Women's Rights and Equality in Marriage in The Ucf Theatre's Production of Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw

UCF Theatre’s production of George Bernard Shaw’s Man and Superman falls in perfect line with the playwright’s intention of letting capable women speak for themselves yet still wholeheartedly and wittily supporting the case for women’s suffrage and equal rights. There is a demonstrated understanding of Shaw’s political satire and historical stance on the movement as well as clear design elements in the production to warrant audience understanding of the themes and messages conveyed in the original script, though it does concealthe perception Shaw actually had in regards to marriage and equality in marriage.

Shaw was often remarked as being a supporter of women’s rights, a renowned liberal and respected playwright. However, in his own words he believed women to be quite capable of fighting and defending themselves, not desiring to take up arms and win battles for them. He merely showed support and provided material that allowed audiences to think a bit deeper about the subject. However, when it came to the mentioning of forcible feeding in prisons for apprehended suffragettes, Shaw made sure to write more direct and outspoken cries of disapproval for these actions by his government. In these letters he wrote, he compared the denial of death as a form of torture. (Davison) Granted, Shaw’s views on marriage were rather harsh and counter what appears to be the outcome of this play in which nearly all characters find themselves in what are perceived to be happy unions. Shaw has been quoted in an article by Maria Popova stating his opinion that, “…when two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.” (Popova) So with this in mind, why are we presented with such a positive and romantic comedic tone by the end? And how does this compare to the original production in 1905?Personally speaking with the cast of the show, a lot had been cut to fit Man and Superman into a tight two hour or so time block. One such Act completely obliterated is that of Don Juan in Hellwhich serves as Shaw’s sequel to Don Juan in which the title character proceeds to have a philosophical debate with the Devil. All characters are played by the appropriate counterparts in the original play, John Tanner as Don Juan and so forth. (Shaw) Here is where the slight altering begins. Because of this, upon first reflection it seems that both Anne and Jack were able to reach an agreeable middle ground while this third act would have left audiences feeling as if Jack lost in some fashion, with the woman rising up to prominence through emotional manipulation. To Shaw, men didn’t take initiative to marry. Instead it was women who forced men to marry, which ended up being the case by the end of Man and Superman. UCF’s production didn’t kill this concept, but the removal of Act III does make it more difficult to draw the connections to.

The theatre staff, comprised of primarily students, are always supportive and cheerful. Granted, I do possess a bias as many of them are peers and friends so our greetings will be less typical than the average patron to the show. There was no traffic on this lazy Sunday afternoon, making a smooth drop off possible so that I could walk through the campus and arrive through the doors with a little more than ten minutes to spare. However, I did find that I took a seat a touch too soon as costumed characters took to the front and each began handing out pro-women’s suffrage and anti-women’s suffrage flyers. I observed from a distance, enjoying the bits and pieces of improvised conversation that I could as I also fell prey to the highly appropriate sounds of turn of the century tunes relating to women’s rights. Overall, these were very positive starts to my experience and set me up for a show I was positive I wouldn’t be forgetting anytime soon. If there is any clean way of describing how it all felt, it’s that it all assembled neatly together into a well-rounded package.

The first most notable pieces that stood out to me upon the start of the play were the lighting and the sound. There was a mysterious and smoky sort of atmosphere as the song This is a Man’s World bellowed out over the speakers to assist in the lights bathing of the stage in cool toned blues and purples. This immediately made me realize that a song from the late sixties held a connection to a play from the late 1800’s, meaning women have been suffering through oppression for longer than many realize. The environment opens up into a study, the lights remaining static with a realistic expression of how the inside of a study should be lit, only making changes for the second and truncated/altered third act where we are transported outside for the remainder in a “sun-lit” stage. And again, only during scene changes are we introduced to more relevant music of a more modern time, though aside from this sound plays less importance in the show’s plot. Upon the death of Ann’s father, John Tanner and Roebuck Ramsden are assigned as her dual wards, both of which cannot stand the other person and fight endlessly to convince Ann to pick one or the other. She of course refuses, manipulating the men involved emotionally while toying with Jack in an attempt to force him to admit that he still greatly desires her in either a sexual or romantic fashion. Our second and third act focuses on Octavius sister as she sneaks about with her secret American husband on a trip across the countryside behind his father’s back until all parties must soon confront their secrets and insecurities. Jack agrees to marry Ann, Octavius accepts heartbreak, Violet and Hector receive his father’s blessing, and all seem relatively at ease and comfortable with the outcome.

Costuming alone played a massive role in taking audiences back in to a time when “dressing up” was seldom a concept considering even in the comfort and privacy of one’s own home there was a manner in which one kept themselves presentable. The women all donned corsets and the men sported tailored suits and noose-like neck ties. A piece of costuming that stood out to me as well thought out was Jack’s costume change in the second act. His gloves, coat and goggles were a smart addition to the accuracy of the piece when taking in to account the common use of open top vehicles like the expression of one created in the center of the stage. In regards to scenery, the most complex set up took place in the first act with Roebuck’s study, the desk and chairs being the focal point of all action that took place.

Throughout the piece, the projection walls serviced as stain glass windows or views into the outside landscape, most creatively used when displaying women’s suffrage images or cartoons of the time period. The characters moved and behaved within the environment believably and acted as if these sets were familiar to them and understandable. A striking instance in my memory involves Roebuck’s chair and his intense desire to return to it once Tanner claims it as his own for just a brief portion of his monologue. It spoke volumes about both characters, one in desperate need of order and control, the other a wandering spirit with the desire to remain calculated but casual. More importantly, this kind of blocking made the characters feel human and relatable. It’s clear the actors were able to take this brilliant direction and deliver their lines in a fashion that didn’t leave audience members scratching their heads in confusion over what was being discussed. Emphasis was placed and punctuated in such a way that the timing of high class comedy could be readily accessed and responded to as necessary. I felt very at ease with the audience present, a fair mix of student and elderly in attendance. There was no disrespect visible in regards to phone usage or impolite discussions during the performance as everyone in attendance was thoroughly engaged in the relatable plot unfolding. I will admit, however, that Man and Superman is not and never was intended for a first time theatre attendee looking to dive into the world of the dramatic arts. It takes an understanding of the language and a willingness to engage on the level of Oscar Wilde or William Shakespeare which is fully understandable as Shaw’s language exhibits qualities of both. Thankfully, our regular patrons at Theatre UCF are of that variety and no linguistic punches were held on the afternoon of my arrival.

By the final bow, I was convinced this was a work that Shaw himself would have been proud of, even if his direct intention was hidden from plain sight. In some respects, it might make for a more widely discussed play as not everyone left with the same feeling as I did. A few conversations with peers brought to my attention that some didn’t agree with Jack giving in to Ann while others wished he would the whole time. The cast and crew did a remarkable job using the costumes and set pieces to transport audiences into the time period of the play and service the story in a way that allowed for a proper suspension of disbelief to take place.