Calotype photography was not very pretty. A technological triumph at the time of its introduction to the world in 1841, it produced two-tone blurry photographs that were revolutionary, yet remained very unclear representations. Calotype, the play with the same name, focuses on the elusive life of Miss Jessie Mann and produces a similarly unclear and cloudy impression regarding its purpose and subject.
The play is set a few years after the invention of calotype photography, the King of Saxony has decided to have his picture taken in Edinburgh while touring Scotland. David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson, who ran the calotype studio which the King visited, are out of town, leaving their assistant, Miss Mann, in charge and responsible for his majesty’s photograph.
Thrust into a fascinating historical moment, Miss Mann’s story is clearly worth telling. It is noted in the show’s programme that not much is known about Miss Mann and it seems that this play is a way of attempting to correct that. However, it is also stated that ‘much of it is creatively imagined,’ due to the lack of historical information about her.
The play itself takes the form of an extended soliloquy while she waits for the photograph of the King to develop. Her thoughts range from the photograph she has just taken, to the process of developing calotype, to the historical and political events of her time.
One cannot help but wonder how much of what is being said is actually from the mouth of Miss Mann and how much is part of the show’s 'creative imagination.’ Given no personal stories about her in her monologue, we are left with general opinions about the split of the Church of Scotland and the issues of poverty and poor education in the city. She speaks about taking pride in her work, and insists that art should defined more broadly, but overall, we are given very little specific information to make us believe that she was real at all. There is so little actual content to what she is saying that it’s difficult to understand what the purpose of the play actually is.
The play seems to be constructed around providing more information about a woman we simply do not know much about. It is not that her life is not worth exploring but exploring it through speculation and generality doesn’t do much towards understanding her role in the photographing of the King. It provides so little concrete information about her beyond general, sterile opinions about art and politics that we are left with a vague and blurry image - more than we had before, yet far from anything impactful.
