Group Critique with Leigh Clarke.

It is always disheartening when the first thing you are told after you have done your presentation is "I'm sorry but I don't know much about your particular subject." I really don't understand the point of someone who does not necessarily know what I am talking about to then go and critique my work or my work practice. What is the sense in that? If you want to sort out something with your account you would in theory go to your bank - not to the local fish and chip shop to ask for advice. It seems this is the case however with the critiques. You have one single person come in and discuss all the different matters from Fine Art, Photography, Costume, Graphic Design and so on. I am not putting the person critiquing at fault - it is not their fault if they do not know every aspect of all the different MA pathways that are being done - but considering the university is taking it upon themselves to open up more MA pathways in the future, I certainly think they should take it upon themselves to revise the whole Group Critiquing system.

That being said, even though Clarke knew little about the subject matter, his words and suggestions were very interesting - it was just a shame it had absolutely nothing to do with my subject matter (another disheartening point). I explained from the top my line of thought, creating a character, how I wanted to do it, etc. and I ended up mentioning and showing my original designs for the character - the regency uniforms. I mentioned how I enjoyed military uniforms, especially historical ones and so on, before going off and saying how instead I wanted to focus on something different, and hence I went into the Jacobean side of things.

The impression I got was he chose to pretty much blank out the rest of what I said. He mentioned going to the Globe was very good, and showed I put in hard work, and then he said "You may want to look into this or ignore it altogether" Obviously, I was a littler apprehensive about hearing what he had to say after that remark. At which point he went on a massive tirade about military uniforms, how they had different meanings nowadays since we (ordinary citizens) are not involved in wars, it is the army that deal with them, and therefore wars and ergo uniforms do not mean the same thing anymore.

His notes I was given:

• Military clothing connotations
• Regimes
• Dick Jewell - Kinky Galinky, 80's
• Old Vic
• Boy George/Leigh Bowery/80's
• Beatles Sgt. Pepper Cover
• Wearing propaganda - book

Which was all well and good, I found it all very interesting as I do generally have an interest in military uniforms - I like making them, looking at them and studying them. However the frustrating thing was that currently I am NOT doing any work on military uniforms, I'm working on Jacobean clothing and I have no interest in changing my work in Phase 2 currently.

That being said, it did strike a thought for me as I remembered an event that happened fairly recently in regards to historical military and so on. As said I have always been a fan of military uniforms, historical military campaigns and so on. When I was younger - about the age of eleven, I was watching a historical documentary on television which had reenacted scenes in it. I said to my dad how I wished to be in such scenes and I wondered how they got people to do it. At which point my dad pointed out to me that there were such things as historical reenactment societies and I could always research them and get involved if I wanted to. Which I did. Unfortunately, at the age of eleven there are few companies that are willing to take you on with an adult, much less on your own. Also, where I am from, Sussex, there are few historical battlegrounds and historical buildings about that do not involve the Vikings, Saxons or Medieval Knights - as much as I enjoy this history, I have little interest to join a society where I run around in chainmail all day. So I left it for many years, hoping to eventually get involved in a society when I was older, and able to get to places by myself. Unforauntely, due to College and eventually University, I was not able to take a look until quite recently when I knew I would be leaving education at the end of this year, and would have some more time to persue historical reenacting as a hobby.

Immediately a found a list of numerous websites for Napoleonic Reenactment groups throughout England - as that was the period of military history I am interested in the most (I adore the height of regimental discipline, the wonderful array of uniforms - as it was for me, when military attire was at its most ornate and decorative - where war was almost an event for a gentlemen to dress in their finaries, as they would for dinner or some other highly proper event). Much to my frustration however, there were many groups that stated on their websites how women who wanted to join could only be 'camp followers' and not be involved in the army ranks whatsoever. (To me, a 'camp follower' essentially accumulates to being a 'groupie' which is not what I wanted to do. I want to get involved in the fighting, I want to shoot rifles and muskets and march with the men in glorious uniforms). Most websites however did not specify, and I sent plenty of emails out to them in hope to get a response about whether I could join as a girl. All of them said no, most of them stating 'it is not historically accurate'.

Of course, I was very angry about this, 'not historically accurate'? Had a black man asked to join, would they also have said no because it was 'not historically accurate'? I also sent emails stating that I was happy to pretend to be a boy for events. I sent photos of me in my male costumes, bound, with fake facial hair and make up to make myself look more manly, saying I would happily be assumed to be a boy and leave it at that. Again, all the replies I got refused my entry, stating that 'there was no historical evidence to suggest a girl dressed as a boy in our particular regiment'. Firstly, I had told them to assume I was not a girl for events, and that I would happily be considered a boy - not a girl dressed as a boy. Secondly, there are plenty of instances of female crossdressers involved in the army, such as Nadezhda Andreyevna Durova [Russian], Friederike Krüger [Prussian], Anna Lühring [Prussian] and James Barry [British] plus more which I haven't researched more in-depth as of yet. I have to say, I was genuinely shocked, and rather upset, that after so many years of looking forward to joining something so much, suddenly I was refused to do what I wanted, simply because of my gender. That is the most frustrating thing. I am not allowed to do something because of my genetics, something I cannot physically change. I understand the need for historical accuracy, however, when I have stated that I am happy to present myself as a boy at all times, I see little need for there to be complete refusal. I can bind my breasts and pack my trousers to appear as a man, and yet, simply because on its most basic level, I am still a girl, my position in a fake, historical army, I am refused. It is historical, but we are still in the modern day. There is supposed  to be equality between genders and yet, due to 'historical accuracy' I am only allowed to swoon as a camp follower instead of doing what I really want to do.

The feelings that stirred up in me during this experience really got me angry. Perhaps it would be interesting to do a project on that for Phase 3? Or perhaps it is too late to rethink things. At the moment, I have so far ceased my attempts to join a historical reenactment society as quite frankly, I do not want to join a group that would refuse my attendance simply due to the fact I have breasts and no penis. (Though my friends had suggested to me I turn up dressed as a boy anyway and see what they say and do - though I do not feel I have the confidence to do that).

I have to say after these experiences I wouldn't mind researching military uniforms (and maybe making them in the future) or considering the viewpoint of gender in the military throughout history - or researching further into crossdressers of the Napoleonic Wars perhaps but really, right now I do not have the time to suddenly do a massive U-turn in my Phase 2 bit of the project. Maybe I'll reconsider Phase 3. However, I don't want to seem like I'm flailing over the place. I shall have a discussion at my next tutorial appointment for Phase 3. But for now I'm still working on my Jacobean outfit - which is going very well.

Character & Designs

The young actor is confident, border lining on cocky. He is proud of his position, playing the heroine leads, perhaps even slightly smug in the knowledge that not everyone can play such roles. He is well versed in how to play a female character, and probably likes to demonstrate his skills at any available oppertunity - because they are skills he is most proud of being able to perform.

‘Historians know little about the acting style of adults on the renaissance stages and less about the techniques used by boys to impersonate women. The skimpy evidence does suggest that the boys playing major female roles attempted to fully embody the voice, movements, and emotions of their characters rather than merely indicate them. That Shakespeare wrote such complex psychological portraits as Juliet, Rosalind and Cleopatra, also suggests that his company had boy actors who could play these roles believably.’ (Zarralli, 211)

 Alongside this, he is probably secretly quite pleased when another antitheatricalist pamphlet comes out - almost in a sense, enjoying causing a reaction out of them. He is happy to be bright, and bold with the colours he wears and isn't afraid to make a statement with his clothes. He is generally cheerful, however, he can sometimes be antagonistic about certain matters that displease him - especially things relating to the words said by the antitheatricalists, sometimes being sarcastic or just plain rude. While playing his femanine roles, he can take on a very demure attitude, however, he always likes to point out that he is one of the best at 'swooning' in London:

‘…swooning would have been among a boy-actress’s best tricks.’ (Solomon, pg. 32)

THE DESIGNS

Yellow & Black design. Pluderhose with cannions, leather jerkin and wide-brimmed hat.

 As much as I enjoy the design with the pluderhose and the added jerkin, I feel perhaps that the design is actually a bit too over the top for the character in question. Similarly, there is the added fact that black was rarely a colour worn by anyone other than the nobility. Admittedly, clothes were handed down and sold by numerous people, so theatres, actors and ordinary people could concievably get their hands on clothes with black in their colouring.

‘The head of the Rose Theatre, Philip Henslowe, for instance, regularly rented out and sold items of apparel that had been used as costumes. Most of the profits that he received from such arrangements were for less than thirty shillings, indicating that small sums of money could allow one to purchase clothes that, although thread-worn, still conveyed some sense of resplendence.’ (Bailey, 43)

Similarly, matters such as the cloak - which in my desgin has some gold trim on it - this would actually be considered inaccurate for an actor to wear outside of the playhouse. This is due to a law made that said only people of royal status could have highly decorative cloaks, to show their status. Lord Wessex's cloak in Shakespeare in Love (Madden, 1998) is lovely, but is decorated to such an extent that would rival a King or Prince's attire - a way in which nobles and other sorts would get around these laws, would be to find a loophole that allowed them to have all the decoration, embroidery, trim, etc. sewn onto the underside of the cloak. So perhaps I would have the design within the cloak, but still keeping it simple so as not to look as though it is rivaling a true noble's clothing.

Also, as much as I enjoy the ridiculousness of the pluderhose, and the fact that my character would perhaps like all the attention he would gain from wearing such an obvious 'look at what I'm wearing' style of clothes - I do not feel these would be quite so suitable for a young character such as mine would be. I feel that the design itself is a little too over-the-top, even if the character himself is quite proud in his styles. I feel like such apparel would suit someone particularly proud of their sexual prowess (yellow stockings are alluring and crossed-garters were considered 'sexy' in Jacobean England - hence the mockery Malvolio recieves in Measure for Measure.) and therefore for someone like the boy-actor, I think it would be interesting if his outfit had a younger, more naive look to it.

Blue and Green design. Venitian hose and slashed sleeves.

This next design is with Venitian hose, a style more often worn by British gentlemen, as it had a more serious - less ostentatious look to it - yet would still concievably be worn in a bright array of colours - the Jacobeans were far braver with mixing colours than we are today. However, they were limited by other things, such as:

'During the 1560s and onwards there was a significant increase in laws, legislation and proclaimations which announced the type of clothing people of the realm could, and could not wear, on account of class, rank and estate. ‘Much of the 1562 edict was devoted to determining which rank of men could wear what kind of hose and, according to the proclamation, servants were allowed to wear plain hose only. As members of ‘the meanear sort,’ male sevants, apprentices, and students were not permitted to wear hose made of velvet, satin, or ‘any other stuff above the estimation of sarcenet or taffeta’ or stockings that were stuffed with more than a yard and three quarters of material.' (Baliey, 27)

Therefore I tried to go with a more subdued design in regards to my second design, trying to take into account the numerous laws that were in place. Also, I felt that the character does view himself as a very well-versed member of his profession. He is good at what he does, and he knows it. Therefore, I felt like trying to make a design that conveyed the impression of him strutting around with the opinion of "I am a serious actor!" As for whether he would be taken as seriously as his clothes is anyone's guess. However, as much as I enjoy the design, I feel it perhaps isn't quite so fitting for a young man of about 17 years (puberty happened a lot later in this period, and so he could still convincingly play a female role on the stage). Especially as it was often stated how young men of the period would present themselves in public. Stephen Gosson, an antitheatricalist of the period would state that...

‘...young men wear sumptuous clothes not simply to role-play but to play it up. ‘To jet’ meant to carry oneself in an affected way and to convey an ostentatious manner, for instance by strutting ‘like a peacock or turkey’. (Bailey, 24)

 While also, it must be stated that:

‘The clothing proclamation of 1588, for example, boldly asserts that youths practise ‘excesses of apparel’ more than any other group.’ (Bailey, 25)

In this respect, I therefore feel that the almost subdued look of the green and blue design isn't quite so fitting for a man of his age and profession. As I am quite sure, from what I imagine the young man to appear like is a far more out-going, brighter colour combination and style of clothing for his appearance. (After all, his personality seems to be fairly outgoing, it would make sense that his clothing-style matched his personality). As much as I enjoy the Venitian hose as well, I feel a younger man of the period is more likely to have hose with cannions to show off and to 'jet' as it were when out and about, before performing his role on stage. (However I very much enjoy the slashing on the sleeves for this design, so I may take it and use it on my final design.)

Orange & Blue design. French hose with cannions, flat cap and slashed sleeves.

My final design has French hose and cannions - a more elaborate style of dress more akin to the 'ostentatious' apparel young men might have worn at the time, than the more subdued Venitian hose, and the slightly 'monstrous' Pluderhose. I wanted the colours to be bright and bold to match my character's personality - there will, additionally, be gold trim and decorations on the design (that can't really be seen in the picture). Even though there were the clothing proclaimations, it has to be noted that Gossen states that:

'...‘her majesty’ and ‘her honourable council’ have repeatedly ‘set down limits of apparel to every degree’, in the form of laws that regulate dress in accordance with the wearer’s rank and income. Yet stage players, to Gosson’s indignation, disregard these restrictions.’ (Bailey, 23)

 Therefore, such a bright array of colours, large French hose, some decorative gold trim and so on, perhaps would be suitable not just for the age of the character, in regards to the likelihood of him getting dressed in hopes to 'jet' while out and about. But similarly, it would also match in the fact that he, as a stage player, might (according to Gosson anyway) somewhat disregard the restrictions put in place over the laws that regulated dress in England at the time - I feel if Gosson felt this particular way, my character most likely would have particularly worn such clothes so as to provoke this sort of reaction out of other antitheatricalists. So such an outfit seems quite appropriate for him.

I feel out of all the designs number 3 is probably the most appropriate for my character in regards to the research I've done on young men and their apparel in the period, as well as the way actors dressed, and how I wished for my own character to be viewed. I think the colour combination is bold and makes a statement - quite perfect for my boy-actor who would most likely enjoy being able to do that. I shall make a pattern for the doublet, hose and cape, while also collecting swatches of fabric to use for the outfit.

Overview of Notes and the Project

After researching many names of actors – specifically boy-actors of the period, I tried to find a name which had very little information attached to that name. For example, Nathan Field, originally a boy actor is fairly well-known and therefore has plenty of information about him, and is often commented upon in numerous articles. I wanted to find a person who had no significant information written about them, I essentially wanted a blank shell which I could then use to effectively create the character. So I managed to find a name with very little – to nothing apparently associated with it, which was ‘Samuel Daniel’. Therefore, this is the name I have taken for my boy actor character.

I have a particular thought in my head for the type of personality Samuel has, I imagine that he is confident, border lining on cocky. He is proud of his position, playing the heroine leads, perhaps even slightly smug in the knowledge that, according to antitheatricalists, he is making men in the audience ‘confused’ based on the whole gender-confusion debate that rages between the antitheatricalists and the players. However, unlike with cosplay where the character has already been created and therefore you can embody the character easily – being well aware of their personality traits, behaviour and so on this is unfortunately the other way around. I have a personality in mind for the character, but until I put the costume on and start presenting myself as the character, a completely different personality for the character could come forward. Often I have found, when presenting a made-up character first on page and then in terms of a minor performance, the character personality could go under either a minor or a major personality shift. It of course, depends entirely on the type of reactions they are given in terms of others. A very confident character, when presented with an equally – if not more so confident and outspoken character, can very easily discover that they are in fact suffering from anxiety or uncertainty in their own confidence. So it shall be interesting to see just how Samuel Daniel reacts to what might occur in phase 3 of the project. Whether the basic personality I have in mind will remain intact, or if he shall appear completely different to how I imagined him.

Clothing and costume is a significant part into determining a character and their personality, I did lots of research into what type of clothing was worn in the period – specifically young men, such as Samuel Daniel’s age group. The type of style, colour and their reasons for wearing the particular types of clothes they did.

During the 1560s and onwards there was a significant increase in laws, legislation and proclamations which announced the type of clothing people of the realm could, and could not wear, on account of class, rank and estate:

‘Much of the 1562 edict was devoted to determining which rank of men could wear what kind of hose and, according to the proclamation, servants were allowed to wear plain hose only. As members of ‘the meanear sort,’ male servants, apprentices, and students were not permitted to wear hose made of velvet, satin, or ‘any other stuff above the estimation of sarcenet or taffeta’ or stockings that were stuffed with more than a yard and three quarters of material. (Baliey 27)

Of course, whenever laws are put in place to try to bring a definitive sense of order to something as open as clothing, there are always those who rebel, or who like to take such laws to an extreme, or just simply ignore them altogether. Young men of the period are noted to be the type to wear bright clothing and such, bypassing or just generally ignoring the rules set down by the clothing proclamations:

 ‘The clothing proclamation of 1588, for example, boldly asserts that youths practise ‘excesses of apparel’ more than any other group.’ (Bailey, 25)

I believe my character would likely be one of the young sort who would use ‘excesses of apparel’ having bold outfits, particularly ones that would stand out so as to make a point of his personality. He would most likely be surrounded by a collection of bright young men, all showing off their new, bright – and possibly expensive-looking apparel to each other. It should be noted that:

‘Gosson drives home his point that young men wear sumptuous clothes not simply to role-play but to play it up. ‘To jet’ meant to carry oneself in an affected way and to convey an ostentatious manner, for instance by strutting ‘like a peacock or turkey’. (Bailey, 24)

I can certainly see Samuel Daniel taking it upon himself ‘to jet’. I believe he would think highly of his clothes, seeing his own items of clothing almost as a costume of sorts, a chance to perform to his friends and the people he meets, while taking on a role of a female for the stage. In my opinion, the character is not from a rich family – as I have discovered via research that most young boy-actors were not, and were in fact from more middle-class families, often the second or third son who was not likely to earn the inheritance from their father’s estate. Therefore, I feel the character most likely wears clothes which appear to be expensive, or appear to be exotic in an attempt to bring across a certain air of indulgence with his attire. Perhaps he bought his clothes second or third hand – as was most likely of the time, yet presents it as new, modern and extremely fashionable. Clothes were often bought and resold. Those involved in the stage often had their costumes donated to them from wealthy families who found their clothes too old or threadbare to be worn for daily use anymore:

‘The head of the Rose Theatre, Philip Henslowe, for instance, regularly rented out and sold items of apparel that had been used as costumes. Most of the profits that he received from such arrangements were for less than thirty shillings, indicating that small sums of money could allow one to purchase clothes that, although thread-worn, still conveyed some sense of resplendence.’ (Bailey, 43)

This is quite probably the case with Samuel Daniel, having bought a collection of clothes for cheap from the theatre, or second hand, creating his own illusion of his own wealth and prosperity, while also daring to antagonise the antithatricalists with his ‘jetting’ behaviour and performing as women on the stage. In my mind he appears to be quite the peacock, proud of his appearance, and always playing to the crowd, both on and off the stage. Perhaps this is not always a good thing, and his confidence could appear to be both a good thing, and somewhat of a flaw. As for whether this will be the case when I put on the outfit and bring across the character through photos is another matter. Perhaps it will become apparent in my body language presenting the character, perhaps not. It really depends on when I put on the costume, however, these notes have been taken into account, in both the style and type of clothing that is expected of him, along with his possible personality traits.

There is a considerably large debate with academics in regards to the representation of the female gender – specifically by boy-actors – when performed on the Jacobean stage. For my project, therefore, I wished to explore this interplay of gender blurring, by going so far as to essentially ‘cosplay’ a character who is a young male-actor playing female roles on the Jacobean stage. In this respect, I’ll be a girl, dressed, and playing as a boy, who himself dresses, and plays as a girl. Perhaps even some of the parts he plays on stage, would be characters such as Viola or Rosalind, in which case, it would extend the blurring of boundaries, levels of gender and confusion further in that I would be a girl, performing as a boy, who performs as a girl on stage, who happens to play at being a boy during the action of the play.

‘… “play-boys” probably occupied a lower social status than the adult male actors playing adult male characters. In the two recent all-male productions [of As you like it], however, Rosalind was played by very experienced adult performers – Ronald Pickup and Gregory Floy for the National [1967 and revived in 1974], Ronnie Lester for Cheek by Jowl [1994]. Even with play-boys, the effects of such cross-gender casting for modern audiences would be different from what they were for Elizabethan spectators. For us it is a novelty; for them it is the norm.’ (Shapiro, 177)

In dressing as a boy actor, I would want to bring out this feeling of what might be the norm, of this play on dressing, a performance of sorts, but making it appear neither as drag, nor as transvestism. From my knowledge and experience of being within the cosplay community, the general attitude towards cross-dressing boys and girls differs. There are plenty of girls who cross-dress as boys, to the point that within such a community, it is considered the norm. In fact, the more convincing a boy a female can make, the more commended they are after they have made the transition back to being a girl. A male on the other hand, cosplaying as a female character, however, seem to do it at varying degrees, in the past, I have noticed from experience that a male ‘crossplay’ tends to be done in the most modern sense, to make it a novelty, a piece of drag and comedy. However, lately, due to new shows and games appearing with an almost all-female cast, it seems some male cosplayers are daring to try and be as convincing as their female counterparts. Unfortunately, such views are not seen as so normal to the ‘ordinary public’. It is strange to think almost that during the sixteenth century, play-boys were the norm, men often played female parts in plays in England, and were taken very seriously in their roles. ‘In the three centuries since the introduction of actresses, audiences have come to accept the use of women in female roles as natural, when in fact it is merely conventional and at one time was considered innovative.’ (Sharpiro, 178) And as such, seemed to have taken the view of cross-dressing as being ‘bizzare’, ‘unnatural’ or merely a comedic device. Frankly, I would prefer it if such a notion was considered so normal that there was no real view taken on it at all. This is the sort of characterisation I wish to bring up when playing as the boy-actor. This notion of cross-dressing being a perfectly normal art or behaviour is something I wish to bring across in the videos I will do for Phase 3.

In essence, the boy-actor that I would be dressed as and be playing, would theoretically at the time have heard of such words against his position, his gender and role. While in actual fact, I myself, as the boy-actor would have such claims directed unto myself. After all, I will be dressed as a boy in regards to this, and so in regards to several anti-theatricalist writers of the time, I would be garnering and creating the same ‘uncertainties’ that the boy actors of the time may have created.

 ‘[Philip] Stubbes claims that the sign can alter the essence, that wearing the other sex’s clothing can literally “adulterate” gender: “What man so ever weareth womans apparel is accursed, and what woman weareth mans apparel is accursed also… Our Apparell was given to us as a signe distinctive to discern betwixt sex and sex, and therefore one to wear the Apparel of another sex, is to participate with the same, and to adulterate the veritie of his own kinde.” The claim here is that costume is constitutive. Men and women who wear each other’s costume, says Stubbes, “may not improperly be called Hermaphroditi, that is, Monsters of both kindes, half women, half men”. (Levine, 22)

The conundrum that has so far eluded me in terms of my academic research, is whether the anti-theatricalists considered roles wherein boy-actors would play women who would disguise themselves as men to be part of this ‘monster’? Was it still viewed as being monstrous when the boy-actor played a women who had disguised herself as a man? Yes? No? The part was still a part of play? In theory they were still playing a woman, who had simply donned male attire – was it therefore a further gross viewing for this? Or was it merely the boy-actor performing as his ‘true self’ when playing a woman disguised as a man? There is a brief mention of how it could have been viewed, but little detail really goes into it:

‘…in an all-male production of As You Like It, the first time we see Ganymede, we don’t see a pert female ingénue swaggering around adorably in a pair of breeches – the image typically offered on the contemporary American stage. Rather, we see the undisguised boy. The exaggerated descriptions of Ganymede’s underlying femininity – “I could find in my heart to disgrace my man’s apparel and to cry like a woman. But I must comfort the weaker vessel, as doublet and hose ought to show itself courageous to petticoat” (II, iv, 3-6) – are a necessary means of identifying the character and sparking the play’s central irony. These lines and the vision we behold tell us: this is and is not Rosalind.’ (Solomon, 31)

Therefore, as I present myself as this character, I am essentially both myself and the character, however, when I present myself as the boy playing the woman I would be ‘the undisguised self’? But then, I would be playing the female role as if I was a boy performing the female role. So even though I am undisguised in my dress sense, I would not be quite so undisguised in my own attitude, behaviour and what I may perform as the female role.