Works Cited

Denison, Patricia D. John Osborne: A Casebook. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997. Print.

Hayman, Ronald. John Osborne. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1972. Print.

Heilpern, John. John Osborne: The Many Lives of the Angry Young Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. Print.

Hinchliffe, Arnold P. John Osborne. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984. Print

Marowitz, Charles. "The Ascension of John Osborne." The Tulane Drama Review 7.2 (Winter 1962): 175-179. The MIT Press. Web.

Osborne, John. Look Back in Anger. London: Faber and Faber, 1996. Web. 

Penner, James L. Reviewed Work: 1956 and All That: The Making of Modern British Drama by Dan Rebellato. The John Hopkins University Press 52.3 (2000): 442-443. Web. 

The Ascension of John Osborne by Charles Marowitz

In 1962 Charles Marowitz wrote a piece commenting on Osborne's Luther that was less of a review and more of a reflection on how this specific play fits in to the cannon of his earlier works. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, many people saw Luther as a turning point in the style of Osborne's writing but in this piece Marowitz argues against this seemingly prevailing opinion. The article draws on the common theme of bitterness in almost all of Osborne's plays and who the theme is still carried through into Luther. He also looks at the representation of religion of godly figures in previous works by Osborne, arguing once again that this is not a new style of works for the great English playwright. Here's the link so you can read it yourself:

The Acension of John Osborne (by Charles Marowitz)

because hey,

.

John Osborne: Why should we give a f*ck?

England has been the stomping grounds for prolific and acclaimed playwrights since the era of Shakespeare and Marlowe to Noel Coward to Harold Pinter and Caryl Churchill. You might describe the members listed in the last sentence as 'playwrights from England' but you'd have to describe John Osborne as a 'playwright who was England'. His passionate patriotism was sometimes supportive, saying "I am, absolutely besotted with this country and always have been." However he was also well known for being outspoken in his disapproval of certain issues facing the British Empire. He once wrote an open letter that was printed in almost every major paper in the country that ended in "Damn you, England. My hate will outrun you yet. I wish it could be eternal." This cultural icon was so obsessed with his homeland that he could condemn it out of a place of selfish love that many don't even feel for themselves or their families. 

The way Osborne saw himself is also an important tool that can be utilized to place him in a cultural, national or generational context. His interactions with managers and directors of London theaters left an impression of vanity in Osborne's wake. Whether he was comparing himself to past greats, specifically Noel Coward, Samuel Beckett, Arthur Miller and Harold Pinter, or claiming he needed no assistance in making history (as he had already done it), John Osborne was a polarizing individual. Arnold Wesker, playwright, Englishman, friend and contemporary of Osborne, perhaps best described John's relationship with England and her citizens when he said: 

"Some artists are either loved or hated, others inspire a love-to-hate them. Pure or mixed emotions. Most relationships are like that. John inspired those who loved to hate him. I suspect his mischievous side enjoyed, perhaps cultivated, their loathing. As a result he was a high-flying rare bird everyone wanted to shoot down."

What then can we take away from a person like John Osborne? His great zeal for his line of work, himself and most importantly his country. You don't have to be passionate about these things specifically but be selfishly passionate about the things you care about. There is something to be said about having tunnel vision when it comes to achieving your goals. John never let anyone keep him down or away from the things he loved. Look back not necessarily in anger but with the same fervor that it implies. 

"Haters are gonna hate." - John Osborne*
*there is not necesaaaaaaaarily any evidence that John Osborne ever actually said this*

A little help from my friends: adaptations and collaborations

When he first started writing plays, Osborne sought help from those more knowledgeable on the subject than himself and ended up collaborating with two different authors on a total of three separate works. His first two plays produced were The Devil Inside Him, produced in 1950 co-written with Stella Linden, and Personal Enemy, produced in 1955 co-written with Anthony Creighton. The latter is arguably the more interesting or important of the two because later Osborne would collaborate on a third work: Epitaph for George Dillon, co-written again with Anthony Creighton. 

He was also clearly interested in the works of the famous authors that came before him as he adapted the works of several influential playwrights for both the stage and screen. In 1966 he started by adapting one of Lope de Vega's works La fianza satisfecha into his own creation titled A Bond Honored. He then went on to adapt Ibsen's Hedda Gabler (1972), Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray (1975) and Strindberg's The Father (1989). He also adapted Shakespeare's Coriolanus into his own work titled A Place Calling Itself Rome in 1973, but it was never produced. 

A Fond Remembrance: LOOK BACK IN ANGER and its effect on English theatre

Osborne's masterwork Look Back in Anger is a difficult yet interesting beast to analyze because it is remembered in different ways. It is often hailed as the savior of English theatre: a departure from the mundane conventional plays that the dreary English public had grown accustomed to. This sort of sentiment has carried through to today when Osborne is hailed as as the quintessentially English 20th century playwright. Look Back in Anger was the catalyst for this movement looking to create theatre that was undeniably created in England. Many citizens of the British Empire related to this movement and Osborne's first solo work (which they had taken as their flag) because it exhibited their love of country, culture and style while reflecting their dissatisfaction with the state of their homeland under its current system of government. The antithetical personality of Jimmy Porter personifies mixed feelings of the English public.

This is a double edged sword however, and many find Osborne's first work to be nothing more than a trite re-hash of commonplace cynicism. Dan Rebellato parodies the nostalgic reminiscence of theatre scholars and critics alike in his book 1956 and All That: The Making of Modern British Drama: 

"By 1956, British theatre was in a terrible state. The West End was dominated by a few philistine theatre managers, cranking out emotionally repressed, middle-class play, all set in drawing rooms with French windows, as vehicles for stars whose only talent was to wield a cigarette holder and a cocktail glass while wearing a dinner jacket... Then on 8 May 1956, came the breakthrough. At the Royal Court, Look Back in Anger, John Osborne's fiery blast against the theatre establishment burst onto the stage, radicalizing British theatre overnight.... A new wave of dramatists sprang up in Osborne's wake; planting their colours on British stages, speaking for a generation who had for so long been silent, they forged a living, adult, vital theatre." [1-2] 

 To put this into historical perspective with what we have been talking about in class think about the following artists and their works that we have discussed in class:

Osborne (right) during the premieres of Look Back in Anger

• 1948- Bertolt Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle first opened in Philadelphia 
• 1950- first performance of Eugene Ionesco's The Bald Soprano in Paris, France.
• 1953- Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot opens in France, comes to England by 1955.
• 1956- Eugene O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night premiered in America.
• 1959- Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun premieres.

John Osborne's THE ENTERTAINER

This video is an interview with John Osborne in 1957 after the opening of his play The Entertainer. The woman interviewing him asks him about his feelings towards the portrayal of the Archie Rice (the main character) by Sir Laurence Olivier. Interestingly enough you can hear her ask about whether he considers this an "angry play", no doubt referring to his first successful play Look Back in Anger.

(the interview starts about :30 seconds in)

Also included in this blog post is a review from a London periodical named "The Spectator" printed on April 19, 1957. Reviewer David Watt says that while "entertaining... as a play it is a brilliant disappointment." His chief complaint being that Osborne does not seem to have moved on from his first success found in Look Back in Anger. He touches on this in some of his final thoughts saying, "Mr. Osborne is in two difficulties: first, to decide whose ears he is really aiming at, and, second, to try with his trail of phosphorescent paint, his dialogue, to picture human beings without anger."

Ouch.

*click here for: David Watt's Review of THE ENTERTAINER *

LOOK BACK IN ANGER: A not-so-brief synopsis

Next May John Osborne's modern English classic Look Back in Anger will turn 60. The play premiered on May 8, 1956 at the Royal Court Theatre under the direction of Tony Richardson. The role of Alison Porter was played by actress Mary Ure (this was just before Osborne divorced his first wife and married Ure, see earlier blog posts for more info). This was Osborne's first solo venture into the realm of playwright and quite arguably his most acclaimed.

The play opens with Jimmy Porter, his wife Alison and his childhood friend Cliff onstage in their attic apartment. Alison irons a pile of clothes while the two men read newspapers in their armchairs. It is clear from the start of the play that Jimmy is condescending and verbally abusive to both his wife and his good friend. They talk about the current state of the British government, something that Jimmy loves to talk about especially because it makes him angry. The conversation switches to Alison's family who Jimmy despises (with the exception of her brother Nigel). The banter escalates and the two men end up rough-housing but Jimmy knocks Cliff into Alison who falls into the iron and is burned. Cliff shows much more tenderness and affection towards her in this situation than her husband does, something that Jimmy seems to ignore. After apologizing for his actions Jimmy leaves the two alone in the room electing instead to play his trumpet loudly in his room (something he does often throughout the play). While alone, Alison confides in Cliff that she is pregnant. Cliff leaves to purchase cigarettes but returns to tell Alison that she has a call downstairs. Jimmy returns to the living room to talk with Cliff but they are interrupted when Alison returns to tell them that her friend Helena is coming to stay with them. Jimmy is angered by this news as he hates Helena and rages at his wife as she cowers by the stove and the curtain comes down on Act I.

Act II begins and two weeks have passed. Helena is now staying with them and she and Alison prepare dinner alone on stage. They talk about Alison’s relationship with Jimmy as well as her ambiguous relationship with Cliff. Alison tells the story of her first months married to Jimmy. After their marriage her mother and father cut her off completely from her inheritance (they didn’t approve of Jimmy) leaving the newlyweds destitute forcing them to stay with Jimmy’s friend Hugh. Helena interrupts Alison to encourage her to either leave Jimmy or admit to him that she is pregnant. Jimmy enters with Cliff and begins to rant (as usual). Helena and Alison prepare to leave for church, something that shocks Jimmy. He gets into an enormous argument with Helena that ends with him leaving to accept a phone call. It is about Hugh’s mother who is on her deathbed after suffering a stroke. Alison is forced to choose between going with Helena to church or with Jimmy to visit Hugh’s mother. She chooses Helena. Several days later Alison’s father comes and helps her pack and leave. Alison leaves a letter with Cliff to give to Jimmy. Cliff, angry at the whole situation, explodes at Helena and leaves her with the letter. Jimmy enters suddenly and angrily having been at Hugh’s mother’s funeral and on his way back ran into Alison and her father as they left. Angry with everyone and everything he confronts Helena challenging her to hit him. She finally does, then passionately kisses him. End of Act II.

The third act starts just like the first but now Helena has taken the place of Alison. Jimmy talks of a variety show that he wants to take on the road with the other two. They rehearse part of their act until Jimmy gets cross and ends it. Helena exits to iron a shirt and Cliff tells Jimmy that he is thinking about leaving and starting a new life somewhere else. Upon Helena’s reentrance Jimmy tells them both to get ready and they will go out for drinks. There is a knock on the door, Jimmy opens it to find Alison. In the next scene the two women speak alone in the kitchen and Helena reveals that she is leaving Jimmy. Alison begs her not to because then Jimmy will be totally alone. Upon Jimmy’s reentrance Helena breaks the news to him and then leaves. He angrily rages at Alison and she tells him in tears that she lost the baby and finally she understands the pain he feels. He comforts her and they embrace as the curtain falls. 

Critical Responses to John Osborne's LUTHER

There are many different reviews of John Osborne's play Luther including one by theatre critic Charles Marowitz and one by theatre scholar David Graver. In Marowitz's review he concentrates on how Luther relates to Osborne's other plays, specifically Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer and The World of Paul Slickey. He focuses on the idea that this is not a departure, as he calls it, or a work outside the realm of Osborne's writing styles. He continues to talk about the temperature of the play as being just as hot as his earlier works but that the heat comes from a different place (the early place sought social justice while Luther speaks from bitterness and difference of opinion). He also compares the way the piece uses tableaus and images through the play to the work of Brecht.

Graver also compares Luther to the work of Brecht and his ideas of epic theatre but claims that if we make that comparison then we must also declare the play a failure (based on the ideals of Brechtian dramaturgy). This mostly comes from the lack of historical representation of the play's main character, Martin Luther. In addition to the misreporting of facts, Graver also accuses Osborne of selling the titular character short by not highlighting his "intellectual powers". He goes on to say that this puts increasingly problematic limitations on his protagonist.   

A Subject of Scandal and Concern: The Case of Colin Shaw

In August of 1961 John Osborne's second wife, actress Mary Ure Osborne, gave birth to his son Colin Murray Osborne. At the time the married couple were in the middle of increasingly hostile divorce proceedings and through these proceedings it was revealed that there was more good chance that John Osborne was not the father of Colin. He seemed to believe that the real father was actor Robert Shaw. Theses beliefs seemed to be validated when Ure married Shaw almost immediately after the divorce was finalized (and then Shaw adopted Colin). Even though signs point to Osborne doubting the paternity of his son, he acted as the boy's father throughout the divorce process up until the adoption. Many people believe the reason for this was that Osborne wanted to get through the divorce proceedings as quickly as possible and then marry his third wife, Penelope Gilliatt. After Shaw died at the young age of 55 of a heart attack, rumor has it that Osborne's wife at the time (his fifth) suggested he finally meet the 17 year old. John quickly turned down this proposal. Oddly enough, if Colin was indeed Shaw's biological son then he ended up adopted his own son.

John Osborne: A Background

In 1929 John James Osborne was born in Fulham, London to a commercial artist and barmaid. When he was only 11 his father died and then he was sent to boarding school (he was later expelled for getting into a physical confrontation with a teacher). By this time World War II was over and he had dodged serving in the military. His first jobs out of school were as a journalist at several different trade magazines. At the age of 19 he acted for the first time and only a year later collaborated on his first play. In 1956 his masterpiece Look Back in Anger was performed for the first time at the Royal Court Theatre. After the success of this work the Evening Standard named Osborne the most promising playwright of the year. He then became exceedingly prolific by today's standards, churning out: The Entertainer (1957), Epitaph for George Dillon (1958), The World of Paul Slickey (1959), A Subject of Scandal and Concern (1960), Luther (1961) and Plays for England: The Blood of the Bambergs (1962). He wrote more plays as well but not one a year like he did over this six year period. The influence of German playwright and theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht is evident in his work, especially in his sixth play Luther. In addition to plays for the stage, he wrote several scripts for special presentations on the BBC. He also was known for adapting and abridging works by Wilde, Ibsen and Strindberg. 

John Osborne (1929 - 1994)

John Osborne in 1991

Osborne in (circa) 1982

Osborne in 1971

John and his fourth wife Jill Bennett in 1969

  

John Osborne in Chelsea, 1958

Osborne poses for a book cover in 1956

  

A very young John Osborne.