Pedophilia = Hit Play?

Some of you may be wondering if I have given up on going to Dublin theatre. No, I haven't. But I have not seen as many shows in the New Year (Lunar or otherwise) as I saw when I first arrived. I did go on Wednesday to see Blackbird, recipient of the 2006 Olivier Award for new play.

The script seems interesting and might approach sexual relations with a minor in a different way than I've seen before, but it was difficult to tell. The actress was having an off night and seemed to be going through the motions without the support for the shifts, as if she was simply changing her tone or pace of speaking and breathing to indicate the changes. (I was in the front row and barely felt the energy coming off of her, even in her most heated moments.) The scenography was a hyper-real lounge area at a dentistry supply manufacturing company and it was filthy. Not only were the walls and light switches absolutely disgusting to see, there was garbage strewn everywhere. As soon as I walked in my Painfully Obvious and Somewhat Insulting alarm went off: I already knew the play was about a 27-year-old woman confronting the man who was her lover fifteen years previously. (Yup, doing the math will tell you she was twelve at the time.) So they are going to exist in the midst of garbage, trash, other people's discards...uh, okay.

My main complaint is that folks seemed content to say it was controversial because it has pedophilia in the storyline. I think what was more dangerous, and not directly addressed in the woman's characterization, was where therapy didn't help the girl learn to distinguish the relationship as something other than the love she thought it was. Here she is, fifteen years later, and she can tell you all the accusatory things that were said about him (and implied about her), but she didn't get to grieve or to heal from what I saw. The apparent inability of the man to accept responsibility for violating the social contract that says twelve-year-olds are not consenting adults (and are not old enough to give informed consent) and that he was supposed to maintain the boundaries; he is more concerned with chastising the system that kept trying to treat him as a pedophile when really it was love for this one girl rather than for girls in general. There is a big difference between thoughts and actions; some would say the big distinction between a pedophile and a non-pedophile is the action taken towards (pre)adolescents.

There was an article in the Irish Times in which Fintan O'Toole argues that pedophilia isn't taboo in the theatre because there are so many plays about it, and many of them saying something more interesting than this one. It remains taboo in life, though, and so these plays that barely address the issue do more to sustain the taboo by not encountering the topic directly. O'Toole notes quite a few plays with a pedophilia element to them including two daring and disturbing pieces that I would recommend: How I Learned to Drive by Paula Vogel and On Rafferty's Hill by Marina Carr. Both of these plays deal with the moment as well as with reflection. One of the downfalls of Blackbird was the emphasis on talking about the past without the performance really exploring the layers of rewriting the story.

Maybe I know too much or have too much empathy. Maybe I expect too much to want to see nuanced characters rather than absolute victims and villains. I don't have a problem with the girl being portrayed as the sexual aggressor (which I don't agree is going on in Blackbird), but what's interesting and necessary is that element of complicity. As O'Toole pointed out, drama without conflict doesn't work well which means it's difficult to portray victims of abuse as complete victims in theatre. But alarms start going off for many people when there is any discussion of responsibility on the part of the victim who, after all, was violated. So intention seems to be the difference: a twelve-year-old may like the attention and being treated like she matters and, at that time, understand kissing and touching to be an appropriate next step. An adult hopefully understands that there is such a thing as friendship and that, while the twelve-year-old may sound like s/he understands what is being said, the child most likely doesn't understand the implications/repercussions in the same way the adult does. We are mimics after all and children try to interact with the people and the world in the ways they are shown.

Maybe it just comes down to the social contract. There is an expectation that everyone will obey the rules. The reality is that someone else may not reinforce boundaries for your child (and, interestingly, most parents get really upset when someone else "parents" their child). I guess my point it is that sexual abuse is a complex situation (from the act of violation, to the recovery, to the life afterwards, and beyond), but one that deserves contemplation.

I think I've read too many plays with incest lately because I am starting to feel that incest is another topic Fintan O'Toole should address in terms of being over- and ill-used in theatre. I'm tired of sexual abuse being used as a metaphor for a different problem or situation. Don't make victims tokens or plot asides. Don't assume all aggressors in or survivors of sexual abuse experience the same thing.

This has gotten very long and I am very tired. I apologize that I got a bit circular and unclear. Maybe with further contemplation I will clarify my point. Really, I just wanted to put it out there. We can all re-evaluate again later.