I read this play for the 2016 London play starring Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart. It seemed a very good timing to read this script by Harold Pinter – a Nobel prize winner in literature in 2005, and tick him off my Nobel project. I never heard of Pinter prior to hearing about the London play, and seems the libraries also have already forgotten about him, because it took me a lot of effort to procure a copy of this play. I finally found it tucked in a compilation of plays – the only copy I found in the whole Westminster libraries.
I wondered why it was so hard to find his plays in his own country (that’s the United Kingdom), if he was the Nobel prize winner in literature. After reading, I started to think I understand why. I can’t see how this could become popular outside a very niche literary circle.
No Man’s Land is an absurdist play. Plucking from Wikipedia: “Absurdist fiction is a genre of fictional narrative (traditionally, literary fiction), most often in the form of a novel, play, poem, or film, that focuses on the experiences of characters in situations where they cannot find any inherent purpose in life, most often represented by ultimately meaningless actions and events that call into question the certainty of existential concepts such as truth or value.”
Does that sound like a lot of nonsense? Yeah I think so too. Looking at Wiki, I have apparently read some absurdist fiction, namely Camus, Kafka, and Murakami, but probably as they were all in prose form, it didn’t feel as absurd as in the form of play. This is probably the first time I read an absurdist play, so apology if I sound amateurish. Waiting for Godot has been on my to-read list, and I’m interested to learn more about it.
As you can probably guess, there’s not much plot in No Man’s Land, as it is all about the dialogue. There are four characters. Two main characters in their sixties: Spooner and Hirst, and another two secondary male characters in their forties and thirties. Spooner is visitor to the wealthy Hirst’s mansion. Just by reading, I could already guess that Ian McKellen would be Spooner, and Patrick Stewart as Hirst. Something about Spooner not being very well dressed :)
I don’t have a lot to say about the script itself, and rated it 3/5. But the performance really made a difference. So continuing to…
The 2016 London Play
In the stage, everything made more sense to me. There were cues from the audience on the supposedly funny bits – and it just dawned on me that it’s a comedy. I guess I had an inkling while reading, but it wasn’t just the dialogue, the physical movement of the characters and the comedic timing made it all come alive.
I loved Ian McKellen in particular. I had a lot more sympathy for the Spooner character on stage than on paper. On paper he often seemed to lose his mind as much as his “friend”, but on stage he was a kind person, humoring old Hirst who is, plainly, bonkers. The other two younger men, Foster and Briggs, are the ones who are less kind, and seem to just keep Hirst company because of his wealth and big house. Foster may be Hirst’s son or secretary, Briggs is another person working in the house, and on stage it seemed clearer that they may be lovers (which I didn’t get at all by reading).
So a lot of it for me was an exercise of interpreting one format into another, how performance, gestures, expressions change the impact of words on paper. It was an interesting experience. I enjoyed the play on stage a lot more than reading the script. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart were a huge bonus. I loved them! The duo reminded me of Magneto and Professor X, or Gandalf and Picard. Patrick Stewart in particular was a definite reminiscence of Professor X, as he spent most of his time sitting down on stage. Ian McKellen was more Gandalf-like, a wanderer and waved his hands a lot. So sweet to seem them play together. I like to think they’re friends in real life.
Play on stage rating: 4.5/5