Queer production of As You Like It at Shakespeare’s Globe

[PotteringPondering]

Spent the evening at Shakespeare’s Globe, at what turned out to be a queer production of As You Like It.

Almost all the actors were cast as characters of the opposite sex, and several appeared to be trans actors. In the play, some characters have to disguise themselves as the opposite sex, so it was impossible to follow who’s who (‘Hang on, so that woman with a beard is meant to be a male character, who then is disguised as a woman; no, wait a minute…’). There were a few good individual performances, but artistically it was a complete dog’s dinner.

It was shot through with sexualised queer stylings and dances, and ended with a speech (that definitely wasn’t written by Shakespeare) about how we’re all part of a big queer family, whether or not we wear nail varnish.

Lots of kids were in the audience.

It felt a little like finding yourself in a recruitment party for a transgressive sex cult, when what you really wanted was Shakespeare.

Yes, I understand that.

I'm just making the point that 'historical accuracy' is a bit of a complicated term in this context.

Originally, the Globe was built to stage Shakespeare plays in the way they would have been staged when they were written. It's gone off-piste since. But, staging Julius Caesar in togas wouldn't necessarily have been historically accurate within that context, because in Shakespeare's day, people didn't think that it was very important to recreate period costumes. Chances are, they'd have seen our modern productions that give you museum-accurate Greeks and Romans as weird, inappropriate, and subversive.

The point is, we all bring assumptions to Shakespeare. For you and your DD, the assumption is that historical accuracy in represented the period portrayed is really important. But, of course, Shakespeare didn't care about that.

I remember seeing Hamlet set in the 20s with flappers and allsorts. It was very weird. Also a rather ‘interesting’ version of Frankenstein. The front row got wet. Then there was don giovanni set in 50s America. the pedal fishers - that was just all weird…

I’ve seen some weird stuff…

Dh is taking 13yo ds2 on Sunday night (there were lots of £5 tickets left) so it will be interesting to see what they both think!

"Of course..." why? That's interesting to hear and not something anyone has ever mentioned to me. But why wouldn't Shakespeare want to indicate when and where and who? I don’t care about museum standard accuracy. By all means wear combats if you want to but fling a bit of purple cloth over your shoulders to suggest you're in charge, and change something -anything - to show you are a different character.

Well, because it wasn't the convention at the time, basically. We tend to assume it's really normal to want to set a historical play in its own historical time. But when Shakespeare was writing, that just wasn't the convention. Broadly (and I am generalising a bit), for most of the history of Western literature, people have not been that interested in setting stories in period context. They've been more interested in retelling stories in an up-to-date way, losing all of that boring outdated period baggage along the way.

So, for example, when Shakespeare wrote historical plays, he didn't bother to keep the historical context accurate. And the actors didn't wear period-appropriate costume. His historical soldiers almost certainly wore the Jacobethan equivalent of combat gear, rather than Roman or medieval recreations.

In the 1970s/80s, it became trendy to do Shakespeare plays in the 'historically accurate' dress of the time in which they were set. That's when you get people wafting bits of purple cloth over their shoulders. Since then, historians have learned more about the history of textiles and fashion, and so even productions aiming for historical accuracy of the period in which the play is set, would tend to find their costumes had to change. But a lot of us were very influenced by these productions and their successors, and so we start to think that they are 'real' or 'proper' Shakespeare.

A straight reading of any text implies making some effort to hear the story the author was looking to tell, rather than imposing something that a re-interpreter wants to say on the text. Which is what goes on with attempts to "queer" it.

It's very common in the popular arts at the moment, and even in the academic study of history, which is why so much of the history of it is complete bollocks.

No one has said that there is no one who can appreciate a different treatment of a play, but that in order to do so, you need to understand what is being done, which depends on some level of understanding of the original context. You've basically just said there is no original context, or at least we have no access to it, so that rather implies there really isn't any way to make any sense of things like gender swaps. In a way the implication is there is no meaningful narrative that we can communicate.

I don't think this stuff is just an infection in history and the social sciences and science, it's just as bad in the arts.

A straight reading of any text implies making some effort to hear the story the author was looking to tell, rather than imposing something that a re-interpreter wants to say on the text. Which is what goes on with attempts to "queer" it.

How could you possibly know what 'story' Shakespeare was looking to tell? (And I doubt he was trying to 'tell a story,' seeing as how he was writing plays.) It's perfectly possible that what you call a 'queer' reading is closer to his meaning that some other interpretations, including togas and cloaks. How would we know? And why should we care?

I get that, for students studying to pass exams, it is important to see versions that stick fairly close to the texts we have. But that is because they're studying for exams, not because it's necessarily particularly good Shakespeare (or good theatre) to do it that way.

No one has said that there is no one who can appreciate a different treatment of a play, but that in order to do so, you need to understand what is being done, which depends on some level of understanding of the original context. You've basically just said there is no original context, or at least we have no access to it, so that rather implies there really isn't any way to make any sense of things like gender swaps. In a way the implication is there is no meaningful narrative that we can communicate.

No, I haven't said there is no original context. However, that original context includes an enormous amount of interest in ideas about sex, sexuality and gender. If Shakespeare had written and lived in some imaginary time when people had no interest in sexed bodies and barely noticed the differences between men and women, of course it would be weird and daft to impose a reading of the play that imported these things. But he didn't.

You have to work out how you want to translate things. If Shakespeare's company put on plays in contemporary sixteenth-century dress, is it more faithful to the spirit of the plays for our actors to wear hose and farthingales, or to wear our own version of modern dress? There's no right answer, but the question matters. Same with a 'queer' (really don't like that term) reading. In As You Like It, Shakespeare is playing about with contemporary ideas about gender and sexuality, and it's a little risque; some people would likely have found it a bit offensive. But we're no longer (mostly) shocked by the same things. Can we substitute some gendered transgressiveness that still does shock people a bit, to get the same effect?

That'd be the argument for a 'queered' version. Now, I think this particular version sounds a bit crap - though I probably shouldn't judge sight unseen - but I don't think you can simply dismiss it because you think it's not 'straight' Shakespeare.

I took my 13 yr old yesterday and she cringed and rolled her eyes at all the cheesy pop songs and thrusting hips, and queer family lecture at the end. It was her first time seeing Shakespeare in the UK and I think it put her off.

That said, it was perfectly easy to understand who was who, and the fact that many male characters were played by women didn't bother me.

Rosalind, the character who cross dresses for most of the play, is played by a woman. Celia is played by a (male) trans or non binary actor and they were brilliant, charming, probably similar to the boy actors of Shakespeare's time. Then there was a trans man (I think) playing a man, complete with natural beard and body hair, so again, not confusing.

I didn't like the over sexualised aspects and the addition of the closing speech, but other than that it was all well acted, clearly enunciated and fairly easy to follow.

I agree with a pp who said that Gen Z are getting fed up with all the queer lecturing, I think they wonder what the big deal is as gender fluidity is becoming pretty mainstream!

‘And I doubt he was trying to 'tell a story,' seeing as how he was writing plays.’

Really? Surely playwriting is about story just as much as writing novels or films?

I think they wonder what the big deal is as gender fluidity is becoming pretty mainstream!

The generation after this are going to be forced to rebel against the establishment by wearing twinsets and suits, voting conservative and looking down on the cult of me me me me me (I deserve it). And adopting highly rebellious names. Like Barbara.

You are right. I am being snarky.

I think this is a fascinating thread. I can’t say the production sounds very appealing - I’d rather be left to think things through myself than be banged over the head with them - but it’s made me think a lot about the broader issue of interpreting Shakespeare. I’m thinking quite a bit about whether there’s any sort of boundary at which a production becomes more about the twists than the text, if that makes any sense? How much it will appeal to someone very new to it and how much it would be appreciated by people who know it well, and in what different ways?

For example I absolutely adored the National’s MSD production in which Oberon and Titania’s lines were reversed. I can’t imagine many people not enjoying it as it was so full of energy and fun. But someone who knows the play very well will see it differently to someone new to it - the lines are the same, so textually no different - but the whole play is changed. How would 11 year old me, who studied it as a first
Shakespeare text and saw it at Regent’s Park and loved it, have reacted to that performance? I have no idea but I’m interested in all the different layers at work.

I don’t have any sort of issue about the staging of Shakespeare. I’ve enjoyed modern/Elizabethan/period productions. I mostly like them to be atmospheric and add something to the performance so in that sense I often find modern dress adds new interpretation.

Really fascinating and I have now checked with my girly swot husband who told me everyone knows Shakespeare plays were originally done in contemporary clothes not period costume. I just wasn't paying attention at school.
He also says that the Globe production of Julius Caesar that we saw had a female playing Brutus and then the same (he thinks) female playing Portia which didn't confuse him as he knew the play well enough to spot it. It took me a while to figure out that Brutus had transformed into his own wife.
It is an interesting experiment in how we identify people and the role of sex in identity.
I should say that the production we saw was on tour, outside next to a busy road in blazing sun when it was 33 in the shade. We thought the cast were heroic to get to the end.