critics and defenders of Rock Apocalypse

I am a playwright in search of some drama. Could all those who participated in the forum entitled "Rock Apocalypse - Perth" (started 11 Feb 2008) please contact me either through this site or via email on: apocalypseperth@yahoo.com.au Hope to hear from you Kate

I'm serious!

Why does it interest you? You haven't explained that aspect.

As someone who posted on the Rock Apocolypse thread, I received an email from Kate reqeusting my permission to use my quotes for her production. I've said no. At the risk of being seen to censor artistic expression, I'd encourage others involved in the thread to join me in saying no. Her concept is to turn the discussion thread into a piece of theatre to be performed at the Blue Room. I certainly think it has the makings of an interesting piece of theatre, and could say some important things about the nature and impact of criticism... However, the reason it might be interesting is that the discussion was pretty extreme. It highlights a production that does not appear to have been typical of the quality that we generally see in Perth, and some of the comments made in the thread are (to put it bluntly) immature. In my opinion the discussion was embarrassing. Embarrassing to JETS, embarrassing to a number of individuals, and embarrassing to the Perth community theatre scene in general. That it occurred in the first place is bad enough - the thought of it becoming a public spectacle horrifies me. There are a lot of theatre goers that avoid community theatre - partly because its not well advertised, and partly because it's considered to be synonymous with 'amateurish'. These same people tend to be genuinely surprised at the quality and level of professionalism when they do venture in. This Blue Room play would only foster our 'amateur' stereotype, and give the public a reason to avoid our productions. More importantly, if someone thinking of getting involved in community theatre were to see this play (or check out the thread in response to the publicity it might generate), then they're just as likely to walk away instead. I don't think this episode represents the typical community theatre experience, and it certainly doesn't highlight any of the positive benefits of being involved in theatre. The truth is that we are a fantastic and supportive community, and one that I love being part of. None of this comes through in the discussion thread - indeed, it indicates the exact opposite. The main problem I have is that this production would be marketed as a verbatim depiction of the discussion thread, and would by implication be viewed as an accurate portrayal of our community. I simply don't think it is. Garry

I tried to avoid a potentially anonymous national online debate - but seeing as we're here... I wanted to contact you all individually to describe the project myself, but Garry D's summary of what I am doing is pretty accurate. I am turning the forum into a piece of theatre about the nature of criticism and online communication. I would like to emphasise that I am offering the opportunity to contribute further. Tell me how you feel about the forum, why you hate it or love it, why you contributed, what you think it means, and I will put your point of view in the show alongside the forum itself. I want to put this debate onstage. You can remain anonymous or claim credit as you prefer. I am offering a small fee for permission to use any part of your original material. I agree that the Rock Apocalypse forum was extreme, and could be described as embarrassing. However I do think it's supportive of theatre, because it's passionate, it's thoughtful, it's dramatic, and it's about the relationship between theatre makers and audiences. Let me know what you think. k

I've been feeling a bit guilty about my posting above. I do think the project has the potential to be damaging to the community theatre community generally, and more specifically to JETS and some of the individuals involved in the original discussion thread. On the other hand, it does have the potential to raise some real issues for discussion that could ultimately be of benefit. I don't know that I want to be involved personally, as my reservations (some of which I've stated in my email above) still stand. However, I have communicated with the playwright outside of this forum and have been impressed with her responses - I intend to give it some more thought. Regardless of whether I become involved myself or not, it's wrong of me to attempt to stifle a creative endeavour on the basis that the outcome might not be pleasant. Public apologies to you Kate for my very negative posting, and I hope that people make up their own minds about the merits (or otherwise) of what you're doing. Garry

Hey Kate, if you give me free head, I'll happily talk about my Cock Apopalypse

It doesn't sound like a very interesting concept for a play.

Walter Plingerest said "It doesn't sound like a very interesting concept for a play." Really? ? It sounds to me like you are pre-judging the end result (...and may also be a bit confused in your use of the word 'concept'). Sorry to say it, your statement above doesn't sound like a very interesting argument. I actually think the concept IS very interesting. Verbatim transcripts, real people's thoughts, actual dialogue, true characters, local controversy and honest drama being somehow crafted into a piece of live theatre is a fascinating concept, which I have never seen done before and so I consider it highly original and therefore very interesting. Now what you maybe meant to say is that you didn't think it would make an interesting play. That would still be showing your prejudice, but I'm not prepared to argue against you yet (if that's really what you meant to say) because it may yet turn out to be the case. I would rather wait until I had SEEN the play before I argue over whether it turned out to be interesting or not. And you really have exposed a can of worms here. I don't yet know what you WOULD consider interesting, but I am already finding that I disagree with your way of expressing it. There's a fairly high chance that I may be misrepresenting you, and that the simpleness of your statement does not accurately reflect the depth of your experience, taste and opinion in art. Yet somehow you have managed to make a similar error in your protest, making hasty judgement of a concept for a play which has not been formed yet. Isn't it interesting how what we choose to reveal here can be interpreted in a myriad of ways? We may not always express ourselves the way we'd like, but even when we do, we put ourselves trustingly in the hands of our audience, for them to take and do with as they will. And they in turn get analyzed, interpreted and criticized for how they choose to respond (as all of you are forming or modifying your opinion about me as you read this..!). It's all highly subjective, it's all personal, and yet we can't take it personally. And yet we still do. The very act of writing here is ART. It's expression put on display for an audience. And it's a collaboration. You get to contribute, and change it into something else, yet you can't fully master or control it. It's a living entity, with a rather Cartesian quality: We think, therefore it is. The 'Rock Apocalypse' example may not be the most appealing or well expressed story, but the drama of the social dynamic going on between the lines is absolutely the most fascinating part. What is it that draws us all to read further, to take sides; to posit and posture and pounce upon opposing points of view? We are simultaneously engaged in a dialogue about what constitutes art, what constitutes criticism, the nature of theatre in general, and what we find entertaining...and we express it through degrees of passion, wit, and the logical and poetic structure of our language. Through conflict and style there is drama, and in the words of those who craft it, it takes form. It sounds to me like a very interesting concept. Someone should write a play about it. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Stop using AmericaniZed spelling Graig. And I am assuming you're defending a project you're involved in. Good for you.

I doubt that Craig (not Graig?!) is involved in any way with this project...he's just the most intelligent and thoughtful poster I have ever read on this site, and we don't see nearly enough of him anymore. and I agree, it does sound an interesting concept. Good luck with it. Can't remember if I posted on that forum or not, and don't really have time to check...new baby and all... Anyways, look forward to seeing the result of this one. Nev (who isn't in any way involved with the project either!) It's the simple things stupid...

I actually think it is a pretty good concept. The Rock Apocalyse saga seemed to be the nadir of musical theatre or theatre in general (professional or amateur), however the comments that were expressed were mostly unsolicited as I'm sure many of the "critics" were "trolling" about expressing opinions that were petty at best. Even I threw in a quip which you're welcome to use.

Thank you Walter Plingeeky! Please let me know what name you used in the forum so I can identify which post was yours.

Thanks Neville, for the humbling compliment. I agree, I don't visit here anywhere as often as I used to, which is a shame because I enjoy the discussions I come across, and the people who I used to frequently encounter here. However as to being involved....well actually I am, slightly! I know Kate, and she asked me to read a prepared monologue for the project at the recent Blue Room launch...which inspired me to return to this forum to check out what it was all about. I don't know whether I am likely to be involved in the actual show or not. The parallels weren't lost on me (nor do I imagine on anyone else who puts two and two together) that I was at one time infamous here for posting many opinions, arguments and theatre criticisms. So the temptation to join the discussion in this particular topic and argue on behalf of a show I have an inside link to was (and still is) wickedly irresistible. That doesn't diminish my argument - to support a concept I find brave and interesting - as I still have no personal creative or vested interest for or against the project. For any who remember, my reputation would attest that I am only going to argue for an idea I think holds fair merit, and would equally criticize it if I thought it deserved it...regardless of who I know or how they may connect to me. And back to Walter Plingerest: As I said, I'm not defending the project yet, other than to take issue against those who cut it down before it's even been born. Whether it's good or not, and whether I'm involved or not are both yet to be seen. My only issue with you was your dismissiveness, with a comment that didn't really contribute an argument. Feel free to come back with a stronger, better supported point of view and I will take it on board. Like Thomas Jefferson I may not like what is being said (by you, or by Kate, or by anyone here), but I will defend to the death their right to say it. Well maybe not to the death...but I will at least bore everyone to death extolling their (and my) right of expression! ...Nice little distraction to jump on the spelling. Believe me, I use that technique a LOT, so it's about time someone threw it back at me. You can call me Graig if you want, it pretty well sounds the same. So if I prefer AmericanIZED to AngliCISED spelling it doesn't really matter as it all sounds the same (actually, the Americans always spell it how it sounds, whereas the Anglo Saxons for some unfathomable reason never do). Well done on picking up my errors . (That used to be my little trick, as I was once the biggest spelling-Nazi here). The main reason I perpetuate American spelling here is that the inbuilt spell check in all my web browsers gives me unsightly wiggly red error lines unless I do otherwise. The other reason is I find IZE much more aesthetically pleasing....and otherwise, what the hell is the letter Z for?? In fact, what is the letter C good for? Yours, Kraig. ~<8>-/====\---------