Blue Stockings defames women in order to defame men; Thark succeeds thanks to a trio of great perfomances

7 September 2013

9:00 AM

7 September 2013

9:00 AM

Blue Stockings

Globe, in rep until 11 October


Park, until 22 September

More un-Shakespearean drama at London’s leading Shakespeare venue. The Globe has pushed the Bard off stage to make way for Blue Stockings, by Jessica Swale, which portrays the lives of female students at Girton College, Cambridge, in the 1890s. The script, which veers between weepy romcom and manipulative satire, sets out to elicit a collective gasp of outrage at the sexist piggery of the last century but one. To achieve this Swale has to rely on several fabrications. First, that intelligent women are rare. (Really?) Second, that men seldom meet intelligent women. (Surely they mingle all the time.) Third, that men find intelligent women threatening, tricky and outlandish. (In fact, men find them attractive, stimulating and fun.)

That Swale defames men is perhaps less surprising than that she has to defame women as well in order to make the anti-male libel stick. She shows gangs of chortling Cambridge chaps tiptoeing around the Girton gels like Taleban recruits exploring the Bunny Club. These foppish, goofy male bumpkins open their mouths only to blurt out formulaic chauvinism. ‘You want to be a scientist?’ scoffs one. ‘But you’re a woman.’ The play’s top bigot is a wasp-eyed throwback, Dr Maudsley, who sports an Amish beard to emphasise his Stone Age values. He lectures the gels on the subject of hysteria. ‘The overexertion of a woman’s brain at the expense of other vital organs may lead to atrophy, mania, or worse, to her being incapacitated as a mother.’

Many spectators yelled and hissed at this speech, and at the doc’s other misguided utterances, and did so with a degree of relish that seemed rather dispiriting. The play expects us to get our kicks by castigating the Victorians for being Victorians. This beguiling impulse — to censure people for being the people they happen to be — is the quintessence of prejudice. I found it strange to find the lynch-mob mentality expressed so openly in a public theatre but I dare say the hissers and booers — who probably regard themselves as enlightened souls — find few opportunities to inflict their malevolence on living targets, so they take their prejudices out on their ancestors instead.

The male members of the Blue Stockings cast (Photo: Manuel Harlan)

The male members of the Blue Stockings cast (Photo: Manuel Harlan)

The script is occasionally funny and it contains some interesting thoughts about astronomy, which is evidently Swale’s favourite discipline. But when she tries to hammer home her Big Point about victimised womenfolk, she becomes laborious and earnest. One of the Girton gels, a Belfast pauper, is forced to ditch her degree in order to take care of her family following a bereavement. Her thick, angry brother, Billy, stomps into Girton to deliver the bad news. ‘Just my coming here’s cost me my job,’ he says, twisting a tear-stained hanky between his sooty fingers. ‘I tried to send word but I couldn’t find anyone to write me a letter.’ Amazing, isn’t it? No one in Ulster could use a fountain pen or send a telegram so poor old Billy had to bankrupt himself paying his fare from Belfast to Cambridge just to tell his sister he’d bankrupted himself.

By coincidence, Thark by Ben Travers (b. 1886) takes us into a society of similar vintage. But Travers’s world is diametrically opposed to Swale’s. The woman have all the authority and the men are empty-headed buffoons entirely in thrall to their appetites. Sir Hector Benbow, a posh old twerp, wants to seduce an attractive young shop girl beneath the nose of his wife, Lady Benbow, who has the sleuthing instincts of Miss Marple and the moral outlook of Clytemnestra. Chaos ensues. After much lustful capering about, the action shifts to Norfolk where Sir Hector keeps a haunted mansion that he wants to sell to Mrs Frush, a shrewd Cockney businesswoman. Further chaos ensues. Travers’s writing takes some getting used to. The script consists of brief frenetic scenes, which teem with the low-level clutter of slapstick: cross-talk, verbal blunders, false identities, misinterpreted embraces, and so on. The effect is brittle, hurried and repetitive. At times, you long for a character to give a speech lasting longer than ten seconds. The breakneck pace is achieved at the expense of character: everyone is as shallow as a birdbath. And the men are drawn with far more sympathy than the obdurate and truculent women.

Clive Francis and James Dutton in Thark (Photo: Ben Broomfield)

Clive Francis and James Dutton in Thark (Photo: Ben Broomfield)

And yet the show succeeds thanks to a trio of great performances. A handsome, shiny-faced youngster, James Dutton, shows a lot of promise as an upper-class idler named Ronny Gamble. Andrew Jarvis, with an old rocker’s mane of snowy hair, is superbly creepy as the ghostly butler. And best of all is Clive Francis, the script’s adaptor, who bustles about as Sir Hector with oodles of warmth and charm. Farce is the most perishable of theatrical genres. And while this show is ‘amusing’ rather than ‘uproarious’, the miracle is that it’s funny at all.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • The idea that many women wanted to become scientists 100 years ago is laughable.

    Even today, wherein the world of work is so much easier than it used to be, some 50% of women doctors quit the profession within about ten years, and most of the rest seem to want to work only part time.

    Indeed, not long ago, I saw some farmers complaining about the fact that when women started to become vets in greater numbers, farmers could not get any veterinary help outside office hours.

    And so, for example, if one of their animals required urgent treatment in the middle of the night, it was just tough, because no female vet would turn up.

    (They have now got some call-out system whereby emergency help can be summoned from specialist call-out agencies.)

    And how many women wanted to become vets 50 years ago when vets were expected to work all hours?

    Hardly any, would be my guess.

    And who, in their right minds, would have wanted women to become vets given that women were likely to provide them with a very poor service?

    Recall also that most motor vehicles even 50 years ago were fairly unreliable – making it very difficult and dangerous for women to travel alone at night – and in earlier years, they would have had to ride out in the night on a horse!


    In other words, the increasing reliability of motor vehicles, far more so than feminism, has both allowed and encouraged women to become vets in recent times.

    But if motor vehicles suddenly to become as cranky, as dirty, and as unreliable as they were 50 years ago, very few women indeed would choose to become vets.

    Just look at the construction industry today. You will not find many women wanting to lay bricks or to climb scaffolding. But, of course, if ever there comes a time in the future where such work can be done merely by pushing buttons while chatting to one’s colleagues, then women will want to do it.

    And, no doubt, the feminists of the future will then perpetuate the lie that today’s women were discriminated against in the construction industry and that they were mostly desperate to lay bricks and climb scaffolding but, of course, they were stopped by men from doing so..