IFAC/Equity Guild Awards (WA) - finalists and winners

Dave Ryding wrote:
>
> A couple of questions for you Craig, or some one else from
> equity land
> What makes a new comer? Renee Mcintosh has been nominated two
> years in a row, i saw Rod's work 8 years ago at the, then what
> was to become, the Blue Room.
> Is best new play really best new script? or is it a premier
> production of a new script. Either way wasn't We are family a
> remount?
> How is best stage manager voted for? I find it hard to
> believe there are too many actors or companies for that
> matter who've worked with all 5 of the nominees to provide a
> perspective? (Oh, and its Kristy Anderson)
> And just to stir the pot a little...Andrew Ross best director
> nominee for Drawer Boy? Didn't one of his cast walk out three
> days before production because of a break down of their
> working relationship
> Just curious. Any attention to the talent of the industry
> here is great but I, and a few others, are befuddled by the
> categories.
> And i know each awards costs money but wheres Best Designer
> and Best Composition? I know they fall under best production
> but they need their limelight too!



Dave, these are good questions and I can't say I have too many definitive answers.
Perhaps someone with experience as a judge/selector could add more enlightenment? (I know several of them peruse this site).

Speaking with equity hat on, I've not actually been involved at any level with the sub-committee of organisers, due to me gallivanting around the country of late.
So I'll speak with my usual 'C for Craig' baseball cap on, and just be responsible for my own rant.


Arts awards are weird and problematic concepts. If you care to search back I've discussed this several times regarding Eisteddfodd judging, the Finleys, the Academy Awards, passing auditions, etc... On one hand, interpreting the judging criteria and allocating concrete points to abstract qualities of artistic merit is a largely personal and subjective choice of the judge(s) involved, and can often appear rather arbitrary and therefore meaningless. On the other hand, acknowledgment and critical acclaim by a panel of experts or peers is a valuable contribution to an artform, highlighting and validating the industry, strengthening its profile, and giving it meaning. The paradox is that both statements are contradictory yet exist simultaneously side-by side with equal value.

I don't discount the concept because of the paradoxical problems. I embrace it as something intrinsic of all art....everyone's perception of it is different, the amount of value we give to different expressions of art is basically only a personal opinion, and half the time we can't really justify why we like something or what's so good about it...it just is.
My opinion of awards (and reviews) reflects this...as a generalisation we know what is 'good' and 'bad', but when it comes to specifics it's all much more vague, and both bouquets and brickbats should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But this does mean that I don't think awards can ever be "fair". As much as we like to uphold this as an ideal, the very concept of 'what fairness is' is also a vague and slippery notion, subject to interpretation. A lot of your points fall under the 'is this fair?' banner. Of course, everyone tries to operate under this banner, and I'm not suggesting that there is anything corrupt about the process...I reckon everyone does their best to operate fairly and in good faith. But in actual fact there is no such tangible thing as true 'fairness'; no matter how close we aspire to be it will never be attainable, yet we still must aspire...another paradox. But to make real sense of it we have to step outside of that paradigm. I reckon you would have experienced that you can never hold a truly fair and equitable audition, where absolutely everybody gets a totally equal opportunity to be judged according to their ranked abilities to fulfill a position...there are far too many other parameters to consider, number one being that the director has a vision of what he/she wants. But the audition process wouldn't work unless we ignored this overarching truth, and operated under the smaller banner of endeavoring to make it seem in faith as fair as possible to as many as possible under the given circumstances. It's always going to be a compromise.
How fair is the Australian Idol judging process? But is there any other way, without completely changing the event?

I don't ever want to denigrate the achievement of anyone who wins an award. After all, I was privileged enough to make it on a final list. But I also can't afford to take that list or myself that seriously, or I'd never get anywhere as an actor (or a person). There are plenty more times I don't make the list, and I can't take that seriously either. Observe it, accept it, and move on.

Regardless of my own metaphysical view of awards, the general (public) perception of them is a different matter, and as a publicity tool to boost our industry in the public's eyes they are invaluable. Mr and Mrs BumOnSeat don't really understand or care about the anomalies you and I are discussing, but they ARE more likely to take note of the fact that awards are being won, excellence is being sought and recognised, and the local industry as a result seems to be thriving. That alone is worth the price of admission.



Now, to touch on a few of your questions:

Both the personnel of the Equity Guild committee and the people appointed to act as judges for the awards are transient positions; year to year some people leave, others are elected as replacements. It is unfortunate and not ideal that there may be inconsistencies in how guidelines are interpreted from year to year, but this is probably why.
The judges have a mandate to get out there and see as much as possible, with a critical eye, but it's up to the individual companies concerned to submit their shows for consideration. Also to put the judges on your invites list.
Some errors you mention may have arisen at the company submission stage..?


'Best Stage Manager' is not a 'judged' award...it is peer nominated. Equity members have the opportunity to send in a written account nominating who they think should get an award, based on but not restricted to them meeting some guideline criteria. On both the number and quality of these written nominations, the Guild chooses a shortlist and final recipient.

(Similar process for the 'Equity Guild Award', for outstanding service to/ participation in the industry.)

Thanks for correcting Kristy Anderson's name, and I hope she accepts my apologies, and congratulations for being nominated. I was copying down the names in the dark as I heard them announced for the first time last night.



On the 'best director' nomination....the judges really only have their viewing of the production to make their assessment. The quality of the rehearsal process, and the decisions made to reach that end product, are not within the realms of their ability to judge. I saw The Drawer Boy, and quite enjoyed it - the politics that had gone on during rehearsal made no difference to that response. I imagine that's why Andrew Ross got a director nomination, regardless of what people may think of his process.
(I don't think we ever found out who was at fault in the Gilles/Gibbs/Ross working relationship, and there was clearly a huge mistake made, but I remember making the point at the time that delaying the opening and fixing the mistake by recasting could also be considered one of the bravest artistic choices by a director...)



Best New Play was judged with the assistance from Stages (the playwriting section of the Writer's Guild), so you might need to ask someone there. It's a new award, included for the first time this year, thanks to the sponsorship of Actors Management Agency. But I assume it's not just for a good script, it's for a good script that was then realised into a good production.

The award time frame is from July 2002-June 2003...didn't both the original and remounted versions of 'We Are Family' fall within this..?



For all the reasons we've been discussing, awards are problematic. Adding more categories is something the Guild is doing gradually each year, but it is not just a question of money. More categories compound the amount of criteria that need to be judged, and the number of submissions to be assessed. There are a limited number of judges with finite time. More judges is not necessarily a practical solution. Yes, there are plenty of categories that deserve recognition, if awards could be made as fair as possible. They're working on it.



Cheers,
my decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into,
Craig

[%sig%]