What do you think?
The Homecoming
The A Play by Harold Pinter, Grove Press, GP-392, First Edition BOOK CLUB, 1965. This is a Collectible, Hardcover Book and Dust Jacket. In an old and slightly seedy house in North London there lives a family of Max, the aging but still aggressive patriarch, his younger, ineffectual brother Sam, and two of Max's three son's, neither of whom is married - Lenny a small-time pimp, and joey, who dreams of success as a boxer. Into this sinister abode comes the eldest son Teddy, who has been living in America for six years teaching Philosophy in a University, bringing his wife Ruth home to visit the family she has never met. As the play progresses, the younger brothers make increasingly outrageous passes at their sister-in-law until they are in fact actually making love to her in front of her stunned but strangely aloof Husband. OUTRAGEOUS & Grotesquely Funny!
92 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1965
About the author
Harold Pinter
405 books803 followersHarold Pinter was a British playwright, screenwriter, director and actor. A Nobel Prize winner, Pinter was one of the most influential modern British dramatists with a writing career that spanned more than 50 years. His best-known plays include The Birthday Party (1957), The Homecoming (1964) and Betrayal (1978), each of which he adapted for the screen. His screenplay adaptations of others' works include The Servant (1963), The Go-Between (1971), The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981), The Trial (1993) and Sleuth (2007). He also directed or acted in radio, stage, television and film productions of his own and others' works.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 507 reviews
December 22, 2017
Max is the self-glorifying, violent old patriarch of the house in which lives his mild-mannered, ineffectual brother, a psychopathic pimp of a son, and the youngest son, whose violence is legal, he's a boxer. They trade taunts and insults and menace and there is nothing positive in their relationships. The old man is widowed, the others all single, there is nothing in even one of them to attract a woman.
One night, sneaking into the house he left six years before comes the oldest son and his wife. He's the brilliant one, the PhD, the teacher of philosophy in an American university. He's brought with him his wife, a woman from close by but whom he never told his family about.
At first they think she is a prostitute and speak to her in vile ways, but although she starts out as strong and in control, she uses her seductive power on the sons, and thinks nothing of sexual play short of intercourse with a brother in law. And strangely neither does her husband who had sensed something was amiss before that episode and wanted to leave and return home to their suburban American life.
Ruth, the wife, discloses she was a body model, a glamour model, or maybe that was a euphemism, and by the end of the play, she's left her husband to accept their offer to be woman of the house, sexual favours for all and a little housework thrown in, and to prostitute herself to bring in money for the household. All she asks for is the trappings of a high-class whore. The husband accepted all this, didn't really try and persuade her out of it, didn't rail at his family for suggesting such things. He just lectured them on what it meant to be a philosopher and see life clearly. He decides to return to the US and look after his now motherless three sons.
This to me is what the play was all about. That the eldest son, Teddy, might have escaped, might have the brains, but his mother had been a whore, his uncle had driven her to appointments, his father had lived off her money, one of his brothers was a pimp, and both of his brothers raped women and this is how he saw life. His wife might have been a whore and was certainly going to be one...
One cannot escape one's early life, the culture, that is the true way in which we see the world. It doesn't matter how far you go, how tall the tree grows into the sunshine, the roots, your roots, are buried in the dank earth and whatever decays and creeps around down there is who you really are.
Or maybe not. Maybe Pinter meant something else entirely different.
One night, sneaking into the house he left six years before comes the oldest son and his wife. He's the brilliant one, the PhD, the teacher of philosophy in an American university. He's brought with him his wife, a woman from close by but whom he never told his family about.
At first they think she is a prostitute and speak to her in vile ways, but although she starts out as strong and in control, she uses her seductive power on the sons, and thinks nothing of sexual play short of intercourse with a brother in law. And strangely neither does her husband who had sensed something was amiss before that episode and wanted to leave and return home to their suburban American life.
Ruth, the wife, discloses she was a body model, a glamour model, or maybe that was a euphemism, and by the end of the play, she's left her husband to accept their offer to be woman of the house, sexual favours for all and a little housework thrown in, and to prostitute herself to bring in money for the household. All she asks for is the trappings of a high-class whore. The husband accepted all this, didn't really try and persuade her out of it, didn't rail at his family for suggesting such things. He just lectured them on what it meant to be a philosopher and see life clearly. He decides to return to the US and look after his now motherless three sons.
This to me is what the play was all about. That the eldest son, Teddy, might have escaped, might have the brains, but his mother had been a whore, his uncle had driven her to appointments, his father had lived off her money, one of his brothers was a pimp, and both of his brothers raped women and this is how he saw life. His wife might have been a whore and was certainly going to be one...
One cannot escape one's early life, the culture, that is the true way in which we see the world. It doesn't matter how far you go, how tall the tree grows into the sunshine, the roots, your roots, are buried in the dank earth and whatever decays and creeps around down there is who you really are.
Or maybe not. Maybe Pinter meant something else entirely different.
May 20, 2023
Harold Pinter's theater is similar to the existentialist theater ("Hell is other people") and the absurdist theater of Jean Genet. The absurd lies with them in the human relationships, the unhealthy relationships between the characters, and the situation is tense to the point of no return. And the spectator/reader knows it will become a tragedy from the start. In the end, the drama turns not to the tragic but to the sordid.
The subject addressed in the play is disturbing, not just a little, because Harold Pinter tackles what is sacred for many. He takes it out on the family. We witness an impossible dialogue between a father and his son from the start. Other tense exchanges follow, bitter, violent memories resurface, and resentment, and one wonders if the happy days evoked at times do not also hide an inevitable underlying violence. When you see the list of characters, you understand that there is a generational conflict, but the brothers don't get along either. The old family quarrels resurface with each movement and word, and readers wonder when the family sphere will burst. It is then that the other brother arrives, and his wife, the only female character in the play, is the only woman among all these men. She is a married woman and a mother of three children. Will she be able to appease them? More or less.
Remember, I warned you. The ending is sordid.
The subject addressed in the play is disturbing, not just a little, because Harold Pinter tackles what is sacred for many. He takes it out on the family. We witness an impossible dialogue between a father and his son from the start. Other tense exchanges follow, bitter, violent memories resurface, and resentment, and one wonders if the happy days evoked at times do not also hide an inevitable underlying violence. When you see the list of characters, you understand that there is a generational conflict, but the brothers don't get along either. The old family quarrels resurface with each movement and word, and readers wonder when the family sphere will burst. It is then that the other brother arrives, and his wife, the only female character in the play, is the only woman among all these men. She is a married woman and a mother of three children. Will she be able to appease them? More or less.
Remember, I warned you. The ending is sordid.
September 14, 2022
من عاشق نمایشنامه های مک دونا هستم و به معنی واقعی کلمه توی دیالوگ ها و فضاش غرق میشم. عاشق دیالوگ های کوتاه، کوبنده و حتی بی معنی ام.
اما این نمایشنامه رو که مک دونا ننوشته :))
آره! ولی مک دونا گفته که توی نویسندگی از دو نفر خیلی تاثیر گرفته که یکیش هارولد پینتر عه و اون یکی دیوید ممت.
خب حالا اینا چه ربطی به هم دارن؟
ربطش در اینه که انتظارم رو بالا برده بود. خیلی بالا. اما نمیدونم چرا قیافم بعد تموم شدن نمایشنامه شبیه زل زدنای سیامک انصاری به دوربین شد.
نمایشنامه دوتا پرده داره، تا آخر پرده اول خیلی خوب بود، گفتم این همونیه که میشه عاشقش شد. و منتظر اتفاقای سیاه و خفن باحال و تجاوز و تیکه تیکه کردن بودم. اما توی پرده دوم واقعا همه چی آشفته و بدجور سورئال شد. و من هیچی نفهمیدم. تقریبا هیچی. البته پیامش رو فهمیدم ولی نفهمیدم چرا اینجوری نوشته شده و چرا این نمایشنامه بعنوان بهترین اثر پینتر شناخته میشه.
خب بهرحال قرار نیست که من همه چیزو بفهمم. امیدوارم وقتی از پینتر بیشتر خوندم بتونم بفهمم اش. شاید الان خیلی خامم.
بهرحال امروز امتیازم بهش ۲/۵ هستش. شاید یکروز ادیت کردم .
.....
این ریویوو حاصل همخوانی با سعید بود و همش رو از روی حرفای اون کپی کردم.
ایموجی عرق شرم.
اما این نمایشنامه رو که مک دونا ننوشته :))
آره! ولی مک دونا گفته که توی نویسندگی از دو نفر خیلی تاثیر گرفته که یکیش هارولد پینتر عه و اون یکی دیوید ممت.
خب حالا اینا چه ربطی به هم دارن؟
ربطش در اینه که انتظارم رو بالا برده بود. خیلی بالا. اما نمیدونم چرا قیافم بعد تموم شدن نمایشنامه شبیه زل زدنای سیامک انصاری به دوربین شد.
نمایشنامه دوتا پرده داره، تا آخر پرده اول خیلی خوب بود، گفتم این همونیه که میشه عاشقش شد. و منتظر اتفاقای سیاه و خفن باحال و تجاوز و تیکه تیکه کردن بودم. اما توی پرده دوم واقعا همه چی آشفته و بدجور سورئال شد. و من هیچی نفهمیدم. تقریبا هیچی. البته پیامش رو فهمیدم ولی نفهمیدم چرا اینجوری نوشته شده و چرا این نمایشنامه بعنوان بهترین اثر پینتر شناخته میشه.
خب بهرحال قرار نیست که من همه چیزو بفهمم. امیدوارم وقتی از پینتر بیشتر خوندم بتونم بفهمم اش. شاید الان خیلی خامم.
بهرحال امروز امتیازم بهش ۲/۵ هستش. شاید یکروز ادیت کردم .
.....
این ریویوو حاصل همخوانی با سعید بود و همش رو از روی حرفای اون کپی کردم.
ایموجی عرق شرم.
September 8, 2023
دوستانِ گرانقدر، داستانِ این نمایشنامه، در مورد یک خانوادهٔ عجیب و غریبِ انگلیسی است.. با خواندنِ این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب و غافلگیرکننده، پی میبرید که تمامیِ خانواده مشکلاتِ روانی دارند... شغل و اندیشه آنها هم هیچ تفاوتی در مشکلاتِ روانی آنها ایجاد نکرده، حتی اگر استادِ دانشگاه باشند یا سالها از خانه و خانواده به دور باشند.. پس شما در این نمایشنامه که به نظرم یک داستانِ روانشناسانهٔ قوی و خواندنیست، قرار است با رفتاری غیرعادی از یک خانوادهٔ مشکل دار و روان پریش روبرو باشید و از سوی دیگر، آنچه در داستان مشخص است، مشکلِ این خانواده با زنان و بی ارزش بودنِ جنسِ زن، نزدِ این خانواده است
-----------------------------------
پدرِ خانواده،«مکس» نام دارد که ۷۰ سال سن دارد و پیرمردی بسیار بداخلاق و بدزبانیست که به همه بی احترامی میکند و پیش از بازنشستگی، قصاب بوده است... برادرِ کوچکترِ مکس، «سام» یا همان عمو سام است که ۶۳ ساله بوده و در خانهٔ او زندگی میکند و رانندهٔ تاکسیست.. همسرِ مکس که «جسی» نام داشته، مُرده و البته به نظر میرسد، به غیر از شوهرش، با برادرِ شوهرش یعنی سام و رفیقِ شوهرش یعنی «مک گره گور » و مردانِ دیگر نیز رابطه داشته است
پسرهایش «لنی» و «جوئی» که هرکدام سی و خورده ای سال سن دارند نیز کماکان با پدر زندگی میکنند
لنی به نظر میرسد، فکرش خوب کار میکند و رفتارش عجیب و غریب است و گویا زنانِ فاحشه را اجاره میدهد.. جوئی هم عاشق بوکس است، سعی دارد یک بوکسر حرفه ای شود و کارگر ساختمان است
داستان از جایی خواندنی تر میشود که شبی از شبها، «تدی» پسر بزرگِ خانواده به همراه زنش «روت» به خانهٔ پدری میروند. سالها کسی از تدی خبر نداشته و نمیدانند که ازدواج کرده و تنها خبر داشته اند که تدی دکترای فلسفه دارد و در آمریکا زندگی میکند و استادِ دانشگاه است... روت هم پیش از ازدواج با تدی، مدلِ لخت عکاسی و فاحشه بوده.. تدی و روت، سه فرزندِ پسر دارند که آنها را با خود به انگلیس نیاورده اند و خودشان برای گردش در اروپا عازمِ این سفر شده و پس از گشت و گذار در ایتالیا و ونیز، به انگلیس و خانهٔ پدر، سفر کرده اند تا چند وقتی در آنجا بمانند.. ولی اوضاع به دلخواهِ تدی پیش نمیرود، چراکه پیرمرد، به جای برخوردی گرم با تدی، در همان لحظهٔ نخست، زنِ تدی یعنی روت را جندهٔ رخت شور و سفلیسیِ کثیف خطاب میکند
چیزی از ماندنِ آنها در خانه نگذشته که لنی با روت میرقصد و جوئی با او همبستر شده و سکس میکند
حال پسرها و پدر و عمو، با هم به صورت خیلی عادی مشورت میکنند که روت را برای خودشان در خانه نگه دارند.. تدی به سراغِ زندگی خود در آمریکا رود و روت در لندن و در خانهٔ مکس نزدِ خودش و پسرانش بماند.. ولی باید ملاحظاتِ انسانی را نیز در نظر داشته باشند!!! باید هرکدام مقداری پول به او بدهند و مقرری برایش تعیین کنند. به هر حال زنِ بیچاره نیاز دارد برای خودش جوراب یا لباس بخرد.. ولی بعد تصمیم میگیرند، روت را به عنوانِ فاحشه، هر شب اجاره بدهند تا خرجِ خودش را دربیاورد، البته نباید با هر بی سر و پایی سکس داشته باشد، فقط مردانِ متشخص.. به هر حال هرچه نباشد، روت عروسِ این خانواده است!!!! حتی تدی میتواند برای روت مشتری جور کند و از آمریکا اساتیدِ دانشگاهی که به انگلیس سفر میکنند را برای عشق و حال و سکس، به خانهٔ مکس بفرستد
فکر میکنم، گویا این رفتار نسل به نسل باید جاری باشد، مکس و همسرش جوئی، سه پسر داشتند و کارشان به فحشا کشیده و حال معلوم نیست سرنوشتِ سه پسرِ تدی و روت، چه خواهد شد
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
*************************
لنی: مجهول چطوری میتواند سزاوارِ پرستش باشد؟ به عبارت دیگه، چطور میتوانیم چیزی را که ازش بی خبریم، پرستش کنیم؟
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
-----------------------------------
پدرِ خانواده،«مکس» نام دارد که ۷۰ سال سن دارد و پیرمردی بسیار بداخلاق و بدزبانیست که به همه بی احترامی میکند و پیش از بازنشستگی، قصاب بوده است... برادرِ کوچکترِ مکس، «سام» یا همان عمو سام است که ۶۳ ساله بوده و در خانهٔ او زندگی میکند و رانندهٔ تاکسیست.. همسرِ مکس که «جسی» نام داشته، مُرده و البته به نظر میرسد، به غیر از شوهرش، با برادرِ شوهرش یعنی سام و رفیقِ شوهرش یعنی «مک گره گور » و مردانِ دیگر نیز رابطه داشته است
پسرهایش «لنی» و «جوئی» که هرکدام سی و خورده ای سال سن دارند نیز کماکان با پدر زندگی میکنند
لنی به نظر میرسد، فکرش خوب کار میکند و رفتارش عجیب و غریب است و گویا زنانِ فاحشه را اجاره میدهد.. جوئی هم عاشق بوکس است، سعی دارد یک بوکسر حرفه ای شود و کارگر ساختمان است
داستان از جایی خواندنی تر میشود که شبی از شبها، «تدی» پسر بزرگِ خانواده به همراه زنش «روت» به خانهٔ پدری میروند. سالها کسی از تدی خبر نداشته و نمیدانند که ازدواج کرده و تنها خبر داشته اند که تدی دکترای فلسفه دارد و در آمریکا زندگی میکند و استادِ دانشگاه است... روت هم پیش از ازدواج با تدی، مدلِ لخت عکاسی و فاحشه بوده.. تدی و روت، سه فرزندِ پسر دارند که آنها را با خود به انگلیس نیاورده اند و خودشان برای گردش در اروپا عازمِ این سفر شده و پس از گشت و گذار در ایتالیا و ونیز، به انگلیس و خانهٔ پدر، سفر کرده اند تا چند وقتی در آنجا بمانند.. ولی اوضاع به دلخواهِ تدی پیش نمیرود، چراکه پیرمرد، به جای برخوردی گرم با تدی، در همان لحظهٔ نخست، زنِ تدی یعنی روت را جندهٔ رخت شور و سفلیسیِ کثیف خطاب میکند
چیزی از ماندنِ آنها در خانه نگذشته که لنی با روت میرقصد و جوئی با او همبستر شده و سکس میکند
حال پسرها و پدر و عمو، با هم به صورت خیلی عادی مشورت میکنند که روت را برای خودشان در خانه نگه دارند.. تدی به سراغِ زندگی خود در آمریکا رود و روت در لندن و در خانهٔ مکس نزدِ خودش و پسرانش بماند.. ولی باید ملاحظاتِ انسانی را نیز در نظر داشته باشند!!! باید هرکدام مقداری پول به او بدهند و مقرری برایش تعیین کنند. به هر حال زنِ بیچاره نیاز دارد برای خودش جوراب یا لباس بخرد.. ولی بعد تصمیم میگیرند، روت را به عنوانِ فاحشه، هر شب اجاره بدهند تا خرجِ خودش را دربیاورد، البته نباید با هر بی سر و پایی سکس داشته باشد، فقط مردانِ متشخص.. به هر حال هرچه نباشد، روت عروسِ این خانواده است!!!! حتی تدی میتواند برای روت مشتری جور کند و از آمریکا اساتیدِ دانشگاهی که به انگلیس سفر میکنند را برای عشق و حال و سکس، به خانهٔ مکس بفرستد
فکر میکنم، گویا این رفتار نسل به نسل باید جاری باشد، مکس و همسرش جوئی، سه پسر داشتند و کارشان به فحشا کشیده و حال معلوم نیست سرنوشتِ سه پسرِ تدی و روت، چه خواهد شد
عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامهٔ عجیب را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
*************************
لنی: مجهول چطوری میتواند سزاوارِ پرستش باشد؟ به عبارت دیگه، چطور میتوانیم چیزی را که ازش بی خبریم، پرستش کنیم؟
-----------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»
December 8, 2020
I have given up hope of ever seeing this play...a surreal perspective on the Madonna-whore complex identified by Freud - Pinter has a gift for 'abstract echoism' that confronts the audience with 'scaffolding of belief' when constructural orientation is lost. Harold Pinter is a very challenging playwright who is always forcing the audience to look deeper into questions that define our humanity.
October 9, 2010
I reread this after reading The Birthday Party & The Room: Two Plays just the other day and it's a natural progression for both Pinter and the reader. The decrepit boardinghouses of the two earlier plays have become an old family home; the characters are more developed; the dialogue is richer and both more and less nuanced. The woman is still a focal point, but she no longer jabbers to herself because the men in her life tune her out: she is reflective, quietly assertive, and silent on her own behalf when their sordid needs arise and they want an answer from her.
I first read this for a class over thirty years ago and I have no memory of what my 18- or 19-year-old self thought of it (or what I was told to think of it). I reread my now cover-less (due to this read) copy from then and could see I'd bracketed a few lines (even back then I hated the look of underlining or, even worse, highlighting) and made a minimal amount of notes in the margins. Next to a speech by Teddy (the homecoming son) I'd written "he's like Clov, not Hamm" -- a reference to Beckett's Endgame, which maybe I read for the same class.
This was the first Pinter I read, but not the last, and I consider him one of my favorite playwrights, so something must've gone right in the course, whatever it was called and whoever the professor was. Perhaps he was the old Jesuit priest from Ireland that also taught me Joyce. He loved James Joyce and disliked Joyce Cary -- we only read The Horse's Mouth so he could criticize it, it seemed to me -- or was that me who didn't like the Cary, or was that me because of him. Sorry for the ramble, as this is not one of Pinter's so-called memory plays, but even here truth is malleable and memory does not unlock it.
I first read this for a class over thirty years ago and I have no memory of what my 18- or 19-year-old self thought of it (or what I was told to think of it). I reread my now cover-less (due to this read) copy from then and could see I'd bracketed a few lines (even back then I hated the look of underlining or, even worse, highlighting) and made a minimal amount of notes in the margins. Next to a speech by Teddy (the homecoming son) I'd written "he's like Clov, not Hamm" -- a reference to Beckett's Endgame, which maybe I read for the same class.
This was the first Pinter I read, but not the last, and I consider him one of my favorite playwrights, so something must've gone right in the course, whatever it was called and whoever the professor was. Perhaps he was the old Jesuit priest from Ireland that also taught me Joyce. He loved James Joyce and disliked Joyce Cary -- we only read The Horse's Mouth so he could criticize it, it seemed to me -- or was that me who didn't like the Cary, or was that me because of him. Sorry for the ramble, as this is not one of Pinter's so-called memory plays, but even here truth is malleable and memory does not unlock it.
September 14, 2009
Incredibly disturbing...
Without painting broad strokes of flagrant violence, obscene language, or the like, Pinter still manages to create an environment of unparalleled menace. His tools are simply language (or, rather, what isn't said) and layers of paradox that rise from a triumviri of inconsistent character behaviors, statuses, and conceptions of the past.
While reading, I found myself continually doubting the "validity" of what nearly every character did and said. Did I mention this play is also incredibly funny?
Though "The Homecoming" is a major mind-warper in terms of characters' behavior, it's ultimately very transparent. The facts are stated, quite clearly; it's simply unthinkable to the viewer that what's going on is unchallenged.
Unsurprisingly, critics lambasted "The Homecoming" for various reasons -- my favorite being its "amorality" and "thematic ambiguity." I mean, how can a play be so riveting yet still make you ask, "what was the 'point' of that story?" Pinter's a unique talent who will certainly be missed.
Without painting broad strokes of flagrant violence, obscene language, or the like, Pinter still manages to create an environment of unparalleled menace. His tools are simply language (or, rather, what isn't said) and layers of paradox that rise from a triumviri of inconsistent character behaviors, statuses, and conceptions of the past.
While reading, I found myself continually doubting the "validity" of what nearly every character did and said. Did I mention this play is also incredibly funny?
Though "The Homecoming" is a major mind-warper in terms of characters' behavior, it's ultimately very transparent. The facts are stated, quite clearly; it's simply unthinkable to the viewer that what's going on is unchallenged.
Unsurprisingly, critics lambasted "The Homecoming" for various reasons -- my favorite being its "amorality" and "thematic ambiguity." I mean, how can a play be so riveting yet still make you ask, "what was the 'point' of that story?" Pinter's a unique talent who will certainly be missed.
October 7, 2014
Quite a few books you read/movies and plays you watched in your youth tend to disappoint when you are of a "ripe/mature" age - but this play, which I saw on stage in London at age eighteen, had not lost any of its riveting qualities when I read it tonight, thirty-six years later - within the space of less than two hours. In less than a hundred pages Pinter manages to turn the grotesque into the plausible by making an eerily antisocial milieu come to life. "Chapeau"!
October 17, 2016
What the actual eff.
I'm curious about what my professor is going to say about this because wtf.
I'm curious about what my professor is going to say about this because wtf.
January 10, 2009
Sick. Just Sick. I don't care if there's a deeper meaning to this book. To make up a story so immensely wrong is unbelievable.
Great job, Harold. You just proved yourself one of the most twisted-in-the-head people on Earth. Oh, sorry my mistake. In the afterlife. Hopefully this strange imagination of yours didnt go with you... rest in peace.
Great job, Harold. You just proved yourself one of the most twisted-in-the-head people on Earth. Oh, sorry my mistake. In the afterlife. Hopefully this strange imagination of yours didnt go with you... rest in peace.
July 24, 2012
یک نمایشنامه منسجم و دوست داشتنی از مرد دوست داشتنی تآتر جهان. مثل بقیه کارهای پینتر دیالوگها پر بود از سوءتفاهمها و دیالوگهای بلندی که به مونولوگ شبیه میشد، دیالوگهای بیهودهای که توضیحات اضافه انسانها بود (چیزی که در دنیای مدرن بین افراد اتفاق میوفته).
اصلیترین موردی که در این نمایشنامه به چشم میخوره بحث مادر-معشوقه هستش. زن به مثابه اوبژه در دنیای مدرن و خانواده هستهای. حتی این اوبژه شدگی زن در بین قشر روشنفکر و آکادمیک (که نمایندهش تدی هستش و دیگر همکارانش که قرار مشتریهای ماشین-بدن روت شوند) و قشر پرولتاریا (که دیگر افراد نمایشنامه نمایندگان آن هستند) به چشم میخوره. وقتی بیحضور زن درمورد اقامتش بحث میشه ، درمورد شغلش برای خرجی خود را درآوردن (روسپیگری) و حتی ایجاد سلطه جنسی نسبت به او (حتی تدی هم نمیگه اون خودش باید تصمیم بگیره صرفا میگه من فکر نمیکنم اون این طوری بخواد، یا میگه: اون دوست داره با من برگرده، ما سه تا پسر داریم!) بیحضور فیزیکی (سخن راندن از بدن بیحضور بدن ممکن) کاملن نمادهای مرد-پدر سالارانهی دنیای مدرن را موشکافی میکند و حتی پس از اینکه زن حضور پیدا میکنه بدن اوبژه شده خودش رو در قبال مسئله مالی (و نه لذت) به دست مبارزان سلطه جنسی قرار میده. زنی که خود میپذیره معشوقه و کارگر جنسی مشتی مرد بشه در قبال خونه و لباس و خورد و خوراک.
که البته این پایان ماجرا نیست. درآخر این مردان مبارزه کننده با هم هستند که به دست و پای این زن میافتند و او مادروار سوپراگوی همه آنها حتی پیرترینشون میشه تا خود سلطهگری به نوع دیگر (مادرگونه) را بازتولید کند.
سلطهای که در جامعهی مدرن از بین نمیرود و صرفا با شکلها و روشها مختلف بازتولید و بازآفرینی میشود در قامتها و اشکال ناهمگون و متضاد هم!
اصلیترین موردی که در این نمایشنامه به چشم میخوره بحث مادر-معشوقه هستش. زن به مثابه اوبژه در دنیای مدرن و خانواده هستهای. حتی این اوبژه شدگی زن در بین قشر روشنفکر و آکادمیک (که نمایندهش تدی هستش و دیگر همکارانش که قرار مشتریهای ماشین-بدن روت شوند) و قشر پرولتاریا (که دیگر افراد نمایشنامه نمایندگان آن هستند) به چشم میخوره. وقتی بیحضور زن درمورد اقامتش بحث میشه ، درمورد شغلش برای خرجی خود را درآوردن (روسپیگری) و حتی ایجاد سلطه جنسی نسبت به او (حتی تدی هم نمیگه اون خودش باید تصمیم بگیره صرفا میگه من فکر نمیکنم اون این طوری بخواد، یا میگه: اون دوست داره با من برگرده، ما سه تا پسر داریم!) بیحضور فیزیکی (سخن راندن از بدن بیحضور بدن ممکن) کاملن نمادهای مرد-پدر سالارانهی دنیای مدرن را موشکافی میکند و حتی پس از اینکه زن حضور پیدا میکنه بدن اوبژه شده خودش رو در قبال مسئله مالی (و نه لذت) به دست مبارزان سلطه جنسی قرار میده. زنی که خود میپذیره معشوقه و کارگر جنسی مشتی مرد بشه در قبال خونه و لباس و خورد و خوراک.
که البته این پایان ماجرا نیست. درآخر این مردان مبارزه کننده با هم هستند که به دست و پای این زن میافتند و او مادروار سوپراگوی همه آنها حتی پیرترینشون میشه تا خود سلطهگری به نوع دیگر (مادرگونه) را بازتولید کند.
سلطهای که در جامعهی مدرن از بین نمیرود و صرفا با شکلها و روشها مختلف بازتولید و بازآفرینی میشود در قامتها و اشکال ناهمگون و متضاد هم!
October 22, 2017
what did i just read ???
Read
March 21, 2023well, that was definitely something.
August 16, 2019
I’ve been in a mood to see – and to read – some plays. Here’s one of them…
This is a mad play – a mad, mad, mad play. Mad as in the old-fashioned, before-we-had-names-for-every-kind-of-mental-illness mad. Like before 1980 or thereabouts. Mad as in ‘he’s going mad,’ or ‘what, is he mad?’ Acting outside of all acceptable moral and societal expectations – like way outside. And so…
Teddy is coming home to his working class roots, his family in England. He’s a professor of philosophy in the US and has brought his wife with him. Max, his father, is crazy-mad, one moment doling out the lovey-dovey-ness and even ‘cuddling’ with his sons, (I don’t think it means what I think it means today.), and in the next calling them every profane and sickening curse he can. (So what is his mental illness, do ya think?) His other two sons are just the same: Lenny, who’s described as a pimp but doesn’t DO much pimping in the play, and Joey, who’s training to be a boxer. Max’s sons give it right back to him, word for word. Swearing and cursing but then suddenly asking if he’s going to make supper? There’s also Sam, Max’s unmarried brother, a chauffeur who likes to brag about who he’s chauffeuring around – including Max’s late wife.
It’s a house of mad people, I tell you – and that’s true with the other definition of the word. These guys are really, intolerably angry with each other. There’s barely two among this group – all men – who can stand one another. But then there’s Teddy, soft and sensitive, who brings into all this his wife and she’s – well, she’s something else altogether. Gorgeous and very forward, and Teddy’s manly family is quite taken with her.
It’s a short play, but intense, and sort of rocked the theater world back in the 60’s – and that was a time when many ‘shocking’ plays were being written and staged. Truthfully, I think if I were one of the first to see this play, and hadn’t read about it, I’d have been shocked myself and I’m fairly tolerant (blasé?) when it comes to language, politics, the whole shebang. Anyhow, something to think about long after reading – or viewing it, I’d imagine.
Four stars
This is a mad play – a mad, mad, mad play. Mad as in the old-fashioned, before-we-had-names-for-every-kind-of-mental-illness mad. Like before 1980 or thereabouts. Mad as in ‘he’s going mad,’ or ‘what, is he mad?’ Acting outside of all acceptable moral and societal expectations – like way outside. And so…
Teddy is coming home to his working class roots, his family in England. He’s a professor of philosophy in the US and has brought his wife with him. Max, his father, is crazy-mad, one moment doling out the lovey-dovey-ness and even ‘cuddling’ with his sons, (I don’t think it means what I think it means today.), and in the next calling them every profane and sickening curse he can. (So what is his mental illness, do ya think?) His other two sons are just the same: Lenny, who’s described as a pimp but doesn’t DO much pimping in the play, and Joey, who’s training to be a boxer. Max’s sons give it right back to him, word for word. Swearing and cursing but then suddenly asking if he’s going to make supper? There’s also Sam, Max’s unmarried brother, a chauffeur who likes to brag about who he’s chauffeuring around – including Max’s late wife.
It’s a house of mad people, I tell you – and that’s true with the other definition of the word. These guys are really, intolerably angry with each other. There’s barely two among this group – all men – who can stand one another. But then there’s Teddy, soft and sensitive, who brings into all this his wife and she’s – well, she’s something else altogether. Gorgeous and very forward, and Teddy’s manly family is quite taken with her.
It’s a short play, but intense, and sort of rocked the theater world back in the 60’s – and that was a time when many ‘shocking’ plays were being written and staged. Truthfully, I think if I were one of the first to see this play, and hadn’t read about it, I’d have been shocked myself and I’m fairly tolerant (blasé?) when it comes to language, politics, the whole shebang. Anyhow, something to think about long after reading – or viewing it, I’d imagine.
Four stars
February 5, 2016
"The Homecoming" was labeled by one early critic as a "comedy of menace", and I feel that sums it up better than anything else I have heard. This is a dark, deeply ambiguous, and funny play. I first read this play in college, and then again recently, soon after seeing an excellent production of it at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario Canada staring Brian Dennehy. Being older and more experienced, I feel much better about the play then I did when I first encountered it years ago.
I am hesitant to say what the play is about, because even after seeing a very good production, and reading the text closely, there are a myriad of possibilities about how to interpret the script, and the nuances therein. The play certainly is about family relationships, sexual jealousy, gender power dynamics, and many other things to boot. And yet, Pinter never gives us an insight into what he really thinks about these things, and at times I am not even sure the characters do. And it works!
A strength of the play are the characters Max and Lenny. In Lenny especially Pinter has created a daunting and very intriguing character that can make the audience squirm in their seats. He is dark, funny, smart, and a pimp. A wonderful role for a talented performer to sink his teeth into. In fact, all of the roles have wonderful possibilities in performance.
However, the greatest power in the play lies not in what is said, but rather in what is NOT said. It is there that the reader is stimulated into following up on hints in the text, and making up most of the story for themselves in their head. The infamous "Pinter pause" is certainly on display in this work. I can imagine many interesting conversations to be had while arguing about what the play is really saying.
Some readers hate that ambiguity, I love it. It is a personal preference so be warned, if you pick up "The Homecoming" you will be left with more questions than answers.
I am hesitant to say what the play is about, because even after seeing a very good production, and reading the text closely, there are a myriad of possibilities about how to interpret the script, and the nuances therein. The play certainly is about family relationships, sexual jealousy, gender power dynamics, and many other things to boot. And yet, Pinter never gives us an insight into what he really thinks about these things, and at times I am not even sure the characters do. And it works!
A strength of the play are the characters Max and Lenny. In Lenny especially Pinter has created a daunting and very intriguing character that can make the audience squirm in their seats. He is dark, funny, smart, and a pimp. A wonderful role for a talented performer to sink his teeth into. In fact, all of the roles have wonderful possibilities in performance.
However, the greatest power in the play lies not in what is said, but rather in what is NOT said. It is there that the reader is stimulated into following up on hints in the text, and making up most of the story for themselves in their head. The infamous "Pinter pause" is certainly on display in this work. I can imagine many interesting conversations to be had while arguing about what the play is really saying.
Some readers hate that ambiguity, I love it. It is a personal preference so be warned, if you pick up "The Homecoming" you will be left with more questions than answers.
January 19, 2017
I didn't like this play. It's seedy and mean, full of horrible characters treating each other badly. That doesn't mean that it's not a good play, maybe even a great one, because that was exactly what Pinter was going for, in his so called comedy menace period.
There are power plays and power shifts. There are threats and responses, as well as sparse pointed dialogue, increasingly absurd behaviour and a nasty spin in the tail.
There are power plays and power shifts. There are threats and responses, as well as sparse pointed dialogue, increasingly absurd behaviour and a nasty spin in the tail.
April 13, 2016
بذاريد اعتراف كنم، بعد از خوندن اين نمايشنامه اين به ذهنم اومد:
"who the ... gave you the noble prize, you pervert ... of the ....., we are not at all interested in you sexual fantasies"
انقدر حرص خوردم ميخواستم سر كلاس نررررم، امروز اما قطعا يكي از نمايشنامه هاي مورد علاقمه. در مقابل پينتر نبايد مقاومت نشون داد، فقط كافيه يكم بهش وقت بديد.
"who the ... gave you the noble prize, you pervert ... of the ....., we are not at all interested in you sexual fantasies"
انقدر حرص خوردم ميخواستم سر كلاس نررررم، امروز اما قطعا يكي از نمايشنامه هاي مورد علاقمه. در مقابل پينتر نبايد مقاومت نشون داد، فقط كافيه يكم بهش وقت بديد.
April 29, 2023
what in the actual f*ck
December 31, 2015
This wasn't as good as The Birthday Party, and it's much more cryptic, but Pinter really can rip the mask off of human interaction. This one's much more realistic than The Birthday Party; it depicts a dysfunctional London family, whose oldest son, who's been in America for six years with his wife (who he eloped with immediately before leaving London). No spoilers, but the strange ending depicts the same kind of isolation as that of The Birthday Party. Pinter is definitely becoming a favorite.
March 22, 2008
I just saw this play at The Cort in Manhattan. I can't imagine a better production. Superb acting, excellent staging & timing. What a terrific play, my favorite of Pinter.
April 4, 2018
Man, this play. I only have three words: what the hell?
April 19, 2021
Not sure how I feel about this tbh.
December 31, 2008
Ok sure Ruth likes to get around. Yes this might never happen and yes the play is very twisted. It includes profanity and just plain wrong scenes, conversations, actions etc; but I don't see the need to label it as horrible or the worst ever. It has its beauty: complex plot and amazing characters that kept true to themselves from beginning to end.I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they would say next and I was always wrong. Well it did make me kind of sick and embarrassed but that was because we were force to read it in class and there were some parts in witch i wish we would have stop reading, but I enjoyed it. Amazingly enough this is one of the plays i best understood. I tap into mankind dark side and I don't know after struggling throw I grew to enjoy it. I think it was just to go against the whole class but it just plain has it's own beauty and art in it -its just not that easy to find it.
August 25, 2016
this is the fourth pinter play that i have read. and, from my reading experience, i can tell you that he can create some beautifully disturbing universe in the relationships between the characters. this play is no exception to that. the pace got slightly slackened at times but it keeps its momentum intact in excellent and fissured conversations between the characters. the main soul of this play is its characters. but also, this play reached its peak in the last scene when ruth came down and the following scenes (did i give away a tiny bit of a spoiler?) happened. it was brilliant, the ending. absolutely brilliant!
March 19, 2007
Truly great. An icy stiletto of a play.
November 18, 2014
Absurdity at its finest. I do not know whether to be appalled or sad or mad or grief-stricken by this play. Truly Pinteresque!
October 16, 2022
I never thought I would give anything I read a one-star review but here we are.
July 21, 2025
The Homecoming, screenplay by Harold Pinter, based on his own play
10 out of 10
The Homecoming has been included among The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, on the list compiled by The New York Times (the site where you can check to see how many you have seen) https://www.listchallenges.com/new-yo... -and one can be enthused or horrified to see how many similarities his life has with fiction, as happened to this viewer, who must identify with the vicious Sam, as portrayed by the excellent Paul Rogers, though none of the other characters is really angelic, far from it, or at least listen to his spouse explaining this role to him, eight days a week.
Max is the father of three men and the paradigm of the pessimistic, negative main character, who would play the role of the villain, if it were not for the situation where all the others compete for the same position, there is no positive personage here, though using a modern day lens, we might argue that Ruth aka wonderful Vivien Merchant is the victim of this group of men and her acquiescence to some appalling scenarios is just the reflection of the power of the family, perhaps in the way that in some Nordic countries prostitution leads to the prosecution of the men involved and not the sex workers, who are presumed to be constrained by their limited means, traffickers and other circumstances…
Speaking of archetypal negative individual, Max does offer surprises – though not in the sense of paradigm change exposed in the wondrous Vernon God Little Booker Prize Winner by the sacramental DBC Pierre, where this is the situation…your grandmother has a man in the room with a finger up his ass and whereas you are aghast at first, you experience a paradigm change once you learn that the individual is just trying to save her from some pernicious, maybe deadly Wuhan virus or who knows what…
Sam aka great Cyril Cusack is the brother of the grumpy old man and he attracts once in a while the wrath of Max, who is so menacing, repugnant with his attacks on his sibling, offspring and everyone, reminding one of the quintessential evil creature of this age, Trump, the one who has been acquitted some hours ago by a Senate where we can again see the image of Max aka Trump repeated in the aisle where republicans sit, with the notable exception of the brave Mormon, Mitt Romney, who has called the thief by his name and admitted in spite of his affiliation that the crime committed was not just High, but one of the most serious one can get involved in, if not the Most serious.
Teddy aka equally admirable Michael Jayston returns after nine years to his family, hence The Homecoming, with his wife Ruth, after taking some vacation in Italy, they continue to North London flat, where she has the chance to meet with the father, brothers and uncle, before they return, supposedly in a couple of days, to America where they have three sons – what a coincidence, or is it a symbol of some godly intervention, or perhaps a representation of the way life repeats itself with each new generation…
Teddy is a philosophy professor in California, though this title appears to be if not undeserved, at least assigned to him as a means to criticize maybe the intellectuals, their despondency, lack of virility and the tendency to fall upon the easier alternative when faced with challenges, or most likely even worse, he could well expose the manner in which able minds – Clint Eastwood comes to mind and his outrageous political stands…he might well be a Trump cheerleader now – endeavor in such disgusting schemes as the professor would do …by the way, this is just a rather short narrative and the idea of spoiler alerts cannot be the same as elsewhere, for one cannot just restrain oneself to speaking about say fifteen or twenty minutes and forget about the second half…
The encounter between Ruth and Lenny aka marvelous Ian Holm announces some intriguing, if not outrageous and overwhelming happenings, for the tow exchange some pleasantries, but soon the pimp becomes very pushy and forward, while the sister –in- law is also rather outré in her response, if not much more, inviting, soliciting and provoking the brother, by saying ‘why not take you’, though using a MeToo optic, we would surely arrive at the conclusion that first of all, that was the age of male domination and women knew almost nothing else, we have hints that Ruth had been through some difficult times and hence she is tormented by the men that have dominated, tamed her, broke her spirit and much else…
One of the points that has attracted the attention of the undersigned is the challenge addressed to the Californian philosophy professor, who is asked about religion and God and how can one revere, worship the Unknown, and the theme is not just important in the film, but it is probably the most vital question we would all ask…evidently, many, actually most people on earth have a clear answer to that, seeing as most believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha or another version of those, although there is an increasing percentage of freethinkers, they are still a minority and the idea of putting all their trust in that Unknown Entity is part of the reason why they reject Jehovah or his alternatives…Nathaniel Branden exposes in his luminescent The Psychological Effects of Religion the trauma, the negative impact that most of the religious concepts have on people…think only of the idea that we must not pay so much attention to this world, this (only) life and consider the paradise that awaits – or not – the meek and the believers…
With the proposals made by the brothers, the play aka the movie descends into the absurd, tough perhaps this is the new normal, in a world where lies do not matter anymore, once the Lighthouse of democracies is now acquitting a crook and an established extortionist, a con man and they are very likely to elect him again, so what is ‘virtue and what is vice’…they seem to have traded places, so why not work in the sex industry and forget about the three sons one has to raise…
This viewer has written another note on Homecoming, which was an adaptation for the BBC Radio, with the glorious Michael Gambon in the role of the butcher, Max…
http://realini.blogspot.com/2018/05/t...
10 out of 10
The Homecoming has been included among The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, on the list compiled by The New York Times (the site where you can check to see how many you have seen) https://www.listchallenges.com/new-yo... -and one can be enthused or horrified to see how many similarities his life has with fiction, as happened to this viewer, who must identify with the vicious Sam, as portrayed by the excellent Paul Rogers, though none of the other characters is really angelic, far from it, or at least listen to his spouse explaining this role to him, eight days a week.
Max is the father of three men and the paradigm of the pessimistic, negative main character, who would play the role of the villain, if it were not for the situation where all the others compete for the same position, there is no positive personage here, though using a modern day lens, we might argue that Ruth aka wonderful Vivien Merchant is the victim of this group of men and her acquiescence to some appalling scenarios is just the reflection of the power of the family, perhaps in the way that in some Nordic countries prostitution leads to the prosecution of the men involved and not the sex workers, who are presumed to be constrained by their limited means, traffickers and other circumstances…
Speaking of archetypal negative individual, Max does offer surprises – though not in the sense of paradigm change exposed in the wondrous Vernon God Little Booker Prize Winner by the sacramental DBC Pierre, where this is the situation…your grandmother has a man in the room with a finger up his ass and whereas you are aghast at first, you experience a paradigm change once you learn that the individual is just trying to save her from some pernicious, maybe deadly Wuhan virus or who knows what…
Sam aka great Cyril Cusack is the brother of the grumpy old man and he attracts once in a while the wrath of Max, who is so menacing, repugnant with his attacks on his sibling, offspring and everyone, reminding one of the quintessential evil creature of this age, Trump, the one who has been acquitted some hours ago by a Senate where we can again see the image of Max aka Trump repeated in the aisle where republicans sit, with the notable exception of the brave Mormon, Mitt Romney, who has called the thief by his name and admitted in spite of his affiliation that the crime committed was not just High, but one of the most serious one can get involved in, if not the Most serious.
Teddy aka equally admirable Michael Jayston returns after nine years to his family, hence The Homecoming, with his wife Ruth, after taking some vacation in Italy, they continue to North London flat, where she has the chance to meet with the father, brothers and uncle, before they return, supposedly in a couple of days, to America where they have three sons – what a coincidence, or is it a symbol of some godly intervention, or perhaps a representation of the way life repeats itself with each new generation…
Teddy is a philosophy professor in California, though this title appears to be if not undeserved, at least assigned to him as a means to criticize maybe the intellectuals, their despondency, lack of virility and the tendency to fall upon the easier alternative when faced with challenges, or most likely even worse, he could well expose the manner in which able minds – Clint Eastwood comes to mind and his outrageous political stands…he might well be a Trump cheerleader now – endeavor in such disgusting schemes as the professor would do …by the way, this is just a rather short narrative and the idea of spoiler alerts cannot be the same as elsewhere, for one cannot just restrain oneself to speaking about say fifteen or twenty minutes and forget about the second half…
The encounter between Ruth and Lenny aka marvelous Ian Holm announces some intriguing, if not outrageous and overwhelming happenings, for the tow exchange some pleasantries, but soon the pimp becomes very pushy and forward, while the sister –in- law is also rather outré in her response, if not much more, inviting, soliciting and provoking the brother, by saying ‘why not take you’, though using a MeToo optic, we would surely arrive at the conclusion that first of all, that was the age of male domination and women knew almost nothing else, we have hints that Ruth had been through some difficult times and hence she is tormented by the men that have dominated, tamed her, broke her spirit and much else…
One of the points that has attracted the attention of the undersigned is the challenge addressed to the Californian philosophy professor, who is asked about religion and God and how can one revere, worship the Unknown, and the theme is not just important in the film, but it is probably the most vital question we would all ask…evidently, many, actually most people on earth have a clear answer to that, seeing as most believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha or another version of those, although there is an increasing percentage of freethinkers, they are still a minority and the idea of putting all their trust in that Unknown Entity is part of the reason why they reject Jehovah or his alternatives…Nathaniel Branden exposes in his luminescent The Psychological Effects of Religion the trauma, the negative impact that most of the religious concepts have on people…think only of the idea that we must not pay so much attention to this world, this (only) life and consider the paradise that awaits – or not – the meek and the believers…
With the proposals made by the brothers, the play aka the movie descends into the absurd, tough perhaps this is the new normal, in a world where lies do not matter anymore, once the Lighthouse of democracies is now acquitting a crook and an established extortionist, a con man and they are very likely to elect him again, so what is ‘virtue and what is vice’…they seem to have traded places, so why not work in the sex industry and forget about the three sons one has to raise…
This viewer has written another note on Homecoming, which was an adaptation for the BBC Radio, with the glorious Michael Gambon in the role of the butcher, Max…
http://realini.blogspot.com/2018/05/t...
April 6, 2024
The story is absolutely bizarre and absolutely absurd; strangely, its absolutely spellbinding and terrifying also. I need to read it again.
Read
March 15, 2023A ver, a ver, a ver.
Punto 1. Digo yo que igual se han tomado lo de que entre hermanos hay que compartir muy al pie de la letra, no?
Punto 2. Entender no habré entendido ni papa, pero aprender sinónimos de puta? De esos unos cuantos.
Punto 3. Yo no sé si soy una mal pensada pero todo lo que dicen suena hiper sexual.
For example:
"First of all I gave Lenny a bath, the Teddy a bath, then Joey a bath. What fun we used to have in the bath, eh, boys?"
Mmm, that's weird. That's supicious... (Pedo alert ?)
Pd: estoy full convinced que Max quería a Mac más que como un amigo. Fight me.
Punto 1. Digo yo que igual se han tomado lo de que entre hermanos hay que compartir muy al pie de la letra, no?
Punto 2. Entender no habré entendido ni papa, pero aprender sinónimos de puta? De esos unos cuantos.
Punto 3. Yo no sé si soy una mal pensada pero todo lo que dicen suena hiper sexual.
For example:
"First of all I gave Lenny a bath, the Teddy a bath, then Joey a bath. What fun we used to have in the bath, eh, boys?"
Mmm, that's weird. That's supicious... (Pedo alert ?)
Pd: estoy full convinced que Max quería a Mac más que como un amigo. Fight me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 507 reviews