| Title | : | The Dumb Waiter |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 2729847936 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9782729847937 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 64 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1957 |
The Dumb Waiter Reviews
-
I don't know quite what to say about this play--it was my first Pinter experience, and I'd be interested to read more. But I'd say that I got a lot more through discussing the play in class than in the actual reading of it; which doesn't necessarily discount it, but I'm hesitant to say I loved it, when really I loved the issues that arose peripherally, as my class was perplexed as to what to bring up from within the text. Issues like: where do we search for meaning, particularly in our reading of literature--is it on the surface? What is the importance of a text if you have to read between the lines, so to speak, in order to gain anything from it. Several people waxed poetic on "art for art's sake" and claim that we should never make conjectures about a text--any assumptions must be made from the actual evidence in the work itself--and continued by asking why we can't just enjoy what's there, rather than analyzing everything to death? I think that strain of thought is idiotic, and it made me wonder why these people are English majors, if they don't like analyzing literature in an exhaustive fashion!
Pinter's play, though, creates a taut atmosphere--spatially, it is claustrophobic, and each movement deliberate, leading us to wonder as readers when the tightrope is going to snap. Similarly, the dialogue never falls on anything substantial, as though Gus and Ben are circling the issues at hand. That in itself is fascinating (and why we discussed the implications of "reading between the lines" in a text). The dumb waiter itself points to, I think, humanity's fascination or need to look to and obey some higher authority--Ben, in this way, is incredibly robotic. He doesn't know what the dumb waiter is, this scares him, and then he wants to follow it simply because it seems authoritative. Gus asks questions, and is perhaps punished for doing so--certainly he isn't encouraged. Very Orwellian or Atwood-esque in the sense that they warn readers that it's when you stop asking questions that "those who are they" (haha) get you, so to speak. But it's also Gus, asking questions here, who is going to pay for doing so. An interesting play in terms of looking at power politics--Gus obeys Ben, at least provisionally, and Ben in turn yields to disembodied images of power. Communication in such heirarchic situations, then, seems impossible in Pinter's view (or at least in mine).
It's also difficult to judge a play without seeing it performed, I must admit. Some things came across better when we did some reading-aloud in class--some of the intricacies made more sense or were highlighted a bit brighter. It's an interesting play, but not necessarily the easiest one to enter into. Requires multiple readings, though as it takes only 30-40 minutes to get through it, it's not too unreasonable. -
Melbourne Comedy Festival 2005
Two men perform The Dumb Waiter. In the background you can hear the noise of at least two other shows coming through. I write to complain and receive a reply along the lines of 'You are lucky we didn't charge you for the other shows too.'
I can't say that I entirely understand the idea of reading a play any more than, say, reading a music score. Or reading a painting? The play is not a complete thing until it has voice and setting and atmosphere. Atmosphere is completely vital to the success of Pinter, no reading can get across the ambiguity, the menace, the unsettling that takes place.
Lawrence Mooney and Matt King created that. They created it despite the insane inane background of hysterical audience manufactured laughter and miked standups going on at the same time. The setting created it.
rest here:
https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpre... -
এইটা বীভৎস।
কয়েকদিন আগে বেকেটের এন্ডগেইম পড়লাম - বেকেটের সাথে পিন্টারের মিল-অমিল দেখলাম অনেকেরই আলোচ্য। ঠিক ঠিক যে কারণে আমার এন্ডগেইম ভালো লাগে নাই - পাদদেশে ময়ূরপুচ্ছ আকারের দর্শনদারী নিয়ে মঞ্চে নাটকের আগমন, শেষে এক ধরনের কাহিনী কোনোকালেই ছিলো না হে বাবা, বিদেয় হও দিয়ে শেষ - এইসবের অভাব এই নাটক, মায় কী না ডাম্ব ওয়েটার ভালো লাগার এক একটা কারণ। এখন যদি বলেন, অ্যাবজার্ড থেটারে ত কাহিনী থাকবারই কথা ছিলো না, তাহলে আপনি সমেত বাদবাকী পৃথিবীটারে পানিপথের উল্টাপাশে রেখে আমি বচসা করতে রাজী আছি। কাহিনী কী, সেই প্রশ্নে চলে যেতে হবে তখন, কাহিনী কি, প্লট কি, শুধু ঐ সুচিত্রা ভট্টাচার্য আর গলসোয়ার্দিদের পরিবারের বয়ানবিন্যাস - নাকী এইসব মাথা নাই মুণ্ডু নাই টপাটপ ঘটতে থাকা এরাও -
আমার ডাম্ব ওয়েটার বেড়ে লাগছে, কারণ চরিত্রদের কথাবার্তা এইখানে আর সব পিন্টারের মত হইলেও এইবার সেগুলি চরিত্রগুলির সাথে খাপে বসে গেছে, চরিত্র মাত্র দুইটা বলে তারা দাঁড়াইতে পেরেছে শক্ত, বেন আর গাস হচ্ছে, বৈশিষ্ট্যের না, চরিত্রের আধার, আর আছে একটা আস্তে আস্তে জেঁকে বসা কাহিনী। শুরুর দৃশ্য থেকে শেষ অব্দি, একটু একটু করে গ্রাস করতে থাকে, অথচ শুরুতে মনে হয়, কী আর এমন হবে। বোঝা উচিত ছিলো, শুরুর ঐ পত্রিকাপাঠেই বোঝা উচিত ছিলো।
যেহেতু মৌলিকত্ব বলে এই জগতে কিছু নাই, এই নাটকের সাথে প্রচুর মিল পাওয়া যায় ম্যাকডোনাফ সাহেবের ইন ব্রুজ ছবিটার। ছবিটাও তীব্র, কোথাও অভিযোগের এখতিয়ার বাকী থাকে নাই।
পিন্টার কি এই নাটকের নাম ডাম্ব থেটার রাখতে পারতেন? হয়ত, হয়ত, মানুষের শরীর নিখুঁত, বক্তব্য ভাঙা ভাঙা, তার মাঝে মাঝে পিন্টার সাহেব যখন নিশ্চুপ থাকতে বলেন যত্রতত্র, তখন এই থেটারটা বৃহত্তর ক্যানভাসে শুধু বোবা হইতে থাকে, শুধু বোবাই হইতে পারে। -
فضای جالب و ابزورد و طنزی داشت.
سکوتا و بازیای خیلی جذابی میشد از توش در اورد.
موضوعش هم کنجکاوی برانگیز و کششدار بود!
برعکس چنتا کار کوتاه از پینتر که اخیرن خونده بودم و خیلی گنگ بود و زیاد قابل درک نبود، این یکی در عین ابزورد بودنش، داستانش رو هم میگفت، قویتر از بقیه.
دیالوگهای بین دو شخصیت خیلی خوب بودن و احمقانه :)) -
یک ورژن خیلیی ضعیف تر از در انتظار گودو بود بنظرم.. شاید هم هنوز نفهمیدمش درست ..
-
interesting but at times felt like secondhand waiting for godot (and pulp fiction) (raise your hands if you think quentin tarantino took cues from pinter)
-
شايدم دو...
و پينتر هم مثل همه نمايشنامه نويساي ابزرد ديگه شديدا تحت تاثير بكت و خصوصا در انتظار گودوست...
ديگه فعلا پينتر بسه! -
maybe the hit man is the friends we made along the way
-
I had to read this play for my university class and it was quite intriguing.
I was interested in the story and I wanted to know what was going to happen. Some things were a bit surreal, but they did make the story more interesting in my opinion. I would suggest going into this play without reading the premise first, I think it would be a lot better.
I'm definitely looking forward to discussing this play in class. -
Obra de teatro en un solo acto, un cuarto de hotel, dos hombres y la imaginación del escritor entregan una puesta en escena llena de referencias al teatro clásico, una oda a lo absurdo y sobre todo un vistazo a la insondable pero algo pestilente alma humana.
-
Disclosure:
This piece of Absurd Theater was an Integral piece in the Curriculum of the University, It was under the Subject of the Theater of Absurd, I own a Paperback of it with the Features above.
My Plot:
The Dumb Waiter is again one of the master piece of Harold Pinter the leading dramatist of the Theater of Absurd, The Play was all about a Two Hit Men, Ben and Gus, Ben is the Senior of the Gang and Gus is a Beginner to the Gang team, They were Hired to Kill someone, the One Act play goes in the Following, Ben reading the Newspaper and spending his time for the victim to come, Gus is making some modification on his shoes, Ben sometimes reads to his friend from the Newspaper and than all of a sudden they make a verbal riot about the Semantic of the Kettle whether it's "Light" or "Put on" the Kettle, This meaningless conversation shows the Absurdity of Humans in the Pinter Theater, after a while a dumb waiter who delivers occasional food order, The Two Characters wants to get rid of him and Gus gets out, After coming back Ben was ready to kill his friend which was his task to perform.
Positive and Negative Aspects:
Speaking of Theater of Absurd It's very hard to get a meaning from the whole play, the Writer was intended to make language empty from meaning, It was a hard attempt to do so, Speaking of positives the play writer was really professional to make a One Act play with a meaningless subject, From this Meaningless the writer shows the Aspect that there is no use from the Language nor from the Human beings themselves, everything was useless and meaningless. Besides, the setting was quite simple showing that there is no need to make such complications.
Concerning the Negatives, It was so much heavy to read all day a meaningless play, Besides I already make idea of How the Absurd Theater was making itself.
My Personal Reaction:
Reading the Theater of Absurd was something that puts you against the time and meaning. the whole play was just some small events of a two hit men waiting for the right moment to kill at the same time expressing the Useless nature of How Human begin to show up. It was like making two Punches at the same face without taking into consideration the Intentions of theses Punches. Anyway I could not say that I enjoy the Play but I would rather say that I grasp the meaning of the Writers Intentions.
Recommendations:
I would recommend this Play to those cold blooded persons, It is absurd to read the Theater of Absurd, That's How I say it, However I would recommend it to those who want to explore the techniques of this Genre of Theater for some Futuristic works. Anyway those people will get in touch with it. -
If you have read Samuel Beckett's ''Waiting for Godot'' before this you will notice Beckett's influence on Pinter. Although I didn't like Samuel Beckett's play I did enjoy the ideas.. Pinter's style did appeal more to me...
it is very obvious that from the very beginning of the play Ben is the dominant character who keeps bossing Gus around.
Since the beginning Gus questions the routine of life which annoys him, he keeps asking Ben questions like ''why doesn't Wilson ever bothers to show up'' or ''who cleans after they had done wit their job?'' while Ben either avoids his questions or stays silent and the more Gus asks him questions the more he seems to be irritated. Another thing that is noticed throughout the play is that they never have meaningful conversations, for instance they avoid talking about death incidents written in the newspaper and talk about more trivial matters such as the malfunctioning toilet ( anyone sensing the irony here?).
the repetitive actions in the play represent the dull life cycle and this is what really kills the characters(whether physically or other wise), while the repetitive pauses create an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, because in some cases silence proves to be deadly. And in the end we never get to know who Wilson is (just like Godot, for everyone interprets it in his own way).
Is he someone made up? Is he the boss of this little group? Why does he have such an influence on the characters? the questions in fact are endless. -
I hadn't read any Pinter before this but I now want to read more. This a compact play that succeeds on many levels. It is funny, disturbing and intelligent and also absurd, perplexing and challenging.
The play seems to be designed to be read on many levels, more overtly than many plays. There is a clear political hierarchy being critiqued, as well as interpersonal politics to contend with but there are also deliberate loose ends that demand the reader/audience insert their own conclusions. Naturalistic versus symbolic action and dialogue are also up for grabs.
A tightly packed short play that is as satisfying to unpick as it is to read. -
What's with theatre and two guys waiting? The Dumb Waiter has strong Godot vibes all over it, but it is good on its own way. Pinter is particularly accomplished at highlighting the abyss that separate characters through simple everyday-dialogue. The pauses, the monosyllabic answers, the reactions to sudden happenstances tell the audience all there is to know about their personalities and how they clash. It is that graceful exposition of darkness below the characters' lives that makes this stand out, even if in the end it's not nearly as memorable as that other play it reminds me of.
-
read for uni (english literature 4 class)
-
It is probably cruel to call this a discount Waiting For Godot but...
-
There's something about the theater of the absurd that always pushes me into the discomfort zone, and yet I enjoy the eloquent silences and the uncomfortable pauses.
This is the second play of Pinter that I've read/watched after 'The Birthday Party' and it is deeply reminiscent of Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' (waiting for Godot/Wilson, dominant/submissive aspect) and Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' (Two hitmen).
I read and watched the play simultaneously and I think it brilliantly depicts the economic instability lurking, the hopelessness, the inability of the characters to communicate with each other as they are stuck in a claustrophobic space, with no 'window' and only a newspaper as the way to connect to the outside world.
It intrigues me how violence is depicted through moments of silence (in the way they move, or stare at each other) or through discussions on the most mundane things. It says nothing and everything at the same time, and that's what I love about absurd plays; it's subtle, yet profound. -
I've always sort of enjoyed absurdist drama, it's so damn funny to read the character's interactions. I didn't, however, particularly enjoy reading this play, but that's mostly due to human error. Reading absurdist plays, you have to imagine what's going on and read between the lines, and sometimes it's just better to watch the play because you can see the characters right in front of you. I'll change my review on this play later, but it is a annoying reminder of why I dislike reading plays.
-
This was a great read. The realism of the situation combined with the few ridiculous absurdities made for an entertaining read. Two men, waiting in a basement to kill someone where the toilet doesn't flush properly and someone keeps sending orders for food down the dumb waiter of an old restaurant.
The mechanics are beautifully woven with entertaining dialogue and a mysterious and shocking ending. Definitely worth the read. Now I must watch the play! -
i bought this play as a birthday present to myself, in 1998, when i turned twenty-two (the year my oldest son was born). it was suggest to me by a writer friend of mine who told me:
"You would like Harold Pinter."
in 2002 i directed and acted in the play with my friend Galen Howard. -
This play reminded me a lot of Samuel Beckett. However, I think that Beckett executes the Theatre of the Absurd slightly better than Pinter. In "Endgame" I really felt the despair and helplessness of the characters, while in "The Dumb Waiter", I felt less attachment to the characters.
-
3.5 Stars
Rating might change when I watch an available version of the play one day.
Fun fact: When you don't read the blurb ... it makes the play that much more mysterious. -
Through it you can see how the human can be anxiety from face the world .
i liked character Ben and Jess and the monoling between them ..
it' a fine play . -
even more confused
-
Pinter, at his best.
-
I saw this on stage and then turned around and read the play again so I could relive the hilarious brilliance.
-
-He will look at me, then he will look at you.
-He will look at you. -
Quite amusing and weird, the dumb waiter providing some distraction from the proposed activity of the two main thugs. One certainly does need a few biscuits before carrying out a job as a hit man!!!
-
A great play that has good humour and political undertones.
-
Zaczyna się od absurdalnych i tragicznych historii z odwracających uwagę brukowców. Od spłóczki klozetowej, która napełnia się powoli. Spłóczki sedesu, który ma ukryć nasze nieczystości (właśnie dzięki współczensym łazienkom nie musimy widzieć brudów i konsekwencji, możemy pozbyć się nieczystości bez zastanowienia). Zepsuta spłóczka zdaje się być pierwszym symbolem zdradzającym wątpliwości, które ogarniają Gusa.
A wątpliwości nie są mile widzane w społeczeństwie sukcesu. Wątpliwości lub brak produktywności mogą sprawić, że będziemy musieli zniknąć. Jak w życiu - mali przestępcy trafią do więzienia, starcy trafią do domów opieki, osoby z nieodpowiednimi "zaburzeniami" dostaną leki lub zostaną odizolowani od społeczeństwa. Zostaną usunięci.
A co robią Ben i Gus? Dwaj bohaterowie dramatu. Grają w grę, w którą zostali wrzuceni. Nie wiedząc dlaczego. Nie potrafiąc wejść ze sobą w autentyczny dialog. Godzą się na nią.
Gus zaczyna mieć przebłyski, że przecież to mali ludzi - jak on sam - są fundamentem społeczeństwa, że warstwa "na górze" nie miałaby nic, bez jego pracy. Bez jego zgody. Zaczyna czuć moralność i problemy, ale brakuje mu słów, żeby o nich pomyśleć i wyrazić swój niepokój. Ben widzi zmianę w swoim towarzyszu, jednak nie rozumie czy nie chce jej zrozumieć. Ma wbudowaną konieczność utrzymania danego porządku.
Note:
■ Sztuka ta była inspiracją dla filmu Martin McDonagh'a "In Bruges" z Colinem Farrellem.
■ Na sztukę można wybrać się do teatru. W Krakowie grywa ją np. Teatr Bez Rzędów.
■ Na yt można znaleźć przynajmniej dwie adaptacje, w tym jedną wyreżyserowaną przez Roberta Altmana z Johnem Travoltą w roli Bena.
