Author Topic: Sarah Kane- jesper madsen, lecturer, Denmark  (Read 8393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline archive

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: Sarah Kane- Linn
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2007, 12:36:45 AM »
Sorry to bother you but every person who says that: 1.People shouldn't get worse conditions because of their sex IS BY DEFINITION A FEMINIST WHETHER SHE WANTS IT OR NOT.

There is a lot of confusion about feminism and I get bored of this kind of low level discussion. Kane would never call herself a feminist and that's fine with me and I can still see her as my favorite (feminist)politician.

Toril Moi has written "Sexual and textual politics" where she explains the difference between feminists, feminists and feminists.

A lot of the feminists of the 70-80's have sacrificed a lot that has resulted in conditions I as a woman can enjoy today. Single mothers with bad economy have also a lot to thank these women of the 80's...and all feminists before them as well. An interesting writer like Kane can afford saying she isn't a feminist.

Before using the word feminist, please define what you mean with it so that interesting feminists won't suffer more than they allready do.

An interesting approach to the mind and body problem in Kanes texts, could be feministic and emerge philosophical.questions about gender, identity and litterature.Of course there are alot of different sides on this matter but the feminist way is one of them. Avoiding being feministic while interpreting Kane's texts will lead to a dead-angle. The society was Kanes context and she had female body. That has given her certain references, as people have treated her as a woman. You can't ever avoid those facts. But how a feminist will use these facts will define what kind of feminist she/he is.

There are two taboos about Kane: 1.Her suicide 2.And the fact that she was a woman/all feministic questions that emerges

I wonder why all men are so happy about Kane saying she's not a feminist.A lot of post modern famous women say that they are not feminists. They say it because they don't need help from anyone, and that's allright.

The most common reason of european womens (19-45 years old)deaths is violonce by men. As long as that's a fact I suppose I have to say I AM A FEMINIST. In Afgahanistan a lot of men burn women's faces. If the aid from europe had a feministic base these women would get more help. Feminist's of the 80's have written a lot about violence in the family. You can see their conclusions being used a lot in art today. Even in Kanes,

Archive 21-12-2002
« Last Edit: September 12, 2007, 02:29:30 PM by Iain Fisher »

Offline archive

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Re: Sarah Kane- LB
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2007, 12:35:54 AM »
Another reason it was contraversial.. Kane was a woman, yet not a pigeon hole 80's feminist, yet not a prissy mainstream appeal power woman. Kane was primarily a writer and in these 'label everything as fast as you can' times that is political and a contraversial. Small fact, but important maybe.>?

Archive 13-12-2002
« Last Edit: September 12, 2007, 02:29:01 PM by Iain Fisher »

Offline archive

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Sarah Kane- jesper madsen, lecturer, Denmark
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2007, 12:35:13 AM »
I've just studied Blasted with my Danish students in English literature. It's really a most fantastic drama and I would like to enter an academic discussing. Scene three is most exhilarating as form really mirrors content: Time, setting, plot and language are blasted.

Below I have listed the themes my students found interesting. If you want to discuss any of the following, please don't hesitate.

ArbejdsspĂžrgsmĂ„l til Sarah Kane’s Blasted

Scene one Focus on the relationship between Cate and Ian.

1. The very first scenes of a play always try to catch the attention of the audience. How does scene one of the play succeed in attracting attention? 2. Pick out a few sentences that describe Ian and Cate 3. Who is controlling who? Give examples. 4. Give examples of moral unease and how it grows. 5. On which levels can you say that there are wars going on? 6. List some of the features characteristic of In-Yer-Face theatre in this scene.

Scene two Focus on the relationship between Cate and Ian and war images.

1. What has happened to the flowers? 2. Find all the hints indicating that Cate has been raped during the night. 3. Compare Ian’s dialogues in scene one with his dialogues in this scene. Any changes? Why?

Scene three Putting the blasts of form, characters, language and content of the play into perspective: dialogue, time, Ians’ blindness, war, nationality, identity, and the concept of an enemy image. The title may refer to many things which are blasted. Try to apply the title to:

1. Form: - the stage, setting 2. - dialogue 3. - time (see the very end of scene one and two) 4. - language 5. Content: - Ian 6. - Cate 7. - The soldier

Scene four Focus on atrocities carried out in different places around the world and the media’s handling of it. TV-viewers’ reactions.

1. Look at the picture (The cover of play showing a soldier NOT doing the V (victory) sign). How would most people react to it? 2. How are Ian’s and The Soldier’s reactions to what they have witnessed in their careers? 3. Now, characterise Cate and Ian again. 4. Does this scene offer any hope as to which mankind can avoid ‘blasts’?

Scene five Focus on why atrocities happen.

1. Look at Ian’s very last remark. Is it a positive ending? 2. What is the idea of presenting Cate and Ian in a ‘hotel room in Leeds – the kind that is so expensive it could be anywhere in the world® (stage directions at the very opening of the play) and a civil war going on outside in the streets (scene three)?

Comment on some of the features characteristic of In-Yer-Face theatre: What is in-yer-face theatre? What is in-yer-face theatre about? Characteristics of the Characters Why use shock? How can theatre be so shocking? Why is in-yer-face theatre provocative? Why in-yer-face theatre is controversial? Why in-yer-face theatre is unsettling? Why show sex? Why show private and intimate situations? Why show nudity? Why violence? Why was in-yer-face theatre possible in the nineties? ? What is in-yer-face theatre? ? Theatre of sensation: ? Experiential ? Touches nerves ? Provokes alarm ? Gets under your skin ? Crossing normal boundaries

It strikes intimate subjects. IYFT forces us to look at feelings we would normally avoid because they are too painful, too frightening, too unpleasant, too acute. The audience is forced to see something close up, right in their faces. IYFT wants the audience to react, to use superlatives whether in praise or condemnation.

What is in-yer-face theatre about? ? Bad news about: ? The awful things humans are capable of ? The limits of our self-control ? The power of the irrational ? The fragility of our sense of the world ? That we can’t be safe

? Central themes: ? Masculinity ? Sexual relationships ? Violence

Language: ? Blatant, filthy

Characters: ? Talk about unmentionable subjects ? Strip off their clothes ? Have sex ? Humiliate each other ? Show unpleasant emotions ? Become violent

Their actions are explicit

Why use shock? ? Wakes up the audience, have an important message ? Questions current ideas of what is normal ? Can educate the senses as well as stimulating curiosity

Shock is created when you go against audience’s expectations. Shock disturbs the spectator’s gaze. What seems shocking to the mainstream is seen as normal by the new wave of playwrights. (Remember they grew up when Thatcher wai in power.)


How can theatre be so shocking? ? Live ? Taboos are broken out in the open ? Others are aware of your reaction ? It is bearable to deal with unsettling subjects when you read about them in private, but put onstage it may be an electrifying experience ? Private intimate situations become overwhelming when staged in public, intimate theatres, hold only about 50 seats. ? Audience becomes complicit witness


Why is in-yer-face theatre provocative? ? New tone of voice ? Questions sensibility ? New stage images ? It departs from the conventional form of the naturalist 3 act drama

Naturalist representations of disturbing subjects are usually much easier to handle than emotionally fraught situations that are presented in an unfamiliar theatrical style


Why in-yer-face theatre is controversial? ? Walkouts ? Letters to the press ? Leader articles (“waste of public money” ? Calls for bans or cuts in funding ? Questions in Parliament ? Prosecution on charges of obscenity or blasphemy


Why in-yer-face theatre is unsettling? ? It challenges the destinctions we use to define who we are: ? Human/animal, clean/dirty, healthy/unhealthy, normal/abnormal, good/evil, true/untrue, real/unreal, right/wrong, just/unjust, art/life

It can be unsettling to question binary oppositions that are central to our worldview


Why show sex? ? Unsettles the audience because it is a reminder of our intimate feelings we desire to keep secret ? Causes anxiety because sex refers to powerful and uncontrollable things ? When sex is coupled with emotion such as neediness or loneliness the effect is disturbing


Why show private and intimate situations? ? Generates emotional charge


Why show nudity? ? Exposes human frailty ? Exposes the body beautiful ? Act of political power ? Liberation from convention


Why violence? ? Breaks the rule of debate-goes beyond word ? Feels primitive, irrational, destructive ? Enjoy violence when you are not part of it yourself ? Disturbs when we feel emotion behind the acting ? Questions titillation and gratuitous violence


Why was in-yer-face theatre possible in the nineties? ? Playwrights found artistic freedom after: ? The fall of the Berlin Wall and the exit of Margareth Thatcher. After all, changes were possible ? Postmodernism: “Anything goes”. No ideologies, no rules, no “taste” ? Could be sceptical of male power without being feminist ? Could express outrage without being political correct ? New writing was needed in Britain and young people were encouraged by stage directors to write

Thatcherism provided both a climate of anger and the motivation to do something about it.



From Aleks Sierz, in In-Yer-Face Theatre, p. 237-240 (Faber and Faber, 2001), (3,2 ns)

“One way of understanding the point of view of a young writer is to do a thought experiment. 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, some time in the late eighties, you discover Ecstasy and dance culture. Sexually, you're less hung up about differences between gays and straights than your older brothers and sisters. You also realize that if you want to protest, or make music, shoot a film or put on an exhibition, you have to do it yourself. In 1989, the Berlin Wall falls and the old ideological certainties disappear into the dustbin of history. And you're still not even twenty. In the nineties, media images of Iraq, Bosnia and Rwanda haunt your mind. Political idealism - you remember Tiananmen Square and know people who are roads protesters - is mixed with cynicism - your friends don't vote and you think all politicians are corrupt. This is the world you write about.”




“In the nineties, stage-of-the-nation plays fell out of favour, but most young writers did paint a vivid picture of contemporary life. Accepted pieties about what it meant to be British were not merely questioned, they were interrogated. Britain was seen as a bleak place where families were dysfunctional, individuals rootless and relationships acutely prob-lematic, a place where loners drifted from bedsits to shabby flats. Here, you were more likely to bump into a rent boy than a factory worker, a girl gang than a suburban birthday party, a group of petty thieves than a couple buying their first house. Foul-mouthed and irreverent, wildly gleeful and often hip, these were also troubled people. Despite their bravado, there was helplessness and anxiety: sexual, moral, existential. Such vividly drawn characters inhabited episodic stories rather than three-act plots, metaphor-rich situations rather than well-made plays. But amid the confusion, the nihilism and the pain, there were often faint rays of hope shining through the dark of the urban jungle. No one suggests that the majority of the British people were rent boys, smack addicts or abuse victims; social surveys showed that most young people wanted a job and a stable family. But many young writers used extreme characters to redefine the image of Britain. No more cosy suburban life, no more country nostalgia. Instead, as dramatist John Mortimer put it, new writing reflected the “strident, anarchic, aimless world of England today, not in anger, or even bitterness, but with humour and a kind of love”. This imaginary Britain was a far darker place than that experienced on a daily basis by most of its audiences. And while it could be read as an example of the 'young country' that New Labour - with its attempts to rebrand Britain - tried to promote, it was much more raw, savage and critical than the platitudinous ideas thrown up by the Cool Britannia phenomenon. New writing's Britain was a netherscape that forcefully reminded audiences that not every-thing in the garden was rosy. The metaphors typical of nineties drama - summed up by stage images of abuse, anal rape and addiction - could be criticized for being literal images of horror, but their context often represented an advance on eighties drama because it saw the world in a more complex light. The best plays of the decade were most provocative when they viewed terri-ble acts as psychological states, usually characterized by complicity and collusion. Although the urgency of in-yer-face drama, with its com-pelling new aesthetic of experiential theatre, reached out and dragged audiences through ugly scenes and deeply disturbing situations, its motives were not to titillate but to spread the knowledge of what humans are capable of. Experiential theatre aimed to wake up audiences and tell them about extreme experiences, often in order to immunize them to those events in real life. As Sarah Kane once said, “It is important to commit to memory events which have never happened - so that they never happen. I'd rather risk overdose in the theatre than in life.””




”Apart from their emphasis on masculinity, what were the politics of cutting-edge new plays? It is symptomatic of the nineties that traditional categories of left and right politics didn't seem to fit any more. While in-yer-face theatre was certainly anti-middle class - in the sense of affronting social conventions and being sceptical about the values of Middle England - it is much harder to argue that it was pro-working class. Behind the violence of these plays, lies anger and confusion - a typical response to the difficulties of living in a post-Christian, post--Marxist, postfeminist and postmodern society. For most writers, both the politics of consumer society and the traditional leftist opposition were equally suspect. But if the proletariat was no longer God, com-modity capitalism was still Satanic.”

Archive 2-12-2002
« Last Edit: September 12, 2007, 02:28:34 PM by Iain Fisher »