Universität Mannheim

Anglistisches Seminar

Hauptseminar:

British Literature of the 50′s

Herbstsemester 2007

Th e T r a g e dy of Ji m m y P o r t e r

Term Paper

von

Lydia Gaukler

7. Semester Diplom-Anglistik mit wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Qualifikation

Mannheim, den 30. Oktober 2007

---

I

Conte nt

Content I

1. Introduction 1

2. Positions of criticism 2

3. Jimmy′s social identity 4

4. Interim conclusion 7

5. Jimmy′s personal identity 8

6. Jimmy as victim and perpetrator 13

7. Jimmy as a tragic character 15

8. Conclusion 19

Bibliography 21

---

II

I learnt at an early age what it was to be angry ­ angry and helpless.

(Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger, p. 50)

Anger is not about... It comes into the world in grief not grievance. It is mourning the

unknown, the loss of what went before without you, it′s the love another time but not

this might have sprung on you, the greatest loss of all, the deprivation of what, even as

a child, seemed irrevocably your own.

(Jimmy Porter in Déjàvu, p. 372)

---

1

1.

Introd uc tion

It is widely accepted that John Osborne′s play Look Back in Anger was a turning-point in

the history of British theatre, a milestone introducing the era of the New British

Drama.1 Osborne remembers: "On 8 May 1956 [...] Look Back in Anger had its opening

at the Royal Court Theatre. This [...] particular date seems to have become fixed in the

memories of theatrical historians"2 and Lacey emphasises: "The moment of John Os-

borne′s Look Back in Anger [...] was undoubtedly a symbolic one in the history of post-

war British theatre and of post-war culture generally."3 However, Look Back in Anger

was not perceived as a break-through right from the beginning. Rather, Osborne had to

cope with shattering criticism and at first, his play was a crushing defeat. Osborne him-

self summarized the reactions towards Look Back in Anger in his autobiography about

thirty years later: "There was a vehement, undisputed judgement: the play was a pal-

pable miss."4

Nearly all reviews focused on the play′s hero Jimmy Porter, whose nature they depicted

as the reason for the "essential wrongness"5 of the play. Jimmy was seen as "a bitter

young misfit,"6 "a boor, self-pitying, self-dramatising rebel"7 and a "cynical, neurotic

[young man] of working-class stock,"8 whose "continuous tirade against life [...] ha[d] a

deadening effect upon the whole play."9 Cecil Wilson sharpened the criticism when she

exclaimed that Jimmy Porter′s bitterness and his savage and often vulgar talk "crie[d]

out for a knife."10

However, the attitudes towards Osborne and his first play changed with the publica-

tion of Kenneth Tynan′s testimony in the Sunday newspaper a week later stating that

1 See Taylor. In: Taylor (1978): p. 75.

2 Osborne (1991): p.13.

3 Lacey in Luckhurst (2006): p.164.

4 Osborne (1991): p.4.

5 Daily Mail. In: Taylor (1978): p. 36. Please note: The following newspaper reviews are not listed in the

bibliography. They can be found in Taylor, p. 35-45.

6 Star. In: Taylor (1978): p. 40.

7 Manchester Guardian. In: Taylor (1978): p. 39.

8 Daily Worker. In: Taylor (1978): p. 44.

9 News Chronicle. In: Taylor (1978): p. 36.

10 Daily Mail. In: Taylor (1978): p. 36.

---

2

he could hardly "love anyone who did not wish to see Look Back in Anger. It is the best

young play of its decade."11 This provocative review suddenly shed a new light on the

play. Overnight, Look Back in Anger had become a success, its (anti-)hero Jimmy Porter

"the first young voice to cry out for a new generation that had forgotten the war, mis-

trusted the welfare state and mocked its established rulers with boredom, anger and

disgust"12 and John Osborne had become a celebrated young writer. Owing to its liter-

ary key role in the history of British Drama I would like to give a brief overview of the

critical opinions about Look Back in Anger before I move on to developing my own the-

sis.

2.

Positions of c ritic ism

The interpretations of Look Back in Anger are not only manifold but also rather contra-

dictory. Zapf comments:

Besteht hinsichtlich der faktisch-historischen Bedeutung von Look Back in

Anger weitgehende Einigkeit in der Literaturkritik, so gehen indessen die Me-

inungen über nahezu alle wichtigen Fragen der Interpretation, der Thematik

und der künstlerischen Einschätzung des Stücks teilweise weit ausein-

ander.13

Opinions already differ concerning the question whether and to what extent the drama

has led to an innovation of the British Theatre that has been attributed to it.14 Most crit-

ics find that the form of the drama is quite traditional and conventional, while its inno-

vative potential lies in its content. Even the author himself admitted at one point that

Look Back in Anger was "a formal, rather old fashioned-play."15

For Demastes, the play is situated on "a theatrical fault line, riding upon ground mov-

ing in two opposite directions, and being fully part of neither."16 He suggests that Look

Back in Anger is a problematic play because it follows both a traditional, naturalist and

11 Observer. In: Taylor (1978): p. 51.

12 Mortimer. In: Denison (1997): p. 183.

13 Zapf (1988): p. 62.

14 Zapf distinguishes four positions in terms of the dimensions content and form. For further information,

see Zapf (1988): p. 62-64.

15 Osborne (That Awful Museum, 1961). In: Taylor (1978): p. 66.

16 Demastes. In: Denison (1997): p. 63.

---

3

a postmodern direction.17 The tradionalist perspective comprises the audience′s desire

for guidance, consistent characters and closure, whereas Jimmy Porter′s vagueness

and evasiveness as well as his objectionable nature are attributed to the postmodern

aspect of the play. Demastes argues that the problem of Look Back in Anger lies in the

fact that Osborne has ­ possibly unconsciously ­ introduced a new dramatic method-

ology that the spectators yet have to come to terms with. The "play works much more

effectively not as a piece that leads its audience to answers but rather as a work that

pushes its audience to derive its own answers and conclusions."18 Thus, the predica-

ment which both the audience and critics find themselves in stems from their insis-

tance on a traditional reading of Look Back in Anger although the play actually requires

a postmodern view.19

In terms of dramatic structure, it has been argued that the play suffers severe weak-

nesses. One major fault of the play was claimed to lie in the imbalance between

Jimmy′s role and those of all other characters.20 Jimmy′s dominating character led

Hayman to the conclusion that Look Back in Anger is "the one-man play par excel-

lence."21 Quigley consequently reasons that Look Back in Anger is "widely regarded as

a very important but not very good play."22

When we draw our attention to the play′s themes we find an even wider gap. On the

one hand, there is the tendency to see Jimmy as the spokesman of the British post-war

generation, a working-class representative raging against the lack of idealism and en-

thusiasm in the Welfare State. Taylor comments that "Jimmy was taken to be speaking

for a whole generation"23 and Worth adds that the play was almost obligatorily la-

belled with the phrases ′kitchen sink drama′ and its protagonist referred to as ′angry

young man.′24 On the other hand, we find psychoanalytical approaches, which identify

17 See Demastes. In: Denison (1997): p. 63ff.

18 Demastes. In: Denison (1997): p. 62f.

19 For further information see Demastes. In: Denison (1997): p. 61- 69.

20 See Quigley (1997): p. 36.

21 Hayman (1976): p.17.

22 Quigley (1997): p. 35.

23 Taylor. In: Taylor (1978): p. 77.

24 See Worth. In: Taylor (19978): p. 102.

---