CW: Transphobia (Misgendering, Deadnaming, Violence), Homophobia, Antisemitism, Neurodivergent Ableism, Nazis, Stasi

I have a lot of thoughts I need to put together in a document (I can't deal with another meltdown after pouring my heart out about Townies by Neel Patel and then the internet eating it - PSA: MAYBE DON'T READ ID YOU'RE TRANS), but in the mean time it's incredibly important to tell the stories of and discuss important figures in our history, discussing them warts and all, but with the compassion and understanding we don't share the same experiences. However, this play and Patel's short story highlight the importance of research, understanding, empathy, consultation and sensitivity reading when writing outside our own experiences, and just how vital it is to raise own voices in the telling of our own tales.

I don't believe Wright or Patel had any malice in the creation of their works, it is clear how invested in and caring about Charlotte they were. This doesn't change the fact that the Patel's story exploits trans trauma for the sake of drama and the language Wright uses around Charlotte's identity is disrespectful and harmful throughout the play, particularly in the closing monologue.

I would love to see a trans creator work with Charlotte's complicated, inspiring, and heartbreaking story paying the appropriate respect to her identity and exploring the uncomfortable dichotomy of her life and actions. ( )

A play about a German transvestite (now would probably be called a transwoman, since there is no indication the individual considered herself a man) who managed to survive both the Nazis and the Stasi, and became a bit of an overnight sensation after the Berlin wall came down and she was discovered running a quaint museum in Mahsldorf. Then she was discovered to have ratted out a friend to the Stasi, and an outcry ensued. It is a difficult play in many ways, challenging in the subject matter, and lapsing into frequent, untranslated German making it confusing at times. In addition, Wright has draped it over with the symbolism of having one man play all the parts, male and female (almost all male) wearing a simple black dress no matter what part is being played. I suspect this "clever" device would leave an audience confused. It is easy enough reading it to tell who is speaking, but trying to follow watching this, and having all the characters, including Stasi officers, dressed as women, when almost none of them are women, would probably cause the play to transcend confusion into...chaos? I also suspect it would not be as effective as symbolism as he would like, and would perhaps come across more as a "gimmick". At some point, the play sucked away my mood, and I was left feeling something I can't identify, but it wasn't good. The play was well written, but there was something wrong about it. I will continue to puzzle over that, and try to sort it out. ( )

Did it happen or not? A wonderful play about what we will do to be ourselves in times of adversity. ( )

In 2004, I had the privilege of watching Jefferson Mays perform this Pulitzer Price and Tony winning play. Reading the play now, it is just as magnetic today as it was then.

While the subject of the play is Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, the play itself is configured on the interactions of the playwright, Doug Wright, and Charlotte. This approach gave Doug the freedom to omit extensive history and politics but instead to focus on Charlotte’s perspective and on Doug’s process of understanding her and ultimately presenting her life to the audience. This was explained in the Foreword, titled “Portrait of an Enigma”. Unlike reading forewords written by others, Doug’s words clearly conveyed his early frustrations in breaking down this complex individual as well as the innovative moments; one of these was the use of a one-person actor playing 35(!!) individuals enabling Doug to include as many characters as needed to convey Charlotte’s unusual life.

Born as Lothar Berfelde, he became Charlotte and has been living openly as a transvestite in East Berlin since before WWII. She survived a stay in a youth detention center (prison), the Third Reich, the East Germany Secret Police (Stasi), and the Neo-Nazi’s. In 1993, Charlotte was a confident 65 year old who ran the Gründerzeit Museum in Berlin where through her love of preservation and antiques, she had curated a sizable collection of German history, having saved from destruction and hidden artifacts of Jewish culture and even reconstructed an entire gay bar at the basement of her home before it was destroyed by the communists. But the most notable of her treasures are music related, having saved over 12,000 records and the instruments to play them. The entire rear wall of the stage is presented as a mini-museum to the audience with numerous objects on display. To message the change in time and characters, Doug utilized two tools – the presentation of miniature objects to align with Charlotte’s words and the vocal talents of Jefferson Mays. Btw, in the foreword, we learned Jefferson was part of the creative process and came up with the idea of using miniatures!

This was such an engaging read that even though I had seen the play, I was flipping the pages like mad reminding myself of the story. Act II addressed a tradeoff she made in life to survive, and it is thought-provoking. It is a rare treat to read not only the story/play but also the process in creating the play. Doug’s enthusiasm jumps out of the pages with his exclamation that she IS the museum. Sadly, Ms. Charlotte von Mahlsdorf did not survive to watch the debut in 2003, having passed away from a heart attack in 2002.

Some quotes:

On dramatic heroine:
“Yet in my heart I knew that, despite my intentions to enshrine Charlotte, the Stasi file was a dramatist’s goldmine. It made for a better play. To omit its content would render my central character benign: precious Trannie Granny, rescuing wartime artifacts, running her covert museum, and providing a role model for homosexuals everywhere. That’s a character more suite to public relations that the rigors of drama. Dramatic heroine require dimension, the requisite character flaw that renders them hum. I urgently needed to include Charlotte’s duplicity; it was the price she paid for living the unequivocal, unapologetic life of a transvestite. To suggest she accomplished something so bold without compromise was to minimize the achievement itself. True iconoclasm always comes at a price.”

On preservation:
“When families died, I became this furniture. When the Jews were deported in the Second World War, I became it. When citizens were burned out of their homes by the Communists, I became it. After the coming of the wall, when the old mansion houses were destroyed to create the people’s architecture, I became it.”

On antiques:
“This table, he is over one hundred years old. If I could, I would take an old gramphone needle and run it along the surface of the wood. To hear the music of the voices. All that was said.”

On survival:
“Meine Tante Luise always said, ‘Be as smart as the snakes; it’s in the Bible.’ She said, ‘Never forget that you are living in the lion’s den. Sometimes, you must howl with the wolves.’”

On music:
“For me, gramophones, Polyphones, Pianolas – I must truly say – these machines gave me so much pleasure in my childhood. If I hadn’t had them, I’m not sure I would’ve survived. Things were so ghastly with my father – everything my mother and I went through. But the music would pour through the horn and make things better.”

On old age:
“An old friend of mine heard I was leaving town. She said to me, ‘You can’t transplant an old tree.’ I said to her, ‘I am not a tree. I am a flower. And I always carry my flowerpot with me.’”

On the Title of the Play:
“When I was almost forty years old, my mother was doing the laundry, yes? Hanging my stockings and my garters on the line. And she turned to me, and she said,’Lottchen, it’s all very well to play dress-up. But now you’ve grown into a man. When will you marry?’
And I said to her, ‘Never, my dear Mutti. Ich bin meine eigene Frau. I am my own wife.’” ( )

This is not really a play about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf; it about Doug Wright writing a play about Charlotte von Malhsdorf.

That's why I didn't like it. I wanted to learn about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf; I really don't have any interest in learning about Doug Wright. And I really don't care if in 1993 he had to sell his car for $3000 to raise money for a trip to Berlin.

Moreover, I didn't like the dramaturgy. Maybe it's "effective" on stage to have 35 roles played by one actor, but it seems like a gimmick to me. And I thought that the way that the play jumps around in time was confusing and distracting.

On the positive side of the account: the play is short. ( )