Angry? Sure, But wear my shoes first!

“Look back in anger” by John Osborn (1956) is a quite famous playwright written in the context of a quite comfortable society (in its majority). In this play, we read about an angry man named Jimmy Porter, a person who is part of the working class of his time. Jimmy Porter, himself, represents a particular view of a postwar society, in which a group of people was truly disappointed with the institutions of that time, and how they were turning the English society into a non-desirable place.

Jimmy is married to Allison, and both together do not seem to fit the “perfect couple” stereotype, since they are always fighting – mostly because of Jimmy’s attitude – and Allison, at the same time, maintains a sort of “special” relationship with the friend of them, this is, Cliff. In repeated situations, Allison and Cliff are doing some random activities while Jimmy speaks, and of course, they do not pay attention to Jimmy’s words.

For example, in a specific situation of the play we see Jimmy delivering a long monologue, in a moment when they were all talking, however, because Jimmy speaks so much, Allison and Cliff stop following his ideas about whatever he is trying to say.

Jimmy: …Unless you’re an American of course. Perhaps all our children will be Americans. That’s a thought isn’t it? He gives Cliff a kick, and shouts at him. I said that’s a thought!
Cliff: You did?
Jimmy: You sit there like a lump of dough…      

Within this extract of the play, we can also notice how relevant is that Allison, and in this specific case Cliff, avoid or ignore what Jimmy is trying to say, considering that this is a true reflect of the society in which they are immersed in; the society ignores the ideas of this type of people, they are not accepted, they are not seen as part of the meaningful part of that place, because they represent what is contrary to the people who are in charge of everything.

The attitude that Jimmy remains towards Allison and Cliff through the story is very interesting, considering that Jimmy Porter is meant to be a kind of “avatar” of the playwright’s author, Mister John Osborn. The feeling of the author, and so the main character of the play, is a feeling of anger in the sense of how discontent people were against the society in which they were settled in.

What we see as an ambiguous attitude of Jimmy is just a firm representation of the disconformity that John Osborn has for that hypocritical world that was almost impossible to change, because the rules were established by the Bourgeois, the ones who were in power; they hated noise, they hated manifestations or opposition. Thus, we see Jimmy as this “opposition”, this “noise” that was uncomfortable for the ones in power. Jimmy’s angriness was just a matter of showing how “pissed off” (excuse my ‘French’) working class people felt in that time.

Jimmy Porter - the one who represented John Osborne the best - becomes a sort of spokesman of his generation, hence to understand him, we need to understand his generation, and the different injustices that they suffered as being people who were not born in a rich family, or a family in power as the Bourgeois.

Similarly, we can notice Allen Ginsberg - a famous poet – who represents a whole generation, the Beat Generation. A group of writers, who do not conform to the idea of happiness given by the establishment.  People who are living in a post war America, and they feel disappointed. Most of them studied at universities and realized they do not fit. Therefore, the postwar reality is quite the same in Great Britain and in the United States. I quote: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...” (Allen Ginsberg). Throughout these lines we see the same society, connected to the same ideas of John Osborne who is part of a different place, but who is part of the same sick world.

Different than today’s world? Not at all!

Just take a look outside your comfort zone, out there through your window, and you dear reader will be able to notice the same Anger, the same disappointment, the same establishment, the same people who feel angry because they ones in power do not want to listen to us, because they do not want to fix the society and leave the comfort zone in which they have lived for years. Thus, as well as in John Osborne’s times, we will see people fighting and showing how displeasing they feel about the world, about the injustices and about a society that nobody wants to live in. So the question remains: ANGRY? Sure! But before you come up with any weird idea against my attitude, wear my shoes first! And then we can talk.

Asael Rojas Maureira