What does it mean?

How is it that two adult, male theatre reviewers are so diametrically opposed in their viewpoints about a play? Charles Spencer in The Telegraph went almost overboard with his encomiums while Quentin Letts in The Daily Mail thought the play "a stinker".
Harold Pinter's play "No Man's Land" was the play under discussion.
There's something about Pinter that makes some people squirm with dissatifaction at not knowing what is going in. Someone (I think it was Alan Brien) said about Pinter's plays that they were like Who-Dun-Its without the body. Then - I knew one who was a member of the Pinter appreciation society (or whatever it was called) - there are those who find his plays fascinating. And deep.
They are so deep in fact that no one seems able to say what they are about.
So why don't they ask Pinter himself?
Because, probably, he doesn't know.
I was once at a weekend get together with a famous film critic giving a series of talks on famous films; one of the films under discussion was "Last Year at Marienbad", a very obscure film with a story, if indeed there was a story, that was not an obvious series of events. It was more like a dream.
I had a theory about what it was about and spouted it to the assembled group. Everyone was interested. Yes, they agreed, that must have been what it was about....
But the course tutor was unconvinced and slightly irritated I felt. He preferred it that the film remained obscure, difficult, not easily explained. I had taken away the mystery of it all. It wasn't a Who-Dun-It after all.
So perhaps Pinter is best left alone. For as T.S.Eliot said when he was approached by a journalist about a play he had written who asked him: "What does the play mean Mr Eliot?"
"It means what it said," replied the great man. "If it had meant anything else I'd have said so."