Consequences

Hi Garry

Garry Lawrence wrote:
> I agree with Greg Ross - that the news has been played
> out....and Joe is a good mate of mine and I was extremely
> disappointed to hear what happened, but, if the debate had
> been kept at a level above emotional threats of murder, or at
> least threat of bodily injury, and the like, then the
> interests of our industry would have been maintained.
> Everything said after the murder threat is now being tainted
> with the same level of credibilty. Unfortunate , but the
> truth.

You'll have to let me know where you and Craig bought your copies of that, Garry. I've always wanted my own version of absolute, irrefutable truth.

:-)

In spite of your remarks, and those of the poor sap whose friend was upset, I don't think the matter is over. I'm not aware that anything has been heard from the producers by way of explanation, let alone an apology. Maybe we're not going to. The last word may be played out in the boardroom of the MS Society when the option to stage another show next year is raised.

Personally, I hope the MS Society does give it another go. But there's some bridge building to be done if they're to avoid a repetition of the King & I fiasco.

> So despite the disparity of sentiment and the obvious
> readibility for the web junkies, I must say that sometimes it
> is better to take a breath and look for something new to chew
> on.

I've been looking hard for disparity in the sentiment expressed over the last few days and can only come up with Greg's second hand contributions vs everyone else, until your post today.

Personally, I'm suspicious of attempts to mischaracterise and stifle debate. If we're going to move forward and learn from these problems rather than repeat them, there's going to have to be an awful lot more discussion.

> For those who believe we can ignore the commercial reality of
> sponsors supporting our industry for the benefit of the
> actors the struggle will prevail. For those who are prepared
> to work in a balanced forum ..the force be with you. The
> solution is balance and it seems that everything has been
> said that can be said.

And that balance is not achieved by toadying to the dubious needs of sponsors at the expense of the things that our industry stands for.

There are reputable sponsors out there that have a much broader view of what supporting the theatre industry and community in this state is about than has been suggested by either you or Greg. Thank goodness, these people won't and haven't given up at the first sign of someone getting a emotional or using inflammatory language. They look beyond that and see the apology posted minutes later, the way this community has rallied to support their own, the passionate but considered arguments being put. They see growth, committment, and enthusiasm. The west was right, this about theatre, it is about drama; and we need sponsors that recognise and accept the industry, the community and it's very diverse membership for what it is - not for what they want to make it.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]