THE CARETAKER

Q) Discuss the theme of menace.

(Here the theme of menace is discussed as the “comedy of menace” in the light of the play)
Pinter’s plays that are both funny and threatening are termed as “comedy of menace”. They upset the audience
even as they laugh. While the speech only seems to be funny, the character in question is actually confronting
some menace and fighting a battle for his life.
The scene of Davies being chased by the vacuum cleaner creates a comic situation for us, but for him it is
terrifying experience. Davies’s attempts to pretend to be what he is not are funny, but he is overpowered by the
menace that he is being accepted neither by Aston nor by Mick. There is simultaneously the element of menace
in the play in the shape of the fear of Blacks and of the men who will come for Davies by reading the name-
plate of caretaker hanging on the outer wall. Davies’s cowardly nature expresses itself and his acceptance of the
offer is as such half-hearted. What would happen if the people who are after him came to the door, rang the bell
and caught him as he, being the caretaker, was bound to open the door.
Davies: Well I could have that Scotch git coming looking after me.
Aston is still under the menace of the mental hospital. Like Davies, Aston also always remains under the
menace of the unpredictable Mick. Just as Davies is the main vehicle for the comedy in the play, so is he the
main vehicle for the presentation of fear (menace). He is frightened of the society which he cannot understand
and to which he does not belong. He remains frightened at the prospect of being alone again.

Q) To what extent should the caretaker be interpreted as a play of social criticism?

The caretaker appears to be a critique of society not in a broad sense but in its limited aspects. That is a number
of aspects of society appear to come under criticism in the play.

In their different ways both Davies and Aston are victims of society. Davies cannot cope with its complexity
and Aston has a damaged mentality but society makes no attempt to help them. Davies seems to be doomed
to perpetual loneliness, while Aston, also lonely relies on the unpredictable companionship of his brother.

Davies is a man rejected by society because he does not have his ‘paper’ without the documentary evidence by
which society labels and categories its members, he is a lost case. The individual is not recognized by society. It
recognizes only a name and number on a piece of paper and without these papers the individual does not exist.
So Davies is condemned to wander rootless and unwanted, terrified by vague fears of persecution. He does not
know the technical terms mentioned by Mick, the references to house owning and purchase, insurance and
banking, bonus schemes, etc but society gives importance to the knowledge of such things, possessed by its
members. Thus without papers, Davies is a man without identity. As he says to Mick,
“You see? They prove who I am! I can’t move without papers”.

Aston is also a victim of society, but his case is different. He says to Davies,
“I talked too much. That was my mistake. One day people took me to a hospital”.
His operation may be interpreted as society’s retribution and a symbol of the fear in which it holds the person
who is a potential threat to it. Any such threat must be cruelly and immediately destroyed, in this case by taking
away Aston’s ability to think. He could become a motivational speaker. If he had been allowed to develop his
personality, he could be a better person. He has the fear that people will not accept him. Mental hospital is a
symbol of fear for Aston.
Racial prejudice is also criticized in The Caretaker through the character of Davies, and is revealed as the
greatest of follies. Davies’s hatred of coloured people is simply a cover for his own deficiencies, and his fear of
them is irrational. Racial prejudice allows Davies to blame others for what is actually his own fault. As he says,
“All of them Blacks had it, Blacks, Greeks, Poles, lots of them, that’s what, doing me out of a seat and
treating me like dirt”.
He makes noises at night but he puts this blame on blacks who lives next to his door. He says,
“All the banisters were dirty, they were black, all the lavatory was black”.
Further Mick’s dream of a ‘penthouse’ flat is also an implied criticism of society. Mick’s greatest aim in life
seems to be to bring the house up to the standards that modern society finds desirable. His plan of the
decoration of the house will change its appearance but its basic structure will remain the same as will the people
inside it. 
The Caretaker is not wholly a social criticism. Of course, it has an element of social criticism in it, but this is
overshadowed by other themes such as loneliness, isolation, communication, identity, dreams and illusions, etc.

Q) Discuss the role of dream and illusions in “caretaker”?

In the play, every character has a dream and hope for the future. Something they are going to do in the future.
Mick’s greatest aim in life seems to be to bring the house up to the standards that modern society finds
desirable. His plan of the decoration of the house will change its appearance.
All the characters talk about their dreams but they never try to fulfill their dreams because life is cruel for them.
Pinter seems to be saying that to survive a person must cut himself off from reality and live in the world of
dreams and illusions because real life is too bitter to allow survival.
It was a great change for western society after World War 2. They had lost their power and face economic
problems, problems of unemployment etc.
Davies has a dream to get his papers back from Sidcup. Society does not accept any individual without his
papers. He never tries to get his paper back. Mick offers Davies to go Sidcup with him but Davies becomes
panic because he knows there is no paper in Sidcup. He thinks that his impression will fall down if Mick goes
with him.
Aston is a mental patient. He was sent to hospital. He says
“I talked too much. That was my mistake. One day people took me to a hospital. I didn’t want to go”.
Aston also tells Davies about his plan for future. He says,
“Once I get that shed up outside…I will be able to give a bit more thought to the flat”.
He wants to make his own house in the future. But Davies destroy Aston’s dream. At the end he says
“It is a stinking shed”.
It makes him angry and destroys his dream.
For all these characters, their dreams are their identity. If they lose their dreams, they would actually lose their
identity.

Q) Discuss the theme of room in the caretaker?

As the play begins, thematic aspect of isolation is introduced through the very setting of the play: messy room.
Play begins in that room in the apartment. The only companionship that Aston has is that of the clutter that
surrounds him on all four corners. Therefore the clutter can be a silent character in the play. However, the
clutter being an inanimate object, Aston cannot establish a communication. Therefore, the room is isolated.
Pinter message is that it is better to live alone than to live with a person who belongs to an outside world.
Room is quite symbolic ,it symbolizes a shelter where person can hide himself from the outside society. Things
are present in great disorder showing the mental condition of Aston.
and gives him comforts like providing him tobacco or a pair of shoes and ultimately a roof above his head
shows that he wants to break free from his isolation
Aston lives the life of mentally retarded human being because of the shock treatment given to him.
The characters in the play are profoundly isolated from one another. They orbit their own personal universes
and cannot quite maintain deep, meaningful relationships with others. Communication is fractured or
impossible; they misunderstand each other and remain in their private, personal worlds. 
Furthermore, he is not engaged with society; he is isolated from the world outside confusing.  Aston saves
Davies from a café brawl The room in the play acts as a shelter or a womb; within here Mick, Aston ,Davies
expect to be safe.

Q) Discuss the theme of communication in the play "The Caretaker"?

The communication between the characters is integral to the play, with regards to the absurdity. There
appears to be a painful incoherence. The characters, seemingly, cannot make each other truly understand. The
problem, however, lies with both the speaker and the listener. The speaker’s language is incoherent, and the
listener is too preoccupied to gather the speech. This leads to a terrible situation where there is no order. An
important aspect is the repetition. The characters keep on repeating what have been occupying their minds.
Davies wants to go to Sidcup, Aston wants to build a shed and Mick wants the house to be renovated, and
decorated. Their respective ‘intentions’ keep on coming up. Mick, during the relatively climatic moments
towards the end of the play says:
“Anyone would think this house was all I got to worry about. I got plenty of other things I can worry
about...I'm moving about, all the time. I'm moving...all the time. I've got to think about the future.”
This actually shows that there is a perpetual conflict going within Mick, where dreams and reality are colliding
with each other.
Another interesting thing to note is the relationship between Aston and Mick. They never converse properly
through the course of the play, and almost always do not share the space, creating a serious communication gap.
The characters, when they speak, also suffer from constant breakages in their speech. There are illogical pauses,
and constant meandering. Davies, specifically, also goes on and on about something, which could also reflect
his desire to stay ‘important’.
There is a triangular relationship between the characters. When Davies enter the house, and meets Mick, later
on, the triangle is created. The triangle, as the story progresses, becomes an embodiment of absurdity. The
communication gaps between the characters add to the misery and things only become more confusing for the
characters.
Aston’s decisive last line in the play points out the issue with the ‘third wheel’ that they had had for a while:
Davies. Aston had been kind, and tolerant, but by that point he had also had enough of the ‘outsider’ who had
been making things more chaotic, so to speak. He says to Davies:
“You make too much noise.”
A cold, depressing set of words, not without its justification, reflects the inevitable despair.

Q) How realistic is The Caretaker?

The plays of Harold Pinter, whose slice of British life would seem to be cut as thick as John Osborne's or
Arnold Wesker's, is surprisingly enough among the least realistic of modern English dramatists. Pinter shares
with his social realist contemporaries commitments to what seem totally realistic situations, characters, and
language. His dramatic situations are commonplace: a tramp discusses with two brothers the possibility of his
becoming caretaker for their ramshackle flat; a young man loses his composure at his birthday party because of
the presence of two men he does not know; a couple speculate about a matchseller outside their bungalow and
finally invite him inside. The characters are as commonplace as the situations: unheroic people from the urban
middle and lower classes. And the dialogue is a meticulously accurate transcription of ordinary speech. Of such
grain have the realists of the Osborne school concocted a yeasty bread of social protest. But beneath the realistic
prose of Pinter's plays lurks the spirit of a poet, transmuting the same drab material into something more like
poetry than anything else for which we have a name. Poetic qualities have been ascribed to other dramatists
who wrote in prose. Shaw is called a "poet" because of the almost musical orchestration of his dialogue; Synge
and O'Casey, because of the natural Irish lilt and imagery in their language; Tennessee Williams, because of his
pervasive use of symbolism. With these playwrights, poetry is an unexpected by-product of their themes,
settings, and linguistic agility. Pinter, however, consistently draws upon two chief sources of dramatic poetry:
situations for which the ordinary meanings of words are inadequate and language that conveys something other
than the meanings of its words. Situations that transcend the capacity of prose language are, of course, the very
meat of poetry. T. S. Eliot has said, "... the poet is occupied with frontiers of consciousness beyond which
words fail, though meanings still exist."l Characters in Pinter's plays invariably live on these frontiers. Unlike
the true social realists, with whom he shares many surface qualities, Pinter offers no solutions to the conflicts
that pull at his characters. Unemployment, poverty, prejudice, and 1 T. S. Eliot, "The Music of Poetry," On
Poetry and Poets (London, 1957), p. 30. (185) 186 MODERN DRAMA September mental illness figure in the
plot of The Caretaker, for example, but the fight• for social progress is no part of the drama thus generated.
Acceptance of the rules of the game, not anger with them, underlies the dramatic action. Problems do not exist
to be solved, as in the plays of protest; they exist to release the characters' impulses toward the "frontiers of
consciousness." Here there are no solutions or resolutions, but motives that defy definition and feelings that
elude classification. Martin Esslin, noting Pinter's preoccupation with these frontiers, cites a radio interview in
which Pinter located his characters "at the extreme edge of their living, where they are living pretty much
alone."2 The language of symbols can be the most effective mode of communication at the "edge of living."
Human fears and desires, hidden and half-understood, are difficult to convey in ordinary prose. Only an image
that releases the appropriate emotion approaches communication . The dramatist, naturally, has recourse to
nonverbal symbols, which often produce a strikingly "poetic" effect of their own. Many plays whose language
itself is prosaic achieve a "poetry of situations" merely by gestures. Nonverbal passages in Pinter's plays often
reveal symbolic meanings in the midst of seemingly realistic actions. We are tempted to call such passages
"poetic" because of their unique ability to evoke unspoken attitudes. In one scene of The Caretaker, Davies tries
futilely to retrieve a bag containing everything he owns, while Mick and Aston snatch it from him again and
again. As the three of them continue the pantomime and the bag keeps eluding Davies' grasp, his struggle
becomes more than a fight to hold on to a bag. Complete frustration is the feeling evoked, and the business with
the bag serves as a symbol perhaps for the impossibility of preserving intact one's individuality in a hostile
world.

Q) Comment to Harold Pinter’s use of following in his play ‘The Caretaker’:

Pauses and silence
Behind the apparently random rendering of the colloquial language in Pinter’s play, there lies a rigorous economy of
mean. Each world is sential to the total structure and decisively contributes to the ultimate, overall effect aimed at. That
is why silences play such a large and essential part in Pinter’s dialogue. Pinter uses two different terms for punctuation
of his dialogue by passages without speech: Pause and Silence. Indeed, silence is an essential, integral part, and often
the climax, of his use of language. There is silence when Mick is alone in The Room at the beginning of The Caretaker
before there are “muffed voices” of Aston and Davies. There is silence, again as Davies enters the dark room and tries to
light a match while Mick is already there “sparing cleaning” The Room with the Electrolux and, finally, there is “long
silence” as Davies pleads with Aston at the end of the play: “Listen…if I…got down…If I was to…get my papers…would
you…would you let…would you…if I got down…and got my…”Pinter has been accused of a mannerism of silence or an
excessive use of long pauses. But the silences and pauses in his work are simply a part of his creed as a craftsman. They
are the highly persona! Way of experiencing, and reacting to the world around him. And, indeed, if we try to listen
attentively and closely to the real speech of people, we shall find that there are more silences and longer pauses, than
those generally allowed in the traditional dramas. Besides, there is a definite purpose behind the silences and pauses in
Pinter’s plays. When Pinter indicates a “pause”, he wants us to understand that intense thought processes are
continuing and that unspoken tensions are mounting; and when he indicates a “silence”, it is a sign at the end of a
movement and the beginning of another, as between the movements of a symphony. According to Andrew Kennedy, “In
the Caretaker…a language of lived encounter is created out of the fragmented speech of two inarticulate persons: Aston
and Davies set against the sadistically elaborate jargon—speeches of Mick. To that extent, The Caretaker is Pinter’s most
valuable achievement in unified ‘listening’ and ‘shaping’, in fusing the human abstract attributes of dramatic language”.

Clothing
Clothes that are used by the director to help with characterization. By just seeing the clothes, audience unconsciously
has been able to assume the traits of the characters in the play. It is director’s way of giving visual cues to audience.
There are three characters in the Caretaker Aston, Mick, and Davies. Mick, the younger brother, in this play is dressed as
someone who is tough and rough. He uses black leather jacket, jeans, and snickers, to emphasize masculinity, rebellious,
and individualism. How he dresses reflects his aggressiveness as a young guy with wild soul. It can be proved by how he
attacks Davies physically when he entered his house and found Davies there. He also uses a lot of harsh physical contacts
to Davies like pushing and kicking him. In the other hand, Aston uses black trousers, loose tie and shirt and loafer. This
kind of clothing is usually used by white-color workers to give a sharp look for someone who is important, busy, and
intelligent. However, Aston does not look neat in that. The costume does not suit his personality since he is
characterized as someone who is innocent, naïve and retarded. Those traits are shown by how untidy he dresses. The
way he is dressed up as someone who is the complete opposite of him is to show the audience the irony. That kind of
dressing shows formality, whom Aston is lack. The shoes Aston uses, loafer, might also be used as symbolism since the
word itself carries two meanings. Besides describing a type of shoes, loafer is also used to describe someone who avoids
doing any work. Aston, who has a brain-damaged doesn’t look like he is capable of doing too many works. This is also
probably why, in the end of the play, Davies, the homeless guy brought by Aston takes role as the caretaker. Davies, the
homeless guy, uses long black coat, white shirt, suspender, fabric trousers, gloves with no finger tips and worn-out
shoes. This shows that he is a type of person who spends most of his, in the street. The long black coat is usually used
outside to prevent us from getting cold. The gloves with no finger tips are used to somehow resemble a person who has
been living in such a cruel world. The present of the suspender is to characterize elderly eccentric. His clothes are old-
fashion, which matches his age and generation. From his getup, he looks very manipulative. For a homeless who is taken
to a new place to be given somewhere to live, he is complaining too much. He also begins to rummage through Aston’s
personal stuff when no one is home which indicates that he is actually into something.

Lighting effects
Lighting design used in the stage contributes such a great role to the success of the play. The Caretaker uses poor
lighting to create the atmosphere that they live in a down town part area. It also supports the setting that shows that
the home is badly organized and badly kept. This situation is emphasized by Davies in his dialogue when he first time
arrived there. Besides that, lighting here is used to help with the setting, to show the day and the night time. When the
characters are sleeping, the light is turned off. And it is turned back on when the characters start their activities in the
day time. Another thing to be noted about the lighting is that in the first scene the light is focused on Mick who is sitting
in the bed thinking of something. Using the lighting, the director wants the audience to be involved with the character’s
crisis. The lighting is also light up on Aston when he conveys his monologue to get the audience to focus on him.
Q) What role does the violence play in the play The Caretaker?
The play is divided into three acts, with a minimum of plot. The action takes place in a single room over the
course of two weeks. Pinter has created a tense, dramatic situation in which three working-class men confront
each other. They confront each other but there is isolation, loneliness, betrayal, violence and a lack of
communication. As is the case with many of Harold Pinter’s plays, The Caretaker is an enigmatic piece that
relies on subtle metaphors and encourages the readers to consider the broader implications of the dialogue and
action, but the few actions inly represents violence.
In this play, violence is very closely tied in with power. This starts right from the beginning of the play – Aston
has invited Davies, a homeless man, into his flat after rescuing him from a bar fight. Davies is angry about how
he has been treated in the café and declares his hatred for Poles, Greeks and Blacks.
Aston then leaves the tramp in another potentially dangerous situation – alone, with the potential for angry
treatment by Mick. Then Mick does attack Davies,
(…. Mick seizes his arm and forces it up his back. Davies screams.)
(Mick softly forces him to the floor, with Davies struggling, grimacing, whimpering and staring. Mock
holds his arm, puts his other hand to his lips, then puts his hand to Davies’ lips. Davies quietens. Mick
lets him go. Davies writhes. Mick holds out a warning finger.)
When Davies tries to rise up, Mick presses him don with his foot. Finally, he removes his foot, Davies remains
on the floor, crouched. These are all acts of overt or non-overt violence underlying the action. Then Mick goes
to cloth horse and picks up Davies’ trousers, he examines the trousers them back. After some time when Davies
seizes his trousers, Mick grabs them again and flicks the trousers in Davies face several times – Mick is
showing violence here.
The scene of vacuum cleaner also depicts violence when Mick turns out the lights on Davies as he enters the
flat. Davies mumbles and grumbles, looking for his matchbox after he drops it.
Where’s my box? It was down here. Who’s this? Who’s moving it?
Silence
Come on, who’s this? Who’s this got my box?
Pause
I got a knife here. I’m ready. Come on then, who are you?
He moves, stumbles, falls and cries out.
Silence
A faint whimper from Davies. He gets up.
All Right!
He stands. Heavy breathing.
Suddenly the electrolux starts to hum. A figure moves with it, guiding it. The nozzle moves along the floor
after Davies, who skips, drives away from it and falls, breathlessly.
When the lights come back on and Davies sees that it is Mick, the confrontation is defused but Davies is still
disconcerted and remains crouched. Mick reveals himself, casually talking about how he is doing some spring
cleaning. Mick says he is trying to clean up to make things comfortable for Davies, the guest. He muses about
lowering the rest, and then asks if he is a violent man. The latter replies that he is not unless someone messes
with him: a joke is okay, but people should not start anything with him. This impresses Mick and he says so.
Mick praises Davies for being assertive and unwilling to tolerate abuse, uplifting the fact that Davies was
willing to take violent actions. Davies sees that Mick is impressed and because he is trying to ingratiate himself
to Mick as a would-be employer, he adopts this identity, however, Mick says that Davies is violent and erratic
and uses this as the basis to evict Davies.
Mick’s violence against Davies persists but changes its expression. In the first encounter, Mick attacks Davies
physically. This violence gradually assumes a verbal shape. He asks him a series of questions. He repeats these
questions several times in an attempt to subdue and dominate Davies. Mick threatens with words as to dominate
the situation.
Mick: Well?
Davies: nothing, nothing. Nothing.
Mick: What’s your name?
Davies: I don’t know. I don’t know who you are.
Pause
Mick: Eh?
Davies: Jenkins.
Mick: Jenkins?
Davies: yes.
Mick: Jen…kins.
Mick asks two other questions then he repeats,
Mick: What did you say your name was?
Davies: Jenkins.
Mick: I beg your pardon?
Davies: Jenkins.
Pause
Mick: Jen…kins.
At the end, he asks again,
Mick: No, what is your real name?
Davies: My real name is Davies.
Mick: What’s the name you go under?
Davies: Jenkins.
Mick: You got two names? What about the rest?
Pinter’s plays are dominated by verbal and physical violence in which characters contend for positions of
power. Mick’s aggressive interaction acts as a dominance over miserable Davies who could not speak properly
without uttering clichés and gigs. The cycle of domination continues through a number of stages that make
Davies to suffer more and more at the hands of Mick.

Q) Discuss the theme of menace in The Caretaker? Also what part does comedy play in the play
and how does Pinter achieve his comic effects?
In 1957 David Campton coined the term ‘Comedies of Menace’ as the subtitle of one of his one-act plays
collectively called The Lunatic View. The term ‘Comedies of Menace’ essentially puns on ‘comedies of
Manners’- a sub-genre greatly employed by the preceding comedy playwrights like Bernard Shaw and
Congreve. In contrast to which, Pinter’s drama provokes laughter through balanced phraseology, antithesis, and
the language and manners of social classes - though the classes in his plays are usually lower than those in
Congreve’s or Shaw’s. The antithesis helps produce comedy as does the accurate reproduction of spoken
English, with clichés, repetitiveness and incomplete understanding.
Realism and the element of ‘non-sequitur’ in particular, allow for greater comedy and the resultant distressing
menace experienced throughout the play, whereby one character evades another by changing the subject:
nobody can miss this in his plays.
Ultimately, each play of Pinter’s, and The Caretaker being no exception, is about what the characters are unable
to express. The lack of significant expression and essential evasion of matters accounts for much of the
ambiguity and incomprehension experienced in the play.
Comic passages also help create an atmosphere of menace, mystery, evasion and matters deliberately concealed.
Frequently, Pinter’s plays begin comically but turn to physical, psychological, or potential violence- sometimes,
in varying sequences to all three.
The fusion of realism and absurdity, this chiefly unsettling element, distinguishes Pinter’s artistic style from
those of other writers of his genre. Because events and actions are unexplained, and apparently illogical or
unmotivated, the world seems capricious or malevolent. One can rely upon nothing. What is apparently secure
is not secure. A haven does not protect. Whom Aston once considered his friends back in the factory, apparently
backstabbed him and led to his admission in the asylum, who Davies considered his benefactor – Aston, and his
ally – Mick, ultimately turned him to the door without submitting their ears to any sort of pleading on his part,
even blood relations end up not accounting for absolute protection and trust as in the case of Aston’s mother
signing the form for his mental treatment despite his pleading otherwise, and one cannot even be safe in one’s
own household – the hostility Aston feels at the end from bringing in an outsider such as Davies to the room.
Linguistic absurdity may suggest the absurdity of the human condition. Fear of a menace may suggest the
universal trauma of man in the universe.
Linguistic absurdity, as stated earlier, is the core of the Comedy of Menace style of modern theatre. It evokes
laughter alongside depicting an era that has ushered in all natures of insecurities and the identity crisis that
follow. Insecurity and fear create dramatic tensions and account for many ambiguities, contradictions, and
character interrelationships. What happens creates an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. Therefore, ambiguities
and contradictions are understandable, for people evade issues and refuse to reveal themselves. Such evasion
and stealth are among the play’s subjects. In other words it is not the characters’ background that is of major
dramatic concern but their avoidance of revealing it.
For instance, when Mick asks Davies whether he had been in the services – a question to his past and a hint
towards his present identity formulated by that past, flusters Davies and enables the man to lie about it, directly
induced from his unwillingness to face his past; because apparently, the unveiling of it brings misfortune in the
form of dejection and abandonment: like when Aston revealed his past, Davies stopped respecting him, calling
him insane.
Mick: I mean, you’ve been in the services, haven’t you?
Davies: The what?
Mick: You been in the services. You can tell by your stance.
Davies: Oh . . . yes. Spent half my life there, man. Overseas . . . like . . . serving I was.
Mick: In the colonies, weren’t you?
Davies: I was over there. I was the first one over there.
He evidently lies about being in the services, with the deluding hope of being accepted by the one who
questions. As far as Mick is concerned, it’s pretty hilarious how far from truth his deductions are when it comes
to determining the occupation of Davies. In this sense, Pinter brings a bunch of comical diction to denote that
how silly people, the silliness may range with respect to the intricate level of pretensions by the other person,
accept false faces and lies as true and act accordingly. Aston knew what Davies’ real occupation was, yet he
still revered him as a person he could live with; Mick on the other hand, wrongly sorted him out as person of
great capability, who had in his youth served in the army, had seen the world and dealt with all kinds of troubles
with great sagacity and was, in fact, an interior decorator at the present – just the sort of man Mick was looking
for. These false deductions when revealed made him shun the tramp; all the more reasons making us realize
why he went along with the lies in the first place.
In contrast to the much recognized and applauded Comedy of Manners style of theatrical writing – which
explicit the hypocrisy prevalent in human nature, that their actions are reverse of their ideologies, the Comedy
of Menace jumbles with reality and appearance; thereby comically exposing the flaw in the human perception in
districting them separately. Despite its realistic detail The Caretaker undercuts veracity. Real is not necessarily
true. At times contradictions occur in two successive sentences, as when Aston says, ‘I used to have
hallucinations. They weren’t hallucinations.’ Little is what it appears to be. Davies goes by another name. One
brother lives in the house but another owns it and lives elsewhere. Such undercutting creates meaning, an
ambience of insecurity and, in its wake, fear and danger.
None know distinctly what it is to be trusted and thus the menacing effect. For one, memory cannot be trusted.
The events that shaped our pasts, as presented by Pinter, are not entirely devoid of flaw. To second it, neither
can people be.
Davies: Listen! I wake up in the morning . . . I wake up in the morning and he’s smiling at me! He’s
standing there. Looking at me, smiling! I can see him you see; I can see him through the blanket. [. . . .]
What the hell’s he smiling at? What he don’t know is that I’m watching him through that blanket. He
thinks I’m asleep, but I got my eye on him all the time through the blanket. But he don’t know that! He
just looks at me and smiles, but he don’t know that I can see him doing that.
Davies is eying Aston all the time. He refuses to trust the person who is his imminent benefactor, who had done
nothing but, through the whole course of the play, good to him. What benefit can Aston acquire from harming
the old, penniless man? In fact, when the ungrateful old bloke calls his benefactor as half-sane and threatens to
resubmit him to the asylum – Aston quietly asks him to leave; yet the always encompassing threat that has
through the ages made Davies almost paranoid with terror, does not allow him to take that chance of trust with
the other person: whose intentions cannot be questioned.
The power struggle between Aston and Davies also comes to surface in the final act, and it becomes vivid that
Davies wants to take over Aston’s place in his brother’s eyes as well in sharing, if not owning, the room with a
person who, at least “talks” and “listens” to him (this need left unfulfilled with his prior relation with Aston
because of grave lack of communication between the two and failures in regard to making that pointless effort).
Earlier in the play, Mick tells Davies that his brother is assigned with the task of decorating the apartment
establishment for him; in the concluding act Davies lusts over this role and says:
(Bending close to Mick) No, what you want to do, you want to speak to him, see? You want to tell him . . .
that we got ideas for this place, we could build it up, we could get it started. You see, I could decorate it
for you; I could give you a hand in doing it . . . between us.
Menace not only lurks in the characters’ pasts, or their interactions with others but also in the things present in
their surroundings. This is where Pinter’s unique dramaturgy applies, in the narrative of objects and things that
are lifeless. In establishing this play and in heightening its effects on the audience; the transition of light and
darkness, their fading in and out and in turn almost all the articles inhabiting the room are of plenty significance
as symbolic of the playwrights intentions in disclosing the real through a surreal medium.
 Aston: I’ll have to fix a proper shade on that bulb. The light’s a bit glaring.
Or the spring cleaning Mick does, literally, with Davies. Playing with the darkened room and chasing
electrolux; Davies is put out of his sense as he is in breath.
Davies’ fear of the stove that is not in working condition:
What about this gas stove? He tells me it’s not connected. How do I know it’s not connected? Here I am,
I’m sleeping right with it, I wake up in the middle of the night, I’m looking right into the oven, man! It’s
right next to my face, how do I know, I could be lying there in bed, it might blow up, it might blow up, it
might do me harm!
The constant ‘fear of being harmed’ remains with him and is projected in the fear from society: that is invaded
by foreigners. Davies continues to indulge in blame shifting when he insists that it must be the Blacks who were
making the noises during the night which Aston complains of, or their polluting the lavatories etc represents that
the society itself stands hostile towards the week and vulnerable.
When Aston offers Davies the job of caretaking, he voices his threat in doing the job with the words along the
lines:
Davies: Oh; I don’t know about that.
Aston: why not?
Davies: Well, I mean, you don’t know who might come up them front steps, do you? I got to be a bit
careful.
Aston: Why, someone after you?
Davies: After me? Well, I could have that Scotch git coming looking after me, couldn’t I? All I’ll do, I’d
hear the bell, I’d go down there, open the door, who might be there, any Harry might be there. I could be
buggered as easy as that, man. They might be there after my card.
In effect, Pinter’s writings are governed by the notion that nothing can be trusted – not people, relations, things
you own or this whole society in itself, giving rise to perpetual insecurities and panging loneliness. The room, a
perfect blending description of it all, is disjointed by time. The people inhabiting it are forsaken by motion, the
dynamics of life. There is no clock in the room and Davies’ persistent insistence on having one, reveal the
startling tragedy lying hitherto dormant in the very setting of the play: like how Samuel Beckett chose for his
magnum opus – Waiting for Godot, a place devoid of any sort of life, with there being only a single tree in
sight. In the former setting surrealism overtakes realism; though more mysterious and willow fully enchanting,
Pinter employs a parallel setting with the difference of a crowded city life in opposition to some barren
wasteland. The fact that the room, amidst all the junk it contains, does not have room for a room explains why
the characters are unable to take significant steps in life, because they have no notion of time. For them time has
stopped moving, and with it life as well.
Contradictions allow for much of the comedy experienced in the play. When Davies complains to Mick later in
the play that Aston called him having stunk the place out, Mick reassures him that is such were the case he
would be the first one to point that out; though earlier in the play – in fact, during the two’s initial encounter
Mick emphasized how intensely Davies stinked. Also Mick’s inviting Davies over a drink and listening
Tchaikovsky with him is comically entertaining; for what interests would an ex-homeless have in such
delicacies of the learnt. Additionally, much of the comedy is perceived in the stating of the obvious, as in:
Davies: what do you do - ?
They both look at him.
What do you do . . . when the bucket’s full?
Pause.
Aston: Empty it.
The business of grabbing, giving, and taking Davies’s bag is farcically funny and becomes funnier when Aston,
having taken it from Mick, pauses and returns it to Mick, who, accustomed to give it to someone other than the
person from who he gets it, mechanically gives it to Davies. Comedy derives from character, as when Davies,
trying to ingratiate himself with Aston, agrees that a jig-saw is useful and then asks what a jig-saw is. The play
also contains Pinter’s customary verbal comedy of repetition (I’ll have to tar it over.’ ‘You’re going to tar it
over?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘What?’ ‘The cracks’ ‘You’ll be tarring over the cracks on the roof?’, tautology ( the explanation
as to who lives next door is ‘neighbours’, incongruity (Mick invites an old tramp to listen to Tchaikovosky with
him), and non sequitur (after threatening Davies in the darkness with a vacuum cleaner, Mick unplugs it, inserts
a light bulb, and calmly explains that he has been spring cleaning).
‘As far as I’m concerned’, Pinter has said, ‘The Caretaker is funny, up to a point. Beyond that point it ceases to
be funny and it was because of that point that I wrote it.’

(Optional) Q) What are the main features of Pinter’s use of language in “The Caretaker”?
In Pinter’s use of dialogue, he captures the mannerism, repetitions, abruptness, disjointed speech and other
peculiarities of the character that inhabit this world. Most of the time, it sounds like a tape recorded speech.
Pinter uses language in a most dramatic way as a vehicle and instrument of dramatic action. Words become
weapons in the mouth of Pinter’s character. The one who gets hold of the more accurate expressions establishes
dominance over his partner; his victim of aggression can be defeated by language which comes to thick and
fast. Pinter’s favorites linguistic and stylistic are not verbal absurdities to be ridiculed. These devices illuminate
mental processes which lie behind the ill-chosen or non-sensical word
Davies resorts to this often, especially at the end of the play:
“But….but…look…listen here…I mean what…I mean…What am I going to? .... What shall I do?
...Where am I going to go? .....
In Pinter’s world, personal inadequacy expresses itself in an inadequacy in coping and using language. The
inability to communicate is regarded by the character as a part of civilization and even as a basis to claim to
being human. Behind the apparently random rendering of the colloquial language in Pinter’s play, there lies a
vigorous economy of mean. Each word is essential to the total structure and decisively contributes to the
ultimate, overall effect aimed at. That is why silences play such a large and essential part in Pinter’s dialogues.
Pinter’s uses two different terms for punctuation of his dialogue by passage without speech: pause and silence.
Indeed, silence is an essential, integral part and often the climax of his use of language.
There is silence when Mick is alone in the room at the beginning of the Caretaker before there are “muffed
voices” of Aston and Davies. There is a silence again as Davies enters the dark room and tries to light a match
when Mick is already there “sparing cleaning” and finally there is long silence as Davies pleads with Aston at
the end of the play:
“Listen…if I...got down…if I was to…get my papers…would you let….would
you…if I got down…and got my…”
Pinter has been accused of a mannerism of silence or an excessive use of long pause but silences and pauses in
his work are simply a part of his creed as a craftsman. They are the highly personal way of experiencing and
reacting to the world around him. Besides, there is a definite purpose behind the silences and pauses in the
Pinter’s plays. When Pinter indicates a pause, he wants to understand that intense thought processes are
continuing and that unspoken tensions are mounting and when he indicates a silence, it is a sign at the end of
movement and the beginning of another, as between the movements of symphony. His language is realistic but
terse, elliptical and ambiguous. The characters seem like real people but are just slightly off. Not much occur in
terms of plots, his plays are usually labeled as Theatre of Absurd works in terms of their inaction, circuitous
plots, and amorphous characterization and unsetting humor. There are both tragic and comic elements. Pinter’s
style over turns many of the dramatic conceits of the past centuries of theatre playing with language and forcing
the audience to work harder to come to a conclusion regarding the meaning or theme.