Page 1 of 12

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 03

March 2019

Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 854

The Emotional State of Anger in John Osborne’s Play, Look Back in Anger

Rajkumar

Research Scholar

Singhania University, Pacheri, Jhunhjunu

Abstract: One universally accepted tenet of modern drama criticism is that on May 8, 1956, the

most significant event in Post World War II British drama took place: in its flood tide a decadent,

atrophied British theater was reborn. The event was the first performance of John Osborne’s

Look Back in Anger, and the rest is legend. In Anger and After, John Russell Taylor carefully

documents the event: the play’s partial success at its opening, its subsequent critical and

commercial success, the role of the Royal Court Theater Company in fostering it, and the

popular and artistic reactions which met it.

Key words: British Drama, Reborn, Royal Court Theater Company

Introduction: It is paradoxical that the characterization of Jimmy Porter, Osborne’s first

protagonist, is the main reason viewers and critics determine that the playwright’s main thrust is

social protest. Evidently they do not progress beyond the obvious invective to its underlying

causes within the man, and it is in the causes that Osborne’s commitment to a vision much larger

and more universal than social protest becomes apparent. Jimmy Porter is often described as a

“young pup” mouthing Osborne’s social views. The fallacy of equating the speaker of a poem

with the poet has been amply demonstrated by Cleaneth Brooks in Understanding Poetry: by

analogy, there is also a danger in equating the protagonist with the playwright. It is Porter’s

Page 2 of 12

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 03

March 2019

Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 855

diatribes that cause John Mander to dismiss Osborne as a noncommittal playwright. This

dismissal is based primarily on a stage direction given at the beginning of the play for the benefit

of the actor and director: “To be as vehement as he is to be almost noncommittal.” Viewing

Porter as the “mouthpiece” for Osborne, Mander then deduces that Osborne too is noncommittal.

It must be observed, of course, that the crucial phrase actually is “almost noncommittal.” Also,

the stage direction appears at the beginning of the play, and a change in the character may be

anticipated before the end of the drama. More importantly, the direction does not occur within

the body of the play itself. Osborne may or may not be stating an intended interpretation of his

protagonist, but even if he is, the character of Jimmy Porter must be considered as he emerges in

the total context of the play rather than from stage directions alone.

According to the introductory stage directions, Jimmy Porter is “a disconcerting mixture of

sincerity and cheerful malice, of tenderness and free booting cruelty; restless, importunate, full of

pride, a combination which alienates the sensitive and insensitive alike”. True, Porter is as

Osborne initially delineates him and this is the sole interpretation many reviewers have given

him. But, Jimmy’s major trait, his vitriolic anger conspicuously absent from the stage directions,

and it is in exploring Jimmy’s anger, its causes and effects, its scope and implications, within the

context of the play that his character is ultimately revealed. The first quality of Jimmy’s anger

which strikes the viewer is its range, encompassing everything and everyone around him. But, in

looking closely at the targets of Jimmy’s invective, it becomes apparent that it is the absence of

important and real values in his world which he and the audience perceive through his isolation,

Page 3 of 12

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 03

March 2019

Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 856

alienation, and inability to communicate that inspires his wrath and emerges as the cause of his

social protest and seeming lack of commitment. Through these three motifs Porter’s anger with

his public and private worlds acidly etches the moral crisis he so deeply feels.

At first glance it appears that social protest is the force behind Jimmy’s anger since, in the

opening scene, he lashes out at a large social spectrum from domesticity to bishops. But,

gradually these outbursts take on a pattern and center around the value system represented in this

scene by “The Establishment” newspapers. As Porter reads the “posh” papers, his ire steadily

mounts; unable, or unwilling, to contain himself, he reads bits of news aloud to Alison and Cliff.

Did you read about the woman who went to the mass meeting of a certain Amercan evangelist at

Earl’s court? She went forward, to declare herself for love or whatever it is, and, in the rush of

converts to get to the front, she broke four ribs and got kicked in the head. She was yelling her

head off in agony, but with 50,000 people putting all they’d got into “Onward Christian

Soldiers,” nobody even knew she was there .....

The irony of his commentary signals the source of his irritation: the cruelty and stupidity of a

world where a woman can be trampled in blind religious fervor. Within the pattern of this protest

the real target of his anger is clear. It is not the social evil of organized religion but the moral evil

construed in “nobody even knew she was there.” It is in the pinpointing of the reason for his

anger that Jimmy reveals himself as a moral protestor rather than a social protestor per se. this