View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Central Archive at the University of Reading Graham Saunders ‘Out Vile Jelly’: Sarah Kane’s ‘Blasted’ and Shakespeare’s ‘King Lear’ Sarah Kane’s notorious 1995 debut, Blasted, has been widely though belatedly regarded as an innovative example of experiential or ‘in-yer-face theatre’. However, Graham Saunders here argues that the best playwrights not only innovate in language use and dramatic form, but also rewrite the classic plays of the past. he believes that too much stress has been placed on the play’s radical structure and contemporary sensibility, with the effect of obscuring the influence of Shakespearean tradition on its genesis and content. He clarifies Kane gradually dawning awareness of the influence of Shakespeare’s King Lear on her work and how elements of that tragedy were rewritten in terms of dialogue, recast in thematic terms and reworked in terms of theatrical image. As a result, he sees Blasted as both a response to contemporary reality and an engagement with the history of drama. Graham Saunders is senior lecturer in Theatre Studies at the University of the West of England, in Bristol, and author of the first full-length study of Kane’s work: ‘Love Me or Kill Me’: Sarah Kane and the Theatre of Extremes (Manchester University Press, 2002). An earlier version of this article was given as a paper at the ‘Crucible of Cultures: Anglophone Drama at the Dawn of a New Millennium’ conference in Brussels, May 2001. Saunders is currently working on articles about Samuel Beckett and Edward Bond. OVER THE PAST thirty years the practice of work in the ’fifties and ’sixties. rewriting King Lear has occupied a number A chief admirer of Kott’s ideas was the of British dramatists, producing plays such director Peter Brook, who drew on the com- as Edward Bond’s Lear (1971), Barrie Keefe’s parisons made by Kott between King Lear King of England (1988), Howard Barker’s and Samuel Beckett’s Endgame, synthesizing Seven Lears (1989) and Elaine Feinstein’s them into his 1962 production for the Royal Lear’s Daughters (1991). The playwright Sarah Shakespeare Company, using the setting of Kane’s 1995 debut, Blasted, is no less an a bleak, decaying landscape, reminiscent of example of a contemporary playwright re- Waiting for Godot as well as Endgame. writing a classic text, and she has spoken of A similar emphasis was given to the idea being aware that ‘when I was writing Blasted of a pitiless, non-redemptive universe, with there was some point at which I realized that Shakespeare’s characters undergoing the same there was a connection with King Lear’.1 prolonged sufferings as Beckett’s fallible and These acts of rewriting can be seen as a victimized creations. reaction to the heightened status King Lear has occupied within the Shakespearean canon Sarah Kane’s ‘Blasted’ and ‘King Lear’ over the past fifty years, much of which can be attributed to Jan Kott’s 1964 book, Despite retrospectively being seen as a Shakespeare Our Contemporary. Writing soon defining moment in British theatre,2 when after the Second World War, Kott drew atten- Blasted was first staged at the Royal Court’s tion to the close parallels that ran through Theatre Upstairs, it created an unprece- Shakespearian drama and the turmoil – dented barrage of negative criticism and a moral, scientific, and social – of post-war media controversy not seen in Britain since Europe. The book was immensely influen- the prosecution in 1980 of Howard Brenton’s tial, especially on the ‘new theatre’ in Britain The Romans in Britain. While Edward Bond that set about reinterpreting Shakespeare’s has compared the importance of Blasted, 7/1 staged in the tiny Theatre Upstairs to ‘hiding soul’, which culminates in his attempting to the Alps under a bed’, and calling Kane eat the baby. Cate returns with food, which ‘easily the most important writer to come out we learn she has secured through selling of the Court in at least twenty years’,3 many herself to some soldiers. The play ends with of the early reviewers took much the same Cate feeding Ian sausage, bread, gin, and his position in relation to the depiction of vio- monosyllabic, ‘Thanks.’ lence in Blasted as did Samuel Johnson to the blinding in King Lear: namely that the acts of Alternative Divisions of the Kingdom sexual and physical violence in Kane’s play lacked a dramatic context and so represented While Blasted was almost unique as a res- ‘no more than an artful chamber of horrors ponse to the war in Yugoslavia by a British designed to shock and nothing more’.4 playwright in the mid-’nineties,7 early critics With such exceptions as Samuel Johnson were irritated by the play’s refusal to make and A. C. Bradley,5 many critics defend the explicit comparisons with the Bosnian con- violence in King Lear, arguing that dramatic flict. While the vagueness of locale and lack incidents such as Gloucester’s blinding are of explanation concerning the actual civil often justifiable – in this case arising from the war in King Lear has been held up as part of consequences of patriarchal neglect. While its sublime ‘universality’, in Blasted it was several critics of the first Royal Court pro- simply seen as poor writing. Sheridan duction of Blasted drew comparisons with Morley was perhaps the most trenchant in King Lear, their comments were meant to be expressing this frustration: taken sarcastically,6 and indeed, beyond the obvious motif of blinding, any claim that the The real scandal is that it is a truly terrible little two plays share thematic or dramatic simi- play, which starts out lethargically in Leeds and ends up buggered in Bosnia without any indic- larities seems at first unlikely. ation that the author has thought through how to Kane’s play, set in a hotel room in Leeds, is get from one location to the other, or whether she an encounter between an alcoholic middle- really has anything worth saying in either.8 aged journalist called Ian, who is terminally ill, and a young woman called Cate, who we Kane, however, has argued that the blurring learn is a former girlfriend. The purpose of of location was part of a theatrical experi- bringing her to the hotel is seduction, which ment with a deliberate purpose: culminates in Ian raping Cate. The play then changes radically, abandoning the conven- I tried to draw on lots of different theatrical tradi- tions of realism, dislocating the hotel room, tions. War is confused and illogical, therefore it is wrong to use a form that is predictable. Acts of and placing it into an undisclosed war-zone. violence simply happen in life, they don’t have a A Soldier bursts in, Cate escapes, and with a dramatic build-up, and they are horrible. That’s gun pointed at his head Ian recounts the de- how it is in the play. Critics would prefer it if there was something artificial or glamorous about humanizing experiences that have befallen 9 both himself and a former lover who was violence. raped and murdered. The Soldier proceeds to sodomize Ian and Alexander Leggatt sees much the same pro- then blinds him by sucking out his eyes. The cess operating in King Lear, and argues that if Soldier then commits suicide. Cate returns to Shakespeare wished directly to represent war- the hotel room and describes the scenes of fare he could easily have done so, repeating war outside. She also brings with her a baby dramatic methodologies displayed in plays which has been abandoned. The baby sub- such as the Henriad cycle or Coriolanus. In King Lear a different approach is taken, and it sequently dies, she buries it under the floor- 10 boards (giving it a Christian blessing) and is ‘the low, undignified essence of violence’ then leaves in order to scavenge for food. that constitutes the real subject of the play Left alone, Ian undergoes what can be des- rather than a depiction of war itself. cribed as a cataclysmic ‘dark night of the In Blasted, our first indication of the con- 7/2 flict is Cate’s matter-of-fact comment, after and watching it and I thought no one’s going to going to the window: ‘Looks like there’s a do anything. I thought this is absolutely ter- war on’ (ii, 33).11 The reasons for the conflict rible and I’m writing this ridiculous play about two people in a room. What does it matter? are never discussed, and indeed remarks What’s the point of carrying on? So I now knew such as Ian’s ‘Don’t know what the sides are what I wanted to write about, yet somehow this here’ (iii, 40), all contribute to what seems story about the man and the woman is still like a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the ori- attracting me. So I thought, ‘What could possibly gins of the conflict. Following from Leggatt’s be the connection between a common rape in a Leeds hotel room and what’s happening in comment that it is the anatomy of violence Bosnia?’ And suddenly the penny dropped and that preoccupies Shakespeare in King Lear, I thought, ‘Of course its obvious, one is the seed John Russell Brown sees the play as one that and the other is the tree.’ I do think that the seeds deliberately relies more ‘on an audience’s of full-scale war can always be found in peace- sense-reactions than its understanding of time civilization.