Previous
Act 1, Scene 2
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in The Caretaker, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Power and Deception
The Absurdity of Modern Society
Alienation and Family
Identity and Authenticity
The Limitations of Language
Summary
Analysis
Only seconds later, Mick remains seated while Davies crouches on the floor. The men stare at each other in silence. Mick orders Davies to tell him his name. Davies complies, though he offers Mick his false name, Jenkins. Mick repeats the name, slowly, before asking Davies if he slept there last night. He then asks Davies to repeat his name, though he appears not to understand or hear Davies. Mick pauses as water drips into the hanging bucket. He tells Davies that Davies reminds him of his uncle’s brother, who is built similarly to Davies, and who was also transient, athletic, and a bit of a ladies’ man.
Mick’s repeated and convoluted inquiries illustrate the breakdown of language’s ability to convey meaning: no matter how many times Davies responds to Mick, Mick refuses to listen or comprehend what Davies has to say. Further, Mick’s unwillingness (or inability) to comprehend Davies renders his own language empty and meaningless: if Mick doesn’t care about what Davies has to say, his questioning of Davies is effectively useless. It seems as though the man Mick refers to as his “uncle’s brother” might be his father. If so, this is a rather indirect, strange way to refer to him, which suggests that he has a distant, strained relationship with the man. And, in turn, this could explain why Mick seems so disconnected from and hostile to other people in the present (such as when he fled the room in Act One, Scene One to avoid Aston and Davies). The ever-present sound of water dripping into the hanging bucket positions all the play’s characters as trapped in a cycle of inaction and malaise, as this haphazard solution underscores the fact that the characters aren’t doing anything meaningful to solve their problems. It also draws attention to the moments of silence in Mick and Davies’s conversation here, as well as many other conversations in the play, which reinforces the difficulty of communicating openly and authentically.
Themes
Mick remembers how his uncle’s brother also carried around a fiddle on his back. He speculates the man might have had “a bit of Red Indian in him.” Mick confesses that he’s often wondered whether “it might be the other way round,” with his uncle actually being his uncle’s brother and vice versa. He recalls that he never called the man his uncle, and that both he and his mother called hm Sid. Mick ends his recollection and asks if Davies slept well.
Mick’s comments here further suggest a distance between him and his father—and between him and his family, more broadly. It also paints human relationships as frail, tenuous, and meaningless, since he doesn’t even seem sure of who his father and his uncle are in relation to him. Mick’s abrupt change of subject is jarring and follows a pattern the reader has seen in the play thus far, of characters dropping subjects with little warning and picking up new topics without having satisfactorily finished the prior conversation. One effect of this is that there is very little character development, with each man bringing a train of thought to an abrupt halt before it can develop into something that would say something authentic or new about him or his relationships with others. Mick’s unpredictability also suggests that he is actively trying to confuse and disarm Davies in order to beat Davies at his own game of deception and manipulation.
Themes
Davies refuses to answer Mick’s question, pointing out that he doesn’t even know who Mick is. Mick ignores this, asking which bed Davies slept in. When Davies gestures toward Aston’s bed, Mick calls Davies “choosy” and asks how he likes “his” room, which confuses Davies. Mick changes the subject, explaining how Davies also reminds him of another man he once knew. Mick goes on a long and strangely detailed tangent about the man’s upbringing in Putney (a detail Mick is fine with, as he knows many people born in Putney), about how the man’s mother lived at “the Angel,” and about how Mick used to park his bike in the woman’s garden while he went to work. Mick ends his story and inquires, again, if Davies slept well.
Mick continues to repeat himself, asking again about Davies’s sleeping arrangements for the previous night. His words become even more empty, meaningless, and absurd, and their unpredictability is further evidence that Mick is trying to disarm and disorient Davies.
Themes
Davies tells Mick that he slept well, though Mick ignores Davies’s answer and repeats the question. Mick continues to repeat himself, and Davies grows more irritated, which leads to Mick, again, calling Davies “choosy.” Davies groans in frustration. Mick asks Davies if he’s a foreigner, which Davies denies. Next, Mick approaches Davies’s bed, claiming that it’s his, and warns Davies not to “catch a draught.” When Mick turns his back, Davies grabs his own trousers, but Mick notices and takes them from him, refusing to give them back even after Davies lunges at him. Mick asks Davies if he intends to stay in the room. Davies demands that Mick return his trousers and tells Mick that he plans to go to Sidcup.
Davies and Mick have been speaking to each other for quite a while now, yet they’ve failed to communicate anything of value between the two of them: they don’t know each other’s names, and they don’t know what the other is doing in Aston’s room. All they’ve managed to communicate are empty questions followed by shallow responses that either change the subject or prohibit the transmission of meaningful information in some other absurd way. This points to the potential meaninglessness of language, as the men’s actions toward one another are much more indicative of their true thoughts and feelings than their words are. Mick’s behavior is manipulative here, because as he criticizes Davies for being “choosy,” he’s giving Davies another thing to make a fuss about. Lastly, Davies’s mention of going to Sidcup seems to be an attempt to show Mick that he’s not as “pitiful as Mick has made him out to be—that he actually has plans and ambitions. Still, though, Davies has now mentioned Sidcup a number of times without making any actual plans to go, so the reader (and the other characters) might be skeptical that Davies will actually make this trip.
Themes
Get the entire The Caretaker LitChart as a printable PDF.
Mick and Davies continue their pseudo-conversation in this circuitous fashion. Mick tauntingly flicks the trousers at Davies’s face before launching into another story about a man of whom Davies reminds him. Davies interjects, telling Mick he was brought to the room by the man who lives there (Aston). Mick accuses Davies of lying, claiming that the house, room, and beds are all his: in fact, one bed used to be his mother’s. Davies becomes flustered. Mick berates Davies, calling him “an old rogue” and a “scoundrel.”
After Davies admits that Aston brought him to the room, Mick doesn’t explain his relationship to Aston, seemingly to confuse and antagonize Davies further. Because Mick doesn’t clarify this relationship to Davies, it makes his comments about one of the beds being his mother’s all the more confusing. Calling Davies “an old rogue” and a “scoundrel” implies that Mick is more overtly suspicious of Davies than Aston seems to be, and perhaps that he’s trying to protect Aston from Davies. It seems as though Mick is not fooled Davies’s grandiose words and is less willing to give Davies the benefit of the doubt.
Themes
Davies tries to protest, but Mick accuses Davies of “stinking the place out.” He calls Davies “an old robber” and threatens to call the police on him. Mick claims that Davies has no right to be in his flat, and that he could charge rent for the room—for good money—at any time he wants. Mick continues, going into a long, detailed spiel about the steps Davies can take if he wants to lease or buy the property in the long term.
It would be simple for Davies to explain to Mick how Aston invited him back to his room after last night’s brawl at the café, yet he fails to do so, which perpetuates the two characters’ misunderstandings about each other. Their inability to connect and understand each other is another instance in which language fails, communication doesn’t occur, and chaos and absurdity are allowed to exist unchecked. Mick’s accusation that Davies is “stinking the place out” is significant because it confirms Davies’s worst fear, which is that his low class status and position as an outsider are obvious to others.
Themes
Suddenly, the door opens, and Aston walks into the room. Mick drops Davies’s trousers and sits in the chair. Davies puts on his trousers. Aston puts a bag he was carrying on the floor, removes his coat, sits down, and lights a cigarette. The room is silent, minus the sound of water dripping into the hanging bucket. Mick comments on the leak. Aston says he plans to fix it by filling the cracks with tar. Davies interrupts their back and forth to ask what they’ll do when the bucket is full. Aston responds, simply, that they’ll “empty it.”
This is the first moment that the play’s three characters have been in the same room at the same time, yet they fail to engage with one another verbally, choosing instead to engage with objects in the room. When the characters do speak, they keep the subject matter shallow and trivial, focusing their attention on the bucket hanging from the ceiling. The sound of water dripping into the bucket emphasizes the characters’ silence and their absence of effective communication. The bucket also gives the reader more insight into Aston’s inability to address the problems that plague his home, and, by extension, his life. Aston explains that he’ll empty the bucket after it’s full—rather than fix the ceiling leak that’s at the heart of the problem—which speaks to his stagnancy in life. He’d rather continue to use the same fallible, temporary solutions and put forth the appearance of being productive than take a risk and solve the root cause of the problem.
Themes
Aston gestures toward the bag he was carrying, which is full of Davies’s belongings. Davies takes the bag, but Mick rips it from his hands. Davies yells at Mick to give it back, but Mick ignores him, noting that the bag looks “very familiar.”
Ripping the bag from Davies’s hands is another instance in which Mick assaults Davies physically rather than trying to reach a verbal understanding with him. This again suggests that people’s words can be deceptive and manipulative, and that their actions are usually more straightforward.
Themes
Aston tries to calm the two men, who ignore him. Mick asks Davies where he got the bag, and Davies insists that the bag is his own. Aston tells Mick to give Davies the bag. Confused, Mick asks “what bag?” Davies reaches for his bag, which causes Mick to back away from Davies and accuse him of being too aggressive for someone who’s just broken into a private residence. Aston takes the bag from Mick. Davies calls Mick a “thieving bastard.” The three men struggle with the bag, passing it among themselves. Finally, Aston hands the bag to Mick, who hands it to Davies. Mick and Davies exchange a glance. Aston asks Davies how he faired in his job search at Wembley that day, and Davies explains that he never got around to going. Mick leaves the room.
The scene with the bag is the most direct interaction that Mick, Davies, and Aston have had with one another, and its ridiculousness and notable absence of language underscores their inability to understand and communicate with one another. They fumble physically instead of using language; when the characters do speak, they use language that is either insulting or empty and manipulative, such as when Mick feigns ignorance and asks, “what bag?” Aston’s question about Davies failed job search is further that Davies’s claims that he will leave the room and get a job are empty and meaningless, and that he doesn’t actually intend to follow through with this.
Themes
Aston explains to Davies that Mick is his brother. Davies calls Mick “a real joker,” which Aston seems hesitant to agree to, though he allows that Mick does have “a sense of humor,” and “his own way of doing things.” Aston gets up, retrieves the Buddha from the drawer, and places it on the top shelf of the stove. He explains that he’s supposed to be decorating this floor of the building for Mick, who is a builder.
The reveal that Mick is Aston’s brother is surprising, since thus far they’ve hardly spoken and acted as if they hardly know each other. Aston seems hesitant to talk badly of Mick, perhaps because he feels a sense of loyalty toward his brother despite their distant relationship. He eventually gives in, though, admitting that Mick has “a sense of humor” and “his own way of doing things.” It seems as though Aston says these things just to appease Davies, which shows how much of Aston’s personality is based on being who he believes others want him to be. Meanwhile, it’s odd that Mick has given Aston the task of fixing up the apartment, given that Mick is the one who is actually a builder. It seems possible that Mick assigned Aston this task just to give him something to do, even though Mick knows that he could probably do a better job. This again implies that the brothers care for each other, albeit it in an unspoken way. The Buddha statue symbolizes Aston’s social alienation and frustrations with being stuck in the past. When Aston places it on the stove, it’s his way of metaphorically or unconsciously recognizing his frustrations at letting Mick down and failing to decorate the building. That Aston makes a point to retrieve the statue from the drawer and place it in clear view implies that these anxieties are always at the forefront of his mind.
Themes
Davies asks if Mick lives here, but Aston ignores the question. He moves to the window, gazes outside, and talks about wanting to decorate the flat after he builds the shed out back. Seeming to be talking more to himself than to Davies, Aston makes plans to have a woodshop in the shed. He finishes daydreaming and returns to the bed.
This isn’t the first time Aston has mentioned wanting to build the shed, yet he’s made no efforts to kickstart this project, nor has he started any of the repairs on the apartment building. Just as Davies fails to follow through with his plans to get his papers in Sidcup, then, Aston’s plans for the future also seem to be hollow, hypothetical, and beyond his ability to complete. There’s an asymmetry between Aston’s words and his ability to translate these words into actions, which again suggests that language is limited in its ability to convey the truth. Still, it’s important for Aston to talk about his plans to complete the shed, because the existence of these plans makes him appear as though he is a productive, capable, and worthy member of society.
Themes
Davies tells Aston that he now realizes the bag isn’t actually his and accuses the café of keeping his bag and swapping it with someone else’s. Aston confesses that someone took Davies’s bag and that he picked up this one from a different place. Davies opens the bag to look for a pair of shoes. He removes a red checkered shirt and complains that it won’t be good for the winter and that he’d rather have a nicer quality striped shirt. Next, he pulls out a velvet smoking jacket. Davies decides that the jacket feels nice, checks inside its pockets, and asks Aston how he looks. Aston says it looks fine.
At first it seems as though Davies is commenting on the shirt not being warm enough for the winter, so it’s comical and absurd when the reader realizes he’s actually complaining about the shirt’s stripes—something that’s completely irrelevant to the shirt’s ability to keep him warm in the winter. Again, there is an absurdity here that Davies—a man who literally doesn’t own a single shirt—is complaining about the style of a shirt he’s been fortunate enough to receive through Aston’s act of charity. In this way, Davies’s very aversion to appearing poorly dressed prevents him from accepting a shirt that would greatly improve his life. Davies seems to take a liking to the velvet smoking jacket because it looks well-made, and wearing it (and recognizing its high quality) might trick Aston and the rest of the world into thinking Davies is of a higher social and economic class than he actually is.
Themes
Aston moves toward the bed and tells Davies that he could be the caretaker, if he wanted. Aston removes the plank and screwdriver from the bed before elaborating on what responsibilities the position would entail: taking care of the stairs, landing, and front steps; and polishing the bells, which Aston plans to install at the front door.
This moment is significant as it’s the first mention of the titular caretaker. It’s unclear exactly what Aston is doing here: is he pushing his own responsibility for the building onto Davies? Is he just being nice and offering Davies a way to earn a living? So far, Aston seems to be more willing than Mick is to give Davies the benefit of the doubt, but the characters’ continual failure to communicate makes Aston’s true intentions behind offering Davies the caretaker unclear. The fact that Aston lists responsibilities Davies wouldn’t even be able to complete because Aston hasn’t taken care of his own tasks—such as installing the bells at the front door—further emphasizes the gap between Aston’s aspirations for the future versus what he’s actually able to accomplish. And, in listing those aspirations, he makes his failure to achieve them all the more evident.
Themes
Davies seems to be caught off guard and admits that he hasn’t ever worked as a caretaker before. Aston and Davies go back and forth, each starting to articulate thoughts and questions that they never quite finish. Davies repeatedly asks Aston if he understands him. Though Aston claims that he does understand Davies, it’s unclear if they have really reached an understanding. Aston gives an overview of Davies’s caretaker responsibilities, such as tending to the stairs and the bells. He then takes a blue coat that had been hanging above his bed and offers it to Davies to wear if he becomes the caretaker.
Aston and Davies’s verbal exchange is nonsensical, unproductive, and disjointed, which again points to the men’s alienation from each other and to the limitations of language to remedy that alienation. That Aston gives Davies the caretaker’s coat is an example of how the characters in the play externalize their dreams, identities, and anxieties onto objects. Aston seems to believe that wearing the coat will allow Davies to successfully assume the identity and responsibilities of caretaker, despite the reality that Davies—with his reluctance to work and take on responsibilities—will likely be ill-suited to this position.
Themes
Aston offers to install a bell outside the front door with the label “Caretaker,” so that Davies can be reached when he’s needed. Davies is skeptical of this, fearing that the sign will make it easy for his enemies, such as “that Scotch bastard,” to find him.
It seems more likely that Davies is hesitant to accept the position of caretaker because he doesn’t want to work, but he frames his hesitancy in terms of being paranoid about his enemies, such as “that Scotch bastard” from the café, finding him. Once more, Davies represses his actual personal failures and shortcomings (in this case, an unwillingness to work) and places blame on others to excuse these personal failures. In this way, his absurd unwillingness to admit to his failures prohibits him from improving his situation.
Themes
Davies says that he only has “four stamps” on his unemployment card, “that’s all,” and that if they find him there, he’ll be done for. Of course, Davies insists, he has many other cards lying around, but these people don’t know that—and if he told them that, then he’d be found out, just the same. Davies tells Aston that the name he’s using now, Davies, isn’t actually his real name either. The lights go black.
Davies’s admissions make him even harder to trust: he has an entire arsenal of false names, it seems, and he even admits that the name he’s purported to be his real name (Davies) is itself an assumed name. Of course, given Davies’s deceitfulness, it’s difficult to know whether he’s lying when he says Davies isn’t his real name. It could be that Davies is his name, but he’s lying to distance himself from his possibly non-English background (which English people at this time might have considered inferior). Either way, Davies’s true identity contradicts that which is spelled out on his false identification cards, which points to the meaningless of language, or its limitations in telling the truth.
Themes
