Aurundia Brown as Joan (she plays the part in the Folger)
Friends,
On Sunday afternoon at the Folger, a full audience watched the four actors who this time comprised the whole of the Bedlam company players perform some 20+ (at least) characters of Shaw’s St Joan. The scenery was minimal; props just what necessity demanded; the costumes worn were of the barest type, ordinary clothes for the most part, mixed with a few garments (robes) or objects recognizable as Elizabethan. The way an actor would turn into a different characters took a minimal of indication: the actor turned round, made a different face, wore garment never worn before &c. When I came home, I took down from my two shelves of Shaw books (my husband read much of Shaw) my volume of his plays to double-check the performed text, and confirmed yes Shaw’s was this long play of many dialogues of plain ordinary language clashing, obsessively repeating the same demands, replies, memories, going over the same set of events. The major presences are three powerful men, those the maid persuades to follow her to find the French king, and fight the battles the way she said, then the men who harass and interrogate and try to control her at the scenes, and then then men who prosecuted, shamed, tortured and executed her. Plus Joan herself.
Photo found on the Net in this article
Probably the recent choice of an African-American actress for the role in several productions is a deliberate reference to the similar vulnerability of African-American ordinary people at the hands of white men in and outside of powerful institutions. The play includes speeches about the church, the state, intermediate bodies (like aristocrats); while the charges thrown at Joan once they are identified are repeatedly about her being a female dressed as a man, taking on male roles. That is what is truly unendurable. They accused her of being a whore and a witch.
In his long preface Shaw let this reader know that he had some complicated reasons for writing the play: to show that both sides of the aisle had much to say for themselves, on the nature of hallucination, on the kind of religious declarations and behavior we’ve seen as fanatic and yet normal and everyday. See wikipedia for an excellent full analysis. It would be interesting to know how much of his dialogue was taken from court records or second history books. Shaw is also concerned to have outlined Marxist thought, and reconcile it from ancient to present time. W\what they were saying about tyranny, elections, delusion, following a powerful guru (why), torture, justice, and Joan’s “voices” were utterances relevant to us today. I found myself astounded that the actors wanted the audience to be open-minded towards the desperate and then triumphant blind officials (most did not recognize their own hypocrises). So therefore the corrupt machiavels were a relief: for example, the Earl of Warwick after the defeat of the English determined to burn the maid at the stake. All this is worked into the speeches and day business. Here is a quick summary of the story line.
And yet the play was absorbing, entertaining, left the watcher with a clear idea of who was speaking, what were the arguments made against facilitating giving women more power (Joan was burned as much for putting on trousers and defying the establishment’s subordination of women) then, what were the specifics of what the Maid claimed, and what was held against her when the Stuart king was brought back. How did they accomplish all that? They were tremendously energetic. They were often comic in approach. Lots of stage business. The actors were careful to let us know who was on stage and throw hints out at where we are in a given book and speak their lines, some of it in French or medieval-sounding Latin. A group of audience members were on the stage with them (and had to submit to have their chairs moved around from act to act, scene to scene once), and they played on the stage and in the audience.
Eric Tucker and Edmund Lewis
They are a touring group (e.g., in New York City), and also do a Hamlet (4 actors doing all parts) so when the play is over at the Folger, it may travel near you. Very like the Sense and Sensibility (also directed by Eric Tucker) that was performed at the Folger last year, the Bedlam St Joan offers the sort of experience you can’t have in a movie-house (or huge theater). The Folger blurb said St Joan is the closest play to Shakespeare in the 20th century: I’m not sure of that but it is a chronicle play like his.
For myself I found it a surprise. Hitherto all the Shaw plays I’ve seen have been realistic witty, what one might call novels of manners turned into polemical plays, e.g., Mrs Warren’s Profession, The Misalliance. Pygmalion, Heartbreak House. As I say, Jim enjoyed reading Shaw’s criticism (and read some aloud to me) and we would go to a Shaw play if ever we were in a place where one was played. I had years ago when a girl seen Androcles and the Lion on TV as a film (so there’s a fable set in a historical period), and had read how or that Major Barbara and Man and Superman have these long speeches, are debates, but never seen (or looked at) these latter two. Now I’d be curious too partly because reading them (as I look at them tonight for the first time) would feel like reading a treatise when they are intended to and can be theater entertainment for an interactive audience. There’s a Blackstone audio.
As Shaw says, it is a wonder why this particular girl and incident has held the imagination of enough people for centuries: The Hollow Crown rendition of Shakespeare Saint Joan in Henry VI begins with showing her courage and illusions sympathetically and then turns to show her a crazed murderous French fanatic, witch-like, but (in the recent film) a figure of pathos too.
Early poster
Ellen
I’m delighted to say the Post’s drama critic agrees with my assessment of Bedlam’s St Joan:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/b91635ee-5900-11e8…
I didn’t sufficiently emphasize how good Tucker was in all his roles.
Catherine Janofsky: “But of course you know that Twain considered his work of Joan is most important. She is my role model, my confirmation saint, and guiding spirit. It’s interesting that two confirmed agnostics, if not atheists (Vita Sackville-West) loved her, but could not explain her miracles. The best movie/play about her I have seen is Dryer’s “The Passion of Joan of Arc,” set to music played by the BSO. I was in tears the last half.”
Me: I did not know. She is not my role model but she is of great interest. I suspect she remains paid attention to because she was burned at the stake and at the center of an important power fight. She also defied the gender faultline, refused to barter her body in any way, and succeeded — except for the corruption of those she fought for and her innocence she might have survived longer and simply been quietly assassinated by someone.
Catherine: Read Warner, Christine Pizarro, and Regine Pernould. Catholics like myself would disagree with your assumption of her continued interest; it’s because of her miracles and her belief in her voices that enabled her to lead the French army to victory and crown the Dauphin, not that she was burned at the stake as a heretic. She knew she had two years to accomplish her mission, and she would be cast aside. Part of my masters was a paper on her and her pride. She wasn’t perfect.
She was a force to be reckoned with. I don’t understand why she would have been assassinated if she hadn’t taken up her banner that the voices described for her. She would have remained a shepherdess in Domremy.
Me: I am a complete atheist. Have no religious beliefs no belief in any supernatural whatsoever …
Catherine: “Joan of Arc fascinates my second husband, a skeptic at least. He struggles to explain Joan’s several unexplainable achievements. She had no trouble at all!
Me: I don’t struggle to explain what happened. I’ve already offered the explanation. Since we are talking about her literally (and only by indirection Shaw’s play), I see not much achievement: she led a ferocious band to war, one king or group of thugs are in power for a while. They collude and grab her, put her on trial, harass, probably torture and rape, then burn her to death. I see a continued interest because these companies put on plays, visual art work continues, Sackville-West’s book sells. Probably on delusionary bases. I suppose it’s good we had this talk so as to bring out candidly that maybe Shaw made a mistake to make her the center of his play: he says he wants to make us feel empathy and understanding for all sides. For my part I look at them all with equal disillusion, and actually hope that this play could never have been written in this manner. She’s not one of Caryl Churchill’s Top Girls, not because she ended so horrifyingly since two lived wretched lives (two never existed, and one was this continual traveler). You’ve made me consider that Shaw’s play itself is now obsolete. And realize they now chose a black actress to inject a new interpretation of Joan as surrogate for subalterns and victims of powerful people and vicious prejudice everywhere.
just to note, on credits…the that is not a 2012 photo from NYC. The final photo is not from the Folger production. Folger pics are at: https://www.folger.edu/events/saint-joan/production-photos