Excess in Fefu

I keep returning to Emma's speech in Part 3, about environment knocking at the gateway of the senses. In Part 2, the characters find themselves in very different physical environments, and in a parallel way, very different subconscious/imaginative environments. Emma cries out that "society restricts us, school straight jackets us, civilization submerges us, privation wrings us, luxury feather-beds us." All of these images present different spaces that restrict a person's behavior and threatens to subsume their sense of the world and their sense of self. So for me, particularly in P. 2, because it's the place in the play where the environment changes most drastically for all the characters, it makes sense that these environments are so abundantly textured and diverse, that they almost overtake these women. Because in each scene the characters are almost overtaken by something from within: they are being threatened from within and without, something Julia's monologue captures really well the judges and the prayer are both something that has been imposed upon her and something that has come from her experiences. Much of the characters' language evokes this mediation between the exterior and the interior, and the loss of distinction between the two. So for the part in the play when the women are confronting these inner "demons" (that's not the right word but I'm still struggling to find it), they are also confronting these multiple interior spaces, these powerful environments that bombard them both with possibilities and dangers.

This makes me think there's more to be investigated in costumes with layers, though as Leslie pointed out nothing should be too overtly theatrical or disjointed: this play's aesthetic should be unified, with very specific interruptions. I don't have a sense that this would change the direction we've been pursuing in the lights, and it very much springs from the ideas that Greg has put forward with the set. Perhaps it means that Sean should make differentiations between the props used in each of these environments and the ones that are used in the first and third parts.

please give me books?

Books!

Hey all -

So, I need to start amassing books to have lying about in the study. I don't read about the womenfolk that often, or about the queerfolk, or the menfolk, or any kind of genderfolk(fuck?) for that matter, so if you wouldn't mind throwing out titles, I would be much obliged.

In addition, any books that strike you as 'Phillip.' Stuff like that. Cuz y'all are much more acquainted with Phillip than I am. And Fefu and this particular set of friends.

So yea. Feeding Frenzy! (and period is of no object, but cost is...)

s

Feminism

I was reading through some reviews on past production of Fefu and couldn't help but notice how all of them mentioned that it was a piece that dealt with feminism and gender politics 'in a new way'. All of them seemed to think that it was very different from the other feministic plays. With my basic knowledge of feminism, I would tend to agree, but I began to wonder what people thought of when they thought of feminism. This is kind of an open ended question and kind of just something that I'm curious about.

Personally, I think it is the way that these women relate to each other that creates a sense of an atmosphere that is innately female, one of support and relaxation in a world without males. But I think that's just one aspect of the idea and I would love to hear some other people's thoughts on feminism, both in the context of this play/their character and in life in general.

1930's Fashion

Fefu and her Friends was set in 1935 while written in the late 70's. I thought it might be interesting to compare the 1930's style of clothing with the late 70's style.

1970's Style

1930's Style

The 1930's clothing is more of a classic, docile look while the 1970's look has more of an independent, edgy flair. The morph from docile to independent (in terms of clothing) could be an example of how times have changed to push for more equal opportunities for women.

Aaaand Rubens' women

What I find interesting, when comparing these images, is that to MY eye, the kind of femininity presented seems very similar at first. The kind of bodies they have, the kind of femininity they represent. But on closer inspection it's clear that all of Rubens' women are in action of some sort, while Goya's Maja is completely passive. I think this goes back to Annie's paper excerpt, which discussed action and passivity a great deal.

Goya's Maja

These are the two different versions. One nude, one clothed. Fornes doesn't specify which might qualify as "aesthetic," but the postures are the same. ("taking in the weight of her entrails").