“I don’t know how music can influence writing, but it has been very important for me, both jazz and classical music. I feel a sense of music continually in writing, which is a different matter from having been influenced by it.” (Harold Pinter in Playwrights at Work, ed. by George Plimpton 2000.
Director’s note:
I first became aware of Harold Pinter’s work back in my University days over 20 years ago when I saw a video of the definitive production of The Homecoming directed by Peter Hall. I have been hooked ever since. Pinter writes dialogue like no one else and had influenced many–David Mamet and Quentin Tarantino to name two. What I love about his dialogue is what lies underneath what is said or in the case of the famous “Pinter pause,” what is not said but very loudly implied. To quote a line from the play, “You’ve never heard such silence”. The Homecoming is not a pleasant play to watch and it can be very difficult to follow. The characters are, without exception, extremely dislikeable, bitter, vicious and violent. It seems like Pinter has taken the worst characteristics of human nature and pushed them ever so slightly into caricature, making the development of the plot and the actions of the characters slide into savage absurdity. If that were so, the play would just be an interesting surrealist experiment but in actuality it is firmly moored in realism. The difference is that the characters in The Homecoming vocalise and act out the worst attitudes and characteristics of human nature that are normally suppressed or not communicated. There is nothing in the play, no matter how vile and extreme, that is not true to how people think and behave–or at least how Pinter believes they would behave if they gave vent to their baser impulses. Does any of this sound familiar?
July 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm
If Peter Hall’s filmed version (which I have) is definitive, what’s the point of your directing it? That slightly puts me off coming to see it. But I live in hope. If you read Billington’s latest version of his biography of Pinter, you’ll see that perhaps it isn’t definitive and one or two recent revivals have caught some nuances not in the filmed version. The only reason one might think it’s definitive is because it’s on film.
July 8, 2008 at 4:44 am
In response to “Tim says”
I use the word definitive describing Peter Halls production of the Homecoming in the sense that the film version seems to rightly capture the style of Pinter’s writing.
It was instructive to me when I saw it and illuminated the possibilities not immediately brought out on the printed page. It defined for me the style and approach that I have come to associate with Pinter’s writing.
I had the same illuminating, instructive experience when I first saw Olivier’s film version of Richard III also while attending University.
Olivier’s interpretation of Richard hit me like a bolt of lightning. I suddenly appreciated the way Shakespeare should be done. It made perfect sense, again the experience I had watching the film was defining for me.
You may argue Tim, that Olivier’s performance may not be definitive or compare varied nuanced Richards you may have seen. You may even perhaps be put off by anyone using the term definitive to describe Olivier’s performance. None the less, I live in hope that you were not discouraged in coming to see our rendition of The Homecoming and hope you will continue to be a supportive patron in the future.
Thank you.
Walter Roberts