Fab Feb - Foes and Feminism

Photo of the 'Mary Stuart' program (front cover)

✅Fitness - Personal Training (boxing, squats and step-ups - LOTS)

❌ Free of Alcohol

✅Fun at Theatre

✅Feminism

The best theatre is when you find you think about it for some time after the production. Mary Stuart by the Sydney Theatre Company (STC) was written by Kate Mulvany, based on an original play by Friedrich Schiller from 200 years ago. We were at the first of the preview nights, with the official opening coming up on Saturday. The Director, Lee Lewis, gave a brief introduction before the lights went down at the beginning, stating how nervous she was feeling. During the final bows, the cast appeared more relieved than any other emotion, like joy or satisfaction.

Other than being slightly stilted, possibly from the lengthy lines only recently memorised, the acting was excellent, particularly the two leads as the female foes, and a newcomer to STC, Fayssal Bazzi, who played Mortimer. I hope his featured tatts are only temporary. The set was appropriately stark and creatively utilised. Even when just one or two characters were on stage it felt like it was a filled space. Emails were sent a day or two before the performance to warn of “sexual violence, blood, loud sound effects and theatrical haze”. The performance commenced in complete darkness with repeated loud metallic banging that made me startle in the first instance, less in the second and little thereafter. The height and intensity of many other people’s reactions were more than mine. There were also other points in the play that indicated they hadn’t read this warning, yet I didn’t detect anyone leaving midway. It was a little over the top for the action it was meant to represent, particularly when similar jarring sounds were used for a more appropriate action later in the proceedings. This is really the only objection I had to the staging aspects of the play.

Before attending this production, I only had a vague understanding of the relationship between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Elizabeth I, Queen of England, as friends and foes. The play examined the judgment of Mary as a traitor to the English crown but provided context quite smoothly so a historical background wasn’t necessary. However, as we left, I overheard other members of the audience surprised at the amount of religion discussed. I thought the Catholic versus Protestant part of the history was handled very well, except I felt some of the comparisons weren’t terribly accurate representations of the religions. I am happy to let that slide but I’m sure there will be plenty of protestations if there are blatant inaccuracies.

Mary and Elizabeth stand out in the history of their time, surrounded by the patriarchal order in which they ruled. The director announced in her opening remarks how pleased she was with the feminist perspective Kate Mulvaney had applied in the adaptation. I found the feminism lens was applied on a macro setting throughout. I enjoyed the modern filthy language used by the queens and the current feminist awareness of their world situated in 16^th Century history. However, at times it was overly laboured with lengthy monologues. It worked much better in snappy dialogue or in broader discussion. There were some witty quips such as that there wasn’t enough room in the world of men for two powerful women. It reminded me of a Geena Davis talk I attended where she said research had revealed men perceive boardrooms as having 50% women when they had only reached one third representation. In the program, Kate Mulvany pointed out the constant rivalry media make up between two strong women, Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton being prime examples at the present, and how this helped to motivate her writing of the script. Too often because positions of power are granted to men as a priority the women competing for them are set up as foes to each other more than they are to the men. It sometimes seem women can only have token representation and when they try to claim more than a tokenistic role they are shut down by the ruling patriarchy, much like the currently crumbling Liberal Party at the federal level.

Another good line came from Elizabeth when she declared that she could predict the behaviour of powerful men but having a powerful woman as a foe was difficult because it was without precedent. It is like the representations of women in film and their action figures (see this article about Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow in The Avengers). We need more women representation so it stops being a big deal when Lego produces a Women of NASA range. When Wonder Woman came out it was celebrated for centring on a female action figure. Never mind that she had to be supported by a group of men to conquer at the end. I’ve always loved the Joss Whedon quote saying he learnt to answer the question, “Why do you write these strong female characters?” with “Because you’re still asking me that question”. I was gutted to read that he is apparently just another powerful man who cheated on his wife with younger women who worked for him.

Mary Stuart was not a great production at this first preview but as the actors settle into their roles and a rhythm, I sure hope it will bloom into brilliance. As much as I felt feminism was being hammered home at times, as the cast relax, so may the stilted delivery and the message become more measured. Even if it doesn’t improve in this way, I believe it is necessary to have closer look at history like this, and current life, with a feminist eye, whether it be in popular culture, religion, politics or literature. Women are half of the world and we need to claim it.

PS Read Ian Dickson's scathing review of Mary Stuart in the Australian Book Review.