Maybe We're Not So Different

After watching Paris is Burning, I became completely fascinated by the New York City drag life. I have been to drag shows, but I had never seen one quite like the Balls documented in the film. The drag community is so far from anything that I've ever seen, that I was entirely mesmerized by their way of life. The amount of dedication and passion put into these performances is really what astounded me. Especially they're emphasis on voguing. They treated this what seems like to us, a trivial and slightly comedic dance as the end-all be-all aspect of drag. The best voguer seemed to have one of the best reputations and was very respected. However, I realized this hierarchy of respect based on performance is seen in everyday life, not just this fascinating New York City drag world. We see it even in the corporate world, a place many of us may related more easily to. Vogueing could reflect a lawyer's performance on trial. The better he or she does, the more respect he or she earns, and higher up with corporate ladder he or she climbs. I find it incredibly interesting that the participants in the drag show create these circumstances they may not get the chance to experience in their life time, such as being a lawyer in a court room, during the ball.

Paris en fuego

Perhaps a more appropriate title of the film, Paris is burning, would be Paris on fire or Paris en fuego. "Is burning" has negative connotations of some sort of destruction, while I feel the the majority of the people involved in this film are becoming constructed and setting a sort of self-positive example.

The idea to host "Balls" where outsiders can come and be there own sort of person or try on being another person is absurd as it is genius and convicting. Why anyone should need to be another while not in the profession of acting is a little bit sad. I wonder if non-minority do this sort of thing where they dress up for each other and pretend to be versions of African American homosexual people. I found the definition of the category "realness"interesting. I think it was Dorian who defined the category of realness as being "able to fit in". But in reality there is a constant struggle of fitting in and being independent and unique and I wonder why these people feel the need to be so strongly accepted.

I thought it interesting how many white american's have stereotypes of homosexual, and how a few African american have stereotypes back. One man thought he wanted to be a 'white rich girl' because they have it easy and are taken care of. The problem is that that isn't always the case and is probably the gloried version of such a person. I wonder if any identity is completely flawless without stereotypes either playing it or living it.

A Different Perspective on "Paris is Burning"

I was interested in what Schacht says in "Paris is Burning: How Society's Stratification Systems Make Drag Queens of Us All." On page two of the article, he argues "[...] the movie potentially forces the viewer to question the basis of their own seemingly innate social statuses." Not long after I watched this film, my dad called me. He asked me what I was doing, and I told him that I just watched a documentary about drag queens in New York in the '80s. He asked me jokingly if I knew any of them. I laughed uncomfortably and said no. Why would I? I grew up in a little suburb in New Jersey during the 2000s where there are not socioeconomic problems like those discussed in this film. It seemed an odd question for him to ask me, but upon reading this article, it makes sense. I grew up in a bubble and was not exposed to big problems like poverty and racial differences. What I liked about this article is that Schacht continually argues that that is how his students are too for the most part: sheltered and naive. When I was watching this film, I was not making those connections. I felt too detached from it and focused on the identity and performative aspects of the culture, not the social problems that are underlying.

Drag Queens and Transgenders in Paris Is Burning

First of all the film, "Paris is Burning" was completely fantastic in my opinion. More specifically, I was struck by the different kinds of men were a part of this ball culture. The original members of these different Houses were the stereotypical drag queens, who dressed up in show girl, over the top outfits. Like the mother of the House of LaBeija discussed at the end of the film, he is not actually a woman. He dresses up as a woman to compete as a part of the fantasy that exists within the Ball culture, however he says that he would never get a sex change operation because then it would be permanent. This is in direct contrast to people in the movie such as Venus Xtravaganza and Octavia St. Laurent who will do anything to fully become a woman. They "pass" and live their lives fully as women. This distinction seems to be key to the dynamic of Ball culture. Venus and Octavia seem to be using the Ball culture as a stepping stone for their careers instead of that being their entire life. It is a full time performance and a whole new identity for them, whereas for people like Pepper LaBeija it is a performance that only lasts a few hours and just a part of their own identity.

Paris is Burning and Cloud 9

While watching Paris is Burning, I could not help but notice that each person interviewed seemed to essentially want the same thing: acceptance.  This may seem trivial to some of us, but to this group of individuals, it is something they have never had and may never get outside of the walls of the ball.  This reminds me of the concept of “Cloud 9” in Churchill’s play.  Clive, in particular, views his cloud 9 that in terms of his family members, which is seen in the performance of Betty, Edward, and Joshua.  His idea of the perfect wife, son, and servant are unrealistic, and therefore acted out in an unrealistic manner.  This type of unrealistic cloud 9 is easily recognizable as each character is played by the opposite of what they actually are, but who Clive wants them to be, which is physically impossible. 

Paris is Burning deals with the same concept of “cloud 9” as each person is interviewed and talks about their aspirations for their future.  Most dream of fame, money, and the ultimate luxury lifestyle.  They also dream of becoming a woman, which is sort of possible, but not completely, as they can never truly identify with a woman biologically.  This community seems to hold a similarly unrealistic “cloud 9”.  They will most likely never be rich, famous, or women, at least to the fullest extent. 

However, one troubling aspect of the “cloud 9” that the interviewees in Paris is Burning expressed was their need for acceptance and love, whether within society or even from their own parents.  This seems like something so essential that every human being should be able to have, no matter race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc., but is offended denied, sometimes exclusively based on these things.  The connection between the “cloud 9” involved with fame and fortune and its improbable outcome is obvious.  So, is the “cloud 9” involving the most essential human needs just as impractical?  Does the portrayal of this community in the ball culture of the 1980’s show that even the expectation of these basic and decent human behavior is also just as far-fetched as me becoming a celebrity or winning the lottery?

The Avant Garde

According to the Oxford dictionary, the avant garde refers to the experimental innovations of a work of art.

As most might believe already, I feel that "Without You, I'm Nothing" is a very interesting film.
I feel that most people (including myself) do not appreciate a film if its plot is very implicit. I feel like there is a message in Without You, I'm Nothing but I just can not put a finger on it. Sexuality and race seem to be stressed a lot in her episodic skits, but it all fails to be cohesive. I guess that is the underlying message. Identity is fluid, but the identities altogether are not cohesive. For example, I am apart of the "Hip-Hop" identity, but I also can identify/fit in with the techno composers, but there is no narrative to go along with that except the separate narratives that each group creates.

Paris is Burning

At around 15-20 minutes into the film, someone says "When you're gay, you monitor everything you do"

This quote really stuck out to me in the film. He is explaining that being any identity other than the norm can make you want to overcompensate to be normal if you feel the need to hide anything. People so often assume hetero/home sexuality based on appearance, and people who identify (or think others see them) as anything non-normative may be consistently worried that they are not passing for how they want to be viewed in society.

In this film, there is a lot of emphasis on how strikingly different the reality is vs. the ball scene. In the ball scene, people act how they want to, how they want to be seen. In society, people may dress in a more normative fashion. I think this speaks to a lot of identities. If you can't be yourself in society, that isn't fair, but it is a harsh reality to the LGBT community. Sometimes, one chooses to present themselves in a way that seems more real, and it backfires. They receive harsh criticism from strangers, friends and family. And the worst part is that the criticism comes for anything - if one is presenting oneself as one wants to present one self OR if one is perceived as "faking" something other than themselves. There is no way to win.

The Evolution of "Without You I'm Nothing"

It really took me quite a while to wrap my head around the idea of this film. It was so strange and out there and even after our discussion today, I am still reveling in the strangeness of the film. I really am grappling with the idea of how the film opened. We saw an old colonial man in a white powdered wig playing some sort of old fashioned piano. Slowly, the camera panned over, as if passing time, to a modern woman playing piano. I feel that this is a representation of how far America has come with the ideas of immigration, equality and unity.

Sandra truly represents many personalities throughout the adventure of the film. From the "perfect Catholic family", to Diana Ross, to Barbara Streisand and even the posers of Fifth Avenue, she represents many walks of life. In a way, by Sandra playing all of these people or groups, she encompasses them all into one body, thus creating equality within the melting pot that is America.

I'm still attempting to figure out what the young African-American model represents. I feel that she may represent the oppression of equality. Perhaps it's a ploy into the fact that no matter how hard you are working to show that there are different personalities in the world, there is always going to be someone doing the same thing as you but in a negative way. That may be a stretch but I feel that it is supported by the fact that she wrote "Fuck Sandra Bernhard" on the table. In Sandra's declaration that we are all the same being through dancing naked on stage, I feel that the model was trying to discredit that declaration. The classical music comes up again as she walks out and somewhat encompasses the fact that America will always have to jump through hurdles simply because we are all different. We cannot be encompassed as one being. But Sandra Bernhard really brings about the idea that we may be able to do so. I suppose it just prompts the question, "Are we all equals in America? Even today?"

The Sociology of "Without You I'm Nothing"

This film resonates many aspects of the conversation on the Schechner piece we had as a class last Wednesday, specifically the ideas of gender and race as a social construct. For example, when she discusses the scene with the mother trying to convince her children that everything is fine within her marriage, she is displaying a model of gender. This model has been socially constructed, but it is familiar to us because this kind of behavior is socially encoded for us. The role of a mom putting on a happy face for her kids is one commonly seen in our society. As Schechner states, "one's biological sex... is raw material to be shaped through practice into the socially constructed performance that is gender." In the opening scene, Sandra sings about being a woman of different races. This scene could be used to demonstrate the idea that race is socially constructed. Although Sandra is visually a white woman, she sings about being 4 different women with different skin colors. As Schechner states, "visible marks of race are unreliable," meaning that one's race is not solely determined by their outer appearances. Instead, race is shaped through a variety of factors, including a group's social customs and norms.

The Flag Finish

If and when I hear Sandra Bernhard’s name in the future, I’m going to think of the flag scene.  An image from this scene serves as the film’s cover and the title line is uttered during it – making this moment very clearly significant to the overarching themes of the work.  The scene begins as Sandra walks back on stage to say “I just wanted to tell you everything I told you tonight was a lie.” She then expresses the desire to be able to refund her audience the price of attending her show and delivers the line, “Without you, I’m nothing.” This line, a familiar closing moment after reading Bretch’s The Good Person of Schezwan and  Shakespeare’s As You Like It,  gives the sense that identity is simply who you are interpreted to be, making identity a concept constructed outside of self rather than an internalized, constant truth.  The fact that she stumbles before delivering this line, initially beginning with “without me” before stopping to start again, seems telling.  As we discussed in class, identity is often conceptualized as internal, and this slip seems to nod to this fact.  Though Bernhard acknowledges this conception of identity, she thoroughly destabilizes notions of essential  identity throughout her performance. Sandra displays several different identities for the guests of the same aged “supper club,” performing as an African American woman before slipping into traditional Jewish songs and then slipping out of most of her clothing. This performance destabilizes not only essential identity, but the notion that variable identity is a product of differential relationships or ways of interacting with certain people. Sandra slips in an out of identity performances, refusing to envelop a marked space of identity and develop an identifiable comedic calling card. Her calling card as a performer becomes this lack of coherency.

The American flag imagery used in this last scene tied together her critique of mainstream American culture. In particular, this moment was an interesting commentary on patriotism.  Showy displays of patriotism have become necessary to succeed in some realms of our society, a lack of enthusiasm for America an act of sacrilege. At the same time, these excessive displays of patriotism are often a cloak to justify or disguise hate, ignorance, and greed.  By wearing the flag as a cloak and then shedding it to begin her dance, Bernhard comments on the often complex nature of the performance of patriotism in our age.

Cartesian Dualism and Postmodern Elements in "Cloud 9"

I was really interested in our discussion of Cartesian Dualism in class on Monday. Amelia Jones writes in the Introduction to Body Art: Performing the Subject, "Body art is viewed here as a set of performative practices that, through such intersubjective engagement, instantiate the dislocation or decentering of the Cartesian subject of modernism" (1). I had learned about Cartesian dualism in the past but never thought to apply it here, but it is all over Cloud 9. Most inherently it is in the way that Churchill sets up the play. There are different settings for both acts, and the characters are played by actors who appear to be different than their characters, just so that Churchill can make an argument. This juxtaposition of the mind of a woman depicted by the body of a man, for example, complicates the story, but makes a broader argument about the performance as a whole. Jones continues in her introduction, "This dislocation is, I believe the most profound transformation constitutive of what we have to call postmodernism" (1). I learned about postmodernism in an English class in high school, but I have not thought much about it since. Once again, it totally applies here. Cloud 9 is postmodern in that it plays with the relationship between the actor and the character in a way that we would not have otherwise thought about.

Gender Honestly

    To be honest, the beginning of Schechner's article (part 2) blew my mind. I had previously learned that at least in communication, men and women really didn't communicate all that different (at least thats what my Communication 225 Professor told me); but thinking about how sexes perform, or rather how gender performs versus what is really being said blew my mind and shed a different light on Churchill's "Cloud 9" text.

    I really liked the idea that "...gender is an act which has been rehearsed, much as a script survives the particular actors who make use of it, but requires individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as reality once again." This idea for me means that gender is like a coat hanger. There is a certain frame given to clothes once hanged which the hanger determines, but the clothes can be as unique on the hanger as they want. The same thing applies to performance of gender. There are certain, 'facial-displays, gestures, walks, and erotic behaviors" that are stereotyped or labeled as male or female, but to be a living person, one must add their individual selves to those roles. The confusion then comes when the coat hanger of gender is changed to be a different sex but still carries and performs those gender traits. This happens exceedingly a lot in the play, "Cloud 9". Betty in Act one, by sexual birth decided a man, performs female traits as Clive's submissive wife. While Betty in Act Two, still named to be a women, and now by sex a woman, plays around with male gender traits, such as chasing independence, freedom and a new masculine-like sexuality, unbound by a dominate man in her life.

    In the article, I also found it very interesting that to "get a man" and female is encouraged to match her male stud counterpart, very much like the relationship of Clive and Betty. Females are encouraged too "match his energy level" and the article continues to promise that, "it will only take a few minutes for a man to make up his mind that you're just like him. Once you've established that, you can be yourself." This befuddles me as why it is in the man's court to call the shots. Why are women called to conform to be of the man's liking, rather than men trade there cool-guy attitudes for ones of sensitivity. Edward is the example of such a man, and he gets pressure from women and men characters in the play to change which is interesting. Perhaps that is why he decides he is in fact a Lesbian.

     I do now see the fact that current shows and play today have an undercurrent of "normative heterosexuality that is a major tool for enforcing a partiacal, phallcentric social order" as Professor Renzi mentioned in class on Monday. "Cloud 9" definitely challenges our mind with its mixed up or perhaps more natural way of casting characters. I hope we can discuss this more in class as the lines between gender and performance and original sexuality and what is original are blurring for me a little.

Passing

The article was particularly interesting to me. I find it hard to wrap my head around performance art, as it is new to my life as of this class. Not that I haven't seen it...but just as I've never thought about it. I'm interested to learn more about the types of performance art.

The thing that stuck out to me the most was the box about passing.

I've always been interested in the notion of 'passing' when it comes to gender identity. I have friends who identify as trans* in some way. They celebrate moments when they are called 'sir' or 'madam' in accordance to their gender expression, and count that as a validation of who they are. This is interesting to me. I have never been called anything but female pronouns, and I can't imagine wishing anything different.

But this article brought to light the idea of passing as a race. I hadn't thought about that. I have known people who have brought this up. I have a hispanic friend that I didn't know was hispanic. I've had a friend tell me that she was black after knowing her for years. But if there is not a scientific reason for the social constructs that we, as society, puts around skin color, then why is it happening? What does it mean to pass? Is it certain props, a purse, a voice, a baseball hat? And why is it so important to have an outsider validate who you are?

Pipers "Passing" and Other Imagined Internal/External Consistency

While reading through Chapter 5 of Schechner's Performance Studies: An Introduction, I was particularly struck by the section exploring the life experience and  performance art of Adrian Piper. Her experience as a light - skinned African American woman has led her to conclude " there is no 'right' way of managing the issue of my racial identity, no way that will not alienate or offend someone, because my designated racial identity itself exposes the very concept of racial classification as the offensive and irrational instrument of racism that it is"( Schechner 136).

Piper's reflection sheds light on our society's widespread fabrication of coherence between the "natural" classification and appearances purportedly resulting from this nature. Because we often assume race is "in the blood," we hold the accompanying assumption that one's external traits reflect this internal truth (135). It's funny that these associations become quasi-scientific, or are often regarded as pieces of a puzzle that match up in a correct way when they are, in fact, associations which disregard science altogether. Science tells us that there is no genetic basis of race differentiation and that intersex births regularly occur, similarly compromising the binary system of gender. Yet the elaborate associations between clearly differentiated biological sexes and races and the respective appearances and performances which "naturally" accompany these internal "truths" make the scientific impossible.   Piper's relation of experience made me interrogate how I  personally think about the interplay between race and racial performance and biological sex and gender.

Churchill's use of male characters to play female roles and the reverse seems to challenge not only idealized gender roles, but the sense that there is coherency between sex and gender. We are forced to  consider why someone who appears to be biologically male acting out a version of femininity is so strange and what assumptions we are making when we register this apparent disconnect. When Churchill notes Betty is played by "a man," I immediately considered biological sex, but I think its worth thinking about whether this thinking is reductive.

Schrechner and Churchill

I truly find it interesting how a gender or race can be "performed". Ultimately, every single individual is born the same (despite the obvious anatomical differences). In order to categorize our society, we are taught and conditioned to become a certain gender, race, being, etc. Society expects us to perform a certain way and basically require us to accept normative standards. This is why I feel that performance art is important. It is a medium that allows an individual to give up their body for expression in order to become something totally new. Within social identity, this can be important for discovering your own identity.

I think that this is displayed within Cloud 9, especially in Edward's performance. He attempts to break the typical bonds on the construction of gender. I feel that he is truly attempting to discover who he is and what gender that he is. When he is involved with Gerry, he attempts to be the woman within the situation. This is negatively accepted and obviously Edward does not know what to do or how to respond. He then reverts to being a man within the relationship of two lesbian women. So does that make him a lesbian as well? Ultimately, Edward truly represents the idea of utilizing your body to discover identity. Although in Cloud 9  his situation is not completely resolved, we still see that he disregards the social norms in order to accumulate perception on various identities.

Joshua is also a good representation of this idea within the constructions of race. Because Churchill is attempting to portray him as a black man played by a white actor, the audience gains the sense that he is equal to the rest of the actors. In reality he is not simply because of the predetermined knowledge that society has upon race roles. Ultimately, it's just really interesting to me that if society didn't have predetermined norms, then we as individuals could be completely different thanks to utilizing performance art.

Gender Roles in Cloud 9

In Schechner’s chapter 5 part II, the origin of gender roles are discussed.  This chapter claims that these roles are not due to power structures or class, but rather, “consist not of naturally determined operations but of something built and enforced by means of ‘performance’” (130).  Simone de Beauvoir’s example is used to describe this phenomenon with her quote, “One is not born, but, rather, becomes a woman”.  This happens through society constructing and then prescribing gender roles.  In Cloud 9, Churchill reorganizes the “rules” of gender roles with the choice of who plays the characters.   For example, Betty is played by a man and Edward a woman.  These visual cues force the audience to realize that the concept of a woman played by Betty cannot exist as a woman character because it is a male constructed ideal.     Also, Edward’s character is played by a woman to show his short comings as the man that his father wants him to be.  These roles constructed by Clive, the head of the family, are interpreted through the eye of an opposite gender of what the role is actually supposed to be, perhaps to show Clive’s corrupt version of how a man or woman should actually be.  Schechner describes the construction of gender roles as a “humanly constructed concept designed (consciously or unconsciously) to accomplish human ends” (130), which can also further the notion that the roles of Betty and Edward are creations of Clive.  This act may be a commentary on the Victorian version of a male and female and Churchill may be pointing out how these roles are problematic. 

Characters That Carry Over.

While reading Act 2 of Cloud 9 I was constantly relating the new characters to those from Act 1. For example, Gerry and Harry, and Eileen and Lin. Apart from the obvious similarities in name, the characters also represent similar relationships to the more central characters who are in both acts. Harry is a closeted gay man who has a close friendship/ slightly romantic relationship with Betty. He also is interested in Edward, who is a young boy in the first act. His counterpart, Gerry, is a homosexual man who is in a relationship with Edward. He develops a strictly friendly relationship with Betty. Harry and Gerry do have similar roles however it's interesting how Gerry's are more socially acceptable for his time period, 1979. Harry's relationships are much more confused and unacceptable, such as a relationship with a woman when he is gay and a relationship with a child who has no real way to consent. Gerry's relationships are consensual and seem to be more true to who the character is. It's as if the character evolved along with the time period. The same goes for Ellen and Lin. Ellen is the ignored governess in the first act who is in love with Betty. Lin is the openly lesbian divorced mother in the second act. Both of these characters serve as a form of care taker for Victoria. Ellen is the literal caretaker for the doll Victoria and Lin emotionally cares for Victoria when she is an adult. Also, Lin is a mother so she is taking care of a child like Ellen. Both of these women are Victoria's main caretaker, whether it be emotional or physical, depending on the act you're reading. It's interesting to think about what Churchill was intending by drawing these connections.

Gender and Race (S chapter 5 part II)

In Scherchner chapter 5 part II, she explains the underlying cause of gender roles/segregation. She argues that the body's raw parts (penis, vagina, height discrepancies, etc.) are all ONLY given meaning by social norms. For example, Society tells us that a penis is for a man and a vagina is for a woman. Society tells men to put on a tough guise and women to be submissive to some extent. This whole argument reminded me of the notion of language being arbitrary. This basically means that there is no natural correlation between a word and what that word represents. The correlation only occurs because of a language pioneer giving words representations. This makes me ask the question, "What if this social idea of gender did not exist?"

The chapter also brings up the concept of race. I personally do not believe that there is a proficient way to categorize race (or even humans as a whole). As stated in the article, race very variable. There is no distinct cut of point between these so-called races. Why is it that society tries to makes all of these classifications?

Cloud 9 Performance Artists

During my first read through of Jones’s intro, I was having trouble relating the abstract concept of Body Art to any of the works we read. Eventually I realized Cloud 9 is an awesome example of Body Ar, even though it doesn’t go as far as Carolee Shneemann did in Interior Scroll. Despite the fact that the characters of Cloud 9 aren’t covering their naked bodies in paint or polka dots, they are creating a sense of dislocation of the conventional structures of gender roles in society throughout the play. I idea of ‘body art’  in Cloud 9 is portrayed by the switched gender and ethnic roles that we, the audience finds so jarring upon reading the play. These character representations that questions and challenges gender and ethnic stereotypes in society are what classifies Cloud 9 as a type of “Body Art’.

Churchill and Brecht

As I continued reading Cloud 9, I kind of correlated similarities between Brecht's style of writing and Churchill's quirky story telling. I feel that due to Churchill's utilization of characters being played by the opposite sex, race, etc. the reader doesn't really know how to connect to the piece. It somewhat creates a barrier between reality and the fantasy that is within Cloud 9.

I realize that it is not exactly the same as Brechtian acting but it still utilizes some similarities. Along with that, I find it interesting the provoking thought process that Cloud 9 has provided me with. It really is a question of, "What is Cloud 9." How do you know what Cloud 9 is? You wouldn't realize that that was the best part of your life until you were done with life. This is also represented through the song on page 77. "And it's upside down when you reach Cloud 9." This truly makes me wonder what occurs when you hit Cloud 9. Should it be something that completely changes your life and affects every single thing that you know? It really just provokes me to wonder the process behind that.

betty as wife

        The disparity of this play truly amazes me. Perhaps it is because it centers around the idea that all the characters in the show live to try to please the other, just as faulty humans. Betty says it most clearly in act one, "I live for Clive. The whole aim of my life is to be what he looks for in a wife. I am a man's creature as you see, and what men want is what I want to be." This statement is grossly ironic and complex. As we find out, Clive expect's Betty to be the stereotypical weak and dominated house wife and describes her as being "delicate and sensitive" He also continuously talks down to his wife, playing with her like a kid, he says to describe Harry Baglegy, "With an H and a B. And does conjuring trick for little Edward." Clive doesn't even give Betty the decency of treating her like a competent adult, and Betty certainly doesn't demand self-respect. When Clive catches wind of her kiss with Harry, he demeans her and Betty begs his pardon and doesn't even justify herself saying in repentance, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Forgive me. It is not Harry's fault, it is all mine...It is my wickedness, I get bored, I get restless, I imagine things. There is something so wicked in me Clive" (Act One, Scene 3). Betty dismisses the fact that perhaps she is repressed and unhappy and in another country separated from home and society and practically isolated from the world and instead blames solely her self-deprciating spirit. After Betty pleads guilty and begs forgiveness, Clive takes the dominant role and cast her and her kind down like dirt, "You are thoughtless, Betty...Women can be treacherous and evil. They are darker and more dangerous than men." That Clive says Betty's mere repentance kiss is worse than men, and perhaps the "savages" that threaten their immediate safety is a low blow. What's even worse if the fact that he is cheating on his wife with Mrs. Saunders who is staying in their home and Betty is expected to be a hostess for.

         In Act Two when Betty decides to leave her husband, we see her flirt around life, trying to find her true identity after being repressed for so long. She still feels the need to please, as she gives her earrings, scarf, and hat for bratty and demanding Lin to wear. After she leaves, she confesses her fears to Vic, "I'll never be able to manage. If I can't even walk down the street by myself. Everything looks so fierce" (Act two, scene three). Betty had been told she was the weaker sex and her place so many times by Clive, as an older lady she can barley mentally survive in the public sphere without a man. The play ends with her giving her address to a Edwards sort of on and off boyfriend in attempt to have some sort of company over. She is lost, without friends of male or female kind. It is a painful end, as her next thought of moving in with her daughter who dislikes her and Lin and Edward. Betty is even more alone at the end, without an Ellen to be her friend or a mother to bug her. Betty drifts as an old woman, starting again, and trying to understand life at a different age.

Disappointing Ending

I was surprised by the ending to Cloud 9. After reading As You Like It and  The Good Person of Szechwan that have endings where the audience is directly addressed with something reminiscent of a conclusion that gives the audience a happily ever after feeling, Clive's last line was a letdown  for me. He says, "You are not that sort of woman, Betty. I can't believe you are. I can't feel the same about you as I did. And Africa is to be communist I suppose. I used to be proud to be British. There was a high ideal. I came out onto the verandah and looked at the stars" (Churchill 87). This line perplexed me and I was not sure what he was getting at. I like that it ends with Clive speaking, as it began with him speaking, but I wanted him to tell me what to think or if they all did make it to Cloud 9 and could stay there.

Cloud 9?

The end of this play confused me. If anything, it made the play's title, Cloud 9, ironic. It seems like almost every character ends the play without clarity or resolution. When the play ends, Gerry and Edward's relationship is broken. When Gerry goes to the train station, he states, "As soon as I got on the platform I saw who I wanted. Slim hips, tense shoulders, trying not to look at anyone" (58-59). Longing for others, aside from one's spouse or partner, seems to be pertinent to other relationships in this play. In Act I, Clive is cheating on Betty with Mrs. Saunders. Ellen's is thwarted in obtaining happiness because her longing for Betty, and essentially her sexuality, is ignored. Harry admits to Clive that he is a homosexual, and Clive responds that his homosexuality is disgusting, leaving Harry to fight his sexuality. In Act II, Betty decides to leave her husband, and she says that, "It's strange not having a man in the house. You don't know who to do things for" (64). By the end of both scenes, it seems as though the majority of the characters are far from reaching cloud nine.

Betty and Victoria: No Longer Submissive or Dolls

While finishing this play Cloud 9 I was struck by the character of Betty and her transformation. In the first act Betty was the submissive wife, simply doing whatever Clive asked her to do. This is also when she is played by a man. However, in this second act Betty is played by a woman and she becomes a very different person. She is no longer the reflection of Clive or his ideal woman. She is independent, outspoken, involved, and very free. This is all after she left Clive. This shift seems to be Churchill showing how the liberation of women from the Victorian era to the late 1970's. This theme is also shown in the transformation of Victoria from a doll to an actual person, and a mother at that. She is also participating in a sexual relationship with her female friend Lin and her brother. She has liberated herself in every way possible. The restriction of the colonial oppression based on gender seems to be gone, therefore these women have been allowed to flourish and explore themselves. They are no longer bound by the rules of that particular society. This very well may be their cloud 9.

Neither Can Live While the Other Survives

In class last Wednesday, we began to touch upon Brecht’s comment on the economic and social development in society. We decided that there was a definite disconnect between the corporate or big business half of society and the private ownership half. More specifically, Brecht places a huge emphasis on the faulty system of Capitalism in his society through Marxist analysis. Marxism, according the ever-faithful Wikipedia, is essentially the inquiry and analysis of what in society creates the Capitalist system, and if it is beneficial or not. In The Good Person of Szechwan, Brecht touches on many critiques of the capitalist system including the social consequences of Capitalism as well as the economic. The particular point the Marxist analysis stresses that Brecht seems to be heavily interested in throughout the text, is where and why conflict arises in society because of this system. The manifesto argues that friction within capitalism arises due to escalating contradictions between the big corporations run by the wealthy business man, and private ownership owned by the small minority of private owners. As the opposition becomes apparent to the wealthy business men, social unrest between the two classes intensifies, eventually leading to a social revolution. In Brecht’s The Good Person of Szechwan, I believe Shen Teh’s constant struggle between her own ‘good’ yet inefficient self and her productive yet unsympathetic self represents the clashing classes of Capitalism. Brecht makes it clear that neither side will thrive due to contrasting interpretations of materialism in society, therefore both will stumble along until they reach their demise, as Shen Teh did in the end of play. Basically, for all my Harry Potter lovers, ‘neither can live while the other survives’.

Characters and actors

In Cloud 9, the most interesting thing to me is the note at the beginning about switching up the gender of the actors who play characters. I am sure one would notice this a lot more in watching the play, but I could not keep straight who was who. I found myself flipping back to see if the actor was played by a female or a male.
Then there was this seemingly random note that the black servant was played by "a white" which is not to say whether the character was played by a male or female. I think it is interesting that this is used. As I am only reading the story, it isn't adding much to it for me. Maybe it would add more if we watched it as a play, but right now I'm just getting confused, and my big question is "what does it matter?"
Maybe this is what the playwright wanted to bring up. Perhaps it shouldn't matter. I think the only thing that makes it a roadblock in understanding is the gender roles in society. The playwright may be pointing out that meaning can still be found in the play even if the actors' vs characters' gender roles are all muddled.

The Prohibitive Home Space

Throughout the first act of Churchill's Cloud 9 many marginalized forms of  intimacy are put on display.  However, very few of these moments of intimacy occur in the home, positioning the home space as a haven for heteronormativity.

As Harry and Betty's exchange on the porch ends in the physical culmination of their relationship through what is a momentary embrace or even just a near embrace, the stage directions read "He goes to take her in his arms. She runs away into the house"(14).  Though this adulterous intimacy is kept at bay as Betty re-enters the home space, Harry does not retreat to the safe haven of the home. Rather, after Betty makes her exit he propositions Joshua, the family servant, to "go in a barn and fuck" and on the basis of the stage direction "They go off," we can assume they do retreat to a barn to do so(15). This intimacy, which is doubly-marginalized as homosexual and between native and non-native, occurs even further from the home. Later in the scene, Clive and Mrs. Saunders engage in adultery at a spot which is characterized as "An open space some distance from the home"(15).  Though Clive references entering Ms. Saunder's bed at other points in the text, this is the only moment we explicitly see him committing adultery. Similarly, Edward tells Harry "I love you" as they play hide and seek outdoors, and though it is unclear exactly where or when they have been physical intimate, we learn of this homosexual and somewhat predatory non-normative intimacy as they stand apart from the home. Ellen and Betty's kiss also occurs outdoors.

Though we never see any non-normative  intimacy inside the home, the sanctity of the home, in the sense that it represents heteronormativity and traditional family structure, has clearly been violated. The fact that we never explicitly see non-normative acts inside the home seems to gesture to our imagination of the home as a pure space, and the reality this conception is truly imaginary. As the home and family serves as a microcosm for English society and values throughout the text, a relationship that is made particularly explicit in the lines "This is the empire Clive. It's not me putting a/ flag in new lands. It's you The empire is one big/family," this portrayal of intimacy may also gesture to broader hypocrisy (20).

Edward's Doll Troubles

During my read of the first act of "Cloud 9," I found the play to be rather... odd. I found Edward and "his" doll to be very profound characters. Edward is a boy played by a woman that has female tendencies. This reminds me of gender-blending Rosalind from "As You Like It." Throughout the first act, people tell Edward that dolls are for girls and that people would not like him if they found out about it. On page 31, Edward shows his feminine side by telling Maud that the doll loves him. He even claims the doll as his, breaking the social norm being instilled in him throughout the first act! The funny thing is that when he tells his dad, he does not claim the doll as his. Is Edward ultimately afraid of what his father thinks of him and no one else? They claim that his "womanly" tendencies come from him being around women so much, but it seems like all of the male characters are too busy for him (except for Harry, in a different kind of way though).

I would just like to how how you all feel about Edward and the doll (and even Harry and Edward, or Clive and Edward).