MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of English Language and Literature
Masculinity Crisis in “Blasted” and “Shopping and Fucking”
Bachelor Thesis
Brno 2012
Supervisor: Author: Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk David Ďulík
Declaration
I proclaim that this bachelor thesis is a piece of individual writing and that I used only the sources cited in the bibliography list.
I agree with this bachelor thesis being deposited in the Masaryk University Brno in the library of the Department of English Language and Literature and with the access for studying purposes.
………………………..
David Ďulík
2
Acknowledgment
First of all I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk for his support and time. I am grateful for his helpful suggestions and valuable comments.
3
List of Contents:
1 Introduction ...... 5
2 In-yer-face Theatre ...... 6
2.1 The Definition of In-yer-face Theatre and Its Origin ...... 6
2.2 Where In-yer-face Theatre Has Been Staged ...... 7
2.3 The Crucial Names ...... 7
2.4 Profile of Society in 1990s, Profile of a Young Writer ...... 8
2.5 Masculine Identity and Its Forming ...... 10
2.5.1 Main Definitions ...... 10
2.6 The Process of Constructing Masculinity ...... 13
3 Shopping and Fucking ...... 16
3.1 The Quest ...... 16
3.2 Fatherhood ...... 19
3.3 Who is the breadwinner? ...... 25
4 Blasted ...... 33
4.1 The Butterfly Effect of the Inside World ...... 33
4.2 Power ...... 40
5 Conclusion ...... 45
List of References ...... 48
4
1 Introduction
In-yer-face theatre emerged in Great Britain in the 1990s. The crisis of masculinity is perceived as being the major topic of in-year-face theatre. If the masculinity is somehow problematic and the phenomenon is reflected in the plays of in-yer-face theatre, it is challenging to question who the male protagonists of the crucial plays of the 1990s are and which features of masculinity in crisis they present. This thesis is divided into two main parts. The theoretical part attempts to come with thorough research of publications, specific web pages and newspaper articles related to the subject of in-yer-face theatre. The aim is to define in-yer-face theatre, its authors and the most significant works. Further it attempts to explore the background of society of the era of in-yer- face theatre. For the purpose of this thesis, which means dealing with the masculinity crisis in the plays, it is essential to narrow the range of 1990s plays, and focus just on two crucial works. Such selection allows deeper insight. Further, it is reasonable to examine masculinity in crisis in a sociological point of view. Specifically, at this point the theoretical part comes with the theory of masculinity in crisis. It mainly concentrates on “identity” and on the process of forming masculine identity. In the practical part, the plays Shopping and Fucking and Blasted are studied to find in male characters features confirming assumption that they are examples of masculinity in crisis. The work also tries to identify what elements of masculinity in crisis the male characters in both plays share, whether there are any common aspects. Such perspectives might hopefully draw the picture of the main male representatives of in-yer-face theatre and help to define who represents the position of masculinity in crisis.
5
2 In-yer-face Theatre
2.1 The Definition of In-yer-face Theatre and Its Origin
“In-yer-face theatre is the kind of theatre which grabs the audience by the scruff of the neck and shakes it until it gets the message“ (Sierz, Inyerface-theatre.com.). According to Macmillan Dictionary, the expression means “extremely direct, in a way that is deliberately intended to shock or annoy people (799). Theatre critics agree that the term “in-your face” comes from American sport journalism. It was first recognized in 1970s and twenty years later the term already soaked in mainstream slang, meaning something aggressive or provocative. In terms of theatre it began to be considered as being forced to see something close up, having one´s personal space invaded.
“In-yer-face theatre shocks audiences by the extremism of its language and images; unsettles them by its emotional frankness and disturbs them by its acute questioning of moral norms” (Sierz, Inyerface-theatre.com).
Most in-yer-face plays are not interested in showing events in a detached way and allowing audiences to speculate about them; instead, they want audiences to feel the extreme emotions that are being shown on stage.
In sum, it is evident that key feature of in-yer-face theatre is its ability and intent to shock and to bring extreme emotions to an audience. It happens not only by images and form of language, but also by situations when one character humiliates another, or when there are subjects mentioned on stage which everyone would not dare to raise. The boundaries are pushed further to change and question what is normal. Moreover, the author should be young as in-yer-face theatre is a theatre of young writers. This is more explained and explored in one of further chapters.
6
2.2 Where In-yer-face Theatre Has Been Staged
In-yer-face drama has been staged by new writing theatres such as the Royal Court, Bush, Hampstead, Soho Theatre, Finborough, Tricycle, Theatre Royal Stratford East, all of which are in London. Aleks Sierz concludes that in-yer-face plays were not exclusively phenomenon of the capital city. He conveys other important places in Scotland or in the USA (Sierz 13). In later years the most significant plays were staged all around the world.
2.3 The Crucial Names
The most significant authors are believed to be those one, whose plays were visited, staged and discussed the most. This chapter attempts to find three most significant authors by summarizing views of three different theatre experts.
First, according to Aleks Sierz the most significant names of in-yer-face theatre are Sarah Kane, Mark Ravenhill and Anthony Neilson. Other names are often mentioned: Simon Block, Jez Butterworth, David Eldridge, Nick Grosso, Tracy Letts, Martin McDonagh, Patrick Marber, Phyllis Nagy, Joe Penhall, Rebecca Prichard, Philip Ridley, Judy Upton, Naomi Wallace and Richard Zajdlic.
Secondly, a theatre editor Naihma Khan in one of her latest articles introduces revival performance of Philips Ridley‟s The Pitchfork Disney. She explains that in 1991 it was one of the plays that started the in-yer-face period, along with Sarah Kane‟s Blasted and Mark Ravenhill‟s Shopping and Fucking.
Finally, an article on a website of Victoria and Albert Museum presents “in-yer-face“ theatre noting the names Sarah Kane and Mark Ravenhill already in the introduction of the article.
7
It can be concluded that Sarah Cane and her Blasted together with Mark Ravenhill and his Shopping and Fucking are usually considered as main representatives of “in-yer-face” theatre.
2.4 Profile of Society in 1990s, Profile of a Young Writer
Conservative party led by Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1990 had a remarkable impact on British society. Thatcher believed in personal responsibility and standing up for what you believe in. One of the things she was famous for saying was that there was „no such thing as society‟. Historians agree that her government focused on the market primacy, especially on the primacy of economic individual rights. Another important aspect was her style of governance as she centralized a great deal of power to herself. Exit of Margaret Thatcher, the fall of Berlin Wall, the end of Cold War and dramatic changes in Eastern Europe allowed to start up to explore new found freedom. Such time was the unprecedented opportunity for young playwrights. Dromgoole agrees that “… in nineties, some theatres gave young writers complete freedom. There were no ideologies, no rules, no „taste‟” (Sierz 37). As Kritzer assumes youthful drama broke through unpleasant atmosphere of preceding years due to the unfolding of events in 1990s. It created “the condition for recognizing writers born around 1970 as a generational cohort, and it did encourage those writers to express their desires, fears, and anger in terms that can be identified with a particular historical moment. (Kritzer 27). But how and where did their fears, desires, and anger appear? What were their formative years? As it was mentioned, the writers were born around 1970. They saw economic crises of the 1970s, cuts to public institutions in Thatcher era, decline of trade unions, massive job losses in manufacturing and mining. They also saw other “traumatic events that played a part in defining the post-Thatcher generation …, include the AIDS epidemic, a savage civil war in Balkans …” (Kritzer 29). There is an agreement that the most significant aspect, which formed the authors, was Thatcherism. Benedict Nightingale, a British Theatre critic for The Times newspaper, describes the playwrights born in 1970‟s as “Mrs Thatcher‟s disorientated children” (Kritzer 8
28). Such a comment “signals the unique political dimension of this generation‟s plays: they are by and about „Thatcher‟s children‟ (Kritzer 29). Post-Thatcher playwrights initiated dialogue about themselves in relation to their parents‟ generation. Aleks Sierz explains the point of view of the young writer:
… imagine being born in 1970. You‟re nine years old when Margaret Thatcher comes to power; for the next eighteen years – just as you‟re growing up intellectually and emotionally – the only people you see in power in Britain are Tories. Nothing changes; politics stagnate. Then, sometime in the late eighties, you discover Ecstasy and dance culture. Sexually, you‟re less hung up about the differences between gays and straights than your older brothers and sisters … In 1989, the Berlin Wall falls and the old ideological certainties disappear into the dustbin of history. And you‟re still not twenty. In the nineties, media images of Iraq, Bosnia and Rwanda haunt your mind. (Kritzer 29)
The enemy in 1980s was evident, but 1990s show decreasing interest in politics, the public less identified with ideologies. Moreover, Kritzer believes that new politics of Labour party, which came to power, created political vacuum.
In short, the in-yer-face arose among young writers who got the chance after the crisis of theatre in Britain. Their lives were significantly influenced by political circumstances in which they were raised. Later it was again politics, namely political changes, what affected their creation.
2.5 Key Theme of In-yer-face Theatre
The major expert of in-yer-face theatre Sierz, indicates the main topic of in-yer-face theatre “one of the key themes of today‟s theatre has been the crisis of blokedom” (Sierz, “Inyerface- theatre.com”).
9
2.6 Masculine Identity and Its Forming
2.6.1 Main Definitions
Everyone has come across a term identity. The problem is that the term is used rather ambiguously and incorrectly and can be understood from different perspectives. Even experts in the same field do not agree on one definition. There are many approaches that define identity, each in slightly different way. At this point it is appropriate to mention some of definitions which are described in dictionaries and in literature. Thus it would be impossible to work further with the term in this thesis. Macmillan Dictionary comes with very simple definition “who you are, or what your name is”. Oxford English Dictionary brings a bit more elaborated statement “The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness.” Finally, Miriam- Webster dictionary offers an explanation “sameness of essential or generic character in different instances”. Dictionary definitions have not caught up an obviously complicated and unclear concept, failing to capture word‟s current meanings in everyday and social contexts. Such explanations are too general and fall short of expected. Accordingly, ordinary language analysis seems more valuable and perhaps fundamental tool in the clarification of such social concept that has strong roots in everyday speech. As the term is generally referred and understood, identity is all the things that distinguish us from other people. It is what makes us unique and individual… On the other hand, it also refers to a social category, defined by membership rules. An example of specific sociological perspective can be a theory of Marxists who argue that identity is shaped by social class. Next, feminists argue that identity is formed by gender through gender role socialization. Following the sociological point of view, probably the most adequate definition for this thesis is to be found in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences: Identity is a pervasive concept in popular culture. Broadly speaking, identity refers to the overall character or personality of an individual or group. For example, a young mother might define her identity as that which reflects the essence of who she is (such as being a
10 woman, spouse, and parent) and how she got to be that way. A business can have its own identity, perhaps defined by its unique corporate culture or its advertising history. Significant historical events like wars, natural disasters, or surges in immigration can play important roles in helping to define a nation‟s identity. (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences) Theorists distinguish a huge amount of different identities. Examples of identity types are: racial, ethnic, social, religious, gender and sex role, cultural, physical or academic. Such identity types could be divided in two categories: personal and social. Personal identity looks at characteristics of a person, his values, opinions, life choices, style, career concept and physical characteristics. Social identity looks at roles, such as gender, national, religious, racial or political. In summary, identity determines the conditions that characterize a person‟s stable uniqueness. An essence of this differentness refers not only to physical or inner psychological aspects of a person, but also to social dimension of his personality. In addition, the purpose of this thesis requires a brief definition of terms sexual identity and gender identity. The second concept of gender identity will be further developed more. Sexual identity has two meanings. First part of sexual identity is sexual orientation, which is defined by who one is emotionally or physically attracted to. The other part of sexual identity is based on biology. In this case it depends on anatomical differences between men and women. Gender identity is a personal conception of oneself as male or female. This concept is related to the concept of gender role. Gender role is the public expression, what one say or does that indicates status as male or female. Gender identity is a social concept, in contrast to sexual identity, which is a biological term. Consequently, gender identity is not only private experience, but it is also determined by how surroundings approach a person. The concept is actually a set of characteristics attributed and also expected from a person by society. For example it is commonly claimed that women are soft and fragile, on the other hand men are supposed to be strong and self-assertive. Thus it is obvious that gender identity is shaped by society. “Sex represents intractable nature, and gender represents malleable nurture” (International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family).
11
According to gender identity, there are two main distinguished varieties of genre: masculine, or feminine. Gender expression is connected with the appearance of one‟s identity through gender behavior, clothing, hairstyle, or body characteristic. What is masculine can again differ according to a type ov society. For example, “in eighteen century, „manliness„ was very different from what it is today. As well as wearing wigs, perfume and lots of make-up, a true gentleman showed his feelings by crying frequently in public” (Cunningham S., Moor P. 43) Hence some people feel uncomfortable with the gender that is usually associated with their sex. These individuals employ processes by which they hormonally or surgically assigned to desired sexual category. Consequently, it can be seen that for becoming a man or woman it is not enough to be born as a man or woman with particular biological equipment, but we have to become it by confrontation with our surroundings. This thesis will further deal mainly with masculinity since it is its main topic. As it was mentioned above, what is masculine can differ according to a type of society. This specifically means that masculine gender is formed in dependence on many internal and external factors, such as on one‟s culture, specific time to which he is born, age, race, or his life stage. Accordingly, an image of man is not the same in different parts of the world. Due to globalization and particularly westernization, masculinity is increasingly compared to that of Western countries. R. Connell in his works says that in every society there can be found one type of masculinity, usually more preferred, and typically taken as a standard to be followed by everyone. This general concept of masculinity prevailing in a society is called hegemonic masculinity. In discussing the physical sense of maleness, Connell emphasizes “the practices and experiences of taking and occupying space and holding the body tense, as well as size, skill, power, force, strength, and physical development-within sport, work, sexuality, and fatherhood” (30). He also argues that "the embedding of masculinity in the body is very much a social process, full of tensions and contradiction; … even physical masculinity is historical, rather than a biological fact". Thus it is desirable to come in next subchapter with a closer look at the process of constructing masculinity.
12
2.7 The Process of Constructing Masculinity
It is important to mention that completely unified view has still not been found among experts. It is certain that the formation of gender identity is not a simple matter, and its course depends on many factors. The main ones are immediate surroundings, family, school and peers, and also the media.
This work will further deal with three major theories about problems that deal with identity formation, focusing at specifics of boys.
Theory of identification is mainly associated with psychoanalysis and its founder, Sigmund Freud. It suffices to simply state that the theory is well known. Moreover, in comparison with two other theories, this particular one is not at the heart of this thesis.
Social theory is based on the formulation of ideas about the formation of gender identity from behaviorism. This means that the theory considers the social environment as the main factor influencing its formation. The environment is represented particularly by authorities, such as parents or educators. It differs with previously mentioned theory of identification, which placed the whole process of obtaining gender identity to a child itself. Such child was considered as an active creator. The essence of acquisition of identity, according to social theory, is a strengthening mechanism when desired behavior, corresponding to his gender, is rewarded. However, it also applies vice versa; undesired behavior is punished. Basically, it is possible to conclude that according to this theory, gender stereotypes existing all around us have a major impact on shaping the identity. It is generally known that gender maladjustment is in Western society much less tolerated in boys than in girls, which is given by inappropriate fears of effeminacy.
Cognitive developmental theory is another psychological theory on gender identity development. The principal representative and founder is an American psychologist L. Kohlberg. In his conception, an individual passes through the acquisition of gender identity phase, corresponding to the stages of moral development. Kohlberg identifies two crucial stages of gender identity development. The first stage begins with the child‟s identification as male or female, hearing the labels “boy” or “girl” applied to the self. The child however fails
13 to realize that gender is a constant attribute. By about age 4, the child is able to gender label others. A 6 year old knows that a person gender stays the same when the person puts on clothes of opposite sex.
Thus three main theories were introduced, indicating that the construction of identity is different in boys and in girls. At this point, it is convenient to come with a closer look at some specific features that are characteristic especially for the development of boys. It is reasonable to mention special aspects that accompany the development of girls; without defining them it would be impossible to define the characteristics of boys‟ development.
For example, according to Badinter, girls have the whole process easier by the fact that female identity is formed quite naturally; it starts the day when the girl gets her first period (266). In boys, similar method of “consecration” is missing. In addition, their identity formation is more complicated because they often lack the model of the same sex with whom they could identify in their childhood. Probable cause is that women are the ones remaining with the child on maternity leave and therefore they spend more time with the child than the father.
Creating of a boy‟s healthy gender identity is founded on his struggles in separating from his mother. Current conceptions of men‟s gender development are based on a model of Greenson and Stoller. “In infancy, boys develop in a feminine direction as a result of their primitive, symbiotic identification with a mothering person” (Greenson 372). Hence, by age 2 boys have developed a primary femininity. In process of achieving masculine gender identity, boys have to disidentify with their mothers and identify with their fathers. Nowadays the problem of missing father appears more often as the present era is characteristic for the absence of fathers in families. According to present sociologists, there seems to be several reasons: women are more economically self-sufficient than ever before, men usually spend most of their time at work, status of family as such is losing its value. Contemporary psychologists Robert Bly and Steve Biddulph appeal for the importance of the presence of fathers, but also other male models.
Typical characteristics of today‟s masculinity are derived mainly from education and the environment in which the individual is brought up. For example, assertiveness and desire
14 to compete with other boys is supported at school. It was observed that “teachers give more time to boys than to girls; they more often engage boys in debate1” (Bourdieu 52). The ideal man in current Western society is focused on career success, getting a significant post and sexual potency. It has become difficult to fulfill all these criteria; the situation makes a man the victim of his supremacy. Such expectations exclude confessing weakness and vulnerability; these attributes are traditionally considered to be feminine. The desperate effort not to be feminine, forces men to engage in various social games with one main purpose: to experience dominance. Politics, business or sport is obviously that area, the modern battlefield. As far as a man is unable to meet requirements that are associated with his role, which is not difficult, there is a conflict between his self and his role.
In summary, this chapter was primarily focused on the topic of identity. It also attempted to point out the complexity of the concept, especially the ambiguity of the meaning in which it is used today. Process of building identity was described and some features that accompany the development of male identity were highlighted. The chapter outlined that the formation of identity in boys is more complicated due to their closeness to their mothers in their early childhood and absence their fathers in families.
1 my own translation from Czech 15
3 Shopping and Fucking
3.1 The Quest
Fragments of The Lion King story appear several times throughout the play. The famous animated story produced by Disney is about a young lion Simba and his journey to adulthood. The cub‟s happy childhood becomes tragic when his uncle Scar murders Simba‟s father Mufasa, who is the king. The uncle drives Simba away from the kingdom. In exile, the cub befriends the Pumbaa warthog and Timon the meerkat. As he approaches adulthood, he is visited by spirit of his father, who tells him to defeat Scar and avenge his father.
In the play Shopping and Fucking, the story is told by Brian who offers Lulu a job. At the second scene she is having interview with him, and the whole scene is introduced by Brian‟s speech:
And there‟s the moment. This really terrific moment. Quite possibly the best moment. Because really, you see, his father is dead. Yes? The Lion King was crushed – you feel the sorrow welling up in you – crushed by a wild herd of these big cows. One moment, lord of all he surveys. And then…a breeze, a wind, the stamping of a hundred feet and he‟s gone. Only it wasn‟t an accident. Somebody had a plan. You see? (Ravenhill 2.8)
Brian opens the story of the Lion King at its crucial moment. The father is dead and his son starts his quest. As a young cub he first displays arrogance, immaturity and uncertainty, because he is young with not much experience. After he experiences several tests that he passes, he becomes the hero who learned the true meaning of manhood and masculinity. The story emphasize on masculinity, on responsibility and the reconstruction of the split up family.
A bit further in the same scene Brian continues in telling the story to Lulu. The cub has already grown up and looks like his dad. Simba sees his father on the surface of the stream, and talks to him. Brian is full of emotions:
16
But then…The water ripples, it hazes. Until he sees a ghost. A ghost or a memory looking up at him. His…
Pause.
Excuse me. It takes you right here. Your throat tightens. Until… he sees…his…dad.
My little one. Gets to that bit and I look round and he‟s got these big tears in his eyes. He feels like I do. Because now the dad speaks. And he says: „The time has come. It is time for you to take your place. in the Cycle of Being (words to that effect). You are my son and the one true King.‟
And he knows what it is he‟s got to do. He knows who it is he has to kill. And that‟s the moment. That‟s our favourite bit. (Ravenhill 2.9)
These two passages retold by Brian show the crucial moments of decision. First, the little lion, leaving his homeland, has to take all responsibility, and has to be prepared to take care of himself. This decision brings him to the start of his life quest. Second, the cub is already a grown lion. He has even found a partner, a lioness Nala. According to an expected development of the plot, Simba has to father an offspring and prove somehow his manliness as a kind of consecration. The avenge of his father, killing his enemy, and taking over the throne at the same time seems as the most logical and adequate harvest of all what he has learned. This brings him to the final of his quest. He is a grown “man” who proved all the attributes of manliness, and consequently with the birth of his descendant, the Circle of Life notionally encloses.
Why does Brian tell the story to Lulu? As it was mentioned previously, Brian‟s speech first appears in Scene Two and Brian is present throughout the whole act. In opening Scene 1 Lulu and Robbie are left alone by Mark, who decides to undergo the treatment for heroin addiction. Therefore Robbie and Lulu are also at the start of their new life. They have to look after themselves. The resemblance with the story of The Lion King can be seen here. Robbie and Lulu are possibly at the similar start of a quest. Lulu is given a task, which Brian calls “A trial. Something by way of a test” (Ravenhill 2.14). In Scene Fourteen Brian recognize the trial
17 as fulfilled. He even refuses to take money “…you have learnt. The lesson has been learnt you see. You understand this (Indicates the money.) and you are civilized. And so – I return it. I give it to you” (Ravenhill 14.88). Their quest is over. This is just after the catharsis when Gary most likely dies. Brian returns the money and explains the importance of money as such. He emphasizes that he taught them the lesson and they learned it. Brian also stresses the value of fatherhood and he mentions that he is the teacher and they learn. After he exists, the trinity reunites and share food. All those major symbols and motives meet at this place. They will be discussed further in the thesis as they are considered to be crucial for confirmation of the fact that features of masculinity in crisis are present in the play.
As for the topic of the quest in the play, it is appropriate to develop its circumstances at this place. The question „Why does Brian tell the story to Lulu?‟ was not fully answered. One reason was explored, which is that it serves as an introduction to their quest. Furthermore, Brian obviously identifies with the story, because he also speaks about his own father and son. His son seems to be his highest priority, although his life creed is „get the money first.‟ There is another question. What effect does it have that Brian tells the story of the cub and his quest? The answer is none. He might have attempted to transmit his experience and meaning of his life not only to his son, which is understandable, but also to Lulu. There are only a few things he has in common with Lulu. First, they are both heterosexual. Second, both appear as the ones with intention to care for others. At their first meeting Lulu is asked to do some acting. She presents the speech of Olga, who is the eldest of the three sisters from the play of the same name, Three Sisters, written by Chekhov. There is a striking resemblance between Lulu and Olga. Olga is a spinster and at one point she tells her sister that she would have married any man, even an old man if he had asked her. Olga is very motherly to her elderly servants, keeping one of them, long after she has ceased to be useful. Similarly, Lulu has no partner or children, except the befriended homosexuals. She appears to be the most caring person among them, she cares for the household and for the food. Here, in Shopping and Fucking, the play full of sex, she is the only woman in the play. Nevertheless, she has no chance to pair off, although Robbie and Lulu had a heterosexual relationship in the past:
Robbie: Still love you.
18
Lulu: Haven‟t said that for a long time. Wish we could go back to before. Just you and me (Ravenhill 5.31)
However, Robbie is now more attracted to Mark as he declares several times in the play and appears to be jealous when Mark loves Gary. Lulu frustration, that she cannot have Robbie anymore, explodes in critic on homosexuality:
Boys grow up you know and stop playing with each other‟s willies. Men and women make the future. There are people out there who need me. Normal people who have kind tidy sex and when they want it. And boys? Boys just fuck each other (Ravenhill 7.39).
While Brian tells the story of the cub and the trio is put on the starting line of their quest, the homosexual characters are not capable of solving their problems. Here is the evidence of masculinity in crisis most visible. The only strong male character is represented by Brian. His effort to pass his experience clashes in other three males characters: Robbie, Mark and Gary. Robbie is irresponsible, Mark behaves as an emotional man, afraid of close relationships, Gary is a vulnerable teenager; he was the victim of sexual abuse. In sum, the only strong characters are Brian and Lulu, the heterosexuals. Though the male characters cannot be directly compared to the cub, which on his quest defeats all necessary pitfalls to shape his expected masculinity, they also learn their lesson on their quest. They learn the most valuable lesson, according to their teacher Brian. This is the lesson that money is the most import thing of all.
3.2 Fatherhood
The figure of father is often repeated topic in the play. In the Scene One, Mark is asked by Lulu and Robbie to tell “the shopping story”. Mark tells the story how he bought them:
…And I fetch you. I don‟t have to say anything because you know. You‟ve seen the transaction. And I take you both away and I take you to my house. And you see the
19
house and when you see the house you know it. You understand? You know this place. And I‟ve been keeping a room for you and I take you into this room. And there‟s food. And it‟s warm. And we live out our days fat and content and happy (Ravenhill 1.6).
It creates the impression that Mark has a need to care and Lulu with Robbie have a need to be cared. Such relationship might substitute a care of their father. Lulu often reminds Mark of his promise “And you said: I love you both and I want to look after you for ever” (Ravenhill 1.4) Nevertheless, Mark leaves them already in the Scene One with a promise of his return. Lulu comments and closes the scene with words “He‟s gone now. Come on. He‟s gone. We‟ll be alright. We don‟t need him. We‟ll get by“ (Ravenhill 1.7) Immediately after Lulu´s speech of hope that they will get by, in the very beginning of the Scene Two we get to know with Brian. Lulu has a job interview with him, which means that Lulu already „tries to get by‟. Throughout the interview Lulu shows obedience to Brian, as she apparently needs the job. He opens the scene with the passage from The King Lion:
And there‟s the moment. This really terrific moment. Quite possibly the best moment. Because really, you see, his father is dead. Yes? The Lion King was crushed – you feel the sorrow welling up in you – crushed by a wild herd of these big cows. One moment, lord of all he surveys. And then…a breeze, a wind, the stamping of a hundred feet and he‟s gone. Only it wasn‟t an accident. Somebody had a plan. You see? (Ravenhill 2.8)
This passage was already analyzed in with connection to the theme of the quest in the play. Moreover, this part also comes with the theme of idealized fatherhood. In Lulu‟s situation Brian becomes the one who offers a help, solution, advice and care. After the leave of Mark, there‟s another person who might substitute the care they need, a someone who might substitute a father or a teacher. Brian is the only father in the play. He has his own son and presents him in Scene Nine:
Brian: Watch. I want you to see this.
They watch a video of a schoolboy playing a cello. They sit for some time in silence. Brian starts to weep.
Sorry. Sorry. (Ravenhill 9.48)
20
As the scene develops, Brian emphasize that the schoolboy is his son:
… Kid like that, nice kid – his father‟s son – but nothing special, picks up a bit of wood and string and – well – grown men cry.
Lulu: You must be very proud.
They speak about the boy and Brian answers to Lulu that behind the amazing performance of his son is his son‟s effort. He promptly adds:
His efforts – of course – but also my efforts.
Lulu: Of course.
Brian: Because at the end of the day, at the final reckoning, behind beauty, behind God, behind paradise, peel them away and what is there? (To Robbie.) Son, I‟m asking you.
Robbie: Well –
Brian: Answer the question.
Robbie: Well – a father.
However, Brian points that behind all is money. While in his first appearance he lets them know how father figure is important, in his second appearance he already presents himself as a substitution of their father. He calls Robbie „son‟ and behaves paternally to both. Robbie acknowledges Brian‟s and their role. Since Brian first appearance where only Lulu was present, he has learnt that the role of father is very important and he trusts to Brian. It is probably because Brian gave them a chance to make money, but Brian wasted that chance, and now he regrets that.
As it was mentioned, in Brian first appearance, he is present only with Lulu. In his second appearance, there is already Robbie with Lulu. In his last, the third appearance there is present even Mark, together with Lulu and Robbie. Brian symbolically passes his fatherhood over the two to Mark, the previous „father‟. This way he helps to reunite their triangle and
21 form their own concept of a family. Although Brian presents classical model of family, he leaves them and the play in its last scene with his last speech:
Our second favourite bit was the end. Because by then he‟s got married. And he‟s got a kid of his own. Right at the end he stands alone. He‟s on a rock and he looks up at the night, he looks up at the stars and he says: „Father. Everything is alright, Father. I remembered. The Cycle of Being.„…
Exit Brian. Mark comes forward. (Ravenhill 14.89)
The Cycle of Being is reminded, importance of father as well. Brian fulfilled his role. They eat and share food. The symbol of food and feeding will be developed further in the thesis. Brian‟s message, loaded with a masculine idea of family is somehow transformed into the shape of the receivers. As the audience is aware of the fact that the three are not able to form a couple, the classical husband and wife, just because they are three and moreover, the boys are homosexual. On the other hand, a society in 1990‟s when the play premiered, was rapidly changing. It was only eight years before the civil partnership in the UK was granted. Therefore it was conceivable that the three might somehow form a family or even have children. Lulu, in contrast with Olga from Three Sisters, lives in 1990‟s and has other options… Lulu has actually so many options, as she often claims in the play, that it is difficult to choose. For example, she is present in a shop when the girl behind counter is being attacked. Lulu admits, that the attacker hit girl‟s artery, but Lulu decides to take an advantage of the situation to steal something “I‟d like a bar of chocolate. So I go in but I can‟t decide which one. There‟s so much choice. Too much“ (Ravenhill 5.28). This displays the effect of capitalist society. The shops are full of goods; services offer whatever one can imagine. It is necessary just to have money and to know what one wants. The choice is yours. If one has money, he can do anything. He can even have a gay family with children. But as a right man he should set up rules or challenge them. This is the opinion of Brian, the “father” of the new formed family. In his speech about the importance of money, he states “Yes. Good. Excellent. Money. Takes a few knocks, doesn‟t it, son? Yeah. But we get it knocked into us don‟t we, eh? Learn the rules. Money.” He worships money as means for achieving the most important things in his
22 life. At the top of his values is his son, as it was mentioned several times here. Brian confirms that by following his speech:
…Learn the rules. Money. There‟s boarding fees and the uniforms, the gear, the music, skiing. Which is why I run such a tight ship you see? Which is why I have to keep the cash flow flowing you see? (Ravenhill 9.49)
In the last scene he returns to this topic, this time in broader and deeper meaning. First, he deals with meaning of our lives, holding the money in his hand. Then he continues with direct emphasizing importance of money. “…life is hard. On this planet…We work, we struggle. And we find ourselves asking: what is this for? Is there meaning?....what is there to guide me on my lonely journey? And he immediately continues:
We need something. A guide. A talisman. A set of rules. A compass to steer us through this everlasting night. … We are born into chaos. … Chaos or … order. Meaning. Something that gives us meaning … (Ravenhill 14.86)
In several interviews Ravenhill stated that he left his characters in the play without any instructions for life. In this context he was asked about his own life. He answered “it‟s hard for gay men to mark the stages of their maturity because the usual way of growing up involves marriage and children. So for me the path of maturing is not so well mapped“. Ravenhill also questions gay lifestyle “The gay lifestyle seems enviable, but is this ultimately because gay men are the best consumers? They don‟t have the expenses of family and, in many ways, they have a lifestyle that suits consumer capitalism” (Sierz, Interview with Ravenhill 2001)
Returning back to the play, what can be assumed by Brian speech about „a guide, a compass or set of rules„? It has been discussed here that he valued money and fatherhood. He placed himself in the position of the trio‟s father in the play. How could be his masculine experience, grounded on the story of The Lion King, transferred into lives of homosexual men who are the only „sons‟ of Brian? This question is not answered in the play. It is highly probable that the author left this question to the audience. Actually, it was the audience which
23 was exposed to the development of gay topic in the play. It is as a gay is experiencing his coming out. The confrontation and the talk with father belong to the most difficult piece of one‟s coming out. It is the confrontation with the pure masculine world. It is a clash of two worlds which have not had a little chance to get to know. The image of remorse about lost fatherhood, the image of anal sex, and possibly some other common stereotypes stand against each other. It is 1990‟s, gays on stage and audience are in similar position. Ravenhill commented such a fact:
In past 10 years, “he says, there´s been an awful lot of anal sex on stage. … The pattern has been one of „violence and humiliation, rape rather than consensual sex – it‟s enough to give sodomy a bad name„. In a decade obsessed with the crisis of masculinity, „anal rape was an excellent metaphor for what men felt was happening to them‟. If you were a bloke, you were fucked. (Sierz, Interview with Ravenhill 2001)
Ravenhill‟s comment confirms that it is a male spectator, who deals with the problem to accept the whole rigmarole of gay world. He has already accepted that being gay is legal. Yet here, it is a direct expose. The power of theatre allows involving the viewer in the act. A male viewer sees a beautiful young woman surrounded by homosexual men. She prefers staying with them. They are friendly, talkative, prepared to speak about emotions, not even hesitating to show them. Brian, who represents the male world of heterosexuals, is crying in each of his outputs on stage. Although he is a father, other fathers are missing. As they are missing in the families, as the male teachers are missing in schools. Nevertheless, they are present in the audience and they have to confront with the images in the play. Their equation of masculinity does not already work. A set of rules must be set, says father Brian…
It is reasonable to get back to missing fathers and see where in the play is such evidence. In the theoretical part of this thesis was assumed, that fathers play an important part in forming masculinity, and their absence plays an important role in masculinity crisis. In Scene Two Brian asks Lulu:
Brian: Would you say you in any way resembled your father?
24
Lulu: No. Not really. Not much.
Brian. Your mother?
Lulu: Maybe. Sometimes. Yes.
Brian: You do know who your parents are?
…
Brian: So many today are lost. Isn‟t that so? (Ravenhill 2.10)
This is the only mention of any own father. Even Gary, whose stepfather abused him, never mentions his own father. Although the topic of fatherhood is constantly chewed up and repeated, the impression, that fathers in their lives are more missing than present, is permanently striking. And it gives space to „father Brian‟ and his wisdom received from his own father. Actually, the Brian´s world is full of fathers. He is father of his son; he speaks about his own father, then about the Father. In his story of the Lion King another fathers could be found. Moreover, does not the story of The Lion King resemble the notorious story of Hamlet and avenge of his father? A lot of references to fathers, but there is just one in the play. The rest are sensitive homosexuals. Men in the audience, deal with it.
3.3 Who is the breadwinner?
The motive of food opens the very beginning of the whole play. Lulu and Robbie are trying to convince Mark to eat:
Lulu: Come on. Try some.
Pause.
Come on. You must eat.
25
Pause.
Look, please. It‟s delicious. Isn‟t that right?
Robbie: That‟s right.
Lulu: We‟ve all got to eat. Here. Come on, come on. A bit for me. (Ravenhill 1.3)
It is Lulu who feeds Mark. Robbie is present, but stays passive. The basic human need is emphasized by Lulu. „We all got to eat.‟ Food is the engine of our each step. It is our source of energy. If we have food, air and water, we can live. Only the first is usually just for money. If one has all the three sources of live, he needs a shelter to survive. Lulu, Robbie and Mark have what to eat. Mark is asked by Lulu and Robbie to tell „the shopping story‟. Mark tells the story, how he bought them from a man. Moreover, the way of finding their shelter is revealed by Mark:
And I take you both away and I take you to my house. And you see the house and when you see the house you know it. You understand? You know this place. And I‟ve been keeping a room for you and I take you into this room. And there‟s food. And it‟s warm. And we live out our days fat and content and happy. (Ravenhill 1.5)
At the beginning of the play it is Lulu who feeds and looks after food. As the shopping story, which deals with what had happened before, is told, the audience knows that it is or it was Mark who brought first the food. Nevertheless, just after Mark finishes the story, he announces that he leaves. His exit closes Scene One.
In following Scene, Lulu is at the job interview. Such switch of events demonstrates how much the conditions of Lulu and Robbie have changed. Surprising fact is that it is Lulu who takes responsibility and looks for job. The scene begins more than symbolically. Brian is showing Lulu an illustrated plastic plate. Plastic plate is a practical thing. It does not need to be washed; therefore it saves time. Fast food or instant food is usually served on it. Only the connotations of „fast food, instant food, and a plastic plate‟ speak itself. If you want to have
26 something on the plate, you need money. Is Brian offering fast money? He should offer some money, as she is at the job interview. Brian does not supply Lulu only with a job offer; he is an ambiguous person in the play. The topic of food and of the fact that Lulu takes responsibility of caring for food is enhanced even already during the interview. Lulu is asked to take her jacket off while “two chilled ready meals fall to the floor”. Situation further develops:
Brian: Look at all this.
They both go to pick up the meals. Brian gets there first.
Exotic.
Lulu: We‟ve got really into them. That‟s what we eat. For supper. (Ravenhill 2.12)
The dialogue continues and the first flash of one of the two major concepts connected with „food„appears:
Brian: Did you pay for these?
Lulu: Yes.
…
Brian: Look me in the eyes. Did. You. Pay?
Lulu: No.
Brian: Stolen goods.
Lulu: We have to eat. We have to get by. I don‟t like this.
…
Brian: You‟re an actress by instinct but theft is a necessity. (Ravenhill 2.13)
27
Lulu, being aware that she is at the job interview, attempts to leave an impression. First, she does not want to admit that she stole the meals. However, Brian does not object and recognizes theft as a necessity. As the story progresses, it is obvious that Brian is able to go further which might be the prediction of tragedy.
In Scene Three, Robbie is in „the uniform of leading burger chain‟. Lulu wants to know why he has just been fired. She is afraid that he was badly injured. When she finds he has no wound and that has been attacked only with a plastic fork, she reminds the responsibility to make money. Robbie stays passive again, he rather relies on Lulu:
Lulu: So…no wound? So. Where‟s the money going to come from? Who‟s gonna pay for everything?
Robbie: You‟ll come up with something.
Lulu: Me?
Robbie: Yeah. You‟ll sort it out. (Ravenhill 3.8-9)
This dialogue confirms irresponsibility of men in the play. Instead of traditional concept when the typical man feels the need to support his family or at least the woman, it is the emancipated woman who takes all the responsibility. Here, Lulu is not happy with the burden of responsibility. She calls for a fairer deal. Robbie relies on Lulu, her responsibility and success at her interview:
Robbie: Did you get it?
…
Lulu produces three hundred E in a clear plastic bag.
Robbie: You´re gonna sell them?
Lulu: We‟re going to sell them. You can make yourself useful. (Ravenhill 3.16)
28
In the same scene, Lulu appears with some meals again. Robbie is taking Ecstasy tablet while Lulu enters with two microwaved ready meals on a tray. Mark is present; he just got back from the treatment centre. Lulu does not want to share meals with him. She pleads the food is difficult to share “It‟s just hard to share them. … They‟re done individually…. We‟ve got really into the little boxes with the whole thing in it. One each. …“ (Ravenhill 3.20) Robbie talks to Mark, telling him that Lulu got the job offer “We‟re working. Providing. Lulu repeats “They are really not made for sharing. It‟s difficult.“ Mark objects that he will go out to get some food, but Robbie wants him to stay and part with him. Mark acknowledges “I‟ve hurt you. I see that“ (Ravenhill 3.21).
As it is seen, Scene Three confirmed that it is Lulu who takes the responsibility. She is always connected with either an effort to feed someone or to get food. When she has some food, she is the person who serves the food. She seriously attempts to get a job. However, it is Robbie who boasts „we‟re working‟. Robbie stays passive and leaves the responsibility for Lulu. When Mark gets back, Lulu unlike Robbie stays cold and does not want to share the food. As woman she might have believed in reunion of heterosexual relationship with Robbie. Nevertheless, as she appears to be responsible more than her gay friends, the reason seems to be more practical. She is the breadwinner and she knows the best how it is difficult to get some food or to get a job. Therefore she struggles with sharing the meals. According to classical models of femininity and masculinity which are mentioned in the theoretical part, it should have been a man who bears the responsibility of getting money for meeting basic needs. Women usually run the household. In this play, the only woman does both. The male protagonists are not capable to fulfill such needs; they are not capable of any fundamental decisions, not even having sex with Lulu as they are gay, emotive and rely on her help. This image of a man is just opposite of what the women of 1990‟s ask for. The man has to change. His traditional role of a protector was taken over by the police. A woman is already not dependent on a man; she is able to look after herself. Though, Lulu looks after two men and it is just her will. She prefers to stay with the two gays, rather than with some heterosexual. In comparison with Olga from Three Sisters, she is in presence of some men, at least. And where is the right man for her? What does it mean to be the right man in 1990‟s? In sum up, he has to have something what Robbie and Mark have. Moreover, he has to have something what the two do not have. Though, the audience must accept such reflection. It is 1990‟s, new image of
29 a man is forming. New image of the masculinity is forming. It is not dictated; it is not forced upon the audience.
There is no mention of food in the following scene, which is Scene Four, as only Mark and Gary are present in the scene. In Scene Five, Lulu is already present; she returns with a blood stain on her forehead. She tells about how she was in a shop and wanted to buy a bar of chocolate:
I‟d like a bar of chocolate. So I go in but I can‟t decide which one. There‟s so much choice. Too much. Which I think they do deliberately. I‟m only partly aware - and really why should I be any more aware? – that an argument is forming at the counter. A bloke (Ravenhill 5.28).
The argument changed into a physical attack. The men hit the artery of the girl behind the counter, probably with a blade. There was blood everywhere. Lulu starts to scold herself that she did not intervene. She explains her feelings “It‟s like it‟s not happening there – the same time, the same place as you. You‟re here. And it‟s there. And you just watch“ (Ravenhill 5.29).
Then she produces a bar of chocolate from her pocket. She continues “I took the bar of chocolate. She‟s being attacked and I picked this up and just for a moment I thought: I can take this and there‟s nobody to stop me. Why did I do that? What am I?“ (Ravenhill 5.30)
At the job interview, Brian was not much surprised that Lulu stole the meals; he even considered the theft as a necessity. Here, Robbie is comfortable that Lulu took an advantage of the situation and shoplifted the chocolate. At the end of the scene Lulu allows Robbie to go and sell the Ecstasy tablets. It is her who has the final word and decides to be so. Therefore it can be again assumed, that it is really Lulu who is the householder. She seems already reconciled with what has happened in the shop. She looks at the chocolate and eats it.
In Scene Seven, Lulu quizzes Robbie as he was attacked; she wants to know what has happened. Before Robbie explains the incident, she plays with his genitals, giving him a hand job. Robbie loses his erection and explains that he gave the tablets for free to “nice-looking
30 blokes”. She bursts out in a rage and blames him first for being homosexual “Boys grow up and stop playing with each other willies”. Then she blames him that she can be with someone else:
Men and women make the future. There are people out there who need me. Normal people who have kind tidy sex and when they want it. And boys? Boys just fuck each other. The suffering is going to be handed out. And I shouldn‟t be part of that. But it‟ll be both of us. And that‟s not justice. Is it? You look like shit now. Look like you might get (Throws the bottle of TCP into Robbie’s eyes.) gangrene” (Ravenhill 7.39-40).
Again the allusion to her monologue of Olga from Three Sisters was repeated. She must feel alone, yearning to have a man to share the life struggles with him. No such man appears in the play. There is only her hope that „all the suffering will be over‟ and she probably believes in „we have to carry on living…we must work‟. This monologue brought her a chance form Brian as he was touched by it. She probably believes that she is on the good track. She has to work to have money…Throughout the play she learns the rule „get the money first‟. She also learns that for getting what she wants, she has to be decisive and make instant steps. There is an instant meal; so why she cannot have instant money? She has to sacrifice something or someone. Her indecisiveness when she was not able to choose which chocolate to steal was a learner‟s mistake. The accusation of herself that she made a wrong thing was unnecessary. There will be no accusation mentioned when they sacrifice Gary. In Scene Fourteen when he explains the importance of money, he says:
… Money is civilization. And civilization – how did we get there? By war, by struggle, kill or be killed. And money – it‟s the same thing, you understand? The getting is cruel, is hard, but the having is civilization. Then we are civilized. (Ravenhill 14.87)
The allusion to the sacrifice of Gary and its justness is confirmed by what Brian and Lulu say when he returns them the money:
Lulu: Why didn‟t you take the money? Why did you give us back the money?
31
Brian: And now I can answer you. I answer. Because you have learnt. The lesson has been learnt you see. You understand this (Indicates the money.) and you are civilized. And so – I return it. I give it to you.
Then Brian plays the video of Lulu where she says the monologue of Olga. It was probably recorded at the interview. The words of „one day we‟ll know what all this was for, all this suffering…until then…we must work„are repeated. Brian replies:
We must work. What we‟ve got to do is make the money. For them. My boy. Generations to come. We won‟t see if of course – that purity. But they will. Just as long as we keep on making the money.
He continues with words most likely addressed to the audience “And now you‟ve proved yourselves, I‟d like you to join us. All of you. Think about it (Ravenhill 14.89). Standing at the exit he closes the story of The Lion King, giving the preceding speech broader meaning:
Our second favourite bit was the end. Because by the he‟s got married. And he‟s got a kid of his own. …. he looks up at the stars and he says: „Father. Everything is alright, Father. … The Cycle of Being.„ (Ravenhill 14.89)
In sum, Brian elevates the meaning of suffering, work, and sacrifices to the higher meaning of life. According to him, what we make is the harvest of future generation. It is the harvest of our kids. Mentioning the figure of the father, he mainly addresses his message to the male audience; therefore masculinity is challenged this way. Every crisis is a challenge for a new beginning.
The last moments of the play are devoted to the motive of food and feeding. The three are reunited and they share food and feed themselves as one. The lesson, the quest, the story, the Cycle of Being, and the imaginary circle of the play close.
32
4 Blasted
4.1 The Butterfly Effect of the Inside World
The opening scene of the play, the entry of Ian and Cate promises the insight into the privacy of a romantic evening. Such imagination is shaped by the objects in the scene: a large double bed, a mini bar, champagne on ice, a large bouquet of flowers. Both characters appear happy to be together, showing their affection to one another. Cate “smells the flowers and smiles.” (Crave 3) She confirms her emotion aroused by the flowers “Lovely.” (Crave 4) Meanwhile Ian is terribly coughing, Cate seems to be worried “You all right?” (Crave 4) Ian smiles at Cate and returns her care:
I‟m glad you‟ve come. Didn‟t think you would.
He offers her champagne.
Cate: (shakes her head) I was worried.
Ian: This? (He indicates her chest.) Don‟t matter.
Cate: I didn‟t mean that. You sounded unhappy.
Ian: (pops the champagne. He pours them both the glass)
Cate: What we celebrating?
Ian: (doesn’t answer. He goes to the window and looks out) Hate this city. Stinks. Wogs and Pakis taking over (Crave 4)
The first switch is quite evident here. First, two people come inside from the outside with the promise of the romantic evening in two. Ian shows his affection to Cate through the champagne; he repeatedly offers it to her, or he pours the champagne to her although she never takes a sip of it. Cate gives more of herself for she speaks about her feelings. She admits
33 that she was worried about him. Although Ian states that he is glad that she has come, revealing he doubted that she would come, this is the only verbal affection he is able to produce. Throughout the play, he repeats that he loves her, but as the play develops, such stating becomes rather a part of his calculated manipulation or just excuse for his offenses. He is not able to express his feelings, thoughts and emotions in a common conversation with Cate. In stated dialogue above, Cate asks him “What we celebrating?” referring to the champagne. She apparently wants to hear an apology, a proof of affection for her or some declaration of love. Ian does not answer. This signals that he is not capable of transporting the feelings from the inside to outside, to Kate. This might be his fear, his sense of vulnerability which directs him rather to protect the inside. He considers such simple attempt to touch his inner world as an attack. Consequently, he decides that the best protection is the counterattack. Therefore he does not answer the question “What we celebrating?” Although he directs his thoughts outwards, it is not outwards of his inner world but rather outwards of the hotel room. It is the first reference that the world outside is an allusion of the world inside and that they are somehow connected.
The above-mentioned dialogue is the time of the switch between the moments when Ian manages to control his attacks, and the moment when he loses such commitment. His first attack is addressed to “Wogs and Pakis”. Subsequently, as the dialogue continues, he verbally attacks her brother and then her mother.
Ian‟s struggle with expressing his inside feelings correlates with the perception of his pain. He never says that something hurts him nor he speaks about his inner physical pain. He suffers quietly; the audience gets to know about his pain only through his uncontrollable cough. When he experiences the most intense pain due to his ill organs, he “is making involuntary crying sounds“ (Crave 2.23). In the conversation mentioned above, Ian even confuses Cate‟s worries. Although he thinks that she was worried because of his serious illness, it is his mental health she was worried about.
After the verbal attack on her brother and mother, Ian moves his assaults in direction to Cate. At first he attacks indirectly:
You look like a lesbos.
34
Cate: What‟s that?
Ian: Don‟t look very sexy, that‟s all. (Crave 7)
This phase of the dialogue is already the start of their battle. Though, the aim of this chapter is not the battle itself, but this part of thesis attempts to show the blending of two perspectives, the perspective of two worlds, the inner one and the outer one. Such blend of perspectives can be seen permeating through the characters. Moreover, similar correlating perspective can be found in permeating the inside of the hotel room with the outside. Ian is not primarily aware of his verbal assaults, he attributes Cate‟s refusal to his unpleasant odor. His smell symbolizes and indicates his inner state. Not only is he rotten inside by the state of his health, but also by state of his thinking:
Cate: Oh. (She continues to eat.) Don‟t like your clothes either.
Ian: (looks down at his clothes. Then gets up, takes them all of, and stands in front of her, naked)
Put your mouth on me.
Cate: (stares. Then bursts out laughing)
Ian: No? Fine. Because I stink?
Cate: (laughs even more)
Ian attempts to dress, but fumbles with embarrassment. …
He picks up his gun, unloads and reloads it. (Crave 7)
His rotten inside comes out on the surface. He rather assumes that it is a smell from his rotten body than his rotten mind which directs the verbal assaults. Such perspective has its anaphoric allusion in the very first extract of their dialogue mentioned in this chapter. It is essential to remind the part:
35
Ian: (doesn’t answer. He goes to the window and looks out) Hate this city. Stinks. Wogs and Pakis taking over (Crave 4)
Again the blending of the perspective of Ian‟s mind and the world outside can be seen. He considers the city to stink as his behavior to Cate starts to falter at the same time.
On the other hand, Cate controls special abilities to help her move from the inside world to the outside one. In critical situations, she disappears. When the situation escalates, and she is not able to cope with Ian‟s assaults, she faints. It is her way out. Her ability of self- defense is limited due to her childish character and also due to the aspect that she is a woman. Moreover, she appears to be a type of a soft woman. Therefore she is limited by her physical disposition. It is an important fact in the case of Ian for he uses his power to control the other people. He does not hesitate to use his power over Cate. His power is given by the fact that he is a man and he has a gun.
Furthermore, Cate is the only person in the play with her magical power to exit and enter the hotel room through the bathroom. First she decides to escape through the act of bathing in Scene Two. This Scene already presents in full scale the emotional and physical abuse that Ian inflicts upon Cate. He becomes more torturer than ex-lover, and employs a complex armory of cruel games to get what he wants. Such abuses cause collapse of everything what remained in their relationship. She was obviously raped between the Scenes One and Two. Her escapes out through fainting did not protect her sufficiently. Cate is not able to protect herself as a woman anymore. There is no evident way she can remain somehow safe in the room. Mentioned collapse of their relationship is caused by the failure of Ian‟s attitude to her. Ian appears as a male with exaggerated typical features of masculinity. He has a gun and does not hesitate to point it at her. He uses his power to control others. As Ian‟s behavior becomes more critical, the world outside the hotel‟s window changes the same way. It is essential to introduce some examples. In the critical Scene Two, after the rape, Ian persuades Cate to stay:
Ian: You make me feel safe.
36
Cate: Nothing to be scared of.
…
Cate: Why can‟t I go home?
Ian: (thinks) It‟s too dangerous.
Outside a car backfires – there is an enormous bang.
Ian throws himself flat on the floor.
…
Ian: I‟m not scared of cars. I‟m scared of dying. (Kane 2.26+27)
Ian claims he feels safe with Cate, but she does not feel safe with him although she does not say that. She rather wants to go home. Ian does not know what to say and how to keep her in the hotel room. He locks the room and after hesitating what to answer to “Why she can‟t go home“, he comes with the fiction that it is dangerous outside. Though, by the turn of the events, it is clear that it is him who is afraid. His world inside the hotel room is not safe without Cate. Here all the perspectives of inner and outer world can be found. First perspective is that Ian inside is not able to express his inner feelings. The second perspective is that he wants to protect his world inside the hotel room as this world with Cate means everything to him. The third perspective is his life. He is obviously dying and he is aware of that. He is scared of dying itself. Moreover, he does not want to die alone. This perspective is the perspective of the world here and “outside” which means nowhere as Ian does not believe in afterlife. All those perspectives clash at this Ian‟s moment. The result is the enormous bang of the car outside. The outside world must be the allusion to Ian‟s inner state.
Though, Ian surprisingly opens his inner world a bit. He forgets for a while his masculine mask protecting his sensitive personality. While he unmasks himself, revealing why he did not call her, he is simultaneously rewarded by passionate kisses and escalating
37 tenderness from her. As it would be a symphony coming to its peak, Ian comes and at the same time he confesses that he is a killer. Kate punishes him, she bites his penis.
It is already evident that this relationship becomes a war. The battlefield is the hotel double bed. Ian is a representative of a male with exaggerated masculine elements. He uses power and gun to get what he wants. He is explosive as if he could not control himself due to his testosterone. Both characters fight for their love and for their need to be loved. The fight becomes more severe than it has ever been before:
Ian: Cate, I‟ll shoot you myself you don‟t stop. I told you because I love you, not to
scare you. (Kane 2.29)
In the war the two have, it is already difficult to distinguish the cause, the guilty person or even the way out. The man and the woman remain trapped in the circle of their reproaches or threats:
Ian: Loved me last night.
Cate: I didn‟t want to do it.
…
Cate: You‟re cruel.
…
Ian: You sleep with someone holding hands and kissing you wank me off then say we can‟t fuck get into bed but don‟t want me to touch you what‟s wrong with you Joey.
Cate: I‟m not. You‟re cruel. I wouldn‟t shoot someone.
…
Cate: You‟re a nightmare. (Krane 2.30-31)
38
It is evident; there is no way out of the situation. Though, Cate finds one through the door of the bathroom. The blend of more perspective of inner and outer world is repeated:
Cate: … I stink of you.
Ian: You want a bath?
Cate: begins to cough and retch. She puts her fingers down her throat and produces a hair. She holds it up and looks at Ian in disgust. She spits. Ian goes into the bathroom and turns on one of the bath taps. Cate stares out of the window. Ian returns.
Cate: Looks like there‟s a war on. (Kane 2.32)
The stink of Ian is not only his smell, but also his rotten character. Therefore Kate in the bathroom not only washes his unpleasant odor, she also gets rid of him as such. She achieves that by disappearing through the bathroom, although she realizes the war out of the window. The war outside is the reflection of their inner world of the hotel room. Ian‟s masculine behavior full of violence together with Cate‟s calculative sexual accessibility and inaccessibility demonstrate its impact. Ian realizes the war outside only when it comes into the room, inside. It is already late. The role has changed. It is the stronger who dictates and sets the rules. It is the soldier who takes Ian‟s gun and therefore rules. The parade of the nightmare of masculinity accommodates on the stage.
As the typical feature of masculinity in this play is power and demonstration of its self- destruction, this topic will be developed in the following chapter named Power.
39
4.2 Power
In the previous chapter it was concluded that the concept of power is a crucial topic in the play. It is appropriate to come with a closer look at the two characters that emerge in the hotel room.
Cate is twenty-four years younger than Ian. She sometimes behaves childishly for she often sucks her thumb. She appears to like doing grown-up things, such us dating in an expensive hotel room with her ex-boyfriend. In contrast, Ian is mostly interested in getting into Cate‟s pants.
At the Scene One, both sides are checking the power of their weapons. It is obvious, that both are vying for love. Although he loves her and she loves him, they both want to confirm the affection from the counterpart. Therefore they fight to get it. Cate has one main weapon in her armory. It is her body and her womanhood. It is the sexual kingdom where she has power over him:
Cate: Oh. (She continues to eat.) Don‟t like your clothes either.
Ian: (looks down at his clothes. Then gets up, takes them all of, and stands in front of her, naked)
Put your mouth on me.
Cate: (stares. Then bursts out laughing)
Ian: No? Fine. Because I stink?
Cate: (laughs even more)
Ian attempts to dress, but fumbles with embarrassment. …
He picks up his gun, unloads and reloads it. (Kane 1.7)
40
The stated dialogue show explicitly how power between the two is used. Cate is aware that a woman must be conquered. In case of Ian she is very naive as he is used to get what he wants. Although he loves her, he is an animal as we see later in the play. It is interesting to consider why Ian put all his clothes off and stands naked in front of her. He obviously feels as a superior male. Standing naked, boldly and confidently, convinced about superiority, exposing his penis, he commands Cate to perform oral sex on him. Here the masculinity of Ian is portrayed clearly. Cate knows that it is her decision whether she will put her mouth on him or not. She does so later in the play and meanwhile Ian disappoints her, she punishes him by biting his penis. Now, she recognizes her safety and she also feels that she is in power, therefore she just laughs. Ian realizes that it will not go this way and he finds himself embarrassed. He needs to quickly get in balance; therefore he checks his gun and takes her in his hands. Symbolism with his penis can be seen.
He often threats with his revolver which he repeatedly shows as an explicit supplement to his frequently exhibited penis. He does not care much whether Cate is frightened, because he knows it does not take much to calm her down.
The next morning, it is obvious that Ian has raped Cate. She has problem urinating, only blood comes out. She is calm about it as it was fair that it happened, or as he would only said something inappropriate; what boyfriends sometimes do. She wants to avenge herself while Ian is taking a shower. She rips off the sleeves of his leather jacket. For a while she holds his gun, but when she hears Ian coughing in the bathroom, she puts the gun down. Ian invites Cate for breakfast:
Ian: Coming down for breakfast? It‟s paid for.
Cate: Choke on it.
Ian: Sarky little tart this morning, aren‟t we?
He picks up his jacket and begins to put it on. He stares at the damage, then looks at Cate. A beat, and then she goes for him, slapping him around the head hard and fast. He wrestles her onto the bed, her still kicking, punching and biting. She takes the gun from his holster and points it at his groin. (Kane 2.25)
41
It is apparent, that Kate has no chance. She starts to tremble and faints. This battle was lost in the moment it started. She cannot rely on her power, because in comparison with Ian she is just a fragile girl, both physically and mentally. She does not smoke, drink alcohol or eat meat. In this regard, Ian is her counterpart and invincible enemy. As it was mentioned, her kingdom of power is sex. Throughout the play it is ambiguous to recognize which moment she uses sex as her power tool and when it is aimed as her enjoyment. The previous extract from the play might serve as a good example for it exactly develops in such ambiguous way, due to Cate‟s behavior. First Cate comes round and Ian tries to convince her to stay. Again he uses his physical power; he locks the door and pockets the key. Situation radically changes when he confesses that he is scared of dying. Cate rewards him with tenderness; she kisses different parts of his body and performs oral sex on him while he reveals the truth about his job. When he comes, he discloses that he is a killer. Kate bites his penis.
It is evident that those two have no more space for their weird play. Cate leaves the hotel. The distribution of power alters. The fatal moment happens when a soldier is successful in his attempt to break into the hotel room. First he repeatedly knocks on the door as when the cat is chasing its mouse. Then Ian opens the door “Outside is a Soldier with a sniper’s rifle. Ian tries to push the door shut and draw his revolver. The Soldier pushes the door open and takes Ian‟s gun easily” (Krane 2.34).
This was exactly the crucial moment of the play. As Ian soon realizes, the person who has a gun has choices. Ian might have apparently learned that rule, but has not learned what it means to be on the other side. Following Scenes Three and Four are the lessons of what happens when someone is given a gun:
Soldier: Give us a cig.
Ian: Why?
Soldier: „Cause I‟ve got a gun and you haven‟t.
Ian: (considers the logic. Then takes a single cigarette out of the pocket and tosses it at the Soldier) (Kane 3.38)
42
The Scenes Three and Four are also the lessons of what happens when a person with his gun discovers there is no law higher than the one he makes for himself.
Soldier is a reflection of Ian. In the first half of the play, a spectator must be frightened of Ian. The audience is exposed to myriad of Ian‟s corrupt male characteristics. Ian seems to be able to produce countless varieties of degradations, but the audience soon realizes that it is nothing in comparison with the mad Soldier thoughts. Unlucky for Ian for it is Soldier who has a gun now.
Nevertheless, the rape or the sucking and eating of eyes, which appear in the play, are not something new in terms of war. A broadcast of detailed and live news about all the acts of cruelty which has usually taken part during the ongoing wars was something new in 1990‟s. In spite of shocking events and their pictures, people got used to such news on TV. Regardless of this fact, the play Blasted caused shocking reactions. It is different to be exposed to extreme content of sexual and physical violence in one room, to see the development of the events, to be pushed to think about provoked questions. On the other hand, if the audience had gone further behind the violence and had tried to understand deeper, it would have not triggered the hysterical reactions.
Exploration of diseased male identity is painful. The play does not answer what is the way out is or how to cure such a problem. It is a spectator who is expected to come to a conclusion. Theatre should only serve as a forum for debate.
Men are monsters. Men are animals. Sex and violence is the domain of men. These might be the conclusion drawn by the audience. Kane confirms her idea of the two characters whose natures resulted in the older man raping the younger woman “I was writing a play about two people in a hotel room, in which there was a complete power imbalance“ (Sierz 100). The vividness of Kane‟s characters worked. Kate, a vulnerable, naive, thumb-sucking girl is here as if she is prepared to be abused. On the other side is older, drinking, rotten man. His predatory masculinity calls for a conquest of hunger satisfaction. He abuses Cate because she is in his power. He bullies her into submission. Ian‟s actions illustrate the thinking of the middle-aged male. He manages to control Cate by making her feel guilty. After all, Cate is the
43 only character who survives on the stage. She was the most powerless person in the play, and even after the rape and countless degradation, she remains alive as the bearer of hope.
The question arises as to whether it is possible to consider Ian to be an isolated case or some connections can be seen between Ian and other middle-aged men. Plenty indisputable connections are striking. It is the male drive to self-destruct, vulgar speech, sexual fantasy, nationalist aspirations, homophobic feelings, racist hatred and open warfare. In the first half of the play, the rape is not on the scene, it is somehow veiled. In contrast, the rape of Ian is openly presented. It creates the impression as in the scale of cruelty presented in the play, the rape of Cate is a commonly practice in domestic context. Accepting such explanation requires asking further when violence in the home becomes violence on the streets.
In sum, the topic of power is depicted in two dimensions: in feminine and masculine. The feminine is presented as fragile, soft and naive. Such power can be seen as quite cruel for it is controlled by sex. The second dimension is the masculine power. It is presented by physical power, Ian‟s penis and gun. The masculine power wins, because it liquidates Cate‟s power built on sex. On the other hand, what is such winning for? Ian loses Cate, life and moreover he causes the war. His masculine tactic appears as destructive. The flowers in the opening scene promised the innocent plot between two people, but the flowers are soon seen ripped apart, the room is blasted, child dies, the war breaks out and Ian suffers as well. All this has a cause. It was all in Ian‟s power. Now it can be seen what happens when such power gets out of control.
44
5 Conclusion
The main purpose of this thesis was to draw who the male protagonists of the plays Blasted and Shopping and Fucking are and through the resulting image define who represents the position of masculinity in crisis, which is considered to be one of the main topics of in-year- face theatre.
Simply, the male characters of Shopping and Fucking, with one exception, are unemployed junkies, with no idea of their future. They seem lost in the era they live in. The UK, Europe and the world rapidly changed socially and politically. There is no dictatorship no regime, no dominant government or church dictating or advising how to live. New era, new wave comes and it is obvious that new rules will emerge. It is the youth who is going to take it all over in their hands. Men should grab their chance as characteristics of their masculinity usually appeal. Robbie, Mark and Gary and their competitiveness, desire to succeed or their efforts to beat the others remain drowsing. However, they appear to be irresponsible, they even do not hesitate to kill. On the other hand, this would be shallow look at the male protagonists of the play. Although they are tied and limited by their problems, under the surface of their diseased masculinity they have underlying fragility, a desire to be loved and almost pathetic tenderness that often lurks beneath their cruelty and resigned passivity.
The male characters of Blasted do not come out better. Ian is an arrogant, aggressive torturer with ability to inflict mental and physical torments on other people. The Soldier is a warrior not hesitating to commit any war atrocity one can imagine. However, they have a desire to be loved as all people do. In some moments we can trace echoes of their soft soul.
The men of both plays cannot be only seen in described perspective. They exist to manifest masculinity in crisis. And every crisis is a phase of something new. Therefore if masculinity is in crisis, it is in phase of redefining.
At this point, it will be further developed what might be such idea of redefinition. An interesting image of masculinity in crisis in the play comes when the above mentioned description of the men in the plays is connected with the main topics of this thesis. First very rough draft of such image arises with a quick glance at the chapter titles of the practical part of
45 the thesis. The chapter titles were aimed to represent the main ideas of the thesis. Therefore it is reasonable to remind the titles: The Quest, The Fatherhood, The Butterfly Effect and The Power.
The first topic comes with the message: Don‟t sleep, get up and don‟t be afraid to go on a difficult and complicated journey. The message is the call for men, for young men of the 1990‟s generation. The men might be trapped in a drug addiction; they might find themselves on the bottom or on the edge of society or they might be just only lost without any instructions for life. The addresser of the call reminds them of their probably missing fathers and at the same time he reminds the generation of the fact that they are the future fathers. This is offered as the suitable plan to fulfill the meaning of live. It is emphasized that such effort does not need to be a direct benefit for the ones who rise, but it is rather worth the effort for the next generation, for their sons. This generation should be aware of the money and its value. Moreover, the responsibility to get money for the need of their children is stressed. This idea is best expressed by Lulu‟s borrowed exclamation „We might suffer, but one day we will know what it all was for.‟
The other part of message addressed to masculinity takes the men from the awareness and most importantly the responsibility of the Fatherhood to attention to the responsibility of each individual. Man should realize that his actions do not affect only his immediate surroundings, but they have much broader effect. It is similar to the elections. Each vote and each person‟s voice can have crucial impact on the whole mankind. Awareness of such factors makes a man. This is the part of a new image of masculinity. In Blasted Ian‟s irresponsible behavior affected the acts of many other people and caused the war.
The last bit of mosaic is the topic of Power. It puts masculinity and its crisis in connection with all the previous themes. In Blasted the fight between masculinity and femininity is visible. The world of Cate, which is the world of woman, does not fight for the rule over man. It is rather the fight for the awakening of man. In this point of view, women in both plays do not push themselves in the foreground. They do not want to overtake the dominant rule. They just alarm man. They alarm for challenging them for their quest. Lads are in troubles and they need to find responsibility to cope with their crisis. They need to reidentify their identity. The responsibility must also be forwarded to their sons. Finally, only
46 a woman can bear a child for a woman is a bearer of life. A man should realize that. He should mainly realize that woman is a flower, which he should look after and water it. He can rule the world, but with responsibility, power and love. He is ought to stop blindly and selfishly misuse his power.
The message of the plays, according to masculinity in crisis is: Man, stand up, open your eyes and look at the woman. She will show you your direction, the way. It is not important whether you are gay, ill, or you are in enormous power, happily ruling the world, or of any other imaginable sort of man. In the plays, Lulu and Kate guarded the light of hope. Women guard the light. For a woman is the bearer of hope, a hope for masculinity in crisis.
47
List of References
Badinter, Élisabeth. XY: O Mužské Identitě. Praha: Paseka, 2005. Print.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Věra Dvořáková, and Miloslav Petrusek. Nadvláda Mužů. V Praze: Karolinum, 2000. Print.
Connell, Raewyn. Which Way Is Up?: Essays on Sex, Class, and Culture. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1983. Print.
Cunningham S., Moor P., (2006). New Cutting Edge Pre-intermediate. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Print
Gender Identity." International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. 2003. Encyclopedia.com. 6 Mar. 2012
Greenson, Ralph. Dis-identifying from Mother: Its Special Importance for the Boy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 370., 1968. Print
"Identity." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 5 Mar. 2012
“Identity.” Macmillan English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 2007.
"Identity." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 5 March 2012
"identity, n.". OED Online. December 2011. Oxford University Press. 5 March 2012
“In-your-face.” Macmillan English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 2007.
Khan, Naima. “Morrissey, X-Factor and Fear: Nathan Stewart-Jarret and Chris New on The Pitchfork Disney“. Spoonfed. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
Kritzer, Amelia Howe. Political theatre in post-Thatcher Britain: new writing : 1995-2005. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print
48
Menon, Madhavi. “Queering the Bard.“ American University. 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
“Modern theatre: 'In Yer Face' theatre”. Victoria and Albert Museum. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
Sierz, Aleks. "Interview with Mark Ravenhill 2001." IN-YER-FACE THEATRE. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.
Sierz, Alex. In-Yer-Face Theatre: British Drama Today. London: Faber and Faber, 2001. Print
Sierz, Alex. Inyerface-theatre.com. 2003. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
49