Can Orton and Ravenhilll Be Described as Radical Queers - Essay Example

Can Orton and Ravenhilll be described as radical queers? Introduction The phrase radical queer refers to activism in favour of gay rights In Sullivan’s description of radical political movements during the 1960s and 1970s, all indications are that radical queer would refer to an individual who advocated for political, legal and social change which liberates homosexuals and advocates for equality and non-discriminatory practices.2 Spargo defines gay radicalism as movements that resist oppression and advocate for revolutionary change.3 Joe Orton’s plays were written when the Lord Chamberlain’s department’s approval was need for plays to be published and sexual relations between men were unlawful. Still, there was a contention that Orton somehow managed to contribute to the movement for gay rights.4 Mark Ravenhill who was openly gay and forthright about being HIV positive weaved together plays that waged an assault on social structures and arguably advocated for social change for the oppressed including gays.5 This essay argues that both Ravenhill and Orton are properly characterized as radical gays. In order to demonstrate queer radicalism on the part of Orton and Ravenhill, this essay conducts an analysis of some of their plays that substantiate this claim. This essay is therefore divided into two parts. The first part of this essay analyses some of Orton’s plays as a means of demonstrating that he can be properly characterized as a radical queer. The second part of this essay also analysed some of Ravenhill’s plays as a means of demonstrating that Ravenhill was also a radical queer. Joe Orton and Queer Radicalism Nakayama argues that Orton’s plays were self-conscious creations of an alternative to the standard heterosexual society and in particular the “bourgeois norm of the nuclear family” as opposed to a “neurotic repetition of it”.6 Regardless there are two perspectives relative to whether or not Orton was indeed a queer radical. One perspective argues that Orton given the times in which Orton wrote, his plays indicate that he was “an advance guard of” the sexual revolution and a “sort of fifth columnist among sexual conservatives”.7 That some of Orton’s plays such as What the Butler Saw focused so sharply on clandestine sexuality that it was obvious that Orton was content to “remain in the closet without directly confronting the sexual powers that were”.8 The criticisms of What the Butler Saw arise out of what Orton failed to do rather than what he actually did in the play. Butler was written in 1967 before theatre censorship had come to an end. However, since liberation movements for gays was in full swing, expectations were that Orton would overtly launch an assault on anti-gay sentiments and since he did not do so directly, he was content with the status quo.9 However, when account is taken of what Orton did in Butler, it is difficult to ignore the underlying commentary on anti-gay sentiments. Butler is a comedy and parodies The Importance of Being Ernest by Oscar Wilde. Butler through comic representations mocks conventional heterosexuality and as such launches an assault on conventional morals, values and thinking among the British upper and middles classes.10 When examining Butler, it has to be remembered that Orton’s plays were staged at a time when “the scope for homosexuals, both in British society and in the theatre, was sharply contested”.11 The fact that Orton made a daring mockery of traditional heterosexual relations and focused on the sexual identity of heterosexual characters, arguably challenged the concept that heterosexuality was a model for sexual identity. As Buse puts it, in Butler, sexuality comes across as no different from language in that it is futile for both biology and law to attempt to “define and regulate it”.12 According to Buse, Butler was a major milestone for sexual liberation in the 1960s as Orton, unlike other writers of the time, was not hesitant in attacking heterosexuality head-on.13 Orton chose to overtly challenge the supposed superiority of heterosexuality and its institutions. For example Dr. Prentice pointedly stated in Butler “marriage excuses no one from the freaks roll-call”.14 Entertaining Mr. Sloane, Orton’s first staged play in 1964 also challenged concepts of heterosexual respectability and as such established his tradition of advocating for gay rights. The dialogue between Mr. Sloane and Kath at the beginning of the play set the stage for the hypocrisy and cruelty of conventional values. Kath relates how she pretended to be married and widowed although she never was. Upon admitting that she had never been married, Kath tells Mr. Sloane: My brother would be upset if he knew I told you. Nobody knows around here. The people in the nursing home imagined I was somebody. I didn’t disillusion them.15 In other words, Kath was accepted and regarded as important only because it was believed that she was married. She was not accepted for who she was as an individual. Thus implicitly conventional values and moral are flawed. The irony is that Kath who was pregnant and alone and under pressure to marry was not married because the parents of the boy that she was pregnant for would not allow his marriage to her. Kath then gave the baby up for adoption. Mr. Sloane who had both parents in his life suffered a similar fate as the child of the disgraced and single Kath. Mr. Sloane tells Kath that he grew up in an orphanage because his parents died together when he was only 8 years old. Kath and Sloane speculate that Sloane’s parents’ deaths were a “suicide pact”,16 and the following exchange takes place: Kath:...With a nice lad like you to take care of you’d think they’d’ve postponed it. Criminals were they? Sloane: From what I remember they was respected. You know H.P. debts. Bridge. A little light gardening. The usual activities of a cultured community. I respect their memory.17 Kath observes “poor boy. Alone in the world. Like me.”18 This is a poignant observation because it reflects the hypocrisy and cruelty of conventional morals and values. Although Sloane had respectable parents and Kath was not a respectable parent, both ended up with same unfavourable outcomes: alone in a cruel, insensitive and largely hypocritical world. Sloane lodges with Kath whose house is located on the edge of a landfill. Thus the house’s location near a dump arguably symbolizes that society’s outcasts live on the outer fringes of a society that is decidedly rubbish. Orton also demonstrates the hypocrisy and insensitivity of conventional values and morals through Ed, Kath’s brother. When Orton attacks Kath and Ed’s father resulting in his death, a strange and daring threesome follows. Ed who first insists on Sloane’s arrest, is persuaded to forgo criminal prosecution in exchange for Sloane’s servitude. Sloane who is admittedly having an affair with Kath is put in a difficult position. Eventually, the siblings come to an arrangement in which Sloane would divide his time between the siblings.19 Arguably, Orton gives expression to the flawed logic driving conventional society’s values and morals via the character of Ed. Those who reinforce and dictate the appropriate behaviour go about making very different decisions and acting against the values and moral that they set for everyone else to follow. This is demonstrated through Ed who insists that his sister give up a child conceived outside of marriage and exonerates the man who killed his father in exchange for his servitude. Therefore it can be argued that by exposing the flaws in society and dominant norms, Orton was taking a stance against these norms and society and by doing so was the mouthpiece for non-conventional standards and values, especially gay rights considering that he was openly gay. Orton’s Loot also challenges conventional morals and values in a comical way. The play opens with a grieving widower at home with the coffin in which Mcleavy, the widower’s wife’s body is to be buried. Fay, a nurse appears and starts a conversation with Mcleavy in which it is established that Mrs. Mcleavy has only been dead for three days. Yet Fay is encouraging Mcleavy to remarry straightaway. Fay informs Mcleavy that its imperative that he replace his dead wife as she “wasn’t perfect”.20 Fay goes on to state: You must marry a girl with youth and vitality. Someone with a consistent attitude towards religion. That’s most important. With her dying breath Mrs. Mcleavy cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Gospels. What kind of wife is that for you? The leading Catholic layman within a radius of forty miles. Where did you meet such a women?21 As it turns out, Mr. Mcleavy met his now-deceased wife at “an informal get-together run by a Benedictine monk.”22 It would therefore appear that even those with the highest moral codes and standards are unable to properly judge those with whom they accept and respect. Just as they may be wrong about those that they select as acceptable and respectable, they may be wrong about those that they reject and alienate. Fay who judges Mrs. Mcleavy’s lack of moral virtues, and in particular characterizes the late Mrs. Mcleavy as deceptive, has no problems being deceptive herself. She tells Mcleavy that she will set him up with a suitable bride, but he must for the sake of appearance appear to mourn his wife for a respectable period.23 The underlying message is that you don’t have to actually suppress your real desires as long as it appears that you are complying with societal norms, you can have your cake and eat it too. This can also be taken to mean that homosexuals can get by with homosexuality is they hide it from society and appear to be complying with the dominant societal norms. Although Orton did not directly advocate for homosexual rights, he did so indirectly by exposing dominant norms as founded on flawed logic. It must be remembered that this flawed logic gave way to oppression and subjugation. It drove homosexuals underground just as it drove feelings and perceptions that were inconsistent with societal norms underground. The fact that Orton as gay also indicates that the experiences of gay people at the time informed his approach to expressing discontent with society and norms as a whole. Mark Ravenhill and Queer Radicalism Ravenhill’s first published work Shopping and Fucking (1996) is an exercise in realism focusing on outcasts and misfits: drug users, prostitutes and homosexuals. Sex and consumerism are conjoined in Shopping indicating that intimacy is a passionless exercise in postmodern urban settings. Sex, violence and drugs are brought together as nothing more than consumer transactions.24 Shopping challenges the values and morals of the postmodern world and as such considers how the dominant norms are not always right and could be detrimental to society. Unlike Orton, Ravenhill has no restraints and can therefore enjoyed creative licence and dealt with homosexuality openly in Shopping. Ravenhill creates a quadrangle in which Robbie is attracted to Mark who is in love with Gary and Lulu who is attracted to Robbie. Realising that Robbie is out of her reach, she offers a criticism of homosexuality: Boys grow up you know and stop playing with each other’s willies. Men and women make the future. There are people out there who need me. Normal people who have kind tidy sex and when they want it. And boys? Boys just fuck each other.25 Ravenhill gives expression to the views of the dominant heterosexual norm in terms of masculinity and sexuality. In this regard, heterosexuality is perceived as normal whereas homosexuality is perceived as abnormal and something that boys may go through, but outgrow. It is heterosexual couples that render man immortal because unlike homosexual couples, heterosexual couples reproduce. Arguably, Ravenhill is a queer radical because he deliberately shocks his audience with his depiction of homosexuality and heterosexuality in ways that accentuate the significance of consumerism in human sexual behaviour. By taking this approach, Ravenhill is fostering thought and rethinking of priorities. In this regard, Ravenhill is much like Ortan in honing in on current societal issues at the time of writing. As Svich observes: Like Joe Orton, to whose anarchic spirit he is often compared, Ravenhill revels in unnerving his audience and crossing boundaries of authority and moral license in order to expose the licentiousness of his age.26 Sierz describes what is known as “in your face theatre” to which Ravenhill belongs.27 The purpose of in your face theatres is to portray real moral and social issues in a way that is shocking and provokes not only thought, but responses.28 In this regard, Ravenhill is not just a queer radical but a radical in general. His plays not only documented the struggles and relationships of homosexuals, but also the problems confronted by heterosexuals. As Urban notes that the purpose of in your face theatre is: ...the violent awakening of consciousness to the horrors of life that had previously remained unconscious, both unseen and unspoken...29 Thus the horrors of homosexuality and homosexual lives together with the struggles for heterosexuals and postmodern conditions are vividly depicted in Ravenhill’s work. Likewise, the unconscious functioning in all aspects of modern life are vividly portrayed by Ravenhill. Brian’s comments in Shopping demonstrate the realism that Ravenhill brings into this work. Brian commented that: You know life is hard...We work, we struggle. And we find ourselves asking: what is this for? Is there meaning?...We need something. A guide. A talisman. A set of rules. A compass to steer us through this everlasting night. Our youth is spent searching for this guide until we...some give up. Some say there is nothing...30 Ravenhill obviously intends to provoke thoughts about priorities in a world in which materialism and base values inform a generation without values and a world without real meaning. In this regard, Ravenhill is not only concerned about revolutionizing societal attitudes toward and treatment of homosexuals, but he also questions whether the dominant culture can properly set standards of behaviour generally. In this regard, Ravenhill was indeed much more than a queer radical. He was a radical for societal change generally. Conclusion Since radicals are activists or advocates that take decisive action to encourage revolutionary changes in society, both Orton and Ravenhill can be properly described as queer radicals. Orton was constrained by theatre censorship when he wrote plays for the British stage. Even so, he managed to challenge existing norms that drove homosexuals underground and in many ways questioned whether or not heterosexuals and their values and standards should be driven underground instead. Ravenhill, was not constrained by censorship and directly depicted the struggles experienced by homosexuals. Ravenhill did not stop there and also depicted the struggles confronted by heterosexuals. Regardless of their different approaches, both Orton and Ravenhill provoked thought and in doing so contributed toward changes in perceptions and attitudes toward homosexuality and heterosexuality. Bibliography Buse, P. Drama and Theory: Critical Approaches to Modern British Drama. (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2001). Cody, G. H. and Sprinchorn, E. The Columbia Encyclopedia of Modern Drama: M-Z. (New York, NY: Colombia University Press, 2007). Coppa, F. Joe Orton: A Casebook. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2003). Downling, L. Queer in Europe: Contemporary Case Studies. (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2011). Nakayama, R. S. ‘Domesticating Mr. Orton,’ (May 1993) 45(2) Theatre Journal, 185-195. Orton, J. What the Butler Saw, (Samuel French, Inc., 1967/2010). Orton, J. ‘Entertaining Mr. Sloane’. In, The Complete Plays, (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1976). Orton, J. ‘Loot.’ In, The Complete Plays. (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1976). Ravenhill, M. Shopping and Fucking, (Metheun Modern Plays, 1996). Sierz, A. ‘In Yer Face in Bristol,’ (2003) 19(1) New Theatre Quarterly, 90-91. Sinfield, A. ‘Who Was Afraid of Joe Orton?’ (1990) 4(2) Textual Practice, 259-277. Spargo, T. Foucault and Queer Theory. (Cambridge, UK: Icon Books, 1999). Sullivan, N. Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2003). Svich, C. ‘Commerce and Morality in the Theatre of Mark Ravenhill,’ (2003) 13(1) Contemporary Theatre Review, 81-95. Urban, K. ‘Towards a Theory of Cruel Britannia: Coolness, Cruelty, and the Nineties,’ (2004) 20(4) New Theatre Quarterly, 354-372. Read More