I just read this article, and I couldn't help but address it. I think it raises some interesting questions, but ultimately misses a lot of the larger points.
The article responds to the recent announcement that England’s Globe Theater Company is bringing its all-male versions of Twelfth Night and Richard III to Broadway. The author's point is this is a brazen example of male exclusion of women in theater, and it's going in the opposite direction of what we should be doing.
Let me address his problems in piece:
"...In challenging that patriarchy we are asking American theater producers to risk money in order to make our art form a more equitable one, and hopefully a more vibrant one. (1) But what happens when those same artistic directors see all-male productions of plays with wonderful parts for women soar to the highest level of stage production. What happens when the excitement about seeing Rylance speak the Bard’s words overshadows the misogyny (2) of expressly excluding women from work at one of England’s leading theater companies. Which message should they listen to? The one about the need for inclusion, or the one that says, “as long as you make good work you get a pass”?" (3)
It seems to me as if the author is confounding several different problems.
(1) The problem with the way that female inclusion in the theater has been posed has exactly to do with the way that he has posed this problem. He seeks to make the art form a more "equitable" one and then hopefully a more "vibrant" one. Let me make this clear: I have no interest in making the theater a more equitable art form. It does me no good to democratize theater for the sake of democratizing theater. However, I do have an interest in making theater better, and I think women can do that. It does me a world of good to see more people tell more, better stories, and I happen to agree that bringing women, with their different set of experiences and different perspectives, into the discussion will expand and improve theater in an important way. So, let's get our priorities in order, and then we might be able to explain to that room full of old white men why it's so important.
Let's stop making this about getting people jobs because of equal opportunity and start making it about how many stories we're missing out on. That's what I care about, not who has a job.
(2) The author uses the word "misogynistic," and I have to wonder exactly what he finds misogynistic about this production. The best answer I can come up with (I'm using a definition of misogyny that essentially declares women as lesser) is that the production is, in effect, saying that men are better at theater than women are. Men can put on a better Richard III than women.
If this is what he's saying, I don't really think that it's founded. They're not advocating that every production should be like this. They're just doing something different (the "differentness" of it...we'll explore in a bit).
(3) Now, a good argument for me would be, "they're missing a huge aspect of the play by not using female actors." That's a statement that would bother the Hell out of me. You're fucking up Shakespeare? Go home.
But he doesn't say that. Quite the opposite, he concedes the excellence of the work, from an artistic standpoint. I think this is actually pointing at something quite important. There is a patriarchy that is woven into these plays. The female parts suck. The largest female part in Richard III is Queen Elizabeth with 272. Compare that to Richard, who has 1171 lines. I think this production is actually pointing at something important, women are excluded from these plays, but it happened long before the Globe Theater stepped in.
Jill Dolan writes about male drag performance:
"Both spectator and performer conspire to construct a male-identified subject that is left out of the terms of exchange: women are non-existent in drag performance, but woman-as-myth, as a cultural, ideological object, is constructed in an agreed upon exchange between the male performer and the usually male spectator."
However, the problem is that to include women only gives the false illusion that their voice is heard on stage. Really, it makes them conspirators in their own misogyny. Shakespeare wrote the misogyny into the text when he wrote such unimportant women, and what I think this production is doing quite usefully is exposing that these stories are stories written by, of, and for men. Perhaps in a way that does not seek to address it, but maybe it is. Certainly, it has sparked this conversation.
Women need a place in the theater, but the space for feminist theater work is just not in a classical performance of a Shakespeare text. Shakespeare is a performance of the patriarchy, no matter who's wearing the dress. It happens to be quite a beautiful one, and I don't think it's point is misogyny; so, let's not burn the books quite yet, but we can't condemn admittedly good work because it doesn't offer the pittance that we, men of the theater, have been gracious enough to provide.
The article responds to the recent announcement that England’s Globe Theater Company is bringing its all-male versions of Twelfth Night and Richard III to Broadway. The author's point is this is a brazen example of male exclusion of women in theater, and it's going in the opposite direction of what we should be doing.
Let me address his problems in piece:
"...In challenging that patriarchy we are asking American theater producers to risk money in order to make our art form a more equitable one, and hopefully a more vibrant one. (1) But what happens when those same artistic directors see all-male productions of plays with wonderful parts for women soar to the highest level of stage production. What happens when the excitement about seeing Rylance speak the Bard’s words overshadows the misogyny (2) of expressly excluding women from work at one of England’s leading theater companies. Which message should they listen to? The one about the need for inclusion, or the one that says, “as long as you make good work you get a pass”?" (3)
It seems to me as if the author is confounding several different problems.
(1) The problem with the way that female inclusion in the theater has been posed has exactly to do with the way that he has posed this problem. He seeks to make the art form a more "equitable" one and then hopefully a more "vibrant" one. Let me make this clear: I have no interest in making the theater a more equitable art form. It does me no good to democratize theater for the sake of democratizing theater. However, I do have an interest in making theater better, and I think women can do that. It does me a world of good to see more people tell more, better stories, and I happen to agree that bringing women, with their different set of experiences and different perspectives, into the discussion will expand and improve theater in an important way. So, let's get our priorities in order, and then we might be able to explain to that room full of old white men why it's so important.
Let's stop making this about getting people jobs because of equal opportunity and start making it about how many stories we're missing out on. That's what I care about, not who has a job.
(2) The author uses the word "misogynistic," and I have to wonder exactly what he finds misogynistic about this production. The best answer I can come up with (I'm using a definition of misogyny that essentially declares women as lesser) is that the production is, in effect, saying that men are better at theater than women are. Men can put on a better Richard III than women.
If this is what he's saying, I don't really think that it's founded. They're not advocating that every production should be like this. They're just doing something different (the "differentness" of it...we'll explore in a bit).
(3) Now, a good argument for me would be, "they're missing a huge aspect of the play by not using female actors." That's a statement that would bother the Hell out of me. You're fucking up Shakespeare? Go home.
But he doesn't say that. Quite the opposite, he concedes the excellence of the work, from an artistic standpoint. I think this is actually pointing at something quite important. There is a patriarchy that is woven into these plays. The female parts suck. The largest female part in Richard III is Queen Elizabeth with 272. Compare that to Richard, who has 1171 lines. I think this production is actually pointing at something important, women are excluded from these plays, but it happened long before the Globe Theater stepped in.
Jill Dolan writes about male drag performance:
"Both spectator and performer conspire to construct a male-identified subject that is left out of the terms of exchange: women are non-existent in drag performance, but woman-as-myth, as a cultural, ideological object, is constructed in an agreed upon exchange between the male performer and the usually male spectator."
However, the problem is that to include women only gives the false illusion that their voice is heard on stage. Really, it makes them conspirators in their own misogyny. Shakespeare wrote the misogyny into the text when he wrote such unimportant women, and what I think this production is doing quite usefully is exposing that these stories are stories written by, of, and for men. Perhaps in a way that does not seek to address it, but maybe it is. Certainly, it has sparked this conversation.
Women need a place in the theater, but the space for feminist theater work is just not in a classical performance of a Shakespeare text. Shakespeare is a performance of the patriarchy, no matter who's wearing the dress. It happens to be quite a beautiful one, and I don't think it's point is misogyny; so, let's not burn the books quite yet, but we can't condemn admittedly good work because it doesn't offer the pittance that we, men of the theater, have been gracious enough to provide.
