Before reading Blasted, I had heard so much about Sarah Kane and how controversial a writer she was with subject matters that ranged from male-rape to cannibalism. Kane is often described as one of the most shocking, brutally honest and yet important playwrights of her generation (possibly, even of all time); so suffice to say, I was intrigued.
The story follows Ian, a middle-aged, xenophobic, journalist who is obsessively in love with Cate, a shy and mentally fragile younger woman who has to resist frequent advances from Ian as they hide out in a hotel room in Leeds, while a war breaks out in the streets.
When I began reading the play, I had an attitude of "Oh, come on. How bad could it be. Bring it on, Sarah Kane." While it gets off to a fairly tame start (I use that term very liberally, by the way), it quickly lives up to it's reputation as one of the most relentlessly brutal plays ever written and I speak as someone who thought he'd seen and heard it all when it came to horrifying depictions of violence, racism, rape, cannibalism etc. Without wishing to spoil anything, I counted at least three occasions in which I put the book down for a moment and take a moment to think whether or not I'd read it correctly.
But how does the play stand if you look past the shock value? It holds up spectacularly; within the first few pages, Sarah Kane does a phenomenal job at establishing the characters and their relationship with one another. I was amazed at just how despicable and unpleasant the characters could be at times and yet, I still felt like they were sympathetic three-dimensional characters; especially Ian, for example, in his first lines of dialogue swears obnoxiously, shouts racist abuse for seemingly no reason and throughout the first scene alone he constantly tries to force himself on Cate; he could so easily come across as a stereotypical hateful antagonist (and you'd be forgiven for thinking he is) and yet Kane subtly and no-too-obviously writes him as a character who mostly hates himself more than anything and is simply deflecting onto the rest of the world, thereby making him understandable but not excusable, I love it, that's great character writing.
When reading plays I often observe stage-directions and how much detail the writer goes into, but what impressed me the most about Blasted was how characters are as much defined by their actions as they are with what they say, many other playwrights simply leave it up to interpretation of the dialogue to establish the characters. But in Blasted, I was struck by just how many moments in each scene were devoid of dialogue and relied entirely on the stage-directions, showing that Sarah Kane knew how to create atmosphere and again how much of what characters actually do that defines them, they do not always have to explain themselves.
So, overall, even if it does get quite absurd at it's most gratuitous points; even if it is rather unpleasant; even though I doubt I would want to see a live production of it due to much of it's content; I still believe Blasted is a brilliant play that deserves to be praised and remembered as well as it has been. If you are easily distressed by even the notion of what the play depicts, don't bother because you will HATE it. But if you don't mind that or you're a theatre lover, like me, I will say it's a play worth reading and with my recommendation, just remember that Sarah Kane earned her reputation for a reason.