“When Newsweek, all smoky blues and flesh-tones, decided to forgo current events and pseudo-science and instead to splash Nicole Kidman in fishnet tights to herald the play’s New York opening, then it was believed to be the first time that an American news magazine had thought a mere stage play worthy of its cover since the zenith of Tennessee Williams. But never for a moment did Sam, Nicole or I confuse a modern electronic sandstorm with either significance or reverberation. [. . .] It was, in our eyes, a subtle and unsettling small-scale play, more tender than its reputation” (Hare, 38).
This is an example of the adage, "sex sells." By plastering Kidman's image on the cover and focusing on the tiny glimpse you might get of her birthday suit, they effectively ignore the intellectual argument present in the play about the lack of fulfillment one might get from sex alone--meaningful relationships that counter loneliness take more than a quick shag by the river. It also ignores the connected nature of the play that brings all the characters together, going for shock value instead.
There's one other quotation from the piece that I think is pertinent to The Blue Room, even if it is a reference to Look Back in Anger:
“[. . .] people can’t be known or understood except through the act of love. The character of Helena [. . .] is there to remind you that bed will be the only crucible in which true feeling is revealed and put to the test” (40).
Sex is intimate; love is even more so. Love requires vulnerability from both parties, which the characters achieve with varying degrees of success (or failure). How many of them truly reveal their feelings in the scenes? What are they holding back that prevents them from finding a more fulfilling relationship?
No comments:
Post a Comment