An angry young man like John Osborne’s Jimmy Porter was the product of the times. Following the end of World War II, all of British society was agitated by international events and national policies.
Citizens had to adjust to Britain’s new place in the changing world order. Before the war, the British Empire still enjoyed enormous influence around the world; now its power began to decline. In 1945, the United Nations was established to bring world countries together to work in peace and cooperation; though Britain was a leader in the U.N., it no longer dominated world affairs. Britain gave up control of India and Pakistan in 1947. The Suez Crisis of 1956 resulted in a U.N. ruling that forced withdrawal from Egypt—an embarrassing blow to Britain’s international status. Meanwhile, the United States and the U.S.S.R. were emerging as the world’s superpowers, and their escalating Cold War meant that people everywhere lived with the daily threat of nuclear annihilation.
On the home front, the rigid class structure was challenged. The demand for social reform put the Labour Party into power, and its leaders enacted social programs that would establish a new “Welfare State” in Britain. Welfare did not just mean help for the poor; it was a promise of security for all people “from cradle to grave.” The central government or local authorities were to provide basic living needs—well-paid jobs, education, comprehensive health care, and insurance coverage. Private industries like the coalmines and the railway system came under national control. The Education Act of 1944 guaranteed free secondary schooling for all citizens. Several new “red-brick” universities were created for working-class students—a radical difference from the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge that were accessible only to the upper class.
"Vote Labour" poster by John Armstrong, 1945
All of these changes promised more equality, opportunity and visibility for Britain’s working classes than ever before.
Within a few years however, enthusiasm over the new Welfare State faded. Social programs proved costly, and the benefits most people received were disappointing. Britain’s economy struggled after the war; the promise of prosperity and comfort was deferred. Rationing of food supplies, enacted during the war, remained in force until 1954, due to a shortage of food supplies—in some cases, postwar rations were more severe than during the war.
Although the economy improved in the 1950s, strong class divisions remained and a more equitable society failed to emerge. A new class of “educated proletariat” graduated from the universities and found no opportunities for meaningful work. These young people had a better understanding of the class system that oppressed them for centuries – but no idea of how to improve it.
More from this series:
- Look Back at Mass Culture: Language and Culture of Britain in the 1950s
- Look Back at Gender: Gender Roles in 1950s England
Look Back in Anger plays at the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center for Theatre/Laura Pels Theatre January 13, 2012 through April 8, 2012. For more information, click here.
Related Categories:
2011-2012 Season, Education @ Roundabout, Look Back in Anger, Upstage
2 Comments
Anthony T. Mastandrea
February 7, 2012
I saw this play in 1956-57. I was 21, and thought it was a very provocative, yet disturbing play. Viewing it, some 50 years+ today, I found the play somewhat archaic – i.e long winded speeches by Jimmy Porter, incomprehensible situations with the three main characters, and a plot that bears no resemblance to reality. What is Jimmy so angry about? Why doesn’t he try to find a job? How do these people survive? How can you have a virile, young male friend living in your flat, with a young, vivacious, abused wife (walking around in her slip and bra) in the same dwelling? Porter’s existence is within the realm of reading the newspaper (he’s so much superior to everybody else), mocking his friend as being “stupid,” and berating his wife, for what reason(s) that are never made clear. Also, women were never treated that barbarically, even in the 1950s, by men – unless Jimmy Porter is a verified psychopath. Aside from being somewhat “dated,” although that’s not my main criticism, the play is not well constructed. Long-winded monologues do not make for an interesting theater production. I was very disappointed in “Look Back In Anger.”
troy segal
February 12, 2012
A lot of your criticisms stem from the misguided choices of this production, starting with that silly strip of a set. Cliff doesn’t live with the Porters — though he does hang out with them a lot — he lives in a room across the hall from them in the same apartment building–something that would’ve been clearer with a more naturalistic set. Alison isn’t supposed to be ironing in her undies — she’s supposed to be wearing a shirt (one of Jimmy’s, possibly) and skirt. Her being scantily clad gave a sexual component to her nuzzling with Cliff that isn’t supposed to be there (on her part at least). Jimmy does have a job — he and Cliff run a candy stand. As to why he doesn’t have a better one, and what he’s so angry about — much of that got lost in the numerous cuts made to the script; much of the social/political commentary is gone. They even cut an entire character — Alison’s father. No doubt the director felt by removing Jimmy’s rants about the British and world order of the 1950s, he was making the play more “universal” and “accessible” to American audiences. Instead, he just made it more superficial and incomprehensible, as your comments indicate.