Harold Pinter's No Man's Land is this summer's hot Bay Area theater ticket, owing to the presence in the cast of Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart, not to mention Billy Crudup. McKellan and Stewart are best known in the US for their film and TV work, but they do a lot of stage work in Great Britain and, occasionally, in the US. (I rather suspect that they've each made enough money playing wizards, space captains, and mutants that they can do whatever they damn well please for the rest of their professional lives, and more power to them.)
In any event, we scored tickets by virtue of being included in a large group ticket purchase, and we saw the show Saturday night. At the end of it, about all we could say was WTF? Because the acting is stupendous (McKellan and Stewart are both subtle and convincing actors; Crudup is excellent but seems wasted in a small role), but WTF? Plot? What happened? Why? How come the audience kept laughing at things that were not funny?
It's not even a matter of having an unreliable narrator or character. In this case, the playwright is unreliable.
Is the rest of Pinter's body of work like this? If so, I will be thinking twice about ever seeing one of his plays again.