In Cloud Nine, playwright Caryl Churchill examines issues of gender identity, sexuality, and individual freedom as they exist within two traditional and oppressive ideological paradigms: colonial imperialism and male hegemony. By juxtaposing these worlds of political and sexual domination, Churchill draws a parallel between the paralysis imposed by both frameworks on the development and expression of a unique and authentic personality. Churchill dramatizes his argument strikingly by challenging the cornerstones of theatrical convention. Specifically, it challenges the usual methods of representation, as some of Cloud Nine's main characters are played by actors who do not, in any physical or obvious way, resemble those characters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWhen she violates the viewer/reader's expectations so drastically, the playwright runs the risk of alienating her audience. Because Churchill distorts and eradicates the standards of dramatic characterization so boldly, the staging of Cloud Nine has the potential to border on the ridiculous or gimmicky. Audiences are so disconcerted that members may begin to disengage from the business of the show and dismiss its theatrical experimentation as too brazen to be taken seriously, too exaggerated to be intelligent or provocative. However, if one registers such an impression of Cloud Nine, I believe that it is a defect not of the drama but of an audience conditioned to assign fixed attributes to the characters (or to the drama in general) to make them intelligible. Cloud Nine is not interested in offering satisfaction in this somewhat prosaic way, or in indulging its audience in this simple and usual process of understanding. By challenging his audience to reimagine what a "play" can look and sound like, Churchill simultaneously challenges them to reimagine the traditional ideologies he wishes to consider. Thus, coherence in Cloud Nine, if not achieved through a collective recognition of “form” or “character,” paradoxically results from its very lack of superficial cohesion. It is through her style of fragmenting, redefining, and reversing gender roles that Churchill can carefully examine her subject and construct a powerful polemic, her case for feminism. How I believe Churchill arrives at his larger, more cohesive statement (through a layering of seemingly disjointed elements) is multifaceted. At the most immediate level, Churchill is attempting to deconstruct the concept of “gender,” separating it from a mistakenly assumed organic origin or justification (also known as “sex”), to argue that gender is neither “essential” nor “biological ”. Rather, it is a social construct that reflects and is supported by a broader ideological framework. Therefore, Churchill must avoid treating his characters as autonomous, fully realized “persons” and instead represent them as vessels for the articulation of accepted socio-sexual mores. She creates this play and sets the stage for her main artistic and political argument, in the first act of her play. The first act of Cloud Nine takes place both literally and figuratively in the male imperialist milieu: set in a British colony in Africa during the Victorian Era (colonialism) and features main characters whose gender is fixed but true sexual identity censored (hegemony male). In this first act, Churchill uses his distinct dramatic approach, his fragmented “gender play,” to portray the sexual confusion ofits characters. Betty, the wife of the main patriarchal figure, Clive, is played by a man. Edward, Clive's son who displays a significant - and therefore unacceptable by patriarchal standards - level of effeminate behavior, is played by a woman. In addition to the obvious choices of (anti-)characterization, the dialogue in the first act further attests to the notion that freedom of personal expression is stifled in a male-dominated social context. Specifically, the dialogue in this act looks/sounds highly stilted and controlled, as if filtered through the eyes, ears, and lips of patriarchal forces (i.e. Clive). Absent from the subjugated characters, as a sign of their “slave” status, is a clear connection between the speaker and the content of the speech. For example, Ellen, Edward's housekeeper, is one of the first sexually bold and progressive characters we meet. He harbors and attempts to express romantic feelings for Betty. When attempting to profess this love, the "Betty-as-man"/"Betty-as-Clive" figure seems completely unaware of both Ellen's innuendos and her more overt actions. In scene two of the first act, Ellen kisses Betty very deliberately, without hesitation or ambiguity. But Betty simply ignores this surprising event; it does not question or directly address the potential meaning behind the kiss. Instead, as a conditioned subject, Betty returns to the script of patriarchy, discussing her adulterous, but more normative, feelings for Harry (Clive's friend and also a symbol of male hegemony). He tells Ellen: “Everyone will hate me, but Harry is worth it…Harry says we shouldn't go away. But he adores me. Ellen then tries to put herself in the "role" occupied by Harry, to present herself as Betty's lover, replicating the form of his speech: "I love you Betty", she imitates. However, Betty fails to understand the depth of feelings behind these lines and mistakes Ellen's words as a simple affirmation of friendship. Later in the act, upon Ellen's explicit admission that she loves Betty and would rather die than leave her, Betty rationalizes: “You don't feel what you think you feel. Here there is solitude and the climate is very confused. Come and have breakfast, Ellen dear, and I will forget about it. Of course, I'm reluctant to even personify Betty in this way, or to attribute any instance of self-guided thought or action to her "form." Doing so gives Betty a kind of distinct humanity or individuality that her lack of personal sexual awareness precludes. It is inevitable that Ellen never speaks or engages honestly with Betty, as the latter is not a genuine, free-thinking, organic-feeling "person." She is the product of ideology, and the puppeteer pulling the strings behind her every move – the patriarchy – is undeniably omnipresent. Betty and other similarly subjugated characters are disconnected from their authentic sexual identities, as evidenced (and emphasized) by Churchill's deconstructed style and cross-gender casting. In the second act, Caryl Churchill continues her deliberate theatrical experimentation by further manipulating the physical form of her characters and tampering with her audience's expectations of coherence. Specifically, in this second act, he shifts the established roles, ordering that they be played by actors of the same sex (for example Betty is played by a woman and adult-Edward by a male actor). By making these changes and extending his degree of stylistic fragmentation, Churchill suggests that his previously oppressed figures have escaped the shackles of patriarchy that define identity. The characters now achieve a more complete reconciliation between mind and body, between words and feelings, marked by more expressionhonest about sexual preferences. Individual beliefs are embraced and owned to a greater extent. For example, the second act introduces the new character of Lin, an open lesbian who bluntly expresses her homosexual feelings for Victoria. She and Victoria have an exchange in scene two in which the two women, rather than their respective manufactured "types", engage in active debate. Lin's personality seems to confuse Victoria, who at one point complains, "You're so inconsistent, Lin." This phrase demonstrates well the differences in the worlds that Churchill captures in the separate halves of his work. First, this piece of dialogue reveals that Lin is afforded the luxury of a mercurial nature in the second act, which in itself is the sign of a complex and non-fixed identity. Secondly, the excitement of emotions and frustration that Victoria conveys would not have been possible in the first act, where the opinions of the main characters were quietly and rigorously “colored within the lines” of the social context. Furthermore, in the second act, Churchill gives her more outspoken homosexual characters, strength of conviction and command of voice, thus rewarding their honesty and suggesting that theirs is the healthier sexual alternative. For example, there are moments in the second half of Cloud Nine where Victoria expresses her lesbian feelings, thus conveying liberation of thought, recognition of sexual identity, and transcendence from the paralysis of patriarchal mud. He asks Lin, with a sort of insecurity that testifies to the sincerity of his words: “Would you love me if I went on a mountaineering expedition to the Andes?...Would you love me if my teeth fell out? ..Would you love me if I loved ten other people?” However, she too falters, plagued by uncertainty. Although she hopes that Lin will love her in these different scenarios, Victoria rejects Lin's invitation to come live with her. Lin, on the other hand, remains unmoved and replies, “Jeez, then don't do it. I'm not asking because I need to live with someone. I'd like it, that's all, we'd both have fun. This lack of pretense reflects the authenticity of the character. Because she does not compromise her position and desires in the face of Victoria's criticism and doubts, Lin prevails as the stronger, more self-fulfilling female character. However, to fully understand how Churchill skillfully achieves the great coherence of his work through Despite careful fragmentation of style, one must consider the fact that Victoria expresses a certain reluctance to honor her true sexual desires. Compared to Lin's confident voice and fully aware, unapologetic figure, Victoria seems weak and even a little fake. This is because she, unlike Lin, remains focused on or interested in taking on a role of some kind, and consequently invokes the conformist expectations of the status quo. For example, at the beginning of scene two, Lin very simply and brazenly asks Victoria, “Will you have sex with me?” To this request, Victoria responds ambivalently: “I don't know what Martin [her husband] would say. Does this count as adultery with a woman? His thoughts continue to be bound and conditioned by patriarchy. Rather than focusing on her needs, interests, and desires aroused by Lin, Victoria is concerned about her husband's respect. She's more torn about the threat he might pose to the stability of their typical husband/wife dynamic than worried about honoring her feelings for Lin. Victoria is not alone in presenting this very interesting paradox, between asserting a sexual identity that defies tradition, but seems to want to belong, or find her place, within that same theoretical framework. Gerry, Edward's partner, also clings to conventions and at the same time claims to reject them.Feeling stifled and no longer longing for Edward, Gerry lashes out at him critically: You're becoming like the wife...stop it...stop being the hurt wife, it's not funny...I'm not the husband, so you can't be the wife. In these lines, Gerry puts on a show, hoping to convince not only Edward, but himself, of a disdain for traditional sexual paradigms that is fundamentally fraudulent. By so vehemently expressing his dislike of these antiquated concepts, he actually seems to subscribe to the standard more than the object of his attack (Edward). Why the apparent contradiction? Why does Churchill bother to reverse his initial interpretation of cross-gendering, in order to vividly illustrate the dangers of male dominance, if he intends to continue to represent some characters in the “better” world of the second act as adhering to patriarchal tradition? It is undermining its own choices of style – why, if it does not move towards a greater, unifying purpose, does the increased fragmentation of the work not remain relegated to the arena of pure artifice? Perhaps – that aside, the argument Churchill wishes to build in Cloud Nine goes beyond simple oppositional confrontation. Churchill is not content simply to propose feminism as a preferable framework on the grounds that it contradicts patriarchal thinking. After all, Cloud Nine's most radical and free characters are those who don't conform to a structure or play by a set of codified rules. Lin certainly falls into this category, as does the adult Edward of the second act. Compared to Gerry, Edward, with his calm, subdued and decidedly “non-dramatic” responses to his lover's criticisms, is the stronger and wiser of the two men. By her own admission, she longs to behave as a wife ("I don't mind," she says) and fulfill related domestic responsibilities. For example, he would very much like to knit for Gerry. He usually makes dinner, but doesn't object to Gerry having a shift; Gerry is simply a poor cook: "If you want, you can [prepare dinner]," he assures Gerry. "You're no good, that's all." Edward's focus is much more pragmatic and realistic; his words respond to his true needs and desires. However, he does not consider these desires or activities (such as knitting and cooking) as mechanisms of a larger social scheme. It's simply his personal preferences. By expressing himself in a “traditional” way, Edward is not perpetuating a patriarchal structure as Gerry mistakenly assumes. Like Lin, Edward is simply listening to the commands of his heart. “Everyone has always tried to stop me from being feminine,” Edward protests, and then states, “I would rather be a woman.” In other words, Edward is not content simply to be an openly effeminate or gay man. Before he can fully express his sexual identity, Churchill suggests that Edward must completely shed his outward definition (his outward appearance as a “man”) and take on (or perform) an entirely different gender. This is the most profound and provocative point. Churchill has searched throughout his work for the most compelling and effective way in which his style of fragmentation is coherent to frame his conclusion. Through his systematic deconstruction of form and character, Churchill successfully separates the social notion of “gender” from the biological determination of “sex.” The author then dramatizes how gender roles are essentially vehicles of control, assigned by a patriarchal context as a means of sustaining its oppressive ideology. In recasting the second act with actors who more closely match the gender of their "characters," Churchill suggests that his characters are free to explore and.