Thank you very much for coming. This is wonderful, especially to see this turnout in week for you.
Thank you. I really intensified and this is a win for many of you know, the first official event of the re-election performance network.
And so snipers could be enemies of the system. And I think some of the others are here and reimagine performance is a network.
And essentially it's a virtual and literal gathering space for people who in theatre performance.
What about the psychology of opposition or somewhere in between?
Suppose we're here in this university doing a favour for this department,
but there are so many different possibilities for performance work and there is a space to a lot of interesting conversations,
hopefully with scholars and practitioners joined together about knowledge.
And if you know what I mean, unless you're more than welcome, give me your email address.
The AM presuming if you're here, that's probably far. You've come to understand how.
So this is sort of moving conversations with the attorney tonight.
And to give you a rough idea of what the events will look like, we are going to show you throughout the conversation some clips of.
It's true. It's true. It's true. Again, I've never really seen it.
But for those of you who have come forward to support, it is a really interesting point that we want to talk about.
And content. Morning. Absolutely. Long discussion of sexual assault, sexual harassment.
Will that be conversation with Foley about but at the end of this piece, or is he willing to do some of your questions very,
very disciplined and make sure that we need to be absolutely delighted to be here today, really, really a social conservative company.
And I'm going to let Billy and Alex introduce themselves to the company, probably a bit less awkward for all of us if we just hear them.
But he said. All right, fine,
but I'm the director and co-writer and I'm one of the pilots and co-writer of the story
and our company Great is and it's me and one of the guys we made primarily documentary.
And so we cannot say documentary anything because a lot of the way we work,
we incorporate devising process alongside and documenting the debate and transcript and other stuff is going on.
And we tend to get the stories from either the recent or distant past, say, about the times we're living in.
And so occasionally, although is a bit more contemporary and definitely with this show, we were looking to find something historical not to speak to.
Anything else? And I think we're always interested in playing with truth and dealing with quite serious issues, but also trying to use humour.
I think that would be but that's just a small of.
Thank you. So do you want to let the next clip speak for itself or do you like to do it?
What is it? It's true. It's true. It's true for those of who haven't had the joy of watching the show.
So I haven't seen it straight,
straight through is a debate in a courtroom drama during a court trial that see seen in 16 12 who was accused of raping a young female artist.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. And so the show is an all female three hander that takes those court transcripts
and a 400 year old child I devises around them to restage it for centuries.
I don't know what it is, but I have it.
But it's true. It's true. Yes, it is.
And. Since the disappearance of so many of the same groups like the it's not like I might be if you click on the.
I could never be wrong, 16, 12, the court, but the questions are all selected and the answers given to the Italian.
Each testimony of the seven month trial is written down, but not all of the pages survived,
what remains four centuries later is translated into English and now will be spoken again.
Everything that follows is true. I was taken last Friday from my house, the entrance of Santa Spiritual,
it's about 11 o'clock and I'm can't imagine the reasons why prison and all this interrogation.
OK, we will get there.
First of all, how can you come to do a search and rescue of in your area for about a year to get across the street from being demolished?
And how about his daughter, Artemesia? I was told she was a respectful young woman.
So I don't know what my elder daughter began to associate with respect.
You know, and to come to a meeting with the judge went well to mention I began to enjoy each other's company very much deeply.
She sure I was so happy.
His daughter and I become friends.
He actually hugged me quite warmly so I could enjoy a separation as she was always alone and didn't have anyone else there.
And then if we take a pass to get religion and. Now.
So do you want to know why what drew you to this trial, how do you find out about it?
Why this material to start with? Yeah, sure. And so I think I first heard about amnesia,
where there is an exhibition at the National Gallery a few years ago and could be on that you just talked about, which is bogus.
And there's one painting that which was done, rescue.
And there's an interesting article just kind of about her and talking about how and she did this,
which so many, you know, is a kind of iconic starting painting.
And there was an article about how that painting is often being read autobiographically.
And because the artist had been subject to this kind of infamous trial and whether that was a fair assessment or not, whether it was a painting,
and within that article, it said that the court transcripts that existed and that she had said in the trial the words, it is true to say it is true.
And while the torture, one of which is obviously very shocking, awful, and and we, as I said, often working in a kind of debating ish way.
And this is kind of at the beginning of this sort of it's true.
And the meta kind of momentum movement. So we're having conversations around that.
And then, Alex, at the same time, within the making of you might say so we kind of mesh those two ideas together.
And early on, I think we were quite clear about what it was to be a female and we were interested in doing something quite stylised with it.
And so I think the idea of it being all female and done in quite a heightened way is of.
Conception. That's right. So can I ask you about the script?
So am I, right? It was a seven month trial and the play was an hour and a half an hour and 20.
So I think it got longer. So maybe it's better that you take the bait to me.
Tell us about the process of putting a script together from seven months with the trial transcripts.
Yeah, so when we so we started the process by first we have to find the transcripts, which actually were quite easy to find in the end.
They've been translated and edited by an art historian called Mary, and they were at the back of her book.
And so we found those and we our first process was just to read through them all.
And I think how many pages was it was 80 pages. Yes.
It's not complete yet. It's not complete. There are holes in pages, but it's still quite a lot.
And actually a lot of it felt quite dry.
And there were loads of characters or people that you hear from for sort of half a page you were interrogated.
And, you know, it's a question of structure, of a play as well as finances.
We knew that it was going to have to be a three hundred, maybe four a person.
And we couldn't have sort of cast of 60, which was the people that was in it.
So we went through and we made a list of the characters that we thought were the most interesting and the most intriguing story,
which in our case was Artemesia Tisia, who lived in the house.
I see Taxi and we found that sections. And we basically this is where we start by.
We took some information that all the characters said and we incorporated them.
So there is the structure in the show about the house we call it.
It's your turn or your turn to go where she has this moment where she sort of says
that Isaiah Thomas came to the house that was actually said by someone else,
but he did have quite a similar time. So so we merged those characters that they did have.
We do smash things. We did what we said at all times, but in no way.
Yeah. So we had to do that kind of to make it make sense, really, but not really, really early decision that we were going to start.
I can't stop saying like we're not is a lot of editing.
Editing, editing is the way the creative editing it. Yeah.
But we when we started by putting all the information that we thought was interesting,
is what we called our toolkit, which is what we gave to the devices when we started working with them.
And at that point all the information would still like to show the three and a half
hours long and slowly we just started pulling it back and back and back then,
you know, we took this idea of holes in the pages, the fact that these transcripts don't exist in full,
healthy status as an invitation sort of read between those lines and fill in those holes,
which is where we sort of started using some devising and we allowed modern voices to come through and change some of the language.
I think what's interesting for us, what was interesting is that even though these transcripts exist in sort of the and form,
the questions were originally asked and that in the answers given in Italian, we were reading an English translation.
So already the idea it had been interpreted once already.
So we were then put in another interpretation on top of that.
So even though we're saying it's verbatim, we kind of knew that was already flawed because the United States and it was just that I think,
you know, the form of the show, the approach always came about by accident. I think in the initial debates in courtroom drama do like, you know,
one of the tribunal plays just kind of edited it down and it and that's the comment in itself.
And then when we actually read it and as I said, it's kind of half testimonies and square brackets,
then text me here and characters you hear from there,
we were like, actually, we don't have to do something, you know, much more interesting in the end.
And so I think, like I have to say as well about the small cost also being about finance, it's just very small scale to accompany those,
you know, kind of pragmatic decisions you have to make, I think actually themselves quite.
And you can ask about using me and then using the devices, explain, because we use the devices.
Oh, I actually think it's all of us. Well, I mean, actually, in terms of the process of this show is interesting because I was a kind of traditional
writing process that happened in between R&D periods where I had very established working,
which is what I'm Google Doc Open, and then we'll both just be on it, sort of making edits as we go.
We actually did have probably the equivalent amount of time in those writing processes where we were thinking about structure,
how one thing led to another, making decisions about merging characters.
But then, like I said, when we took that information into the room, it's still three and a half hours long.
And that was just the bait and stuff. So the devices really did help shape it.
And it was a very impulsive process, actually, of thinking, OK, we never see this and I would like to see it.
And so can we now think about how this is or we know helped me to talk about how are we going to talk
about this thing that happened to us or can we please imagine what she would say in that situation?
So actually, even though the process that was a sort of we as the company, it felt very we as the group that made the show as well,
I think that there were lots of different versions of authorship at play at once.
And I suppose even on you on your published text. Right. It's it's true.
It's true. It's true by British theatre, like dual authorship.
Very quickly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And I think that's always I mean, that's what's exciting for us about making this kind of work inside the show.
The written text you end up with could only be created by that specific group of people at that time.
And it also does make it complicated sometimes terms the ship.
And in terms of, you know, this is also working with the original, uh, the basic material, which actually we have to licence the underlying rights to.
It's then when we look at the text now, what's the basis in what is right?
Well, and actually it's also, you know, in Meshed Together. And you can ask about the terms of a 16 12 trial, which plays very,
very well in lots of ways and mean a certain of the English law, not Italian law at that point.
But I'm interested that Artemesia father never turns up, that it's as though she's the one putting you on trial.
Was that the case or is it because it's certainly an English law at that point,
if I remember rightly, the father could sue the seducer for damaging his goods.
If fact, that's exactly what happened. Yeah. So that's in the transcript begins with his petition.
He's saying exactly that. You know, this man has written to my daughter and marry, which really when it comes down to was the issue.
And I think he was originally in the mix for us.
But like you say, we sort of reduced it down to like, what's the simplest?
Well, the simplest three to four times you can tell the story is the accuser, the accused and the person who's complicit.
And I think we kind of just thought, what's he doing here?
I mean, as you said, historically, that would have been the case.
And that's one of those moments in the show or in the kind of concept of the show that feels very,
very different to now where this actually is a rape trial.
It's more a trial about women's honour and the fact that he's not going through the marriage, that.
And so I guess that was us taking a the licence kind of editing by mission to get that she was not in trouble, guess.
So, yeah, I think you've got you got all the the things that you would get from Iraq to standing up and saying,
I'm bringing this, this is the Danish people.
Such you actually get that from Artemesia as well. You know, she says that she says, this is offered to me and he won't marry me.
And actually, it's I think it's more powerful and more painful to hear about it within her world than.
Yeah, I don't know. So that you get with the information without a father and without that sort of power structure, that makes a lot more modern.
Yeah. And some of the best be left out of the sort of sexual harassment harassment in the street.
I mean, yeah, it's that in the divorce, whether it's the moments that then sort of lift it out and we have to do that within moments,
you know, that are there in this I mean, this is what we found.
So mind the transcripts. The first time is how relatable they were.
It doesn't feel like it's from 400 years ago. You know, Artemesia at one point, she obviously has her testimony about the rape itself, which is,
you know, like they said, we were making it through when the meta stories were just breaking.
And so, you know, we're hearing them everywhere. And then after that was the Covena trial.
And it was almost like, I can't believe this is becoming more relevant every time, like not exist in its own world.
But then there are more subtle, like insidious little ways that sexual assault features such as, you know, she says.
I always say, though, she says, someone said to me, I need to sleep with them.
And if I said no, they said they were just going to tell everyone that they did it anyway, that I've done that.
And I have people that happen to at school, like I know so many people that happen to at school.
I even had a version of that to me at school. And it was like, that's 400 years ago.
This is what we talk about, like the 2010s, you know? I mean, it's just it's don't it's so relatable.
It's depressing. But it meant but it is I can't believe I stood up with games like we like comedy.
You no, it's it's horrid how many things in it.
It just hasn't changed. So it did speak for itself.
And then I think, you know, there are exceptions that we left the base and we didn't change the world.
And there were other things that we modernise.
But I think when we spoke about that before, it's actually surprised people about which bits we've left untouched.
And. Yeah. Can I ask about that, because it's really interesting the way you do it,
because I think sometimes verbatim when things like, say, Rubenstein's is talking to terrorists,
that there are some very recognisable characters and they like my mother and you've got actors doubling and tripling and all the rest of it.
And there's a sense in which this is true because it's the words.
But this is a very obviously doubling and everything gives you that sense of this sort of into the sort of complete pretence.
It's so it's being honest about its own falsity.
And you can tell me a bit about the courtroom scenes and, you know, choice to have women play men and how far it becomes about the artificiality,
the body language and everything else that's being about performance and all sorts of.
Yeah, I think definitely we I get some scepticism of traditional forms of debate that I think of the sort of obscure the authorship,
whether it's what's happened, we kind of present themselves, as he said as well.
This is true because these words are said and I think we wanted to draw attention to the activity.
And that's why we have this introduction at the beginning of saying, you know, these are the transcripts from this trial.
A lot of the pages are missing. So the gaps are being filled in. Your attention has gone through a process of translation.
And I think that's because for us, we are always interested in the idea that the way you tell the story or the fact that you were telling your story,
I guess is as important as the story itself. I think in some of our previous shows,
the way we've drawn those connexions between the modern and the historical has been to kind of
integrate character and stage or have a very better metaphorical kind of shape of the show.
And in this one, I guess kind of as an exercise for ourselves, we're like, actually, we never want to break it.
We want to be inside the drama, but we don't need things that come through that say this is contemporary.
And I think one of the key ways that we do that is through music.
So in the TV voting rights reasons, it's always kind of like a library on vocal tracks that reflects the kind of sound like we use on stage.
But we use a lot of contemporary music and music from the kind of 20th century onwards and upwards.
The costuming is very stylised, as you said, even through the material that you're drawing attention to, like the actual performance.
And I think that part of this for us is about, yeah, encouraging you to think about the contemporary parallels without breaking character.
And so, you know, we're doing this because, um. Yeah, yeah.
I think the only other thing I would add is in terms of what we're saying about the old female casting.
We let you talk to about five seconds of it not being an all female.
So, no, nothing. And I think the idea behind that is because power doesn't need to be, like, performed by,
you know, in this particular story, a man does not need to perform Tassy and show him over power.
And women like power is the way your son is.
The way you hold yourself is your ability to walk into the courtroom and take up the space is the ability to break that and move.
And I think we were interested in one the room being the safest room it could be in the
sense that we I just think that I'm not saying that it's only women who experienced this.
So there is like a shared level of understanding Onestop conversation from a specific point.
And that's how we felt like at the beginning of the show. That's what we were going to do.
So it made it safe in that way. It also drew attention to.
Yeah, like the power structures in that office. But the amount of people who I didn't you just buy into it.
I don't think people watch, for example, Sophie, who's trying to say I don't think people watch that show and think it's a woman playing a man.
I think people really, you know, they get lost in, like, the power dynamic in how she holds herself or,
you know, we didn't really have to be as well in the device and we didn't think,
you know, where where you put your voice, how you started doing it was about playing the character rather than gender.
If we both was going to have to say performance. Tassi both are very, very different interpretations.
Both times it's kind of just happened that you really haven't had to do a whole.
And I became a man. This is me just doing what they do is they been completely different to each other because Sophie has her references.
Was using so of, um,
I think she's sort of like tapped into like Boris Johnson and some major Chelsea actors and then has because when she came into the house, by the way,
plays Judith in this, but he they said it's tough advance about one of our regional advisers,
you know, the Cabinet Office, and she wants to come in at trial. And she rounded herself and up and they both played the characters so differently.
But it was toxic, both of them. And so many people just fell in love with them.
It was so, so weird what it is about toxic masculinity. The audiences can't get enough of it anyway, and there's nobody to take back the show.
And so it comes on the White House. You you you know, people would come sort of sobbing like so moved.
I really love the show. So your friend never stop.
But yeah. Yeah. I mean, there is something I mean, we some of the students here, we talked about this.
I don't think anyone at least admitted in the classroom to falling in love with somebody.
But this sheer sort of hypnotic performance that she puts it, I mean, it's terrifying, genuinely frightening.
Yeah. I mean, she is incredible as a performer. And she really did tap into the the big.
The small. Like the loud that the quiet, she's yeah, she yes is incredible, but it was quite scary to play against her as well.
Yes, pretty scary statement. Yeah, both of them were. But just in competitive ways, I mean, it's just the way they both look at you.
It was like, yeah, no, I think when you when you allow yourself to like, dress in that power and just take up those spaces,
you can't help but interact with them in a very specific way that is very threatening even when it's not being outwardly and obviously so.
But yeah, I think that's a really lovely word. I say, yeah, just wearing power through gesture rather than, you know, we don't want to.
It was incredibly powerful even in the performance because you're so aware of that
in the switch from time to time and that kind of that sense of owning a space and,
you know, expecting to be listened to and being able to pace your voice very slowly because, you know, people wait.
Yeah, it was really interesting, actually.
We went and saw a production of its very recently in France and I did speak French, so I can understand a lot.
But they did make policy was played by a man, an older man,
and it was really interesting in that process of watching the text because obviously I knew what was happening.
Some bits were different. But what do you play it kind of literally in the casting?
I couldn't figure out. I don't know.
I couldn't figure out how it felt, but I was watching and being like this is not trying to shy away from the artifice in relation to this.
And yeah, I don't know. But I didn't say it was really interesting, but I think it confirmed because, yeah,
there's been a few kind of other productions and I think it confirmed the idea did actually.
One of the conditions should be there is no female play and we're seeing a drama school doing it to.
My students were very excited to see it. And by three female performers.
Yeah, I'll be interested to see that, because the idea of the production scene seen where the casting is most of the time is.
Yeah, it feels like it was built as you're seeing around it being well with everywhere.
But it's the only thing different ownership of the story, a different something which you tell.
It's the ways which makes it your story. As a women, I, I don't know.
I mean,
I would be interested if people feel like that when that condition has been put on them of being like the film industry from a being female group.
I think for us it felt it did kind of give us ownership and we were talking in an intellectual way of life.
Will ultimata Paintsville these women coming together and they're doing this and it
feels very it feels very playful and there's a lot of solidarity between women.
So that makes sense that that would be the heart of what causes um.
I don't know if it comes to that, but I do think I needed to say what I said before.
It made it feel safer. I would say and I don't know if that's fair because we've never made the show without any other configuration,
then I believe that it will always be the same people that were in the room.
But I think it allowed us to take ownership of the characters in a very safe way.
And then we would take breaks and we would have tea and then we would come back.
We were very low and very high in that rehearsal process, which is why I think there are moments where we laugh.
And I find it very funny at the moments where we really allow ourselves to go quite soft and quite dark.
But I never felt unsafe. And my focus on who wanted to talk about that, they we're going to show is at the time shooting the film clip.
But it's one of the first moments where you stage a time.
And it is in this case, it's Susanna and the Elders, which can I let you explain much clearer.
But this is the moment after the staging when you when you were not there is explaining her version of.
Let's be sure. Could you please clarify to the court what you believe the relevance of this particular case?
What do you mean? Well, this is an iconic image and just it's been painted by men.
Yes, but this isn't just about the story, is that this is about how you painted what you make a painting say.
I mean, my completely different to the others looks pretty similar to the U.S., but she's not just not going to get the same shape.
Right. Sorry. Have you even seen any of the others. Starting come up.
No, no, no. I just talked to a lawyer. He just painted Zuzana to be encouraging folks.
They might look at the angle of her body pointed away from the just is inviting that Gazit who want to step away from the other,
presumably menubar you. I mean, she's you know, she's naked.
She's naked. It's not that she is naked because that's what people are when they have balls.
The point is, in my painting, you can clearly see that she doesn't welcome any of this.
And I painted that because I do hope that. So to be a woman who was being portrayed as a man who was getting off on it, honestly, I'm sorry,
but being really honest about his shoes, she is quite clearly just more like having feel in my garden.
I might see them outside because I'd hate for anyone to think that I'm going to do them here.
I'm going to watch. I always stop watching me.
And he's going to put up on our shores in the room like me and the things that are being referenced there slowly.
Can you tell us just a little bit about this? I mean, first of all,
I suppose just the decision to stage and I'm already covid I think that word in terms of what you stage these things as part of the proposal itself,
why did that come about? And I think we were really clear early on that we wanted to incorporate them guess in a kind of basic staging way,
because it's an interesting texture to art. We've got some images serving as the kind of inspirations for this,
and we liked the idea of having almost two worlds within the show where there's this kind of factual,
historical and moving performance that comes through the debate and stuff.
But then the paintings being just this kind of otherworldly, so bright and so, you know, fantastical.
So I think on a basic kind of staging level, it was exciting to have that let's play with.
And but we were also interested in this question of how that works and how life the paintings seem to, if not be completely autobiographical,
then to be expressing something similar to what she experienced and how we might reverse things together.
And so we the moment where we bring this in is just after us, maybe just talking about being pursued by two men.
And we know that she painted her first is on her own. So it's not necessarily autobiographical, but the things she's talking about are dynamic.
She's familiar with and and definitely she is subverting, as you can see, like the traditional way that it's depicted.
If she's not invited and she's turning away and she hasn't got this kind of she's not dressed like that.
And so we're interested in setting up that contrast between the two and I guess in doing doing on stage what she's doing in the painting.
So having Alice and as the performer naked rather than nude, and I'm kind of talking about her presenting herself in that way, I guess.
Anything else you can ask about the dynamics of actually performing that?
Yeah, I mean, it's often needed to be defined as a powerful thing, but that whole thing about you said,
you know, where it says the presumably male viewer, it's an audience.
How far are you how far does it feel like powerful and how does it feel to the people through.
And I and there's another whole dynamic where you have to sit here with yourself naked, as I know you did ask me.
And it was fine. It does feel fine, I think. And in terms of this moment in the show, it does feel like a powerful move.
I think basically and I remember the conversation that we had before we started making a show and had said this is before we cast it.
You know, I think there's a question about a performer who plays on Twitter.
Might we need that? We should ask them if they feel comfortable taking off their clothes because nobody feels really integral to her work.
And I was like, yeah, that wouldn't be gratuitous. Like the performer. Obviously, they have to be comfortable with it, but that really makes sense.
And then we cast it and then it was there a moment.
Yeah, the first preview, because everywhere that we had tried to rehearse the show was basically a glorified greenhouse.
So every time we got to this point, I'd be like, announce the moment you got to take a picture of a so and not today and then.
But it meant that the first time I did it was in a show setting with an audience. And we didn't attack.
Or do you not notice? It didn't surprise me at all.
And they said to me before the show started, you don't have to do it.
You absolutely don't have to do it. And I think I mean, you know, it takes a lot of things to go through isolation and opposes.
The first really was the first time we ran something the whole way and actually doing it.
I was like, no, this makes sense. This is how if she's choosing to dress to show her art and then, you know,
that's something between the nature of the show when she doesn't choose it and when that's taken away from me.
But I never at this moment in the show felt shy about it or felt nervous because I felt like it was it was a power move for her.
Now, something interesting, I think it's the projector screen is the thing that does it.
But, um. Yeah, no, I actually do I do feel okay about it.
It is a very weird I think there is if we're talking about it really bluntly,
there is something very interesting about what it means to take your clothes off in a form that is included in the face and you do exist in a void.
You can never watch it back. That's what it is.
When I did this, I had a phone call with someone who said, you know, just see where this is going to go and be busy.
You might be Troas. You might want to come with your social media for a month.
And I thought, oh, that's so depressing, especially in relation to what the show is.
Um, but that's not happened. So and that that was conversation that people had to have with me.
And I was so nervous about it. So never did happen.
Did you. Come on. I did come off my social media, which didn't make no effect of anyone because I never posted on anyway.
I was just a lurker. But, um, I yeah, I did take myself off it just because, you know, I think if your if your brain is that way inclined anyway,
that you're worried about what people are going to say, which I am, I'm not confident at all in that way.
It is just a very. Yeah but why would you want to put yourself out there.
So I absolutely believe in it in relation to the show.
But in terms of the decision to do it, I only did it because it felt like the right thing to do in relation to the show,
not because I feel like the world is of a comfortable place to do that.
It does that mean there are different dynamics within the theatre,
that there's a sense in the sense once it's up on screen and that's part of the world of social media, that the power balance shifts.
And this is about artemesia, about in some ways controlling what's looked at that, making the image is in some ways controlling the gaze.
Yeah, I think they're way in between. You feel like you're able to do that in a way that clearly social media.
It's I think so. I think you buy into it.
There's a contract between audience and performer where, OK, we're going to experience something for an hour that's going to exist in this moment.
You're going to leave. I'm going to leave, and then it's going to be over. And you expect, you know, it has actually happened.
Once you expect that people won't take photos, you expect that people won't abuse your trust in that way,
like you're sharing a story and then it will be done. And I think the form of it, the record of it changes like some of these screenshots.
I think that can happen and.
The credits are there and people can find you, people who haven't actually shared anything with you, they've just watched something that you've done.
And I think that for me was something that I became incredibly aware of.
We've actually just shot a short film, a short film. And that is that was like the first thing I've ever done for Hummer's,
because this basically run as a third service record and I'm having that same thing now.
It's just such a different mindset if your experience is better because it's such a temporal experience and then suddenly it's not anymore.
It's something like this forever or as long as the hard drive exists.
And I just think what's really interesting, what that does to you psychologically know something in that film, I hope that makes sense.
I feel like can I ask about that? You know, sort of going back to the to the to the theatre audience itself.
And it feels like there are sort of two if if if Tasser is constantly playing to the audience.
Right. It's always a little like, you know what I mean? You know, you get that you get that joke.
If that is one of the really key moments where at least for me, I'm aware of you gesturing to the audience right in your audience.
And then we decided it was time to show. But it's truly a moment where you are my understanding, maybe this is real room.
What you're saying. It is true. It is true. It's true. It is true. And it is to every member of the audience.
Can you give us a sense of how you figured out those dynamics of you and the audience?
Yeah, so that's true.
So I think the painting description I remember you saying to me as a note and saying that is where Artemesia is going to feel most comfortable.
She's going to be, oh, she's going to own her. She's going to love talking about it.
So if she's tired and weary in other moments, this is when she's ready, you know, that's her arena and she gets to be the showman.
And it's true. Suction was a fluke. So that was also the same preview.
We hadn't really figured out what to do in that section,
but we knew I need to set dressing to the stage and I certainly needed to change and it certainly changed.
So it was like to fill the time.
And again, it was it was a very impulsive process. So I felt like everyone trusted me to make a decision.
And what became incredibly apparent is that there was an audience and I wanted to talk to them.
So I went through every audience member and said, it's true, it's true, it's true.
And actually, that became a really, really important moment of the play,
because I think firstly, that's what we're about to change form when we leave the courtroom.
But I got to think about as me Panopto not me just saying it's true.
I think about as myself as a performer, share with the audience a reflection that this is true and it's happening now and this is what's going on.
And we're not even trying to deny that it's true. There's no dramatic interest in being right.
But maybe she's lying. And it is a moment of just collective recognition and sadness before we take that sadness
and we move and anger because that is a more helpful fade into the of the theatre with,
um, that's how I think about it. None of us is bearing witness moment.
And what I'm interested in, Helfant, that kind of justice, for example.
But the one about the Stephen Lawrence enquiry that at the end there's a point where he stands within the play to bear witness, to remember him.
And in the light from the beginning, everything. The audience then stood as well.
And there was that sense of opening, being in a room together, acknowledging something and giving it to your attention.
Is there a sense in which that moment that you had that it's true is made some of the same thing?
Yeah, I think so. Um, it was definitely something about the yeah.
We did this on tourism. It was like the audience at that point,
which I guess on a very basic level means that you can see the audience and then we're acknowledging within a shared space that's not happening.
So I think there is something you were talking about there being a shared experience, sharing the story together.
I think that is a moment where we really, really want to draw attention to that.
And it feels like just speaking with you, saying as well that you kind of stop being artemesia about the audience at stage.
It feels like because of the repetition, when you repeat something several times almost loses, meaning.
I think in this case,
it's like you repeated several times that it's losing its context and becomes almost about every woman who has this experience or every.
And that kind of falls away. Yeah, I decided that version of the picture earlier in this book is Wonderful Friends, for which I love.
And you're going to have to write down so we can publish it to you.
But how does that fit with that concept of truth that is so, so highlighted at the end?
There is that version of verbatim truth or truth, and it is true together for you in this production.
I think one I think like we are, as I said, for like drawing attention to the act of restaging to draw a kind of parallel.
So we want an audience to consider, I guess, consider how they're watching something and to constantly switch the way that they're engaging with it.
So at times, something feels like it is, you know, historical fact being mysterious.
At times something is clearly anachronistic and say, oh, actually, what am I saying?
And just because we're interested in that, I mean, the idea that and yeah.
That that brings something to it. But I think, as I was saying, is that it feels like within the play, it's like everything can come into question.
Apart from the truth of what Artemesia saying, it's like there's only one certainty in the play,
and that is that this is happening to her and everything else.
I feel like we're sort of trying to put the audience in some way or to play with their expectations when they're watching.
Yeah, yeah. I think that's as well through decisions of what we leave verbatim,
really ask me just testimony of the ways we have come out of it, but we don't take the words and the torture section is verbatim.
And I think that's exactly what we're listening to. So let's speak for itself.
We yeah. In terms of that threat, we knew what we didn't want to interrogate.
We watched like there's an awful French production about to be seen.
It not not a production. Sorry, a film. Yeah.
Those are not completely rewrite the narrative so that when she tortured she says, no, I love him, I love him.
And he's like, please, please stop it, stop it. And I can believe that watching how much someone's narrative can be changed in that way.
And I also don't even understand how you can do that within the context of what I was trying to say.
So I think, yeah, we were very aware of what we wanted to be true.
Yeah. You said just now that there's no dramatic interest for us in being like, oh, that wasn't true in terms of what she's saying, but it feels like,
yeah, that that repetition of it is true, I think is also drawing attention hopefully to that as well as the audience would like that.
What is it I'm watching how much of it is historically true, how much of it is being devised in response to the world?
What's happening outside of. I mean, there's so much to say.
That's what you're saying, but I think we probably need to open to the audience and maybe someone will ask about the Goldfields.
But no. And an all questions. Anybody have anything they would like to begin with?
Yeah. So we saw it in the Gulf War and it was so powerful and we thought how great you were as well, all of you, that you and.
This really struck by the story, and we didn't know it was true, and I just this is just coming into question.
We went into the wine bar next door and looked up all the paintings.
So brilliant with how you incorporate those images into the drama.
It was fantastic. And it certainly sparked an interest and.
How did you that? This is a question that you were going to put in, and I think we sort of had planned,
so that is to say we had a kind of writing process on devising this kind of both in between.
And we knew that we would use a bit of text about how these are being pursued by the two men.
We're going to overlay that with the painting.
And I'm going to say it's going to be in there because that's kind of defence or not is can be read as a kind of great artistic analysis.
But I think what we wanted to play with was then how those paintings were kind of woven into the first time around.
She kind of going on stage that says, here's my painting and this is why I did it.
We kind of see it in two ways and we're quite interested in breaking out the second one.
And I'm getting this idea of Judit, the period as this kind of guardian angel figure with my staff through the canvas.
And I think there was that moment that actually the line came a few shows and ways.
And now I need you now to this. And I think that is kind of you as a performer thinking what does that mean to me to come to?
It's not just to it is going to be just some of those kind of people ready to come home.
So I think we printed it down to maybe those two paintings originally. There are a few we're interested in.
There's one called, um, self-portrait of the other painting she's painting and she's come to visit to some of the artists and the subjects.
And there just wasn't really interested in those things.
But think we're going to have this one with the baby, with Bathsheba, which I think was that was the ending originally was meant to be quite a few.
So for some people would realise we can't do this without the kind of ritualistic physical evidence that, uh oh, gosh, I'm sorry.
You said that you wanted to create like Aida. And that was pretty productive.
They certainly created this vision stuff and kind of like especially like trauma and all the stuff about
actually how it's and it doesn't necessarily get into things that you have an idea about some a long time.
And actually acquisition like Power to Stop Love is helpful.
And so I was wondering, is that based on this kind of play and do you want to create things like that?
Can I stand up and do that is another really, really good point.
I think the anger thing when I say that that was very specific probably to where I was at that moment in time.
Like I said, we were making it through meta stories and I was so TSAs like I think we all were.
But I was so sad reading over and over again these stories, and I felt really helpless and I didn't really know what to do with that.
And I think it's just like I felt like I was like, well, I want to make something because I feel angry.
But the anger is coming out because I just feel so sad that happens every day.
So the anger is probably very selfish and it probably was like, I need to move it into somewhere.
And it gave me a reason to laugh. But I think something that we really tried to think about throughout the show was to have
the audience like we were saying that you from the first rehearsal and we were like,
okay, we don't want to. And hopefully you haven't done this.
Like, we don't want to, like, trigger people in the audience. We don't want to tap into in an unsafe way people who've had this experience.
We made those decisions very often to that.
You know, when we say anything in relation to the right, obviously we ought to try and keep touching to a man and woman.
So anyway, that's about trying to stay away from as much as we can within the subject matter.
And I think that we care and love basically at the current time for the audience that was kind of in the thinking of the structure of the show.
That's obviously I haven't read the study because I just yeah, I never felt like I needed to because that period of time felt so heavy.
And I know we're having this with so many different things, but it's just heaviness.
Like, I just needed to shake it off. And that means like, um.
Do you have anything to add to that? Yeah, I think there's something else as well.
And I think the structure of the show ends in that place and takes longer.
But there's something that happens between the performers on stage that is more you also suggested around like love and solidarity.
And you were talking earlier about how the song is ending and the move away from the pervasive.
Came through almost instinctively from the performance.
What do I need in this moment and what we try to do as well as like I guess with the anger being the like, stabbing, beheading of.
Yeah, it's kind of environmental damage that perhaps the life she had.
And then what comes out of that is the soul in the United States of showing solidarity.
Some people say that feels that there's a tension there between life is like a revenge fantasy, like she kills them and she got her revenge.
But I think there's something else to perform the performance, just something else as well.
I think that's why. Why does it matter?
We've got some really I don't want to start feedback on the other side of the show.
It's true. And I was like, no. Oh.
But I think that was also why we have that sort of epilogue where you guys say this happens and it's really like this awful things that happens.
But I get on and I did this and I did this and I did this and I did it.
Actually, if we start this whole show instead of this, we say you have a retrial, but the end always feels to me, at least to someone to the audience.
I think the audience felt largely from the way he would interact.
So it kind of lends itself to replace and I don't really know how we got there in the sense of like that feels bigger than if I started this.
I would imagine that's horrible. But I think that's what instigated writing and thinking about of the audience.
That's how it goes. I hope that's the case.
I'm going to sit by the place and focus on being as realistic, truthful as possible with the data that the original script,
but also because it's a play, it's a performance as a theatrical element, the performance of the practise of lighting.
How do you balance being as truthful and correct as possible with that performance?
I think we said beginning in kind of a prologue, someone says everything that follows is true.
And I think we did that kind of as a bit of technique or as a bit of a play with your expectations of what you're going to see.
So I think there's something about setting out the beginning of the show saying we're
going to follow this is what you're saying is kind of strictly truthful as possible,
but then it kind of unravelling into something much more weird and theatrical.
And I guess what I hope we manage to do is keep a kind of emotional truth at the centre of it while moving away from the.
So would you say. Yeah. Yeah.
Yes, and I was like that when you do that,
is to say it is true and the title is mysterious and it's just like always something I've wondered about, is that a sign?
Because that means that was an issue, just like we was talking about and focus on a more contemporary.
I guess it's true, but maybe it is true. Would it be a stronger title?
Mostly I remember having a conversation with I said it just like you say it's true.
Or one or the other. I thought we were like we were at the top of the list and I thought you were like, no, but that's interesting.
What I said was true. Yeah, but I don't really know,
I can't I remember what it says in the original transcripts and it felt like something was it was like translated into a lifetime.
OK, so what do I say? It is true.
Yeah, yeah, I you might say so. I think that needs to change just a little.
Yeah. I think there is something actually there about the way it hits.
And I would say, like Mary said, after a while, it starts to not feel like words anymore.
And actually it is true. But then it's true, it gives you just something else to hit.
Like, I just think it came about how it came off, but then I probably paraphrase and change the lines.
So, yes. I was on my back the filming of it, because I noticed I watched it like in the film that I like,
I was acknowledging of the camera because I see my film say it's very like the camera I saw in the audience.
And I try to basically be invisible, whereas I think all three of the actors were going to be watching it.
So I wanted to ask, like, how that decision was made.
And also, if you want to talk about the gold paint, I want to hear it.
And it says the family made the decision basically.
So we have five families we shot all the way through the play, but like five members that have been limited to 22 shots.
So we basically sometimes we to with the film director and he basically says the actors
treat every kind of like of the audience when you want to address an audience member.
We have 12 audience members who were like the jury from the president.
When you want to address the audience, which is addressing. And see the inaudible.
We just have a few ago is another one where we use the term rather than painting.
You're looking at it.
And I think really it is about trying to capture that life experience of being in the service and start to dress for what it's being cast.
It was a jury of peers in the courtroom that you just felt like I was never let down.
And the gold paint. What is that?
How would you describe did? I mean, I. Yeah, yeah.
I'm so you let me say, the convicts,
if you seen for a moment where it's Tom Scre torture in which they come to you and instead of trying to stage that,
you have dipped your hands in gold paint and then it's the event photo that gives you a visual image that we use.
And yes, we came up with this idea of doing the idea of how we represent the thumbscrews, which aren't particularly the middle of street,
I think is and I came up with this concept of a painting which then kind of
spiralled into a wider design concept where the cool because of the studio.
And I just worked and we had like a bucket of water that I did not want to go back to the vision.
And I that in terms of the colour, we kind of went back and forth between red and literal whites is sort of the genesis of whatever I doing.
But that just didn't work. And then it goes.
We did a trip to Florida to start the research base and most of the paintings at these homes go to.
Very destructive paintings,
and so the cold is kind of a reference to that the well at that time and how to fund it through its very rich and poor families.
And it was inspired by the shape a company called.
See, I couldn't agree, and that was all female side of women seemed like we lifted quite a bit stylistically and women wearing black suits,
many of those kinds of gold medals for the whole performance.
And it's basically like political rhetoric and slogans like weapons and things like this.
And we just love to look at the gold and see what I would think of the gold as well as we see statues of people.
So so, yeah, when you see people trapped in time kind of representing an event or a moment that's happened to them that in gold and that I
think of that as sort of almost like people wanting to be artemesia in this moment and the same type of emotional response,
that that's always how I felt, that I had something that.
And there's one thing by and Jan, how big is it going to be about the show?
And she talked about the patent being applied to of saying that markets everything that artificial touches
and which wasn't necessarily on the interpretation of the big mark somehow by the torture and by the rape.
And that being something that sort of sticks to her and goes in cycles effect when it was like really stupid decision practically,
because she really suits the whole time. It's easy for me, like specially made very intricate software.
You've got time for maybe one more question and then I know I'm looking at you, but this person is so funny, you know, I mean, it's also.
Yes, I suppose it has the biggest impact.
So, yes, we've been feeling impassioned of the show and that's I wonder how much you guys have for us to discuss,
like an ideal audience member on this and whether you find it in some sense targeting the show in between between the states, but targeting the show,
people who experience something that maybe is relatable to the show as far as the sexual assault,
et cetera, whether it's actually more challenging people's views, like,
yeah, I kind of feel traditional, like not go up like, oh,
I guess it is going to be important to able to change your mind and kind of give voice to whether it was.
Yeah, I mean, I I think when we were making it, we constantly checked in on, OK,
if someone has experienced sexual assault or anything like on a small scale or large scale disruption, how are they going to feel watching it?
That was always like the first thing I think in terms of like that was really like an idea, an ideal audience.
No, but I remember I mean, I just basically said this as well as something bigger.
So I'm sorry that I'm repeating myself. But the moment we were making it and was so specific in terms of all the news that
we were reading and we knew we didn't want to make a show that was about me,
too, we need to make sure it was about all finished and people that it was, of course, and exists in the context of the moment.
Everyone was watching and hearing.
And and so I think it became about and then I got to thank you for giving me the space of reflection on the whole thing,
as well as a smaller thing and finding some sort of solace and safety in that in coming together and sharing a moment based on I'm sorry.
What's it like getting some security from sharing that moment as a community
in this space and then knowing that you can move past these stories as well?
Because the way that the accounts are happening is obviously that kind of frozen in time.
They were about incidents and then that was the end. And then there was another one.
And then there's another one where we actually get to move past this one and I think leave in a more hopeful position.
Um, so I think that was who my target audience was at the time.
Now, I don't know what to do, what you think. And I don't know, really something I was thinking is Artemesia as a kind of painter.
I mean, like a lot more recognition now. So there's just been this exhibition at the National Gallery.
And and there's a few things that we know are in development about life and at the time,
like there was no name recognition, really like Artemesia that's listed.
So on a really basic level, I think we just we want to bring this woman into like public consciousness.
And like others were saying, we were always really, uh,
certain with ourselves that we weren't making a need to show that we were making a show about one specific story.
And I think at that time, we felt like we were trying to correct a historic wrong of this woman who was incredibly famous in her time,
being forgotten throughout our history. It was just about like, let's get her up.
And it feels like that that's changing the last few years, which. Thank you.
On that note, an enormous thank you, guys.
That was fascinating and wonderful on the plate with.