Globe All Seasons

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, I avoid ground level. I get way too distracted by all the tourist teenagers chatting and on their phones

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.

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!

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.