Review: I Feel Awful
by Jane
The “late” Michael Gow, in his final commission as outgoing Artistic Director of Queensland Theatre Company invited the Black Lung Theatre and Whaling Firm to devise a new work. Into the Billie Brown studio the men of Black Lung have transported their offices, and with the help of a crew of young Brisbane artists, their new “interns”, they have proceeded to explore how theatre is made.
With mixed success over seventy minutes the play rollicks along exploring and exploiting theatrical conventions, disintegrating boundaries and repositioning itself and its genre, until it ultimately finds itself in the most traditional realm of theatre: naturalism.
I have a lot of respect for the theatre conventions they didn’t obey. There was no call to “please turn off you mobile phones”, and, most interestingly, there was no curtain call. After the show segued from the process of theatre into the naturalistic fall out between Black Lung and the interns, there was no need for the work to go back to theatrical convention. It sustained a naturalism about the final scenes because that is where it allowed the production to end, instead of asking for acceptance or recognition from the audience. The final notes became more about the audience than the cast.
Which was good, because at that point I didn’t feel much like applauding.
Perhaps what is highlighted in a piece of theatre about creating theatre – even if the fact is not explicitly mentioned – is the act of repetition. Theatre runs in seasons, the most rigid of productions attempting to run the same night after night. Even those shows with only one performance are a culmination of repetition through rehearsal. For I Feel Awful this only served to highlight the seeming exploitation of the young “interns”, and in particular the female actors, whose most defining traits as characters is the lust thrown on to them by the men.
Unlike some of the male interns, none of the female interns instigate their own actions: they don’t attempt to get the men of Black Lung to read their film scripts; they don’t get to freeze time. The most independent action any of the women take is to ask when they can return to presenting scenes from the texts of the late Gow. Scenes the men of Black Lung have taken out of context and played with gender casting to create every situation the intro to a lesbian porno. This joke once is one thing, if it was a series of heightened situations in some absurdity showing an interface between writer and director. The same joke repeated again and again celebrates an inherent misogyny in the production, and becomes gross.
The best that can be said for the misogyny is ultimately, it is the Black Lung men which come off the worst. They are judged harshly by their interns, they are not celebrated in the eyes of the audience. And yet this leads me to ask: what were they attempting to do with these characters they built around themselves? I have not seen their work before, and so with this being my only knowledge of the company I would be very hesitant to see their work again.
To explore misogyny is one thing. To explore it from the male perspective is another. To continually, night after night, performance after performance, place the young women of the cast in a never-ending position of being lusted over, with hardly any other qualities, is uncomfortable. To do this for no defined reason is completely questionable.
And so, when the stage was left empty, when the cast had left, the stage lights were up, and we weren’t asked to submit to ritualistic applause, I was pleased.
And this is made all the more disappointing because much of the show was strong. Particularly when it was exploring and exploiting the rules of theatre. Talking about theatrical styles, but never a lecture, weaving a narrative into this explanation. The opening interaction between Gareth and “Gareth” – a prerecorded character within the TV, timed to appear in spontaneous interaction, highlights the rehearsal process. Falling flats reveal props and a band.
Even as I write this I am making much more of a note of the exposition of these factors than the production ever did. Occasionally yelling out “That’s Naturalism!”, primarily the piece works as an ever heightening farce, destruction of boundaries taken place with glee, as debris piles about the stage the audience is taken along for the ride, but no stopping to reflect on what is happening.
In this, I Feel Awful holds no punches. It’s get with the production or get lost. The manipulation of theatre is all the more interesting because of where this is being performed. This isn’t in the back of a claimed venue in the Fringe. This is on at a state theatre company, the last commission by an outgoing Artistic Director. And that is exciting. The legitimacy that gives to an experimental work is exciting.
And while it breaks the rules of what theatre “should” be at a mainstage company, Black Lung still respects the audience and that dialogue an audience wants to receive. The audience which is going to see this work is probably regular theatre goers, local theatre goers, people who aren’t afraid to see work which takes risks.
I Feel Awful has strengths in its energy, its exciting ideas of the manipulation that theatre is, and the ideas of what it can be. And yet, for all that was strong, and for Black Lung’s respect of the bonds of theatre with an audience, I still cannot shake my dislike of the inherent misogyny brandished across the work. It is sad what dominated the production is the uncomfortableness of misogyny, buying into these traditional power structures, and the “joke” of repetitious leering. Because what theatrical culture are we in where repeated sexual harassment is played for laughs?
Queensland Theatre Company presents Black Lung Theatre and Whaling Firm’s I Feel Awful, written, directed and designed by Thomas M Wright. Design consultant Simone Romaniuk, lighting designer Gavin Ruben. The Black Lung Theatre and Whaling Firm: Liam Barton, Gareth Davies, Aaron Orzech, Vacadenjo Wharton-Thomas and Thomas M Wright; with Courtney Ammenhauser, Fin Gilfedder, Will Horan, Tiarnee Kim, Mary Neary, Essie O’Shaughnessy, Charlie Schache, Nathan Sibthorpe and Stephanie Tandy. At the Billie Brown Studio. Season closed.
Images by Stephen Henry
No Plain Jane 
Does it expose an inability to love? or be loved?
As one of the female cast members in the production, I would disagree with your statements about misogyny in the play. From my perspective the play is ultimately not about misogyny at all, it is about human beings treating other human beings terribly regardless of their gender, age, status or sexual preference and where these attitudes come from. The most interesting thing I have found with comments of misogyny in the play, is that these are not countered with similar comments about homophobia, intolerance of disability, exploitation of young men, antisemitism or bullying in the workplace, which were all present within the play.
I personally, feel that the female interns were some of the most proactive in resisting the terrible treatment from the ‘Black Lung’ creatives. While the male interns did do such things as ‘stop time’ and produce scripts (although ‘stopping time’ was not an action ‘Nathan’ was in control of and ultimately lead to his implied death at the end of the play, thus, not empowering but disempowering him) they also stood in their underwear with potplants on their heads in one scene which I believe is as, or even more, degrading than anything the females were made to do. Something I find interesting to consider, is how the audience would have reacted if this potplant scene was performed by females in their underwear and the Michael Gow scenes by males…
Also, as a cast member speaking from within this process, I was never made to feel uncomfortable performing these scenes and always felt the right within the rehearsal process to say something made me feel uncomfortable. As one of my female castmates stated “I am not sure I have ever been in a room where the director has been so concerned about the well being of the actors as Tom (I Feel Awful’s director) is.” Further to this, I never viewed my character as one who lacked depth or existed as simply an object to be lusted over rather than a complete and complex human being. I can say that I never felt uncomfortable as a performer and didn’t have any qualms about representing this character on stage as I saw her as a confident and intelligent young woman who was stuck in an appalling situation and felt comfortable realising this role.
When ‘Tiarnee’ was harassed, it was ultimately the female character ‘Essie’ who entered into a head to head engagement with ‘Tom’ and ‘Gareth’, calling them ‘gross’, ‘utterly negligent’, ‘awful’ and accusing ‘Tom’ of harrassing ‘Steph’. In this scene, the male intern ‘Finn’ could only respond with “She’s (Tiarnee) right…” and then when questioned further by ‘Gareth’ he backed down and said, “Nothing”. Not to say that the young men were more disempowered than the young women in the play either. I ultimately believe the issue here is not about gender at all, it is about the treatment of other human beings, especially human beings who are under the care of those seen as ‘superior’ to them (even represented through the bullying of the ‘Black Lung’ characters of ‘Aaron’ and ‘Miles’ who were the ‘lowest’ members of the company in the piece).
When you state, “The best that can be said for the misogyny is ultimately, it is the Black Lung men which come off the worst. They are judged harshly by their interns, they are not celebrated in the eyes of the audience. And yet this leads me to ask: what were they attempting to do with these characters they built around themselves?” This is exactly the effect the creatives were intending. I have heard a number of them state that they had no interest in being the heroes of their work and that they always intended to be the villians of the work. And whilst these characters share their names they are no indication of their real selves. The interesting question is, if we are to explore misogyny why should it be taboo to explore it from a male viewpoint? It is males (mostly), after all, from whom this attitude comes from and how else can we fight something but to understand it? It is wonderful to fight against injustices we see, but if we have no handle on where these appalling attitudes come from, how are we supposed to break them down and abolish them?
Ultimately, I find the real tragedy of this piece the ‘Black Lung’ characters themselves, characters who are so short sighted and arrogant that they can never improve themselves or grow as human beings. These characters are countered by the interns who have undergone this awful experience but find the strength to leave, realising that those with the power are childish, arrogant and horrible human beings while they (the interns) can move forward with their lives. The play ends with ‘Tom’ sitting in this mess him and his ‘company’ have made, alone, seeing it all fall down around him and yet he still does not realise why his actions are wrong. And this is a real tragedy because he will never grow or understand himself or others.
Whilst I understand (but disagree with) the view that the piece itself is misogynistic, I would strongly disagree with the sentiment that the theatre makers themselves are misogynistic or ever aimed to endorse such viewpoints with this work, or that the female cast members were ever exploited or uncomfortable with their roles on stage. Throughout the rehearsal and performance process I was always a supported and validated member of the team, both as a woman and a young person, and would strongly assure audiences that the misogyny in the work was restricted to the stage, alongside the other misjustices against other human beings represented in the work which, similarly, remained in this fictional realm.
Thanks!
Thanks for the comment Steph. Since you pointed it out: I was also disturbed by the homophobia, racism, and treatment of disability in the production. I didn’t talk about these here because as a white, straight, normally abled woman I don’t always feel I have the vocabulary to discuss these issues, where as my feminism informs a large part of my self and my writing, and is often a focus of my work on this blog.
Thanks for the perspectives on the work and your character. Yet, I think a problem we can have with art (and with life) is saying that it was all fine behind the scenes, it was a comfortable environment, so therefore the work itself was fine. I am so glad you had a fantastic time in the rehearsal process. For me, that doesn’t change the final products and ideas which was presented to hundreds of audience members who weren’t privy to your process. Maybe you didn’t see the issue as one of gender, but the production did quite clearly play into workplace bullying through a prism in which sexual objectification of women is the norm: something, which is unfortunately still an issue in 2011.
I don’t think men can’t explore misogyny, but I don’t think this show did it well: as an audience member, I didn’t feel like the Black Lung men understood it in a way that it was commented on any positive way. One of the questions I tried to grapple with here (but maybe I did a poor job of) was trying to understand why the character of Tom will never grow, understand himself, understand others. It is a tragedy he is left that way. It is also a tragedy I have no reason to believe that character will change his behaviour in any way. So I wanted to ask: what was the point? Can’t men explore misogyny by not being misogynistic? From learning from their mistakes? By growing? By something?
I don’t think I perceive the Black Lung men themselves as misogynistic (because I have to continue to refuse to believe that those types of people can exist in Australian theatre, because otherwise I don’t think I could exist in this industry; certainly experiences you talk of support me here), but rather I question the ethos behind their work. It wasn’t in the rehearsal room: but why was it on the stage?
Good reply Steph. I thought I Feel Awful was funny. Why can’t something jsut be funny and clever! Relax!!
Hi Jane,
I would just like to preface this with a note that everything I am stating here is personal opinion and I would never wish to speak for any other castmembers or creatives.
I agree with your sentiments that whilst behind the scenes one attitude is exhibited if this does not come into the final product, the work can have a negative or opposite effect in the ‘real world’. However, while the work did play into the idea of workplace bullying, I would have to point out that perhaps because sexual objectification of women is more common than say, antisemitism in the workplace, perhaps this is what we pick up on and what angers us the most because because it is an issue we are commonly angered by and therefore more reactive to. Not to say that it shouldn’t anger us!
But from my view, this piece never aimed to make a misogynistic statement or alternatively, to fight misogyny either. The treatment of the female characters lies within the whole awful treatment of each character onstage. And that begs the question, should the female characters be excluded from poor treatment because of the simple fact that they are females? And then what would that say about the treatment about the male characters? And isn’t this a form of discrimination in itself? Whilst it does seem that this abuse takes a more sexual form, it must be remembered that the males interns are made to stand in their underwear swaying from side to side, are similarly made to dance in a sexual manner, and, on the other hand, that the female character of ‘Mary’ has her name forgotten, ‘Courtney’ is hidden in a locker and ‘Essie’ is stolen from rather than any form of sexual abuse.
The relationship between ‘Steph’ and ‘Tom’, I viewed very differently to sexual abuse, of course, this behaviour in a workplace would constitute as sexual abuse, but in the final scene, ‘Tom’ believes he actually loves her and thinks this is how you express love to someone. He’s not trying to make her uncomfortable, he just legitimately doesn’t understand how to interact with human beings in general, let alone women. I agree that many forms of discrimination are still present in 2011, a disgraceful fact that shouldn’t be true, however I believe this piece uses the device or theme of discrimination and terrible treatment to highlight character flaws in individuals rather than to enforce or fight particular paradigms (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc). Perhaps, it is an unfortunate side effect that it seems to enforce or highlight these paradigms by doing such, but I believe this was never the desired effect and I continue to see the piece as one about individuals and the stories of individuals rather than broad statements.
I find the reason that the character of Tom will never grow is that he is ignorant and arrogant. I believe it was never the intention of the work to teach a lesson about how people should act or to make a moral statement to the audience or to tie up the loose ends of the situation. Of course, the show could have ended with all of us stating what we had learnt, it could have come full circle and tied up as a neat morality tale about how to treat each other. However, it feels as though this is the work trying to teach the audience a lesson, trying to say, ‘Everyone out there who treats others poorly, stop doing that!’ and would allow audience members who aren’t homophobic, racist etc to walk out feeling pleased about the ending and then moving on with their lives contended that this lesson had been stated, whilst audience members who held these awful views would discredit the whole thing altogether. And in the end no one would have learnt anything. Because in reality, how often do people who really hold these discriminatory viewpoints change their ideas because someone told them they were wrong? I totally agree with you that this is a tragedy. And I believe this is the point. Some people will never learn, will never grow and try to understand their actions or the feelings of others. This is a simple fact in our world. The question we have to raise at the end is, if this character never grows or learns… what do we do with them? How can they be a proper member of society? Should we even continue to engage with them or should we just leave them in their sad and pathetic loneliness which is a result of their ill informed viewpoints? I believe the lesson here is for people who don’t hold discriminatory viewpoints, to give us a chance to laugh at these appalling people and to realise that it is utterly tragic that people still hold these views and for us to question how should we deal with those that do. Also, it teaches the lesson that just because someone is ‘higher’ than you in status, or wealth, or prestige doesn’t mean they are a better person than you and highlights that even people we look up to (for whatever misguided reasons) can be more short sighted, close minded and horrible than we are and that once we realise this we are stronger and better people.
I think that it’s important that these conversations are even happening, and I know for myself through doing this work, hearing other people’s reactions (both positive and negative) and forming my own views from within rehearsal, performance and afterwards, I have gained new insights into such issues that are raised here and beyond. Any justified viewpoint which audiences have on the piece I believe are valid and the best anyone can ever do is to understand why they believe their views and to be open to the views of others. Thank you for engaging in this conversation with me. The main point I wanted to raise with my first comment was firstly, that, from my perspective, both the theatre makers and performers of this piece do not support misogynistic or discriminatory viewpoints and finally, to reassure audiences that us, as performers and theatre makers were not subject to any such awful treatment throughout the process. I would be greatly upset if anyone was to believe that any of the people I have grown to love throughout this process held such appalling views or that us, as performers were treated in such a way that belittled us or made us feel uncomfortable both in reality and in the fictional world. This is most important to me and I hope that this point is clear. As for dialogue on the piece itself, I believe that there will be many and varied viewpoints (yours and mine, two of many) and this multiplicity of opinion is important for both theatre, art and reality itself, if we are to ever progress or learn. Thank you for taking time to further explain your thoughts to me and for listening to my ideas as well.
Thanks!
‘I was also disturbed by the homophobia, racism, and treatment of disability in the production’. – Life is disturbing!
‘I have not seen their work before, and so with this being my only knowledge of the company I would be very hesitant to see
their work again.’ – Petty
‘Scenes the men of Black Lung have taken out of context and played with gender casting to create every situation the intro to a lesbian porno’ – The joke is that this is a theme in some of Gow’s work
Steph: I really appreciate you taking the time to talk about the show from your perspective. I want nothing more than for this blog to be a place of dialogue where we can all discuss our ideas on art (or feminism or discrimination or whatever I happen to be talking about that day) and it’s actually really gratifying to me for you to engage like this. You’ve certainly given me a lot to think about in the work. While I don’t think I’m going to loose the issues that I grappled with while watching the production, you giving me (and anyone else who happens to read this) the perspective from your side of the table is really healthy for the industry.
A couple of questions:
would a homophobic, racist, misogynist go to see this play, have a good laugh and have their world-view reinforced?
Was it as bad as Simon Stone’s misogyny, which I’ve heard DOES extend to the rehearsal process?
If the work provokes a debate like this has it succeeded?
Is the blurring of distintion between real / imaginary, and politically correct/incorrect the new Verfremdungseffekt?