The Existential Anxiety of Modern Man:
The three characters in the play are self - oriented, isolated and lonely. The existential dilemma of the characters, namely, Davies, Aston and Mick is underlined by their lack of positive identity and to an extent by their clinging reliance on physical objects. All three are lonely and isolated. They are unable to communicate effectively. It is significant that we are not introduced to the characters by way of a formal exposition. We know nothing more about Aston. We don't know why he has brought Davies into the house and it is also not known that the future plan of Aston of building a shed will get a real existence.
 |
| The Caretaker by Harold Pinter—Major Themes of the Play |
Davies, a Remarkable Example of Confused and uncertain Identity:
Davies’ name is uncertain. He cannot acknowledge where he was born. He appears to have no family . He has nowhere to live. He has no definite future. The repeated mention of papers in Sidcup emphasizes his real predicament. He is constantly defined in terms of possessions and objects which cumulatively expose the limits of his existence. Aston, too, is always associated with objects.
Fight for a Room:
The theme of the play The Caretaker is not very great or serious. It is rather a very simple and light one. It is the fight for one's own room. The room in question is the decaying property owned by Mick and inhabited by his elder brother. This is the attic room in which Aston, his younger brother Mick and their mother used to stay. There are three beds in the room, one for each. Mick lives somewhere else but he uses to come here and pass a night or two in the room. Aston's mother has her own bed but she is never seen in the room. The room is left under the charge of Aston for repairing, renovating and making it worth living. Aston has collected many things in the room. There are buckets , boxes full of nuts and screws , a clothes horse , a rolled carpet, a shopping trolley, a step ladder , a small cupboard, a gas stove, a pile of old newspaper , and a few other things.
The Trouble Approaching the Room:
So long as Aston is alone in the room, there is no trouble either for Aston or Mick. But as soon as a stranger Davies comes in the room, the trouble crops in. Davies plays Aston and Mick off against each other and tries to occupy the room as its caretaker. But his conspiracy is soon revealed and he is thrown out of the room to cry like a lost dog.
The Action, a Conflict of Illusions:
Every character carries his own illusions that lend meaning to his lies . Aston has his pathetic dream of building a shed in the garden. Mick has the fantasy of turning his dilapidated house into a luxury penthouse. Davies has his dream of bringing papers from Sidcup, which will prove his clear identity and he will get rid of his false name so this play is related to the feeling of insecurity, possessiveness and search for identity. Mick's breaking the statue of Buddha presents the further situation of the play. It clears that the play will not end peacefully.
The same thing happens in the end, Davies is turned out of the house and his pathetic life begins again. After turning out of the house his condition is like a street or lost dog.
Room, a Proverbial Symbol:
In other plays room stands for security, possession and peace as well as for alienation, loneliness, mystery and fear. But in The Caretaker, the situation is reversed. Here a homeless wanderer is struggling to find a place in a home. It is just because of Davies' inherent weaknesses that he fails to settle in the room. He turns against his benefactor Aston and plays him off against his brother Mick. That is original sin. Mick plays the role of the proverbial serpent in this re - enactment of Adam's (Davies’) expulsion from Paradise (Room).
Philosophical Meaning:
If we interpret the play in the light of Absurdism as expounded by Albert Camus, we find that this world is just like a room to which we came as strangers for a temporary stay. As soon as we try to possess it, we are thrown out of our existence in one way of the other. No one is perfect in this existence. Davies is a homeless braggart. He is brought to Aston's room as a guest. But he wants to make a long stay in the room after displaying the handicapped Aston. In his utmost efforts, he is badly defeated and ejected from the room.
Davies, a Symptom of Disease and a Threat to Social Peace:
The tramp, Davies is full of race hatred. He hates the Greeks, the Poles, the Blacks, etc. He is bitter, weak and is constantly deceiving others as well as himself. He is a symptom of a disease in the society. He is also a threat to social peace.
The Theme of Artistic Impulse:
Mick is a businessman. He sees things in terms of profit and loss. He is a practical man. He knows the tendency of men flying on physical plane. Aston is an artistic personality. It is his artistic impulse that compels him to bring order out of chaos. Esslin says that the two characters in relation to the author represent the actor and the poet in Pinter. Mick is the actor, Aston the poet.
Allegorical Interpretation:
The tramp Davies is Dionysus, or the wandering Jew, or may be the tempter in a modern Everyman play, beset by a dark angel and a bright angel, namely the brothers Mick and Aston. Perhaps, Aston is the carpenter Christ building his Church in the form of a garden shed. The play involves the Old Testament God, The New Testament God and suffering humanity.
The Freudian Interpretation:
In this term, the play is a story of two sons to replace their father. Aston can be seen to feel a filial responsibility for Davies. He collects the old man’s bag from the cafe. He provides food for him. He brings him into his home, but finally decides that he must reject Davies in order to complete his own growth. Mick also claims to see familiar features in Davies. He tells him that he reminds him of his uncle’s brother. He asks the old man for advice as a man of the world. He then feels betrayed by him. Finally, he turns him out, offering him a token payment for caretaking.
Thus the play can be interpreted on some deeper levels, but Pinter himself has not offered any interpretation of the play. This play can be given allegorical, mythical and Freudian interpretation. The play has profound philosophical and psychological meanings.
