On the 27th February I watched Blue Stockings directed by Helena Jaques-Morton. For Helena, a fourth year student Blue Stockings was her directorial debut and I was incredibly impressed by the talent displayed in the huge cast, the professionalism of the production, and the undeniable talent of both the director and the actors. The play sparked fresh appreciation for our female student predecessors, who paved the way for female education to transition it from a privilege to a right for us. In our present day the dialogue of gender politics and its vocabulary moves far beyond female and male definitions, therefore the thought of gender being a discriminating factor for entry to university and recognition for your degree, seems beyond expression. With Cambridge University now being at the forefront in the battle for fair representation of genders amongst faculty staff through the Athene Swan Initiative, Helena’s directorial portrayal of this real struggle in Blue Stockings was not only emotive but also an encapsulation of a time that Cambridge University is still seeking to put right.
For my wider friends, who were unable to attend due to the tickets being sold out (an indication of the plays popularity) I was gushing with enthusiasm for the play. Beautifully and poignantly presented, the play was incredibly moving and showed the true light of the struggle of the women of the time. It was then to my disappointment and shock that a friend sent me both the Owl Eyes and The Tribe’s reviews of the play. Not only had they given a completely inaccurate impression of the show but clearly the authors own prejudices and attempts of being contraire blinded them to discovering the true message of the play. Hence, I have felt moved to explain here where they went wrong and why Blue Stockings was one of the best student-led dramas that I have seen.
In her opening statement the author of the Owl Eyes review first began by attacking the play itself by Jessica Swale stating it was poorly written for a modern production and the dialogue tacky. I think it goes to mention that this ‘poorly written’ play has gone on to be performed at three of the most high profile theatrical institutions in the centre of the West End, the Shakepeares Globe, Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts and National Theatre. Likewise, Michael Billington of The Guardian asserts Swale’s ability to capture both the intellectual excitement of the being of a new student generation and the dilemmas it produced. The praise of Swale’s literary prowess does not stop there, with a review written for the Times asserting that the play is tremendous fun, friendly in its feminism and it deserves to be popular. The true test of a plays quality is its surviving in the world of theatre, and with Blue Stockings only receiving more praise and acclaim I would suggest that the Owl Eyes reviewers understanding of tacky must be different to the Oxford Dictionary’s. The Owl Eyes reviewer also claimed that the play included several political disputes at once, and doesn’t really resolve any of them. Well, all I can say is that they clearly have missed the point. The first female students allowed to take exams at Cambridge were in 1882, yet the first female students to graduate were in 1948. Thus, Owl Eyes reviewer, the reason that the political issue was left ‘unresolved’ was because female Cambridge students had 66 years of having their degree status ‘unresolved’. I suppose this comment particularly struck a cord with me as my own great aunt studied at Newnham College Cambridge, in the late 1930’s. After excelling at attaining a first, her career prospects were still limited with only the civil service or teaching as the only viable options for her. My aunt exceeded expectation, and the fact that her intelligence, wit and excellence was not recognized until she was invited back to receive her degree at a later date still astounds me. Therefore, the comment of the play leaving issues unresolved only lays bare ignorance, unfortunately those 900 women had to wait 66 years for the nice tidy ending that this reviewer clearly was expecting from Blue Stockings.
Thankfully, both reviewers recognize the talent and skill of the four leading ladies. Yet the Owl Eyes reviewer strikes again critiquing that it was difficult to tell what the play’s direction was trying to convey. As an audience member I absolutely knew what the play direction was trying to convey, to show that once the girls finally were accepted to study at Cambridge the struggle for a right to education had only just begun. The Owl Eyes reviewer wrote that Maeve (Jen Grace), seemed to only speak in outbursts, which stopped the progress of the scene, again completely missing the directorial subtext. The audience is told that Maeve is a working class girl on a scholarship, therefore she would have been conditioned only to speak when spoken too and no doubt intimidated by the well-spoken counterparts who mention travels to Greece and parents that lived in Paris. Her outbursts were of emotional expressions of her desperation for her new friends to truly understand the double-layered glass ceiling that she has had to break. Not only had to struggle against sexist attitudes but the additional struggle of class in a time when social mobility was unheard off. I felt Jen Grace did an incredible job in her emotive moments to truly express the desperation of Maeve to stay on at Girton, realizing that this was her only chance to escape fulfilling the limited future of motherhood and poverty to which she is ultimately forced to return. As the Owl Eyes reviewer writes, I would have liked to have seen a more controlled Maeve, as I think would have better suited her character, and there would have been less attention called to surges. I am sure the misogynistic Dr Maudsley would entirely agree.
The Owl Eyes reviewer ends with while I found the show overly quaint for my tastes, a theatregoer expecting a pleasant, “twee” play would probably have found the production quite enjoyable. I am not sure how anyone watching a truthful recount of the daily misogyny that these women endured could diminish the portrayal of their struggle as twee. As Swale in the prologue to the play highlights the incredible work of Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban owing to her campaigning for female education in Afghanistan, highlighting that this is a struggle still to be universally overcome. The review by The Tribe was equally ignorant to the wider themes and context that the play is approached by, and truly unfair in its depiction of the acting and direction. Particularly critiquing the staging, clearly ignoring that this was a student production with a limited fund and what they did not have in enigmatic staging effects they certainly compensated with outstanding acting that created an atmosphere and setting. I can only comprehend their opinion by perhaps suggesting that the reviewer just needed a little bit more imagination. The director Jaques-Morton provided was working with a cast of twenty-four, which is no small number in terms of student productions. Anyone who dedicates the hours to rehearsals, thought to staging and care to bringing such an important play to St Andrews deserves more respect than these reviews have given, particularly when she showcased such talent. My hope is that in future student criticism could be more supportive, and when criticism is just it is delivered in a constructive and founded way that these two reviews are missing. As I said to my friend who sent me the reviews I am not sure what play both these reviewers saw but it certainly was not the Blue Stockings that I enjoyed.