This play reminds me of the sort of `theatre of the absurd' which we did in the 6th form, in the late 1960s, with our trendy drama teacher. It comes from the time of travelling theatre workshops visiting schools with anti-racist and gay liberation agendas. It is like a hilariously funny farce with its cross-dressing and some of us would love see it performed or, at least, see if it is on Youtube. One member of our book group said that if had seen it in 1979 it would have changed his life.
The first act, set in Victorian Africa, shows how the colonials regarded the natives as primitive, herdsmen would gladly chop off others' heads and wear them round their waists and how some natives knew their place, were `white' in their souls though black of skin.
Friendship between men is seen as better and that of a husband to a wife, who is there for reproductive purposes but `there is something dark about women....irrational, inconsistent, lustful; treacherous.'
One woman's advice to a soon to be bride, who knows nothing about sex, is to just keep still. You are not getting married to enjoy yourself
Homosexuality is seen as a `revolting perversion' which led to the fall of Rome and is more contagious than diphtheria. It is especially important not to do it with natives since it would be a betrayal of the Queen.
The second act is a hundred years later, though I don't understand why the characters are only twenty-five years older. Attitudes to sexuality are supposed to be liberated, there is mention of The Hite Report but there is still a feeling of oppression, with some male characters wearing dresses. Maybe attitudes don't change as much as we think they do.
Although the play is well put together, the first act is more believable that the second. The second act is more disturbing than the first. Its people claim to be liberated but are actually quite dysfunctional.
One member felt that it was cartoonish, a bad attempt at a Monty Python sketch. The charcters, wheeled out as stereotypes, are mannequins, upon which we can project. This view was challenged by one who said that they were more akin to archetypes or emblems.