Realism or radicalism? Paul

Scan page 13

WATCHING Alan Bleasdale's plays 'Boys from the Blackstuff' the first time it was shown I was simultaneously impressed and depressed. I reached the conclusion that whilst it was skilfully written and the character portrayals memorable pieces of contemporary drama, the plays lacked any real radical the structure of the series but more importantly, it lies within the ideological framework within which the plays are written and actually 'read' by the audience.

I have been in a minority of one arguing that the series lacked radical content: I was surprised to see glowing comments about the plays on the left. The re-showing of the series at peak viewing time, I think, gives some credibility to my criticism. The plays realistically portray the social and environmental conditions which the Liverpool working class has to tolerate. In the same way so did the 'kitchen sink' dramas of the 60's. and does the work of Ken Loach and Tony Garnett. However, unlike LoachGarnett's work, Bleasdale's plays fail to portray the relationship between the conditions of working class everyday life and political consciousness, representation, and action. I feel that for a play to carry a radical content the two things are inseperable.

The extent of political comment in the plays is restricted to Snowy Malone, and his father, both of whom die within the course of the drama, implying the death of working class radicalism. This notion is further reinforced in the last play, 'George's Last Ride', when George's sons argue that their workmates are no longer interested in anything but beer and sex. To some extent this is offset by their mother's tirade against their defeatism, but it is the former view of the working class which the series articulates; a class which has given up the struggle. George's last lines before his death reflect his desperation at what he see (the author sees) as the present state of his class; a class defeated for now and for the future.

Secondly, the pub scene at the end of the series articluates defeat and degeneration. Crissie's comment to Loggo further reinforces this pessimism when he says that what George stood for is dead along with George.

Is it? Can the Toxteth riots, the occupation of the school in Croxteth, the growth of radicalism in Riots - a sign of demoralisatior ? Liverpool (stronghold of Militant) all be explained as giving up or desperation? No matter how inadequate the 'establishment' of the Labour Movement is at the moment this does nöt mean that the working class has given up.

I suggest that the limits of political activity in the drama reveals the limit of political vision in the author. Indeed Bleasdale denies he has any interest in politics. On a recent TV show he revealed that though he is 40 he has never voted. If the playwright has no oppositional viewpoint then he is left with a status quo view of society; one which sees the working class as a non revolutionary, non political, and subject to rapid social degeneration under stress.

My second, more important comment, relates to how the play is 'read' by the audience. Whilst the play may reveal to the committed socialist the need for a revolutionary change in society, it may not be read n the same way by people without such an acute state of awareness. Perhaps this has something to do with the nature of TV which detaches the reality it portrays from our own reality, but more importantly, I think there is a fault in this sort of realist production which relies almost entirely on character empathy. For example, empathy with Chrissie would reinforce the idea that what is happening is not pleasant but unavoidable, natural and beyond the control of ordinary people. Furthermore the boys all have intricately portrayed intensely individual characters and as such encourages interest in them wholly as individuals rather than characters symbolic of their class. As a result the underlying structural relationship between capital, labour and class struggle is subordinated to the personal circumstances of the characters involved.

Nowhere is this more important than with Yosser Hughes. Because of the intense focus on the individual circumstances of Yosser and because of his idiosyncratic. • characteristics, the appalling tragedy of this man cannot be easily related to his class as a whole. He is an 'extreme' case and as such can be seen as having 'personal' psychological inadequacies rather than being interpreted as an extreme 'victim' capitalism's requirement for social and psychological insecurity. The proot of the pudding is in the eating. Yosser's story has been changed from tragedy to comic circus, the extent of which has caused some offence to the playwright. The catchphrase 'Gis a job; I could do that' has now, because of its misuse by disc. jockeys, comedians and their ilk, turned Yosser into a figure of fun and the tragic sentiment into an insult to the unemployed. The tault however, lies in the character construction itself which is open to this sort of treatment.

Finally, a comment about the overall emotional response which the series stimulates. Sympathy, the main by-product of the series, is not in itself a revolutionary sentiment. Whilst an acute political consciousness may turn sympathy into anger at the social system, a non political consciousness would not perform the same conversion, leaving the experience as nothing more than an emotional release. In this society we are brought up on a diet of human suffering whether it be massacres on the evening news, to school children being taught about child labour in the 19th Century. This is not interpreted by the dominant bourgeois consciousness as a need for change, but as a legitimation of society as it stands. Child labour in the last century points to reform (and üsually kind hearted ruling class reformists), torture in South America points to the British sense of fair play, and the periodic interviews with the unemployed poor reminds us that we all really care. It serves to convince us that we have a caring society and while we wallow in the suffering of others we fail to see why they suffer. While we shed a tear for the plight of the unfortunate we cannot feel anger because this suffering is presented not as the unavoidable effect of a socioeconomic structure (which can be changed), but as separate from it and thus implies that it is universal and a natural part of human existence. An awareness of suffering becomes inextricably intertwined with the ideology of the present stage of capitalism. Is it too outrageous to suggest that Dicken's work performed the same function in the last century?

I feel that Bleasdale's plays fall unfortunately into the same category. 10 break through this sentimentalism a play about deprivation and unemployment requires a political framework to ensure that the content of the play is read as an effect of capitalism as a socio economic structure and not as something unavoidable in human affairs. Bleasdale's plays lack this political framework.