Boys Will Be Boys - But Should Girls?

Can women ever really play in a man’s world?

This is the premise of Melissa Bubnic’s Boys Will Be Boys – a play about a female stockbroker who believes she is taking it to the boys, and beating them at their own game.

Having spent most of my working life in the finance sector, I, along with my fellow theatre-going party, saw a familiar world unfolding on stage. We had come from an early dinner, during which the four of us discussed our respective workplaces, with two of our group noting their firms were currently recruiting women for senior management roles. That’s right – in order to meet their gender equality/diversity quotas, two major finance institutions were under strict orders to interview only women for the open positions. We were eager to see how our reality was going to be portrayed on stage.

Bubnic’s play takes us into the fast-living, fast-selling world of broking, where clients are pawns to be manipulated, careers are based on who not what you know, and the big deals are won and lost in the back rooms of strip clubs. The lead character, Astrid, has wriggled her way into this world, seemingly on her own terms. She takes on a junior, a girl named Priya in whom it appears Astrid sees something of herself. Together, they navigate the boys club, adopting the old line about Ginger Roger’s as a mantra: ‘She did everything Fred Astaire did, just backwards and in high heels’.

The cast is all female – a decision which forces the audience to examine their own attitudes towards ‘working’ women (in all senses of the word), and sexism. An uncomfortable early scene featuring an almost naked Zindzi Okenyo (who just five minutes earlier was playing Harrison, the son of a wealthy client who is bullied by his new employers) made me question my own feelings about the female form. Would I have felt as embarrassed for this actress if there were no men in the audience at all? And when Tina Bursill crossed the stage in a skimpy blue leotard, breasts thrust forward, did I, like many women in the audience, give her a subtle murmur of approval, acknowledging her bravery? When women use their bodies to generate influence – or to make money – is it empowering as Priya suggests, or simply perpetuating the idea of the victim?

The actors spent the majority of the show in tailored pant suits – the three supplementary characters in bold green, blue and peach, standing out against the white and grey of our protagonist and her protégé. This choice was no doubt made to help the supporting cast demonstrate their masculinity, juxtaposed against their occasional forays into sequinned leotards. The only hint of femininity about our leads was the shiny black heels they strutted the stage in. But in reality, the business women of today, particularly those in senior positions, opt for bright colours, prints and strong but feminine statement pieces. It’s not uncommon to see bright pink pencil skirts, silk blouses, bold floral patterns printed across knee-length, structured dresses and heavy knit bolero jackets in white or cream. I wondered if our leads could have benefited from a more womanly look, but in the end this did not detract from the overall design of the show.

In the Director’s Q&A, featured in the program, Paige Rattray talks about how she dealt with the challenge of staging the piece, which slips regularly from boardroom, to strip club, to hotel bar – as the narrative unfolds - to cabaret theatre in which we hear Astrid’s ‘inner monologue’. “Basically, we had to try to create a space that we could shift between those two worlds really quickly,” Rattray explains. The end result was a wide, sparsely furnished office space, complete with fluorescent lighting tiles and likely-fake pot plant. Astrid’s cabaret moments are treated in situ, with the addition of a microphone, mirror ball and fog machine at varying intervals. Personally, I think the transitions could have been done more effectively by actually introducing a cabaret set to a small corner of the theatre, most likely downstage; this would have permitted the audience to more easily forgive Astrid’s crude but flirtatious dialogue and passable singing voice.

That is not to say that Danielle Cormack’s performance as Astrid was flawed – it just could have benefited from more polish around the vocals. Perhaps this will come over time – the play had only opened two days prior. This also meant that the cast tripped over their dialogue occasionally, a blemish easily forgiven. Otherwise the performances were strong, and all parts well-cast. Cormack’s Astrid was both hard-arsed and likeable, with just enough subtly that you could believe she was neither victim nor villain. Sophia Roberts as Priya was perhaps a little rigid and naïve, but this was as much to do with the script as her interpretation.

The most interesting character was Isabelle, played beautifully by Meredith Penman. The high-class hooker tells Astrid straight up that she’s not in ‘Pretty Woman’ and there will be no rescuing, and it is through her eyes that we see just what playing in a man’s world can do to a woman. This is not because of how Isabelle makes her living, but due to her treatment at the hands of Astrid. The iron-clad exterior Astrid has assumed makes her somehow more masculine than her male colleagues; a character trait made worse because we feel she should know better.

The script has potential, but perhaps needs a little more time to reach its goal. Why, for example, have Priya tell the lamest, tamest jokes to the delight of her male clients while they downed liquor ahead of the expected floor show? Similarly, why are those same nameless men portrayed as clowns, buffooning around an office party (Christmas?) like naughty boys? They are not sinister, nor realistic. Was Bubnic trying to avoid victimising men, or was she saying they are actually quite harmless? Or was the intent to play down these interactions so that they did not take away from the main game – the relationship between Priya and Astrid? Either way, I was not convinced.

In the real world, a woman is afforded perhaps a little more credit for her success than was shown to Astrid, but then again, there is absolutely a ‘behind her back’ conversation that goes on between men about their female counterparts in the finance sector. I have witnessed the blokey attitudes, the drinking culture and the innuendo-laden laughter first-hand. So do I think a woman can play in a man’s world? Perhaps a better question is – why should she want to? If I have to turn a blind eye to behaviours that make my stomach churn simply to succeed in a job, then I have to question why on earth I would want to do that job in the first place? If I wanted to be a broker, why couldn’t I start my own, female-only firm, with only female clients? Why not play on my terms, instead of someone elses? Instead of trying to beat men at their own game, why don’t women start their own league, with their own rules – ones that suit their particular strengths and abilities? I thank Bubnic and the team from STC for challenging me with these questions. 

Details

Viewed: 22 April 2015

Venue: Wharf 2 Theatre

Author: Melissa Bubnic

Director: Paige Rattray

Company: Sydney Theatre Company

Side By Side (apologies to Mr Sondheim)

In my last (and technically first) piece I talked about the similarities between the Belvoir and STC 2013 Season line-ups. In the hopes of determining who to subscribe to, I have decided to analyse the plays side-by-side. Here goes…

STC	Belvoir
The Secret River Adaptation of a (Booker prize-winning) book by Kate Grenville, directed by Neil Armfield (former Belvoir artistic director) The first show of the 2013 Season, the story follows convict’s journey to the Hawkesbury where he encounters the Dharug people, unwilling to give up their land. A glimpse into Australia’s dark history, and persecution of the indigenous population.	Peter Pan Adaptation of a (very famous) book by JM Barrie, directed by Ralph Myers (current Belvoir artistic director) The first show of the 2013 Season, the story follows a boy’s journey to Neverland, where he encounters the Lost Boys (to whom Myers hopes to draw a parallel with Australia’s stolen generation). A glimpse into Australia’s dark history, and persecution of the indigenous population.
Mrs Warren’s Profession Starring Helen Thomson, a likely reinvention* of a George Bernard Shaw classic. A woman working her way to independence and a top career finds out her education was bankrolled by a prostitute – her mother. Written in 1893, but not performed until 1925 because of its content, the play deals with class, love and lust. *Guessing due to the fact that the ‘dress-up’ spectrum of the play as indicated by the infographic representing each production is relatively small	Miss Julie Starring Brendan Cowell, a reinvention of Strindberg’s classic. A woman, born into privilege, uses sex to gain power and independence. She partners with Jean (poor but ambitious) to achieve her goals. Written in 1888, while not banned it dealt with the controversial topic of sex outside marriage and class, love and lust.
The Maids Starring Cate Blanchett and Isabelle Huppert in a reworking of a French play by Jean Genet. Two maids fantasise about killing their employer, while dressing up in her outfits, imitating one another in a series of ‘performances’. Written in 1947. Billed as “one of the theatre events of the year”, it features 2 strong female leads.	Persona Based on the film by Ingmar Bergman, a massive hit in Melbourne in 2012. An actress, who falls suddenly dumb, is sent to the seaside to recover. Her nurse begins to speak to her. Reviewed as one of the best theatrical productions of 2012, it features two strong female leads.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Starring Tim Minchin and Toby Schmitz Tom Stoppard’s comedy which follows two characters from Hamlet – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.	Cat on a Hot Tin Roof Starring Ewen Leslie and Jacqui McKenzie, directed by Simon Stone (who delivered 2012’s hit Death of a Salesman). An American classic, with heat at its heart.
Romeo and Juliet One of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, given a youthful treatment by Kip Williams (who directed 2012’s physically driven Under Milkwood). Likely to be a very watchable production, especially given Williams’ deft touch with poetry (evidenced by Under Milkwood).	Hamlet One of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, given the Simon Stone treatment (who directed 2012’s beautifully stylised Strange Interlude) Starring one of the hottest acting properties around – Toby Schmitz – this could go either way (due to Stone’s sometimes controversial reinventionist approach), but is likely to be a big hit.
Waiting for Godot Starring Richard Roxburgh and Hugo Weaving, directed by Tamas Ascher (who worked with both stars on the highly successful Uncle Vanya). A play about nothing. Or waiting. Or God. Depends on your point of view really. Modern classic.	Angels in America (Parts 1 & 2) A massive undertaking of both shows, billed as “the newest classic in the canon”. A comedy about heaven and earth, past and future. Directed by Eamon Flack, who works well with both classic and modern texts.

Okay, well that's just made my job harder. There's nothing else for it. Additional assistance is required. To the pub!

To subscribe, or not to subscribe. That is the question.

With the two big Sydney theatre players unveiling their 2013 seasons this fortnight, along comes the conundrum: who gets my hard-earned dollars?

This year, for the first time in over a decade, I subscribed to a theatre company. It is a big financial commitment, especially when you have no idea whether the productions will actually live up to expectations.

For example, among our choices from STC’s 2012 line-up was Pygmalion. I love this story, but had never seen the original in the theatre. But Shaw’s writing is fabulously English, witty and challenging, so I felt it would be a safe bet. Sadly the production left me cold. The choice to reset the play (at least in terms of its sparse set and costumes) in the present did not marry-up with the period text. The class comedy was lost because as far as we knew, class wasn’t a factor. A conscious choice of juxtaposition? Perhaps, but I was underwhelmed. 

I had similar high hopes for Liaisons Dangerous, with the always sublime Pamela Rabe and – while I’ve never seen him on stage – equally compelling Hugo Weaving. But alas, this adaptation was also a disappointment. Although harder to put my finger on exactly why it failed to achieve the dizzying heights of my expectations, I walked from the Wharf Theatre feeling bored, and tired. Perhaps the intimacy of the space (sitting three rows back meant we were practically in the drawing room rather than merely observing it through a window) gave me too close a view of characterisations that I felt missed the mark. Or maybe I wanted more sex from the production, having first encountered the story in its filmic form, Cruel Intentions (which was perhaps most famous for the lesbian kiss between Sarah Michelle Buffy and Selma Blair). Regardless, two plays out of my carefully selected sextet were, in my mind, a waste.

But the three other shows that made the cut in my 2012 compilation were surprisingly good. I would even go so far as to say excellent, particularly in the case of Midsummer (albeit a touring production so not entirely the achievement of local creatives). Does the fact I, as a subscriber, get to see three good shows in a year outweigh the cost of paying for two shows I did not enjoy? Even if I had bought tickets ad-hoc, would I still have gone to see the two poor shows anyway? I know that in the case of two shows at Belvoir this year, for which I can obtain free tickets thanks to the fact I volunteer with the marketing team regularly, I deliberately chose not to attend, because of poor reviews and content that did not appeal (apparently to many but that’s a whole other blog).

With one to go I am pondering the potential value exchange in having at least had tickets and gone to see shows, against a backdrop of ten years in the theatrical wilderness, as it were.

I’m not alone in attributing the value of a theatre company subscription to the simple act of regularly attending performances. A number of 2012 Belvoir subscribers, surveyed for the company’s future marketing activities, said the main reason they purchased a bulk pack of performance each year was to ensure they actually went to the theatre. ‘Life gets in the way. You hear about a production, decide you want to go, but by the time you get around to booking tickets the show’s finished or the season’s sold out,’ explained one.

Then of course there is the guarantee of good seats, not missing out on a show which sells out faster than you can say Cate Blanchett, and the discounted prices. And the perks like discounted books, meals, travel – although I am yet to use any of these. Hmmm. Scratch that last then.

On balance, I think subscribing is worthwhile, if only for one of the main reasons I have yet to outline here – that I am doing my bit to ensure theatre continues to be made. Theatre companies rely on subscriber dollars to fund their existence. They give an excellent indication of which shows will be popular among individual ticket buyers (allowing valuable marketing dollars to be funnelled into projects that require a little extra help), and they allow budgets to be set well in advance.

So to the big decision – who to subscribe to? Both STC and Belvoir are offering big names (actors, directors, playwrights), re imagined classics, popular Shakespeare and quirky newbies. In many ways both seasons are very similar. It gives me an idea for my next musing… Until then, wish me luck in my quest for the perfect program.