Sarah Kane's 'Blasted': The Representation of Sex in Relation to its Controversies

The controversy surrounding Sarah Kane’s Blasted is multi-faceted, in that critical opinion today has vastly progressed since criticism issued in 1995, the year the play was first performed. It seemed to be that what critics so vehemently condemned in their outright rejection of Blasted was the physical and psychological scenes of extreme violence, carelessly strewn throughout the play, in a way that had never been seen in contemporary theatre until then. Nick Curtis from the Evening Standard scorned Blasted for its “sheer, unadulterated brutalism” (Braid, 1), whilst Michael Billington, amongst others, was ultimately concerned with the lack of logical structure, due to an absence of identifiable details as to the context of the war that permeates the play. Yet, despite the consistency of the abhorrence felt by so many towards Blasted, it is clear that this controversy is firmly rooted in the year of 1995, furthered by Michael Billington’s revoke of his own original, “rudely dismissive” (1) critique, after watching the play’s 2001 revival and becoming “overcome by its sombre power” (1). The multifaceted nature of this controversy is not only intrinsically linked to the time period in which the play was written, but likely due also to the gender and age of its author. Seemingly, headlines such as “Rape Play Girl Goes into Hiding” (DE) are inherently concerned with the violent and sexual nature of the play, in as much as the controversy is not just limited to the content found in Blasted, but directed too towards its young female author. Evidently, Kane’s Blasted not only created controversy and generated division amongst critics, yet it too shocked and appalled audiences, exemplified by Ward’s explanation of the “pervasiveness” (225) of its violence, the “incoherence” (225) of its structure, and “elusiveness” (225) of its purpose. 

With regard to the representation of sex in Blasted, undoubtedly the scenes of rape and sexual violence depicted in the play are shocking, brutalist, and expressed in graphic, mundane detail. Indeed, to understand the full extent of the controversy surrounding Kane’s portrayal of rape and sexual violence in Blasted, one must seek to analyse these scenes in light of feminist criticism, due to the extensive rise of feminist theory in 1995. As Sierz explains “For many writers, Kane’s refusal to explain the play in terms of gender conflict also makes Blasted a troubling play” (63) whereby Kane’s argument for the divisiveness of binary gender roles is contrasted by Elaine Aston’s interpretation of Blasted “as a gendered, feminist text” (583), affirmed by Robin Morgan’s consideration of rape as the “perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture...the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession” (Ward, 226) certainly pertaining to the widely held, yet “simplistic notion that all men are rapists” (227). Cate’s vulnerability, a “condition” (231) which seems to “enhance Cate’s inability to express her violation” (231) is expressed by her accusation of Ian as “cruel” (Kane, 32) rather than as the person responsible for her rape. Additionally too, Cate’s culpability is related to her vulnerability, in that she “seems only too willing to assume that she is, to some degree, culpable in her own violation” (Ward, 231), evident from her decision to remain with Ian after he violates her, and proceeding to perform oral sex on him, “biting his penis when he comes and then spitting ‘frantically, trying to get every trace of him out of her mouth’” (231). Ultimately, Kane’s own attempts to blur the lines between victim and aggressor, and to undermine the binary gendered boundaries of sexual violence and victimhood, is “why” (65), as Sierz argues, “Blasted is such a challenging play.” (65).

Kane’s depiction of sexual violence in conjunction with her rejection of structure, context, and even political and theatrical conservatism, constitutes a controversial reaction from critics too. A lonesome, unadulterated, and uncompromising play, filled with shocking depictions of sexual violence and banal brutality; a play that is unwilling to be categorised or even understood by critics is surely a play that will generate controversy and provoke an equally violent reaction. As Sierz explains “Although Kane’s work remains textual and...representational, she does seek to challenge the boundaries of socially realistic drama by refusing to provide the audience with political contexts or explanations for the violence she represents.” (62). While Christopher Innes argued in his 1995 review of the play that Blasted has “no believable social context” (Sierz, 62) it is evident that Kane’s attempts to reject context in favour of ambiguity - in efforts to present the nature of sexual violence in an accurately realistic way - is spurred by the “frequently shocking, inexplicable and sudden” (62) nature of sexual violence in the real world. By contrasting scenes of immense sexual violence with the mundane realism of a Leeds hotel room, one can see, simultaneously, the categorical boundaries Kane is seeking to escape, and the way in which this refusal to conform generated controversy amongst critics. 

To the modern reader, Blasted’s obsession with sexual violence clearly serves a higher purpose than just to shock; whether to convey the total corruption and devastation of society as reflected by the destruction and humiliation of Ian by the end of the play, or perhaps as Billington now claims, to prove the possibility of “the survival of love in a monstrously cruel world” (1). And yet, the absence of larger moral claims such as these in 1995 certainly conveys the incapability, or perhaps unwillingness of critics at the time, to see past the graphic nature of the play itself and the events it depicts. The controversial nature of Blasted is surely concerned with the representation of rape and sexual violence in the play, in that Kane’s attempts to undermine gendered binaries, and reject conventional categorical structures or genre, is seemingly what critics found so ‘controversial’ about the play in 1995. Thus, what critics overlooked at that time was Kane’s inherent concern with an accurate presentation of pain and trauma, rather than a concern for the division between male and female, or victim and perpetrator. Surely, the greater ‘purpose’ of the play is to demonstrate the cyclical nature of abuse, more than just an attempt to separate experiencers of pain from inflictors of pain; a separation which, within the context of the play at least, cannot be made.