What do you think?
Rate this book
Old Times
Old Times [paperback] Pinter, Harold [Jan 01, 1972]
Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
9 people are currently reading
583 people want to read
About the author
Harold Pinter
394 books777 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 99 reviews
January 15, 2013
It was good.
(Pause)
Confusing...
(Slight Pause)
...but good.
(Silence)
(Pause)
Confusing...
(Slight Pause)
...but good.
(Silence)
August 8, 2024
#Julho Nobel
Precisava da minha magnífica professora de Literatura Inglesa para me contagiar com o seu entusiasmo por Harold Pinter, porque passados tantos anos e tantos livros, é um autor que continua a passar-me ao lado. Não sou apreciadora de teatro pelo suporte quase exclusivo em diálogos, mas Pinter tem a particularidade de desenvolver uma peça com a prevalência do silêncio sobre as falas, o que é visível também em “Old Times”.
Depois de 20 anos sem se verem, Anna, Deeley e Kate percebem que fizeram parte de uma espécie de triângulo amoroso quando eram jovens e frequentavam a vida nocturna e as tertúlias em Londres.
ANNA
(…) I put it down to her upbringing, a parson’s daughter, and indeed there was a good deal of Brontë about her.
DEELEY
Was she a parson’s daughter?
ANNA
But if I thought Brontë I did not think she was a Brontë in passion but only in secrecy, in being so stubbornly private.
Precisava da minha magnífica professora de Literatura Inglesa para me contagiar com o seu entusiasmo por Harold Pinter, porque passados tantos anos e tantos livros, é um autor que continua a passar-me ao lado. Não sou apreciadora de teatro pelo suporte quase exclusivo em diálogos, mas Pinter tem a particularidade de desenvolver uma peça com a prevalência do silêncio sobre as falas, o que é visível também em “Old Times”.
Depois de 20 anos sem se verem, Anna, Deeley e Kate percebem que fizeram parte de uma espécie de triângulo amoroso quando eram jovens e frequentavam a vida nocturna e as tertúlias em Londres.
ANNA
(…) I put it down to her upbringing, a parson’s daughter, and indeed there was a good deal of Brontë about her.
DEELEY
Was she a parson’s daughter?
ANNA
But if I thought Brontë I did not think she was a Brontë in passion but only in secrecy, in being so stubbornly private.
March 5, 2024
what the fuck (in a good way, of course)
November 27, 2021
sweating, telling myself this work is “against interpretation” so i can avoid my inability to interpret it
November 18, 2017
ديلي :- غادرت دار السينما بعد إنتهاء الفيلم ، و لاحظت أن الفتاة قد خرجت أيضاً ، أذكر أنني نظرت إليها و قلت : ألم يكن روبرت نيوتن* رائعاً للغاية ؟ ، فقالت شيئاً يعلم الله ماهو ، و لكنها نظرت إلي و أعتقدت بحق الله أنني ظفرت بها ، كصيد ثمين ، و عندما جلسنا في المقهى و كنا نشرب الشاي نظرتْ إلى قدحها ثم إلي و قالت : أنها تعتقد أن روبرت نيوتن كان رائعاً ، و هكذا كان روبرت نيوتن هو الذي جمعنا معاً و روبرت نيوتن وحده هو الذي يستطيع أن يفرقنا .
آنا :- لقد كان ف.ج. ماك كرومك ممتازاً أيضاً .
ديلي :- أعلم أن ف.ج. ماك كرومك كان ممتازاً أيضاً ، لكنه لم يجمعنا معاً .
آنا :- لقد كان ف.ج. ماك كرومك ممتازاً أيضاً .
ديلي :- أعلم أن ف.ج. ماك كرومك كان ممتازاً أيضاً ، لكنه لم يجمعنا معاً .
February 2, 2013
I find Pinter interesting and challenging as a playwright. His plays--like so many modern playwrights--need to be seen as well as read to fully appreciate them. I had the same experience with The Homecoming, I found that it was only by both reading the play and seeing the teleplay that I could appreciate it. I think that when I see Old Times this coming March I will get a much better sense of how it moves and what the characters mean, especially by their silences.
Pinter is the great playwright of silence, which can sometimes make the plays hard to read. So much is conveyed between the spoken dialogue, much of which is lost when the words aren't being performed. Although I struggled to envision Old Times, I did like the play. It's fascinating how Pinter puts together the conflicting desires and relationships through the gaps and absences in his dialogue.
Pinter is the great playwright of silence, which can sometimes make the plays hard to read. So much is conveyed between the spoken dialogue, much of which is lost when the words aren't being performed. Although I struggled to envision Old Times, I did like the play. It's fascinating how Pinter puts together the conflicting desires and relationships through the gaps and absences in his dialogue.
February 24, 2019
A well-written and an enjoyably confusing play! The Wikipedia page sums it up:
“During rehearsals for a Roundabout Theatre Company production in 1984, Anthony Hopkins, who starred, asked Pinter to explain the play's ending. Pinter responded, ‘I don't know. Just do it.’”
“During rehearsals for a Roundabout Theatre Company production in 1984, Anthony Hopkins, who starred, asked Pinter to explain the play's ending. Pinter responded, ‘I don't know. Just do it.’”
July 2, 2013
هل ألوم الترجمة؟
نعم.. فالترجمة لم ترق لنصف مستوى النص ومع، ذلك فقد ارتعشت روحي عندما قرأت النهاية كما أشعر دائما مع الأعمال العظيمة.
أم ربما ألوم عبثية (بنتر) ومشتتاته الحوارية واللفظية المتتالية التي ربما تجعلني أشفق على المترجم المسكين الذي تصدى لها، فكيف الحال بـقارئ بسيط مثلي كانت (الأيام الخوالي) هي تعارفه الأول مع هذا "المسرحجي" المهم دون حتى أن يسبق ليه قراءة أي مقتطفات نقدية عنه، اللهم إلا مقدمة المترجم الذي يبدو أصلا أنه قام بعمله وهو في حاجة لمال، لأنه يبدو طوال الوقت متحيزا ضد المؤلف الذي يعرفنا عليه ! .. لكن حتى تقيد بنتر بدا من نوعيتي المفضلة -إن جازت التسمية- بل حتى أنني وصلت لذروة دهشتي وأنا ألاحظ التشابه البالغ بين إسلوبه في السرد عن طريق تداخل الأزمنة وتشابك الذكريات، وبين الإسلوب الذي اتبعته أنا شخصيا أثناء إعدادي لأحد المشاهد من نص "يوم من زماننا" لسعد الله ونوس.. (ملحوظة : أعني أن هذه الملاحظة شخصية للغاية ولا تخص القارئ في شئ ولكني أسجلها هنا لنفسي كسلا من إعادة تسجيلها مرة أخرى في حيز يخصني وحدي)..
لكن المدهش هنا أنني أحببت السرد، والحدث، والذكريات، والشخصيات وبقيت هناك حلقة مفقودة لا أستطيع حلها، بدون العودة إلا النص الأصلي،لما بدا لي من تناقضات على مستوى بعض الأحداث أخلت بالدراما كثيرا في رأيي. وحتى يرزقني الله فقه اللغة الإنجليزية ونسخة من النص أصلية، أدعوكم للاستمتاع بهذا العمل ومحاولة قراءته بحسب وصف مؤلفه "ليس في وسعي اختصار أي من مسرحياتي. ليس في وسعي وصف اي منها. يمكنني فقط ان اقول: هذا ما حصل. هذا ما قالوه. وهذا ما قاموا به" ..
نعم.. فالترجمة لم ترق لنصف مستوى النص ومع، ذلك فقد ارتعشت روحي عندما قرأت النهاية كما أشعر دائما مع الأعمال العظيمة.
أم ربما ألوم عبثية (بنتر) ومشتتاته الحوارية واللفظية المتتالية التي ربما تجعلني أشفق على المترجم المسكين الذي تصدى لها، فكيف الحال بـقارئ بسيط مثلي كانت (الأيام الخوالي) هي تعارفه الأول مع هذا "المسرحجي" المهم دون حتى أن يسبق ليه قراءة أي مقتطفات نقدية عنه، اللهم إلا مقدمة المترجم الذي يبدو أصلا أنه قام بعمله وهو في حاجة لمال، لأنه يبدو طوال الوقت متحيزا ضد المؤلف الذي يعرفنا عليه ! .. لكن حتى تقيد بنتر بدا من نوعيتي المفضلة -إن جازت التسمية- بل حتى أنني وصلت لذروة دهشتي وأنا ألاحظ التشابه البالغ بين إسلوبه في السرد عن طريق تداخل الأزمنة وتشابك الذكريات، وبين الإسلوب الذي اتبعته أنا شخصيا أثناء إعدادي لأحد المشاهد من نص "يوم من زماننا" لسعد الله ونوس.. (ملحوظة : أعني أن هذه الملاحظة شخصية للغاية ولا تخص القارئ في شئ ولكني أسجلها هنا لنفسي كسلا من إعادة تسجيلها مرة أخرى في حيز يخصني وحدي)..
لكن المدهش هنا أنني أحببت السرد، والحدث، والذكريات، والشخصيات وبقيت هناك حلقة مفقودة لا أستطيع حلها، بدون العودة إلا النص الأصلي،لما بدا لي من تناقضات على مستوى بعض الأحداث أخلت بالدراما كثيرا في رأيي. وحتى يرزقني الله فقه اللغة الإنجليزية ونسخة من النص أصلية، أدعوكم للاستمتاع بهذا العمل ومحاولة قراءته بحسب وصف مؤلفه "ليس في وسعي اختصار أي من مسرحياتي. ليس في وسعي وصف اي منها. يمكنني فقط ان اقول: هذا ما حصل. هذا ما قالوه. وهذا ما قاموا به" ..
November 20, 2015
From BBC radio 3 - Drama on 3:
In a remote farmhouse, Deeley and Kate await a visitor. Anna is Kate's best friend, though Deeley has never met her. Is the past really as they remember it?
Old Times is a play about memory and desire. Tantalisingly enigmatic, it is a play about people in their forties looking back on old times, about reconciling the young person and the adult, about how you imagined things were going to be and how they turned out.
Vocal coach, Aimée Leonard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nc68l
In a remote farmhouse, Deeley and Kate await a visitor. Anna is Kate's best friend, though Deeley has never met her. Is the past really as they remember it?
Old Times is a play about memory and desire. Tantalisingly enigmatic, it is a play about people in their forties looking back on old times, about reconciling the young person and the adult, about how you imagined things were going to be and how they turned out.
Vocal coach, Aimée Leonard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nc68l
November 24, 2015
Old Times, Pinter it's more poetry than anything, I think- such in the way Pinter sculpts a little bit of language from silence , the way it seems like Deeley (and maybe Kate) sculpt Anna and the past from the present or vice versa, (really either point on the triangle or square (if time is a character and it is)) or -- no spoilers...
February 15, 2024
There is a love triangle
Seems ahead of its time for that.
The play's style is more poetic than deadpan, which isn't my cup of tea.
Seems ahead of its time for that.
The play's style is more poetic than deadpan, which isn't my cup of tea.
May 9, 2016
i have so many questions
March 9, 2013
Man, this is a strange play, even by Pinter's standards. I had to read it twice before it really started to crack open, and even then all one is left with is a miasma of possible meanings. There are many parallels with "Betrayal" here but blended with the obliqueness of "No Man's Land." I liked it and will keep pondering it, but it is difficult to judge fully without seeing it performed, as different casts could take it in many different directions.
June 4, 2008
What a mind fuck. A chilling 'love' story that makes you question everything you know about the play, characters, love, and relationships. I hope with all my heart I shall one day be able to play one/both of these fantastic female characters.
September 9, 2016
“هناك أشياء يستطيع الإنسان أن يتذكرها ولو أنها لم تحدث إطلاقا. هناك أمور أتذكرها ربما لم تحدث أبدا، لكن عندما أسترجعها تحتل مكانا في خيالي.”
March 17, 2016
What a prose! What a language! The words moving in waves, as soft as water, edge-less, filled with floating tenderness.
June 4, 2024
Nine times out of ten these absurdist plays end up being about lesbians and I'm here for it.
October 25, 2025
I’m reminded of Donald Barthelme’s stories in a wonderful way. I’ve been a little tired of both realism and speculative lately but this feels just right - surrealism? Absurdity? Intentional confusion? I’m excited to reread this one then read more of Pinter’s plays.
March 7, 2018
لا أدري !.
June 9, 2020
Es una obra difícil de entender, pero la posibilidad de muchas interpretaciones sin certeza de si hay una acertada o definitiva hace que permanezca en la memoria mucho tiempo después de la lectura.
May 1, 2023
Not a lot really happens. There were a few moments of slightly compelling dialogue that evidently didn't meet the word count.
If you ever need to fill out a story, just recite a few old pop songs in full, that's ol' Pinter's mantra.
If you ever need to fill out a story, just recite a few old pop songs in full, that's ol' Pinter's mantra.
June 14, 2023
I’ve liked Harold Pinter’s work ever since coming across it as a teenager. I like the way it can be unnerving, leaving us uncertain. But there were big gaps in my knowledge and over the past few weeks I’ve been trying to fill some of those gaps. I had previously thought Pinter’s late 1970s play Betrayal was a sharp break from his previous work, but Old Times, written at the beginning of the decade, is an important stage in his evolution. To put it crudely, Old Times looks forward to Betrayal in that it does not have the pervading sense of menace of the earlier work, but it can still be called Absurdist, making it feel a continuation of the earlier plays. As always Pinter plays games. Three characters, the married couple Deeley and Kate, and then Kate’s old friend Anna visits. Anna and Kate were very good friends twenty years before but haven’t seen each other for years, Anna living in Italy. Divided into two Acts, action is continuous within the acts, but time shifts, at one point, for instance, we seemingly go back to a scene between Kate and Anna when they shared a flat in the past; it’s a bit like a flashback in a film, except there isn’t the change of place, the past in contained in the present – and the line between them seems fluid. The dialogue is typical Pinter, the characters making their short statements, the meanings seeming to scurry around the room between them. At one point Deeley reminisces about his previous meeting with Anna, although she claims no recollection: is this something that happened, a fantasy, an attempt at a manipulative game, a parallel narrative whose relationship to the central narrative is somehow symbolic? Of course, we never find out. There isn’t much of a plot and with the focus on the three characters we might expect some sort of psychological study, but the characters aren’t ‘rounded’ in a traditional realist way – although they are consistent figures in terms of narrative, they are not explained in terms of psychology or motivations or the past: they are complex literary creations whose relationship with ‘reality’ is uncertain. We might try to find their symbolic motivations, but I think it is unlikely we will find any. So, what’s the play about? How do we come to terms with it? I’m far from certain, it just seems remarkably rich in its strange enactment.
July 2, 2017
During the interval, my companion said, "I don't really understand Pinter." Two others said, "I don't think you're supposed to," with one adding, "Just let it wash over you." We concluded that if you think you've understood it, you almost certainly haven't.
Pinter was in the vanguard of the sixties drive away from linear narrative, and in Old Times the conversation is used not to drive any plot as such but to delve into the nature of Deeley and Kate's relationship. The obvious interpretation is that Kate and Anna had been more than friends, which would have been far more shocking in 1971 than now, but that seems too simplistic. More plausible is the interpretation that Anna isn't actually there: the memory of her is what intrudes into the couple's relationship rather than her physical presence.
But even that might be too literal. The younger Kate comes across as almost autistically shy, and would have been a curious best friend for the outrageously gregarious Anna. There's a clue in their sharing of underwear and in Deeley's assertion that he had known Anna too. Perhaps Anna is actually also Kate: the extrovert part of her personality that was suppressed when she married Deeley.
Despite its impenetrability, obscure dialogue and occasional pretentiousness, Old Times is also funny and poetic and has real dramatic energy.
Pinter was in the vanguard of the sixties drive away from linear narrative, and in Old Times the conversation is used not to drive any plot as such but to delve into the nature of Deeley and Kate's relationship. The obvious interpretation is that Kate and Anna had been more than friends, which would have been far more shocking in 1971 than now, but that seems too simplistic. More plausible is the interpretation that Anna isn't actually there: the memory of her is what intrudes into the couple's relationship rather than her physical presence.
But even that might be too literal. The younger Kate comes across as almost autistically shy, and would have been a curious best friend for the outrageously gregarious Anna. There's a clue in their sharing of underwear and in Deeley's assertion that he had known Anna too. Perhaps Anna is actually also Kate: the extrovert part of her personality that was suppressed when she married Deeley.
Despite its impenetrability, obscure dialogue and occasional pretentiousness, Old Times is also funny and poetic and has real dramatic energy.
July 27, 2024
brilliant !!!!!!!!!!!! im so obsessed with every single aspect of this book (book?? screenplay?? just play?? ) and im so impressed with how harold pinter managed to introduce so many concepts and themes in a little over 70 pages (in my edition which is translated into greek so the original was probably even shorter) he does such a good job of portraying the tension present at every moment in the story w the short sharp sentences and long pauses. the premise of this book is simple. one of the characters katy's old friend friend, anna, whom she hasnt seen in 20 years comes to visit her and her husband, but as the story goes on something much more deep and poignant and almost sinister unravels. but throughout the way the characters' memories and identities intersect is so so interesting. every article i've read abt this play describes it as something like deeley and anna fighting over katy and who is more in 'possession' of her and their rivarly is pretty evident. the segments in which they talk about katy to eachother as if she's not right next to them portray this so well and its obvious theyre just doing it to show off how much they love her or how much they know about her.
the part i found the Most intruiging though was anna copying katy's mannerisms and essentially trying to be her as deely points out - a lot of the times in a manner that could come across as sexual. anna used to steal katy's underwear and go to bars wearing them while adopting katy's behavior as her own, something that katy eventually starts encouraging. she went on a date with katy's husband to-be as a result of one of those outings!!!! and all deeley has to say while recollecting this event is "she thought she was you, said little, so little. maybe she was you. maybe it was you, having coffee with me, saying little, so little" something something about how katy and anna are essentially polar opposites with anna being talkative and extroverted and dare i say 'bubbly" and katy being more serious and quiet and shy. anna had 'hundreds' of friends and often had visitors while katy only had her. during one of her and deeley's "you dont get katy like i do" fights anna mentions how katy looks when she gets off the bath "she floats from the bath. like a dream. unaware of anyone standing, with her towel, waiting for her, waiting to wrap it round her. quite absorbed [pause] until the towel is placed on her shoulders". during one of her rambles about the memories she's made with katy, anna mentions the two of them watching carol reed's "odd man out" together, the film that deeley had previously mentioned "brought [him and katy] together" (a film which i Am planning on watching at some point, just to see if there's anything that relates in any way to this book) throughout the entire play the two women seem like they have some baggage between them thought that doesnt rly become very clear! katy mentions she doesnt wanna see anna before she comes over, and gets weirdly defensive when deeley asks her if anna is married and has a husband.
anna is such an interesting character to me because to Me she is a perfect example of the question "do i want to be her or do i want to be With her?" which is very often associated with the experience of being gay and particularly being a lesbian or bisexual woman, and is also at the core of a lot of darker gay stories and media such as 'the talented mr ripley', in which the question takes a much more twisted turn !!!!!!! i believe this is the case with this play as well. anna seems obsessed with katy and her life, and though this obsession seems to have toned down in the 20 years they were apart, a sliver of it is still noticeable in the way anna keeps going on long tangents about things she and katy did together when they were roommates (omg i just realized they were roommates . oh my god they were roommates!!!!!). anna wants to Consume katy and she does so by stealing her underwear, which. if a clothing item could be described as being 'intimate' and 'personal', it would be underwear and stealing her mannerisms. katy's image of anna entirely shifted during the event described in the last few pages of the book. the anna she knew died that night, alone and dirty, and yet she didnt seem that bothered by it. she was glad anna's bed sheets were clean and thought that her 'passing' in this way showed 'perfect decorum'. katy then mentions that she went and took a bath, and when she got out naked and sat besides anna and 'watched her' which is a scene im not sure i understand the meaning of to be perfectly honest! the second paragraph of katy speaking that followed this was equally as fascinating!!! she mentions that after anna left she had a man over and since both beds were empty, so they had two choices. the man choice anna's bed, and one night, katy took a flowerpot in which anna had planted pansies and plastered his face with dirt, so it was exactly how she described anna's face when she 'died'. after katy finished her narration, deeley begins sobbing. anna tries to leave, but instead she turns off the lights and returns to her seat. she didnt want to be able to see her hosts but wanted to stay in their (particularly katy's) company just for a bit longer! deeley stops crying, first inspects anna, tries to leave, but decides to return and lies on his wife's lap. soon he finds this pointless and sits alone in his armchair. something to be said about how katy and anna both sat in divans, an object that allows multiple people to sit on, but chose to sit in separate ones, unlike deeley who sat in an armchair.
last minute edit but theres also something to be said about uhhhh deeley and his thing with anna but honestly idrc that much about him he's just there. actually no i Do think his thing w anna is interesting but this review is too long and its so late so ill leave it here!!!!!!!!!!
theres just so so much to dissect about this book which and i found it incredibly impressive!! moral of the story dont let your husband stop you from finding your wife or whatever
the part i found the Most intruiging though was anna copying katy's mannerisms and essentially trying to be her as deely points out - a lot of the times in a manner that could come across as sexual. anna used to steal katy's underwear and go to bars wearing them while adopting katy's behavior as her own, something that katy eventually starts encouraging. she went on a date with katy's husband to-be as a result of one of those outings!!!! and all deeley has to say while recollecting this event is "she thought she was you, said little, so little. maybe she was you. maybe it was you, having coffee with me, saying little, so little" something something about how katy and anna are essentially polar opposites with anna being talkative and extroverted and dare i say 'bubbly" and katy being more serious and quiet and shy. anna had 'hundreds' of friends and often had visitors while katy only had her. during one of her and deeley's "you dont get katy like i do" fights anna mentions how katy looks when she gets off the bath "she floats from the bath. like a dream. unaware of anyone standing, with her towel, waiting for her, waiting to wrap it round her. quite absorbed [pause] until the towel is placed on her shoulders". during one of her rambles about the memories she's made with katy, anna mentions the two of them watching carol reed's "odd man out" together, the film that deeley had previously mentioned "brought [him and katy] together" (a film which i Am planning on watching at some point, just to see if there's anything that relates in any way to this book) throughout the entire play the two women seem like they have some baggage between them thought that doesnt rly become very clear! katy mentions she doesnt wanna see anna before she comes over, and gets weirdly defensive when deeley asks her if anna is married and has a husband.
anna is such an interesting character to me because to Me she is a perfect example of the question "do i want to be her or do i want to be With her?" which is very often associated with the experience of being gay and particularly being a lesbian or bisexual woman, and is also at the core of a lot of darker gay stories and media such as 'the talented mr ripley', in which the question takes a much more twisted turn !!!!!!! i believe this is the case with this play as well. anna seems obsessed with katy and her life, and though this obsession seems to have toned down in the 20 years they were apart, a sliver of it is still noticeable in the way anna keeps going on long tangents about things she and katy did together when they were roommates (omg i just realized they were roommates . oh my god they were roommates!!!!!). anna wants to Consume katy and she does so by stealing her underwear, which. if a clothing item could be described as being 'intimate' and 'personal', it would be underwear and stealing her mannerisms. katy's image of anna entirely shifted during the event described in the last few pages of the book. the anna she knew died that night, alone and dirty, and yet she didnt seem that bothered by it. she was glad anna's bed sheets were clean and thought that her 'passing' in this way showed 'perfect decorum'. katy then mentions that she went and took a bath, and when she got out naked and sat besides anna and 'watched her' which is a scene im not sure i understand the meaning of to be perfectly honest! the second paragraph of katy speaking that followed this was equally as fascinating!!! she mentions that after anna left she had a man over and since both beds were empty, so they had two choices. the man choice anna's bed, and one night, katy took a flowerpot in which anna had planted pansies and plastered his face with dirt, so it was exactly how she described anna's face when she 'died'. after katy finished her narration, deeley begins sobbing. anna tries to leave, but instead she turns off the lights and returns to her seat. she didnt want to be able to see her hosts but wanted to stay in their (particularly katy's) company just for a bit longer! deeley stops crying, first inspects anna, tries to leave, but decides to return and lies on his wife's lap. soon he finds this pointless and sits alone in his armchair. something to be said about how katy and anna both sat in divans, an object that allows multiple people to sit on, but chose to sit in separate ones, unlike deeley who sat in an armchair.
last minute edit but theres also something to be said about uhhhh deeley and his thing with anna but honestly idrc that much about him he's just there. actually no i Do think his thing w anna is interesting but this review is too long and its so late so ill leave it here!!!!!!!!!!
theres just so so much to dissect about this book which and i found it incredibly impressive!! moral of the story dont let your husband stop you from finding your wife or whatever
November 19, 2017
This is weird and confusing at times. I started to get bored, and my mind started to wander. I imagined the characters taking a different route, and I still was bored. After I finished reading the play, I went on YouTube a watched a few minutes of a production of the play with Alan Rickman. Geez, I guess I'm not supposed to get it. I've read Harold Pinter before and enjoyed him once I got used to his thinking and his characters, but I was lost with this. I started thinking, why am I trying so hard to get this? This is crap.
March 7, 2022
So here's the thing... when I was younger I used to like Harold Pinter. I thought he was really cool because he was so unique and different. However, as I've gotten older, my opinion of him has changed. The more I see and read Pinter, the more I've fallen out of admiration for his work. Old Times is one of those reasons for my decline in affection.
Old Times was produced back in 1971. Maybe it's because I didn't see this performance that makes me feel the way I do about it, but I really didn't understand it. I know there are several interpretations of the play, but it's probably safe to say that Pinter himself didn't know what the heck he wrote. I think Anthony Hopkins asked him what the heck the play was trying to say or what happened in the end, and Pinter just told Hopkins to do the play, making me wonder if the author hadn't a clue.
I've read and seen a handful of Pinter's work throughout the years. Betrayal still seems to be my favorite. I think it's because, to me, it's the most straightforward of his plays. Old Times is about Kate who's married to Deeley. When Kate's old friend Anna comes for a visit things get messy. Not really messy, just you don't know what is real and what is imaginary by the end, which is probably a metaphor for how memory works, which is one of the aspects I loved about this play.
I'll continue to read and try to understand Pinter. He's one of the masters of modern theatre, but maybe I'm just in a different mindset recently to not fully appreciate it. It just seems like a lot of BS that people say is masterful because it's different when really it just feels like something someone who was drunk or tripping on acid wrote over the course of a weekend bender. I'll definitely want to see it live or a recording someday, and maybe I need to return to it again in a few years. Old Times by Harold Pinter - My rating: 2/5
Old Times was produced back in 1971. Maybe it's because I didn't see this performance that makes me feel the way I do about it, but I really didn't understand it. I know there are several interpretations of the play, but it's probably safe to say that Pinter himself didn't know what the heck he wrote. I think Anthony Hopkins asked him what the heck the play was trying to say or what happened in the end, and Pinter just told Hopkins to do the play, making me wonder if the author hadn't a clue.
I've read and seen a handful of Pinter's work throughout the years. Betrayal still seems to be my favorite. I think it's because, to me, it's the most straightforward of his plays. Old Times is about Kate who's married to Deeley. When Kate's old friend Anna comes for a visit things get messy. Not really messy, just you don't know what is real and what is imaginary by the end, which is probably a metaphor for how memory works, which is one of the aspects I loved about this play.
I'll continue to read and try to understand Pinter. He's one of the masters of modern theatre, but maybe I'm just in a different mindset recently to not fully appreciate it. It just seems like a lot of BS that people say is masterful because it's different when really it just feels like something someone who was drunk or tripping on acid wrote over the course of a weekend bender. I'll definitely want to see it live or a recording someday, and maybe I need to return to it again in a few years. Old Times by Harold Pinter - My rating: 2/5
December 29, 2017
"Una coppia sposata riceve la visita di una vecchia amica della moglie, una sera in Inghilterra. Tre persone, che durante il corso della serata parlano e interagiscono tra di loro in un’isolata fattoria adibita a residenza di campagna, lontani dagli scorci di Londra, della Sicilia, della Cina e della rivoluzione culturale. E’ una storia semplice, dove in realtà non succede nulla. Ma si tratta di Harold Pinter, il maestro del non-detto, del silenzio, della pausa. L’ambivalenza di ogni possibile interpretazione della definizione, la violenza in potenza, la minaccia degli intrusi, l’arte della guerra portata avanti tramite le parole, il bisogno mai sopito di esercitare il proprio potere su qualcuno, l’interesse per gli eventi passati: tutto questo è maestosamente incastonato all’interno di una strana e distorta civiltà che induce a porsi delle domande senza aver mai la possibilità di trovare delle risposte.
Fin dal principio di quest’opera teatrale (e anche di tutti gli altri lavori di Pinter) ci troviamo davanti a una situazione che esige la nostra partecipazione.
Pinter non ci lascia mai ‘al di fuori’ dell’opera: ci assilla e ci costringe a farci delle domande tramite i suoi personaggi, che riflettono le questioni non risolte nella nostra vita.
Se il passato per te non esiste nello stesso modo in cui lo vedo io, vuol dire forse che non esiste? E che importanza ha questo in relazione agli eventi della mia vita? Le domande sono infinite. Le risposte evasive e mutevoli. Pinter stesso, quando qualcuno gli domandò il significato che si celava dietro ‘Vecchi Tempi’, fu evasivo tanto quanto l’opera stessa: ‘Succede…tutto…succede’”.
Questa è la recensione magnifica di Michael Rodgers.
Fin dal principio di quest’opera teatrale (e anche di tutti gli altri lavori di Pinter) ci troviamo davanti a una situazione che esige la nostra partecipazione.
Pinter non ci lascia mai ‘al di fuori’ dell’opera: ci assilla e ci costringe a farci delle domande tramite i suoi personaggi, che riflettono le questioni non risolte nella nostra vita.
Se il passato per te non esiste nello stesso modo in cui lo vedo io, vuol dire forse che non esiste? E che importanza ha questo in relazione agli eventi della mia vita? Le domande sono infinite. Le risposte evasive e mutevoli. Pinter stesso, quando qualcuno gli domandò il significato che si celava dietro ‘Vecchi Tempi’, fu evasivo tanto quanto l’opera stessa: ‘Succede…tutto…succede’”.
Questa è la recensione magnifica di Michael Rodgers.
November 21, 2024
Well, this was one of the best plays I’ve read for college in a while. And genuinely, I’m quite surprised because this modernism thing is just not for me. It’s too confusing and I don’t get what the authors are trying to say half the time. But this? Dang, it was actually fun trying to interpret it.
I mean, maybe it’s because I personally like relationship drama but it’s so fun trying to find out in what kind of relationships between each other Kate, Deeley and Anna are. My personal interpretation is that this is a big love triangle. So obviously Deeley is Kate’s husband right, but he also “looked up Anna’s thighs to see under her skirt” which I just find really weird and I think he also recognized once that she was wearing Kate’s underwear which is even worse. I also think that it’s implied that Deeley raped Anna but I’m not sure if that’s actually the case.
But then the biggest theory that I have is that there is some steam going on between Anna and Kate. I mean… stealing underwear, Kate saying “my one and only”… these two literally talk about each other like they were in love with each other. Not to mention Kate blushing when Anna was talking about what she was doing with a man in her panties. There is just a lot of hints that Kate and Anna are in some kind of a romantic relationship and I don’t think I’m imagining it.
This play also has a lot of double entendres (at least I think it does). I swear almost every line could have a sexual meaning assigned to it. Or maybe I’m just dirty-minded - that could very well be the case.
Anyway, I liked this play a lot. And I think I’ll even be giving it 5 stars. It really is entertaining and it actually kept my interest which is wild for something modernist.
I mean, maybe it’s because I personally like relationship drama but it’s so fun trying to find out in what kind of relationships between each other Kate, Deeley and Anna are. My personal interpretation is that this is a big love triangle. So obviously Deeley is Kate’s husband right, but he also “looked up Anna’s thighs to see under her skirt” which I just find really weird and I think he also recognized once that she was wearing Kate’s underwear which is even worse. I also think that it’s implied that Deeley raped Anna but I’m not sure if that’s actually the case.
But then the biggest theory that I have is that there is some steam going on between Anna and Kate. I mean… stealing underwear, Kate saying “my one and only”… these two literally talk about each other like they were in love with each other. Not to mention Kate blushing when Anna was talking about what she was doing with a man in her panties. There is just a lot of hints that Kate and Anna are in some kind of a romantic relationship and I don’t think I’m imagining it.
This play also has a lot of double entendres (at least I think it does). I swear almost every line could have a sexual meaning assigned to it. Or maybe I’m just dirty-minded - that could very well be the case.
Anyway, I liked this play a lot. And I think I’ll even be giving it 5 stars. It really is entertaining and it actually kept my interest which is wild for something modernist.
May 28, 2025
"I looked for tears but could see none. Your pupils weren't in your eyes. Your bones were breaking through your face. But all was serene. It had all happened elsewhere. Last rites I did not feel necessary. Or any celebration.
I felt the time and season appropriate and that by dying alone and dirty you had acted with proper decorum."
Pinter, ah Pinter, what a conflictual figure you are! Though let's face it, what he does he does well.
Pinter is not a writer of plot. Much like many absurd theatre writers, the only norm his works are confined to is a vague idea, an impression to be delivered. In this, the work excells - it is sheer nostalgia mixed with bittersweet grief over love that never came to be concealed within a love triangle of sorts. It is brilliant in its awkwardness, in its "show, don't tell" narrative and its simplicity. This is not for everyone, mind you, but for us, fans of 20th century avant-garde literature gnawing slowly at the bars of our cage? Perfect.
As for plot, even for Pinter's norms it could have been handled better. It is uniquely schizophrenia inducing in the way only Pinter's plays can be. But one does leave the book wondering, melancholic, questioning...yet most of all, satisfied.
I felt the time and season appropriate and that by dying alone and dirty you had acted with proper decorum."
Pinter, ah Pinter, what a conflictual figure you are! Though let's face it, what he does he does well.
Pinter is not a writer of plot. Much like many absurd theatre writers, the only norm his works are confined to is a vague idea, an impression to be delivered. In this, the work excells - it is sheer nostalgia mixed with bittersweet grief over love that never came to be concealed within a love triangle of sorts. It is brilliant in its awkwardness, in its "show, don't tell" narrative and its simplicity. This is not for everyone, mind you, but for us, fans of 20th century avant-garde literature gnawing slowly at the bars of our cage? Perfect.
As for plot, even for Pinter's norms it could have been handled better. It is uniquely schizophrenia inducing in the way only Pinter's plays can be. But one does leave the book wondering, melancholic, questioning...yet most of all, satisfied.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews