|
Review by Annie Vladav (26-Sep-07) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Andrew Breakwell comes together with a cast of just 3 to recreate this production of ‘The Caretaker’ written by one of the most significant playwrights ever: Harold Pinter. Pinter’s plays are renowned as plays which are slow burning and true to life, and most importantly, for their ambiguous and enigmatic endings.
In this play, we witness the story of Davies, a homeless old man with a mysterious origin and disturbingly, more than one identity. Aston offers him a place to stay for the night and Davies manages successfully his first manipulation to secure himself a longer term residence.
When Mick arrives; Aston’s brother who he is apparently renovating the house for, there is a new tone to the situation as it becomes much darker.
Throughout the play the dripping bucket becomes something of amusement however, remains a mysterious element raising questions in the audience. This is accompanied by many other influences in the set: the Buddha, always watching the events of the room, the random items stranded around the room, all pieces of junk which Aston seems intent on keeping, and the continuing theme of changing shoes.
The play itself in fact holds many clues to point the audience in different directions with their thoughts and every detail is closely attended to, ensuring that all choices made reflect the careful consideration of all the fine points to which Pinter himself paid particular attention to. Even the names of the characters combine in an acronym to form the word ‘MAD’ giving us further hints as to the themes and implications in the play.
The broken speech and Pinter’s famously uncomfortably long pauses all add tension within the audience and these allow a perfect opportunity for the silent interaction between the characters.
Aston keeps referring to his shed, which he is constantly trying to build, and everything will be fine once he has built this shed. But as always with things we need to get done, Aston finds a million distractions and excuses along the way.
We not only see that Aston is suffering from an incapability to address his issues successfully, but Davies also, has his aim throughout the play to reach his destination to get his papers to confirm his identity. We are under the illusion that these characters are both desperate to reach their goals and every action and choice they make takes them a step closer to doing so. However, we realise that they are merely displaying traits which we all show. And demonstrating how we battle to meet our achievements.
As always with Pinter, the audience are given more to think about than the moral issues raised by the play itself. Significant questions the audience await to discover the answers to, will Aston ever build his shed? Will Davies ever make it to get his papers and confirm who he is? And most importantly of all, ‘What is your shed?’
Response by Louisa Burt (26-Sep-07) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
"An analysis of the acting performance of Colin Tarrant, playing "Davies," and the effect it had upon the audience" by Louisa Burt.
In The Nottingham Playhouse’s production of "The Caretaker," directed by Andrew Brakewell, Colin Tarrant, playing the character of Davies, succeeded in engaging the audience using a variety of vocal techniques and fitting gestures.
Tarrant made particularly good use of vocals to capture Pinter’s idea that ordinary conversations contain repetitions, unfinished sentences and awkward constructions. To do this, he constantly muttered, stuttering over his lines and taking gasping breaths. As well as establishing his character as a tramp, this also added to the naturalistic feel of the production. He spoke at a very fast pace sometimes, which, whilst appropriate for a social outcast, engaged the audience’s concentration as he was at times difficult to follow. His lines were spoken in a high pitched, wheedling tone that evoked sympathy from the audience at his plight, highlighting the theme of loneliness, yet also made them realise that he was craftily playing up to his companions by telling them what he wanted to hear, especially the reference to Sidcup and his papers. This drew the audience into questioning what is real. Tarrant used Pinteresque pauses well to highlight that what is unsaid is often more intriguing than what is. He manipulated caesuras to keep the audience hanging onto the action. This was alternated with periods of shouting his lines for a grasping contrast.
Tarrant captured many small yet effective gestures that could be attributed to a tramp and used them to add to the mysterious effect his character created for the audience. His constant twitching of the head and shoulders to one side, with twitches of the cheek proved quite disturbing, setting the audience on edge about the character’s sanity. His eyes also darted continually from side to side, nervously, so the audience wondered what he was hiding. This reflected well the director’s aims of leaving things open to interpretation. Tarrant often wiped his hand over his face in a repulsive manner that hinted strongly at his unkempt nature and disgusting smell, which then became almost tangible for the audience. He made very good use of costume, clenching his fists into the ends of his sleeves and frequently pulling up his trousers. This emphasised how everything about this man doesn’t fit properly, his sense of awkwardness. This proved realistic for the audience and drew them into his performance.
This was added to by a selection of appropriate movements. Tarrant was never still, always fidgeting and shifting from one foot to the other, hesitant and darting. His movements appeared to have no purpose, and he would regularly change direction for no reason. This gave an uncomfortable atmosphere, reflecting all the unknown elements in his character and keeping interest in its variety. When at different stages of confidence in his integration with the brothers, he occupied relevant areas of the stage, left for submission and centre for confidence. This subconsciously kept the audience aware of the relationship among the three.
Tarrant’s interaction with the other two on stage kept the audience entertained and intrigued, when getting the upper hand with one of them, he moved and spoke with a questioning hesitance, gaining confidence through wide gestures. Yet when around Mick at the start, he hunched hid shoulders, shied away and spoke in a higher pitch to show nerves. This showed the audience the weakness of his character and his intense loneliness that caused him to seek friendship. So they felt empathy at his plight. The sequence of movements centring on the ballet bag, although detracting from the naturalism, was slickly performed and displayed effectively the complex nature of their relationships.
Overall, Tarrant gave a very convincing and capturing performance that, as well as being realistic, captured the essence of Pinter’s work.
Review by Lara Newton (14-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
A Review of ‘The Caretaker’ by Harold Pinter
I saw ‘The Caretaker ‘ by Harold Pinter on the 9th of November 2006, at the Nottingham Playhouse. This play has been said to be a seminal event in British theatre and I thoroughly enjoyed this production directed by Andrew Breakwell.
This naturalistic play is set in a single cluttered room with jumble scattered across the stage, and it follows three men who come and go from the room partaking in conversation which follows little plot. These men are thought to be “three lost souls who never fully know who they are” and characters that everyone could relate to. No explanation is given as to the characters background or what they do upon leaving the room, similarly the conversations that are undertaken in the room give the audience random information but never the whole story, leaving us questioning who is telling the truth, if anyone. This may sound like an odd sort of play, however the fact that the purpose and meaning were not served to the audience on a plate kept us gripped as we searched for answers within the play. Similarly the pace and the incredible standard of acting throughout the play maintained the audience’s attention, and I thought it was a very impressive production.
Having never seen a Pinter play before I was warned that I would leave filled with questions and confused, this was very true and I enjoyed the fact that I provided. I liked the fact that you could interpret the play in a thousand different ways and that my own individual opinion of characters and the meaning behind the play could be completely different to the next persons. Like most Pinter plays, this one gave no answers to the building number of questions that cluttered my mind as the play progressed, and most events and comments touched upon went unexplained.
The three members of the cast were fantastic. Colin Tarrant who played the tramp, Davies, was extremely impressive and believable and I enjoyed watching him act. He spoke with a quick pace and had many fidgeting mannerisms, twitching his hands and rocking from foot to foot. Similarly his eyes were continuously darting, the accumulation of all these characteristics showed the immense focus the actor had and made the character extremely believable for the audience. He had many long pieces of speech which had deliberate pausing and stuttering, written in by Pinter, and Collin Tarrant made these lines believable and the acting was naturalistic. Also, Davies frequently darted off topic which in other circumstances have seemed unnatural, however his use of body movement and arm gestures (for example rubbing his head) made the speech believable.
Similarly, the character of Aston was effectively portrayed and it was interesting to watch his progression throughout the play. The sinister and aggressive character of Mick, the third member of the cast, was also believably portrayed. Mick, played by Colin Wells, opened the first act by walking on stage and remaining completely silent, looking menacingly out into the audience while the house lights were still up. This immediately created an air of tension throughout the theatre, and as Mick threw a chair against the wall as he left, his aggressive character was immediately established without the use of dialogue. This opening scene is one of the longest pauses in theatre.
This long pause is typical of Pinter’s plays and would have been a revolutionary idea in the 1960’s when the play was first performed. Theatre at that time was becoming more and more stylised and so this form of naturalistic theatre would have been very controversial. Similarly the final scene of ‘The Caretaker’ ends mid-sentence and is inconclusive which would have also been shocking for the audience at that time. This also shows how Pinter never used his character’s dialogue to enlighten the audience or help them make conclusions and settle opinions.
This production far exceeded my expectations, the acting was fantastic and the use of sound and lighting was very effective. I enjoyed pondering over different interpretations and possible explanations of plots and characters’ behaviour, and would recommend the production to all young people and adults.
Response by Miranda Bentley (13-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Under the bed
Drip, Drip, Drip Carpet
Drip, Drip, Drip
Keeping Secrets
Drip, Drip
Elements
Drip
Triangle
A Sequel by Faye Bentley (13-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Sequel to “The Caretaker”
Davies is back on the streets, after finally giving up begging Aston to let him stay in the run-down flat, full of old, odd junk that filled the place he once called home. Davies has packed his only belongings into a bag paid for by Aston, and gone on his way, treated to a cold silence, where it is as if Aston is in a room on his own, as he has his back to Davies and is ignoring him. (The sky is cloudy, but a gusty wind is creating havoc, a dejected Davies trudges down a narrow road with no idea of his next move.)
Davies: (Inaudible mumbling starts quietly as Davies talks to himself, growing louder as his frustration grows. A passer by turns to look at him but quickly continues on their way, crossing the road.) He can’t throw me out! who does he think he is, throwing an old man out like that? ’Could be arrested. Why in my day people wouldn’t stand for that, there’d be an outrage. He didn’t even buy me new shoes the ungrateful little rat, when I’ve been so good to him, now how am I going to get to .. . These shoes are all but gone.
(Davies sits down on the pavement and is examining his old shoes, when a young man passes and drops his paper, the sheets flying about all over the place, most of them collecting at Davies feet. Davies looks at the paper then at the man who is in a long black coat, and folds it neatly up and slowly passes it to the man.)
Man: (wearily) Thank you. There’s a bit of a wind on today. (Starts walking on, but when he looks back and sees Davies looking forelornly at his hot drink he digs into his coat pocket and retrieves some money, pushing it into Davies’s hand.)
There’s a Coffee shop just round the corner, go and get something warm inside you.
Davies: Thank you kindly sir for taking pity on an old man, I’ll walk with you until there. (A long pause) It’s hard going on my feet as you can see by the state my shoes, and this cold wind just freezes me to the bone, (looks longingly) not like that good coat of yours there, I bet that keeps you warm. Cost a pretty penny two, I bet. You look like a right gentleman in that you do. Work in one of those big business places? ‘Need to be clever, very clever indeed to get into that line of work.
Man: (flattered) Well I can’t say I’m all that good, but…
Davies: Nonsense, a strapping fella like you could work up to be the top man one day!
Man: Now you put it that way, I suppose it is possible…
Davies: And you’ll be needing someone reliable to look after things for you when you’re away, a caretaker, why I bet you need one now, what with all the workload you must have.
Man: I don’t think…
Davies: I know just the man for the job.
Man: You do?
Davies: Why, yours truly of course. (The man stops walking)
Man: I’m not sure that’s a good idea, I mean I don’t want to offend you…
Davies: I’m good at allsorts: I can clean, though not to demeaning you understand – not toilets like. I can fix things, I can paint, (aside, to himself) no, I can’t paint, what does he thinks he’s doing asking me, of all people to paint, he can get a decorator for that.
Man: But…
Davies: I’d need a room, comfy, no cooker by me head, don’t want me head blown off in the night do I now, perfect. Why don’t we have a little drink together, talk things over?
Man: I really shouldn’t! I’ve got to get going.
Davies: (Pulling his arm and marching the man the few paces to the Coffee shop and inside) I insist, drinks are on me.
Questions by Jane Musson, Heanor Gate Science College (13-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Questions we ask ourselves Many questions are asked about the room, the characters background and what thy do out the flat. E.g.
Why does he always want the window open? Maybe its because he was locked up in a hospital for a while with no windows.
Why is there ladder against the wall? It could be pointing up the heaven or maybe he just started redecorating up there.
What is the bucket doing? Is it collecting water or maybe it’s collecting something else and why does it suddenly stop collecting water as Aston really gone and fixed the roof.
Why does Aston collect all the junk? His he going to use it maybe everything as a special meaning to him but everyone else she it as junk it could be keeping him company when living in the house on his own.
Where is Mick living? Maybe he lives in a smaller flat or with a friend or partner.
Why Davis needs to cover his real name? He could be in trouble with the police, running from someone else or even running from a hospital as he says that hospitals are not nice places hot and stuffy sounding live he has been in one.
The play was not what I expected it was funnier that I expected and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It really made think about that background of the characters and why they did the stuff they did.
Review by Mitchell Jones (10-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Having never heard of a play called the Caretaker before, I didn’t know what to expect. I went in to the workshop and auditorium open minded. When I heard the title I thought it sounded like a play with a large cast and vast amount of scenery. Well that idea was quickly put to one side when I found out that it was a cast of three and the scenery was just one single room. So apart from that I was still looking forward to it. Having been warned to look out for various things in the workshop my mind was focused on trying to find them and understand them. With the names of the characters spelling out MAD (Mick, Aston and Davies) I was expecting quite an un-usual play with not a lot of humour in it. But when I saw it my mind was changed. There was humour, maybe not where other people found it funny but I did. I still chuckled at some of the parts. The Drip I wasn’t expecting so when it randomly dripped during a pause between all three characters a grin came upon my face.
To say one negative thing about the play is that I don’t think the actors used the pauses enough. I felt that the pauses should be more intent, having the audience on the edge of their seats wanting to see what happened next. But it didn’t. I think if the actors had worked on them a bit more then the audience would have reacted like that. Also I think some of the pauses could have been made a bit humorous before the next character interrupted or the humour came from the character interrupting.
Overall I thought it was a good play, I like a play that makes me think once I have left it and The Caretaker did just that. I defiantly think it could have been a bit better though.
The Cafe Scene by Rachel Knott, Heanor Gate Science College (10-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
The Café scene (the prequel to The Caretaker) A Café in West London. It is a winter’s evening and many people are crowded around stamping their feet, rubbing hands together etc. There is only one table visible, which is covered with what looks like an old curtain and placed downstage left. There are only two chairs, which are occupied by two loud individuals. Everyone else is crowded around the table, making a loose queue facing upstage left, to where we assume the food is ordered. The majority of people are moaning about work or the cold, as there is a mix of homeless and working class people. Davies is sweeping around the table carefully, as to not disturb the occupants, who stretch their legs, out as far as possible to hinder his progress. He has been sweeping for most of the day and he is slumped and slow at his job. One of the seated people gets up, either to go to the toilet or have a cigarette round the back, leaving an empty seat. Davies, straightens his bent back and twitches and on seeing the empty chair, perches on the end, leaving the bucket centre stage. The other seated character is oblivious to Davies, as he is still laughing at a past joke. The boss comes in, looking for Davies and trips over the bucket. He curses. No one else gives him any attention.
Boss: Can yer please take away that bloody bucket?
Davies twitches before launching into his lines.
Davies: It is not my job to take out buckets; you got a boy out the back for taking buckets. You can’t tell me what to…
The boss interrupts.
Boss: Stop moanin’, yer hardly do the work yer supposesd t’do anyway. No wonder yer always sayin’ yer don’t get any stamps, it’s cause yer don’t work.
Davies is obviously wound up by this, as he continues to twitch and point an accusing finger at his boss. Aston enters and joins the back of the queue.
Davies: I cannot help it that them blacks are doing me out of a seat n’ treating me like dirt.
The person who last sat in the seat returns.
Person: Eh you, get outta my seat, I’m a payin, customer. Unlike you.
Davies continues to rant at the person, and an odd hush descends on the room.
Davies: I aint an alien like you.
The boss, who has clearly had enough, starts shouting at Davies, whilst the two customers leave the café in disgust.
Boss: You’ve gotta go. I can’t have yer doing this. Making too much commotion.
Davies stands up and continues to rant at his boss.
Davies: Look here. I’m an old man. Where I was brought up we had some idea of how to talk to people with proper respect, we were brought up with the right ideas. If I had had a few years off me I’d-I’d break you in half.
Aston sees that no one is going to rectify the situation and loses his place in the queue to go over to the boss, who is presently ignoring the furious twitching Davies.
I mean I got my rights. I might have been on the road but nobody’s got more rights than I have. Let’s have a bit of fair play. I aint taking orders from you, you aint superior to me. Your just a Scotch git.
Aston: (talking over Davies’ continued babble) I’ll take him away for you.
Boss: (turns his back on Davies) Are you sure?
Aston remains silent, fiddling with a watch he has just produced from his pocket. The boss realises he is serious and nods to Aston before walking away.
Aston: Come on. I’ll get you out of here.
Davies stops in the middle of another rant, stunned. He hunches his back, twitches and follows Aston meekly out of the café, under the eyes of all the customers.
Review by Gina Downing, Derby High School (09-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
I went to Nottingham playhouse on the 2nd of November with my drama group from school; it was directed by Andrew Breakwell, and Written by Harold Pinter. Before the showing of the play I got to see a bit of an insight to the play, by sitting In Andrew Breakwell’s talk about the play. This let me know what he thought about the play, and what I was expecting to look out for in the production. There is a lot of subtext which I found good, but it frustrated me about how they didn’t speak their minds, so nobody knew exactly what they were thinking.
The play is set in one room, which is a bit of a mess it doesn’t look like what a proper house should look like. There are three people in this production, Mick who is played by Colin Wells, Aston who is played by Daniel Copeland and Davies who is played by Colin Tarrant. You may not realise but if you put all these names underneath each other, the fist letters of each name spells MAD.
This play is very sinister and yet it is funny, the play is about two Brothers Aston and Mick who own this so called Hotel. Aston brings in a tramp because he found him on the streets in the middle of a fight, so Aston puts the tramp up for a while just until he finds his feet, Mick doesn’t really agree with this.
Not forgetting that the two brothers are murderers and is it really a hotel? and what is in the other rooms?
In the play we get to see laughter and darkness, throughout the play. The play is a very chilling and it reels your imagination on what is going to happen next.
It is a brilliant Production and anybody who watches it will thoroughly enjoy it.
My Mind is still imagining what could happen next in the play.
So I might be slightly strange - a poem by Laura Blatherwick inspired by The Caretaker (08-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
So I might be slightly strange By Laura Blatherwick
So I might be slightly strange,
Some say a bit deranged.
My brain has a problem you see
Well, that’s what the doctors told me.
The doctors work their way around,
‘Fixing’ the other ill men, making them ‘sound’.
The night came to ‘fix’ me,
But all I wanted was to be free.
I was going to get out of this place,
But that failed, all that was left was a chase.
I ran and I ran, I tried to get free,
But the doctors and nurses captured me.
So I might be slightly strange,
Some say a bit deranged.
My brain has a problem you see
Well, that’s what the doctors told me.
To do what they were going to do,
I had to be laid down, that much I knew.
But I was one of the difficult type,
Who didn’t give up easily without a fight.
But they didn’t lay me down, oh no,
The wires, they started to glow.
I was still standing, but they didn’t care,
I knew what they were doing, I was very aware.
So I might be slightly strange,
Some say a bit deranged.
My brain has a problem you see
Well, that’s what the doctors told me.
It was an odd sort of feeling,
Which made me start screaming.
They sent a current through my head,
I fell to the floor, thought I was dead.
But I awoke in the morning only to find
I wasn’t fixed, they had done nothing to my mind.
I was exactly the same as I used to be,
When I realised the problem, it wasn’t me.
So I might be slightly strange,
Some say a bit deranged.
My brain has a problem you see
Well, that’s what the doctors told me.
I am unique yes I am,
But that’s me, the person, it’s who I am.
Slightly strange,
And perhaps a bit deranged.
But it’s the doctors that told me I was ill,
They put it into my head until
I believed them, and let them do their work,
Now look who’s the jerk.
I’m now free and the doctors are stuck here,
Convincing other people, making them fear,
That they are ill, and mad you see.
But we know a different story you and me.
So I am strange,
I am deranged.
But my brain doesn’t have the problem you see.
It’s the doctors that have not me.
Review by Charlotte Tomlinson (08-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Prepare to be faced with a lot of unanswered questions if you decide to see the new production of classic Pinter play, The Caretaker, showing at the Nottingham Playhouse from 26th October to 11th November. Not that this should dissuade you from going; the ambiguity of this play is one of its main strengths, with the audience being left to make up their own mind about the events.
Director Andrew Breakwell’s interpretation highlights this important feature whilst managing to still create an engrossing story which draws the viewer in and never fails to capture the attention- despite a plot that at times, to me at least, could be rather baffling.
The main strength of this production was the performances of the actors taking on the three characters in the play Aston, Mick and Davies. Daniel Copeland is the seemingly benign but disturbed Aston whilst Colin Wells puts in a convincing, menacing performance as the intimidating Mick, Astons younger brother. Davies, a whining and pathetic yet devious tramp, who is invited to stay by Aston in his and Mick’s junkyard of a house, is played by Colin Tarrant. In a play with so few characters, the spotlight is heavily concentrated on these three actors, but they hold your interest by bringing their characters to life, whilst making sure they still retain their all-important naturalism and reality.
Another feature which I most enjoyed about this interpretation was the element of humour incorporated into the production by the director and cast. This comedy contrasted with more serious moments in the play, such as Aston describing his stint in a mental asylum, making them even more poignant.
Overall, this is an interesting production with an excellent cast. It makes you think, but definitely doesn’t give you any straight answers. However, this approach could be slightly confusing to people who are not familiar with Pinter’s work.
Review by Hayley Gittins (08-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Harold Pinter, the breakthrough artist of the 1960’s, offers us a highly intriguing and well structured play with ‘The Caretaker’. Directed by Andrew Breakwell, we see three unconventional characters at the heart of this enigmatic story. Aston, a simple fellow who has once undergone electric shock therapy, takes in Davies, a tramp, who he has picked up from a fight in a café. An unlikely pairing causes uncomfortable moments between them especially after the introduction of Aston’s brother Mick, a volatile man who takes delight in scaring Davies. Brilliantly acted, Dan Copeland (Aston) particularly retains the ability to withhold his audience through long monologues. The plays one room location is well designed by Jane Linz Roberts, who’s careful consideration for each piece of Astons’ treasured junk results in a brilliantly chaotic backdrop reflecting the chaotic events on stage. The bucket hanging centrally on stage provides a focal point for the actors in Pinter’s famous lengthy pauses. Adding the occasional drip within the dialogue of the play, the bucket provides much interest in respect that its contents are unknown. Pinter’s hollow language means that great acting is needed and this is undoubtedly achieved by all. The absurdities with the play are well staged and the ‘bag ballet’ provides much amusement for the audience. Billed as ‘a comedy of menace’, the audience find themselves laughing at various points throughout the play. This amusement is coupled with the menacing, and at points disturbing, aspects. For instance, Mick is not heard to leave at the end of the play. This is just one feature of Pinter’s ambiguous ending. Allowing the audience to make up their mind on the future events of the story, at the end of the play there remain questions that long for answers.
Response by Jessica Goshawk, Heanor Gate Science College (08-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
Review by Ellie Andrews, Bluecoat School (03-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
I had not heard of Harold Pinter before the production of The Caretaker at the Playhouse this week, but sadly it did not encourage me to want more. As a production this piece was fine, the acting of good quality, with Colin Tarrant, Colin Wells and Dan Copeland giving interesting portrayals of individuals tormented by insecurity and loss of identity. Dan Copeland’s monologue was especially moving and was the only part in the play that made me sit up and listen.
The pace ruined this play and wasn’t helped by the over-the-top dramatic pauses, bordering on the ridiculous and repetition of almost every line. I constantly sat, like many others, waiting for something to happen and was extremely disappointed with the ending. There had been no progression of the characters and no climax, even the ‘ambiguous’ ending was unmemorable.
Technically, it was straight forward; the set was charming; giving the right atmosphere of clutter and instability. The slow dim of the lights around Aston in his monologue and the symbolism achieved in simplicity was effective. However, the music in Mick’s monologue was distracting and added nothing to the overall tone of the piece – it was out of place. Perhaps the director Andrew Breakwell had tried too hard to focus on the piece (understandable) and had perhaps neglected the technical side.
The scene changes and costume adjustments between each scene were in half blackouts giving the audience a chance to see more about the characters. However, some entrances and exits were made off the side of the stage which ruined the illusion of the room – it would have been better to exit or enter through the door.
I would say that Harold Pinter fans should go to see a different interpretation of a well-known piece and others should go for the experience if nothing else.
Nottingham Topper review (02-Nov-06)
ARTS IN FOCUS BY KEITH ARMSTRONG
The Caretaker
Nottingham Playhouse
Until 11 November
CREEPING out of the shadows in the wake of The Dumb Waiter, comes another of Harold Pinter’s dark dramas, The Caretaker, this time stage in the main theatre. Seeing actor Colin Tarrant in the role of Davies, the hapless hobo, and remembering him as the impeccable Inspector Monroe in The Bill and a hollering Brian Clough incarnate, I see no limit to this man’s acting ability.
In a trouser-hitching portrayal you can almost smell, we find the dishevelled Davies being given temporary accommodation in the junk-filled bed-sit lived in by the mild-mannered caretaker, Aston (Daniel Copeland). Aston’s awkward relationship with his erratic, ungrateful and sometimes explosive lodger is nothing compared to the mayhem that ensues when his tramp-tormenting brother Mick (Colin Wells) bursts in on the scene. All three are no-hopers, with plans and dreams that will be talked about at length, but never realised. Your heart will go out to Davies, as he desperately switches his loyalties between the two brothers, bent only on keeping the peace, and a roof over his head. Utterly gripping.
Theatreworld review (01-Nov-06)
Nottingham Playhouse
The Caretaker by Harold Pinter
Directed by Andrew Breakwell
With this production of The Caretaker Nottingham Playhouse is celebrating the genius of Harold Pinter. Probably England’s most outstanding living playwright, it was this play which catapulted him to fame when it was first produced at the Duchess Theatre in 1960. Director Andrew Breakwell leaves it to us to ascertain the period in which he has set the play and I would guess that it couldn’t be far from the time when it first hit the headlines and when Pinter himself took one of the three leading roles. With his inside knowledge as an actor / writer, Pinter has been complimented on writing an ‘ actor’s play’, one which is ‘funny, literate, theatrical and frightening’, as the programme notes accurately comment.
It is the timelessness of the theme and depth of its possible interpretations that make it a truly great play. The bones of the story focus on three characters. Davies, a tramp, is brought ‘home’ by Aston, the brother of Mick, the owner of the room. Between them they vie for dominance, friendship, territory and survival. They play each other off, aligning in different partnerships as the play progresses. Action swings rapidly from Aston’s initial kindness in offering Davies a bed for the night to Mick’s violence against Davies when he finds him in his house. And intertwined in all of this is Pinter’s humour - humour elicited from human foibles and eccentricities.
The huge role of Davies is taken by Colin Tarrant. He gives the character a very modern feel. This could be anyone dragged in from the streets today with his twitches, swift mood changes, and streetwise behaviour. He imbues the character with tremendous physicality – an exhausting performance. Aston, somewhat more salubrious but with no fewer hang-ups, is played by Daniel Copeland. He offers us a contrasting character, ostensibly more refined but just as unable to cope with life. Colin Wells, as Mick, is the barrow boy of the trio, young, cool and ruthless, the entrepreneur, the property magnate. His is a suave portrait in sadistic domination.
The set designed by Jane Linz Roberts comprises one single room, underlining Pinter’s focus on a menacing and claustrophobic situation. It is filled with junk and symbols of confusion. In its confined space the three characters are thrown together, thus increasing the tension and interaction between them.
Nottingham Playhouse is justly proud of its membership of the European Theatre Convention and it was this body who, in March this year, awarded Pinter its prestigious European Theatre Prize. This season it is possible not only to see The Caretaker but also The Dumb Waiter (Nov. 11), two opportunities not to be missed.
The Caretaker is playing from Thursday 26 October – Saturday 11 November
The Dumb Waiter – Saturday 11 November
Tickets: from £8 (concessions available)
For information and booking, call the Box Office on 0115 9419419
Elaine Peel - Theatreworld Internet Magazine
Review by Naomi Foster (01-Nov-06) [ Young Critics' Circle Review ]
A Review of The Caretaker
I came to The Caretaker with no previous knowledge of Pinter whatsoever and no idea of what to expect. And somehow, it was exactly what I expected.
I have no doubt that this was a good production. The acting was excellent and the characterisation perfect, in my inexperienced opinion. The set was entirely convincing – despite its inevitable eccentricities – from sloping floor to sack-cloth window. The careful lighting accurately reflected different atmospheres and times of day, and the musical scene changes were completely in character. The production was excellent, but this couldn’t make me enjoy the play.
Regular Critics’ Circle readers might be thinking that I normally produce some creative writing, so what am I doing writing a review? The fact is that The Caretaker gave me no inspiration whatsoever. The problem is that nothing actually happens. The play is full of hints, but they don’t seem to be hints to anything. I found myself hoping that there would be some twist to the tale. Maybe one character would kill another, or simply disappear. Maybe the two were not really brothers. Maybe Aston would even build his shed and get something done. But nothing happened. Nothing changed. We don’t even know whether Davies left eventually, despite me spending a good chunk of the second half thinking “shut up and get out!”
I know that an army of Pinter-lovers out there would pick many faults with my perceptions. I’m sure they would point out that the play is about the language and characters, not about the ‘action’. But though language can make or break a play, for me Pinter’s just wasn’t interesting enough to break the monotony of a play with no plot. My apologies to a great production team, but I think you were fighting a losing battle where I’m concerned.
Nottingham Evening Post review (31-Oct-06)
Wondering what happens next…
The Caretaker
Playhouse
Jeremy Lewis
SO what do we reckon happens after the flea-bitten tramp Davies completes his latest unconvincing promise to leg it down to Sidcup to find the papers that will establish his identity?
For all I know, the deeply disturbed Aston, who has offered the footsore Davies a leaky roof and an iron bed, sets about his guest with a chainsaw … but we will never know, because at that very moment Harold Pinter calls time on his 1960 breakthrough drama.
If there are any more reliable pointers in this show, they escape me – but that is not to slight a production that illuminates Pinter’s mould-breaking text.
We may not know what the future holds for Davies (or for Aston, or the latter’s more overtly menacing younger brother Mick) but in director Andrew Breakwell’s staging we are reminded of human frailties; not least our desire to dominate, and our knack of talking without communicating.
The effort was enthusiastically received by a distressingly thin first night audience, who would also have appreciated some polished acting in the junk-packed attic created by designer Jane Linz Roberts.
Daniel Copeland is a benign but troubled Aston, whose long description of his enforced electric shock therapy is mesmerising. Colin Wells is an edgy Mick (the dapper dresser owns the house occupied by Aston) and he twists facts and challenges Davies’s throwaway lines in order to maintain his dominance.
This Davies, however, is no lamb to the slaughter. Colin Tarrant, twitching and scratching in a manner to suggest that on a warm evening you might smell his grubby longjohns from Row M, is by turns angry, pathetic, funny and downright crafty.
It’s a lovely, detailed performance in a show full of good things … even if it cannot answer all your questions about the play itself.
BBC Nottingham online review (31-Oct-06)
The Caretaker
By Rachel Read
I’m going to hold my hands up and say I really didn’t "get" this play.
The fact that I didn’t "get" it, I imagine, is no fault of the production itself but rather that I’m not the sort of play-goer that enjoys Pinter’s work.
Pinter’s techniques
My limited knowledge of Pinter takes me as far as the dramatic pause (of which there were many).
After close reading of my programme, I discovered another Pinter technique is dialogue as interplay rather than for character or plot development, with lots of seemingly pointless repetition – hence explaining why there’s plenty of this too.
Seemingly, another technique is lack of an obvious plot apart from the barest of facts – Aston (Daniel Copeland) takes in a tramp (Colin Tarrant) to the home he shares with his somewhat more vicious brother Mick (Colin Wells) and said tramp outstays his welcome.
The tramp
Tarrant is convincing as the tramp with multiple names, with his delivery proving especially realistic, although I did find odd moments of his performance to be too mannered.
However, I never felt him to be menacing – instead plain annoying and I’d have happily got on stage and told him to clear off long before the characters got there.
The bully
Wells’ bully fell flat for me – the only time he felt at all dangerous was when performing the admittedly very good choreographed fights.
The other one
Copeland is quietly good – so very quietly, in fact, that I sometimes forgot about him altogether.
The set of just one room is cluttered enough yet is simply too big and, to me, too bright and airy to be claustrophobic.
Nor can I say the lighting made much impression, bar my annoyance at the flying insects buzzing round them, although the music was really great, adding menace and dramatically heightening certain moments (e.g. Copeland’s soliloquy).
Overall
Overall, what can I say? I imagine many people loved it. I, however, felt like I was drowning at sea in an ocean of play I just didn’t understand.
|
