What do you think?
Rate this book
The Caretaker & The Dumb Waiter
Since the remarkable success of The Caretaker in 1960, Harold Pinter has been recognized as "the most fascinating, enigmatic, and accomplished dramatist in the English language" (Jack Kroll, Newsweek).
"The Caretaker is ... a powerful drama with a climax that tears at the heart ... and proclaims its author as one of the most important playwrights of our day."—Howard Taubman, The New York Times
In all of Pinter's plays, seemingly ordinary events become charged with profound, if elusive, meaning, haunting pathos, and wild comedy. In The Caretaker, a tramp finds lodging in the derelict house of two brothers; in The Dumb Waiter, a pair of gunmen wait for the kill in a decayed lodging house. Harold Pinter gradually exposes the inner strains and fears of his characters, alternating hilarity and terror to create an almost unbearable edge of tension.
"There is no playwright his equal. He is the natural descendant of James Joyce, by way of Samuel Beckett. Pinter works the language as a master pianist works the keyboard. This is classical playwriting, make no mistake about it."—Martin Gottfried, New York Post.
"The Caretaker is ... a powerful drama with a climax that tears at the heart ... and proclaims its author as one of the most important playwrights of our day."—Howard Taubman, The New York Times
In all of Pinter's plays, seemingly ordinary events become charged with profound, if elusive, meaning, haunting pathos, and wild comedy. In The Caretaker, a tramp finds lodging in the derelict house of two brothers; in The Dumb Waiter, a pair of gunmen wait for the kill in a decayed lodging house. Harold Pinter gradually exposes the inner strains and fears of his characters, alternating hilarity and terror to create an almost unbearable edge of tension.
"There is no playwright his equal. He is the natural descendant of James Joyce, by way of Samuel Beckett. Pinter works the language as a master pianist works the keyboard. This is classical playwriting, make no mistake about it."—Martin Gottfried, New York Post.
121 pages, Paperback
Published January 18, 1994
6 people are currently reading
313 people want to read
About the author
Harold Pinter
394 books778 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 38 reviews
November 11, 2013
I’d read The Caretaker more than three years ago, and though I had loved it, I kept The Dumb Waiter for another time, for some stupid reason. Finally I took it up today, and wondered why I dithered so long. I adore modern drama, and Pinter is one of my favorite playwrights.
For quite some time, Pinter had been considered a different kind of absurdist dramatist. Less dark than Beckett, but just as effective. And perhaps much more lucid. While Beckett alludes to the bleakness and meaninglessness of life, Pinter’s lines are portentous of concealed, violent meanings in even the simplest, seemingly inconsequential chatter. Quite appropriately, Pinter is now considered a writer in the Comedy of Menace mode. In his hand, the commonplace does not become really absurd – but it reveals daily violence that eludes our numbed senses. Under the garb of comedy, it is silently menacing.
In ‘The Caretaker’, we encounter two brothers, Mick and Aston, who take in a poor tramp Davies. What struck me most was the uneasy, yet strong rapport these brothers shared. Aston’s insecurity, and his eagerness to prove himself useful, afraid that he might be sent back to the institution, coupled with Davies’ malicious about-turn to manipulate them and create a rift between them, all the while covered in the thin veil of comedy brings out one of the themes that runs clear through both these works – the theme of dominance and submission.
The utterly banal exchanges between Ben and Gus in the other play, The Dumb Waiter too are rife with this same chilling theme, this time Gus submitting to Ben, afraid of the latter’s temper. When ultimately we discover who the intended victim is of the hit job that Ben and Gus are to carry out, it is even more underscored by our realization that it is not just Gus, but also Ben who has become submissive.
He raises his head and looks at Ben.
A long silence.
They stare at each other.
This Pinteresque enjoyment of the plays makes it a delightful, yet unsettling read. Instead of being convinced of the meaningless nature of even the most profound acts, it kicks in a paranoia surrounding even the most mundane conversations and glances. Every word and every silence, in Pinter, carries auguries of menace.
When Pinter referred to his famous “two silences” in his works, he clarified that the underlying violence in the silences between and beneath his dialogues was not an indication of the assumed “failure of communication”, but signified that intuitively, those locked in the situation immediately conveyed to each other the threat that lingers over his works, and these two plays as well.
The way the essay ”The Silence of the Subaltern” holds that the silence of marginalized, subaltern groups is not empty, but rather, pregnant with unspoken, unspeakable meaning, the kind of characters chosen by Pinter is important in the sense that it presents the violence of a subaltern life that our civilized tendencies tend to overlook as “uncouth”, instead of recognizing the subaltern status that makes things and people unpredictable and more wary of civilized pretenses of kindness and trust. Both these plays employ characters that survive on the fringes – economically and socially. While Davies is a tramp, Aston a seemingly a psychological patient and Mick, though neither, is impoverished, in the second play, Ben and Gus are both poor, and hit-men.
I have only read his plays – never seen them performed. And plays are written to be played out, rather than be read. I can only imagine what a live play of these would look like. Initially, I’d thought of them as four-star plays. Brilliant, but still lacking in something. But having attempted (and half-way aborted) an amateur rendering of ‘The Caretaker’, I am convinced it wouldn’t be wrong to rate it in full.
The everyday threat implied in these seemingly pointless acts becomes clearer when played out. Although the reading was an enjoyable experience, the amateur acting out made it incredible. I can only wonder what seeing it played out would do to me.
For quite some time, Pinter had been considered a different kind of absurdist dramatist. Less dark than Beckett, but just as effective. And perhaps much more lucid. While Beckett alludes to the bleakness and meaninglessness of life, Pinter’s lines are portentous of concealed, violent meanings in even the simplest, seemingly inconsequential chatter. Quite appropriately, Pinter is now considered a writer in the Comedy of Menace mode. In his hand, the commonplace does not become really absurd – but it reveals daily violence that eludes our numbed senses. Under the garb of comedy, it is silently menacing.
In ‘The Caretaker’, we encounter two brothers, Mick and Aston, who take in a poor tramp Davies. What struck me most was the uneasy, yet strong rapport these brothers shared. Aston’s insecurity, and his eagerness to prove himself useful, afraid that he might be sent back to the institution, coupled with Davies’ malicious about-turn to manipulate them and create a rift between them, all the while covered in the thin veil of comedy brings out one of the themes that runs clear through both these works – the theme of dominance and submission.
The utterly banal exchanges between Ben and Gus in the other play, The Dumb Waiter too are rife with this same chilling theme, this time Gus submitting to Ben, afraid of the latter’s temper. When ultimately we discover who the intended victim is of the hit job that Ben and Gus are to carry out, it is even more underscored by our realization that it is not just Gus, but also Ben who has become submissive.
He raises his head and looks at Ben.
A long silence.
They stare at each other.
This Pinteresque enjoyment of the plays makes it a delightful, yet unsettling read. Instead of being convinced of the meaningless nature of even the most profound acts, it kicks in a paranoia surrounding even the most mundane conversations and glances. Every word and every silence, in Pinter, carries auguries of menace.
When Pinter referred to his famous “two silences” in his works, he clarified that the underlying violence in the silences between and beneath his dialogues was not an indication of the assumed “failure of communication”, but signified that intuitively, those locked in the situation immediately conveyed to each other the threat that lingers over his works, and these two plays as well.
The way the essay ”The Silence of the Subaltern” holds that the silence of marginalized, subaltern groups is not empty, but rather, pregnant with unspoken, unspeakable meaning, the kind of characters chosen by Pinter is important in the sense that it presents the violence of a subaltern life that our civilized tendencies tend to overlook as “uncouth”, instead of recognizing the subaltern status that makes things and people unpredictable and more wary of civilized pretenses of kindness and trust. Both these plays employ characters that survive on the fringes – economically and socially. While Davies is a tramp, Aston a seemingly a psychological patient and Mick, though neither, is impoverished, in the second play, Ben and Gus are both poor, and hit-men.
I have only read his plays – never seen them performed. And plays are written to be played out, rather than be read. I can only imagine what a live play of these would look like. Initially, I’d thought of them as four-star plays. Brilliant, but still lacking in something. But having attempted (and half-way aborted) an amateur rendering of ‘The Caretaker’, I am convinced it wouldn’t be wrong to rate it in full.
The everyday threat implied in these seemingly pointless acts becomes clearer when played out. Although the reading was an enjoyable experience, the amateur acting out made it incredible. I can only wonder what seeing it played out would do to me.
March 13, 2017
In Pinter's The Caretaker, there is the Pinter-room, here both a haven and a hell for the character of the old man. There are the Pinter-pauses and the Pinter-humor, both used to great effect, though the Pinter-pitch-perfect dialogue does become a bit repetitive. The play could've been shorter and still achieved the same effect, even with each of the three characters getting his own lengthy monologue, one per act.
There is also the Pinter-ambiguity. Is the older brother who has had electroshock therapy actually saner than his younger brother? Is there a method to the younger brother's madness, or is he just mad? If the former, what would be the point of his messing with the old man's mind? And how is it that the old man -- an ingratiating, conniving bigoted individual -- uses up the older brother's sympathy but gains ours? And who is the "caretaker"? I thought I knew, but now I think I don't.
The Dumb Waiter is a comedy act of "Abbott & Costello meets Pulp Fiction's Travolta & Samuel L. Jackson," with a chilling, if a tad predictable, ending. Suspecting that this one-act would be of lesser quality than "The Caretaker," I found myself surprised at how entertaining, and even thought-provoking, it is.
There is also the Pinter-ambiguity. Is the older brother who has had electroshock therapy actually saner than his younger brother? Is there a method to the younger brother's madness, or is he just mad? If the former, what would be the point of his messing with the old man's mind? And how is it that the old man -- an ingratiating, conniving bigoted individual -- uses up the older brother's sympathy but gains ours? And who is the "caretaker"? I thought I knew, but now I think I don't.
The Dumb Waiter is a comedy act of "Abbott & Costello meets Pulp Fiction's Travolta & Samuel L. Jackson," with a chilling, if a tad predictable, ending. Suspecting that this one-act would be of lesser quality than "The Caretaker," I found myself surprised at how entertaining, and even thought-provoking, it is.
April 27, 2019
These two plays by Harold Pinter made me wish I had seen them performed. "The Caretaker" is about two brothers who allow an old bum to live in the flat that one of them owns as a caretaker. The old man, called Davies, plays one brother off the other, until both of them feel they are being manipulated and send him off. In "The Dumb Waiter" two gunmen are in the basement waiting for orders to kill someone. As they wait, strange peremptory food orders come down through the dumb waiter. Both plays are suitably edgy.
December 20, 2021
Dark, weird, and wonderful. Pinter is a master at getting you invested in fundamentally unlikeable characters who find themselves in unsettling situations. I couldn’t stop thinking about The Caretaker after I read it. Both plays are suspenseful and absurd—and classic Pinter.
Read
October 3, 2019Both plays are pure incomprehensible pap whose meaning is to be supplied by each member of the audience.
May 14, 2018
I sometimes wonder whether certain artists purposely leave matters vague in the hope that us overly analytical readers will believe there is something profound going on if we do enough detective work. I especially can't help but wonder this when I read/watch Harold Pinter plays, but at some point, there do seem to be enough details and recurring ideas and accusations that connect to show that his writing is more than merely vague. When one character seems to fear being idle and then another character is accused of being idle, there is something more going on. When multiple characters seem to be grasping for excuses not to do things, there is something more going on. When the titles themselves seem to be ironic comments about the play's characters, there is something more going on.
The Caretaker, the full length play here, depicts two brothers who live in a dingy apartment. One of them offers to take in a garrulous old drifter (played by Donald Pleasence in an amazing performance in the movie and original stage version) after said drifter has almost gotten in a fight. On their first night together, the helpful brother, quiet and distant, does what little he can to help the cantankerous old man. The nature of their relationship changes over the course of the play, especially at the play's introduction of the second brother who, at first, seems to be the biggest wild card of the bunch, but may ultimately be the voice of reason.
The biggest theme running through this play seems to be illusion. Each of these three characters has some goal they want to achieve (even if it is as small as building in shed in the back garden), yet they convince themselves they can't achieve it for one reason or another. The drifter almost certainly builds up these illusions so he doesn't have to address his real problems. I found the brothers more difficult to pin down. They could just as easily have been avoiding reality as needing it.
The Dumb Waiter, the one act play, is more concise and accessible. Two hit men wait in a basement apartment for the signal to begin their latest hit. Instead of getting instructions, though, they only get food orders from the dumb waiter. I found myself laughing out loud more at this play than The Caretaker. There are some standout moments of farcical comedy going on here, as two mismatched hitmen try to understand why they are receiving more and more obscure food orders. The ending serves as a reminder that despite the dark and offbeat humor, there are serious matters still afoot. Aside from simply being a farce, the play could also be about how systems or institutions destroy individuals.
Once again, there is something more going on here; I'm just not quite sure what that is.
The Caretaker, the full length play here, depicts two brothers who live in a dingy apartment. One of them offers to take in a garrulous old drifter (played by Donald Pleasence in an amazing performance in the movie and original stage version) after said drifter has almost gotten in a fight. On their first night together, the helpful brother, quiet and distant, does what little he can to help the cantankerous old man. The nature of their relationship changes over the course of the play, especially at the play's introduction of the second brother who, at first, seems to be the biggest wild card of the bunch, but may ultimately be the voice of reason.
The biggest theme running through this play seems to be illusion. Each of these three characters has some goal they want to achieve (even if it is as small as building in shed in the back garden), yet they convince themselves they can't achieve it for one reason or another. The drifter almost certainly builds up these illusions so he doesn't have to address his real problems. I found the brothers more difficult to pin down. They could just as easily have been avoiding reality as needing it.
The Dumb Waiter, the one act play, is more concise and accessible. Two hit men wait in a basement apartment for the signal to begin their latest hit. Instead of getting instructions, though, they only get food orders from the dumb waiter. I found myself laughing out loud more at this play than The Caretaker. There are some standout moments of farcical comedy going on here, as two mismatched hitmen try to understand why they are receiving more and more obscure food orders. The ending serves as a reminder that despite the dark and offbeat humor, there are serious matters still afoot. Aside from simply being a farce, the play could also be about how systems or institutions destroy individuals.
Once again, there is something more going on here; I'm just not quite sure what that is.
July 19, 2022
3.25 stars for Caretaker 2.75 stars for Dumbwaiter
Always hard to rate plays based on a reading alone. Still both of these were interesting to me without being riveting. They are spare and do not use literary language, though Mick goes off on a couple of rants that sound as if the character is supposed to have had some education.
THE CARETAKER is quite a bit longer than THE DUMBWAITER and thus brings up more interesting stuff. I like that neither play pays off in the most obvious way. In both cases two characters are on stage sorta kinda interacting. In “Care” one character is speaking to the turned back of another. In “Dumb” the two characters stare at each other without speaking.
I loved Alan Bates back when he was making movies, BUTLEY being one of my all time favorites. Never saw Bates on the stage, but would’ve liked to have seen him play Mick.
I will read some more Pinter and make some effort to see one of his plays, if only something filmed.
Always hard to rate plays based on a reading alone. Still both of these were interesting to me without being riveting. They are spare and do not use literary language, though Mick goes off on a couple of rants that sound as if the character is supposed to have had some education.
THE CARETAKER is quite a bit longer than THE DUMBWAITER and thus brings up more interesting stuff. I like that neither play pays off in the most obvious way. In both cases two characters are on stage sorta kinda interacting. In “Care” one character is speaking to the turned back of another. In “Dumb” the two characters stare at each other without speaking.
I loved Alan Bates back when he was making movies, BUTLEY being one of my all time favorites. Never saw Bates on the stage, but would’ve liked to have seen him play Mick.
I will read some more Pinter and make some effort to see one of his plays, if only something filmed.
November 2, 2024
So I’ve been going through a stack of plays in my bookshelf that I’d either read ages ago or not at all, and I mostly started with the Pinter. A couple of interesting ones, some less so, so I was wondering if Pinter was an old interest that hadn’t aged well.
Well, this book in particular brought me back around.
These are two plays that clearly have some debt to Beckett, but Pinter does indeed make these stories unique to him. An old man gets caught up with a couple of brothers with a pale fantasy of fixing up a house, and two hit men look to a dumb waiter to find out the target of their next job. But they are characters fixated on tea and biscuits, with shoes, with everything but their deeper conflicts, which brilliantly highlights those conflicts they don’t want to address. So impressive.
Well, this book in particular brought me back around.
These are two plays that clearly have some debt to Beckett, but Pinter does indeed make these stories unique to him. An old man gets caught up with a couple of brothers with a pale fantasy of fixing up a house, and two hit men look to a dumb waiter to find out the target of their next job. But they are characters fixated on tea and biscuits, with shoes, with everything but their deeper conflicts, which brilliantly highlights those conflicts they don’t want to address. So impressive.
December 13, 2023
Harold Pinter was a remarkable playwright. His works always had multiple themes running, always seeming to be on the edge of violence, even when what was being said was inconsequential, or comic.
Watching one of his plays always left the audience anxious, knowing there was nothing good ahead, wondering when the hammer blow would come, and what that might actually be. For actors, these plays are quite a challenge, to be menacing even when that isn't the situation, or to make the material funny, when that isn't the situation either.
These two plays, with two very different storylines, are quintessential Pinter, wherein the characters' expectations are never met, or if they are, not in the way they expect, and there are no happy endings.
Watching one of his plays always left the audience anxious, knowing there was nothing good ahead, wondering when the hammer blow would come, and what that might actually be. For actors, these plays are quite a challenge, to be menacing even when that isn't the situation, or to make the material funny, when that isn't the situation either.
These two plays, with two very different storylines, are quintessential Pinter, wherein the characters' expectations are never met, or if they are, not in the way they expect, and there are no happy endings.
April 10, 2024
Pinter's first economic success, the CARETAKER is a three actor play: a homeless man is brought to a flat by a simple but goodhearted man. They verbally joust about everything and nothing, with both men appearing to not actually want to do anything. A third man, the brother of the kind man, comes home and his mix into the fray causes problems. As the play progresses, we realize more about each of the men. The play is from the absurdist school of the 1960's, and feels very at home with the likes of WAITING FOR GODOT. It's a funny, sad, and lonely play.
June 27, 2017
"The Caretaker" is one of my favorite Pinter plays. "The Dumb Waiter," one of my least favorite. So this collection is like the best and worst of Pinter -- the first part being rich with strange tensions, weird power plays, and unexpected poignancies; the second being a little too jokey, more of a sketch then an actual drama. But even bad Pinter is better than much else. He's always got a little of the creep factor in just about everything he does to keep things interesting.
October 24, 2021
I picked up this book of two Pinter plays from a little free library and I'm curious about its origin. The Caretaker is marked and I wonder if the previous owner of this book played Davies, while The Dumb Waiter (my favorite of the two plays) still has crisp pages, despite the book's 1965 printing date. Other reviewers and the blurb on the back celebrate the plays' tense situations and humor, so I wouldn't be adding anything with my thoughts.
August 2, 2022
i did not expect that british slang from the 60s would be so incomprehensible to me. i also did not expect this book to fucking suck and only be entertaining when i read things in norm macdonalds voice. fuck that homeless guy tho
April 13, 2020
reread
June 27, 2020
The Caretaker was interesting. Dealing with racism, xenophobia, aggressive treatment of psychiatric patients, homelessness etc
The Dumb Waiter, though... Sorry, but I didn't get the point.
The Dumb Waiter, though... Sorry, but I didn't get the point.
July 21, 2020
both are so boring. the characters are saying nothing of value and the action is incredibly circular. both are very ‘waiting for godot’ like but lack the depth beckett’s play has
April 26, 2025
I know I'm supposed to like Pinter. And maybe, at one time I did. Or at least found him interesting. I have little patience for unpleasant people being stupid right now.
May 27, 2009
The story of The Caretaker revolves around a drifter named Davies who ends up being taken in by a man named Aston who lives in one room of a run-down house owned by his brother, Mick. After meeting each other at a pub, Aston, who once spent time in a psychiatric hospital and seems to have been lobotomized, allows Davies to come home with him and offers up a spare bed in his room.
Each brother, at different times, offers Davies the job of caretaker in this house and toward the end of the play there is a hilarious exchange between Davies and Mick that involves defining what exactly a caretaker does; Mick seems to think it involves interior decorating.
The exchanges between all three men get more vague and menacing as the play goes on, and because of the uncertainty between the characters the reader (or viewer) is mostly kept off balance as well. Like the show Lost , we never know where these characters stand and it’s difficult to know with whom our sympathies should lie.
For the second play, The Dumb Waiter, think Beckett’s Waiting for Godot with absurdity to spare but no caricatures as characters. In another one-room setting, typical of Pinter, the play shows us two men, Gus and Ben, waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . for a hit to go down. Along the way we are treated to the type of dialogue that is well-known to Pinter fans—decidedly masculine and curt—about everyday situations in an absurdist setting. My favorite part involves the dumb waiter alluded to in the title—best use of a dumb waiter in a novel since I read Harriet the Spy as a little girl. Of course, our two protagonists are dumb waiters as well. Oh that Pinter—too clever by half.
Similar to classical music, in which the silent spaces between the notes are as important as the musical notes themselves, Pinter’s silences are menacing, and the true personalities of Gus and Ben emerge not in their words but in their ominous silences.
And, like all Pinter plays, the specific circumstances portrayed cause us to reflect on the general. The fact that Gus and Ben, like Estragon and Vladimir, take their orders from an absent being “above” forces us to deliberate on human existence in relation to government, behemoth organizations, and, gulp, religion. Cool beans.
Interweaving pathos, comedy, and suspense, both of these plays, are, at base, studies in non-communication that are almost surreally real.
Each brother, at different times, offers Davies the job of caretaker in this house and toward the end of the play there is a hilarious exchange between Davies and Mick that involves defining what exactly a caretaker does; Mick seems to think it involves interior decorating.
The exchanges between all three men get more vague and menacing as the play goes on, and because of the uncertainty between the characters the reader (or viewer) is mostly kept off balance as well. Like the show Lost , we never know where these characters stand and it’s difficult to know with whom our sympathies should lie.
For the second play, The Dumb Waiter, think Beckett’s Waiting for Godot with absurdity to spare but no caricatures as characters. In another one-room setting, typical of Pinter, the play shows us two men, Gus and Ben, waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . for a hit to go down. Along the way we are treated to the type of dialogue that is well-known to Pinter fans—decidedly masculine and curt—about everyday situations in an absurdist setting. My favorite part involves the dumb waiter alluded to in the title—best use of a dumb waiter in a novel since I read Harriet the Spy as a little girl. Of course, our two protagonists are dumb waiters as well. Oh that Pinter—too clever by half.
Similar to classical music, in which the silent spaces between the notes are as important as the musical notes themselves, Pinter’s silences are menacing, and the true personalities of Gus and Ben emerge not in their words but in their ominous silences.
And, like all Pinter plays, the specific circumstances portrayed cause us to reflect on the general. The fact that Gus and Ben, like Estragon and Vladimir, take their orders from an absent being “above” forces us to deliberate on human existence in relation to government, behemoth organizations, and, gulp, religion. Cool beans.
Interweaving pathos, comedy, and suspense, both of these plays, are, at base, studies in non-communication that are almost surreally real.
April 17, 2024
read most of this in the sauna finished this at my tattoo apt while megan was getting hers done and i was in the cuck chair. the caretaker is great, maybe a bit long, the dumb waiter was mid, though worth a note that in bruges is entirely cribbed from the first half.
October 24, 2008
originally staged in 1960, the caretaker confirmed pinter's renown as a playwright. with little more than three actors and a single room, the caretaker illustrates an eccentric piteousness that eventually devolves into frustration and indifference. with wry humor and idiomatic genius, pinter veers towards the inscrutable just long enough to disperse with the expectations one may have in regards to contemporary drama. there is a dissociation between pinter's characters that leaves the reader feeling slightly uneasy or ambiguous about what would otherwise be obvious allegiances. absent a comfortable veneer, one is thrust more acutely into the play, and thus finishes more affected (in spite of criticisms that pinter makes his works incomprehensible for his notable lack of plot and contrivance).
the dumb waiter is considerably more amusing than the caretaker, though no less absurd. a one-act play, the dumb waiter is rife with the latent violence that marks so many of pinter's works, and leads the reader to ponder notions of identity and fidelity (themes explored in greater depth throughout pinter's oeuvre). comparisons of pinter to beckett are perhaps most apt in this play, as the dumb waiter does indeed elicit traces of waiting for godot, although there are obvious dissimilarities between ben & gus and vladimir & estragon.
the dumb waiter is considerably more amusing than the caretaker, though no less absurd. a one-act play, the dumb waiter is rife with the latent violence that marks so many of pinter's works, and leads the reader to ponder notions of identity and fidelity (themes explored in greater depth throughout pinter's oeuvre). comparisons of pinter to beckett are perhaps most apt in this play, as the dumb waiter does indeed elicit traces of waiting for godot, although there are obvious dissimilarities between ben & gus and vladimir & estragon.
November 19, 2016
153. The Caretaker/The Dumbwaiter by Harold Pinter
Too surreal in the case of the Caretaker and too predictable in that of The Dumbwaiter. A grubby old man, Davies, is taken home by a young man, Aston, and allowed to stay in the house, which seems to be crumbling around them. Aston has brain damage from shock treatment in a psychiatric hospital. A second young man, Mick, Aston’s brother, says he is the owner. The two brothers take turns terrorizing the old man and there is no real conclusion. The teletubbies have more plot line and action. The Dumbwaiter is set in an empty house and the two characters are hit men, Gus and Ben, who have not been given the name of their next victim. Although the house seems abandoned, the dumbwaiter starts to operate. The hitmen don’t know how to respond but it is about then that I figured that (spoiler alert) one of the hitmen was for the high jump.
Too surreal in the case of the Caretaker and too predictable in that of The Dumbwaiter. A grubby old man, Davies, is taken home by a young man, Aston, and allowed to stay in the house, which seems to be crumbling around them. Aston has brain damage from shock treatment in a psychiatric hospital. A second young man, Mick, Aston’s brother, says he is the owner. The two brothers take turns terrorizing the old man and there is no real conclusion. The teletubbies have more plot line and action. The Dumbwaiter is set in an empty house and the two characters are hit men, Gus and Ben, who have not been given the name of their next victim. Although the house seems abandoned, the dumbwaiter starts to operate. The hitmen don’t know how to respond but it is about then that I figured that (spoiler alert) one of the hitmen was for the high jump.
August 7, 2014
*4 for Dumbwaiter, 3 for caretaker
A note on The Dumbwaiter: This is a curious case of a play, for me. For one, I knew the ending and general plot already...thanks quiz bowl giveaways... And for another I had watched a movie that reminded me of that plot [In Bruges], which prompted me to read the book.
Pinter's works are...typical plays? They take a few moments and make them dramatic. I didn't particularly like or dislike them. Fairly short, too.
I would recommend Dumbwaiter. Godotesque, I think. I didn't care for caretaker much.
Though of course plays are meant to be performed I can't judge properly etc.
A note on The Dumbwaiter: This is a curious case of a play, for me. For one, I knew the ending and general plot already...thanks quiz bowl giveaways... And for another I had watched a movie that reminded me of that plot [In Bruges], which prompted me to read the book.
Pinter's works are...typical plays? They take a few moments and make them dramatic. I didn't particularly like or dislike them. Fairly short, too.
I would recommend Dumbwaiter. Godotesque, I think. I didn't care for caretaker much.
Though of course plays are meant to be performed I can't judge properly etc.
July 20, 2010
this book was a waste of time for me, my first comment when i finsihed the first plat was: WTF, after the second play, i decided i will never read anything again by the nobel Laureate, Harold Pinter. In the Caretaker, he tortures the reader with the lack of plot, there is Nothing in the play, absloutely nothing, it could have been a play about someone who went into the supermarket to buy anything!! i read reviews about it, and the readers were astonished by the writer's ability to torture his reader with anticipation... i dont find it amusing, its a waste of time for me...
January 5, 2009
I started off '09 with one of my unfortunate habits of reading something by an author whose obituary had just been published. I was expecting to really like Pinter's style and he delivered. Nothing more, nothing less, just lots of good, tense dialogue. I think I preferred The Dumb Waiter due to my weakness for hitmen drama.
December 23, 2011
The Caretaker didn't really hit me, but I did like the Dumb Waiter. I mean, Pinter's good, and everything here was sharp. Dialogue was nice and snappy, funny, but overall things were somewhat absurdist and I think I'll have to give this another try another time.
April 24, 2012
I only read The Dumbwaiter in my literature textbook for my class this semester, and I really enjoyed it. I think I'm coming to find that I like reading plays more than I like reading anything else. We still have one more to read - Arcadia, by Tom Stoppard. We'll see how that goes.
Read
October 23, 2007this is a play with a special atmosphere.
Read
September 14, 2009The Caretaker and the Dumb Waiter by Harold Pinter (1960)
August 17, 2011
Just read The Caretaker as a way to get ready for The Imaginists' performances later this month. As usual, reading a play wasn't as satisfying as I expect the stage presentation to be.
November 23, 2012
Clueless. I was clueless when I started reading Harold Pinter.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews