Globe All Seasons

Actually it works better in a small theatre - it makes the violence really immediate and oppressive.  

Yes they did one I think, a Polish play ? But no more are currently scheduled.

That was the one I was thinking of, a polish Antony and Cleopatra?

Went to see Henry VIIIto tick it off the list, as it is so rarely performed. Reading this thread makes me realise I probably haven’t actually seen it!

🙄

At a rough guess maybe two thirds.
I flicked through the play the other day to see what was cut/added, actually bits I thought added often weren't, lines yes as mentioned but not as much as I thought. I'd seen a filmed version before and honestly couldn't remember the bits that seem to have gone.

I had such low expectations for this and have ended up loving it. Yes it's crude, yes it's not the play quite as written but I really like the refocus on playing it from a female perspective and having felt bit mottled out by lines from elsewhere first time, second time they just fitted in.

Don't forget I, Joan which is getting a lot of attention at the moment

no intention of going, right now - as like you I find this interpretation of Joan, sexist. However, would be interested in opinions from those who will see it. 

This is what happens when you push to re-appropriate or cast plays to please every gender, race and so on. There will always be one or a few groups who won't be happy with some of your decisions.

Change the gender of a historic figure that women look up to? Yeah, that's going to rile some people up.

When will companies realize that trying to represent and cater to everyone as their mantra is not achievable.

It's always funny to me when people complain about shows they have no intention of seeing. 

Joan was a woman, yes, who wore men's clothing to acclimate into a man's society - one of the main reasons she was persecuted and executed. This is probably the most obvious reason people on the gender spectrum relate to her. They aren't being sexist for feeling that Joan may have been like them, they're looking at history and trying to see themselves in it because they've been denied it. You don't agree. That's fine. But the constant attacks on the community, calling it sexist, misogynistic, etc is quite a reach. 

This is a great explanation for why people would want to put on a play like this, and much better than pretty much everything that was said on social media.

I think it is very fair to say that someone like Joan is interesting to trans men, and non-binary people, and it makes sense that those people would want to explore the 'what if' possibility. I do, however, think it's also fair to say that it is sexist to assume that women who chose to adapt to survive in a man's world, rather than meekly accept what was expected of women in those days, weren't proper women. Joan is an important historical figure to a lot of cis-women, because she didn't conform and because she was persecuted for not conforming. 

We should be able to share. The occasional interpretation of Joan as non-binary (or a trans man) doesn't mean that the interpretations of her as a cis-woman don't exist any more. Telling Joan's story as non-binary isn't automatically sexist, but the Globe were naive if they didn't realise that re-gendering interesting women from history can be sexist.

What appears to have triggered the complaints was that the promotional material that went with the play seemed to be playing into the trend of assuming that the most interesting women in history or literature aren't proper women. In this case blurb for the show that was shared on social media included a discussion on Aethelflaed and Elizabeth I, who were both referred to, individually, as 'they' not 'she'. As far as I can tell, that's what wound up a lot of people, many of whom said they were OK with a non-binary Joan in a play or with gender switching. Then other people joined in and people started arguing about whatever it is they like to argue about.

It's not that long ago I remember some archaeologists discovered evidence that hunter-gatherer women did more hunting than previously assumed, at which point some people with good, but misguided, intentions were suggesting that we shouldn't assume female skeletons with hunting equipment are women. Rather than question the assumption that only men did the hunting, we should be questioning whether they were really women. The blithe way some still try to limit what women do continues to harm women today. Trials showed women (and ethnic minorities) did much better in exams when they were were marked 'blind', especially in science and engineering. Professional and educated women are too often assumed to be the admin assistants to their male colleagues. A play doesn't change any of this, but there's no need to deny that assumptions made about how women should behave and what we should be good at are harmful. For balance, the assumption men don't like beautiful things or aren't nurturing is also harmful.

I don't know whether it's new or not, but the main page for this on the Globe's website has a bit about other interpretations having Joan as a woman and this is just one different take. If they did a tactical edit, then good on them. It's OK to admit there's a potential conflict of interests when interpreting a non-conforming woman as non-binary or a trans man.

Aethelflaed‘s actual title in the Chronicles (Anglo-Saxons and Irish) was ‘The Lady of the Mercians’.

She only inherited authority after the early death of her husband - her authority derived from him.

Her life was defined by her sex.

Trying to claim her as some kind of non-binary figure because she was a leader and wielded authority normally only available to men is mind-boggling. I mean, it’s actual misgendering. It’s apparently ok to misgender if you’re making someone a flavour of trans when you’re doing it.

(I wrote my undergrad dissertation on Queenly Power in Anglo-Saxon literature - the Anglo-Saxons were actually more open to women wielding authority than the Normans were. Honestly, it was all downhill for women from 1066.)