Is considered one of the most important plays in the modern British theater. It was the first well-known example of 'Kitchen Sink drama,' a style of theater that explored the emotion and drama beneath the surface of ordinary domestic life., the play's main character, became the model for the 'Angry Young Man,' a nickname given to an entire generation of artists and working class young men in post-World War II British society. Osborne wrote the play in only a few weeks in May of 1955. The play was first rejected by many of the agents and theater companies that Osborne approached about producing it. George Divine, the creative producer for the struggling Royal Court Theater, decided to gamble on the play and staged its first production. The play opened on May 8, 1956.
It received mixed reviews from English theater critics, yet it won a rave review from the Times. This established the play's notoriety and helped it eventually build an audience. The two iconic motifs of the play are the aforementioned concepts of the Angry Young Man and the Kitchen Sink drama. The Angry Young Man motif came to be associated with a group of young writers and artists - and Kingsley Amis being foremost amongst them - that the cultural public believed to personify an anger, boredom, and frustration with British cultural life that many working class families felt during this time. The idea of the Kitchen Sink drama was also a revelation for British theater.
The stylings of most British theater before Look Back in Anger favored Victorian dramas and comedies or stagings of classical plays. In a general sense, the Victorian plays dealt mostly with polite themes from the late 19th and early 20th century upper ruling class. In contrast, Osborne's play depicted the raw emotions and living conditions of the working class. This style of theater was given the name 'Kitchen Sink' because of its focus on the interior domestic and emotional lives of ordinary people.
In the case of Look Back in Anger, the kitchen is literally a part of the set. The cultural backdrop to the play is the rise and fall of the British empire. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the peak of power and influence of British colonialism. By the 1950's, two World Wars, which devastated the British economy, and the rise of the United States as the new world military and political power meant that the British empire had entered a steep decline. Jimmy Porter is representative of an entire culture that remained nostalgic for this past glory. He idealizes the worthy causes of the past even while he mocks those who cannot understand why the times have changed as much as they have.
Look Back in Anger is a play that appeared in a time of crucial transition from Britain's Victorian past into the modern twentieth century. Jimmy's rage and anger is his expression of pent-up emotion and his need for life in a world that has become listless and uninteresting. That anger became a symbol of the rebellion against the political and social malaise of British culture. His anger is destructive to those around him and the psychological violence of the play received a great deal of criticism. Critics today agree, however, that the play is central to an understanding of British life in the twentieth century and, thus, a crucial piece of literature in the British canon. How To Cite in MLA Format Davis, Lane.
Chazelle, Damien ed. 'Look Back in Anger Study Guide'. GradeSaver, 30 June 2010 Web.
On May 8, 1956, Look Back in Anger opened at the Royal Court Theatre as the third production of the newly formed English Stage Company. The English Stage Company had been founded in 1955 to promote the production of new plays by contemporary authors that might not find production in the commercial West End theatre (London's equivalent of Broadway in New York City). West End theatre provided quality acting and high standards of production, but very little drama that related to life m contemporary England. Most plays of the time were generally innocuous light comedies, thrillers, and foreign importsfourteen American shows in 1955 alone. Osborne had submitted copies of Look Back in Anger to every agent in London and to many West End producers and had been rejected by all. When the script arrived at the Royal Court, the Artistic Director George Devine and his young assistant director Tony Richardson knew it was exactly what they were looking for. Look Back in Anger was viewed as a play that would, as Devine later put it, 'blow a hole in the old theatre.'
Critical reception was strongly mixed: some detested the play and the central character, but most recognized Osborne as an important new talent and the play as emotionally powerful. They also recognized the play as one that fervently spoke of the concerns of the young in post-war England. Although the first production of Look Back in Anger was not initially financially successful, after an excerpt was shown on BBC the box office was overwhelmed. Osbome was publicized as the 'Angry Young Man' and the success of Look Back in Anger opened the doors to other young writers who dealt with contemporary problems. This section contains 282 words (approx. 1 page at 400 words per page).
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 h 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. 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. 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 co 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. 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. 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 des 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. I know that this is an important play in British theater history, and seen within the context of the times, I'm sure it must have seemed pretty radical when it first came out. Overall I've enjoyed reading it, but have enjoyed it much less in performance. The play suffers greatly from being so completely of it's time. When it's staged now, I feel it is more of a history lesson than an active meaningful experience. Reading it, it feels right in it's own age and context.
Live, it lacks the feeling I know that this is an important play in British theater history, and seen within the context of the times, I'm sure it must have seemed pretty radical when it first came out. Overall I've enjoyed reading it, but have enjoyed it much less in performance. The play suffers greatly from being so completely of it's time. When it's staged now, I feel it is more of a history lesson than an active meaningful experience. Reading it, it feels right in it's own age and context.
Live, it lacks the feeling of connection to the material that one feels when one is confronted with living, breathing truth. Of course, I'm a modern woman and the writer is a man of his times, (even more than some) so the female characters in the play act in ways which could only happen in years past. I've seen several wonderful actresses take on the play, and mostly they seem to be either making excuses for their behavior, or trying to fill in the enormous gaps in the character's motivation. I find this distances me from the material even more.
Keith Peacock
Still, worth a read. I've decided to start reading plays. A) they are generally short. I like short b) they get to the point.
I love getting to the point c) no awful descriptions or indulgent purple prose. I do quite like that kind of thing, but it can so kill a book, so why bother. Gawd, i'm becoming such a pragmatist, it's awful. ANYWAY, am enjoying this muchly in a stomach churning way. Jimmy has to be one of the most loathesome, confused and anger inducing leads of all time. My jaw literally clenches when I thin I've decided to start reading plays.
A) they are generally short. I like short b) they get to the point.
I love getting to the point c) no awful descriptions or indulgent purple prose. I do quite like that kind of thing, but it can so kill a book, so why bother. Gawd, i'm becoming such a pragmatist, it's awful. ANYWAY, am enjoying this muchly in a stomach churning way. Jimmy has to be one of the most loathesome, confused and anger inducing leads of all time. My jaw literally clenches when I think about him.
I picked it because I was really intrigued by the title and felt bad for not having any idea what it was about. Well, it's about anger about your childhood, anger about other people's inability to feel or live in a way you endorse, and being trapped. So much about being trapped, you feel really trapped yourself when you read it. Anyway, am half way through so will report back. John James Osborne was an English playwright, screenwriter, actor and critic of The Establishment. The stunning success of his 1956 play Look Back in Anger transformed English theatre.
In a productive life of more than 40 years, Osborne explored many themes and genres, writing for stage, film and TV. His personal life was extravagant and iconoclastic. He was notorious for the ornate violence of hi John James Osborne was an English playwright, screenwriter, actor and critic of The Establishment. The stunning success of his 1956 play Look Back in Anger transformed English theatre. In a productive life of more than 40 years, Osborne explored many themes and genres, writing for stage, film and TV. His personal life was extravagant and iconoclastic.
He was notorious for the ornate violence of his language, not only on behalf of the political causes he supported but also against his own family, including his wives and children though they often gave as good as they got. He came onto the theatrical scene at a time when British acting was enjoying a golden age, but most great plays came from the United States and France. British plays remained blind to the complexities of the postwar period. Osborne was one of the first writers to address Britain's purpose in the post-imperial age. He was the first to question the point of the monarchy on a prominent public stage. During his peak (1956-1966), he helped make contempt an acceptable and now even cliched onstage emotion, argued for the cleansing wisdom of bad behaviour and bad taste, and combined unsparing truthfulness with devastating wit.
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.' John Osborne was born on December 12, 1929 in London, England.
He was educated at Belmont College, Devon but was expelled after attacking the headmaster. He became involved in theatre, as a stage manager and then as an actor.
He started writing plays and two of them, The Devil Inside Her and Personal Enemy, were staged in regional theatres before he submitted Look Back in Anger to the newly formed English Stage Company at London's Royal Court Theatre. The company chose the play as the third production to enter repertory.
The play became a commercial success, transferring to the West End and to Broadway, and was later filmed with Richard Burton in the leading role. His other plays included The Entertainer, Luther, Inadmissible Evidence, A Patriot for Me, A Hotel in Amsterdam, A Sense of Detachment, and Deja Vu. He also wrote a number of screenplays, mainly adaptations of his own works. He won an Oscar for his 1963 adaptation of Tom Jones. He acted in a few films including Get Carter, Tomorrow Never Comes, and Flash Gordon. He also wrote two autobiographies entitled A Better Class of Person and Almost a Gentleman. He died from complications brought on from his diabetes on December 24, 1994 at the age of 65.
Downloading our eFax Messenger® software is fast and easy. Free with your eFax Plus® or eFax Pro™ account, eFax Messenger allows you to view, sign, create and save your faxes from any computer. Quick Tip: If you haven't already, sign up for an eFax Plus or eFax Pro account. Signing up is fast & easy and is required. Efax download software free install.