What made the career of "public reader" more acceptable for a lady than the career of "actress" What does this reveal about gender prejudice during this time period in America?
Women were criticized and looked down on for following a career in acting. Mowatt, Kemble and Cushman tried many different performance styles and found what worked best for them. All three women connected acting, reading and performing to entertain and educate their audience.
Mowatt who did not have any serious acting experience before she became a professional reader, started out by writing, directing and acting with her siblings. She went against the societies norms by making public appereances. Women were not to take on major rolls in the society just yet. People were curious but also judgemental towards her braveness. I found her passion towards reading very powerful.
Kemble who started her career by acting with her father, later on discovered the power of reading Shakespeare. She valued dramatism and had harsh words for theather because of its lack of reality. This reminded me of Stanislavskys performance methods. The importance of human nature should be as real as possible. "Men does not live by bread alone" (Thompson) is a great saying that still answers why performers who do not make enough money still do what they do for our society today. Her sense of feminism and passion for performance is incredible because the powerful women in the past opened doors to equality.
Cushman's sense of acting was criticized by many people. Her acting as Romeo and Lady Macbeth brought many questions to minds. Because she brought power and strength as a women to stage, she was refered to as too violent. Her physical characteristics and emotional strength is judged because it carries masculine characteristics. She later on made a career out of her readings which the audience enjoyed the most.
The society was not ready for women to take such strong rolls in acting. These three women seem as they are stand up performers of today. Their power and dedication to performance was seen as awkward and not welcomed by many people. Through performance, they pushed the limits to equality and showed the society that women are just as capable of reading and performing as men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked the third paragraph on how you emphasized the realist nature of Kemble's performance style and how she interpreted her career as a public reader and actress. Basically, she controlled her performance in the most intangible and uncontrollable aspects of human behavior through emotions and artistic inspiration in order to educate her audience. Women are known not to have a realist nature, however, I find myself to be a realist during my daily performances and I admire these women for their performance values even though these powerful roles were a huge stance during this time. As a female, I am very black and white with no grey. I believe playing this role in my life will push me to succeed in many social relations and help me meet my career goals. All three women played these roles because they all had skills and talents that could pull off these powerful masculine roles even though it was out of the social norm. These women had passion to educate their audiences through their content and their feminist approach opened doors and encouraged many women during this time to use their knowledge, talent, and skills. This feminist movement has transitioned from generation to generation, where many modern day pop stars purposely perform out of the social norm in order to make statements on their beliefs, whether its playing a masculine role, shaving their head, or wearing male clothing. I believe some of these performance acts are done to promote gender equality in this male dominating world.
ReplyDeleteInteresting essay, Damla. I enjoyed reading your perspective. It got me thinking about how much things have really changed since this time. Obviously, women have made tremendous strides in regards to equal rights, however, your following statement got me thinking...
ReplyDelete"The society was not ready for women to take such strong rolls in acting. These three women seem as they are stand up performers of today. Their power and dedication to performance was seen as awkward and not welcomed by many people."
Perhaps, the form of the scapegoat transgresses, yet the prejudice remains the same throughout time. Certainly, women are now welcome to perform as they wish, yet what about men? More specifically, what about gay men? Only in the last decade has our society succumbed to accept homosexuality on television, however, the large majority of that has been of the lesbian genre. (An exploration of why this is would be an entire essay in itself.) The question remains, when will gay men be accepted by society and able to perform openly gay roles such as physical intimacy, transgender issues, teenage male homosexuality? Will there be a day when Edward and Jacob are after each other and not the overly dependent damsel in distress? When will "The society" be ready for men "to take such strong rolls in acting?"
Damla,
ReplyDeleteYou have an interesting take on the material. I enjoyed how you focused on the women who helped to make being an actress more of a socially acceptable act than it previously was. This transition, like you said, is a big part of feminism and helped women to gain a foothold in an industry that was preventing them from participating.
It's roles not rolls.
ReplyDeleteGood examples, but you don't really get around to answering the question. Why was society not ready for these "strong" women? What were they doing that was so beyond the boundaries of Victorian expectations for women? Why was that sort of behavior against the rules?
If we compare 'public reader' and 'actor/actress', each terms connotes a visual image in which public reader seems to supercede. That is, actors were considered vagabonds during this time, lowbrow people. However, the term public reader seems more apropos for women because of its hierarchical status. Clearly, these women did open doors for future actress' by creating a space for them. Still, as a public reader, in its mere formalness, was more suitable for a lady. They were to be virginal and structured beings. Reading literature seems much different than acting. An actress was not an adequate example of prudish Victorian society.
ReplyDeleteDamla! I read you essay. I thought it was well written and I'd agree with Dr. Taylor. If you wrote more specifically about what does and does not constitute feminist humor...I'd like that. Moreover, I'd love for someone to tackle the example of Sara Silverman. She is an exceptional comedian, check her out.
ReplyDelete-benjamin