Lesbian love amongst suffragettes in Her Naked Skin
By
Nicholas de Jongh
1 Aug 2008
When the roving hands of Lesley Manville's middle-aged Lady Celia Cane and a cockney seamstress called Eve (Jemima Rooper) collide in a watery pail of potatoes in Holloway prison's kitchen, their eyes meet too. It's the Naked Skin moment of Rebecca Lenkiewicz's intriguing, poignant play about the Edwardian suffragette movement, the women caught up in love and politics, and the damage they caused themselves by their selfsacrificial bravery and obstinacy: when Miss Rooper's heart-rending Eve is subjected to force-feeding, with the revolting, risky process acted out in meticulous detail by guards,wardress, doctors and nurse, it looks to contemporary eyes nothing less than torture of a kind that could and often did precipitate death by infection.
Miss Lenkiewicz's ingenious idea is to portray the cross-class, lesbian affair that breaks out over those potatoes, between married Celia and Miss Rooper's memorably smitten, vulnerable Eve, as a microcosm of the feminists' campaign to defy the rules of society. In charting the rise and not very well explained fall of the romance, its symptoms confined to perfunctory kissing and hands under skirts in parkland together with a brief bedroom scene, the author skates over the fact of Celia's five children.
She does highlight the problems of discovering yourself a sexual outsider in middle-age and of crossing the classdivide. Manville's cool, poised Celia invites little sympathy when facing up to her unloved, despised husband, whose anguish is powerfully registered by Adrian Rawlins. Unfortunately concentration upon the women's turbulent relationship means the vital, political aspects are glossed over.
Despite its fluffy grasp of the politics of 1914 Her Naked Skin does offer a vivid impression of Edwardian society in embattled crisis. Rob Howell's set is dominated by two tiers of prison cages, emblems of a society trying to put a tight hold on freedom and women regarded as captives in gaol or out of it. The bleakly humorous Holloway scenes are absolutely superb, suggesting the infinite ways in which the suffragettes were harassed and humiliated by dumb authority: the hosing down of Susan Engel's upper-crust protester particularly repellent. Initially the play tingles with political vitality in Howard Davies's epic, musically atmospheric production. Filmed images of Emily Davison throwing herself in front of a racing horse give way to scenes of the suffragettes in action - breaking Regent Street windows, having their Hyde Park meeting broken up by men, caught up in shooting practice in Epsom Forest. Asquith's Liberal administration, caricatured as buffoons which they were not, withers the suffragette's pillar of parliamentary support - Robert Willox's impassioned Keir Hardie - with languid, lordly contempt.
Susan Engel, in tremendous, witty form as Florence Boorman, the elderly, unmarried suffragette leader, offers haughty, triumphant antidotes to official agents of authority. Asked by Holloway's doctor what she thought of women who had whipped one of his colleagues she retorts "I hope he paid them the going rate." Miss Manville's taut, tense Celia finally emerges from conflicts over politics and sex, Her Naked Skin's big loser, having failed to pin her colours to any mast.
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (5)
So many critics gave this underwhelming play four stars. Why? There is a gulf between critics and audiences in their response to Her Naked Skin. It was full of very short scenes that petered out. For the history, and for the good acting it deserved three stars, never four.
- Derek, London, 02/09/2008 21:41
Report abuse
I so agree with all these comments. Such a disappointment. And I really think that the generally good reviews by the professional critics are baffling - like they are all too nervous to criticise a play by a woman about women - The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome I think.
- Alice, London SE9, 19/08/2008 12:51
Report abuse
At the end of the play, I suggested to my companion that it should have been cut by half an hour. He replied no - it should have been cut by two and a half hours. It was boring and apart from the brilliant set by Rob Howell, had little to recommend it . All the reviews remarked on its being the first play by a woman to have made it to the Olivier, as if that were a good enough reason (excuse?)for staging it. Some of the audience voted with their feet and left at half time.
- Lynn Ten Kate, Crookham Village, Hampshire, 14/08/2008 16:11
Report abuse
I entirely agree with Denis. Why has this been given four stars?!
I went to see this last night and was completely underwhelmed. It was like a BBC Schools drama that failed to ignite.
I cringed at the lesbians scenes which seemed to take over the entire plot, favouring audience titilation and patronisingly presenting these grown women as a couple of giggling school girls without every really commenting on what drove these women to act out for the cause.
I am also bemused as to why Jemima Rooper has received such praise for her performance - she let the play down terribly will her Putney High School performance. Thank goodness for Lesley Manville, who carried the play.
In short: An illuminating and moving subject let down by a poor script.
This is now the second play I have been to at the National which has given in to stereotype and bland banality. Such a shame.
- Kat, London, 09/08/2008 11:29
Report abuse
Saw this on Wednesday. Its a tv movie, not a play. If, like the people sat in front of us you didn't know anything about the Suffragettes or Lesbians, you might find the first half enlightening (they kept tutting any time anything romantic happened). The second half is wildly boring and slips into...nothingness, at length. It wasn't even lively enough to be melodramatic. Good acting, but the play has nothing to say, and takes the best part of 3 hours to get there.
- Denis, London, England, 01/08/2008 13:23
Report abuse
Tonight:
5°c















