremely distorted view of family life, something that defies logic and credence and something that could not happen and did not happen.
The dominance of Act II is such that the overall play ends up as a portrayal of a world ruled by men where women are nothing but pawns that have to do as they are told if they want to survive (Ruhayat).
References
- “Harold Pinter (1930- ).” Krijasto.sci.fi. 2003. Web.
- “The Homecoming.” Wikipedia.org. 2008. Web.
- Mohanty, Sachidananda. “The Playwright as a Dissenter.” The Hindu Newspaper. 2005. Web.
- Pinter, Harold. “The Homecoming.” New York: Grove Press. 1994.
- Ruhayat, X. “Putting the “Ha” Back in Harold Pinter.” Kakiseni.com. 2006. Web.