Rebecca Lenkiewicz admires the suffragettes (© Catherine Ashmore)
A few years ago I worked as an usherette at the National Film Theatre and on one of my tea breaks was looking through the bookstalls under Waterloo Bridge. A huge and battered copy of ‘Shoulder to Shoulder’ by Midge Mackenzie caught my eye and I started reading it. It’s a fascinating history of the militant suffragettes and I decided that I wanted to write a play about them. My admiration for the movement grew the more I read. I became hooked on their pluck and prowess. Bookshops and archives are as exciting as speakeasies at the height of one’s quest. Recently, I watched a rare 1950s documentary about the suffragettes. It was hugely exciting to see faces that had become familiar through photographs now animated, and all of them 50 years older than the pictures I’d seen. Feature continues
The ’50s interviewer asks Sir Frederick Pethick-Lawrence: ‘Do you have any regrets about your involvement with the movement?’ Pethick-Lawrence, who helped run the Women’s Social and Political Union with his wife, replies: ‘No. When I joined the cause at that time, I thought it was vital that women should have the vote because I believed women were the same as men. Now, at the end of my life, I think it was vital because women are so very different to men.’
Christabel Pankhurst, still lioness beautiful, speaks movingly of her mother Emmeline Pankhurst with whom she had led the WSPU as a youth from Manchester, then London and finally Paris in exile. All of the women interviewed have a certain dignity and practical strength that seems rare now. One woman becomes quieter as she is asked about the force-feeding. Sitting there in her simple black dress and pearls, she recounts how she had been force-fed more than a hundred times. Describing it as ‘beastly’, she averts her eyes slightly and is obviously still deeply affected by the memory of it, of being locked up in Holloway, pinned down and forcibly fed.
An elite troupe of militant braves, the suffragettes were not defined by class or age, only a willingness to follow the creed ‘deeds not words’. The Liberal government’s refusal to discuss female suffrage and their vetoing of the women’s right to petition Parliament led the suffragettes to break rank with the law-abiding suffragists. They would use shock tactics to gain ground.
The campaign was adamantly non-violent but the ensuing attacks were a military operation. Churches were burned, as were a pier, golf courses, houses of MPs. One night the whole of the West End was a frenzy of smashed glass. Hundreds of suffragettes put their hammers through windows from the Strand to Oxford Street. Mary Richardson slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery ‘as a protest against the government for destroying Mrs Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history’. The Cat and Mouse Act had been introduced in 1913 to release fasting suffragettes who had become so weak that they might die. When they were a touch recuperated, they were imprisoned again. Mrs Pankhurst was re-arrested at the funeral of Emily Wilding Davison, who had thrown herself in front of the King’s horse, Anmer, at the Epsom Derby.
Their agitation angered women as well as men, who felt the suffragettes were de-feminising their race. Lord Curzon wanted them deported. Keir Hardie and George Lansbury championed them, but few other MPs cared or dared to. Their weekly paper, The Suffragette, carried news of the latest meetings, trials and imprisonments. It was fantastic to read and handle the originals in the Museum of London. Most moving, though, was a box of suffragette photographs, many with no names, just dates and places. One woman walks out of prison alone, she is thin and handsome, she has obviously been through hell and she looks at us, defiant and timeless. Perhaps she had been force fed. The women termed it ‘oral rape’: the government ‘hospital treatment’. The process was an horrific one. She stares at us as if to say ‘What next? I shall endure it’ and she’s almost smiling. The women like her, named, unnamed, undaunted, they were the suffragettes.
‘Her Naked Skin’ previews at the National Theatre, Olivier from July 24.
|
|
|
|
6 comments
Why are all the critics wetting themselves about this play? It is full of short scenes that go nowhere. Some great acting though. But a disappointing play for many members of the audience, if not the critics.
i saw this play yesterday' i found it breathtaking and moving almost brought to tears' the acting was fantastic and i'd reccommend everyone to see this production'. i had very little knowledge of this subject' however i'm now determined to research this very important part of history further' well done to rebecca lenkiewicz 'bravo'.
This was a very disappointing play. The one or two good performances could not redeem the muddled and cliche ridden script which was dire. Rebecca Lenkiewicz has done great dis-service to women in general and the suffragettes in particular with this fourth rate piece. She just does not know how to write for the theatre and engage an audience. Totally without merit and I can't help thinking that if a man had written it the National would not have given it house room.
I saw the play last night and was impressed by the set and staging , which was an ingenious way of separating numerous diverse scene settings . The acting was very compelling as well. It seemed to me, however, that rather too much was going on in this production and I found the lesbian sub text altogether too distracting in a play which had as its principal focus the most important democratic issue of the last century . I thought the most effective scenes were between the principal female character and her sympathetically portrayed husband ( who certainly had my vote , for sheer humanity , likeability and long suffering patience ) . The tension between these two characters was principally caused by the regular submission to imprisonment by the female lead .So far as I could determine , the husband was blissfully ignorant of his wife's infidelity with the seamstress . So if the relationship between the two women added nothing to the dramatic tension within the marriage or the motivation for either women's struggle , why bother ? I saw the play with my 19 year daughter and we both agreed that the huge themes addressed in this play warranted better treatment .
I'm due to see this next week. I can only assume there were particular problems the night you saw it because the play itself is fantastic. I've just now finished reading the script which I picked up today when I bought my tickets. It was extremely moving and I really hope the staging does it justice. I just feel really effected by it and I am not someone easily won over by cliches and two dimensional characters.. Hopefully if it wasn't great when you saw it it was because it needs to warm up still.. I'll comment again when I've seen it! fingers crossed it lives up to my now high expectations!!
I saw Her Naked Skin last night. It was either the worst play I have ever seen at the National, or the worst play I have ever seen. A cliched lesbian love affair between two undeveloped, two-dimensional characters (lots of kissing on park benches) undermines the real importance of what the suffragettes did. In prison the inmates wear decorous, obviously dry-cleaned, neat uniforms and merrily peel potatoes. I felt embarrassed for the numerous extras. I felt really angry that anyone at the National thinks this has any merit at all.