Wendy Stephenson

Having read your statement, I think there are some much bigger questions that need addressing about this production and the people behind it. I'm increasingly concerned that the makers of The Pelicot Trial are more interested in using other people's trauma as artistic material than in the women whose experiences they're supposedly honouring. Milo Rau has built an international career around turning real-life atrocities, criminal cases, sexual violence and human suffering into provocative theatrical productions. This isn't an isolated project or a departure from his usual work. It is an established part of his artistic approach. His previous productions have raised serious ethical questions. Five Easy Pieces used child performers to explore the crimes of Marc Dutroux, including child sexual abuse. Lam Gods featured simulated sex in front of child performers. His work repeatedly pushes boundaries around violence, sexuality and the representation of real human suffering. Rau clearly sees provocation as an important tool for political and artistic intervention. But at what point does the pursuit of artistic ambition come at the expense of the people whose trauma provides the material? His work has brought him international recognition, prestigious festival platforms and commercial opportunities. The Pelicot production itself is internationally co-produced and presented to paying audiences. What does it give back to the people whose suffering makes it possible? And what meaningful benefit does it deliver to victim-survivors beyond another theatrical representation of sexual violence? I appreciate that Gisèle Pelicot has consented to the production. Her decision is hers to make, and I respect her agency. But her consent does not make every creative decision beyond criticism, nor does it invalidate the concerns of other survivors. There is also a difference between bearing witness to sexual violence and turning it into theatrical material. The intention may be to educate, challenge attitudes and provoke social change, but good intentions do not automatically make the methods ethical or the outcome worthwhile. Your statement acknowledges concerns about voyeurism, sensationalism and the potential exploitation of Gisèle's experiences. I think these concerns deserve more than an acknowledgement. The questions I would like to see answered are: What exactly is this production intended to achieve? Who benefits from it? How have the dignity and interests of victim-survivors been protected throughout the creative process? And how do you distinguish raising awareness from turning women's suffering into a spectacle? The issue isn't whether these people have the right to make this play. It's whether turning women's trauma into theatrical material genuinely serves the interests of victim-survivors, or whether their suffering is being used to serve the artistic, political and commercial ambitions of those producing it. Women who have experienced sexual violence are not raw material for someone else's artistic career. Their trauma is not a creative resource to be endlessly repackaged, performed and sold.