LOGO
USA Politics
USA political debate

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 01-08-2006, 07:00 AM   #1
Raj_Copi_Jin

Join Date
Oct 2005
Age
48
Posts
4,533
Senior Member
Default What Harold Pinter says about the US Politics
Pinter is the UK biggest public supporter of Milsevic. It's quire an embarassment for many.
Raj_Copi_Jin is offline


Old 10-13-2005, 05:24 AM   #2
Beerinkol

Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,268
Senior Member
Default
Is it even possible to win the Nobel prize for literature nowdays if you are not vehemently anti American? Just asking
Beerinkol is offline


Old 10-13-2005, 05:40 AM   #3
Peptobismol

Join Date
Oct 2005
Age
58
Posts
4,386
Senior Member
Default
In the UK it seems that equivalency is the ratio sum ultra. Which is a lot like support. If Pinter wanted to say "I am a Buddhist, I abhor all violence" he could of.
Peptobismol is offline


Old 11-12-2005, 05:11 PM   #4
Beerinkol

Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,268
Senior Member
Default
For some insight into this kind of world view, if you get a chance, watch "Seoul Train" a documentary of the desperate efforts of some to escape North Korea, called the world's largest prison camp. In the film several senior people from UNHCR were questioned about their non efforts. Their response was

And I quote


"We sent 3 or 4 people to the border and they didn't let us in so it's not like we did nothing."
Beerinkol is offline


Old 11-13-2005, 01:37 AM   #5
PhillipHer

Join Date
Jun 2008
Age
59
Posts
4,481
Senior Member
Default
Instead of us deciding what Harold Pinter has or has'nt said, why not let him speak for himself and then decide? Transcript of nobel prize acceptance speech aired Dec 11th Channel 4.

"In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.
I have often been asked how my plays come about. I cannot say. Nor can I ever sum up my plays, except to say that this is what happened. That is what they said. That is what they did.

Most of the plays are engendered by a line, a word or an image. The given word is often shortly followed by the image. I shall give two examples of two lines which came right out of the blue into my head, followed by an image, followed by me.

The plays are The Homecoming and Old Times. The first line of The Homecoming is 'What have you done with the scissors?' The first line of Old Times is 'Dark.'

In each case I had no further information.

In the first case someone was obviously looking for a pair of scissors and was demanding their whereabouts of someone else he suspected had probably stolen them. But I somehow knew that the person addressed didn't give a damn about the scissors or about the questioner either, for that matter.

'Dark' I took to be a description of someone's hair, the hair of a woman, and was the answer to a question. In each case I found myself compelled to pursue the matter. This happened visually, a very slow fade, through shadow into light.

I always start a play by calling the characters A, B and C.

In the play that became The Homecoming I saw a man enter a stark room and ask his question of a younger man sitting on an ugly sofa reading a racing paper. I somehow suspected that A was a father and that B was his son, but I had no proof. This was however confirmed a short time later when B (later to become Lenny) says to A (later to become Max), 'Dad, do you mind if I change the subject? I want to ask you something. The dinner we had before, what was the name of it? What do you call it? Why don't you buy a dog? You're a dog cook. Honest. You think you're cooking for a lot of dogs.' So since B calls A 'Dad' it seemed to me reasonable to assume that they were father and son. A was also clearly the cook and his cooking did not seem to be held in high regard. Did this mean that there was no mother? I didn't know. But, as I told myself at the time, our beginnings never know our ends.

'Dark.' A large window. Evening sky. A man, A (later to become Deeley), and a woman, B (later to become Kate), sitting with drinks. 'Fat or thin?' the man asks. Who are they talking about? But I then see, standing at the window, a woman, C (later to become Anna), in another condition of light, her back to them, her hair dark.
PhillipHer is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity