4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 27, 2022 8:18:12 GMT
Reviewers will fawn over it in some publications and tear it apart in others, is my prediction. Getting a clear assessment of the play’s merits from reviews will not be easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Aug 27, 2022 10:38:32 GMT
That doesn't seem relevant to the play in question It does seem very relevant to the play in question. The author (funny enough, a trans man-) has taken a very famous historical figure, who was female and persecuted for being such, and changing her to non binary (a concept which to me is the most utterly regressive - masquerading as progressive- that has come out in the last 10 years or so). It is very much relevant to what is currently happening in society. I'm curious to see what the reviews will be like...I expect a gushing one from the Guardian at least. It's being promoted as a play for the trans community and its allies, in which trans/nonbinary people can see themselves for the first time on stage. The Globe website has a link to Gendered Intelligence and a reading list of books celebrating and promoting gender ideology. So the theatre itself is situating this play within the context of 2022 trans culture and identity. Like it or not, the Tavistock scandal is a part of that. I laughed out loud at the Globe's content guidance for this: "This production includes strong language and depictions of war." How utterly disingenuous to pretend that swearing is more likely to upset people than transing female historical figures. It's that dishonesty which puts me off the play: not the transing of Joan, but the Globe's tone deaf, elitist, "I'm right, no debate" attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Aug 27, 2022 11:22:00 GMT
It does seem very relevant to the play in question. The author (funny enough, a trans man-) has taken a very famous historical figure, who was female and persecuted for being such, and changing her to non binary (a concept which to me is the most utterly regressive - masquerading as progressive- that has come out in the last 10 years or so). It is very much relevant to what is currently happening in society. I'm curious to see what the reviews will be like...I expect a gushing one from the Guardian at least. It's being promoted as a play for the trans community and its allies, in which trans/nonbinary people can see themselves for the first time on stage. The Globe website has a link to Gendered Intelligence and a reading list of books celebrating and promoting gender ideology. So the theatre itself is situating this play within the context of 2022 trans culture and identity. Like it or not, the Tavistock scandal is a part of that. I laughed out loud at the Globe's content guidance for this: "This production includes strong language and depictions of war." How utterly disingenuous to pretend that swearing is more likely to upset people than transing female historical figures. It's that dishonesty which puts me off the play: not the transing of Joan, but the Globe's tone deaf, elitist, "I'm right, no debate" attitude. The Globe's attitude as you describe it, is very much the same as a lot of trans allyship, where any disagreement is shut down and people who have different views or dare criticise, are called bigots and fascists. no debate indeed. As for Joan and trans representation, I find it sad that, given the hundreds of male historical figures that could have been transed, (if they had to, instead of creating a completely original story), they felt it was appropriate to choose one of the very rare strong females. Sorry ladies, you can't have a powerful role model, go back to the kitchen. Depressing and regressive. |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 27, 2022 13:17:02 GMT
So if The Globe is turning itself into a political ‘house’ these says, I wonder how their finances will pan out……
|
|
2,478 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 27, 2022 13:30:28 GMT
It does seem very relevant to the play in question. The author (funny enough, a trans man-) has taken a very famous historical figure, who was female and persecuted for being such, and changing her to non binary (a concept which to me is the most utterly regressive - masquerading as progressive- that has come out in the last 10 years or so). It is very much relevant to what is currently happening in society. I'm curious to see what the reviews will be like...I expect a gushing one from the Guardian at least. It's being promoted as a play for the trans community and its allies, in which trans/nonbinary people can see themselves for the first time on stage. The Globe website has a link to Gendered Intelligence and a reading list of books celebrating and promoting gender ideology. So the theatre itself is situating this play within the context of 2022 trans culture and identity. Like it or not, the Tavistock scandal is a part of that. I laughed out loud at the Globe's content guidance for this: "This production includes strong language and depictions of war." How utterly disingenuous to pretend that swearing is more likely to upset people than transing female historical figures. It's that dishonesty which puts me off the play: not the transing of Joan, but the Globe's tone deaf, elitist, "I'm right, no debate" attitude. It sounds like the Globe are acknowledging the existence of trans people and have made a work of fiction with regards to that. I'm not sure what the 'other side' to that is. Having a trans actor on stage isn't something which needs a content warning. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 27, 2022 14:38:32 GMT
It's being promoted as a play for the trans community and its allies, in which trans/nonbinary people can see themselves for the first time on stage. The Globe website has a link to Gendered Intelligence and a reading list of books celebrating and promoting gender ideology. So the theatre itself is situating this play within the context of 2022 trans culture and identity. Like it or not, the Tavistock scandal is a part of that. I laughed out loud at the Globe's content guidance for this: "This production includes strong language and depictions of war." How utterly disingenuous to pretend that swearing is more likely to upset people than transing female historical figures. It's that dishonesty which puts me off the play: not the transing of Joan, but the Globe's tone deaf, elitist, "I'm right, no debate" attitude. The Globe's attitude as you describe it, is very much the same as a lot of trans allyship, where any disagreement is shut down and people who have different views or dare criticise, are called bigots and fascists. no debate indeed. As for Joan and trans representation, I find it sad that, given the hundreds of male historical figures that could have been transed, (if they had to, instead of creating a completely original story), they felt it was appropriate to choose one of the very rare strong females. Sorry ladies, you can't have a powerful role model, go back to the kitchen. Depressing and regressive. That is a good point. There are so many historical male figures who could easily be viewed through a non-gender confirming lens, and there’s so much space for theatre to explore the possibility of them being trans women (or that they would have identified as women if they’d lived in a different era). I’ve never ever seen any play do this, or any suggestion that any male historical person may have been trans, not once. But it happens to historical female figures constantly, any historical woman who does anything deemed insufficiently feminine (which seems to include any woman who is powerful or a warrior, those things being deemed by 2022 standards the preserve of men only) is reinterpreted as male to push the agenda that women cannot be strong. Hell, we’ve even seen archeological cases where ancient female skeletons were found with swords or other weapons and immediately people have started saying “well clearly they were trans and actually men, because Swords Aren’t For Girls.” I’m 100% trans supportive but there’s a ton of very alarming MRA/incel types exploiting trans rights in order to spread a misogynist agenda, which is actually inherently alarming and is sometimes nakedly transphobic. Some of the worst and most dangerous transphobia I’ve seen has come from people claiming to be TRA or trans allies. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 27, 2022 19:46:22 GMT
It's being promoted as a play for the trans community and its allies, in which trans/nonbinary people can see themselves for the first time on stage. The Globe website has a link to Gendered Intelligence and a reading list of books celebrating and promoting gender ideology. So the theatre itself is situating this play within the context of 2022 trans culture and identity. Like it or not, the Tavistock scandal is a part of that. I laughed out loud at the Globe's content guidance for this: "This production includes strong language and depictions of war." How utterly disingenuous to pretend that swearing is more likely to upset people than transing female historical figures. It's that dishonesty which puts me off the play: not the transing of Joan, but the Globe's tone deaf, elitist, "I'm right, no debate" attitude. It sounds like the Globe are acknowledging the existence of trans people and have made a work of fiction with regards to that. I'm not sure what the 'other side' to that is. Having a trans actor on stage isn't something which needs a content warning. Wouldn’t it have been better to have made a play about someone who actually identified and declared themselves to be trans? Doesn’t creating a fictionalised trans version of Joan of Arc kind of suggest that trans non-binary identification is, well, fictional? Because if any gender non-conforming woman can be viewed as trans, any trans person must also be viewable as just gender non-conforming. |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Aug 28, 2022 9:23:22 GMT
It sounds like the Globe are acknowledging the existence of trans people and have made a work of fiction with regards to that. I'm not sure what the 'other side' to that is. Having a trans actor on stage isn't something which needs a content warning. No, of course it isn't. I've seen trans actors in other plays, which of course is as it should be - actors should represent the diversity of the population. The issue here for me isn't the person playing the part of Joan, but turning a female historical figure into a nonbinary character, as though women can't have strength, leadership, wear men's clothes and be involved in traditionally male activities and still be women. Gender nonconforming women are still women, and being a woman/girl is an important part of Joan's story. This is in the context of large parts of women's history having been erased or forgotten, which feminism has been trying to address for decades, partly by reclaiming and celebrating strong female historical figures like Joan. Turning those women into nonbinary or male characters is a big issue for many women, particularly those who have been involved in feminist campaigns, and feels regressive and misogynist. As I've said already, I am not against this play being put on, or someone exploring the idea of Joan as a trans person, but I am offended by what feels like a pretence that gender ideology is fact, rather than a controversial belief system. So, yes, if swearing needs a content warning, then so does this. "This production includes strong language, depictions of war and supports gender ideology" would do. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 28, 2022 10:28:22 GMT
As I've said already, I am not against this play being put on, or someone exploring the idea of Joan as a trans person, but I am offended by what feels like a pretence that gender ideology is fact, rather than a controversial belief system. So, yes, if swearing needs a content warning, then so does this. "This production includes strong language, depictions of war and supports gender ideology" would do. Yes, the Globe are not framing this as a 'reimagining', a 'what if', but as a, quote, 'rediscover', as though some new historical facts have been found somewhere, a dodgy thing to do particularly when the audience you are addressing is younger and less experienced in life and knowledge than the typical theatre audience: "we invite you to dance and cheer us as we rediscover Joan's story....uncovering the unlikely hero behind the legend...we're ready to join Joan's army #WeAreJoan". This isn't pitched as an open-minded, imaginative exercise but sounds more like a call-up to enlist yourself in a belief or crusade. |
|
2,478 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 29, 2022 12:28:12 GMT
|
|
5,790 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 29, 2022 13:21:47 GMT
Given how one of the demands of those who endorse the new gender orthodoxy is that people should be allowed to self identify, it is ironic that the writer and the production is denying Joan's agency in this regard and imposing their own belief system on her.
It isn't brave. It isn't courageous. It is pushing an agenda.
The forthcoming production of Orlando has a central character explicitly created by Virginia Woolf to explore gender identity/roles of men and women in society through history. That is, to my mind, a far better vehicle for this sort of exploration rather than appropriating a vital female historical figure as part of a cause.
It is legitimate to pose the question as to whether a figure like Joan would identify as trans or non binary or gender fluid or gender queer or gender non-conforming today. Indeed there would be a fascinating what-if type piece that took the historical Joan and placed her in a modern context to see how she would deal with things and how she would choose to live her life.
But by retaining the original setting, the creatives have already answered the question and are just telling people what to think rather than given the audience a choice.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 29, 2022 17:17:38 GMT
The poor woman was most likely schizophrenic - she described her ‘revelations’ as hearing voices. She was convinced she was visited by angels and saints and was carrying out the will of God. She threw herself out of a 60ft high tower window at one point.
But who cares about any of that stuff when the writer needs someone to claim as ‘queer’? Never mind that Joan would have found the concept abhorrent- she thought she was obeying God, and serving her rightful King, not transgressing boundaries for the sake of transgression.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 31, 2022 11:07:55 GMT
I hesitate to post this at the risk of derailing what I found to be a really interesting discussion but....
I want to see a couple of plays at the Globe that don't seem to be selling all that well BUT also aren't popping up on any ticket deals I'm seeing. I know I COULD stand for 3 hours (except I really couldn't) for £5 but would be grateful if anyone coule point me towards less than full-priced seated tickets. I suppose I could get restricted view tix which are reasonably priced - anyone have experience of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Aug 31, 2022 12:31:48 GMT
When I saw King Lear, I had a restricted view seat on the side (ground floor) and I had a column on my line of vision. It wasn't a great seat, not so much for the restricted view, but more because the Globe staff let people enter or leave the standing area all through the performance, it was very distracting as my seat was near one of the doors, and not close enough to the performers to allow me to hear everything clearly (on top of the difficult language!).
Some people seemed to be in there just to have a look around and then they'd leave. I assume there are a lot of tourists who are just wanting to see the place and don't really care to stay for the duration of the play. I'd never seen this happen anywhere else before & decided that if I do go back to see something at the Globe, I'd buy a seat on the upper level.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Aug 31, 2022 13:13:41 GMT
Its very hit and miss, seat plan this week has finally added it and you can see a few viewpoints.
It's really irritating that it can't be specific about a restricted view because I've had those tickets before and one just meant the pole was beside me and another time it blocked my whole view.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 31, 2022 13:57:57 GMT
Thanks ladidah and alessia - my experience with seats at the Globe has been very much hit and miss too (more miss, even if the view is good, it's uncomfortable.) Perhaps going a level up is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Aug 31, 2022 14:01:29 GMT
Yes, I avoid ground level. I get way too distracted by all the tourist teenagers chatting and on their phones  |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Aug 31, 2022 14:22:39 GMT
I quite like the lower level bays A and B, and the corresponding ones on the other side of the stage. I was in Bay B seat A6 last time I went. It's side on to the stage and sometimes actors are behind the on-stage pillar, but it wasn't bad for the £25 (not bad for the Globe anyway) and was close to the stage. But there were a lot of people wandering around, and going in and out.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2022 16:23:24 GMT
The only actually comfortable seats I’ve sat in at the Globe have been the expensive Gentleman’s Box, where you get actual chairs.
I find the benches fairly excruciating - it’s a height/weight thing, as I’m not tall enough using a cushion to have feet on the floor, and so the circulation in my legs gets cut off.
I usually pick standing because at least the cheapness offsets the discomfort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 19:29:41 GMT
I hesitate to post this at the risk of derailing what I found to be a really interesting discussion but.... I want to see a couple of plays at the Globe that don't seem to be selling all that well BUT also aren't popping up on any ticket deals I'm seeing. I know I COULD stand for 3 hours (except I really couldn't) for £5 but would be grateful if anyone coule point me towards less than full-priced seated tickets. I suppose I could get restricted view tix which are reasonably priced - anyone have experience of them? A certain Monkey has £45 and £52 seats for £20 until end October. Seems to include the two circles so you may get a better view than on a restricted ticket, but I don’t know what the price difference would be. Glancing across the various dates they have, there’s plenty availability including the standing tix… this one must be running at quite a loss, surely? |
|
307 posts
|
Post by jm25 on Sept 1, 2022 23:56:26 GMT
I watched this tonight. I really dislike The Globe as a venue so avoid it where possible, but there have been lots of polarising views on this play and I wanted to watch it before weighing in.
I should make clear that I have absolutely no problem with the play conceptually. It doesn't frame itself in any way as a rewriting of history and is quite clearly a work of fiction, and as a work of fiction as far as I'm concerned it's free to present characters in any way it likes. However, the problem is it's just not a very good play. I went in expecting something nuanced, bold and fresh, but what I got was a bloated, polemical mess.
In the same way that gender flipping roles can bring out different sides of a story, I was hoping that presenting Joan as non-binary here would provide an insight into sides of the character (rather than the historical figure) that haven't really been explored before, to my knowledge. But instead the play uses Joan as a mouthpiece (literally at times) for spouting opinions without any real attempts at nuance. I should add that the views that the play champions aren't even ones that I disagree with - but it was so frustrating to have them presented in such a heavy-handed, clumsy way. The patriarchy is bad? Sure! Gender non-conforming people have had it tough all throughout history? Shocker! But don't just shout that at me, do something interesting with it. There are times when the play gets close to articulating some of its ideas in a thought-provoking way, but they're few and far between and get lost under all the shouting...
This might be conjecture on my part but I don't think it's a great leap to say that the audience, which was very young, was primarily filled with people who were either allies (I'd include myself here) or who themselves perhaps identify as gender non-conforming. I think someone said something similar further up in this thread. So the great irony here is that these are the people that you don't need to shout the basics to. We already agree with you! We already know! This, surely, is the type of audience that would actually be most receptive towards a complex and layered discussion of gender. So what a shame the play chose instead to paint with such broad brushstrokes.
On a more practical level, the lead actor wasn't very good. They looked very young and I appreciate that this was probably one of their first big leading roles, but I didn't find them engaging in any way which was a big failing given that Joan's charisma is such an important part of the plot. What's more, there were real issues with vocal projection. There were multiple times where what they were saying was simply lost. It also wouldn't surprise me if this was one of the writer's first plays because it was overlong and was in desperate need of cutting down. To be brutally honest, the play could have ended - quite happily - at the interval and I think it would have been much stronger for it. It would have made thematic sense.
So for me, all in all, it was a disappointment. I was in a clear minority, though, because the crowd at the end was absolutely lapping it up - and they had been for the whole performance. However, right at the start of the evening I saw a very lengthy queue for what turned out to be a ticket collection point for "guests of the creatives". Lots of staff were chatting to people in the audience throughout the night and quite a few members of the cast seemed to be waving at individuals they knew when doing their bows, so I think a large part of the audience were never not going to love it!
|
|
5,790 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 2, 2022 7:49:01 GMT
The lead actor has only just graduated and so this is very much an inexperienced performer being asked to lead a 3 hour play.
And yes, the writer does not have a long list of writing credits so again inexperience seems to be an issue.
It is great to give new voices a platform but was this the right space? Was enough dramaturgical support provided?
Apparently the writer had got a string of high profile commissions lined up. Let's hope there is better editing/quality control going forward.
I have no problem with provocative theatre. It is good to be challenged. But the material and the production has to be strong enough to command attention and to take a stand.
Preaching to the converted is not being provocative. It is playing to your bubble.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 2, 2022 8:34:00 GMT
This is one of the key practical problems of deliberately setting out to find ‘underrepresented’ demographics - because they are ‘underrepresented’ they are also inexperienced as theatre makers.
That’s especially true when it’s an identity-group that was literally invented quite recently and is most popular among the very young (and older lesbian social groups - but lesbians are another curiously underrepresented group in the theatre world.)
Ironic that the thesis of the play is ‘trans and non-binary people have always existed’ - if that were true, there would be a much longer tradition artistic tradition to draw on.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 2, 2022 9:41:43 GMT
This is one of the key practical problems of deliberately setting out to find ‘underrepresented’ demographics - because they are ‘underrepresented’ they are also inexperienced as theatre makers. I've seen quite aa few adverts recently, including for a high profile teen Netflix series, for people to play trans/non-binary characters with no previous acting experience required. In the current climate, casting anyone who isn't exactly identifying as from that group would get you a social media pile on: look what happened with Fra Fee and Breakfast on Pluto - the whole project cancelled. Directors and dramaturgs might be afraid to be as rigorous too when it comes to edits, and the critics from papers that favour their politics won't criticise it either so it all becomes very circular but won't result in good art. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Sept 2, 2022 9:58:53 GMT
Thank you @jeanhunt that is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Think I will book through the monkey. Availability on most dates is very high - not sure how it is working financially for them. I have seen things I've loved at the Globe but the discomfort factor is always there (for me it's largely not being able to lean back.)
|
|
