To think about a Sarah Kane play is to think about Sarah Kane. This is one of the few things I feel sure about the Kane phenomenon, or cult, as powerful as ever 13 years after her suicide, and 17 since Blasted provoked a ludicrous tabloid outcry in her native England. It is impossible to watch her plays without thinking of the war she fought with her own mind and in the end lost, just as it is impossible to consider her true legacy within the dramatic canon without the shadow of her untimely death looming large over her small body of work – five plays, a short film, and two newspaper articles.
The
shadow, I think, is at its darkest over the plays which bookended Kane’s career
as a playwright – Blasted, her first,
and 4.48 Psychosis, her last. The
latter is the better of the two, an elegiac and unrelenting examination of a
mind poisoned by mental illness. Blasted,
by contrast, is very much the work of a playwright at the beginning of her
career; excessive, anarchic, pissed off. It’s a play about sexual politics and
many different kinds of inhumanity, in both love and war. It is anything but
prosaic. It is anything but boring.
In
the beginning, a Welsh-English journalist, Ian (Patrick Graham), brings
troubled young woman Cate (Anni Lindner) back to his hotel room in Leeds. His
increasingly aggressive sexual advances end in rape, an act which – through the
symbol of a falling bomb – blasts both their worlds apart. Into this indefinite
new reality steps a camouflaged and heavily-armed soldier (Mark Saturno). During
the play’s premiere season, he may have been read by audiences as a combatant from
the civil war in the former Yugoslavia which appalled Kane so much. Today, we
might see him as a Syrian or Egyptian government soldier, or a mercenary hired
from Africa by the Gaddafi regime. The soldier rapes Ian, inserts a gun up his
arse and sucks out his eyeballs.
I
don’t think I’m giving too much away by sharing these details. The second half
of Blasted is a sort of grisly hit
parade, a series of barely connected set-pieces which run the full gamut of
wartime horror from sexual molestation, to cannibalism, to suicide, to the most
vile kinds of disfigurement. One of the most chilling moments in this
production sees the soldier directly address the audience: this is what your
journalists won’t tell you is happening in other countries.
Maybe
this is less resonant than it would have been in 1995, before smart phones,
social media, the 24 hour news cycle and improved international mechanisms for
bringing perpetrators of war crimes to attention and justice. It still shocks.
So, too, does Ian’s blinding. The symbolism is, perhaps, a bit too obvious but it
still has the power to affect, in part because we recognise the fundamental
truth of it – that journalists are blinded by their own limitations, and those
imposed on them by editors, executives and shareholders who can see nothing but
the bottom line – and in part because it connects Kane’s play to a long history
of bloody tragedy from Oedipus Rex to
King Lear. Kane was heavily influenced
by the sanguinary dramas of the ancient Greeks and the Jacobeans; the critics
who missed (and continue to miss) this point cannot hope to understand her
work.
There
are three fine performances here, Graham, Lindner and Saturno all drawing on
seemingly inexhaustible reserves of intensity to bring their distinctly
difficult roles to life. Saturno is genuinely frightening, and Lindner and
Graham work hard to imbue their relationship with the twisted logic needed
before the bomb hits and the naturalism which Kane has fairly carefully crafted
is dispensed with in favour of a nightmarish unreality which persists until the
play’s final, nerve-jangling moments.
It
is from this point, I think, that Netta Yashchin’s direction falters. The
explosion that destroys the hotel room should punch the audience in the guts.
Instead, two long girders descend gently from the ceiling and the elevated
bathroom area is almost lovingly inclined as stagehands distribute some rubbish
around the stage. The title of the play more than probably refers to this
moment of extirpation, but it is anything but a blast – more like a bump. The
isolated moments of horror which follow – the rape and blinding of Ian, the
eating of the dead baby – are also strangely powerless. I felt numbed more than
anything else. Yashchin’s solution to the burying of the baby – under the floor
of the room according to the stage directions – is to have Cate remove a chunk
of mattress and conceal it in the bed. Even in the dreamlike context of the
second half of the play, this doesn’t really work, and leaves Graham looking
unintentionally comical as he climbs in to be with the baby, only his head
visible like Beckett’s Winnie.
This
is not all Yashchin’s fault. Kane’s writing is at its weakest in these parts of
the play, particularly during the lumbering exchange about the existence of god
which occurs between Cate and Ian. The audience does not need to be convinced
that Kane’s universe is a godless one – that much, at least, is beyond doubt. I
also think the strobe-lit montage which chronicles Ian’s psychological demise
is a peculiar device (Kane’s, not Yashchin’s) which might work in a film but
looks incongruous on the stage.
Aristotle
wrote that catastrophe is ‘an action bringing ruin and pain on stage, where
corpses are seen and wounds and other similar sufferings are performed.’ Blasted is a catastrophe. To dismiss it,
as so many critics have, as a lascivious and violent shock-fest is to overlook
its essential point: that the West is not immune to the horrors which permeate
foreign warzones, that there is a spectrum of inhumanity which may end in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Damascus or Auschwitz but does not necessarily begin there.
We
may choose to hate a play like Blasted because
of the way it violates cherished notions of ‘good taste’ and ‘decency’ but, to
bring it back to the personal, Sarah Kane had no time for mealy-mouthed
responses to the atrocities she knew to be occurring around the world, or to
the West’s contradictory or complicit positions on them. Puny-minded indeed is
the person who professes to be shocked by the events of a work of fiction and
not by, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Fry, ‘the injustice, violence and
oppression that howls daily about our ears.’
I like this review, great work Ben. I am generally getting the impression, though having not seen the show personally, that as long as you don't mind watching people being raped or tortured you will be able to see beyond this to the point of showing it. I don't think that other criticism's I have read have necessarily missed the point - but rather fail to see how it needs to go this far to make one...
ReplyDelete