Obra de teatre en dos actes, publicada al 1975. El retrobament de dos antics companys d'universitat dedicats a la literatura en l'etapa final de la seva vida. Es coneixen però en alguns moments no es reconeixen. L'alcohol els acompanyar durant tota l'obra, en un instant de confidències s'expliquen grans secrets que han estat ocults durant tota una vida i que els fereixen profundament.
Reprersentada al Teatre Nacional de Catalunya, a la Sala Petita, el 17 d'octubre del 2013 per Josep Mº Pou, Lluís Homar, David Selvas i Ramon Pujol. ( )

It was not quite the "Theater of the Absurd" jolt I had hoped for...in fact, I finished it feeling confused and remembered feeling confused with reading--long ago--many plays of the Ionesco, Beckett, Genet, Pinter variety. (Some I felt like I sorta got...And all, I felt, were reaching for something important). And yet, though this isn't necessarily one of the best, it does--as one reviewer mentioned--work on the reader like a remembered dream with a similar logic. People that are almost recognized; dialogue that circles without illumination, etc. Wish I could see the production going on now (along with Waiting for Godot) starring Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart and Billy Crudup. ( )

Teatre de l'absurd amb diàlegs irreals que has d'intentar entendre constantment. Potser després el disfrutes amb les elucubracions de la postfunció però si m'arribo a trobar aquesta obra al teatre m'aixeco i marxo. No l'he disfrutat gens. ( )

As with Pinter's other masterpieces (not all of his plays are), this one is a marvel. The manifest content is almost nil. The latent content, swathed in layer upon layer of irony, is everything. All depends on how the roles (in this case two primary and two secondary) are embodied. Knowing that the two leads were performed by Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson makes for a delightful reading experience, as you can savor in imagination each line reading (just as if one were tasting fine wine), knowing that these two remarkable actors would have extracted and then conveyed the maximum in implication and innuendo. Only the very ending slightly disappoints, being a shade too explicit. And a tad glib? ( )

2