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 22, 2007, 12:08:45 AM »

That's really interesting. Do you think htough that there is this utter despair in language? I'm gonna have to read it again. I felt an overload, an almost overcoding of the language. In that it becomes obvious at times that it is deeply personal and at times (only rarely) almost exclusive to Kane. I dedtected an abundance of love for this language. AN embracing of it. I love the difference of your reading, tell me more.

Archive 13-12-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:08:03 AM »

Learning from SarahĀ“s life is fine as long as all interpretations of 4.48 donĀ“t focus on the author because then the text dies. I really liked your view & respect it. My understanding of 4.48 is about anti-language: Someone saw through language and therefor got total understanding about the impossibility of communication. The character has resigned herself to language, thatĀ“s a cruel philospophical approach to life but still beautiful and brave in a tender naive way. 4.48 is an overdose of rationality and loss. ItĀ“s the most intelligent text IĀ“ve ever read. Language will never save us, and thatĀ“s all we have got. Sarah Kane didnĀ“t choose life.I miss a woman I have never met and everytime I look for her the text shows me another face. The text of texts.

Archive 26-11-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:07:03 AM »

Yes I do. And you put it far more eloquently than I could. D

Archive - 8-11-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:06:34 AM »

As the person who wrote the message in the first place, ( 'her life is over, her art is not and I didn't mean to anon it, sorry ) but I would like to be very specific as to why I think I wrote it. I, like del, feel that this has been a great resource etc. etc. and is such a good legacy to Kane (a great global encouragement to DO Kane's work) BUT there are times when the line is crossed on this discussion page. Sarah Kane was a person and I'm sure we could attribute a set of lovely characteristics to her, but it would only be speculation and really unecessar. Her art stands for itself. I am interested in her life but I would disagree with David who feels the more personal detail you can cram into a piece, the more informed it becomes. WHat a load of....! Sorry but seriously is that what her art is, just self referential side notes to an interseting life??? I hope it is more. Wouldn't it be more interesting to explore the images that the plays evoke amongst our cast?? Or ourselves? Those very personal images that hold such great resonance!!! The plays are good because they evoke strong images in our creative imaginations that we can move forward with ourselves. I honestly think this is the only way Kane's work will stay alive. However, in saying that Kane's life and the way people react to Kane's play does interest me, a lot. But there is a line to what I feel I am at right to know. Kane may not (who knows) have been able to sep. life and the work but that is not an invitation for people to describe or find out whether or not she was raped as a small child. That is crossing the line. WHY? Because it is perverted detail my friends! That cannot be validated by an endeavour to artistically inform your work. That is purely on invasion on KAne's privacy and theroefore ethically questionable. DOn't you think!

Archive 6-11-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:05:36 AM »

Sorry - hit the wrong button! As i was saying... Obviously, knowing the context that a play was performed in is important, and Sarah's life was certainly an interesting one. I can understand why people want to know more, and this site is a fantastic resource. Thanks again.

Archive 29-10-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:05:01 AM »

Thanks guys, I see what you're saying. Obviously, knowing

Archive 29-10-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:04:34 AM »

To my mind it's impossible to separate the life from the work, and if a director/actor's ultimate goal is to serve the text & the playwright as best as they possibly can, then you have to know as much about the circumstances that surround a piece of dramatic literature as best you can, because only then can you perceive what the INTENT is. For instance, "Twelfth Night" changes radically when you consider that Shakespeare had twin children, one of whom died in the year or so prior to the composition of the play. When he then goes and writes a play about a girl mourning her supposedly dead twin brother, what does that tell us about what he had in mind? Sure, on one level it can be performed as a bawdy comedy, but on another level there's something emotionally deeper and more important. Likewise with "Crave" - in directing it I found, as did the actors, that we HAD to know as much as we possibly could, within reason, about the circumstances of its composition and whether we're deifying her or not, we CANNOT separate the life - or in some cases the death - of Sarah from the emotional depth & impact of her writing. Yes, "Crave" can be viewed and performed as a piece of abstract expressionism, as an epic poem, or as a piece of technical virtuosity - which indeed it is at various points (it requires its actors to have an INCREDIBLE synchronicity if they're not to f*ck it up)- but at the end of the day its emotional tone, its despair and its HOPE - be it in starting again or ending your life - are what makes it an experience actors and audiences never forget. We found in rehearsing and performing that the more we learnt about Sarah's life, the more we could unlock, and the more we learnt about HER life, the more we understood OURS and were able to identify the similarities and the fundamental differences that human beings share. And at the risk of sounding cheesy and sentimental, we felt that we came to know and care about Sarah as we examined the other plays, the interviews and the reference material.

Archive 25-10-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 22, 2007, 12:03:48 AM »

I agree that discussion of Sarah should focus primarily on her plays. However, it is IMO acceptable to discuss her life (what little we know about it) when it is directly relevant to her work - eg the influence of her broken affair on Crave.

I don't think I go as far as 'deifying' her. She was an important influence on my life and I will continue to treat her as such. I refuse to be ashamed of my tears for her death. For me there was no shame in weeping for the loss of someone who changed my life for the better, who was lovely to me when I was lucky enough to meet her, who possessed an incredible unique talent and who clearly still had a great deal to offer.

Archive 24-10-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 21, 2007, 12:08:25 AM »

I'd like to agree with this comment from further up the page, made by an anonymous contributer. I find some of the discussion about Kane's work here fascinating, and some of them just absurd. I've always been impressed by Kane's work, but some people seem to have deified her, simply because she wasn't happy, and died tragically early. Please let's not turn her into Princess Di / Kurt Cobain / John Lennon / Elvis(?!?!?)... She would probably be pissing herself laughing, or screaming because some people have missed the point. Read her work, and then perform it because that's why she wrote it after all. I welcome your thoughts.

Archive 24-10-2002