Looking for a theatre director

Evaporating Sun previously put on Patrick Marber’s ‘Closer’ which sold out in its final week and Caryl Churchill’s ‘A Number’ at Forty Five Downstairs which garnered great reviews (**** in the Age). Evaporating Sun are putting on a co-op production of an original play called ‘Equilibrium’ in late April at the Northcote Town hall. The play is a dialogue driven piece about relationships and sexual politics and the themes are loss of innocence, hope and curiosity. An independent dramaturge report about the play notes that: “This is an accomplished, ambitious, and formally inventive piece of playwriting… this is a very effective work that should be realised in a production sooner rather than later”. At this stage we are looking for a director who would be interested in directing this work. Because it is the first time that this play will be performed it is important that the writers intent is the driving force behind the work. If you are interested please send a note about your work and approach to evaporatingsun@gmail.com . If you know of someone that may be interested please let them know about this.

A crucial piece of information really......Apart from in Northcote, where is the Northcote Town Hall? ...and yes, I can look it up I realise. But why not just put it in the ad in the first place?!

...so easy. See my rant elsewhere... ;)

Maybe it is expected that we should all automaticly know that 'australia' only applies to them, as they have an inherant image belief of being the 'theatre caPITol'?

wow. You people should get a life. And as for Melbourne being a pit, please don't tell me you're from Perth!

Omigod. On behalf of the rest of Perth, I want to apologise for the above stupidity. I typed TWO words into the search bar at the top of my browser. 'northcote' and 'town'. The option 'Northcote Town Hall' came up as the first item to select, without even having to type the third word. I clicked on the reference, and it took me to the Google page. The very first link was illustrated with a map...I didn't even have to click on the link and I could have told you it's at 189 High St, Northcote VIC, just north of James St, on the west side of the road. And the phone number is (03) 9481 9500. Two words, and one mouse click. Far easier than writing your complaints about not providing an address. Easier, even, than writing the actual address! I wish you'd all tried that before embarrassing everybody with the 5 post rant about 'how easy' it all should be...! And then to try and belittle the Melbourne point of view, when clearly the Perth point of view as expressed here is extremely blinkered..? Smartarse comments like the above are certainly not raising Perth's status in the national theatre scene ... if you want to be treated like one of the adults, you've got to act like one. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

. And you can cancel the apology on my behalf thanks. I am neither stupid nor incapable of using Google. Again, not the point. I have embarrassed no one and stand by my very valid comment. Or should we just remove the part of the site that divides up productions and auditions into States now and be done with it? What fun it would be to troll through endless numbers of posts to find the ones that are relevant....

So by 'relevant', you make the assumption that plays being put on in in VIC should not advertise Australia-wide for a director? That demonstrates one of the ways the arts scene in Perth has limited vision. Why shouldn't an advertisement be broadcast nationwide? How do you know a budding director from any other state might not leap at the chance to offer their services in Northcote? You might not believe anyone from WA would be interested, in their separatism, but it's entirely possible and you ought to be thanking the advertiser from Northcote for at least making the offer available. And before you are so keen to criticise, it'd be interesting to see just how many Perth auditions or requests bother to put their posts in a 'WA only' category..? And if they do, aren't they limiting their options as well? Or if by 'relevant' you simply mean you need help understanding what suburb belongs to what state, ... well, we've already demonstrated that it takes less time and effort to solve than it has for me to write this sentence, so that can't be the point, can it? The site is called 'Theatre Australia', after all. I would have thought having access to what's going on around the country was - 'so' the point..? For instance, there are bound to be some local companies who might find it interesting that someone in Australia recently had success with Patrick Marber’s ‘Closer’ and Caryl Churchill’s ‘A Number’...and might want to keep an eye on 'Equilibrium' to see if it's worth obtaining the rights for, down the track...? Actors and directors are often mobile between cities. Frequently the direction is away from Perth. People from WA ought to be the last to complain about opportunities flowing toward them, no matter how remote the possibility of responding may seem. And I probably wouldn't be pointing this out so adamantly had your original point been posed as a simple, polite request for more specific location information. But by admitting you could easily have looked it up yourself but chose to berate instead, you were simply coming across as belligerent. I'm rather keen to see WA artists portrayed better than that. You're embarrassing no one? What about yourself? My apology stands. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Trawl. The word is trawl. That's even easier than looking up Northcote Hall, surely? freddie the rocking jedi badger

That is just marvellous. Thank you most muchly. El

I just wanted to say how hilarious it is to see a posting for a two venues I'm quite familiar with, after all these years of never really knowing where the Blue Room is (if it hadn't been for my trip to Perth that is). Please, continue bickering and ignore my quiet smile from the sidelines. (For those who don't have their humour hat on: why can't everyone just use the state selector? And use google when other people don't? Or ignore the ones that have venues which aren't listed within the state selector - because if you don't know the venue, it's likely not going to be near you anyway?) Your source for handmade shadow puppets at Puppets in Melbourne

1. Don't know why you've got such a bee in your bonnet re my distinguishing Perth posters as being somehow free from error, separatist or elitist. I am an equal opportunity critic. I think that posters of auditions and productions from all States should make use of the State filter. 2. THE POINT: Since you are either being deliberately obstinate or really are so stupid as to not have gotten it as yet; (and by the by I do not believe it is stupidity, having worked in a room with you). There are literally dozens of productions and auditions around the country every month that get posted here. And with little exception on this site the work is voluntary and unpaid. Presumably for that reason, in their wisdom, the site owners decided it would be an extremely useful thing to be able to view them State by State. Despite your little arrogant rant about my "limited vision", let's just come back to planet earth a moment shall we; where 99.9% of people are not going to leave their home States, jobs and families for months at a time, costing them goodness knows how many thousands of dollars to participate in an unpaid piece of theatre in another State. Nor will they be making any plane trips to go a watch a piece of community theatre in another State, unless it coincides with a necessary trip. So for the vast majority of the users here, the thing they are viewing primarily and often solely is the auditions and productions in their own State. This is not due to their limited vision or sense of separatism. It's due to their real lives. Hell, I regularly see fantastic opportunities in the headlines here that I would just love to be part of or just see. But unless you've tapped into an unlimited money supply and a way to suspend time that you're keeping to yourself, the rest of us poor schmos have to keep raising our kids and paying our bills. "Budding", full bloom, whatever we've got to offer, that's the reality. Obviously the site owners get this. Why you find it so difficult to fathom or accept is anyone's guess. For those who want to browse other States, they are obviously easily able to. And even better; thanks to that same filter, they can see everything for any particular State in one convenient list. So everyone wins. For those of us not fortunate enough to have the luxury of such wealth that we can traipse about the country whenever it takes our fancy to be involved in unpaid work (ie. the majority of the members here), we have the extremely helpful tool that allows us to first view that which we can actually access, alongside that which might take our fancy for purposes of research, keeping in touch with what is going on elsewhere or that which we might be able to access if it coincides with other travel plans. And for those who can pick up sticks and go to wherever and whatever takes their fancy, they still have complete and easy access to all the events posted across the country. Seems like a win win to me. So Craig, you can take your condescending and arrogant "apology" (which you have no right to make on anyone else's behalf; how extraordinarily arrogant to think you do); and ..........(you're a great improviser; I'm sure you can work that out). I have embarrassed no one. Least of all myself. It is not belligerence. It is logic. It is simple. It is extremely helpful and convenient for most of us. If that pisses you off, so be it.

have corrected the error. But bully for you for that little point score!

...you bring these pedantic tauntings (at which Craig, Badgery and myself tend to excel- and we are but three of a larger number) upon yourself with your hyperbolic and overly petulant postings. Permit me to counsel either a relaxation in the tone of your postings, or a display of a sense of humour. For although I can only speak for myself I'm sure I can include all of us in this statement- it's nothing personal. We mean no harm- please don't take what is well-meant critisism too deeply to heart. We can only thrive through divergent points of view. Eliot.

Eliot. Forgive me. But the end of a long hard day culminating in being called stupid, an embarrassment to the whole of the Perth arts community, belligerent, separatist and of limited vision was perhaps just a bit of a bridge too far. Well-meant criticism I can take on the chin. I welcome it in fact and I thank you for your comment. And I do mean that sincerely. Divergent points of view are a gift. But as to whether the above material was "well-meant" criticism is perhaps where you and I may have divergent points of view! ;) And indeed I did take it quite personally. Never mind! Craig and I will be sharing a stage in the next few weeks. And I can assure you that when we do, this exchange will be but a distant memory; at least for me! :)

There's nothing to forgive. Your last post was wonderful! More power to you- kick Craig in the bollocks next time you see him!! Tell him I told you to; he'll understand! 8-D All the best, El

aware that my 'passionate' nature, my verbose tendencies and the love of (and lack of!) opportunity for a bit of intelligent verbal fisticuffs can lead to unintended poor impressions and moments of just getting a little too carried away......Ok....maybe be more than a little..... *blush* But hey, my saving grace (and that which saves my sanity!) is that inevitably after these knicker-bunching episodes, sooner or later I am able to just laugh at myself and am happy to do so publicly! Gotta admit half the 'fun' of course is not the subject matter in or of itself, but just exercising those debate muscles. Debates with my 2 pre-schoolers just don't hit the spot...THEM: I want XYZ. ME: No. THEM: [much louder and crosser tone of voice] I WANT XYZ. ME: No. THEM: [Throwing themselves against the couch, or me] I WANT........ LOL. I rest my case. Oh! Except to offer my profuse apologies to the OP for this major thread hijack. But hey, it's kept your thread at the top of recent posts for ages! :)

It seems to me that much has been blown out of proportion here and a lot of it of it has to do with Craigs original posting.It is slightly confusing in that it is replying to three different posts but isnt entirely clear as to which words are describing which post. Musical Mums comments may have been a little pedantic and slightly terse but not what I would call offensive or a "rant".However statements that contain words like "moron" and "Stupidity", as in Craigs post, can certainly be called a rant. Joemcs posting is the only one of the first three that could be construed as offensive if you are not familiar with Joe's style.This is the one that the Melbourne reply mainly refers to yet it is not referred to again in the thread and Musical Mum takes the brunt of the criticism.Criticisms which contain Rhetoric ,hyperbole and insults which are in no way constructive. I borrow the word hyperbole from Bass Guy who uses the word in a sentence itself full of hyperbole. For me the most sensible statement came from Na who also kept it polite. Sorry to stir the pot again but I felt a need to express an opinion. Cheers

Ladies, ladies please...calm down and keep your perfectly fruity hyperboles to yourself. Bass guy, may I add you really do excel, it's just a shame you had to say so yourself, you gorgeous little animal.

"Bass guy, may I add you really do excel, it's just a shame you had to say so yourself, you gorgeous little animal." Add as much as you like... it helps bolster my flagrant self-promotion! El

Me, the most sensible? ... Nah! :P Your source for handmade shadow puppets at Puppets in Melbourne

Thanks Don. Good comments. You're exactly right. My rant was indeed replying to the (at least) three posts that existed prior to mine which, taken as a whole, were displaying stupidity and causing the replier from Melbourne to look at Perth with disdain. For this reason I felt the need to apologise. At no time in my first post was I singling out any individual. It didn't seem necessary at the time to be 'entirely clear as to which words are describing which post', as I was complaining about the group mentality. The plural of 'stupidity' is still 'stupidity'. For this reason though, each individual should not have taken my criticism so to heart...unless they wanted to claim responsibility for the cumulative effect of the others? It was the overall effect I found appalling, not any single element. You say 'Musical Mum takes the brunt of the criticism'...but you'll notice she CHOSE to take the brunt - it was never aimed at her specifically. MusicalMum obviously felt strongly about it all and took me on, claiming that what I had said was wrong and beside the point. So naturally, I defended the argument I had made and replied...providing several points which I felt were (and still are) relevant. Musical Mum wrote another emotional torrent (some might say embarrassing; I wouldn't now dare). I will respond to one or two of those points in a sec (making it clear for you Don, exactly who I am responding to, to avoid further confusion). But a telling moment is when she says "Despite your little arrogant rant about MY 'limited vision'.." This is exactly what I was saying above about claiming responsibility. My original statement was that 'the ARTS SCENE IN PERTH has limited vision'. Somehow MusicalMum had chosen to OWN this criticism when I had never drawn such an inference or directed it at her. Somehow she took it as a personal insult, but I was intending my arguments to the topic in general, not to any individual target. Do you remember anyone at school shouting 'Hey dickhead' and then laughing at the person who'd embarrassed themselves by turning around? MM stepped into the line of fire of her own accord...this was my reason for latching upon her re-use of the word 'embarrass' to end my second post - which I admit was a personal comment, but now you'll see why I thought so. Unfortunately, as at school, the person who just called themselves a dickhead gets angrier and more foolish, so I now do regret the whole comment. Rather than curtailing any embarrassing tauntings, it appears to have provoked more. Note, Don, that when you say 'much has been blown out of proportion here', I agree; but when you then attribute that to my original posting I do feel inclined to disagree. I attribute it to the REACTION to my posting. HOWEVER I have now read around and seen that in MM's response to Eliot she admits that she took it quite personally. She apologised to El about the tone of her postings. I hope when she realises that I did not in fact personally attack her, and that she oughtn't to have taken it so personally, then she and I will return to simple logic (which never pisses me off), and can continue our argument in a civilised manner. Hence, to now respond to some of MM's points: "I think that posters of auditions and productions from all States should make use of the State filter." Does it really make a difference? I'm pretty sure I have my filter settings to 'browse everything' and I've never felt inundated or confused by anything from other states here, ever. I've already over-stated my point about how easy it is to look up info if it's not included about a venue. So what was the big deal? Na's comment was quite a telling one. Residing in a non-WA state, she has doubtless been inundated with posts over the years that have been WA-centric from this largely WA-driven site, yet it doesn't seem to have effected the usefulness of this site to her? So my question has always been: Do we need a state filter? What does it really do of benefit? And is it worth getting uptight and belligerent about? I read all of MM's post entitled "My my..." and I can't fault any of her argument that not many people would fall into my category of being interested in relocating states. But she must concede that in the small percentile of cases I referred to, my points were valid. Yet in the large percentile she refers to, she still haven't convinced me that it is SUCH a problem to be presented (or not presented) with this information. I'm yet to understand WHY Labrug finds it so 'frustrating' and why this petty argument had to occur in the first place? That was the reason for MY frustration - I just don't see why the original poster needed to be berated..? What's the problem? You don't believe I'm stupid, so you conclude I'm deliberately obstinate. I'd agree on both counts! I've already been self-proclaimed as arrogant (at least in my online persona). I'm sorry if I have sounded condescending - that's perhaps a by-product of being arrogant, but not intentional. I naturally assume that people who want to argue with me here are prepared to have their argument dissected and thrown back, and I treat every argument on its merit. Right or wrong, I too simply enjoy getting stuck into a debate...feel free to continue exercising those 'debate muscles' against me! I take it we must have met and are going to be participating in Spontaneous Insanity's Theatresports together? Sorry I don't know which musical mum you are, but I hope to enjoy more friendly debate with you over a coffee break sometime, if you choose to reveal yourself. So I apologise about my "condescending and arrogant apology". I hereby retract my apology. (I leave it to you to determine exactly which one I retract.) Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

I look at everything on this site. Yes every audition, every review, every announcement of a new production. I don't find it a fag to trawl through everything. Takes me about 15 to 20 minutes a day and it keeps me up to date with the scene around Australia. I renotice plays I hadn't thought about in years and it brings to my attention new works that are making a splash. Sure I get amused by the gossip in Perth, I love the annual s**t fight over the Finlays (sp?) and the occasional "We will Rock You" type thread, but I learn a lot. I remember someone from QLD getting so antsy over the issue of people not identifying their state that he hasn't been seen for a couple of years. Pity really, you miss a lot. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

....anyone who's been involved in marketing knows that the more difficult you make it for the average punter to access your product the greater the chance of failure. I am guessing the vast majority of advertisers on here would be far less happy if their audition or event were one of dozens, rather than one of 5 or 10. They know their response rate would suffer. It's advertising 101. So aside from user convenience, it's to no advertiser's benefit to move to a country wide listing situation.

Well, I see my attempt to gallantly save you from stepping willingly into the line of fire has failed. Had you agreed with the alternative premise I proposed, that my comments were aimed generally, you might have been considered an innocent victim of friendly fire. But you obviously consider yourself, and admit to being, a target. Prepare to duck! I have just re-read my second post. And yes, it is obvious that I was ANSWERING you personally. I entirely admit that that was what I was trying to do. No shame there. I looked hard at the first two lines of that post. I can see your logic. My rhetorical question implies you have missed an important piece of the argument (i.e. that I believe it is entirely valid for a Melbourne producer to advertise Australia-wide for a director, regardless of how 'inconvenient' some of the readership may think it.) No insults yet, though. And you were correct that my second sentence about 'demonstrating limited vision' could, ergo, endow you personally with such an attribute. But ONLY if you agreed to disagree with my first statement (let's take the logic seriously, here.) So it was NOT personally referring to you UNLESS you volunteered yourself to take up an opposing position, which I had already warned would put you in the category of people I consider to have limited vision. You obviously chose to wear this label...! And after all, I literally understood the brunt of your argument to be promoting a state-location filter...something that limits what you see on this website...reducing (or limiting) the information you read to your state only... Was that not your vision? Literally, a limiting vision..? So I should have been simpler, neglected to make the parallel connection with the Arts scene in Perth that tends to do the same thing, and simply said "You are demonstrating limited vision". Where you are continually WRONG is that you are implying that I am INSULTING you with this statement. I don't consider any of what I wrote to be an insult. I believe I was stating facts, derived from reading statements you have written in this thread. I have never placed a value-judgement, good or bad, on the category of people I defined as having limited vision, other than to point out that they opposed the arguments I was trying to promote. Again, YOU are the one who is taking this out of proportion and CHOOSING to feel insulted. That, in a way, is demonstrating another type of limited vision. The only two personal statements I made in that 2nd post were that I thought you came across as belligerent in a previous post, and that I thought you were starting to embarrass yourself. Sorry if you took that advice as insulting...but does anyone now think I was wrong? As to the second part of the argument, to be honest I don't know much about the auditions sections or the productions section, so I'm prepared to admit I may have been completely on the wrong track. This conversation thread didn't come up in that section for me, it came up in the 'All Recent Posts' forum, which is the only one I really read. As far as I know I get everything from everywhere there, it never bothers me, and I don't want it to be limited in any way. It seemed perfectly reasonable that the Melbourne person should ask for a director there, that's where this thread started for me, hence I joined in. You are now talking about elements that are unfamiliar to me. It may seem extremely relevant to you in those other sections, but you started the argument in THIS section, and I simply had to disagree with you. And the tag-on bit about marketing ('the more difficult you make it for the average punter to access your product the greater the chance of failure') might be perfectly reasonable if you were talking about a business selling a product...but we're not. In this context, it's more like an employer looking for employees (volunteer or not; in the Arts market that's irrelevant) where there is a huge glut of desperate artists looking for limited opportunities. This Melbourne producer was making it EASIER for the average 'punter' (not the right word, but I'm using it in your above context) to access his opportunity, by making it known to as wide a selection as possible...so surely by your above definition, the greater chance of his success? It's not a valid argument to say "Oh, because he advertised the position nation-wide, there's less chance I will get it because of all the competition" - because if he had not advertised nation-wide there would have been NO chance you'd have heard of it. And I think it is wrong to blame the advertiser of a position (shooting the messenger) simply because the reader of the message doesn't find it relevant to him/her. That's YOUR problem. Sure, it might be more convenient to have the state information plastered high in the title banner, but it was SO ludicrously easy to look up where the venue was that, again, that argument blows me away with its pettiness. It sounds like you are expecting all messages to be filtered to say "Wanted: someone exactly like you, for a role you were born to play, looking exactly like you do, living exactly where you live, wanting to work exactly where you want to work...etc, etc". Sorry, but the arts industry has never operated like that. Come to think of it, the general job market never has, either. It struck me as extremely odd and belligerent to start this argument expecting things to be otherwise. So in conclusion; I believe you are proved wrong in assuming I have insulted you. You are responsible for your response, not me. Should I be insulted by your incorrect accusation: "You meant to and did directly and personally throw more than one insult my way"..? It's okay, I choose not to be. See you on the 14th. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Bassy/Bassie (shirley?) I love it when you self promote especially when you do it flagrantly, you kinky beast you. x

Thank you Craig for your reply, however I see some flawed logic afoot here.You say you found the overall effect appalling, not any single element.however if this is the case then the culprit is a coincidental cumulative effect that turned three(or more]non appalling elements into an appalling one.As this is an accident of coincidence there is no reason it should be apologised for or anyone berated for it.If however the human element is to be blamed then each of the contributors has the right to take equal umbrage at any insults.It is my belief that if you call a small group of people morons, you are referring to each individual in that group. on another point MM openly objects to you apologising on her behalf.In fact you apologised on behalf of the whole of Perth not just MM.As a resident of Perth I too objected to you making an unsolicited apology on my behalf.However as you have retacted the apology I will withdraw my chagrin. Have a good one Don {misspelled and not verified because I forgot to log on]

Nice, Don. I take that on board. But is my logic so flawed? I think not: It seems that several agree I was in the wrong to make an apology on anyone's behalf. Obviously I can't represent the whole of Perth. That was a figure of speech. And neither can I represent any particular individuals here. They are responsible for their own statements and beliefs. What I really wanted to do was say (to the people represented by the one making the comment, 'Wow. You people should get a life..") that I was SORRY for the way Perth was being portrayed, and to present a view which disapproved of comments that I saw (and that others were perceiving) as pettiness. Hang on - I was sorry? I guess that means I DID want to apologise! Yet I wasn't to blame. So I guess I was apologising on behalf of someone else. But who? Apparently I was the only one who was sorry. So in actual fact I was not apologising for ANYBODY. I was apologising for a SITUATION. The situation was the overall accumulative effect I saw, that I called 'the above stupidity'. The logic is like a mother apologising for her toddler who has just scribbled on your wall. The toddler isn't sorry, in fact sees nothing wrong, and many would view it as normal expressive behaviour; but you feel disdain for the situation, and the mother feels inclined to apologise on their child's behalf. Now I'm not trying to insinuate that anyone has been childish or that I represent any sort of parental figure; I say this simply to show that there is a logical precedent. I now understand a little of how John Howard might have felt when refusing to apologise on behalf of the Australian people over the Stolen Generations. How could he justify speaking on behalf of EVERYBODY, of people who weren't even involved, or of people who perhaps didn't feel sorry? But like Kevin Rudd eventually decided, perhaps the important thing was simply to apologise for the situation, because it was a good thing to do? Either way, there are detractors and controversy, and I don't know the answer for everyone. I can only answer for myself. I see my biggest mistake was in my flippant subject title. It was moronic of me, in my state of irritation, to use the word 'morons'. I see how that is actually the basis of all the insult that has been taken, and for this I really am sorry. It was stupid of me, and I'm capable of much more tact and cleverness. It simply was not apt or appropriate. Sorry. [Note, however, the phrase is 'to take insult'. You can try to GIVE insults, but they don't really count as insults unless they are TAKEN. It's in the receiver's court as to whether they are true insults, or merely words.] It's a good thing that grammatically my subject title was ambiguous, though! If I had titled it "An apology ON BEHALF of Perth morons" then that would leave no doubt that I was implying that all of those who had appeared before me in the thread (who had caused the situation I was apologising for) were morons. Then it would have been true cause for offense. But this was not the case! My actual title was "An apology FOR Perth morons." I only ever intended Perth morons to read it! Much like the State filters that have been promulgated, which declare only readers from a particular state are intended to read the following information, I was promoting a MORON filter, which means only people of limited intelligence were intended to read my posts. Anyone who read that title and chose to read and comment afterward, obviously consented that they fit that particular description! If they were of intelligence, they would have known not to read any further. So the whole argument after my initial post becomes a moot point. While I have enjoyed the convoluted application of logic to prove I was right all along, the actual substance of the argument has become meaningless. Everyone knows you can't argue with morons. Thanks for trying, though. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Looks like the poor sun has evaporated. Good one Mum.