As a big fan of both feminism and
vintage-home appliances, I was really looking forward to watching 30 Bird's
latest production 'Domestic Labour: A study in love'. In the play, three women
recite the story of a man and a woman
and the intricacies of their relationship. The performers speak in the first
person as they recount the couple's history. However, the texts are divided
between the three women onstage and delivered in that rather distant, somewhat
monotone style that says 'WE'RE NOT ACTING! HEY YOU, AUDIENCE, WE'RE NOT
ACTING!' Partly for this reason, it was difficult to follow the narrative and
to hold onto who was speaking from when and where.
You see, the stories travel across
generational and national borders. One moment we are in the couple's modern day
suburban home and the next we find ourselves in pre-revolutionary Iran. Well,
in fact we never really find ourselves in any of the places presented
onstage. The nonchalant traversal of temporal and spatial configurations, in
combination with the emphatically non-illusory style of delivery, keeps the
audience at arm's length. And from such a distance, it proves challenging to
decipher much of a linear narrative.
But no matter, linearity be damned. Who
needs a straight-up story when you've got a collection of wonderful retro-home
appliances lying around? The show is billed as a collaboration between the
writer/director Mehrdad Seyf and the visual artist Chris Dobrowolski, and
indeed, it is the visual aspect of the play that really stays with you.
Throughout 'Domestic Labour', the performers use their collection of vintage
vacuums, bicycles, and other white goods to stage stunning-steam-punk tableaus
of domesticity. The thing is, it takes a lot of work for them to build these
fleeting moments of beauty.
The three women onstage spend most of their
time pushing around the vacuum cleaners, plugging in their lightbulb helmets,
fitting the bicycle wheel into the re-purposed radiator, etc. And it makes you
wonder, is it really worth it? And perhaps this is the point. You are reminded
of all the women, all across the globe, who perform that domestic labour day
after day. You think of all the women you know, who spend years on end cleaning
the same floors and folding the same laundry and, if you're lucky, you can
think of some who do it out of love. Because the play's title is true, domestic
labour can be a study in love.
As anyone who has tried it knows, to 'keep
house' means so much more than just cooking and cleaning. To create and
maintain a family home is undoubtedly a creative act that takes commitment,
diligence, talent, and most of all, love. Because those fleeting moments of
beauty in life, those take a lot of work, a truth that is adeptly represented
in 30 bird's staging of the show.
But where, I wondered in my viewing of the
performance, where is the love? I see the domestic labour. I see the
inter-generational and cross-national complications. I see three women who are
constantly kept busy with the seemingly mundane tasks of the everyday. But why?
Why do they keep performing for us with so little passion. Is this what's come
of feminism? No. It can't be. It can't be that after all these years of
fighting for equality, we are still helplessly relegated to the realm of the
domestic sphere, can it?
Those women onstage, why don't they stop
vacuuming, I thought. Why don't they say something unexpected. Please, I
pleaded with them in my imagination, just laugh too loud or make a mistake or
fart or do something, anything, that tells us you are real!!!! But they didn't.
They stayed steely and continued to perform their domestic labour. A shame
really, because they seemed so smart and talented. They just never showed us
the love.
Hi Molly - sorry it's taken such a ridiculously long time to get here - I had a real feeling of "wow that's super interesting" reading this, especially the middle paragraphs where you investigate why the shows feels like hard work in places, what that hard work tells you, and what it speaks about beyond the show. That section in particular feels really thoughtful, and also surprised me as a reader, in beginning with a premise then subverting it - that's really sharp writing. I think it's brilliant how you've taken on Matt's feedback from your last piece, and given yourself space and words to really tussle with the piece. The piece feels more bloggy as a result, and a task I'd like to propose for next time would be to aim to be as conversational, but less informal. Does that make sense? If I were editing this, for instance, I'd question whether your sentences need to start with "You see" or "Well", and I'd suggest taking out clauses such as "I wondered in my viewing" and "I pleaded in my imagination". I also like the way your opening sentence, although grabby, seems kind of pointless, but actually sets up the two arguments you'll go on to have with the piece. I'm really excited to see what you write next. All v best, maddy
ReplyDelete