The Homecoming

photo by Ari Mintz
play by Harold Pinter
Cort Theater

The first question I ask when I leave any theater is, "What was that about?" Or, alternatively, "What did that mean?"

So, you can imagine my utter bafflement and confusion when I left the theater the other night after seeing Harold Pinter's The Homecoming. Earlier that day I had browsed a few reader reviews on the New York Times website and saw a few comments referring to a lack of meaning in the play. And, not knowing Pinter's work, I thought to myself, "I can figure this out. I'm good at meaning." Maybe, not nearly as good as I thought.

I don't usually come back home at the end of the night to scrounge around online to learn about what I just saw, but this is what I found myself doing at 10 p.m. or so Tuesday night. And, what I learned is, lo and behold, The Homecoming's meaning has been actively debated for the last 40 years. I find myself in good company.

The play is a somewhat simple story about an all-male family living together after they lost the lady of the house, so to to speak. We have a man living with his brother and two of his three sons. We are given a glimpse that it isn't usually harmonious or peaceful in the house. The third son returns home after nine years away for a visit and he brings his wife. They arrive in the middle of the night and they arrive unannounced.

In the second act, the wife is both revered and reviled by the family. The climax of the play comes when she becomes sexually involved with the brothers. The men decide to ask her to stay, although she will have to clean up around the house a bit and it's finally determined that to earn her pocket money she will work as a whore for about four hours a night, but in exchange she'll have limited use of a three room apartment. She agrees and paradoxically leaves her family of three boys and her husband without a woman in the family. And, curtain...

We have elements of three and nine in the play. I'd have to read the play, but I think the oldest two brothers still living together had another brother at some point. One had three sons. And, one of the three sons had three sons--if you can follow that. And, then the son had been away nine years. I don't have a clue what this means, but it seems to be somewhat significant.

Additionally, this play has been described as sexy. And, it is--albeit in a creepy way. But, I think the sexual tone of the play is established early on. Every conversation in the play seems to have a double element--one that pulls you in and then one that pushes you away. There seems to be a double motion every time someone speaks that follows throughout the play.

I read a few articles which pointed to the role of woman as both mother/whore theme in the play. It definitely existed and the sole purpose of the play could arguably be to flesh out the idea. This would be an intriguing extrapolation of the theme. Is the play all about women and men and their relationship together? It's obvious at the beginning of the play that the men are missing something--that they cannot simply all coexist together. I thought, as an audience member, "Oh, this is what happens when men are left without a female presence." And, then the wife enters and there are certain expectations put upon her and hopes for her and she submits, all too willingly.

I think that was the most shocking thing in the play, how willingly the wife submitted to all of these expectations for her. How compliant she was, how her husband let her go so easily--as if it were natural and somewhat expected. She was just a role, merely a creature that serves. The exaggeration pushes buttons.

The structure is strong and the second act somehow weirdly mirrors the first. It's an intriguing play and it's somewhat surprising that it is revised often, and yet not surprising at all.

It was a treat to see it fresh. Not knowing anything about Harold Pinter when I went into the theater, it was shocking. I'm assuming most of the audience knew what they were in for (it being basically a classic) and I with my Southern education had just never heard of it.

This is a strong revival. The acting was magnificent. It was unsatisfying because of the story line, but I think it was meant to be. It's not a must-see, but if you are Pinter fan, maybe it is. It was certainly one of the more shocking things I've seen. And, it was the opposite of a "wholesome" Broadway musical. So, you psychology and sociology majors and Pinter fans--you only have a little time left to see this revival before its gone and another one takes its place in a few years.