The Caretaker: Act 1, Scene 1 Summary & Analysis

That Aston tinkers with random objects rather than sympathize with Davies shows that he is hesitant—or unable—to communicate with others. It’s unclear whether Aston condones or objects to what Davies is saying, but either way, it seems like Aston doesn’t think words can properly convey what he’s thinking. This begins suggest that language is limited in its ability to express people’s complicated thoughts and emotions, an idea that the play will touch on repeatedly. Davies’s remarks about being “clean” are ironic and humorous, given that he’s both literally unclean (in that he has a disheveled appearance) and morally unclean (in his prejudice toward others and habit of getting into fights). The fact that he berates the men at the café for supposedly having “the manners of pigs” and accuses his former wife of being  unclean again suggests that Davies plays the victim and scapegoats other people in order to feel more powerful. But given that Davies seems downtrodden and alludes to a failed marriage here, this mindset seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Aston seems hesitant to respond to Davies, which might suggest that Davies’s fight didn’t occur quite as Davies is depicting it—for example, it’s possible that Davies instigated the fight with the men, and not the other way around. If this is the case, Aston’s decision not to overtly correct Davies suggests that he wants to avoid confrontation, which could mean that Aston fears unfiltered, candid communication—perhaps because he’s used to people misunderstanding what he says. Davies’s complaints reveal an inferiority complex of sorts: he hates taking orders from people he believes are of a lower social status than him, which could be because he’s insecure about his own status. Aston’s question about whether the man was “a Greek” suggests that categorizing people by their nationality was commonplace in 1950s British society, and that Eastern Europeans (like the “Poles” Davies referred to earlier) and Southern Europeans (like Greeks) were generally looked down upon.

Aston continues to pay more attention to random objects in the room than to Davies, which underscores the extent of his social isolation and shows that he is uneasy about speaking too freely. This again suggests that, at least for Aston, language is limited in its ability to accurately convey thoughts and emotions. Meanwhile, Davies seems determined to appear powerful and in the possession of numerous “rights,” even though his status as a homeless person would suggest that he is lacking in the power that can come with a higher class status. It stands to reason that Davies wants to seem prominent and successful because people in the society of the play judge people’s worth by their class status—otherwise, he probably wouldn’t care about how others perceive him.

With his unnecessary comment about the messy, “draughty” state of Aston’s room, Davies reveals himself to be a rather rude, ungrateful house guest. Perhaps in saying this, Davies is trying to implicitly signal to Aston that he is used to nicer accommodations, though this can’t possibly be the case (at least, not recently), as Davies is a homeless drifter. So, again, Davies is trying to make himself seem more well-off than he actually is in order to feel more powerful. Meanwhile, the reader finally gains insight about Aston: he is “in charge” of the building, though it’s not entirely clear what this means. Aston’s comment, combined with his habit of fiddling with tools, might imply that he is a handyman, or perhaps the titular caretaker. Davies’s rude questions about the building’s other tenants further illustrates his prejudiced attitude toward foreigners and non-white people, groups that he scapegoats in order to feel superior.

Davies’s rant about the monastery continues to characterize him as someone who blames other people for his problems, because doing so gives him a sense of power and superiority despite having no social capital as a homeless person. This mindset allows him to view himself as being wronged, and his shortcomings and failures as a side effect of this rather than the outcome of his own personal failings. Davies’s tendency to become distracted and change the subject in the middle of telling a story is characteristic of the dialogue in the play: it’s disjointed, unproductive, wryly comical. These qualities speak to a larger problem of language’s shortcomings and people’s helplessness to transcend their alienation from others. Rather than be grateful to Aston for providing him with the shoes he desperately needs, Davies criticizes the shoes, claiming that they don’t fit. He seems to want to convince the world that he has discerning taste in clothing, but rejecting the shoes means that he will have to continue wearing his impractical sandals. In this sense, his desire to appear well-off takes priority over the actual steps he could take to improve his life—an absurd, self-defeating mindset. 

Davies’s recollection about telling the monk to “piss off” and about the monastery’s subpar meals is darkly humorous and further characterizes Davies as a perpetually ungrateful, self-defeating, self-aggrandizing character. His disparaging comments about the “Irish hooligan” is more evidence of his prejudiced attitude toward outsiders, as well as a look into attitudes that would have been prevalent when the play is set (the late 1950s in England). The Irish constituted the largest immigrant group during the massive wave of immigrant that happened after World War II, and there was a lot of anti-Irish sentiment in England during this time.

Davies fixates on the inadequacy of the various pairs of shoes he is offered because (consciously or unconsciously) he believes these external objects—not his own willingness to work or engage with the world—are what determine his successes in life. His attitude makes the idea that people can control the course of their lives seem meaningless. It’s almost as though life has dealt Davies such an unfortunate hand that he externalizes his problems onto objects (or other people) in an effort to gain some semblance of control over his otherwise uncontrollable life. But given that the play portrays him as such an unlikeable character, it stands to reason that readers aren’t necessarily supposed to sympathize with his views. Instead, they’re meant to see the absurdity of his self-defeating mindset—but also the absurdity of modern society’s tendency to value people based on their class status. These conditions make social acceptance seem impossible for homeless people like Davies and, in turn, reinforce the sort of pessimistic attitude he has.

Just as Davies thinks that a good pair of shoes will be what decide his life’s successes and failures, he uses the weather to determine his future plans. Again, he allows outside circumstances to dictate his life and to distract from the fact that he is responsible for his own choices. Moreover, Davies’s vague response to Aston’s inquiry about his plans implies that he doesn’t actually have plans, which further characterizes him as aimless and pessimistic about his ability to change the course of his life. Given Davies’s ungrateful, entitled attitude, it’s possible that he’ll try to take advantage of Aston’s hospitality for as long as he can.  

The apartment’s state of disrepair could have economic implications—perhaps Aston can’t afford to fix or discard broken objects. But his unwillingness to let go of things that no longer serve a purpose might also symbolically represent Aston’s unwillingness or inability to let go of the past. His admission about the shed and being handy provides some insight about his habit of tinkering with various tools, as it seems like building things (or at least the idea of building things) gives Aston a sense of purpose. Like Davies’s vague intentions, though, Aston’s plans for the shed remain (as of yet) just that: plans. In addition, there’s no evidence that Aston is actually handy, since it doesn’t seem like he’s built anything. In this way, the way the society of the play values productivity seems to have made both Aston and Davies cling to the idea of being useful people rather than actually taking steps to be useful. For both men, who they perceive themselves to be doesn’t match up with who they are in reality.

Aston’s remarks about the Buddha statue are oddly vague and superficial—he doesn’t mention anything about the statue having personal or spiritual value for him, only that he thinks it “look[s] quite nice.” Such observations might extend to any number of other objects in Aston’s space, as well, they all seem random,  unrelated to one another, and largely useless—as though he hoards things for the sake of hoarding them. And, notably, Aston doesn’t seem to live with anyone or even to be able to communicate effectively, which suggests that he grows attached to these objects in lieu of growing attached to other people. Post-WWII Britain (where the story is set) saw a major boom in consumerism after the war, and the play seems to be implying that the sort of blind consumption Aston engages in is a way of distracting from emotional or spiritual emptiness. In other words, like Davies, Aston seems to fixate on external objects instead of directing his attention toward deeper, internal concerns.

Aston continues to be overly generous to Davies, a completely stranger, and Davies, in turn, continues to be wholly ungrateful to Aston. This begins to pessimistically suggest that even people like Davies, who have nothing to their name and little hope of improving their lives, can be fundamentally self-interested and unreceptive to other people’s efforts to connect with or help them.

Sidcup is an area in southeast of London, whereas (according to the stage notes) Aston’s building is in west London. Davies’s admission about using a false name lends another element of nefariousness to his character: besides being rude and ungrateful, he is clearly deceptive, going to great lengths to conceal his true identity. This, combined with Aston’s unfaltering generosity, seems like a bad mix, as Davies is clearly taking advantage of his host’s good will. The fact that Davies goes by a false name could suggest that he isn’t actually English (he could be Welsh or another nationality). If he isn’t, his vitriol toward supposed outsiders would be particularly cruel and hypocritical, given that he is something of an outsider himself. His hyper-focus on nationality and race thus far (as well as his possible willingness to lie about his identity) hints that British society was judgmental of outsiders at this time, and that Davies is afraid of being regarded as an outsider.

Davies is being very particular for someone who is completely indebted to others, upending the adage that “beggars can’t be choosers.” He seems determined to convince Aston that he’s used to a higher standard of living, in an effort to conceal his poverty—yet, ironically, this only reinforces his poverty because his pickiness makes him less likely to receive the help he needs. Aston continues to fiddle with the wooden plank, though he doesn’t appear to be making any progress. In fact, it’s unclear if Aston ever makes progress on any of his projects, particularly in light of the fact that he’s resorted to a temporary solution (hanging a bucket to catch the water) rather than solving the root cause of the problem (fixing the leaky roof). Like Davies, who puts off going to Sidcup, Aston also seems to avoid his responsibilities. With the bucket, then, the play is pointing to the absurdity and futility of approaching life in this manner, as avoiding one’s problems will inevitably fail, just as the bucket will eventually overflow. Still, the frequency with which Aston tinkers with tools is evidence that he’s anxious about not being productive, which implies his desire to be seen as a functioning, worthy member of society. Again, this suggests that while avoiding one’s problems and lying to oneself is self-destructive, it’s also perhaps a natural mode of being for people who are unable to meet the standards society imposes on them.