What do you think?
Rate this book
Look Back in Anger
Electrifying in its urgency, cauterizing in its wit, this play blasted a gaping hole in the conventions of British drama.
Jimmy Porter plays trumpet badly. He browbeats his flatmate, terrorizes his wife, and is not above sleeping with her best friend-who loathes Jimmy almost as much as he loathes himself. Yet this working-class Hamlet, the original Angry Young Man, is one of the most mesmerizing characters ever to burst onto a stage, a malevolently vital, volcanically articulate internal exile in the dreary, dreaming Siberia of postwar England.
First produced in 1956, Look Back in Anger launched a revolution in the English theater. Savagely, sadly, and always impolitely, it compels readers and audiences to acknowledge the hidden currents of rottenness and rage in what used to be called "the good life."
Jimmy Porter plays trumpet badly. He browbeats his flatmate, terrorizes his wife, and is not above sleeping with her best friend-who loathes Jimmy almost as much as he loathes himself. Yet this working-class Hamlet, the original Angry Young Man, is one of the most mesmerizing characters ever to burst onto a stage, a malevolently vital, volcanically articulate internal exile in the dreary, dreaming Siberia of postwar England.
First produced in 1956, Look Back in Anger launched a revolution in the English theater. Savagely, sadly, and always impolitely, it compels readers and audiences to acknowledge the hidden currents of rottenness and rage in what used to be called "the good life."
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
165 people are currently reading
4883 people want to read
About the author
John Osborne
243 books109 followersPeople best know British playwright John James Osborne, member of the Angry Young Men, for his play Look Back in Anger (1956); vigorous social protest characterizes works of this group of English writers of the 1950s.
This screenwriter acted and criticized the Establishment. The stunning success of Look Back in Anger transformed English theatre. In a productive life of more than four decades, Osborne explored many themes and genres, writing for stage, film and television. His extravagant and iconoclastic personal life flourished. He notoriously used language of the ornate violence on behalf of the political causes that he supported and against his own family, including his wives and children, who nevertheless often gave as good as they got.
He came onto the theatrical scene at a time when British acting enjoyed a golden age, but most great plays came from the United States and France. The complexities of the postwar period blinded British plays. In the post-imperial age, Osborne of the writers first addressed purpose of Britain. He first questioned the point of the monarchy on a prominent public stage. During his peak from 1956 to 1966, he helped to make contempt an acceptable and then even cliched onstage emotion, argued for the cleansing wisdom of bad behavior and bad taste, and combined unsparing truthfulness with devastating wit.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 640 reviews
April 22, 2014
Jimmy, I recommend a cold shower and enrolling yourself in Feminism 101.
July 2, 2018
I think what happened was that after the huge horror of World War Two and the major effort to remake society in Britain (welfare state, National Health Service) there was a kind of national exhaustion, a slumping into armchairs, and those too young to have fought those battles took the exhaustion for complacency and in the early 50s got really fed up about it, and hence the Angry Young Men – Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger (first produced in May 1956) was more or less the first of those. He arrived at the same time that the teddyboys were smashing up seats in cinemas when they went to see Rock Around the Clock (released March 1956). Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard and the rest of the rockers were just around the corner, waiting to turn the anger into joy.
So you might think that this angry play was just the kind of kick-start required – that’s what it was seen to be at the time. But when you get to actually read it, or see it or see the 1959 film, it’s like sticking your hand in a food blender. A really unpleasant experience.
Jimmy Porter is a guy who pours out a constant stream of belittling bile and contempt over anything and everything in his poxy life but mostly all over his wife and her female friend. He’s almost but not quite the guy who when his wife undercooks the bacon gives her a black eye and then says look what you made me do. The wife meanwhile is a total doormat. She takes the hours upon hours of psychological bullying because she understands that really he’s a tortured genius who loves her and his pain is caused by the wicked world which persists in not recognising his genius and forcing him to live in a tiny one room flat and sell confectionary in a market place even though his brain is the size of the planet Jupiter at least and he’s really sensitive and watched his father die when he was 10, boo hoo. What Jimmy Porter needs is a solid pistol whipping from Sonny Corleone, but (spoiler alert) this does not happen.
A FEW OF JIMMY’S AMUSING REMARKS
Have you ever noticed how noisy women are? Have you? The way they kick the floor about, simply walking over it? Or have you watched them sitting at their dressing tables, dropping their weapons and banging their bits of boxes and brushes and lipsticks?. I’ve watched her doing it night after night. When you see a woman in front of her bedroom mirror, you realise what a refined sort of butcher she is.
I know that the only way of finding out what’s going on is to catch them when they don’t know you’re looking. When she goes out, I go through everything – trunks, cases, drawers, bookcase, everything. Why? I want to know if I’m being betrayed.
My wife… sweet and sticky on the outside, and sink your teeth in it, inside, all white, messy and disgusting.
I’ve no public school scruples about hitting girls.
Why why why why do we let these women bleed us to death?
The plot of the play is pure male fantasy – he spends an hour bullying his wife, then her female friend arrives so he bullies her too, then the wife leaves him (hurray!) then the wife’s friend falls into his arms saying she just loves a bit of rough. Jimmy’s nastiness is all explained by his acute sensitivity and how he was a lonely little boy and now he’s an over-educated market trader in a world where he should be president of everything. So that’s why he hates women.
Look Back in Anger was one of those famous British productions I had never read or seen before so I thought I’d tick it off, and now I’m sorry I did.
So you might think that this angry play was just the kind of kick-start required – that’s what it was seen to be at the time. But when you get to actually read it, or see it or see the 1959 film, it’s like sticking your hand in a food blender. A really unpleasant experience.
Jimmy Porter is a guy who pours out a constant stream of belittling bile and contempt over anything and everything in his poxy life but mostly all over his wife and her female friend. He’s almost but not quite the guy who when his wife undercooks the bacon gives her a black eye and then says look what you made me do. The wife meanwhile is a total doormat. She takes the hours upon hours of psychological bullying because she understands that really he’s a tortured genius who loves her and his pain is caused by the wicked world which persists in not recognising his genius and forcing him to live in a tiny one room flat and sell confectionary in a market place even though his brain is the size of the planet Jupiter at least and he’s really sensitive and watched his father die when he was 10, boo hoo. What Jimmy Porter needs is a solid pistol whipping from Sonny Corleone, but (spoiler alert) this does not happen.
A FEW OF JIMMY’S AMUSING REMARKS
Have you ever noticed how noisy women are? Have you? The way they kick the floor about, simply walking over it? Or have you watched them sitting at their dressing tables, dropping their weapons and banging their bits of boxes and brushes and lipsticks?. I’ve watched her doing it night after night. When you see a woman in front of her bedroom mirror, you realise what a refined sort of butcher she is.
I know that the only way of finding out what’s going on is to catch them when they don’t know you’re looking. When she goes out, I go through everything – trunks, cases, drawers, bookcase, everything. Why? I want to know if I’m being betrayed.
My wife… sweet and sticky on the outside, and sink your teeth in it, inside, all white, messy and disgusting.
I’ve no public school scruples about hitting girls.
Why why why why do we let these women bleed us to death?
The plot of the play is pure male fantasy – he spends an hour bullying his wife, then her female friend arrives so he bullies her too, then the wife leaves him (hurray!) then the wife’s friend falls into his arms saying she just loves a bit of rough. Jimmy’s nastiness is all explained by his acute sensitivity and how he was a lonely little boy and now he’s an over-educated market trader in a world where he should be president of everything. So that’s why he hates women.
Look Back in Anger was one of those famous British productions I had never read or seen before so I thought I’d tick it off, and now I’m sorry I did.
December 2, 2013
There are certain books in my life I regret reading and if I'm to list them, this play, 'Look Back In Anger', should find its place in the top 5. God! What a squalid exhibition of cheap melodrama! The play means to portray the conflicts between a husband from a working class origin and his upper middle class wife; the never failing age long formulated theme. As it requires, the protagonist is a tough and very 'intelligent' man, proud of experiencing all the harshness of life while the wife is cottony soft, always offering her never ending sea of love (the formula, remember?) Our protagonist ignores the love of his wife Alison and falls in love with her bestie, Helena, creating to some extent, a tension. Now, if you're much worried about the fate of poor dear Alison, don't worry! The formula is always up there. 'True love' always prevails.
One thing I'll admit about this book that John Osborne named his play very wisely. I read the book. I looked back in disbelief at what I read. It angered me.
One thing I'll admit about this book that John Osborne named his play very wisely. I read the book. I looked back in disbelief at what I read. It angered me.
July 26, 2023
The play Look Back in Anger was interesting for a number of reasons. The main reason being that it echoed the feelings of alienation and anomie felt by the ordinary man in post-imperialistic Britain. For me, the play was representative of a time when British control and power over the rest of the world was on the wane. With their best already behind them, the British were trying to find a new purpose.
The character Colonel Redfern represents this longing for the past. Colonel Redfern was a commander of the Maharajah’s army in India and he longs for the old certainties of the Edwardian age. Even Jimmy who mocks the phoniness of the Edwardians utters the following quote: “Still, even I regret it somehow, phoney or not. If you’ve no world of your own, it’s rather pleasant to regret the passing of someone else’s. I must be getting sentimental. But I must say it is pretty dreary living in the American age – unless you’re an American of course. Perhaps all our children will be Americans”.
In the second act of Look Back in Anger, Colonel Redfern looks back with nostalgia for his life in India – “I had the Maharajah’s army to command – that was my world and I loved it, all of it. At that time it looked like going on forever when I think of it now, it seems like a dream. If only it could go on forever. Those long cool evenings up in the hills, everything purple and golden. Your mother and I were so happy then. It seemed as though we had everything we could ever want.”
In post-imperialistic Britain, Colonel Redfern is awkward and reserved as his former position as a commanding officer in India does not amount to much anymore.
I was reminded of A Passage of India while reading this play. Here is E.M.Forster’s description of Mr. Turton, the collector of Chandrapore lamenting to himself when the most powerful British bureaucrats and their families are gathered at their exclusive club to discuss the alleged rape of Miss Quested, an Englishwoman (and fiancée of Ronnie Heaslop, the city magistrate) by Dr.Aziz, an Indian doctor.
“There seemed nothing for it but the old weary business of compromise and moderation. He longed for the good old days when an Englishman could satisfy his own honor and no questions asked afterwards.”
Both A Passage to India and Look Back in Anger (especially the former) convey the sense of anomie that seems to have permeated into the British psyche as their empire which once seemed to be unassailable was now crumbling to pieces. There is a sense of despair and purposelessness. I couldn't help but feel that even Jimmy was in some ways longing for that kind of world where people had a reason to live (like beating the Nazis or even conquering other lands). But Jimmy is disillusioned and angry with what he perceives as the lack of enthusiasm in post-world war two Britain and he takes it all out on his wife Alison.
Even though I am an Indian, I identified with the sense of anomie experienced by the characters in Look Back in Anger which helped me understand the psyche of the British people in the post-imperialistic world. John Osborne was successful in portraying the sloth into which British society was descending into in the post-imperialistic world.
The play had a lot of great lines. Strongly recommend it.
The character Colonel Redfern represents this longing for the past. Colonel Redfern was a commander of the Maharajah’s army in India and he longs for the old certainties of the Edwardian age. Even Jimmy who mocks the phoniness of the Edwardians utters the following quote: “Still, even I regret it somehow, phoney or not. If you’ve no world of your own, it’s rather pleasant to regret the passing of someone else’s. I must be getting sentimental. But I must say it is pretty dreary living in the American age – unless you’re an American of course. Perhaps all our children will be Americans”.
In the second act of Look Back in Anger, Colonel Redfern looks back with nostalgia for his life in India – “I had the Maharajah’s army to command – that was my world and I loved it, all of it. At that time it looked like going on forever when I think of it now, it seems like a dream. If only it could go on forever. Those long cool evenings up in the hills, everything purple and golden. Your mother and I were so happy then. It seemed as though we had everything we could ever want.”
In post-imperialistic Britain, Colonel Redfern is awkward and reserved as his former position as a commanding officer in India does not amount to much anymore.
I was reminded of A Passage of India while reading this play. Here is E.M.Forster’s description of Mr. Turton, the collector of Chandrapore lamenting to himself when the most powerful British bureaucrats and their families are gathered at their exclusive club to discuss the alleged rape of Miss Quested, an Englishwoman (and fiancée of Ronnie Heaslop, the city magistrate) by Dr.Aziz, an Indian doctor.
“There seemed nothing for it but the old weary business of compromise and moderation. He longed for the good old days when an Englishman could satisfy his own honor and no questions asked afterwards.”
Both A Passage to India and Look Back in Anger (especially the former) convey the sense of anomie that seems to have permeated into the British psyche as their empire which once seemed to be unassailable was now crumbling to pieces. There is a sense of despair and purposelessness. I couldn't help but feel that even Jimmy was in some ways longing for that kind of world where people had a reason to live (like beating the Nazis or even conquering other lands). But Jimmy is disillusioned and angry with what he perceives as the lack of enthusiasm in post-world war two Britain and he takes it all out on his wife Alison.
Even though I am an Indian, I identified with the sense of anomie experienced by the characters in Look Back in Anger which helped me understand the psyche of the British people in the post-imperialistic world. John Osborne was successful in portraying the sloth into which British society was descending into in the post-imperialistic world.
The play had a lot of great lines. Strongly recommend it.
October 6, 2015
Look Back in Anger is the play that literally changed everything in British theatre. I'm currently doing a module in uni on British theatre of the 1960s and my lecturer keeps referring to Look Back in Anger. Not five minutes will go by before she mentions Look Back in Anger and just how important it was. So I thought to myself, "hmmm, I probably should read Look Back in Anger.
So, we have Jimmy, a loud, rude, obnoxious, violent, angry young man. He's the main guy. The play's all about how awful he is. We observe his utter abhorrence for over two hours but somehow in that time John Osborne manages to make us feel for him. It's reminiscent of how Nabokov makes us actually really care about Humbert Humbert even though he is literally a pedophile. It's first-class manipulation and it's fucking astounding.
As for the overall plot, there isn't much to say. It's a pillar of kitchen-sink drama, a genre which usually puts emotion over storyline. Many parts of the play dragged due to the dialogue being made up of lengthy monologues that essentially talk about nothing and I really felt that the first act was just never going to end. If you like really talky plays however, you'll love this. I'm sort of ambivalent towards the whole play but at least I now have some clue as to what the hell my lecturer is harping on about...
So, we have Jimmy, a loud, rude, obnoxious, violent, angry young man. He's the main guy. The play's all about how awful he is. We observe his utter abhorrence for over two hours but somehow in that time John Osborne manages to make us feel for him. It's reminiscent of how Nabokov makes us actually really care about Humbert Humbert even though he is literally a pedophile. It's first-class manipulation and it's fucking astounding.
As for the overall plot, there isn't much to say. It's a pillar of kitchen-sink drama, a genre which usually puts emotion over storyline. Many parts of the play dragged due to the dialogue being made up of lengthy monologues that essentially talk about nothing and I really felt that the first act was just never going to end. If you like really talky plays however, you'll love this. I'm sort of ambivalent towards the whole play but at least I now have some clue as to what the hell my lecturer is harping on about...
August 19, 2020
The verbal barrage of Jimmy Porter - the working-class hero of this play - has become legendary. I admit, it is impressive in its genre and it is powered by an unimaginable frustration. Occasionally Jimmy becomes so unsympathetic that it is almost physically unbearable, especially because first his wife Alison and then also her replacement Helena both fall victim to it. But he also shows a sensitive side, a need for almost childlike tenderness and humanity, that intrigues. That ambiguity causes the piece to be a bit out of balance, making the reconciliation at the end rather artificial. "Look back in Anger" seems a bit dated in its setting (post-war Great Britain), but it still contains sufficient fire to keep it interesting. (2.5 stars)
January 4, 2016
This play is an object lesson in how to write an unintentionally hilarious memoir piece. It's also just seems like badly constructed theatre; no action onstage, just this unbelievably wordy inertia with Jimmy just yapping off at the jib while all the other actors have to dig within their souls to find reasons to a. stay in the room with Jimmy, b. not immediately ball-gag and/or kill Jimmy. The Colonel thinks Jimmy was right after all?!? The scene with the two women talking about who gets to STAY with him?!??! This fucking British bro-ham wacking off writing a scene about two women talking about who deserves his love more???!???! I'm not even exaggerating, this HAPPENS. Fuck OFF, John Osbourne, fuck OOOOOOOOOOOOOOFF.
There are so many moments in this play that just seem like watered-down Streetcar, it made me want to put Jimmy in an ultimate fighting ring with Stanley Kowalski. Think you're a tough guy, Jimmy? That's some action I actually want to see happen. No more pointless monologuing, just Jimmy getting punched in the face SO much/so hard/over and over again/blood on the highway/this play sucks/thank you and goodnight.
There are so many moments in this play that just seem like watered-down Streetcar, it made me want to put Jimmy in an ultimate fighting ring with Stanley Kowalski. Think you're a tough guy, Jimmy? That's some action I actually want to see happen. No more pointless monologuing, just Jimmy getting punched in the face SO much/so hard/over and over again/blood on the highway/this play sucks/thank you and goodnight.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 28, 2015
I can understand why when this play came out in 1956, it was a very controversial subject. There were many people who thought the play was brilliant and powerful while others thought of it as disgusting and detestable. Although Osborne’s writing is extremely blunt and very harsh at times (mostly with Jimmy Porter), the play brings up important political and social issues that were prominent at this time in England (the separation of classes, sexism, etc.).
Jimmy is an “angry young man” and he despises his wife, Alison Porter, and her friends for being upper-middle class while he is a member of the working class. Alison’s parents were tremendously upset with Alison for even thinking of marrying Jimmy and he holds this against her. He seems to try to hide his feelings of inadequacy for Alison and her family through his cruel words and by making himself out to be the victim in an unfair societal structure. His anger towards everyone around him seems to be stemmed from his experience as a child when he alone watched his father die.
Jimmy is constantly ranting because Alison and their housemate, Cliff Lewis, are not curious and enthusiastic enough. He longs for someone to have an intelligent, interesting conversation with. He seems to have a dislike for women, maybe because he needs them to take care of him, but he does not want to be dependent on anyone. Jimmy is bothered by pretty much everything (Alison’s ironing, women’s noisiness, Jimmy’s handling of the papers, the church bells, etc.) and he cannot seem to be content. He plays the victim in many situations and it is very clear that he enjoys getting a rise out of others with his words.
I think in some ways Look Back in Anger can be compared to Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Although A Modest Proposal may have been slightly more morbid and straight-forward, Osborne seems to have somewhat of the same idea as Swift. Both pieces use pure and deliberate shock value as a way to get the audience to pay attention to what they are saying. Jimmy’s character in Look Back in Anger is unsympathetic and extremely insensitive to the point where the reader/listener is forced to listen to what he is saying just because of the pure ruthlessness of it. The intensity of Jimmy’s opinions makes them naturally very obvious and unavoidable. I think, although controversial, this kind of strategy really works especially when trying to spread one’s work and viewpoint to as many people as possible.
Jimmy is an “angry young man” and he despises his wife, Alison Porter, and her friends for being upper-middle class while he is a member of the working class. Alison’s parents were tremendously upset with Alison for even thinking of marrying Jimmy and he holds this against her. He seems to try to hide his feelings of inadequacy for Alison and her family through his cruel words and by making himself out to be the victim in an unfair societal structure. His anger towards everyone around him seems to be stemmed from his experience as a child when he alone watched his father die.
Jimmy is constantly ranting because Alison and their housemate, Cliff Lewis, are not curious and enthusiastic enough. He longs for someone to have an intelligent, interesting conversation with. He seems to have a dislike for women, maybe because he needs them to take care of him, but he does not want to be dependent on anyone. Jimmy is bothered by pretty much everything (Alison’s ironing, women’s noisiness, Jimmy’s handling of the papers, the church bells, etc.) and he cannot seem to be content. He plays the victim in many situations and it is very clear that he enjoys getting a rise out of others with his words.
I think in some ways Look Back in Anger can be compared to Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Although A Modest Proposal may have been slightly more morbid and straight-forward, Osborne seems to have somewhat of the same idea as Swift. Both pieces use pure and deliberate shock value as a way to get the audience to pay attention to what they are saying. Jimmy’s character in Look Back in Anger is unsympathetic and extremely insensitive to the point where the reader/listener is forced to listen to what he is saying just because of the pure ruthlessness of it. The intensity of Jimmy’s opinions makes them naturally very obvious and unavoidable. I think, although controversial, this kind of strategy really works especially when trying to spread one’s work and viewpoint to as many people as possible.
September 7, 2023
Casi le pongo 5 estrellas, pero fue tan corto que no pude. Sin embargo, LO AMÉ.
March 28, 2016
This book was so awful and sexist I wanted to cry. There is no plot or purpose, just a violent man ranting and whining like a child, another man whose personality is as lively as a corpse (he calls himself as common as dirt, unironically) and a woman who spends her life ironing and being abused by an asshole of epic proportions.
This was an assigned reading for uni and I am so glad we are only spending three weeks on it because it is the worst book ever. I curse to hell the dunderhead who made it compulsory
This was an assigned reading for uni and I am so glad we are only spending three weeks on it because it is the worst book ever. I curse to hell the dunderhead who made it compulsory
March 16, 2017
Overrated, I'm all for anti-heroes but there is simply nothing interesting about this bitter misanthrope with no compelling reason for his cruelty. Nor is there anything to explain why his wife and her 'best' friend love him so. Passive, one dimensional females who serve as a sounding board for this misogynist - actually why limit the guy, he hates everybody - if you're still interested, by all means help yourself to this one.
June 15, 2017
এর আগেও ত হইছে এরকম, টম স্টপার্ডের রোজেনক্রাটজ পড়তে গিয়ে মনে হইছে এই নাটক ত আগেও পড়ছি আমরা, আমি বলতেছি না এরকম মনে হইলে গল্প বা নাটক তার গুরুত্ব হারায়ে ফেলে আমার কাছে, পাল্টাপাল্টি ত লেখাই যায়, এক তরফ কামান দাগলে অন্য তরফ হয়ত দাগলো কালি, কিন্তু একটা মনের ভেতর খচখচ, তারপর না কইতেই একটা মনের মধ্যে তুলনাও ত চলে আসে কিছুক্ষণ বাদে।
এই নাটক কিছু দিক থেকে খুবই ভালো লাগছে, প্রথমত ঐ সময়ের কিছু বিকট বৈশিষ্ট্যের কথা উঠে আসছে খুব সহজে, তাই। এই যেমন, এই যে ব্রিটিশ সাম্রাজ্য খোলনলচে-সহ ভেঙে গেলো, এই পরিস্থিতিতে এক ধরনের অকর্মা পুরুষের সৃষ্টি হচ্ছে ক্রমাগত, যাদের আসলে কাজ নাই কোনো, এই যেমন নাটকের নায়ক জিমি পোর্টার। আমার কাছে নারীবিদ্বেষী মনে হয় নাই, এইখানে নায়ক নারীবিদ্বেষী কিছুটা, হ্যাঁ, কিন্তু নায়ক প্রচণ্ড ফটকাও, এই নাটক পড়তে গেলে মুহূর্তে মুহূর্তে স্ট্রীটকার-এর কথা মনে চলে আসে, কিন্তু স্ট্যানলি কোয়ালস্কি চরিত্র হিসেবে যত বর্ণাঢ্য, বা ব্লাঁশ দুবোয়াও, এখানকার হেলেন বা জিমি বা ক্লিফ, তার ধারেকাছেও না। এইটার ফলে অবশ্য সুবিধাও আছে কিছু, পোর্টার প্রচণ্ড ফটকা হওয়াতে তার কথাবার্তারে যথেষ্ট গুরুত্বের সাথে নিতে হয় না, যদিও সে আসলে ভুলও বলে না, একটু খেপা স্বরে বাড়ায়ে বলে, এই যা। অ্যালিসনও যতটা দুর্বল নারী মনে হয়, ততটা না, বরং সে জিমির চেয়ে একটু হইলেও শক্ত, তার বের হয়ে যাওয়ার সিদ্ধান্ত শেষমেষ তারই, বান্ধবীর না। রেডফার্নের চরিত্রে সাম্রাজ্যের প্রতি যে নষ্টালজিয়া ফুটে উঠছে, তা ঐ জিমিরেই শক্ত করে, হটাত করে ব্রিটেন এতখানি খর্বায়িত হয়ে গেলে পরে এইসব জিমি পোর্টারের কাজ কি এই সমাজে? দোকানে খাড়ায়ে থাকা ঘন্টার পর ঘন্টা, আর সপ্তাহান্তে গজগজ করা কাগজ হাতে?
জিমি পোর্টার কি খুব বেশিও গজগজ করে? নাহ্, স্ট্যানলি কোয়ালস্কির কথাই যদি ধরি, স্ট্যানলির কাজকর্মে যে নাটকীয়তা আছে তা পোর্টারের কাজে নাই, পোর্টারের অলমোষ্ট কোনো কাজই নাই, তার সব আক্রমণই মুখে মুখে, চাইলে পোর্টারেরে খেপা পুরুষের প্যারোডি হিসেবেও দেখা যায়। কিংবা সেই কারণেই হয়ত এই নাটক আমার ভালো লাগছে, এক দঙ্গল পুরুষ ত থাকবোই আমরা, যারা শুধু মুখে মুখে ধাক্কা দিয়ে পার পেয়ে যেতে চাই, এই নাটক আরও ভালো লাগতো, যদি ক্লিফ আরেকটু পদের কোনো চরিত্র হইত, একটা খালি কলসী না হয়ে, যদি হেলেনার কাজকর্ম যখন নাটক যেদিকে মোড় নেয়াতে হয়, সেদিকে হেলে না পড়তো, হেলেনা যেনো জিব্রাঈল ফেরেশতা, যখন দরকার পড়বে জিব্রাঈল এসে উদ্ধার করে দিয়ে যাবে, এবং সবচেয়ে যেটা শর্টকাট নেয়া নাট্যকারের, যদি তিনি জিমি পোর্টারের পেছনের জীবন নিয়ে একটা ফাঁপা ট্রাজেডি না ফাঁদতেন।
আমার এছাড়া প্রায় সবই ভালো লাগছে, নাটকের শেষ অঙ্কের প্রথম দৃশ্য আর প্রথম অঙ্কের একমাত্র দৃশ্য দেখতে শুনতে একই রকম, মঞ্চে দেখাতে পারলে দারুণ হওয়ার কথা, আবার দ্বিতীয় অঙ্কের প্রথম দৃশ্য আর পুরা নাটকের শেষ দৃশ্যটাও একরকম, জিমির ট্রাম্পেট বাজানোর বিষয়টাও বেশ জমে যায়, এসবই নাটক হিসেবে নাটকটার স্বার্থকতার কথা বলে। কিন্তু গল্পের বিচারে এই নাটক অনেক পিছায়ে থাকবে, ভালো ভালো উপাদান থাকা সত্ত্বেও নাটকের গল্প কাঙ্খিতের হাঁটুসমান ভালো হইলো না। খুবই দুঃখজনক বিষয়টা।
এবং যতবারই এই কথা মনে পড়বে, ততবারই মনে পড়ে যাবে যে এর চেয়ে টেনিসি উলিয়ামসের কাহিনী কতটা জমজমাট। অথচ আটলান্টিকের এইপার ওইপার, হোক না শ্রেণী সংঘাত দুই নাটকেই বড়সড় বিষয়, তুলনা না আসলেই ত ভালো ছিলো।
এই নাটক কিছু দিক থেকে খুবই ভালো লাগছে, প্রথমত ঐ সময়ের কিছু বিকট বৈশিষ্ট্যের কথা উঠে আসছে খুব সহজে, তাই। এই যেমন, এই যে ব্রিটিশ সাম্রাজ্য খোলনলচে-সহ ভেঙে গেলো, এই পরিস্থিতিতে এক ধরনের অকর্মা পুরুষের সৃষ্টি হচ্ছে ক্রমাগত, যাদের আসলে কাজ নাই কোনো, এই যেমন নাটকের নায়ক জিমি পোর্টার। আমার কাছে নারীবিদ্বেষী মনে হয় নাই, এইখানে নায়ক নারীবিদ্বেষী কিছুটা, হ্যাঁ, কিন্তু নায়ক প্রচণ্ড ফটকাও, এই নাটক পড়তে গেলে মুহূর্তে মুহূর্তে স্ট্রীটকার-এর কথা মনে চলে আসে, কিন্তু স্ট্যানলি কোয়ালস্কি চরিত্র হিসেবে যত বর্ণাঢ্য, বা ব্লাঁশ দুবোয়াও, এখানকার হেলেন বা জিমি বা ক্লিফ, তার ধারেকাছেও না। এইটার ফলে অবশ্য সুবিধাও আছে কিছু, পোর্টার প্রচণ্ড ফটকা হওয়াতে তার কথাবার্তারে যথেষ্ট গুরুত্বের সাথে নিতে হয় না, যদিও সে আসলে ভুলও বলে না, একটু খেপা স্বরে বাড়ায়ে বলে, এই যা। অ্যালিসনও যতটা দুর্বল নারী মনে হয়, ততটা না, বরং সে জিমির চেয়ে একটু হইলেও শক্ত, তার বের হয়ে যাওয়ার সিদ্ধান্ত শেষমেষ তারই, বান্ধবীর না। রেডফার্নের চরিত্রে সাম্রাজ্যের প্রতি যে নষ্টালজিয়া ফুটে উঠছে, তা ঐ জিমিরেই শক্ত করে, হটাত করে ব্রিটেন এতখানি খর্বায়িত হয়ে গেলে পরে এইসব জিমি পোর্টারের কাজ কি এই সমাজে? দোকানে খাড়ায়ে থাকা ঘন্টার পর ঘন্টা, আর সপ্তাহান্তে গজগজ করা কাগজ হাতে?
জিমি পোর্টার কি খুব বেশিও গজগজ করে? নাহ্, স্ট্যানলি কোয়ালস্কির কথাই যদি ধরি, স্ট্যানলির কাজকর্মে যে নাটকীয়তা আছে তা পোর্টারের কাজে নাই, পোর্টারের অলমোষ্ট কোনো কাজই নাই, তার সব আক্রমণই মুখে মুখে, চাইলে পোর্টারেরে খেপা পুরুষের প্যারোডি হিসেবেও দেখা যায়। কিংবা সেই কারণেই হয়ত এই নাটক আমার ভালো লাগছে, এক দঙ্গল পুরুষ ত থাকবোই আমরা, যারা শুধু মুখে মুখে ধাক্কা দিয়ে পার পেয়ে যেতে চাই, এই নাটক আরও ভালো লাগতো, যদি ক্লিফ আরেকটু পদের কোনো চরিত্র হইত, একটা খালি কলসী না হয়ে, যদি হেলেনার কাজকর্ম যখন নাটক যেদিকে মোড় নেয়াতে হয়, সেদিকে হেলে না পড়তো, হেলেনা যেনো জিব্রাঈল ফেরেশতা, যখন দরকার পড়বে জিব্রাঈল এসে উদ্ধার করে দিয়ে যাবে, এবং সবচেয়ে যেটা শর্টকাট নেয়া নাট্যকারের, যদি তিনি জিমি পোর্টারের পেছনের জীবন নিয়ে একটা ফাঁপা ট্রাজেডি না ফাঁদতেন।
আমার এছাড়া প্রায় সবই ভালো লাগছে, নাটকের শেষ অঙ্কের প্রথম দৃশ্য আর প্রথম অঙ্কের একমাত্র দৃশ্য দেখতে শুনতে একই রকম, মঞ্চে দেখাতে পারলে দারুণ হওয়ার কথা, আবার দ্বিতীয় অঙ্কের প্রথম দৃশ্য আর পুরা নাটকের শেষ দৃশ্যটাও একরকম, জিমির ট্রাম্পেট বাজানোর বিষয়টাও বেশ জমে যায়, এসবই নাটক হিসেবে নাটকটার স্বার্থকতার কথা বলে। কিন্তু গল্পের বিচারে এই নাটক অনেক পিছায়ে থাকবে, ভালো ভালো উপাদান থাকা সত্ত্বেও নাটকের গল্প কাঙ্খিতের হাঁটুসমান ভালো হইলো না। খুবই দুঃখজনক বিষয়টা।
এবং যতবারই এই কথা মনে পড়বে, ততবারই মনে পড়ে যাবে যে এর চেয়ে টেনিসি উলিয়ামসের কাহিনী কতটা জমজমাট। অথচ আটলান্টিকের এইপার ওইপার, হোক না শ্রেণী সংঘাত দুই নাটকেই বড়সড় বিষয়, তুলনা না আসলেই ত ভালো ছিলো।
October 15, 2019
1/5 ⭐️ because we cannot give a smaller rating
When I first started reading this, I thought I would write a full-on rant about how much I hate this book. This is a required reading for one of my classes in college but honestly I feel emotionally drained from the hatred I have towards it. So yeah, I'm not going to lose time writing a proper review.
My Bookstagram
When I first started reading this, I thought I would write a full-on rant about how much I hate this book. This is a required reading for one of my classes in college but honestly I feel emotionally drained from the hatred I have towards it. So yeah, I'm not going to lose time writing a proper review.
My Bookstagram
March 3, 2018
I would rather scoop dog poop or watch paint dry than to sit in a theater and watch this play. I do realize this play is to reflect the post war attitude of the younger generation however, total lack of respect for older people especially parents of your wife and no respect for woman does not bode well with me.
April 6, 2025
Ce perfectă e nedreptatea! Flămânzește cine nu trebuie, e iubit cine nu trebuie, moare cine nu trebuie.
Piesa Look back in anger mi-a reamintit motivul profund pentru care iubesc teatrul — și, mai cu seamă, plăcerea aparte de a citi piese dramatice. Există în lectură o intimitate a replicii și o forță a subtextului care, uneori, depășesc chiar experiența scenică.
Piesa Look back in anger mi-a reamintit motivul profund pentru care iubesc teatrul — și, mai cu seamă, plăcerea aparte de a citi piese dramatice. Există în lectură o intimitate a replicii și o forță a subtextului care, uneori, depășesc chiar experiența scenică.
March 27, 2018
مفيش احداث كتير مفيش أشخاص كتير.. مسرحية كوميدية ساخرة.. بتجسد:
صراع الطبقة العاملة مع طبقة الصفوة
نقد صريح للكنيسة ف الوقت ده
صراع بين طبيعة الشخصيات؛ بين الصريح والكتوم بين العصبى والبارد بين المتعلم والغير متعلم بين المتكبر والمضطهد وهكذا يعنى..
'جيمى' بيمثل الجانب النارى الملول اللى بيدور طول الوقت ع المشاكل عشان يغير الروتين، بيمثل التسرع والتهور والعجرفة والوقاحة وعنده نوعا ما جنون عظمة! بيمثل الطبقة العاملة المضطهدة! عاوز بستحوذ على اهتمام الكل!
'أليسون' بتمثل العكس لشخصية جيمى شخصية اعصابها باردة وعندها سلام داخلى مع نفسها وملهاش شخصية! هى بتمثل طبقة الصفوة والمسافة الواضحه بينهم وبين الطبقة العاملة!
'كليف' بيمثل الرجل اللطيف والمتفاهم والصديق الوفى! بيمثل نوعا ما الشخص الكسول الاعتمادى! ممكن يتجوز بس عشان الست تأمنله حياة نضيفة ومريحه!
'هيلينا' بتمثل الصراع بين الخير والشر ف الكنيسة او ف الدين عامة! شخصية جريئة صريحة عارفه هى عاوزه ايه، بتفرف بين الصح والغلط!
الكاتب مركز اهتمامة على طبيعة شخصية جيمى وعاوزنا نحس باحساسه ونفهمه، هو زى ما قالت عنه هيلينا..
"He was born out of his time."
"He doesn't know where he is or where he is going. He'll never do anything, and he'll never amount to anything."
صراع الطبقة العاملة مع طبقة الصفوة
نقد صريح للكنيسة ف الوقت ده
صراع بين طبيعة الشخصيات؛ بين الصريح والكتوم بين العصبى والبارد بين المتعلم والغير متعلم بين المتكبر والمضطهد وهكذا يعنى..
'جيمى' بيمثل الجانب النارى الملول اللى بيدور طول الوقت ع المشاكل عشان يغير الروتين، بيمثل التسرع والتهور والعجرفة والوقاحة وعنده نوعا ما جنون عظمة! بيمثل الطبقة العاملة المضطهدة! عاوز بستحوذ على اهتمام الكل!
'أليسون' بتمثل العكس لشخصية جيمى شخصية اعصابها باردة وعندها سلام داخلى مع نفسها وملهاش شخصية! هى بتمثل طبقة الصفوة والمسافة الواضحه بينهم وبين الطبقة العاملة!
'كليف' بيمثل الرجل اللطيف والمتفاهم والصديق الوفى! بيمثل نوعا ما الشخص الكسول الاعتمادى! ممكن يتجوز بس عشان الست تأمنله حياة نضيفة ومريحه!
'هيلينا' بتمثل الصراع بين الخير والشر ف الكنيسة او ف الدين عامة! شخصية جريئة صريحة عارفه هى عاوزه ايه، بتفرف بين الصح والغلط!
الكاتب مركز اهتمامة على طبيعة شخصية جيمى وعاوزنا نحس باحساسه ونفهمه، هو زى ما قالت عنه هيلينا..
"He was born out of his time."
"He doesn't know where he is or where he is going. He'll never do anything, and he'll never amount to anything."
January 24, 2019
I have never read a protagonist so devoid of charm. And even when people are abandoning him (FOR ABUSING THEM) they can’t stop complimenting him for being such a large smart handsome big man. A deeply unpleasant and ugly play.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 14, 2024
John Osborne's "Look Back in Anger" is a relentless work. Terms like "raw" and "savage" spring to mind easily. It can be emotionally exhausting which is what gives Osborne's play its power. One thing you will not be while reading "Look" is bored.
October 26, 2024
I think one can debate the merits of "angry young men" plays/literature/themes, but I simply chose to read it as a caricature - and I was entertained.
April 13, 2013
Ladies and Gentlemen...John Osborne has LEFT the theatre.
Look Back in Anger was John Osborne's first successful play. Off the back of this he wrote The Entertainer; specially requested from him by Olivier, no less. Osborne's future look assured as a playwright whose stock could only rise. But when he died, in 1994, Look Back in Anger ((written at 26, in 1956) and The Entertainer (at 27, in 1957) remained Osborne's only works that are remembered.
Whether they've endured as well is moot. The last notable production of Look Back in Anger was in 1989, by Judi Dench. Even then this was seen as a revival. Since, every so often a small theatre company takes a production on for a limited period. The Creative Cow took it round venues in the South of England between April 15th and June 18th, 2011. Primary venues in secondary towns, The Hawth in Crawley, Sussex; the New Theatre, Exeter in Devon; finishing up at The Lighthouse in Poole, Dorset. In 2012 it ran for 6 days 'Off Broadway'. For me (and apparently top theatre companies and venues around the globe); the anger hasn't lasted, and they're no longer entertaining. Perhaps a mirror for John Osborne himself.
So, forgive the heresy, but Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer, and sadly Osborne himself seem tired, futile, and old. Yet he wrote around twenty-five other plays, plus screenplays, plus a two-volume autobiography. It must be disheartening, to say the least, to look back on your writing career in your sixties to see one play in 1956, and one in 1957, and that really was that. Maybe the review I make holds some of the answers why. Or maybe, I'm just plain wrong. That's not for me to decide.
I found it impossible to care about any of the characters in Look Back in Anger. Working class Jimmy is rude, inconsiderate and deliberately cruel to Alison, his wife. Supposedly, intelligent and university educated he reads the 'big boy' papers rather than the tabloids, and throws in the obscure word or two every so often (viz. describing Alison as a marchbank, very obscure and archaic even in archaic times: means yoke as far as I can ascertain).
Alison is middle class, ineffectual and bland. She went to girl's boarding school because her parents were away doing colonial things in India. I would be sorry for her, given her treatment by Jimmy, save for not caring a jot about her. Her main contribution to the play appears to be disappearing, once she's done ironing, back to mummy and daddy.
Cliff, third member of the original menage a trois, has no purpose I can discern beyond provide an extra person to enjoy Jimmy's faux pearls of wisdom. He provides a counterpoint of sorts, being a bit soppy about Alison. This tells all we need know of him. Like Jimmy, he reads papers and drinks tea. #
So far, so not especially interesting. Jimmy thinks he knows about love because he went to an old woman's funeral, and this gives him a special pass into the human race which his companions lack. Actually he has all the emotional intelligence of a bratty five-year old and needs a good slapping. He uses this unique perspective on being human to viciously lash out at Alison, even after finding out she's pregnant with his child and subsequently miscarries it. Some human!
Alison's friend, Helena, is installed faster than he could say "goodbye, wife", just as well really because he doesn't say it. Helena's purpose appears to be to play the replacement, until she doesn't anymore because Alison's come back. Jimmy and Alison revert to the comfort and security of the bear (Jimmy) and the squirrel (Alison), showing their relationship is back on it's very unhealthy track. Silly old me! Nearly fell into the trap of mistaking myself for someone who gives a flying f***.
Reading it through again, some thirty years after being in an Amateur Dramatics production, I, for one, can see why neither John Osborne, nor Look Back in Anger have not persisted. The play goes nowhere; the characters are uninteresting; it says nothing new.
That is my assessment. Feel free to disagree. Show me where it's been produced for even a short run at an important theatrical venue, I might even reconsider. Until then, my assessment stands, for me at least. Two okay, but pale, stars.
Look Back in Anger was John Osborne's first successful play. Off the back of this he wrote The Entertainer; specially requested from him by Olivier, no less. Osborne's future look assured as a playwright whose stock could only rise. But when he died, in 1994, Look Back in Anger ((written at 26, in 1956) and The Entertainer (at 27, in 1957) remained Osborne's only works that are remembered.
Whether they've endured as well is moot. The last notable production of Look Back in Anger was in 1989, by Judi Dench. Even then this was seen as a revival. Since, every so often a small theatre company takes a production on for a limited period. The Creative Cow took it round venues in the South of England between April 15th and June 18th, 2011. Primary venues in secondary towns, The Hawth in Crawley, Sussex; the New Theatre, Exeter in Devon; finishing up at The Lighthouse in Poole, Dorset. In 2012 it ran for 6 days 'Off Broadway'. For me (and apparently top theatre companies and venues around the globe); the anger hasn't lasted, and they're no longer entertaining. Perhaps a mirror for John Osborne himself.
So, forgive the heresy, but Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer, and sadly Osborne himself seem tired, futile, and old. Yet he wrote around twenty-five other plays, plus screenplays, plus a two-volume autobiography. It must be disheartening, to say the least, to look back on your writing career in your sixties to see one play in 1956, and one in 1957, and that really was that. Maybe the review I make holds some of the answers why. Or maybe, I'm just plain wrong. That's not for me to decide.
I found it impossible to care about any of the characters in Look Back in Anger. Working class Jimmy is rude, inconsiderate and deliberately cruel to Alison, his wife. Supposedly, intelligent and university educated he reads the 'big boy' papers rather than the tabloids, and throws in the obscure word or two every so often (viz. describing Alison as a marchbank, very obscure and archaic even in archaic times: means yoke as far as I can ascertain).
Alison is middle class, ineffectual and bland. She went to girl's boarding school because her parents were away doing colonial things in India. I would be sorry for her, given her treatment by Jimmy, save for not caring a jot about her. Her main contribution to the play appears to be disappearing, once she's done ironing, back to mummy and daddy.
Cliff, third member of the original menage a trois, has no purpose I can discern beyond provide an extra person to enjoy Jimmy's faux pearls of wisdom. He provides a counterpoint of sorts, being a bit soppy about Alison. This tells all we need know of him. Like Jimmy, he reads papers and drinks tea. #
So far, so not especially interesting. Jimmy thinks he knows about love because he went to an old woman's funeral, and this gives him a special pass into the human race which his companions lack. Actually he has all the emotional intelligence of a bratty five-year old and needs a good slapping. He uses this unique perspective on being human to viciously lash out at Alison, even after finding out she's pregnant with his child and subsequently miscarries it. Some human!
Alison's friend, Helena, is installed faster than he could say "goodbye, wife", just as well really because he doesn't say it. Helena's purpose appears to be to play the replacement, until she doesn't anymore because Alison's come back. Jimmy and Alison revert to the comfort and security of the bear (Jimmy) and the squirrel (Alison), showing their relationship is back on it's very unhealthy track. Silly old me! Nearly fell into the trap of mistaking myself for someone who gives a flying f***.
Reading it through again, some thirty years after being in an Amateur Dramatics production, I, for one, can see why neither John Osborne, nor Look Back in Anger have not persisted. The play goes nowhere; the characters are uninteresting; it says nothing new.
That is my assessment. Feel free to disagree. Show me where it's been produced for even a short run at an important theatrical venue, I might even reconsider. Until then, my assessment stands, for me at least. Two okay, but pale, stars.
March 7, 2019
Υποθέτω ότι την εποχή που γράφτηκε το θεατρικό αυτό έργο, είχε κάποια σημαντικά θέματα να αναδείξει, ενώ ίσως είναι από τα έργα που με τον σκληρό ρεαλισμό τους άλλαξαν έως ένα βαθμό το Βρετανικό θέατρο, όμως προσωπικά δεν με άγγιξε παρά ελάχιστα, ενώ γενικά μπορώ να πω ότι με εκνεύρισε κιόλας. Αυτή η σύγκρουση ανάμεσα στην εργατική και την ανώτερη τάξη, στα πλαίσια ενός γάμου, μου φάνηκε αφόρητα μελοδραματική και κοινότοπη. Οι χαρακτήρες κάπως ανόητοι και εκνευριστικοί, ενώ δεν ήταν λίγοι οι διάλογοι που με κούρασαν. Εντάξει, σαν θεατρικό έργο δεν είναι κακό, απλώς κάπως μέτριο και προϊόν της εποχής του.
August 26, 2015
...Dio mio, quanto ho bisogno di un po' di normale entusiasmo umano. Solo un po' d'entusiasmo, nient'altro. Vorrei sentire una voce calda, piena di emozione che gridasse "Hallelujah" (si batte teatralmente il petto), "Hallelujah"! Sono vivo! Ho un'idea. Perché non facciamo un gioco? Giochiamo a far finta che siamo degli esseri umani, e che siamo vivi sul serio. Solo per un momento. Cosa ne dite? Sì, facciamo finta di vivere...
...Il guaio... è... il guaio è che ci si abitua alla gente. I loro gesti più comuni diventano indispensabili. Indispensabili...
...Mi sembra di non aver fatto altro in vita mia che dire addio alla gente...
...Tutti vogliono sfuggire alla pena di essere vivi. E soprattutto vogliono sfuggire all'amore. (Va alla "toilette") Ho sempre saputo che qualcosa del genere sarebbe successo... un dramma di coscienza tipo la moglie malata... che avrebbe sconvolto i tuoi sentimenti di fiore di serra. (Raccoglie la roba di Helena sulla "toilette" e va all'armadio guardaroba. Fuori cominciano a suonare le campane.) È inutile cercare di ingannarsi sull'amore. Non puoi accettarlo come si accetta un impiego facile, senza sporcarti le mani. (Le porge la roba e apre l'armadio) Ci vogliono muscoli e coraggio. E se non riesci a sopportare l'idea... (stacca un vestito dalla stampella) di sporcare la tua bell'anima di bucato...(le si avvicina) farai meglio a rinunciare decisamente alla vita e avviarti alla santità...(le dà il vestito) perché come essere umano sei fuori strada... Bisogna scegliere fra questo mondo e quell'altro...
...Il guaio... è... il guaio è che ci si abitua alla gente. I loro gesti più comuni diventano indispensabili. Indispensabili...
...Mi sembra di non aver fatto altro in vita mia che dire addio alla gente...
...Tutti vogliono sfuggire alla pena di essere vivi. E soprattutto vogliono sfuggire all'amore. (Va alla "toilette") Ho sempre saputo che qualcosa del genere sarebbe successo... un dramma di coscienza tipo la moglie malata... che avrebbe sconvolto i tuoi sentimenti di fiore di serra. (Raccoglie la roba di Helena sulla "toilette" e va all'armadio guardaroba. Fuori cominciano a suonare le campane.) È inutile cercare di ingannarsi sull'amore. Non puoi accettarlo come si accetta un impiego facile, senza sporcarti le mani. (Le porge la roba e apre l'armadio) Ci vogliono muscoli e coraggio. E se non riesci a sopportare l'idea... (stacca un vestito dalla stampella) di sporcare la tua bell'anima di bucato...(le si avvicina) farai meglio a rinunciare decisamente alla vita e avviarti alla santità...(le dà il vestito) perché come essere umano sei fuori strada... Bisogna scegliere fra questo mondo e quell'altro...
December 31, 2021
"Why don't we have a little game? Let's pretend that we're human beings, and that we're actually alive."
The setting for 'Look Back in Anger' is an attic flat in a large Midland town in the mid-1950's, the home of Jimmy Porter and his wife Alison. Jimmy and Alison share their flat with Cliff Lewis, a young working-class man who as well as being Jimmy's best friend is also in business with him, running a sweet stall. Cliff and Jimmy both come from working-class backgrounds, though Jimmy has had more education than Cliff whilst Alison comes from a more prominent family, a fact that Jimmy clearly resents.
'Look Back in Anger' is regarded by many as saving British theatre as it brought a realism to it, the first of what today is classed as a 'kitchen drama' it also introduced the concept of 'angry young men' struggling in dark post-War Britain.
Jimmy is egotistical, a dreamer but he mainly a pretty dislikeable character. Osborne uses him as a vehicle to shine a light on many of the societal issues of the day; Religion, class, the rise and fall of the British Empire and in particular the loss of childhood. Jimmy lost his father at a young age and wants the others around him to share in his pain although it does rather to ask the question, quite why does anyone want to stay with him?
The play may be a little dated today but this is still a powerful piece of writing making this book well worth a read and at roughly 100 pages long its also a quick one.
The setting for 'Look Back in Anger' is an attic flat in a large Midland town in the mid-1950's, the home of Jimmy Porter and his wife Alison. Jimmy and Alison share their flat with Cliff Lewis, a young working-class man who as well as being Jimmy's best friend is also in business with him, running a sweet stall. Cliff and Jimmy both come from working-class backgrounds, though Jimmy has had more education than Cliff whilst Alison comes from a more prominent family, a fact that Jimmy clearly resents.
'Look Back in Anger' is regarded by many as saving British theatre as it brought a realism to it, the first of what today is classed as a 'kitchen drama' it also introduced the concept of 'angry young men' struggling in dark post-War Britain.
Jimmy is egotistical, a dreamer but he mainly a pretty dislikeable character. Osborne uses him as a vehicle to shine a light on many of the societal issues of the day; Religion, class, the rise and fall of the British Empire and in particular the loss of childhood. Jimmy lost his father at a young age and wants the others around him to share in his pain although it does rather to ask the question, quite why does anyone want to stay with him?
The play may be a little dated today but this is still a powerful piece of writing making this book well worth a read and at roughly 100 pages long its also a quick one.
January 13, 2016
Definately one of the best plays i have read in a long time. Jimmy's hatred, inspired by the undeniable class division of 50s England, creates a uniquely relatable character. Despite his grotesquely critical hatred for all that surrounds him, you cant help but feel pity for the cynic, "born out of his time".
April 4, 2022
Buckle up, people, because this is one bitch of a review for one bitch of a play.
Listen— if I'm going to dedicate my whole life for a noble cause, it'll be to formulate a hate-inducing, man-slapping cult against Look Back in Anger for ever being written. For ever existing with such a sick and awful agenda that must've been imbued in thousands via the author's mighty movement. This review will not just be anti the play itself, but against Osborne himself since I'm well studying his contextual background and the reasons why he wrote this in the first place. I'll be quoting my professor every once in a while, but fair warning that I won't give a rat's ass as to whether she did her research or not. I am usually more thorough in any critical review for or against a literary piece, but in this case, I won't give the satisfaction to John fucking Osborne.
Context for anyone who's reading this before I dive so deep: this play is about a man called Jimmy Porter who's fucking angry all the time. That's it. That's the whole story. You tell me why he's angry? I'll tell you for fucking colonist reasons, because dear baby Osborne couldn't take it that Britain lost the Suez Canal and that they were defeated in Hungary. Osborne thought it's a really fine idea to establish an entire movement, and call it the Angry Young Men Movement. What was their main issue? It was their "𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘰, 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰-𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴." (Luc Gilleman). And how did they try to achieve this? Well, by creating a misogynistic, even more rage-inducing genre to express their emotions and call it kitchen sink realism. Look Back in Anger was basically an inauguration of this new drama. It established the right to backlash at women for absolutely no reason.
Well fucking done, Osborne.
So, let's start with that gender representation, eh? Because easy, right? You, an esteemed writer in the TWENTIETH century, should well know how to represent people the way they are, not woebegonely diss an entire gender because you're fucking angry. But no, instead let's create Jimmy, a low class man who marries an upper middle class woman called Alison, in order to fucking piss on capitalism and class division. He literally marries her for revenge, and these are not even my words, everyone, but Osborne's. And not just that: Jimmy is verbally and physically abusive the whole play towards his wife, because ho ho motherfuckers that's how you do it. You enslave and manacle down the whole gender, ruin their lives, and call it justice because they "had it good" their entire lives. And not just that; Osborne embedded the idea of worshipping patriarchy, and that in the end women must get to their senses and understand that men were right all along. Despite the fact that when Alison returns she finds out he was cheating on her the entire time while she was gone. But yeah, let's forgive Jimmy because now she finally understands his anger and pain. What a fucking JOKE.
I haven't even started yet. According to my esteemed professor, who thought it's a fine nice idea to teach us this, the attack against women wasn't due their societal background only, but because, “𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.” (Raymond Williams). Well, isn't this just delightful. It's not against the women guys!!!! It's just about society and women are the backlash. We are going to go against society, and in the middle of it turn against our women as well because some fuckhead decided the narrative should incline that. Day by day do I wish I was born in another time in order to give out just a few nicely rounded slaps.
The misogyny is going to take me a while, so perhaps scroll a bit down further if you're already sick of what you're reading. I, too, am sick of what I read. Because you know what? Sometimes authors try to be subtle about their misogynistic thoughts, even some skillfully hide it inside their texts and seldom would you find an uprise about it, but John Osborne made it his personal mission with this play to become the absolute worst human being. I could quote the book, and believe me, you can pretty well get hateful quotes from every single page, but I'll try to narrow it down because I'm already sick of remembering that I will still write a paper about this or however way the professor makes us pass the course.
“𝘼𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙢���𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙣-𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙖 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙪𝙥. 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙙𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝—𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚! 𝙋𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨!”
•
“𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝘼𝙧𝙖𝙗, 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙗 𝙛𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚? 𝙒𝙚𝙡𝙡, 𝙨𝙝𝙚'𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠 𝙂𝙤𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙨! 𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙜𝙪𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙣𝙤 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚.”
•
“𝙇𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨. 𝙄 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩'𝙨 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪'𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩, 𝙄 𝙜𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜— 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙣𝙠𝙨, 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚, 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙒𝙝𝙮? 𝙏𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚, 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙚. 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙛 𝙄'𝙢 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙙.”
And that's just act 1 for y'all. News flash it only gets worse. His verbal abuse is just infinite. Seriously, someone give this man a medal for having the stamina to be this fucking awful all the time. You go through the entire play and it's just Jimmy being resentful and abusive. He constantly takes pleasure in insulting his wife and her societal background. He gets even angrier when Alison, who's nearly always silent, doesn't shit back on him. He alienates himself (which is Osborne's stand on how he felt in Britain at that time) and thinks that he's the only one with valid emotions and deserves the right to speak. When others try to talk with him, or God forbid do something worthwhile on their own without asking for his fucking unwanted opinion, he disqualifies their right and egotistically says, “𝙄'𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧, 𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚.” And yet, when they don't even bother replying to his hateful spew, he rages even more for being ignored. “𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙚𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣'𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙊𝙡𝙙 𝙋𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙡𝙚𝙚𝙥.” Well, news fucking flash, no one likes talking to a hateful person like you, bitch.
Oh, and the emotional manipulation! My my, how could I forget. Dear Jimmy doesn't just disrespect and hurt and cheat on Alison, but he also emotionally manipulates her to a sickening extent that she couldn't even bring herself to tell him that she was pregnant. Her friend called her father on her to finally come and take her, because she couldn't do it herself without feeling like she was asking for something she shouldn't be given. As if Jimmy took any and all respite out of her system. And it doesn't end just here, bois. The "everything I've done for you" narrative is there. As if Jimmy ever did anything for her or for us other than ruin our fucking evenings. Again, I must stress on the fact that she couldn't even, for the life of her, tell her husband that she's pregnant and confided in their friend instead. Because when she was about to actually tell him, Jimmy prescribes for Alison's lack of authenticity that if ever she should have a child that it should die. That's how sick of a character he was. That's the character you're supposed to define as a hero, or even an anti-hero. Kill my fucking soul before I do either.
Somewhere I had read a critical appreciation for this play that says something in the terms of if you're young, this play will get to you. But really, how could anyone justify or accept this narrative. I am disgusted and sick that some people actually resonate with such violent, rageful ways of expression. “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴.” (Quote someone I cannot recall right now and I'm too dedicated to this trashing to even look it up.) What kind of sick entertainment is this, to give people verbal abuse and expect them to actually be moved in a right direction from it. Jimmy Porter’s cries of anger are supposedly the cries of a whole generation. Yet, what sick of a generation it must have been to think that resentment and anger are the way to achieving one's hopes and aspirations. I understand it must've been a difficult time, and that the generation gap and the class gap must've ruined thousands of lives, yet in the end the solution does not reside in taking an entire gender hostage, decapitate their rights and freedom, and represent them as your problem in order to try and fix the problem.
Bitterness, simply, should not justify actions. Want your new ethic to go “𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” (Judith Rider and Harold Silver), do it in a respectable way that would make the reader actually bother to listen to what you're saying. I personally don't agree with any of that, but that's my own personal opinion, and couldn't even be nudged especially after a hateful narrative. Sympathy cannot stem from resonating with hate. I believe that Osborne's way at trying to move people was even worse than the circumstances they ached to be moved from. And what's worse is that the play could've even been culminated with a respectful intonation, or just one that doesn't further degrade women for the sake of making peace with "society", but Osborne would rather stick his anger in our faces than stick it up his—
May God give me strength to keep up with the shitty works I have to keep studying. And may my professor stumble across this review because I really wouldn't mind being kicked out of uni at this point.
Listen— if I'm going to dedicate my whole life for a noble cause, it'll be to formulate a hate-inducing, man-slapping cult against Look Back in Anger for ever being written. For ever existing with such a sick and awful agenda that must've been imbued in thousands via the author's mighty movement. This review will not just be anti the play itself, but against Osborne himself since I'm well studying his contextual background and the reasons why he wrote this in the first place. I'll be quoting my professor every once in a while, but fair warning that I won't give a rat's ass as to whether she did her research or not. I am usually more thorough in any critical review for or against a literary piece, but in this case, I won't give the satisfaction to John fucking Osborne.
Context for anyone who's reading this before I dive so deep: this play is about a man called Jimmy Porter who's fucking angry all the time. That's it. That's the whole story. You tell me why he's angry? I'll tell you for fucking colonist reasons, because dear baby Osborne couldn't take it that Britain lost the Suez Canal and that they were defeated in Hungary. Osborne thought it's a really fine idea to establish an entire movement, and call it the Angry Young Men Movement. What was their main issue? It was their "𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘰, 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰-𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴." (Luc Gilleman). And how did they try to achieve this? Well, by creating a misogynistic, even more rage-inducing genre to express their emotions and call it kitchen sink realism. Look Back in Anger was basically an inauguration of this new drama. It established the right to backlash at women for absolutely no reason.
Well fucking done, Osborne.
So, let's start with that gender representation, eh? Because easy, right? You, an esteemed writer in the TWENTIETH century, should well know how to represent people the way they are, not woebegonely diss an entire gender because you're fucking angry. But no, instead let's create Jimmy, a low class man who marries an upper middle class woman called Alison, in order to fucking piss on capitalism and class division. He literally marries her for revenge, and these are not even my words, everyone, but Osborne's. And not just that: Jimmy is verbally and physically abusive the whole play towards his wife, because ho ho motherfuckers that's how you do it. You enslave and manacle down the whole gender, ruin their lives, and call it justice because they "had it good" their entire lives. And not just that; Osborne embedded the idea of worshipping patriarchy, and that in the end women must get to their senses and understand that men were right all along. Despite the fact that when Alison returns she finds out he was cheating on her the entire time while she was gone. But yeah, let's forgive Jimmy because now she finally understands his anger and pain. What a fucking JOKE.
I haven't even started yet. According to my esteemed professor, who thought it's a fine nice idea to teach us this, the attack against women wasn't due their societal background only, but because, “𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.” (Raymond Williams). Well, isn't this just delightful. It's not against the women guys!!!! It's just about society and women are the backlash. We are going to go against society, and in the middle of it turn against our women as well because some fuckhead decided the narrative should incline that. Day by day do I wish I was born in another time in order to give out just a few nicely rounded slaps.
The misogyny is going to take me a while, so perhaps scroll a bit down further if you're already sick of what you're reading. I, too, am sick of what I read. Because you know what? Sometimes authors try to be subtle about their misogynistic thoughts, even some skillfully hide it inside their texts and seldom would you find an uprise about it, but John Osborne made it his personal mission with this play to become the absolute worst human being. I could quote the book, and believe me, you can pretty well get hateful quotes from every single page, but I'll try to narrow it down because I'm already sick of remembering that I will still write a paper about this or however way the professor makes us pass the course.
“𝘼𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙢���𝙧𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙣-𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙙𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙖 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙪𝙥. 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙙𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝—𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚! 𝙋𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨!”
•
“𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝘼𝙧𝙖𝙗, 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙗 𝙛𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚? 𝙒𝙚𝙡𝙡, 𝙨𝙝𝙚'𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠 𝙂𝙤𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙨! 𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙜𝙪𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙣𝙤 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚.”
•
“𝙇𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨. 𝙄 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩'𝙨 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪'𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩, 𝙄 𝙜𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜— 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙣𝙠𝙨, 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚, 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙒𝙝𝙮? 𝙏𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚, 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙚. 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙛 𝙄'𝙢 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙙.”
And that's just act 1 for y'all. News flash it only gets worse. His verbal abuse is just infinite. Seriously, someone give this man a medal for having the stamina to be this fucking awful all the time. You go through the entire play and it's just Jimmy being resentful and abusive. He constantly takes pleasure in insulting his wife and her societal background. He gets even angrier when Alison, who's nearly always silent, doesn't shit back on him. He alienates himself (which is Osborne's stand on how he felt in Britain at that time) and thinks that he's the only one with valid emotions and deserves the right to speak. When others try to talk with him, or God forbid do something worthwhile on their own without asking for his fucking unwanted opinion, he disqualifies their right and egotistically says, “𝙄'𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧, 𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚.” And yet, when they don't even bother replying to his hateful spew, he rages even more for being ignored. “𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙗𝙚𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣'𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙊𝙡𝙙 𝙋𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙡𝙚𝙚𝙥.” Well, news fucking flash, no one likes talking to a hateful person like you, bitch.
Oh, and the emotional manipulation! My my, how could I forget. Dear Jimmy doesn't just disrespect and hurt and cheat on Alison, but he also emotionally manipulates her to a sickening extent that she couldn't even bring herself to tell him that she was pregnant. Her friend called her father on her to finally come and take her, because she couldn't do it herself without feeling like she was asking for something she shouldn't be given. As if Jimmy took any and all respite out of her system. And it doesn't end just here, bois. The "everything I've done for you" narrative is there. As if Jimmy ever did anything for her or for us other than ruin our fucking evenings. Again, I must stress on the fact that she couldn't even, for the life of her, tell her husband that she's pregnant and confided in their friend instead. Because when she was about to actually tell him, Jimmy prescribes for Alison's lack of authenticity that if ever she should have a child that it should die. That's how sick of a character he was. That's the character you're supposed to define as a hero, or even an anti-hero. Kill my fucking soul before I do either.
Somewhere I had read a critical appreciation for this play that says something in the terms of if you're young, this play will get to you. But really, how could anyone justify or accept this narrative. I am disgusted and sick that some people actually resonate with such violent, rageful ways of expression. “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴.” (Quote someone I cannot recall right now and I'm too dedicated to this trashing to even look it up.) What kind of sick entertainment is this, to give people verbal abuse and expect them to actually be moved in a right direction from it. Jimmy Porter’s cries of anger are supposedly the cries of a whole generation. Yet, what sick of a generation it must have been to think that resentment and anger are the way to achieving one's hopes and aspirations. I understand it must've been a difficult time, and that the generation gap and the class gap must've ruined thousands of lives, yet in the end the solution does not reside in taking an entire gender hostage, decapitate their rights and freedom, and represent them as your problem in order to try and fix the problem.
Bitterness, simply, should not justify actions. Want your new ethic to go “𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” (Judith Rider and Harold Silver), do it in a respectable way that would make the reader actually bother to listen to what you're saying. I personally don't agree with any of that, but that's my own personal opinion, and couldn't even be nudged especially after a hateful narrative. Sympathy cannot stem from resonating with hate. I believe that Osborne's way at trying to move people was even worse than the circumstances they ached to be moved from. And what's worse is that the play could've even been culminated with a respectful intonation, or just one that doesn't further degrade women for the sake of making peace with "society", but Osborne would rather stick his anger in our faces than stick it up his—
May God give me strength to keep up with the shitty works I have to keep studying. And may my professor stumble across this review because I really wouldn't mind being kicked out of uni at this point.
May 29, 2024
Eu ia escrever alguma coisa sobre essa peça só hoje à noite quando assistir o filme do Richardson, mas vou escrever algo agora para não esquecer: aqui o embate entre homem e mulher espelha a luta de classes, o que é algo que muitas de nós feministas temos cantado há algum tempo, mas ao contrário do que um homem poderia escrever, a classe subalterna sempre foi a mulher. É uma luta de classes sim, da mulher enquanto classe sendo vilipendiada pelo homem, quem deveria "Look back in anger" é a esposa, ela deveria representar a classe trabalhadora e o homem ser o Império britânico em decadência. Osborne deveria ter conhecido a Silvia Federici, né.
Não ajuda o fato do Osborne escrever isso como comédia e todo mundo achar que é drama. Reza a lenda de quem leu a autobiografia do Osborne que ele é de fato misógino e o aspecto da misoginia em seus escritos não é estilo narrativo e sim projeção mesmo, como já explícito ele dizer que escreveu toda aquela misoginia como comédia.
Ia tentar ler a continuação dos anos 90, Déjà-vu, mas nem sei se quero mais. Enfim, estaria mais feliz lendo a Shelagh Delaney.
Plus: Recomendo muito a edição com introdução e notas da Margaret Rose, são muito bem vindas para o entendimento da leitura.
Sobre o filme: My ★★★★ review of Look Back in Anger on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/6zoR2F
Não ajuda o fato do Osborne escrever isso como comédia e todo mundo achar que é drama. Reza a lenda de quem leu a autobiografia do Osborne que ele é de fato misógino e o aspecto da misoginia em seus escritos não é estilo narrativo e sim projeção mesmo, como já explícito ele dizer que escreveu toda aquela misoginia como comédia.
Ia tentar ler a continuação dos anos 90, Déjà-vu, mas nem sei se quero mais. Enfim, estaria mais feliz lendo a Shelagh Delaney.
Plus: Recomendo muito a edição com introdução e notas da Margaret Rose, são muito bem vindas para o entendimento da leitura.
Sobre o filme: My ★★★★ review of Look Back in Anger on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/6zoR2F
Read
December 15, 2024دو تئاتربراساس این کتاب را دیده ام . یکی که سالها پیش باهنرمندی منوچهر فرید درتلویزیون پیش ازانقلاب برصحنه رفته بوده و دومی که چند روزپیش درپردیس تئاترباغ کتاب به تماشا نشستم. اولی کاملا" وفادارانه به کتاب بر زندگی واختلافات زناشویی یک جوان باهوش و تحصیل کرده اما ناراضی از طبقه کارگر ، جیمی پورتر ، و همسر طبقه ی متوسط او در جامعه تمرکز دارد. شخصیت های فرعی شامل یک بازیگر دوست داشتنی ولزی است که تلاش می کند صلح را حفظ کند وزنی که هم خانه زن است .
دومین نمایش اقتباسی امروزی ازآن داستان است که فضای مجازی و اینستاگرام درآن مطرح است
و شغل قهرمان درزمینه موسیقی است و..
دومین نمایش اقتباسی امروزی ازآن داستان است که فضای مجازی و اینستاگرام درآن مطرح است
و شغل قهرمان درزمینه موسیقی است و..
April 7, 2018
Another literary work that I happened to read in my "Masculinity in Literature & Popular Cultures" coursework.
The background is the post WWII British society in the disposition of "Edwardian Twilight" which represents that the sun of British Imperialism has set. And the main protagonist Jimmy Porter represents the plight of the young generation of Englishmen in post-imperial world who went to college, got educated but still ended up jobless, angry and distasteful towards upper middle class society as well as their own culture and values.
An excellently written drama, full of symbolism especially sartorial, metaphorical & equivocations. Indeed one of the best character introductory depictions with firm convincing strokes and provoking & stimulating dialogues.
A must read!
Yet difficult to love!!
The background is the post WWII British society in the disposition of "Edwardian Twilight" which represents that the sun of British Imperialism has set. And the main protagonist Jimmy Porter represents the plight of the young generation of Englishmen in post-imperial world who went to college, got educated but still ended up jobless, angry and distasteful towards upper middle class society as well as their own culture and values.
An excellently written drama, full of symbolism especially sartorial, metaphorical & equivocations. Indeed one of the best character introductory depictions with firm convincing strokes and provoking & stimulating dialogues.
A must read!
Yet difficult to love!!
September 3, 2016
Breaking News: Local misogynist deals with his paternal issues and impotent rage by verbally abusing his wife and only friend.
May 3, 2023
the oasis song is better
Displaying 1 - 30 of 640 reviews