Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday September 17: “A Body in Labour”

1.	Cixous, Helene. "Aller a La Mer (Going to the Seaside)." Trans. Barbara Kerslake. Twentieth-Century Theatre : A Sourcebook. Ed. Richard Drain. London: Routledge, 1994. 133-35. 2.	Beck, Julian. The Life of the Theatre. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1972. (selected readings) - 1.

Crixous’s article says a lot about theatre and just women in general. I agree with what she says about how women are portrayed. Women weren’t even allowed to attend theatre performances back in the day, yet alone act in them. The fact that they are always portrayed a certain way says a lot about the time period in which these plays were written. Even today, although women have become a more essential part of the theatrical world, they still tend to embody the “damsel in distress” archetype a lot of the time. Additionally, women hold a lot smaller part in playwrighting, directing, and managing backstage in the present day and age. Although this article is fairly dated, I think a lot of the principles still apply today, and that women are indeed, not held in a high regard or given certain opportunities in theatrical performances as men are.

2.Beck, in his attempt to explain what goes on in term paper theatre, asks questions. He does not pretend to have all the answers, but instead puts them out there for others to consider, contemplate, and conclude to each his own. This contributes to his avant-garde way of thinking, and promotes what he is speaking about. He has a very unconventional style of writing, in which I believe is his attempt at the revolt he explores in the early part of the book. He is trying to give theatre an importance, creditable of both the performers and its audience through extremism with his thoughts, ideas, and principles of writing.

I found that Beck's writing was grasping to get a response from the reader, whether a revolt or simply quiet contemplation. Overall I think he does have a fondness for an anarchic theatrical society or at least his ideals of it. He states, "The museum kills art as experience by the behavior it demands or the visitor" I don't know if it necessarily kills "Art" as a whole but rather the freedom of a viewer to respond in any way they want to what they are being shown; jumping up and down in excitement or shouting in rage. Keeping this in mind, can the same idea not be held to theatre? We as an audience are resigned to our seats, discouraged from doing anything that could distract from another patron's experience. Perhaps Beck just personally prefers absolute freedom of emotion and portrayal, so this could be why he would prefer performance creation because really, anything could happen.

Both, Cixous's and Beck's writings I found compelling but in very different ways. I agree with the previous post's views of women not being held in high regard even to this day, and I would find it hard to believe if not having experienced it myself. Being an female artist and having experienced being chosen second to men because of my gender, it still surprises me that there are not more female, directors, play writes and stage managers. When I look around in classes, and theatre functions there is a majority of women. For me it raises this question, why aren't the women taking over? I also found Beck's work to be surprisingly compelling and that his technique of asking questions very creative. I often found myself answering the questions while reading, which I think is exactly what Beck was going for. One question really caught my eye like, "is it easier to observe life in the theatre or in the streets." People often go to the theatre to observe life as a play, but to me Beck is bring up the question of, if we can observe it in the theatre why not in another setting which is more real, like the street? We have probably observed more real life in the street then we ever could on stage. Overall Beck's question sparked a lot of thoughts in my mind.

•	I really found the question, “is it easier to observe life in the theatre or in the streets” incredibly interesting. I think people watch theatre because it is an escape and watching life in the streets may seem too real. Theatre can be raw and eye opening but often people do not want to go to the theatre to see pain or something real; however, watching real life and day to day life in the streets would most likely have more an impact. It would allow the audience to experience the performance more than just watch it. The experience and the emotions would definitely be stronger in watching the performance on the street, rather than watching it conventionally. Courtney Keen September 15 2009

If you have ever been at a bus stop or been stuck in a line and had nothing better to do than people watch, you can find that it is oddly entertaining or at least grabs your attention. Even though it is engaging, watching life on the streets can seem ordinary, raw and realistic. When people go to the theatre, even though the set and content may be realistic, there is a different story behind it; one that was thought up through the imagination of one playwright and takes its audience to another world. When watching life on the streets you are not necessarily taken to another world, you are just observing a clip of someone’s real life story. Also when viewing life on the streets you are not always able to comfortably view another’s life, people may get agitated that you are watching their life as if it is some form of entertainment.

With the first point in this, i do not agree whatsoever that women are not given the same rights as men in the theatre today. Everyone should be equal and this is more prominent now than it ever was. Back in the day, like Crixous's article states, women were not treated the same. They were unequal and treated unfairly when it came to both performing in shows and even to the extent of attending them. It even came to the point where men portrayed women in shows. But today, things are completely different. As the University of Calgary evidently depicted with their all women cast of Hamlet. These days there is not even anywhere close to the amount of discrimination in the theatre. There will always be racism, and sexism in the theatre but it is no where near where it was years ago. Through the examination of Crixous's article i, as a female artist, was quite surprised with the things i discovered about women and the theatre as a whole. --Janelle.kraemer 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Janelle's train of thought on the role women play in theatre. Helene Cixous believes that women are in plays to die, to be used or to display an wounded character. However, I find that, although wounded, women play a vital role in the plot; they are responsible for evoking feelings, emotions, ideas out of the main characters. They empower those around them through their actions, words and even their deaths. Cixous mentions Ophelia. Ophelia was her father's puppet but she was also the one who revealed truths bluntly and precisely during the play. The death of Hamlet's mother enraged him and spurred him on to kill those responsible, and in doing so restored a much needed balance in power. If we are talking about Shakespeare alone we have many powerful women. Macbeth's queen who was the driving force behind his actions or the lies circling about Othelo's true love, setting him into drastic action. Women are pivotal in life, and as of such in theater.

What is very interesting about this read by Helene Cixous, is that she believes that the theater is being run by a patriarchal society in which the men are superior and dominate. She says “It is always necessary for a woman to die in order for the play to begin. Only when she has disappeared can the curtain go up, she is relegated to repression, to the grave, the asylum, oblivion and silence. When she does make an appearance, she is doomed, ostracized. She is loved only when absent or abused…” I believe that this statement is invalid, an example of a play where the women are the lead and have the say in voicing their political opinions on how they feel is in Michel Tremblay’s Les Belles Soeurs. --Aziz     This thought of her's makes me wonder exatly what kind of plays Cixous has been in or viewed in her lifetime. The odds of EVERY SINGLE play being dependent on the death of a female in order to set the events in motion seems extremely unlikely.

'''I wonder if it is too simple an argument to proclaim that “things have changed” for women in the theatre? Yes, women participate in the mechanics of the theatre, but the theatre, as Cixous rightly articulates, was “built according to the dictates of male fantasy […] which is at the origin of all cultural production” (546). So perhaps the consideration is not that women (which women?) are playwrights, directors, actors, stage managers (and what is this language anyhow?) with equal opportunity, but that that theatre as a form of representation, as a form of cultural production is phallocentric; it was and still is by its very operation a masculine and patriarchal activity. So perhaps, Cixous is using the characters of Ophelia, Electra or Crodelia as metaphors. While these women do die in each of the scripts that they were written into, the very narrative structure that they are meant to ‘exist’ in, is one of misogyny, one of patriarchy, and one of male fantasy (if the single climax isn’t evidence of that then I don’t know what is). But our consideration ought to go deeper than a simple critique of narrative structure and the mechanics of the theatre. How has theatre and Western narrative structure ingrained itself in the subconscious and the production/interpretation of meaning? What is the language that is used in the theatre? We know by now that language is phallocentric and patriarchal. To represent women using the theatre and its language is to kill women! Is this not what Cixous is suggesting? Cixous says, “if I go to the theatre now, it must be a political gesture, with a view to changing […] its means of production and expression” (547). How does Cixous propose this change take place?'''

Upon reading the above point, particularly that language in itself is phallocentric, I realize just how much of our day to day lives are influenced by past rules and ideas that were originally based on or by male rule. This raises the question of why Cixous' focus is only on theatre as female muder. Is it based on a personal bad experience or something as simple as wanting to stay specific in her article?

I found Beck's article to be very thought provoking. I especially liked his thoughts on physical participation on the part of the audience member. To be fully enraptured by a performance we must become part of it. Going to the theatre can make "life seem entertaining and amusing and [give] easy answers." This is because many people use theatre as a way to escape from their lives. Although this can be unrealistic, I don't believe it is such a negative thing. What's so wrong with stepping out of your life for a little while to become a part of someone else's?

I agree with Cixous' opinion of the earlier female roles. The female role was constantly a victim, or a naive incapable being, only able to live by relying on a male figure. I do however believe that that image has changed drastically. Women now play prominent dominating roles.

Even though i too found Beck's article interesting, Cixous article spoke to me more. it made me think alot about the choices ive made as female actress and how i see my future. in one of the previous posts there was a point made about women being chosen to play stereotypical "damsel in distress" roles and it reminded me why i tend to connect more with male characters and male actors. its unfortunate and extremely frustrating that even in this day and age -where equality is supposed to be prevalent-that when a female actress, such as myself, searches for something like "female monologues" online, the majority of results are oppressed housewives, war widows or poor girls dealing with sexual abuse. as serious as these subjects are, i personally would love to see a little variety and more interesting roles being offered to women. as mentioned before, this article is some what dated, however i truly believe that young actors-both men and women-should read this and other articles like it. this will help educate people and thus hopefully set the wheels in motion for a more even theatrical playing ground.--Elisa Mancina 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote in particular caught my attention “Take for example this movement of women towards life, passed on from one woman to another, this outstretched hand which touches and transmits meaning, a single gesture unfolding throughout the ages.” And it is so incredibly true. Theatre is just a single part of where once women were treated differently. It’s a whole reaction of women speaking up from all different corners of the world and diverse occupations. It all started somewhere and has now brought us to the world today were women are practically on the same page as men. It all comes down to passion, that one woman who came out first and expressed what no one else had ever imagined. I mean sometimes in the theatrical world woman can still be portrayed for only certain reasons for example On television and in the media women are pressured to look a certain way for the world to see and maybe this is because sexuality plays a huge part in today’s entertainment, but with men the pressure isn’t quite the same. Our society is constantly changing and if there is a day that women and men are precisely equal we will never know.

The broad generalizations contained in Cixous' article annoyed me. Yes, female characters were portrayed through the gauze of the society they were written in. However, if you look at the really good playwrights throughout history, those who really understood and observed human nature there are both weak and strong female characters just as there are both weak and strong male characters. Look at Shakespeare's Beatrice and Rosalind, look at Marlowe's Dido. That's just the 17th century. Look throughout the centuries. If anywhere you will see women portrayed as they were with both strengths and flaws it is in the theatre. Yes, there were laws made regarding the portrayal of women on the stage, they had to be played by men. That was not the call of the playwrights or the actors or the directors however, that was the men in government who thought that theatre was a corrupting influence on women. Why did they think that? Because if anywhere there was a place where women were treated as though they were strong and capable and intelligent it was the theatre. In the theatre women were free, so of course the government took it from them or else how could they keep women in their kitchens and nurseries?

I do not believe the government is at fault for starting the notion that women should remain in kitchens and nurseries. The government was only operating as an extension of the pre-conceived notion of it's people. I'm not saying your statement regarding women being free in the theatre is wrong, just the source of the oppression belongs solely to the society in which women in theatre were outlawed. Also keep in mind that Cixous published this in 1977 a time when I believe women held just as strong a position in the arts as men. Even just in music the 70s is overflowing with strong, popular female icons who wouldn't associate themselves in the least with the archetype of a helpless victim; Blondie, Pat Benetar, Nico, Madonna, and Joni Mitchel to name a few. The examples she uses to try and give weight to her statements are outdated and poorly contextualized. By the end of her article her writing began to get a real feeling of fire and brimstone. When she begins elucidating her vision of a pure and female theatre she describes it as "a text, a body decoding and naming itself in one long, slow push; the song of women being brought into the world." For one thing, women have always been present in the world. She seems fixated on the the idea that women have been conspired like arbitrage conspiracy against since their inception when that is simply not the case. She seems to suggest Female theatre should be "a text". A text? Some sort of Manifesto? Her ravings about the scene "beginning with her blood" sound ritualistic. I put forward that Cixous is quite mad. --Noah Konstantin 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

---I find that Cixous is shaping a lot of her opinions without fully backing them up and is trying to draw these ideas out of thin air. She uses a very brief comparison to Ophelia and Antigone, which I will give her. Yes, Ophelia is often seen as a ‘weak’ female character but that is the point of Ophelia. Her life is that way to draw tragedy to it, the horror of men’s actions towards the female. She is the way she because she is used as a theatrical device. I have no idea what she’s referring to with Antigone, who I found to be a strong character, fighting back against the men who wanted to oppress her. Yes, she died but she died because she refused to submit.

Even if these examples weren’t poor on her part, there are a LOT of other classical and modern plays that put the female in a strong light. To list a few, Viola from Twelfth Night, Medea from Euripides Medea, Nora from A Doll’s House, Lady Macbeth from Macbeth, Lysistrata from Lysistrata, Titania from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Emily from Our Town, any of the women from A Children’s Hour. These were all written in the times when women were supposed to be being “oppressed.”

'''And secondly, to the person who said that women were not in theatre, even to this day. Have you really LOOKED around?''' Women outnumber men within ANY acting class or schools. Just look at your own classes here at the U of C. There are more female stage managers than male, if you take the time to look at the programs. Costume design is practically completely monopolized by women. Men in design are often labelled as ‘gay’ and that wouldn’t be so if it weren’t a female dominated industry. And playwrights. Yes, there was a period in time where women were not allowed to write or attend theatre but do you think that stopped them? Aphra Behn was a woman and she still wrote The Rover in 1677! And what about freaking Sarah Bernhardt, perhaps one of the greatest and best known classical actresses? She’s only one of a long list of them. Look it up! Or the modern Julie Taymore, the brilliant directing and costuming mind behind the Lion King and an award winning version of Oepidus Rex.

As much as the feminists want you to believe, women as a gender weren’t and aren’t just laying down and taking it. We’ve got plenty of plays, playwrights, actors, designers and audiences supporting us and a large chunk of those people are men!

To the girl who said you can’t find good female roles, googling on the internet is a poor choice. Of course you’ll get crappy monologues. There is a little thing called copyright that protects the authors and lets them actually make money from their art. The fact that copyright covers over both men and women shouts equality to me. You want good female monologues? Look up any of the plays I mentioned above. Or look up Judith Thompson, (a woman!) who is perhaps one of my favorite playwrights. We have wonderful resources in the library on campus. Leave the crappy internet behind! Be informed. It is only by catering to these false ideas and stereotypes that we continue to feed them. Give women their credit! We are just as good as men an both have been saying it for a really, really long time. --- [Kira Sams]

The article by Helene Cixous seemed very closed minded and oppinionated to me, however she did make some interesting observations, which perhaps I would never have considered before;"it is always necessary for a woman to die in order for the play to begin." Fair point i'd say, if we were speaking of most Grecian and Shakespearian plays, however this is not true to modern and even many well known plays, take Hamlet for example, this began with the ghost of the King (the play revolving around the 'king's' death, not a woman's), Ophelia may drown, but this has nothing to do with the degration or 'repression' of women. In fact, Shakespeare is giving 'a woman' a controversial and spotlit part in the play, as he does with Hamlet's mother as well. Shakespeare is well known for including powerful, manipulative, and even influential women in his plays. The idea that women are repressed today in theatre, misinterpreted, or mistreated, I cannot find myself aggreeing with.

"The idea that women are repressed today in theatre, misinterpreted, or mistreated, I cannot find myself agreeing with." I would have to agree with your statement. Taking a look at the major theatres in town, it's hard to say that women are being held back in anyway. Vanessa Porteous(who is a great actor, director and instructor) is currently the artistic director of Alberta Theatre Projects, which is arguably one of the most established theatres in town; Lunchbox theatre, which down huge business downtown is headed by Pamela Halstead. Most of my instructors that I have had throughout my college and university career in drama have been female (who were also incredibly successful actors, directors, playwrights, ect). This isn't the 1800. Are their people who discriminate against women? of course, But there are also a huge amount of stereotypes about race, age, culture, life style, and almost everything else you can think of. It doesn't mean any of those are true, unless you personally choose to buy into it.

I also think many of us are on the wrong track. Cixous isn't saying that women themselves are not treated fairly in theater, its how women are portrayed in theater, and how it needs to be updated. I believe she is using Ophelia as a way to show that these ideals are archaic, yet no new conventions are updating this view in the realm of theater. Scripts like Hamlet were written in a time where women were powerless, and Shakespeare actually empowered women in his pieces. But all of this is still beside the point, because we are still not warranted in contrasting classical pieces with contemporary theater because that is simply the way it was back then. For me, this article is how women can adapt theater to suit who they are now by showing women as they truly are - flesh and blood. This is innovative in that it demonstrates the universality of women, breaking free of any constricted 'role' while showing women in a timeless light.--Cody.thompson 17:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)