A thoughtful and inventive confrontation of past and present homophobia in literary censorship
Debuting at Queer Fest on Thursday 20th was Lily Sheldon’s historicization of the author Marguerite Radclyffe Hall’s trial for obscenity. This occurred in 1928 after she wrote ‘The Well of Loneliness’, and the script’s ornate language alongside refined costuming transported us instantly back to this Victorian era. The stage becomes a courtroom, involving audience members as an unwitting jury. Yet, their judgement is quickly dismissed, exposing the malicious agenda of courts to chastise anything they considered ‘base matter’ provoking ‘foul ideas in innocent minds’.
The courtroom shifts to an office where we watch the electrifying flow of consciousness of the author capturing the romance between the two female lovers in her work. This is passionately played out by two actresses downstage using abstract movement and storytelling. Throughout, a real merit of the piece was the obvious care and dedication all student cast members had to the cause they proposed: dismantling fears of queers.
As random audience members were chosen to testify as witnesses, but the author was barred from testifying at her own trial, we are faced with a judge twisting truths in an attempt to present queer love as corrupt and damaging. This is something we are faced with today, albeit more subtly, as queer narratives are frequently minimised or prematurely cut off in mainstream media, emphasising the relevance of this piece. Further to this, the presentation of having to evade condemnation by sacrificing queer romance, instead painting it as a ‘close friendship’ was thoughtfully navigated, resulting in a strong emotional impact. This subject matter complemented the earlier performance of I, Victor well, presenting the saddenting reality of queer erasure and secrecy. Yet what was particularly powerful about Sheldon’s writing was the explicit insistence that failing to acknowledge a queer relationship as a valid romance is worse than censorship, or accusations of obscenity, for it denies the existence of the LGBTQ+ community altogether.
It was interesting to view a piece in its earliest stages, with several ideas being tested in one showing, however refining the stylistic choices within it would perhaps give it more clarity and impact. Its most engaging moments were where unexpected physical dance sequences told the story, yet they felt separate from the rest of the narrative at points which lessened their power. Despite this, the creativity of Sheldon’s script and Costi Levi’s direction was evident, and the work undoubtedly holds potential for development into a larger scale project, pushing audiences to consider the way queer narratives are wrongly handled and restricted.