Post reply

Message icon:

Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:47:32 PM »

I think the reason that Grace gets beaten is the same reason why Carl is so viciously abused. I think in his own way Tinker represents social unacceptance of a sexual "deterrent" from the norm. Kane herself struggled with her homosexuality in relation to society from what i gathered, and perhaps she is making a statement about how society treats those who are other than straight. Just a thought.

Archive 6-11-2003
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:46:40 PM »

This is an interesting take on Tinker, although it's hard to square with his treatment of Robin...

Archive 15-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:46:03 PM »

Please, excuse my bad english. I can share the opinion, that "Cleansed" is a play about identitity. Love is only a method, an instrument to gain self-identity. and it can be mis-used, misunderstood, as you can see clearly in Carl. Also Grace thinks, that by total identificication with her brother she can get something for her own personality. But in assimilating with her brother she becomes him and looses him in the same moment. And also looses her own personal identity. For my opinion, Tinker is a kind of "Anti-Mephistopheles". Perhaps you know the scene in Goethe's Faust: "I am the ghost who allways wants the bad and in fact does the good" ("...der stets das Böse will und doch das Gute schafft.") And with Tinker it's the contrary. He wants the good, he fullfilles the wishes - artuculated or not - of the others, and his actions seem very cruel and bad for us. But I think his intention is a good one. My central sentences of him are "I'm a dealer, not a doctor." and "I'm not responible."

Archive 14-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:45:19 PM »

Oh, well you know in thinking about the "super id" thing I think this could apply as well to the play...Jacques Lacan speaks of the "mirror" theory in refrence to Freud's stages of development, but for Lacan the mirror "image" is a deceptive one in that, from the beginning, an infant first recognizes itself in the mirror, but of course, that realization is not the TRUE image, but merely a perhaps the characters in this play are, in fact, seeking, in whatever fashion, their own image in the face of others...Graham, Grace, Robin, Tinker...the identities merge and blend to the point of no true distinction...but then again, maybe not! Ms. Kane's ouvere is quite challenging, but well worth the effort.

Archive 7-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:44:39 PM »

You see, that's the theory I had: that Tinker tries how much those who talk of love really do love, and how much can they sacrifice for love. This theory explains why Grace's beaten. But after the article I found the other theory (about Tinker acting as a "monster from Id", fulfilling the others' subconsious wishes only) interesting enough to sacrifice the one I had, and try to consider the other one. That one explains some other things the original doesn't. I was just trying to deal with those two. But generally it seems the theory "I _had_" is more agreed with :)) Maybe I'll think of it again... Best regards Jolka

Archive 5-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:44:03 PM »

I think it is a good point, the origanal London production didn't give the impression that Robin was Gay. Though I did feel after he was made to wear the dress Tinker forced him to behave like a woman, and didn't put himself out to find him more appropriot clothing.

Archive 5-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:43:28 PM »

I always thought of Cleansed as a play about extreme emotions of love in various forms, but Jalka's theory is very interesting. One thing about Sarah's plays is you can interpret them in a myriad of ways.

I don't think Robin is gay - certainly in the original London production it was clear that he falls in love romantically with Grace, and Sarah's script supports this. The Polish director must have put this new spin in, maybe because Robin wears Grace's clothes (though this is only because Grace demands Graham's clothes from him, so he is left with hers - nothing to do with sexuality).

Archive 5-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:42:52 PM »

Wow...well, you raise alot of interesting questions here..."Cleansed" for me is a play about love, the beauty of love, the dangers of love, the excitment, passion, and ultimate fear of love. How much ARE we willing to sacrifice for it? Tinker seems to represent the emotionally closed off person... wanting love, needing love, turning away from love, he forces the other characters to "prove" their love, almost because maybe he himself doesn't quite believe such a tumultuous force can ever be fully realized without resulting in pain (and yes, I know I am speaking of him as if he were "real", but the best writing often makes you feel that way) for the character of Robin being gay, I don't know really, I mean, all the characters in the play seem to verge on gender bending in some ways, maybe this is a way of asking HOW it is you love someone? Do you fall in love with the mind, the heart, the soul of a person before the more physical part of the body? Are they always inexorably linked? I think the play raises alot of very interesting questions on this point...about Grace being beaten, I'm not sure about that either...pain and suffering seem to be entertwined with love in this work almost to a disturbing degree, I think. As for love itself, well...its beautiful and terrible and painful and exquisite, often all at the same time! I keep thinking of that line from a Depeche Mode song about "Its only when I lose myself with someone else, that I find myself"...I think thats very true (or has been, for me, at least).

Anyway, these are my thoughts...hope they make sense (I'm writing this close to 1 am so...)

Archive 4-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:42:08 PM »

There has been a production of Cleansed here in Poland, and after having read what was written about it I had to revise my own theories about the play. Some authors of the articles proved perfect ignorance showing that they have no idea of what Sarah Kane really wrote, but some (and especially one I will refer to) analized the text really deeply, and produced quite a few interesting ideas. Some are similar to what I thought, some are different... And now I just would like to share a few ideas, and hear your opinions about that.

I understood Tinker as a demiurgical character, who's kind of a ruler of the university world. So does the author of the article. But we see motives of his actions in a different way.

I used to think Tinker is autonomical in his decisions. He's the one who's writting the scenario. He tests everybody's love to see how much can a person sacrifice and suffer for their love. Some pass the test (Grace, Rod in the end), some fail (Carl first of all).

The article gives another theory, and the longer I think of it, the more I agree... Tinker is kind of the "monster from Id". He does only what the others want to do. I developed the theory. Originally it concerned only what happens to Carl.

The author says: "Tinker is a bad god. He fulfills every our bad thought, and doesn't allow to love, because he himself isn't loved nor can he love."

Graham wants to die, so Tinker kills him. Grace wants to become Graham, so Tinker changes her into man. Rod wants to prove young and idealistic Carl, that what he says are only words, that he wouldn't have enough strenght to die for love, so Tinker proves Carl, not only wouldn't he die for love, but even stand pain for it. And it is Rod who'd like to punish Carl for that "Rod, not me", and for the naive, idealistic - and so unsufficient! - apologies.

Then Rod starts to have his theory. That he wouldn't behave like Carl did. He'd sacrifice for his lover. How annoying must it be for Carl. He must be thinking: "words are easy, I now know it myself best. You didn't face the real thing, so you can talk. You'd change your mind with a knife on your throat". And Tinker appears and asks Rod the question: who?

I even think that after Rod's deadth Carl feels so bad that he acctually would punish himself if he only could. Tinker does that for him, and choosing the way that Carl's subconsiousness finds the most suitable (what kind of _man_ denies his love and lets his lover die instead?).

I also can find a reason for what happens to Robin and the peep-show woman, but maybe not here and now.

But I don't know why Grace is beaten. Who wants her to be? Graham? Grace herself? Any ideas?

The author states Tinker is unhappy. I never thought of that. Do you think he really is?

Is Robin a homosexualist? Does he fall in love with Grace only because she is like a man, because she resembles her brother? Or does he love her as a mother. I thought he falls in love with her, because she is a girl, and loves her as a boy loving a girl... The article author is very consistent about Robin's being homosexual. Where does he take it from? Did I miss something? Or maybe the Polish director made him so, and that's why it appears in the article which after all is about the performance, not the drama itself.

That would be the questions that I can't cope with myself. I would really love to hear what you think about that.

And for the end, I also have one more question, which is about a different play. I mention it here, because it the performance appears also a girl "out of the play". She recitates texts from other Sarah Kane's plays. She appears like a ghost from other world.

The performance starts with a monologue of A in Crave. The long love monologue. Everybody here tends to call it fair, beautiful, wonderful, tender, etc. I find it scary. I can't imagine being loved like that. For me it's love that can kill, love that can make you suffocate, love that would like to have you all as the exclusive possession. Being loved like that you have no right to have your time, to have your thoughts, to have your dreams. Someone fulfills it all with themselves. That's the way I feel it. Anyone else? Or it's just my own trauma after the relation I broke recently a moment before being killed by it?

I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Best regards -Jolka-

Archive 3-1-2002