Critically Examining Harold Pinter's View - Essay Example

Critically examine Harold Pinter's view Harold Pinter, a known English playwright, was born in London on 1930. He appeared in school plays as a youth and studied in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London in 1948. His popular plays are The Birthday Party and the The Caretaker. He was known for his comedies of menace, which humorously and cynically depict people attempting to communicate as they react to an invasion or threat of an invasion of their lives. He is also noted for his unique use of dialogue, which exposes his characters’ alienation from each other and explores the layers of meaning produced by pauses and silence. In 1995 he won Britain’s Olivier Award in recognition of his contributions to theatre. In 2005 Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. The citation announcing his Nobel Prize in 2005 declared that “Pinter restored theatre to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of each other and pretence crumbles.” It also noted that his unique style has resulted in the creation of “an adjective used to describe a particular atmosphere and environment in drama: Pinteresque’” (Microsoft Encarta, 2007). In the World War II, he was forced to evacuate form London during the bombings there and he said that that experience changed his life and as an adult he has become an outspoken advocate for peace. He openly criticises the United States and its allies for its war against terror more especially the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation to the September 11 attack in the World Trade Center. He published a list of anti war poem in response to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain in 2003. He has written frequently about peace issues for newspapers and magazines. In a conversation with Michael Billington, a theatre critic of the Guardian, Pinter said that the United States government was the most dangerous power that had ever existed. He considers the American detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as a concentration camp for al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners of war. He blames the American people for not complaining and reacting to the way the US government is handling the prison facility considering that the country is known as an avid advocate of democracy and human rights. He also said that "I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, and belligerence: the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world... The United States administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary." He also stressed that the American citizen should accept the responsibility in allowing an illegitimate president to take power. Pinter also considers Tony Blair as a “deluded idiot” and should resign because of continually ignoring the protests by the Britons. He returned to the limelight, after his operation for cancer, speaking against Americans belligerence. Pinter said "The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining knowing what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany." Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The US wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that. "In a policy document, the US has used the term 'full-spectrum domination', that means control of land, sea, air and space, and that is exactly what's intended and what the US wants to fulfil. They are obvious about it" (Chrisafis & Tilden, 2003). The playwright also blames “millions of totally deluded American people" for not reacting. He believed that because of the wide propaganda and media mileage the Americans believed every word of President Bush. (Chrisafis & Tilden, 2003). His acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in 2005 demonstrates his real feelings towards the United States and its foreign policy. He is particular about the invasion of Iraq and said “As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with al-Qaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true” (Pinter, 2005). At the start of the speech he also said that “'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.' I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?” (Pinter, 2005). He wanted to present in that speech that in real life there is a clear distinction between what is true and what false, what is published truth and the real truth. There is a need for the citizens to become really aware of the things that is happening around them. He wants them to be vigilant in the sense that the citizens must act in accordance to the values that they have. What is especially disturbing is that since the Americans consider themselves as champions of democracy and respectful of human rights, they are the ones ignoring it. Consider their cold reaction towards the human rights violations in the Guantanamo Bay prison facility where the “prisoners of war” of al-Qaeda and Taliban are secured. They do not even treat them as prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have certain privileges and right in accordance to the Geneva Convention but the US are reluctant to practice it. They stand by their reason that these people hare terrorist and have committed a terrorist act on the United States soil. But this is not enough reason to deny the prisoners their rights as agreed upon in the Geneva Convention. Pinter’s view on this shows his side on reality. He does not confine himself on the reality based on art wherein there is no distinction between real truth and real false. This is not the way in real life. Truth is the real truth and false is the real false. He argues that the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 is not reason enough to attack or invade a sovereign state but merely an excuse to use power to show the world who is the leader. But his criticism on the US is not limited to its actions against Iraq and Afghanistan. He pointed out in his speech a long list of atrocities the US has committed against several countries. It includes the US participation in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, and, of course, Chile. He maintains that the actions the US did to these countries is the same as the Marxist/Lenin government has done to the Soviets sans the documentation. In his speech he also said “I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people” (Pinter, 2005). He particularly said this to point the dependence of the American people to what their president can say and act. It seems that whatever the president will do it is behalf of the American people. That is why he included the American citizens to blame. It seems that they are mindless peons that always agree to what their leader says without discerning its true effect to the affected country. His speech also shows that the United States have no qualms about using brute force to everyone they consider enemy and at the same time enjoying the blind support of Britain. They are also ignoring the United Nations, International Law and critical dissent. Some may consider his criticisms toward the United States and its allies as uncalled for considering the line between the worlds of art and politics clear. But he said in the beginning of his speech that the citizen inside him clamours for truth and transparency on the actions of the United States regarding its perceived enemy. He wanted the citizens to think the same way that is why he particularly included the citizens of the United States as responsible for the rampant and wide atrocities they have committed. They must be the one to check the government for its actions. They must also not allow themselves to be used as supporters who agree on what ever the government is saying and doing. This point of view is also the result of his influences that includes Samuel Beckett, an Irish born poet, novelist and playwright who also won the Nobel Prize in 1969. He witnessed firsthand the rise of the German dictator Adolf Hitler and Nazism. His works attacked systems of communications, including language itself. He intends to demonstrate the inconsistencies and absurdities of life rather than representing the observable surface of life. Hi criticism is also not exempted from criticism as well. His words were one considered as one sided, blaming the entire fault on the United States. But it is important to weigh each side, this way will allow impartial and unbiased comments on such topics. Instead he particularly focused on the actions done by the United States. He may have a point in some areas but totally such actions are also valid and legal as what a country would to countries that have committed various terror acts. He is right in condemning the actions done by the United States in denying the rights if the prisoners of war as accorded by international law. He is also right in considering the United States as an administration that is now a bloodthirsty wild animal and bombs are its only vocabulary. The United States now is boasting that it has enough firepower to dominate any sovereign country. Also it also shows that they have a considerable influence in any country by putting bases and giving aids as sign of gratitude. But beneath all these are special treatments they want to be accorded. They also exert their influence by supporting politicians and leaders that are loyal to them. This ensures their continuous influence over the said country. He is also correct in saying that the United States, as the most powerful nation in the world in terms of military and economy, is waging a war against the rest of the world. The United States government may think that their so-called allies always agree and support on whatever the United States is bent on doing but in reality they are merely forced or going with the flow so as not to be called enemies. Also “supporting” the United States has its benefits or what we usually call the “return of investment” such as economic and military aids that third world countries need the most. The United States is clever in using these handicaps into their advantage. They enter into diplomatic relations with countries that are poor that in exchange for their support the United States will provide economic aids that when you look closely at is merely a loan that is easily released but the recipient country will still have to pay. He maybe also right in including the blame on the Americans themselves for failing to live up to what they are generally known for, champions of democracy and protector of human rights. He contemplates that among the problems the world is facing today, he considers the American way of settling differences is the dreadful means of force. He was able to cite instances wherein the American intervention in pacifying countries they are not in terms with thru deadly force and aggression. Considering the military might the United States have, it would be an understatement that someday they will emerge as a global power that they have control over all sovereignty. Apart from all these, Pinter’s view also fails to consider the atrocities done by the terrorists. He failed to consider the misery and suffering felt by the victims of such acts. He did not mention the victims of the attacks, their suffering and anguish. He is also mum on the morality of the offenders such as bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He also overlooked the part where the so called-enemy of the United States is also as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the United States. The United States may believe that the only way to fight is thru “an eye for an eye” method. Some of the citizens also support such actions by the United States by feeling that the terrorists got what they deserve as a consequence of their actions in killing innocent civilians for whatever purpose they have. He may also consider the United States as a bully, using might and power to spread fear and terror towards unsuspecting victims or a ruthless crime mob that disposes with force its enemies or even whoever that crosses its path. Some may think that Harold Pinter’s view is just an opinion of one man. But the catch is that this one man is a Nobel Prize recipient, a known playwright and poet. This is the reason why whatever this outspoken artist is saying, everyone listens. He maybe frank as people may see but there is also definitely a reason behind whatever he says. He may be unfair in what he says but from the start he wanted to see the citizen side of himself. Reference: Billington, M. (2005) A gulf in appreciation. The Guardian http://www.quardian.co.uk/uk_news/story//0,,1592229,00.html May 26, 2007. Billington, M. (2005) Passionate Pinter's devastating assault on US foreign policy ,Shades of Beckett as ailing playwright delivers powerful Nobel lecture. The Guardian http://www.quardian.co.uk/uk_news/story//0,,1661931,00.html May 26, 2007. Billington, M. (2006) 'I've written 29 damn plays. Isn't that enough?'The Guardian http://www.quardian.co.uk/article/0,,1730554,00.html May 26, 2007. Chrisafis, A. & Tilden, I. (2003) Pinter blasts 'Nazi America' and 'deluded idiot' Blair The Guardian http://www.quardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,975048,00.html May 26, 2007. Ed. (2006) Harold Pinter. Microsoft® Student 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2006. Gontarski, S. E. (2006) Samuel Beckett" Microsoft® Student 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, Tempest, M. (2001) Pinter: I won't be silenced Playwright Harold Pinter does not believe Slobodan Milosevic is innocent. But neither are Nato's leaders, he tells Matthew Tempest Guardian Unlimited http://www.quardian.co.uk/article/0,9115,531854,00.html May 26, 2007. Pinter, H. (2005) Art, truth and politics video-taped Nobel acceptance speech This is the full text of his address.Guardian Unlimited http://www.quardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1662113,00.htmll May 26, 2007. Read More