Brenna O’Keefe, 2004
In As You Like It, Jaques states that “All the world’s a stage,/ And all the men and women in it merely players./ They have they’re exits and their entrances,/ And one man in his time plays many parts” (II, vii, 138-141). That very well might be true. But if life is a stage traditionally controlled by a man, what parts does that leave for the women of the world? The female answer to this question is that if you don’t like your part, change it, and if you don’t like the direction, follow someone else. And that is exactly what all-female Shakespeare does. It explores roles for women, roles that women don’t traditionally get to play. All-female productions of Shakespeare, as well as female-directed Shakespeare, differ from tradition productions. Female-centered shows tend to revolve around the idea that gender matters, but it does not matter any more than age, politics, socio-economic concerns, or any other defining characteristics found in any given person. Female directors tend to want to stretch the meaning in Shakespeare’s plays, be radical, new, and expansive. Female directors gravitate toward a conception of the show filled with characters that happen to be specific genders, not gendered people who happen to be individuals. This makes the theme of the play revolve more around relationships and not around gender stereotypes and a confirmation of traditional gender constructs. Clearly, gender does matter to female directors. However, gender is only another means of adding dimension to a character. For female directors, the characters’ relationships are more important than their gender, and it is through the exploration of gender that these directors seek to push limits and expand boundaries.
The first, and fairly straight forward reason that gender matters to an all-female production of Shakespeare, is that those productions allow women to have roles they wouldn’t otherwise be able to play. Usually, a woman could not play Prospero, or Bottom, or any other of the male parts. However, that is not all an all-female production does with characters. Sarah Werner writes that while “a non-threatening ‘girly’ production would create opportunities for women to work, it would fail to challenge…. preconceptions” (Werner 62). Because of this, female directors try ways to question interpretation. In one all-female and female-directed version of The Tempest, Prospero was obviously played by a woman. The difference in gender added to the disinheritance plotline. However, the woman Prospero remained a Duke, not a Duchess, and “still carrie[d] an aura of power” (McKanic 1). This shows that Prospero did not need to be a man to get his character across. In this way, relationships and characterization are more important than gender alone. It is written of director Joanne Zipay, that she “manages to be radical even as she is completely loyal to the text she is working on” (McKanic 2). Instead of gender-based power dynamics, Zipay prefers to focus on the “intricacies and nuances” (McKanic 2). Actors in the company that produced this version are written to be “comfortable in the text and roles, thus making it easy to forget the gender of the characters and pay attention to the text and the story” (McKanic 3). And yet, in a different female production of Shakespeare, it is written that women actors “see things in the play’s male/female relationships that male actors wouldn’t” (Kaplan 1). And yet, like Zipay, Kate Lynch (the director of Midsummer) prefers to look at “Quince as a character, not just a man” (Kaplan 2). One actor in this production says that it was “a real challenge to balance the work’s poetry with the physicality” of their roles (Kaplan 3). This shows that gender is important to characterization, but not the only defining characteristic.
When a male directed an all-female cast, he said that much to his “surprise, there was very little difference” (Zell 1). Though he found that the environment felt safe, and that “made me more comfortable to make the scene more suggestive than it necessarily would have been” (Zell 1). However, he couldn’t let gender run rampant. Before taking the job, he was warned. In the end he said, “the best you can hope for is being gender-neutral” (Zell 2). Gender-neutral implies the ignoring of gender issues though, and is that possible? One all-female company describes themselves as a “fresh perspective, to provide opportunities for female artists to work together in a supportive environment, and to expand the boundaries of roles in which both audiences and artists see themselves” (Woman’s Will 2). The key word in this statement is expand. Over and over gain words like expand, radical, new, and fresh appear when reading about female versions of Shakespeare. Is this because female directors use gender in new ways? The answer to that seems to be yes. One reviewer writes that a all-female and female-directed company “uses gender in Shakespeare as a way of exploring new ideas instead of reinforcing old ones” (Woman’s Will 2). In fact, in a personal interview, the artistic director of Woman’s Will advises fellow all-female companies to “push it to the limit,” and to “keep your eyes open for opportunities” (Merritt). She even says that most audience members forget they are watching women, and are then “surprised and delighted when they remember” (Merritt). This suggests that gender is only a means to an end for the female director, a way into a character, and then a way to challenge.
One way in which Shakespeare allows directors and actors to explore and challenge gender is through his use of disguise. Disguise is “a unique dramaturgical device which allows his female characters the opportunity to negotiate power and assert their identity” (Turner 163). This shows that gender is only the way into a character, and that power and personal identity are just as important, if not more so. Furthermore, writer Jeff Turner quotes critic Marianne Ackerman as saying “what interests me is not whether Shakespeare was sexist or not (whatever they mean) but whether a contemporary woman can find herself or be found in Shakespeare’s plays” (Turner 163). This then brings in the variable of one’s specific culture as an important characteristic. Turner writes that the relationship between Celia and Rosalind was “a contemporary examination of the power-structures within the community and within the unconscious” (Turner 165). Also in terms of psychology, some productions explore “a Jungian anima/animus dialectic…a vital exploration of gender, the male and female within us all” (Turner 164). It is written that Rosalind “embodies a contradiction: a strong person for whom a single gender cannot be read into either costume or gesture” (Turner 165). This shows that gender is not the only characteristic important when considering Rosalind, or any other character. For example, Macbeth is a person who is ambitious who happens to be male, not a male character who also happens to be ambitious.
Female director of As You Like It Rita Giomi was primarily concerned with men and women as people with close bonds to each other. Of “primary interest to her was the tension established when a man invades the strong bond of female friendship” (Turner 166). And yet, could Orlando have been any “Other?” This is a play about relationships then, not specific gendered relationships.
For those who think that women are object, or Other, Critic Cynthia Lewis writes that As You Like It “illuminates female potency” (Lewis 46). Also, she is a character that subverts power structures. She “exploits patriarchal structures” to gain equality with her new husband. This makes As You Like It “less a comedy of subordination than one of inclusion” (Lewis 48).
Louis Martin, a critic, suggests that Rosalind should not be viewed as “pure subject nor pure object” (Martin 91). This echoes then the stance that there is no one way to define a character. She is Rosalind the complex human, not Rosalind the woman. Martin quotes another critic as saying that As You Like It challenges patriarchy (Martin 91). Patriarchy is a justification of the power dominance by men, over women. Yet the play also challenges the rationality of court life, also about power struggles. Thirdly, in the text, there are battles of wits, word play, and a struggle for intellectual dominance. Clearly, gender is not the only means of dominance. In fact, Rosalind’s assertion of her “mental advantage” is “genderless” (Martin 92). In fact, even lovesickness is genderless. Critic Carol Thomas Neely makes the point that “desire can strike anyone and fasten on anything, gender roles and erotic object choice are remarkably fluid” (Neely 276). This shows that gender does not control love, or sexuality. Gender is not any more important than any of these traits. In fact, Neely writes that in Shakespeare, male love is more passive, while female love is aggressive (Neely 285). This suggests that even Shakespeare was expanding gender boundaries, or perhaps equalizing the genders. Now there is gray area, which female directors pick up on, and explore with fervor.
In these ways, female directors take Shakespeare texts and run with them. They choose to try new avenues of interpretation, upset gender stereotypes, and challenge preconceptions, all while remaining within the confines of the text. Female directors recognize that gender is a trait of human beings, however, they refuse to allow themselves to get sucked into the traditional gender constraints. Women are daring, smart, and masculine, and likewise, men are squeamish, foolish, and feminine. Both men and women are allowed to fall in love, act on love, run away, and find themselves. In this way, Shakespeare characters are truly characters, not just men and women. Like Jaques says, we all play many parts during our time on the stage of life. Gender is only one of them.
Works Cited
Kaplan, Jon. “All-Female Dream Date.” NOW Online Edition. Available online: http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-11-01/stage_theatrepreview.html
Lewis, Cynthia. Horns, the Dream-work, and Female Potency in As You Like It. South Atlantic Review, vol. 66, no. 4. Fall 2001.
Martin, Louis. As She Liked It: Rosalind as Subject. Pennsylvania English, vol. 22, no. 1-2. Fall-Spring 2000.
McKanic, Arlene. “Prospero as Earth Goddess: The Tempest At Theatre 3.” Greenwich Village Gazette. Available online: http://www.judithshakespeare.org/main_reviews.htm
Merritt, Erin. Personal Interview. November 6, 2002, via email.
Neely, Carol Thomas. Lovesickness, Gender, and Subjectivity: Twelfth Night and As You Like It. A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Blackwell Publishers. 2000.
Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. The Norton Shakespeare. W.W.Norton & Company, Inc. 1997.
Turner, Jeff. As You Like It. On-stage Studies, Vol. 19. University of Colorado. 1996.
Werner, Sarah. Shakespeare and Feminist Performance. Routledge. New York. 2001.
Woman’s Will Website. Brochure. Available Online: http://www.womanswill.org/brochure.html
Zell, Allison Eve. “Measure for Measure: Sexual Downplay.” TheatreMania.com. Available Online: http://www.malialoke.com/gwen/natalie/index.php?x=article_misc01.php