Masterpieces

at the Burton Taylor until Sat 30/10

What's your view on pornography? Harmless bit of fun you can have a good laugh at after you've come in from the pub, or dangerous exploitation that is eating away at the moral core of our society? Sarah Daniels' opinion is most definitely the latter, and this highly powerful play illustrates her point through a variety of grotesque characters involved in even more grotesque situations. In the opening party-scene we are introduced to three sexually dysfunctional couples. Just as you start to think that this'll be yet another suburban drama, the second scene shatters all preconceptions by cutting to one of the characters' trial for a cold-blooded murder, with the full details of her crime and reversal of attitude only being revealed in the final scene.
Everyone except Rowena is involved in some sort of sexual relationship that they don't enjoy, but she is the one who become profoundly effected by pornography and its influence. What starts as naïve curiosity soon grows into morbid obsession and paranoid revulsion, ending with infernal rage at society's objectification and degrading treatment of women. By using a variety of social-conscious jobs (social work, teaching) a range of cultural issues are brought to the fore - the mother of a teenage rapist brings in a bag of 'adult' magazines, desperate to sort out in her own mind that they are responsible for his actions. One of Rowena's clients, Hilary, a single mother with a son named Heathcliff ('Oh - Emily Brontë!' 'No - Kate Bush') is your quintessential tart with a heart who just needs a break, but, far from giving her a lift, her subsequent treatment at work oppresses her far more than poverty ever could. Clive finds Jennifer dull so he divides his time between screwing his secretaries and watching 'Violate the Bitch' (and other such cinematic classics).
This is an extremely gritty play with some very piercing dialogue, but in making such an effort to hammer home the 'pornography is evil' message there is something that doesn't quite ring true. I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong - it certainly wasn't the production. Perhaps, with such a meaty topic, less would have been more - a few less appalling situations and a bit more character development would have made the scenarios more believable and the eventual outcome even more shocking. Maybe this is just a sign of the times, as there have (thankfully) been so many cultural advances since Masterpieces was written (in 1983) that the characters now seem a little too exaggerated. Still, this is a highly provocative piece that serves up a hefty (and necessary) helping of food for thought.

Pam Green