I echo
Andréa’s sentiments in that I could have discussed Gender in theatre for a
whole semester and not gotten sick of it. But I know that’s not the case for
everyone so let’s get to the summaries so we can tie Gender Week up in a nice,
tidy, gender neutral bow.
Let’s start with Dharmik, who focuses on the gender
binary itself; that is to say: what makes men men and women women. Dharmik
takes the position that gender is hard to fight because it is hard to identify:
“Our gender is who we are at our core.” Dharmik is “not sold on the ‘fact’ that
gender is a complete social construct” and therefore believes that universality
is not a realistic goal. Essentially, men and women are inherently different
and while the lines may blur on occasion, those lines still exist. It does no
good to wonder what would happen if we were given a clean slate because the
fact remains that we are dealing with society as it exists today. Dharmik
concludes that true openness to fluidity in sexuality and gender is impossible
because of the powers that be. Bleak.
Up next, Austin highlights the pushback that often occurs in the quest for
universality. He shares with us a YouTube video titled “Modern Educayshun” that
depicts a horror-movie esque look at a world that is rigid and unflinching in
it’s political correctness. Austin draws particular attention to the fact that
the majority of the pushback usually comes from “the hegemonic power structure
that feels under attack” and that those persons representing said power
structure seemingly all identify themselves as cisgender male, regardless of
their race. Like Jack Halberstam, Austin believes that the very fact videos
like this are being made is proof that the previous societal structure we
identified as “normal” is under attack. However, Austin concludes that we are
not at a point (yet?) where universality has been achieved in theatre and
furthermore by taking on an established power structure it is actually
impossible to achieve universality because there will be purposeful alienation
of those in power.
Following
a lovely breakdown of Hir and the
ways in which it resonated with her own coming of age as well as the ways in
which it presents a story that may not be entirely universal but is most
certainly powerful and moving, Emily
takes us on a journey through the development of the female action hero.
Beginning with Atomic Blonde, Emily
wisely points out that while it isn’t a “nuanced, unproblematically feminist,
or the best example of a queer relationship in cinema” the fact that Atomic Blonde was “something that was
designed for mass consumption” is encouraging. The result: in Emily’s words, “your sexist cousin might be open to more female
action heroes... but your feminist friends will be pretty cross that it falls
so short of its hype.” Next she takes us through a vastly different type of
female fronted action film: Spy.
There is more subversive feminism at play in this film, which has cast against
type, yet chooses not to comment on that choice. Full of raunchy humor ‘for the
dudes’ while quietly packing the screen full of female characters, Emily points
out that Spy is a movie that puts [comedic]
storytelling above the importance of the male gaze. Emily concludes with a
breakdown of The Love Witch, a film I
am not familiar with but not curious about. While Emily calls it “Pretty dang
feminist. Pretty dang inspiring creatively and with regard to future potential
for non-male identifying film makers” she also quotes a review in Vice saying “For men, they get this
incredibly stunning woman to look at, but on the other hand there's nothing
emotionally gratifying for them. It just makes them surly.” So not quite
universal then, no? It left me wondering if in order to appeal to both men and
women, must we as women give up our bodies as something to either be ogled or
laughed at in order to placate the men in the audience?
Andréa ruminates on how her understanding of universality in
theatre has shifted and broadened (much like her understanding of feminism). By
delving deep into her understanding of universality, she comes to the
conclusion, as many of you did, that universality seems to be an elusive goal
in theatre, due in part of companies laziness in the education of their casts,
but also to the financial power theatre audiences undeniably hold. Like Emily,
Andréa imagines that it would be hard for audiences not to be moved by Hir, that it is, in a way, universal in
its themes touching on “the struggle for
equality, the loss of innocence/disillusionment of adulthood, the conflict
between parents and children, human being’s lack of humanity, a rebellious
human being’s confrontation with society, in individual’s struggle toward
understanding, awareness, and/or spiritual enlightenment.” Using Shakespeare as
an example, Andréa concludes that it is perhaps impossible for a play to be
truly universal, but that universality can definitely be present in the themes
presented onstage (as is the case in many of Shakespeare’s plays). Maybe that
is the closest we will get.
After
briefly diving into the gender dynamics at play in the most neutral of scenes, Sarah really kicks her blog into gear
with Friends! This was fascinating to read as my opinion of Friends has changed
as I have re-watched it in recent years. Sarah points out how in a specific
scene, a character’s “feminine” qualities automatically put him at risk for
demotion in society. This problem prevails throughout the series- in fact there
are too many examples to name so I’ll just say that while I still enjoy
Friends, it’s scenes like this that send my eyes so far back in my head I fear
they will get stuck there. Why are Ross, Joey, and Chandler so darn scared of
flowers?! Sarah continues to be a woman after my own heart as she draws
attention to Marcia Belsky’s project The
Headless Women of Hollywood, which highlights how women are depicts as pure
objects on many movie posters by just showing their bodies and not their
heads/faces. These movie posters (and their comedic reversals) are evidence
that “Universality is impossible if based upon the grounds of gender.” However,
like Andréa, perhaps it is possible when looking at the human experience. In
her conclusion, Sarah points out that perhaps the gender binary is essential
and unbreakable due to the fact that each side relies upon the other as a form
of identification: “Would patriarchy exist without the female ‘other’? Would
feminism exist without the male gaze? ... Even the creation of a new gender
pronoun ‘ze’ as in Taylor Mac’s Hir
was born of a realization of the limitations of the existing binary.” Woof.
Powerful stuff.
I
know. You were thinking: “Why hasn’t someone brought up Hedwig yet?!” Well have
no fear, Mike is here! Laying the
groundwork for his discussion of universality, Mike succinctly summarizes Hedwig and the Angry Inch and points out
how the musical finds universality “in that the main character works no matter
the gender” and also that “every single person who has ever felt a little iota
of what [it is to] be in love can relate to the story.” What’s interesting to
me here is that we have universality in the form of theme – like so many of you
have touched upon – but also in the form of actor portrayal. Which leads so
nicely to Mike’s discussion of Eddie Izzard and his proclivity to wear not
“women’s clothes” but just “clothes.” This seemingly insignificant distinction
does serve to highlight some of the absurd ways in which our society is
gendered, does it not? And yet as Mike points out the day when we recognize
each other as simply ourselves and don’t immediately try to put each other into
tidy boxes “still seems like a long way off.” So what do we do? Mike says we
keep telling stories; keep reaching for and depicting the changes we hope will
take hold. In other words: the only way out is through (HA! Meisnered ya!) And
maybe that means letting go of the quest for the universal.
Mark is the only one to come right out
and says, “yes…I consider Hir a universal play.” However before you jump to
your keyboards in dissent let me further summarize Mark’s argument. He encourages
us to set aside all of the things that make this play seem outside the
universal box and points out that the universality lies in the key plot points
and themes of the story. “The transition from self-delusion to
self-revelation,” “Shifting power balance in the conjugal arena,” and “what
makes a good mother” to name a few. He furthers his argument by pointing out
that any of these themes could be found in the works of King Universal himself:
William Shakespeare. So here we are again: perhaps universality comes from a
plays themes rather than the depiction of characters. Mark concludes with the
point that the very notion of universal is slippery to grasp because of its
ability to change based on who sits in the drivers seat. Universality means
different things to different people.
Such
an interesting week. So many lovely, thoughtful responses. I promise I was not
trying to be tricky with my question. Universality is a buzzword that
fascinates me and confuses me and it’s fun to read your thoughts as you grapple
with it as well. In my opinion the very fact that we choose to tackle this
issue and begin to redefine our own understanding of gender and how it is
performed in the world around us and on stages and screens is a step in the
right direction. And I’m excited where we end up!
No comments:
Post a Comment