Name Abdullah Jan

Roll No 21734
Class 6-B (Afternoon)
Submitted to Madam Farhat Batool

Topic: Themes in Caretaker

The Caretaker, three-act play by Harold Pinter, published and first produced in 1960. The work is
Pinter’s second full-length play and it concerns the delicate balance between trust and betrayal in
familial relationships.

The action of the play occurs in the flat of Aston and Mick, two brothers. Aston, who is slow-witted,
befriends a wheedling, garrulous tramp named Davies. When Davies appears at the brothers’ flat, Mick,
who is the smarter of the brothers but is unstable, vies for Davies’s friendship. Individually, both
brothers offer Davies a role as caretaker. Finally realizing through the course of the play that
the equilibrium they have established is in jeopardy, the brothers ultimately reject Davies.

Themes of the Play

Absurdity in caretaker:

The main characteristic of modern man’s life is an absurdity that forms the core theme of the play. The
modern man’s life revolves around the absurdity of his being and his actions. Similarly, this absurdity is
also shown in the play at numerous times. Firstly, the use to repetition used in the play marks the
absurdity of human actions. The characters in the play often repeat their actions and dialogues with no
significant meaning behind these actions. For instance, at the starting of the play in Act 1 Davies
emphasizes how he did not have a proper rest and says: “I haven’t had a good sit down!... I haven’t had
a proper sit-down! (Pinter, 1960).
Secondly, the lack of coherence in the dialogues and actions of the characters also presents the
absurdity of modern life. For instance, when Davies is given a pair of shoes by Aston he declares to
Aston that these shoes “Don’t fit” and “They’d cripple me in a week” but in the same dialogue he
comments how “at least they’re comfortable”.
Thirdly, the inconsistency of time and the element of forgetfulness also contribute to the absurdity of
human existence. The effects of this modernization according to Pinter and the technological
advancements have made man a slave. His thoughts, ability, and mind are now being controlled by
these modern inventions. For instance, in Act 3 the inconsistency of time and human dependency on
modern inventions is depicted when Davies complains that how he does not have a “foggiest idea what
time is” and is dependent on his clock to point at the right time. Similarly, these modern inventions have
an adverse psychological effect on the thought process as pointed out by the speech of Aston at the end
of Act 2: “my thoughts… had become very slow… I couldn’t think at all … I couldn’t… get…my
thoughts… together…
Alienation:
One of the most notable features of The Caretaker is the alienation of its central characters—
brothers Aston and Mick, and the elderly, conniving drifter, Davies, whom Aston invites to stay with
them after Davies is involved in a brawl in the café where Davies works. All of the play’s action occurs in
the severely restrictive confines of a single room, which results in the men having virtually no exposure
to the people or social structures that exist beyond these four walls. Their alienation extends beyond the
physical, as well: all three characters have painful, distant, or nonexistent relationships with their
families. This includes Aston and Mick’s relationship, which is strained and uncommunicative. Yet in the
end, it is Aston and Mick’s unspoken obligation to each other as siblings that allows them to transcend
their crippling state of alienation and remove the manipulative, scheming Davies from their home. Their
relationship is the closest any of the characters in The Caretaker come to finding meaning and
connection. The play thus offers a complicated view of family: it can be a source of alienation and pain in
itself, but it can also be a source of comfort and purpose in an otherwise alienating modern world. The
characters’ familial relationships are largely empty and meaningless—if not nonexistent. At one point,
Mick calls his father his “uncle’s brother” and hints that his uncle might actually be his father. That he
refers to his father in such an indirect, impersonal way and questions the identity of his father
altogether suggests that family isn’t always a source of comfort and stability; it can also be a source of
confusion and absurdity, to the point that one might not even be sure who their family is. Davies’s
relationship with his ex-wife was similarly meaningless: he humorously describes leaving her “no more
than a week” after they married because she left a pot of unwashed underwear on the stove.
Furthermore, in the present, there’s no indication that Davies, Mick, or Aston have any extended family
or even close friends. These shallow, trivial, or nonexistent relationships create the sense that family
bonds aren’t inherently close or special. In the society of the play, relationships traditionally viewed as
sacred (like those between parent and child or husband and wife) have become nothing more than
superficial labels—and in some cases, even those labels are meaningless. The play also shows how
family relationships can be deeply painful and alienating. Before the events of the play, Aston had
hallucinations (it’s implied that he was suffering from some sort of mental illness). The acquaintances he
confided in about this misunderstood him and got him forcibly committed to a mental hospital, but the
way his own mother treated him was even more devastating, as she was the one who signed off on
giving Aston electroconvulsive shock therapy. This was something he never expected her to agree to—
suggesting that he didn’t know his mother as well as he thought he did—and his botched treatment left
him permanently brain damaged, mentally disabled, and traumatized. Aston’s condition is, in a way, a
representation of how being misunderstood and betrayed by a family member can be uniquely painful
and scarring, and how family can compound rather than relieve the alienation one experiences in
society. Yet despite these dysfunctional relationships, Mick and Aston are loyal to each other, and their
relationship is the closest the play comes to offering up a possible source of meaning or purpose.
Although the brothers never speak to each other in the play, there are several hints that they have an
unspoken bond and care deeply for each other. For one, Mick dreams of one-day living with Aston in the
building that Mick owns, and he gives Aston the task of renovating it, despite the fact that Mick is a
professional builder and Aston isn’t physically or mentally capable of completing this project. He does so
because he’s worried about Aston’s stagnancy in life—he wants to get his little brother “going in the
world,” even if that means giving him a job that Mick could do better himself. Moreover, at several
points in the play, Davies tries to manipulate the brothers by turning them against each other. But Aston
is hesitant to go along with Davies’s criticism of Mick, and Mick likewise gets angry when Davies is
“hypercritical” of Aston. The brothers’ similar reactions hint at an unspoken bond that transcends the
emotional distance between them—one that gives Aston a source of advocacy and support and Mick a
source of purpose (he is, in a sense, the play’s titular “caretaker” of Aston). Even though Aston and Mick
are not a close family unit on the surface, then, they form a united front against the interloper who
wants to undermine their relationship.
3.Identity:
“The Caretaker” portrays characters whose external activities define them superficially, but their true
identities remain elusive. The play suggests that identity is fluid, shaped by external forces and others’
perceptions rather than being inherent. Davies constructs a fabricated identity to meet expectations and
gain acceptance. Aston’s traumatic past, including forced institutionalization and brain damage, restricts
his ability to live authentically. The analysis should acknowledge that Mick, despite being in a position of
power as a building owner, may grapple with his own insecurities and desires. His fixation on the
caretaker role and his interactions with Davies and Aston could be driven by a need for control or a
search for identity within his societal roles. All three characters deflect their ambitions and anxieties
onto external objects, avoiding self-reflection and inhibiting genuine self-discovery. The play highlights
the fragility and malleability of identity, emphasizing how external influences can overshadow an
authentic sense of self. In Act 2, MICK. [...] You still got that leak.
ASTON. Yes. (Pause. Gets plug from shelf.) It’s coming from the roof. (looks up.) MICK. From the roof,
eh?..............MICK. Uh. (Pause.) DAVIES. (Abruptly.) What do you do—? (They both look at him.) What
do you do...when that bucket’s full? (Pause. Mick looks at Aston.) ASTON. Empty it. (Pause.)
(Mick&Aston speaker, Davies). The dialogue reflects themes of identity and authenticity. Aston’s task of
tar-roofing symbolizes attempts to cover up or repair the cracks in one’s identity or authenticity. Mick’s
questioning and Davies’ inquiry about the full bucket highlight the transient and challenging nature of
maintaining one’s identity in the face of external pressures or flaws. The dialogue suggests a constant
need for adaptation and concealment to preserve a semblance of authenticity.
4.The limitation of Language: In “The Caretaker,” Mick, Davies, and Aston struggle to communicate
effectively through language, often failing to convey meaningful information or understand each other.
Their verbal exchanges are marked by evasion, subject changes, and nonsense, revealing the limitations
of language. Instead of expressing themselves verbally, the character’s resort to physical actions, such as
Davies using a knife or Aston manipulating objects in the room. This physicality underscores the
inadequacy of language in expressing complex thoughts and emotions. For instance, Aston, faced with
Davies’s bravado, avoids direct engagement by tinkering with tools, hinting that verbal communication
may not accurately convey true feelings. In a humorous yet significant moment, the characters interact
nonverbally when Mick plays keep away with Davies’s bag, highlighting their frustration with each other
beyond the confines of language. Overall, “The Caretaker” suggests that actions often speak more
truthfully than words in expressing thoughts and emotions. In the Act 2, “DAVIES. I was saying, he’s ...
he’s a bit of a funny bloke, your brother. (Mick stares at him.). MICK. Funny? Why? DAVIES. Well ...
he’s funny...., ........... MICK. (Crosses to Davies.) I don’t call it funny.
DAVIES. Nor Me. In this excerpt from “The Caretaker,” the dialogue between Davies and Mick highlights
the limitations of language as they struggle to articulate and communicate effectively. Davies describes
Mick’s brother as “funny,” but when pressed for clarification, both characters fail to express the
subtleties of the brother’s behavior. This underscores the challenges of conveying complex emotions
and ideas through language, emphasizing the theme of the limitations of verbal communication.
Absurdism in Caretaker: The Caretaker reflects elements commonly found in the Theater chooses
solidarity with Mick over the destructive alienation represented in Davies’s character. With this shift, the
play presents a complex and even contradictory view of family: familial relationships can reflect and
perpetuate the alienation of the modern world, but they can also give otherwise isolated and vulnerable
people a sense of support, strength, and meaningful connection.