Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:56:21.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Osborne and the Myth of Anger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Aleks Sierz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

John Osborne's Look Back in Anger is one of a handful of plays which have attained iconic status, becoming a symbolic work which means much more than the message of the play. Aleks Sierz examines Look Back in Anger not as a literary text or performance event but as a myth factory. After showing how the anger at the centre of the play depends on non-verbal signs such as emotionality, he goes on to show how John Osborne and his anti-hero Jimmy Porter became fused in the public mind into a symbolic figure, the Angry Young Man – a crucial ingredient in making Look Back in Anger part of a narrative of cultural revolution, in which a play mainly concerned with a problematic love affair turns into a political statement. He then questions the prevailing assumption, common in radical drama, that culture can be revolutionary, and asks whether radicalism in culture is a substitute for political radicalism. Aleks Sierz is theatre critic for Tribune.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Theatre Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 46 , May 1996 , pp. 136 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1. Donegan, Lawrence, The Guardian, 27 12 1994, p. 1Google Scholar.

2. Trussler, Simon, The Plays of John Osborne: an Assessment (Gollancz, 1969), p. 40Google Scholar.

3. Ritchie, Harry, Success Stories: Literature and the Media in England 1950–59 (Faber, 1988), p. 207–8, 205, 211, see also p. 31–2Google Scholar.

4. Allsop, Kenneth makes a similar point: ‘It would have been surprising if such an obvious grouping of ordinary words had not been used before 8 May 1956’. See The Angry Decade: a Survey of the Cultural Revolt of the 1950s (Peter Owen, 1958), p. 11Google Scholar. For the play's title page see Osborne, John, Almost a Gentleman: an Auto-biography, Vol. II, 1955–66 (Faber, 1991), Illustration 2Google Scholar.

5. Hewison, Robert, In Anger: Culture in the Cold War (Methuen, 1988), p. 151Google Scholar, 148, xv–xvi. The 1950s were a good time for mythographers: Claude Lévi-Strauss's essay on ‘The Structural Study of Myth’ was published in 1955 and Barthes's, RolandMythologies in 1956Google Scholar.

6. Taylor, John Russell, Anger and After: a Guide to the New British Drama (Eyre Methuen, 1969), p. 9Google Scholar, 14, 17, 28, 33; Ritchie, Success Stories, p. 126; Osborne, Almost a Gentleman, p. 20.

7. Harewood, quoted in Wardle, Irving, The Theatres of George Devine (Eyre Methuen, 1978), p. 180Google Scholar; Tynan, Kenneth, A View of the English Stage 1944–65 (Methuen, 1975); p. 178Google Scholar; Osborne, quoted in Banham, Martin, Osborne (Oliver and Boyd, 1969), p. 8Google Scholar.

8. Kitchin, Laurence, Mid-Century Drama (Faber, 1962), p. 30Google Scholar; Evans, Gareth Lloyd, The Language of Modern Drama (Dent, 1977), p. 106–7Google Scholar; Nuttall, Jeff, Bomb Culture (Paladin, 1970), p. 43Google Scholar.

9. Hayman, Ronald, British Theatre since 1955: a Reassessment (Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 10Google Scholar; Osborne, John, ‘Some Call It Cricket’, in Maschler, Tom, ed., Declaration (MacGibbon and Kee), 1957), p. 65Google Scholar; Kitchin, Mid-Century Drama, p. 101; Allsop, Angry Decade, p. 111.

10. Salgãdo, Gãmini, English Drama: a Critical Introduction (Edward Arnold, 1980), p. 193Google Scholar; Elsom, John, Post-War British Theatre (Routledge, 1979), p. 74, 80Google Scholar.

11. Quoted in Taylor, John Russell, ed., John Osborne, ‘Look Back in Anger’: a Casebook (Macmillan, 1968), p. 186Google Scholar, 47, 169–70, 174.

12. Bull, John, Stage Right: Crisis and Recovery in British Contemporary Mainstream Theatre (Macmillan, 1994), p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Tynan, View, p. 178, 199, 271.

14. Innes, Christopher, Modern British Drama 1890–1990 (Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 103Google Scholar.

15. Steiner, in notes to Amis, Kingsley, Lucky Jim: with an Introduction by the Author (Hodder and Stoughton, 1990), p. 225Google Scholar; Maclnnes, Colin, ‘A Taste of Reality’, Encounter, No. 67 (04 1959), p. 66Google Scholar.

16. Burgess, in Amis, Lucky Jim, p. 218; Osborne, in Ritchie, Success Stories, p. 128.

17. Tynan, View, p. 199; Allsop, Angry Decade, p. 8; Anderson, quoted in Kitchin, Mid-Century Drama, p. 176; Hobson, Harold, Theatre in Britain: a Personal View (Phaidon, 1984), p. 188Google Scholar; Booker, Christopher, The Neophiliacs: the Revolution in English Life in the Fifties and Sixties (Pimlico, 1992), p. 43Google Scholar, 80, and passim.

18. Banham, Osborne, p. 1, 10, 104; , Hayman, John Osborne (Heineman, 1969), p. 3Google Scholar; Booker, Neophiliacs, p. 122, 98.

19. Taylor, Anger and After, p. 28.

20. Brinton, Crane, The Anatomy of Revolution (Vintage, 1965, preface 1956), p. 16–20Google Scholar.

21. Tynan, View, p. 271; Hayman, Osborne, p. 1; McCarthy, Mary, Sights and Spectacles 1937–58 (Heinemann, 1959), p. 196Google Scholar.

22. Priestman, Martin, ‘A Critical Stage: Drama in the 1960s’, in Moore-Gilbert, Bart and John, Seed, eds., Cultural Revolution? The Challenge of the Arts in the 1960s (Routledge, 1992), p. 118–20Google Scholar; Tynan, View, p. 252, 255–6.

23. Priestman, ‘Critical Stage’, p. 120.

24. Duncan, in Taylor, Casebook, p. 192; Marowitz, Charles, Confessions of a Counterfeit Critic: a London Theatre Notebook 1958–71 (Eyre Methuen, 1973), p. 45Google Scholar; Marowitz, Charles et al. , eds., The Encore Reader: a Chronicle of the New Drama (Methuen, 1965), p. 39Google Scholar; , Baxter, in the Daily Telegraph, 29 10 1994Google Scholar.

25. Halifax, quoted in Wardle, Devine, p. 185; Granger, quoted in Hewison, In Anger, p. 170; Melly, George, Revolt into Style: the Pop Arts in the Fifties and Sixties (Oxford, 1989), p. 31Google Scholar; Tynan, View, p. 272, and in Maschler, Declaration, p. 128.

26. Nuttall, Bomb Culture, p. 24.

27. Morrison, Blake, The Movement: English Poetry and Fiction of the 1950s (Methuen, 1980), p. 74–5Google Scholar; Hewison, In Anger, p. xi; Wesker, Arnold, As Much As I Dare: an Autobiography 1932–59 (Century, 1994), p. 7Google Scholar.

28. Sinfield, Alan, Literature, Politics, and Culture in Postwar Britain (Blackwell, 1989), p. 81Google Scholar.

29. Allsop, Angry Decade, p. 9; Marquand, quoted in Kenny, Michael, The First New Left: British Intellectuals after Stalin (Lawrence and Wishart, 1995), p. 99Google Scholar.

30. Bergonzi, Bernard, Wartime and Aftermath: English Literature and Its Background 1939–60 (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 153Google Scholar.

31. Lloyd–Evans, Language, p. 108–9; Osborne, John, Déjàvu (Faber, 1991), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

32. Watt, in Encore Reader, p. 59; Allsop, Angry Decade, p. 99; McGrath, John, A Good Night Out: Popular Theatre: Audience, Class, and Form (Methuen, 1981), p. 1–13Google Scholar; , Wesker, in The Big Issue, 30 01–5 02 1995Google Scholar.

33. Internationale Situationniste 1953–69 (Champs Libre, Paris, reprint 1975), p. 5.

34. Sinfield, Alan, ‘Theatre and Its Audiences’, in his Society and Literature 1945–70 (Holmes and Meier, 1983), p. 181Google Scholar; Sinfield, Literature, Politics, and Culture, p. 260, 153, 81; Encore Reader, p. 111.