We see the second Courtesan, a victim of contemporary sex traffic …
DL: We got rid of the pathology … is it more political?
M4: in this version she’s telling more than her own story, it’s phrased in a way that makes us think beyond her character.
DL: he does say “every courtesan in venice …”
M4: I didn’t believe him.
M5/Sean: I think a stronger character comes through in the first scene.
W3/Tara: but why is the revenge aimed at the women in the first scene?
GLK: because she’s interested in humiliation and and shame, not murder.
M6/Hanny: SW is a little simplistic, but she also sees simple things – like the Spanish Civil War – and acts on it. That’s her strength. but rape as a political weapon is complicated, and I think she shows her weaknesses when she tries to deal with them. I think she reduces the issue – I think it’s a corrolation between the author and the character.
JH: do we know if SW was trying to approximate any historical versimilitude? is she imagining that the crimes against the women is equivalent to the crimes against the men?
DL: everything she’s talking about in that scene is about something that no longer exists. It raises all kinds of questions about immediacy and adaptation …
[Ruined at MTC, an adaptation of Mother Courage, Godot in NOLA …]
W5: are you saying that interpretation creates politics?
DL: I’m just saying it’s a contentious point.
M2: this play seems tricky because the characters seem allegorical – because it’s only half-finished you have some parts that seem truthful, and others that don’t – the idea of how a general talks vs. how a courtesan does …
Jeff & Jon both smile at this and admit that, quel coincidence, we have a scene with the generals … and so we glide, smooth as buttered silk, into Renaud & Jaffier on the Bell Tower …