Culture Gender-neutral Joan of Arc at Globe - Audiences for I, Joan will hear Joan use the pronouns “they” and “them”

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
1660307619092.png

Joan of Arc will be portrayed as a gender-neutral character in a new play at the home of Shakespeare in London, in a radical departure from the usual depiction of the historic figure.

Audiences for I, Joan, which will open on August 25 at the Globe and run for two months, will hear Joan use the pronouns “they” and “them”.

The play is described by the theatre as “alive, queer and full of hope”. It will chart Joan’s rise during the Hundred Years’ War between the French and English. Isobel Thom will take on the title role in her first big theatrical role.

Michelle Terry, the Globe’s artistic director, said that it was not the first production to represent Joan of Arc as non-binary and referred to the Oxford English Dictionary, saying it used the word “they” to refer to a singular person as early as 1375.

She said: “Theatres do not deal with a historical reality. Theatres produce plays, and in plays, anything can be possible.”

Joan of Arc, who is thought to have been 19 when she was killed in 1431, has inspired musical, artistic and dramatic works since she was burnt at the stake. She was convicted as a heretic when she was captured by the English. She was made a saint by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920.

Terry added that England’s most famous playwright would have approved of the depiction: “Shakespeare did not write historically accurate plays. He took figures of the past to ask questions about the world around him.

“Our writers of today are doing no different whether that’s looking at Ann Boleyn, Nell Gwynn, Aemilia Bassano, Edward II or Joan of Arc. The Globe is a place of imagination. A place where, for a brief amount of time, we can at least consider the possibility of worlds elsewhere.

“We have had entire storms take place on stage, the sinking of ships, twins who look nothing alike being believable, and even a Queen of the fairies falling in love with a donkey.”

After joining the Globe in 2018, Terry presided over two shows that were cast as “gender blind”, which meant men and women could play roles normally depicted by members of the opposite sex.

Terry herself played Hamlet in 2018, and Catrin Aaron stepped into the role of Horatio. Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night features Viola, a character who walks the line between male and female genders.

Charlie Josephine, the non-binary writer of the play, said: “Joan was this working-class, young person, who was transgressing gender at a time when it was really dangerous and that just felt instantly relatable to me.”

However, one academic has said that the play risked “rewriting history”. Frank Furedi, an emeritus professor at the University of Kent, said the play was “projecting of a fantasy backwards”.

He added: “Someone like Joan of Arc would not have any idea what non-binary was. It is a recharacterisation of something that did not even exist at the time.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-neutral-joan-of-arc-at-globe-qn5thkz5n (Archive)
 
Talk about twisting the point. Joan was a woman. She wasn’t a gender bender or trans or non binary, she was a girl. That is the whole point of her story. She was a young girl, a ‘holy fool and maid’ who ended up somewhere she would never have dreamed of and completely out of her depth , and then dead. She would not have been given an audience if she was a middle aged bloke. It was that combination of her being an innocent young girl and having visions that caught the public. There were multiple other young women who also had visions and they were considered holy AND dangerous. Elizabeth Barton for example also met a sticky end
Joan was probably raped repeatedly during her imprisonment, her being a young girl is the entire point of her history and story. The reduction of that to ‘wanted to be a boy/is trans’ just misses the entire point. It’s such an autistic reading of history.
 
the funny thing is that her story is pretty close to a real life version of what they all say they want in a female character; a woman who breaks gender roles and goes on to lead an army and win battles. this is exactly what all the woke female lead movies try to do, yet here they take a real life version of that and do everything they can to erase her being a woman. it'
s further proof that at the end of the day these people dont care about real women, they care about made up pronouns.
 
Do a nifty reimagining of the Prophet Mohammed as a brave black lesbian MtF tranny next, see how that works out for you.

Amazing how most of the 2010s was a bunch of bellyaching about how girls had no strong female role models in literature, now we're actively making all the female role models into thembies because female is passé.
 
Obligatory:

But if you would consider the true cause
Why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts,
Why birds and beasts from quality and kind,
Why old men, fools, and children calculate,
Why all these things change from their ordinance,
Their natures, and preformed faculties
To monstrous quality, why, you shall find
That heaven hath infused them with these spirits
To make them instruments of fear and warning
Unto some monstrous state.—William Shakespeare, "Twelfth Night"

Theatre like many other creative mediums are dying, unfortunately, no thanks to these stunts. Long live the Cultural Revolution.
 
Talk about twisting the point. Joan was a woman. She wasn’t a gender bender or trans or non binary, she was a girl. That is the whole point of her story. She was a young girl, a ‘holy fool and maid’ who ended up somewhere she would never have dreamed of and completely out of her depth , and then dead. She would not have been given an audience if she was a middle aged bloke. It was that combination of her being an innocent young girl and having visions that caught the public. There were multiple other young women who also had visions and they were considered holy AND dangerous. Elizabeth Barton for example also met a sticky end
Joan was probably raped repeatedly during her imprisonment, her being a young girl is the entire point of her history and story. The reduction of that to ‘wanted to be a boy/is trans’ just misses the entire point. It’s such an autistic reading of history.
Her trial actually tried to use cross dressing against her. In most Catholic countries it was frowned upon due to Augustine’s writings.
Joan wore pants and a belt in captivity, we do actually know this. For one it’s easier to fight off being raped when the rapist has to struggle with a belt. She was also not held in a nunnery by nuns when she was captured by the English like female prisoners were supposed to.

Joan is one of those individuals who every fucking weirdo needs to have her be anything than what we know about her. Wiccans and Pagan larpers say she was a witch. Feminists make fucking weird accusations that she was gay. The British called her crazy, but they destroyed everything after burning her.
 
referred to the Oxford English Dictionary, saying it used the word “they” to refer to a singular person as early as 1375
This is so obnoxious. Sure people have used "they" to refer to a single person, when the person is unidentified.
"Someone left their keys here."
It's so confusing reading people's comments or even news articles when they're using "they" to mean a specific person like Ezra Miller or Demi Lovato or whoever, especially when it's in the context of a story where there's a group of people also referred to as "they". People working their asses off trying to show how enlightened they are by catering to people like fucking Halsey, who apparently likes to be referred to by both, not either, "she" and "they", alternating back and forth even within the same sentence.
"She actually claimed they would no longer do interviews, after Allure magazine refused to respect her alternating pronouns and only used they/them to refer to them, although she has now deleted their tweets."
It's an arms race, as soon as they've fingerwagged and browbeaten people into making the latest "inclusiveness" mainstream, they have to come up with something else to chide people about, otherwise how will they feel superior?
 
Back