By Anon
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diB4ycHdIi8
Available until: Indefinitely
TRIGGER WARNING: Rape
There is no physical description of the rape, but there is a description of refusal to consent.
This play discusses the issue of consent and it was
suggested to me that I write this review because I’m a rape survivor. (I’m not
sure exactly what that means, but I like it better than ‘victim’.)
I was very much in two minds about this. Firstly, I don’t
think my experience makes me any more qualified than most people to write a
review. Secondly, I can only write from the perspective of one individual rape
survivor – me. We are all different. Thirdly, there is so much more to me than being
a rape survivor. Are my feelings really due to one thing which happened to me?
Why can’t these characteristics be part of my personality, which is shaped by
everything which has happened to me, good as well as bad?
But the play makes me feel deeply uncomfortable and I do
want to express that – even though I feel uncomfortable about my reasons for
being uncomfortable; as though I’m being in some way disloyal to other rape
survivors.
The first thing to consider is if anyone is actually raped
in this play and, if so, who this is. Claudio is sentenced to death for
impregnating Juliet when he was not yet married to her. Juliet is asked whether
what happened is consensual. I can imagine that, in some productions, her
confirmation that it was might be unconvincing, but Juliet smiles as she states
that it is mutual and I don’t believe she was forced into anything. Clearly,
what they did was against the law (and could theoretically be considered rape
from the point of view that neither party had any right to consent) and
although I don’t personally believe in the death penalty and don’t want them to
be killed, the fact remains that they have broken the law and they are facing
what the law decrees to be the correct punishment. I can and do disagree with
the punishment, but the fact remains it is the law and I find it difficult to
argue if characters implement it.
Isabella remains a virgin at the end of the play so she is
clearly not raped, though I do believe sexual harassment occurs when Angelo
asks Isabella to sleep with him in order to save her brother’s life. This is
completely wrong and an absolutely horrific form of blackmail where Isabella, a
novice in a convent, will ruin her relationship with God and could also ruin
her reputation as she will be relying on Angelo to keep silent about what has
happened. There is little in Angelo’s character to suggest he is in any way
trustworthy. An accusation of Isabella’s not being a virgin from a trusted
authority figure is not likely to result in suspicion that the authority figure
was involved in Isabella’s loss of virginity. Angelo has already blackmailed Isabella
once and could do so again. Pericles, which I watched recently, speaks
of verifying whether or not a woman is a virgin so the biological knowledge
certainly existed in Shakespeare’s time. I will state here one small point in
Angelo’s favour. Probably the only one. He makes no physical attempt to force
himself on Isabella. However, he tells her she would not be believed if she
told anyone about the blackmail and I’m assuming the same would be true if she
told anyone that the respected deputy of the Duke had harassed her.
What Angelo says is absolutely horrific, though I think it’s
a very important moment in the play as I think hearing it on a stage – or on
Zoom – will help people to see how terrible it is not to be believed. I have
been told (by a female mental health professional, in case you’re wondering)
that my experience wasn’t rape because I must have consented non-verbally, but
I lacked the intelligence to understand that I was consenting. I would need a
significantly higher word limit to unpick that statement, but briefly: the
issue of non-verbal consent is contentious; I said no loudly and repeatedly
before and during; if I lacked the intelligence to understand what I was
‘consenting’ to, would that not render my consent invalid? Me too, Isabella.
Four hundred years later, me too. Some people are just more powerful than us.
There is no defence for Angelo’s behaviour, but I do feel
very uncomfortable with the trick played by Isabella and Mariana. Angelo
consented to sleep with Isabella, not Mariana, and I strongly believe the fact
he’s a horrible person is irrelevant. Angelo doesn’t inspire liking or respect.
He has abused his position in society. He certainly doesn’t deserve Isabella –
or Mariana. But I can’t agree with what happens to him.
If Angelo were an Angela and a man called Isaac had agreed
to her completely outrageous demands and sent Martin along instead, would that
be okay? Does the fact it was an Angelo really make a difference?
Not forgetting that Isabella’s brother, Claudio, also
entreats Isabella to do whatever is necessary to save his life, even though he
must surely be aware that Isabella would be committing a crime in sleeping with
a man who is not her husband – or even her nearly-husband, as is the case with
Claudio and Isabella.
The Duke isn’t that great either, sneaking around in
disguise as a priest to see what Angelo is up to; worming people’s secrets out
of them. It is he who thinks of sending Mariana to sleep with Angelo in
Isabella’s place (an act which we know is a crime, considering Mariana and
Angelo are not married), and finally makes a suggestion to Isabella which isn’t
that far away from Angelo’s demand. He possibly makes her feel pushed into a
corner with no way out. Just as Angelo does.
That’s why I don’t like this play, but I do applaud TSMGO.
They might not have the same beliefs as I have – and there’s no reason why they
should – but I do feel they’ve thought about the issues in this play very
carefully and attempted to resolve them in a way that would make people feel
more comfortable. It’s impossible to create a production of any play which
everybody likes, but I do appreciate the work they have put into their
understanding and interpretation of the play; the care they have shown for
people who might be affected by the issues.
There are so many positives in this production. TSMGO
emphasises the attempts to silence the female characters in this play – Swachata
Guha Malik, who plays Juliet, among other roles, does not speak any lines in
her first scene (and says very little in the play as a whole), but she
communicates a great deal with her eyes, listening and silently responding to
everything. Later, Isabella is instructed by a nun in what she can and can’t
say and is shushed when she tries to say something which is clearly not
permitted. When Isabella finally begins to say what it is on her mind, it
bursts out of her in an angry stream of words, as though the feelings have been
locked inside her for too long.
I did wonder briefly whether the genderblind casting was
perhaps not such a good decision for this play as there was less emphasis in
the differences between the male and female characters, but then I decided I
liked it because we were effectively seeing two worlds at once – the past,
where women were silenced, and the present, where a woman can do almost
anything a man can do, including playing male Shakespearean roles.
The ending to the play, which I won’t reveal, is definitely
preferable to the conventional ending and it was brilliantly-performed by
Amelia Parillon, who was magnificent as Isabella - a very powerful performance,
full of passion and conviction. I was hoping for something else, but I love TMSGO’s
ingenuity. It was an exceptional ending and it was really good to finish the
play thinking about an innovative choice made by the production team rather
than what I was expecting to think about.
Gareth Turkington is an odious Angelo, as he probably needs
to be (some see him as a good man who makes one bad choice, but I’m not so
sure), but he brought out the complexities within the character and was
fascinating to watch. Nayia Anastasiadou shows leadership and efficiency as the
Duke, and his return as the Friar was intriguing and purposeful, as he constantly
tests everyone. Kevin V. Smith’s phenomenal voice delivers foppish Lucio’s
lines faultlessly and the trio of Paul Carpenter, Robert Chisholm and Laurie
Ogden (Pompey, Friar Peter Thomas and Elbow) provide a welcome reason to smile.
Also a special mention to Wendy Morgan from the Ensemble for using her face,
voice and an extensive wardrobe to make all her characters memorably
distinctive. Everyone does well with the roles that were given to them.
There are uncomfortable moments, without a doubt. But even more moments of very impressive acting.ry impressive acting.
No comments:
Post a Comment