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