In-Yer-Face Theatre (2001)


By Aleks Sierz
Excerpt from “Conclusion”


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, same 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.

Such writers were Thatcher's Children, and their view of the world came from being brought up in the eighties. In the fierceness of its attack on market economics, in-yer-face theatre was a reaction against the idea that ‘there is no such thing as society'; with its images of violent men and rude girls, it stemmed from two decades of growing feminist sensibility; in its ready acceptance of street slang and exuberant bad language, it reflected the importance of ‘yoof’ culture; in its obsession with laddish behaviour, it mirrored the crisis of masculinity; and in turning its back on the state-of-the-nation and issue play, it suggested a crisis of the liberal imagination. It would, however, be wrong to be too dogmatic about what makes a 'typical' young writer. Although many share similar ten¬dencies, they are all highly individual, as the diversity of their plays shows. Some, like Sarah Kane and Mark Ravenhill, may have been Thatcher's Children, but their political awareness also put them in a direct line with the powerful leftist tradition in British theatre.

In the nineties, state-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 helplessnes 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 compelling 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.’

Research, perspective, and discussion: Answer and discuss the following questions with a partner:

  1. The text mentions the Berlin Wall, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Tiananmen Square. What were the significance of these in 1989 and the early nineties? You may need to consult the Internet.
  2. How might these events affect young writers and other artist working at the time?
  3. Do we see the influence of any of these events in the examples of in-yer-face theatre you know? If yes, how?
  4. What national or international events that have happened in your lifetime might affect you if you were to become a writer or other type of artist?

Analysis: Comment and answer the following questions:

  1. Thatcher’s Children:
    a. Why are the young writers referred to as Thatcher’s Children?
    b. What was characteristic of Thatcher’s Children?
  2. Portrayal and reality:
    a. How were Britain and the British people portrayed in these plays?
    b. How does the Britain portrayed in the plays compare to real-world Britain?
    c. Why did the young writers portray Britain the way they did?
  3. “It is important to commit to memory events which have never happened – so that they never happen.” Comment on this.


Glossary:

thought experimenttankeeksperiment
Margaret Thatcherbritisk premierminister (1979-1990), 1925-2013, “the Iron Lady”, berømt og berygtet for sin hårde konservative politik med blandt andet nedlæggelse af fagforeninger, privatisering af den offentlige sektor og lavere skatter. Hendes regeringsperiode var blandt andet præget af stor arbejdsløshed og et større antal børn levende under fattigdomsgrænsen
Toriesbritiske konservative
stagnatestagnerer / går i stå
hung upoptaget af / begrænset af
exhibitionudstilling
roads protestersfolk der protesterer mod oprettelsen af nye veje (britisk fænomen)
market economicsmarkedsøkonomi / kapitalistisk system hvor priser styres af udbud og efterspørgsel
exuberantsprudlende
yoofungdom (britisk slang)
laddishdrengerøvsagtig
state-of-the-nation and issue playreflekterende samtidsteater som belyser henholdsvis samfundets tilstand, eller som beskæftiger sig med en konkret problemstilling
dogmaticdogmatisk / blind i troen
Sarah Kanebritisk dramatiker, 1971-1999, kendt for grænseoverskridende stykker som Blasted (1995), Cleansed (1998) og 4:48 Psychosis (2000), sidstnævnte opført efter hendes død ved selvmord
Mark Ravenhillbritisk dramatiker, 1966-, kendt for voldsomme og sorthumoristiske stykker som Shopping and Fucking (1996) og Some Explicit Polaroids (1999)
vividlevende
contemporarymoderne
pietiesfromheder
bleakdystert
acutelypresserende
bedsitslejede værelser
rent boytrækkerdreng / mandlig prostitueret
irreverentrespektløst
bravadoføren sig frem
amidblandt
nihilismnihilism / filosofisk retning som arbejder ud fra den præmis, at der ikke findes absolutte moralske eller religiøse værdier
smack addictsheroinafhængige
social surveysspørgeskemaundersøgelser
New Labourrelancering af det britiske arbejderparti Labour i 1996
platitudinousfortærskede / prætentiøse
netherscapeunderverden
complicitymeddelagtighed
collusionaftalt spil
experientalumiddelbart / oplevelsesorienteret
titillatepirre / ægge
Praxis Forlag A/S, Vognmagergade 7, 5. sal • DK-1148 • København K • Tlf: +45 89 88 26 72 • Email: info@praxis.dk • CVR 41280921
Egmont