SUMMARY
Chicken Soup with Barley is a 1956 play by British playwright Arnold Wesker. It is the first of
a trilogy and was first performed on stage in 1958 at the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry, where
Wesker's two other plays of that trilogy—Roots and I'm Talking About Jerusalem—also
premiered.[1] The play is split into three acts, each with two scenes.
The play is about the Jewish Kahn family living in 1936 in London, and traces the downfall of their
ideals in a changing world, parallel to the disintegration of the family, until 1956.[2]The protagonists
are the parents, Sarah and Harry, and their children, Ada, and Ronnie. They are Jewish Communists,
and Wesker explores how they struggle to maintain their convictions in the face of World War
II, Stalinism, or the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Sarah is an adamant Socialist; she is strong, familyminded, honest though bossy; Harry, her husband, is weak, a liar, not at all manly and lacks
conviction; Ada is extremely passionate about what she believes in, especially Marxism, and, like the
others, is also romantic both personally and politically; and finally Ronnie is a youthful idealist and
just as romantic as Ada.
The character of Sarah was based on Arnold Wesker's aunt, Sarah Wesker,[3] who was a trade union
activist in the East End of London.
A major revival, starring Samantha Spiro, was staged at the Royal Court in the summer of 2011
SUMMARY
This landmark state-of-the-nation play is a panoramic drama portraying the age-old battle between realism and
idealism.
The kettle boils in 1936 as the fascists are marching. Tea is brewed in 1946, with disillusion in the air at the end
of the war. In 1956, as rumours spread of Hungarian revolution, the cup is empty. Sarah Khan, an East End
Jewish mother, is a feisty political fighter and a staunch communist. Battling against the State and her shirking
husband, she desperately tries to keep her family together. Chicken Soup with Barleycaptures the collapse of an
ideology alongside the disintegration of a family.
The play, the first in a trilogy with Roots and I'm Talking about Jerusalem, was first performed at the Belgrade
Theatre, Coventry in 1958.
Chicken Soup with Barley centers on the Kahn family, a Jewish working-class family from the East End of
London who start out as communists. The family is matriarchal; the mother, Sarah, holds both the family and the
play together.
The play does not have a dramatic plot line; instead, it chronicles the different stages by which the Kahn family
and their friends shift their political and personal allegiances (from the years preceding World War II to the
postwar decade) in the direction of disillusionment and even breakdown.
The first act takes place on October 4, 1936 (a day of some historical significance in the political history of the
1930’s), when a grouping of communists, Jews, and dock workers prevented a fascist march of “Blackshirts”
through the East End of London. Along with the Spanish Civil War, it heightened the awareness of British
communists and socialists alike of the struggle against fascism and the forces of reaction.
Scene 1 is set just before the Blackshirts’ march is due to begin. Harry, Sarah’s husband, has returned from
taking their two children, Ada and Ronnie, to relatives to keep them out of harm’s way. It is immediately apparent
that husband and wife are in conflict with each other: Sarah nags Harry; Harry lies to Sarah and steals money
from her purse. Sarah is actively involved in the effort to prevent the Fascist march; Harry seems afraid of
physical action, preferring to discuss books. Three young Jewish boys—Monty, Prince, and Dave—enter, all
excited by the prospect of confrontation. Dave, who has just volunteered to join the Communist International
Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, is clearly more intelligent and idealistic than the other lads. The scene ends
with them exiting to join the demonstration, to background cries of “They shall not pass.”
The second scene occurs on the same evening, after the protestors have successfully forced the cancellation of
the Blackshirts’ march. Hymie, Sarah’s brother, has been hurt by a policeman’s baton and has come to be
cleaned up before going home. Cissie, Harry’s sister and a militant trade-union organizer, also enters. Everyone
is elated, but there is an undercurrent of friction between Sarah and Cissie, whom Sarah accuses of being
heartless. Sarah goes out to collect the children, and Harry returns. It is fairly obvious that he has not participated
in the demonstration and has spent the time at his mother’s house. On the other hand, Ada, who is only fourteen
years old, has been busy acting as messenger and has not been baby-sat at all. Sarah returns..
First performed in 1958, 'Chicken Soup With Barley' is a complex play about a Jewish family – the
Khans - living in London's East End during a period of 20 years from the mid 1930s through to 1956.
Essentially, the play is about political idealism set against the background of a working class family
struggling to survive.
When we first meet the Kahn family, they are living in an attic. Interestingly, this was a basement in
the published text, but was changed to an attic in the original production and that has been retained in
this revival. The play opens with preparations being made to thwart a fascist rally which is scheduled
to be held in the East End. Sarah Khan and her husband, Harry, are joined by other communists and
trade unionists, and Sarah provides food and tea before they set off to outwit the police and disrupt the
fascists' rally.
From the start, we see two very different characters in Samantha Spiro's Sarah and husband Harry,
excellently played by Danny Webb. The differences are so stark that you wonder how they ever
managed to get together in the first place. Sarah is a fiery, energetic and committed fighter, whereas
Harry is a work-shy shirker who takes money from his wife's purse, and avoids taking part in the
protest by spending the time at his mother's house reading a book. Both Ms Spiro and Mr Webb
produce vivid and compelling performances, and are ably supported by the rest of the cast. Dominic
Cooke's direction is pretty-well faultless, and Ultz's set is evocatively authentic, reminding me of a
relative's council house I used to visit regularly as a child.
The title is explained in the final speeches by Sarah as she tells us that, when her daughter was
seriously ill, her husband refused to take her to the hospital and 'disappeared' leaving the pregnant
Sarah to look after her daughter alone. Her salvation was in the chicken soup with barley that was
provided by a neighbour, Mrs Bernstein. The soup, in a sense, becomes a metaphor for brotherhood
and socialism. But by the time the Khan family move to Hackney after the end of World War II, the
recipe has already been reduced to just 'barley' heralding the disintegration of the Khan family and the
decline of community and idealism.
Though everything about this production spells quality in large capital letters, the play itself is
somewhat confusing. Sarah's character is problematic because we see relatively little of her passion as
a communist and much more of her as a nagging wife. The overall impression is not that she is an
idealistic political activist, but rather someone who believes she has been short-changed in her
marriage. At the end, she talks at length about her motives and here we begin to understand more
about her, for example when she says she “has to have light and love”. That redresses the balance to
some extent, but I could not helping feeling sorry for Harry, in spite of his laziness. He cuts a very sad
and forlorn figure when he's been incapacitated by strokes.
Sarah's big message at the end of the play is that we have to care. Given the savage cuts working their
way through our economy, that message is as relevant today as it ever was. Even with my reservations
about Sarah's character, this is nevertheless an important and thought-provoking play which examines
the nature of society and the meaning of community and how easily idealism can be blunted by grim,
unforgiving reality.
The play written by Arnold Wesker was written in 1956 and performed in 1958 in Belgrade Theatre,
Coventry. It is a part of a trilogy of plays representing different periods in a life of a working class,
socialist Jewish family. Play is in itself strongly biased toward left handed politics and represents an
important landmark in the history of political theatre in United Kingdom. It is almost impossible to
exclude a political and social approach from the analysis of this work, as it is obviously engaged in
multiple levels of criticizing the English society.
Even more so, politics and political activities play the major and deciding part in the life of the
presented family: they base all their hopes, expectations and concrete actions on their struggle to
introduce socialism to their society. We could go even further so and say that the politics here present
a mirror to this family state of affairs: in the first act of a play, family is stable and functioning;
members are filled with enthusiasm and plans for the future. Their engagement is at its beginning and
it a promising one: they are demonstrating and obviously are quite successful in provoking the current
government; they are sending their comrades all over the world to participate in civil wars and
ongoing revolutions. But seeing how their struggle is still young and at its beginning (as well as they
are), life is quite difficult. They live in a small apartment, obviously are not very rich and socially
advanced. The second act brings us to an apartment which is a little more comfortable and better
placed, to a life circumstances that are a little more relaxed. We are informed that the political option
the family is supporting had gained a couple of seats in the Parliament, and that fact is related to the
family’s wellbeing and progress compared to their previous state. But as everything smells of middle
age, we are able to see the first signs of resignation and doubt in the mutual cause. Parents are not as
full of enthusiasm as they once were, but they persist in their belief: older daughter is completely
disappointed, tired, ready to give up the fight and leave the city (which she eventually does), while the
son is high on hope of becoming a proletarian, socialist poet who will speak for the masses and bring
important changes to society. However, his eagerness is clearly more a result of his age than it is a
profoundly based belief in a certain idea. The notion of decline is further underlined by father’s first
stroke and a contrast between old friends who have long given up their ideals and became well-to-do
conformists, and the family which persist in struggle for their ideas and thus sinks lower and lower.
The third act puts us in front of a completely decomposed and dysfunctional family, the fact being
amplified by the father’s second stroke and related inability to go to the bathroom by himself or to
maintain a coherent communication with his interlocutors. Mother cannot afford to change her
glasses, and we are given several other signs that their incomes are rather meager. The son had
returned to his home and we see he has become a bitter cynic who lost all of his illusions, ready to
give up on his once most sacred ideals. The country’s political course is in line with this change of
atmosphere: socialism is nowhere to be seen, the government is as capitalist as it ever was, and the
family’s financial state amplifies the negativity of that trend. It is interesting to mention that the years
in question, the fifties, where considered as a beginning of a prosperous period in England’s history.
The industry was booming, finding job was a rather easy venture and the period was known as ‘the
best there ever was’. However, the course of national politics was ever so capitalistic and growingly
liberal, which is contrary to our characters beliefs: therefore, their situation is not to be envied.
Given details are but one aspect of the political presence in this play, one that is closely related to the
family’s state of affairs at the given moment and its connection to country’s politics. Numerous other
aspects are present and of no lesser importance. We will try to present them laid out to a particular
social background.
The family in question is Jewish, the fact that bears certain importance for this play’s atmosphere and
overall tone. Rather than going into detail about Jews in literature and possible influences present in
this peace, or reports about their unique situation throughout the history of Western Europe, we will
gather our attention to a certain moment in British society in which this play had happened. The first
part of the play is placed in the thirties in Great Britain, second in the forties, right after the Second
World War and the third in the fifties, at the very beginning of the mentioned national economic
progress.
If we start from the first part, we might recall the general atmosphere in Europe towards the Jewish
question. At the beginning of the twentieth century, influenced by romantic literature and different
state affairs, there was a strong anti-Semitic current in the entire Europe. In France, Dreyfus affair
divided French society and was the reason of some bitter and fierce contempt against Jewish people –
we can very well observe this ambience in the works of Proust, where in the higher society it was
presented as a ‘en vogue’ attitude and even a matter of good taste to be anti Dreyfus, and analogous to
that Anti-Semitic. For example, Duchess de Germantes proudly states how she is very pleased to say
that she does not know or would like to know anyone of Jewish origins, and certainly would not let
such a person in her circle of friends. Similar situations are easily found in the Joyce’s The Ulysses,
placed roughly around the same time as Proust’s roman. This attitude towards Jewish people persisted
throughout the twenties and thirties, and had its malign finale in Hitler’s Germany official antiSemitic politics.
However, as much as Germany is not geographically in the nearest neighborhood of United Kingdom,
we are given multiple examples (from the testimony of live witnesses and other writers, such as
Harold Pinter) that the general atmosphere amongst the Jews of the thirties was one of fear and
anxiety: they thought (are were not much mistaken) that Germany’s politics will soon overcome its
frontiers and inundate the entire Europe. Of this, we are informed in the Wesker’s play as well: in
multiple occasion characters are saying that the Britain is sure to bow before Hitler and accept his
peculiar ways. Fear of Nazism was also present in countries other than Germany, and Great Britain
was no exception. Author of this play wanted to underline the notion by placing family’s origins in
central Europe. It is a well known fact that the greatest atrocities of Second World War took place
exactly there, in Central Europe, where numerous concentration camps where located.
Aside the threat from fast spreading Nazism, Jewish people in Great Britain had numerous other
problems as well. English society of the thirties was, as it was in the forties, fifties or any other time,
as it is even today, more than often strongly accused of latent fascism and great racial prejudice. In
most cases people of Jewish origin could not exactly pretend to take high positions is society or to
contribute to its better part. They were rather confined to proletariat or, at best, lower middle class of
artisans and craftsman. General atmosphere amongst Jewish community was one of disadvantage and
social handicap: one was destined to stay in narrow borders of the class he was born into. In the
display of ferocity and ‘iron fisted fascism’ regime could at times go to great lengths, and in Wesker’s
work we are given some sound example to this notion. It is mentioned that the seven years old boy
was driven through the glass window during the demonstrations: various participants was brutalized
by the police force: some of them came out seriously wounded. That situation is not necessarily
related to Jewish question, as we can very well assume that not all participants of the mentioned
demonstrations were Jewish: but it goes to show a certain atmosphere of fear, inequality and constant
menace our characters are thrown into.
To further emphasize fore mentioned atmosphere of social disadvantage and discrimination, the
family in question is strongly inclined to left-oriented politics, namely socialism. England of the era
had to be one of most right-oriented (if one does not count in Germany, Italy or Franco’s Spain)
societies of the old continent. It still is. It was (and is), in fact, a Monarchy whose economy was based
in capitalism: so it would be rather difficult for a country to get any more ‘righter’ than that. Socialism
and left-oriented politics in general are thoroughly against both of these features. Considering left
oriented attitudes towards race and nation (that they are completely irrelevant) it is easy to understand
why such notions would have been easy to accept by a racially discriminated and socially challenged
minority. It is even easier to understand how unpopular and further discriminating would it be to fight
for those ideas in such a society.
However, seeing as this play is not (just) politically engaged propaganda, but a work of substantial
artistic quality, we are given some subtle nuances of this family’s social stature. More than often
family members are seen drinking tea: mother is insisting upon her guests or pretty much anyone who
happens to be around to have a cup of tea every time a person enters the room. Even when her son
comes back from Paris, where he spent a lot of time separated from his family, one of the first things
which come to her mind is tea. Of course, it is needless to point how the tea is perhaps England’s
most famous feature. Of all things English, tea it is perhaps the most recognizable one, a British
ritual par excellence. There are several possible reasons why the writer is so insistent on family
members drinking tea more than water. One of them is certainly a try to adapt to their new
environment and to embrace local customs.
We have already mentioned that this family came from Central Europe: so in a way, they are double
strangers (Jewish and foreigner), which makes it twice as hard for them to adapt, especially in a
traditionalist, right oriented Monarchy such as Great Britain. Therefore, they need to work twice as
hard to adjust themselves to the new environment, at least as hard as they are trying to adjust their
new environment to them. Other possible interpretation of this important detail is that perhaps they do
not try at all but are already a part of mentioned society: they drink the tea spontaneously, like all
British do. In that case, ‘the message’ would be a notion that they do belong to that country, foreign
Jewish socialist or not: it is theirs as much as it is of any other homebred Anglo-Saxon.
One could say that having tea all the time is not a detail of great subtlety, perhaps up to the point
where it is not a detail at all: but this particular play sports a good number of much finer
particularities. For example, at the very beginning the mother is telling about the socialist
demonstrations participants, who they are and what they do. Among expected low class and low
middle class occupations we hear that one of the participants was an Oxford student. It is known that
Oxford is an elite institution known for academic excellence, accessible only to people of
considerable finances or great intellectual capacity: more than often, however, it is rather the first
category than the second.
This notion can stand for different meanings. One of them is quite subversive, given the country’s
class division: in majority of cases Oxford’s scholars come from high or high middle class. So the
participant of the demonstrations is either an unsatisfied member of the high class (which would mean
that the system is not good even for them, not only for lower classes) or that he is an intellectual who
came to realize how socialism is better than the country’s current politics. Of course, the presence of
an Oxford student amongst the demonstrators does not have to mean either of these two things. It
could also mean that the society has already begun to deny the class system and to turn towards a
greater equality. Other professions which are mentioned are tailor and a female artist: that way, we
have nearly all classes mingled together and united under one banner – a true socialist utopia. This
solution would, in my subjective opinion, be the most subversive of all offered interpretations.
In numerous other aspects this play tries to separate itself from pure propaganda and insists on
humanity. At a certain point, mother of the family asks herself and other family members, in a rather
temperament way, ‘what good is socialism if one has not a human heart and warmth?’ Here, however,
politics move away from engagement and propaganda: they are becoming an integral part of the play.
We will try to explicate on this. In well-to-do a social circle, that is higher classes, it is common to
have a certain financial base, a solid background which allows relaxed and somewhat uninterested
regard of daily affairs. We could assume that a family of certain wealth (especially in Great Britain,
where capital is distributed in a relatively small circle) is not touched by changes in state politics
because their wealth keeps them above all economic fluctuations. So in a way, a wealthy man can
allow himself to be apolitical: that particular aspect does not need to make a part of his everyday life.
On the other hand, underprivileged class is in many a way touched by even a smallest change in social
affairs or change in course of national politics. More than often, their very existence depends on
decisions that shape the country politics. So in a way, contrary to higher classes, they are obliged to
keep their eyes peeled and to observe every detail in country management. Likewise, in quite a roundabout manner, they are encouraged to survey and participate as much as they can. Seeing as to how
their very existence depends on a certain decision the Government will take, politics become very
personal issue: they also become a very intimate part of everyday life. If, for example, a member of an
underprivileged and socially challenged family must fear certain decisions (for example, whether his
factory will be closed or relocated) because he know that other family members depend on those very
decisions, in that case, politics mingle and melt in with very feelings that particular man (or woman)
has for his or hers family.
In this play, this very notion is underlined in several key situations. In this particular family, it seems
impossible to maintain a communication that is not placed in political context. Again, it is not (just)
because this play is a piece of propaganda, but because it is easily imaginable that in a family of such
qualities (foreign Jewish socialist) politics do play more than important role. All the conversations
family members are having between themselves and with their friends are more or less directly related
to politics. Sometimes, it is about their life choices and decisions, ideals and ongoing struggle: still, all
of those things are centered in change of regime and introducing socialism to society. A common
situation where old friends had grew apart, given at the end of a second act, is outlined on the surface
of political struggle and a contrast between staying in the cause and leaving it. Wesker’s subtlety and
artistic valor comes out in this scene, leading it further away from pamphlet theatre, where we are able
to see that the ones who have decided to abandon the cause are actually doing much better than the
family who persists in upholding their ideals. On one hand we have middle aged conformists satisfied
with blending in the society they once tried to change: on the other we have a dysfunctional,
impoverished couple whose misfortune is further accentuated by father’s stroke and inability to
control his bodily functions.
This situation, a meeting of two couples who once shared their everyday problems and ideals, one
successful and other quite the opposite, could have been conducted in numerous other ways: but here,
it is closely related to politics. We will take another example. Young, idealistic son goes to Paris
hoping to become a writer, ‘a socialist poet’ who will bring great ideas to public’s consciousness (it is
not difficult to assume that this part is probably closely related to author’s real life). He returns a
bitter, disillusioned man blaming not himself, but his mother for giving him false hope and wrong
ideals. Again, this situation is quite common in literature as it is in everyday life. Unsuccessful,
frustrated child blames not himself but his parents for his failure: he claims he had been raised to
believe in certain values that turned out to be not so appreciated by the world. On the other hand
parents, or in this case mother, are taking their defense by saying that it was the best they could do.
This rather usual situation was again permeated with ideology and politics. Son is accusing his mother
of being blind in her faith in left-oriented ideas: mother does not succumb and is claiming that there is
actually nothing else in the world but ideals, no matter how hard or evidently pointless the struggle for
them may be. Again, this is a text book example of a clash between young, temperament, easily
excited son (or daughter) and older, experienced parent. But this family is not talking directly about
decisions they had made or where exactly they have gone wrong: they are discussing whether the
socialism as a political system is worth fighting for or not. In this scene, seeing how it is
a crescendo of a play, we have a genuine pathos skillfully melted in with a political discussion.
In that particular moment of the most heightened drama, we are presented to an important detail. In
his accusing rage, son calls his mother a communist. This takes place in the fifties, in the beginning of
the cold war. We know all too well to what extent the propaganda war between the east and west was
merciless and widespread (for example, in the history of Western Europe devil was always presented
as a green skinned creature: that particular color was related to a certain nuance of yellow and highly
disagreeable smell of sulphur. After the beginning of the cold war, devil was more and more
presented as red, because red was a color of Soviet Russia and a symbol of communism. Even today,
when the Cold War is long over, in popular culture devil is still presented as red, up to the point where
it is commonly taken for granted that he indeed always was red). We also know to what extent
paranoia and manic fear of communism was imposed by propaganda upon the common folk.
So, when the son is calling his mother a communist, he is using one of the worst insults available at
the time. At the same time, that is a quite clever insult, because his mother is socialist, and while there
are significant differences between the two both socialism and communism are left oriented
ideologies and have a good deal of things in common. What the son is trying to say is, also, that his
mother is overly eager and extremist, up to the point where she ceases to be what she wants to be. If
we (grossly) simplify things, we could say that communism is a more radical version of socialism. So,
by saying to his mother that she is a communist her son is actually trying to tell her how she is not
what she think she is: this is perfectly in line with his major argument that her entire life is nothing but
a lie. Also, he is referring to Soviet Russia and his disappointment in that country: the high hopes the
left oriented world invested into that society and what it had eventually become, an exact opposite of
utopian place of equality and freedom.
With these examples we have tried to point out how politics are present in the life of this family not
only on ideological, but also on very emotional and intimate level. However, those are not only
aspects of life politics saturate with this family. We are given a number of other examples how
politics impose themselves even when characters are not overly eager to participate. It is on this very
aspect that most of the critics that are directly pointed to British society are based. Other that the
famous kitchen sink, which is a detail giving us information rather about the class and everyday life
than ideology or political attitude, we are presented to scenes where we see and indirect critic of an un
functional system and its everyday concretizations. Mother is slaving away over unnecessary
complicated administrative work. Father is constantly losing jobs and after his strokes the society
provides no support or help for a heavily disadvantaged man. Mother is unsuccessfully trying to
change her glasses but can’t afford to: and so on.
There is another reason, outside of artistic coherence and propaganda value, to inundate this family’s
life with politics in such a manner. Other than being a part of a class whose life is in a greatest
possible measure influenced by fluctuations and everyday changes, this family stand as an
archetypical example of a proletarian people. Father has given up on life even before he got sick: one
child managed to escape from this particular atmosphere, the other took the path laid out before him
by his class. Mother is valiantly trying to keep them all together even when it is plainly visible that
such an effort has lost all sense and purpose.
As we have already mentioned, this family is an archetypical one, and in that certain aspect is
interesting for analysis, social or otherwise. For that certain aspect the family is so permeated with
politics. We will try to further elaborate on this. Almost every political system, in theory and in praxis
takes family rather than individual for a basic social unit. Society is constructed from families rather
than from individuals: this notion being amplified by the fact that family is a micro social structure in
itself, where we have all the relations and connections featured in a macro structure, only duplicated
on a smaller scale. So, a family is not just a picture of a society in small: it is also a basic unit, a
building block of that same society. In that quality a family’s life is the best demonstrator of a social
health and being: it is a best way to reproduce and more successfully analyze (and consequently
criticize) the entire society.
This notion could make us think about Zola’s experimental theatre or roman, where he in a
comparable manner used stage to analyze social and political wellbeing. Wesker is reproducing major
problems of his time on a minor scale, close to everyday life and understandable to ordinary man. In
such a way, he is able to touch more universal issues: also, in such a way political criticism,
engagement and artistic quality are brought down to a same level. We could suppose that this
particular family might have had the same life even if they were not as politically engaged as they
were: problems and questions raised in this piece are of universal, human quality, here given trough a
certain ideological prism: but that fact in itself actually speaks favorably of this plays artistic integrity
and valor.
Roots (1958) is the second play by Arnold Wesker in The Wesker Trilogy. The first part
is Chicken Soup with Barley and the final play I'm Talking about Jerusalem. Roots focuses on
Beatie Bryant as she makes the transition from being an uneducated working-class woman
obsessed with Ronnie, her unseen liberal boyfriend, to a woman who can express herself and the
struggles of her time. It is written in the Norfolk dialect of the people on which it focuses, and is
considered to be one of Wesker's Kitchen Sink Dramas. Roots was first presented at
the Belgrade Theatre, Coventry in May 1959 before transferring to the Royal Court
Theatre, London.[1] Plot[edit]
Act 1[edit]
Beatie arrives back in Norfolk to stay with her sister in her native Norfolk.
Act 2[edit]
Beatie goes to visit her parents.
Act 3[edit]
Beatie and her family await Ronnie's arrival, until a letter arrives from him announcing he is leaving
Beatie
Arnold Wesker’s Roots may be set in 1958 – a time of post-war upheaval – but in all it says about
class tensions, families and possibly East Anglia
Beatie (Beatrice) is a young woman living in London with her fiancé Ronnie, a passionate socialist
and the protagonist of Wesker’s previous play, Chicken Soup with Barley, which itself had a wellreceived revival at the Royal Court in 2011. When she returns home to her family of Norfolk farmers
for a holiday, she cannot help but find their world small and mundane and tries desperately to
enlighten them to all that she has learned. Ronnie will be visiting for the first time in a fortnight and
Beatie beseeches her family not to let her down. However, for all her attempts to introduce them to
the joys of classical music and abstract art, they remain resistant. It soon becomes clear, when
Beatie’s father has his hours reduced by the farm manager – while many of his co-workers are being
laid off – that they have more serious things to worry about. As it turns out in the final act, when
Beatie receives a consequential letter, Beatie is no more outward-looking than her parents or sisters.
She may repeat Ronnie’s speeches about always being curious and asking questions, but she admits
that she has never understood what he means. The apple never falls far from the tree, her parents say;
and this is surely the reason why children reproach their parents for the shortcomings that they share,
though they may not care to admit it.
Little happens, every act being staged around the kitchen table, but Wesker has a lightness of touch
that makes this drama a complete delight.
Linda Bassett, as Beatie’s mother, is able to amuse even as she peels potatoes, and must recall many
a parent as she sits with her lips pursed, listening to her daughter’s record player.
Beatie was based on Wesker’s own wife and Ronnie modelled on the playwright himself. Not only is
Beatie like every young person – questioning, even rebelling against, her roots – but she is also an
individual, whose warmth and spark cannot fail to shine through.
I left thinking that, for once, I had been truly absorbed in the scene before me and even forgotten
briefly that I was in the city. The play culminates in a rousing ideological speech by Beatie about the
inertia of the masses, which Raine manages to keep plausible. Compared to works by Wesker’s
contemporaries with a similar political strain, such as John Osborne’s Look Back in
Anger, Roots remains relatively light-hearted and ends on an optimistic note as Beatie finds her own
voice.
When the play was last staged at the Royal Court in 2008, Wesker wrote an article in The
Guardian expressing his disappointment at how many people had seen it simply as a “kitchen sink
drama”, without really understanding that this is a “lyrical work about self-discovery”. His hope then
was that over time these labels would fade and that the plays – timeless in the themes that they
explore – would live on. As this excellent revival suggests, they will undoubtedly do just that.
A true classic, Roots is an affecting portrait of a young woman finding her voice at a time of
unprecedented social change.
I'm talking about Jerusalem, 1960
Elaborately laid literary schemes are notorious for their habit of losing impetus as the work gets under
way. And although it is possible that when Mr. Arnold Wesker first conceived the idea for his trilogy of
plays he intended the essential statement to be made at the end, the fact remains that I'm Talking About
Jerusalem, which opened last night at the Belgrade Theatre, Coventry, is a work of far less clarity and
dramatic energy than its two predecessors, Chicken Soup with Barley and Roots.
Those two plays had the additional theatrical advantage of being self-contained. In the new play there is
such an abundance of cross-references to the others that unless one knows about Harry Kahn and Beattie
Bryant to begin with, a great deal will remain obscure.
Synopsis
ADA KAHN, the daughter of the 'Chicken Soup' family, marries DAVE SIMMONDS. They move to
an isolated house in Norfolk where they struggle through a back-to-the-land experiment. DAVE
makes furniture by hand.
Friends and family visit them throughout their 12 rural years charting and commenting on the fortunes
of their experiment. It doesn't work, but they end gratified to have had the courage to try.
Excerpt
"What do you think I am, Ronnie? You think I'm an artist's craftsman? Nothing of the sort. A
designer? Not even that. Designers are ten a penny. I don't mind Ronnie - believe me I don't. (But he
does.) I've reached the point where I can face the fact that I'm not a prophet. Once I had - I don't know
- a - a moment of vision, and I yelled at your Aunt Esther that I was a prophet. A prophet! Poor
woman, I don't think she understood. All I meant was I was a sort of spokesman. That's all. But it
passed. Look, I'm a bright boy. There aren't many flies on me and when I was younger I was even
brighter. I was interested and alive to everything, history, anthropology, philosophy, architecture - I
had ideas. But not now. Not now Ronnie. I don't know - it's sort of sad this what I'm saying, it's a sad
time for both of us, Ada and me, sad,and yet - you know - it's not all that bad. We came here, we
worked hard, we've loved every minute of it and we're still young…"
I'm Talking About Jerusalem covers the years 1946-59. It thus runs concurrently with the latter part
of Chicken Soup with Barley and the whole of Roots, ending with an epilogue in which the family
come together again. The other two plays were set respectively in town and country: Mr. Wesker now
brings together these motifs and the political and social issues they involve. The Jerusalem of his title
is a synonym for Socialism, and the play concerns an experiment in applying Socialist principles.
Sarah Kahn's daughter Ada and her husband Dave move from London to a desolate part of Norfolk
where they intend to build the new Jerusalem, severing themselves from industrial society to create an
ideal of harmonious unity between work, family life and nature. The ensuing action is mobilized so as
to put this experiment to the test.
To begin with, Dave supports his family by working as a labourer for a gentleman farmer: this prop is
swiftly kicked from beneath him when he is dismissed for petty theft, and from then on he is alone,
struggling to eke out a living as a craftsman, and constantly subjected to the destructive criticism of
local people and old friends who regard his experiment as crazy. Driven to breaking point by the snide
comments of his wife's two old aunts, he declares himself a prophet.
The play belongs as least as much to the wife as it does to Dave, for at every crisis it is her decision
that stops him from giving up, and her earnest, didactic manner, which carries the arguments with
which Mr. Wesker seems most strongly to align himself. These might be accused of naivety and
tendentiousness: they certainly fall with a dull impact in the theatre.
The Belgrade production certainly emphasized the stiffness of the writing: many parts require a florid
Jewish style, which the company were unable to approach. And Mr. John Dexter's direction,
alternating between extreme rapidity and exasperatingly over-sustained pauses, gave the text little
chance to breathe.
The well-rounded part of Dave's cynical companion was incisively played by Mr. Patrick O'Connell:
and Miss Cherry Morris and Mr. Alan Howard took the main weight of the play on their shoulders
without any visible staggering.