making theatre "mainstream"...

Fri, 26 May 2006, 01:12 pm

abbz41 posts in thread

Hey all, Abbey here, and a newbie to the forum. There's been a question on my mind...based on limited brain-picking from general public, and finding the general belief is theatre is not a "mainstream" source of entertainment the way rock concerts, movies and partying on a weekend at a club/bar/pub are...so.... Why is it that theatre is not "mainstream" the way film is? I believe to a larger extent it has to do with accessibility and conveneince, but there must be other reasons. Things like: Is it because theatre going is generally seen as a "high-risk" venture? Because the stories are seen to be not as good? People do not want to confront the live actors and the potential breakdown of the fourth wall into personal space...? What is your opinion? And yet another question: any thoughts on how to make theatre more mainstream?

Thread (41 posts)

Threaded Flat

abbzFri, 26 May 2006, 01:12 pm

LogosFri, 26 May 2006, 03:19 pm

It's a damn good question

Theatre is more expensive on average for the individual punter than many of the other art forms you talk about because it is so hand made. Everything is made uniquely even the performance and it costs a lot to do. We also have some other problems. Film particlualrly Hollywood is becoming increasingly predictable and therefore safe and good theatre isn't. "Pop" music is becoming more and more bland and even the rappers are starting to look mainstream. For similar reasons music theatre is the most acceptable theatrical medium because you can watch a lot of bright young things having fun and go home humming the tunes. Their are honorable exceptions to that rule but not many and only Rent immediately comes to mind.

You will note that I used the term good theatre above. Unfortunately a lot of local amateur and comunity groups can lack something and one bad experience can scare off audiences for life. I've seen some real professional shockers too. And there are always the companys who keep recycling the same comparatively short list of safe plays sometimes with the same casts over and over again.

So why isn't theatre mainstream? Well I could be incredibly elitist and suggest that it's because theatre requires involvement intellectually from the audience and that why people don't bother.

This has actually been a problem in the Englsh speaking world since the restoration of the monarchy in the late 1600's. After 40 odd years in the UK without theatre the returning Stuarts made it an elitist art form only for the rich and we've never really recovered.

Neville TalbotFri, 26 May 2006, 07:15 pm

Mainstream necessary?

It is indeed a great question. I think to be in the mainstream- you must feel comfortable to the masses you must be safe and for the main part not challenge a person's status quo. amongst other things. a reason perhaps that theatre is not mainstream is found in the areas you refer to as being mainstream- cinema (hollywood blockbusters), pubs, rock concerts etc. In all of these experiences, one is able to 'disengage' from the performer/performance ongoingly, and still enjoy it. You can talk to your friends and generally hang (again- not be challenged). Maybe theatre doesn't allow this freedom of disengagement and distraction. Logos, I think you got close when you said that it requires an intellectual involvement. The masses don't want to be involved, don't want to think, don't want to engage actively with other human beings. They want to sit, drink, watch tele, and be entertained. In fact the mounting evidence in the west is that people don't even want to engage with their own spouses and families, let alone a stranger on a stage. and good theatre does just that- it engages you. An important question to me is actually- do we really want theatre to be 'in the mainstream'? I don't really have the answer, but think it is also an important thing to ponder. In the current paradigm of mainstream, I for one am happy that theatre is often not. but I also would love to see good theatre making real money too. How to make the two meet...? Neville It's the simple things stupid...

NaSat, 27 May 2006, 08:18 am

Mainstreaming the streamed

There's also another point - Australian TV and film are suffering a low at the moment, which greatly affects the state of arts everywhere. Funding for theatre has been considerably bad, with this year's Budget handing down funding to precious few companies. This is because several performing arts companies are about to go under, and can only be saved with the money (Sydney Dance Co. is one of them - so it's also the mainstream that suffers). Funding also tends to be going to 'mainstream' ideas, not taking risks. A lot of performing arts company managers say that they would love to produce more original theatre by emerging artists, but find it is too risky to do and have to consider the budget first. Other companies are increasingly producing American and UK plays, because they are tried and tested - Aussie stuff isn't. In Melbourne you will find an especially large fringe scene, and while all of us want to be bigger and able to do more, I don't think many of us want to become 'mainstream'. Then we'd be doing more predictable work, become beholden to our funding, and forget why we're doing our art in the first place. Then you have the rise of DVDs and the increase in online entertainment, with sites like YouTube offering free videos and uploading which a lot of smaller performing arts groups use (although mainly not a big thing here in Australia yet, I'm sure it will catch on). Mainstream also depends on your point of view - to some David Williamson is a hero of Australian theatre, to others he is a 'has-been'. And it depends on the time of year - the Melbourne Fringe is huge in terms of audiences seeing theatre that they normally wouldn't attend, but the rest of the year it's like pulling teeth to get them to see the same show. Perhaps the environment also contributes. How to make theatre mainstream? I would think it already is. The question is more about the style of theatre - puppetry is hardly considered mainstream for adult audiences, but Puppetry of the Penis brought a change in opinion for that. There are too many factors to answer this question properly. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Neville TalbotSat, 27 May 2006, 11:07 am

dollars

One more point occured to me as I was rolling off to sleep last night. and NA has definitely hit the point on the head. Theatre is relatively expensive to put on, and therefore must be relatively expensive to attend. or it must be reliant on funding that is increasingly going to 'easier' or 'safer' works. I sat on funding boards for a while, and increasingly a focal point in discussion had to be whether the project's budget worked. In a world of decreasing funding, we were constantly faced with 50+ worthy projects, and enough money for less than half that. theatre was consistently the most expensive artform, therefore you could not fund more than one or two projects inside the big picture. Finally, at the end of the day you had to account to the govt, and therefore the bean counters for every dollar you 'spent'. It's a bloody difficult job, and often quite distressing for some panelists. Knowing an artist like yourself will only be able to work, or even eat or not, depending on your funding decision is not easy. Rock concerts, pubs etc.- much cheaper. When you consider what the vast majority of rock bands are getting paid (nothing or close to nothing), it's just easier and therefore more mainstream. Something that few people know in Perth. In WA, outside of the WASO, most musicians are being paid significantly less than they were in the eighties (less than half). This probably has much to do with the fact that the WASO remains the only highly-unionised group of musicians in WA? We are living in a time when the almighty dollar is supreme. Under the current federal leadership, everything comes down to the money factor- does it make it or not? and I believe the bulk of the population has followed this stream. So to be mainstream, theatre has to make money. To do this it needs big audiences. Either these audiences pay big money, or the govt subsidises heavily. and either way, people (the masses) want what they want for that money (e.g. the safe and comfortable entertainment) and here lies the rub. Neville ps- next question- Does the government still have the responsibility to ensure that this work gets created, whether it is massively popular or not? Whether it can make money or not? I know my answer, interested in others' It's the simple things stupid...

LogosSat, 27 May 2006, 04:53 pm

Government Responsibility

Joan Littlewood spent a great many years attempting to make the UK government feel responsible for helping to support the genuinely working class theatre she was attempting to create at Stratford east in London. As the area has become increasungly afro caribbean a still struggling but none the less vital theatrical tradition has become established and the Government has finally spent some money there. We have never really had a tradition of major govt funding for the performing arts except where politicians can get milage out of one off grants. Under the SA Dunstan Govt we came close in SA but now it's gone. There is no real difference between either shade of politics in this area either so your vote won't help financially in this area. It's my feeling that Govt should find a way of funding arts experiences and not just at the top end. Local companies both amateur and semi pro do a lot in local areas with no assistance that I am aware of and could do so much more with quite small funding assistance. The trouble is that not even local government helps much any more, I guess they don't have as much money as they used to and they feel that we are elitist. Maybe we are. Anyone got any figures on what percentage of the populace actually goes to live theatre even just once a year? Anyway, roll on a perfect world where we all get what we need.

NaSat, 27 May 2006, 05:14 pm

Cheap?

It's not about being 'cheap' to create - most rock concerts have about ten times more lighting equipment (and not the cheap lights either) than a fringe performance. It's about getting money back. Naturally you can sell tickets to U2 for ten times more than something from Bell Shakespeare - and why? Because the public would rather fork out the money for some laser light/deafening/bang your heads show than fork out some money for Romeo and Juliet that's exactly the same as it was several hundred years ago. Music, sport etc. are much more beneficial to the government's income than theatre will ever be. Perhaps this will change with the theatre board review - but I seriously doubt it. In fact, someone should make a copy of the thoughts on this thread, and send it to the government as part of their submissions process... The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Neville TalbotSat, 27 May 2006, 09:57 pm

yep, cheap.

I should have clarified that I was talking about the majority of the 'rock' industry- which is your pub and club scene. and yes, these are relatively cheap events. outside of the top tier of the industry most of them are making nothing, or in fact are losing money, just like all the other artists out there. the events you describe of the big groups don't fit this category, and yet continue to prove my very point, if you consider that 'cheap' is a relative term, related to likely return. (it IS about getting money back):-) You don't pay $100+ to see a local group, or even often a national ozzie act. You go to U2, Bon Jovi, Fleetwood Mac...Where the audience feel safe, they already know the music, and the promoter putting his/her hundreds of thousands is already certain they will get a big house/profit. Why? Because the group has massive radio play, has sold tens of thousands thousands if not millions of albums, and have massive profile. In other words, they are an easy sale, and you can get the big bucks from the audience that makes the gig affordable. relatively speaking, these gigs ARE cheap for the companies putting them together. cheap on a mine site can mean millions of dollars, in theatre it is much less! The other point easy to miss is- these groups also only play once every now and then- how many times have U2 been to Oz, let alone Perth for instance? I don' think you'd find people willing to shell out hundreds to see U2 every 3 months for very long. Not unless they kept creating new and exciting material. Govt funding: The thing for all artists to remember with govt funding is that it is an investment of the taxpayers' money. Therefore those issues that the most taxpayers scream about will get the best results from govt policy. Nothing will change this in a democracy. It's one of the faults of the system- civilised Mob Rule. I know it is an unpopular thing to say, but a large sector of the arts industry as a whole spends more time being unhappy about funding than they do actually engaging these taxpayers. I think we all as an industry- theatre, music, dance etc.- need to continue engaging the general public, educating everyone we come into contact with as to the value of what we do. until the public scream, ministers cannot/will not do anything, it just won't get them votes. So I remain convinced that most of us are barking up the wrong tree by railing at our ministers. Rail at your local community! ;-) And most important- we need to actually create art that is worthy of a priveliged position in society. It's not an easy battle, but hell- it's better than sitting in an office writing reports and being in meetings. don't you think?! and yes, maybe this would be good to submit. anyone? Nev It's the simple things stupid...

abbzSun, 28 May 2006, 11:42 am

Please don't quote me on

Please don't quote me on this one but I remember the ballpark figures of people in Sydney watchin live theatre at all is around 14% (2 years ago). While 14% is prominent, it's not exactly mainstream...maybe things are different in other states :D The feeling I get from the posts from Na, Neville and Logos is that the government does not create a encouraging, let alone nurturing environment. There has been vast debate relating to where funding goes, etc. Some people believe that it is necessary to have government support for theatre at the grassroots level, whilst others have the idea that you have to support the bigger fish (like STC's more prominent gigs) in order to encourage the masses to actually attend theatre and be open to it in the first place. I appreciate both views regarding government funding, but somehow I don't believe real government funding is going to happen and I agree with Logo's comment that the gov't will not "support" theatre unless somehow it gets a big bang for the small buck that it's spending. The sad thing about this is that everyone simply knowingly accepts that the government does not care about the cultural identity of its people, merely the economic value, and competitiveness against the rest of the world. I feel that we can only rely on audiences. If they come, then we have people to tell our stories to. I understand that as artists, no one wants someone else dictating what they will be doing. But could we be creating artworks for a society who is not ready to receive it? I think the audience have a strong mindset that "the consumer is right" and they generally do not like the idea of paying for something that is a little into the unknown. I take Neville's point that perhaps theatre is not supposed to be mainstream in modern society...but for anything to generate income, and hence to sustain it in a sense, I believe there needs to be some mainstream support somewhere within this realm to foster the growth of the artform. I guess that is ultimately why I am so interested to find out from everyone the second question: what are the ideas people have even toying in their mind as to how to make it appealing for mainstream viewing. Do we have some responsibility, as artists, to somehow train more people into being open to understand and therefore receive theatre as being something more than your average source of entertainment that they are paying to get?

LogosSun, 28 May 2006, 12:29 pm

Doing Theatre

In my experience it is possible to create an audience. You can if you have the facilities and a small group of dedicated people who are prepared initially to work their arses off for very little return gradually build an audience who will go and see anything. It has to be good theatre and it has to be regular you have to create habits, and you need a really good creative marketing person. I've been involved three or four times with groups that have done this but it's bloody hard work. I don't know the Melbourne Fringe scene Na but I imagine there are lots of groups like that there. Abby 14% sounds high for english speaking counties. I'm told that the figure is about 45% in Germany and France In England we were told that the percentage is about 10% have gone in the last year maybe 15% have gone once in their entire life. I sort of agree with Neville that maybe we don't want to get too mainstream. I'm not sure that I want to play to an audience that loves Big Brother.

Neville TalbotSun, 28 May 2006, 06:27 pm

Big Brother...

1. Big Brother exists/succeeds in the vacuum created when we don't engage with real people. (and of course because of the boobs and willys!) 2. We don't have 'some' responsibility as artists Abbz, we have ALL the responsibility. noone else should be expected to make it happen for us. It is way to easy to blame others for our predicaments in life, but artists of all people should never allow ourselves to have paradigms dictated to us. We are in the business of shifting paradigms. 3. I actually think that most govt on the whole are actually quite supportive of theatre and other arts, but as I've stated earlier- it must get votes for them to create policy and increase money. It's actually their job in a democracy. votes=people's will 4. Yes, you can build audiences with a lot of work- anything worth doing in life takes an enormous amount of effort and a lot of 'free' work in the beginning. It's no different for big business or sporting teams either. If you want the world to look how you want it, be willing to make a stand and cause it! 5. Now ideas- The WA Opera have done something that I think highlights one of the key ingredients for building audiences when they performed Richard Mills' 'Batavia'. It was a huge work, very expensive, very modern musically, and quite a challenge for an audience. However, it was a story I could relate to, because it was part of my history, my story. and it was very successful for an opera, especially a new one, at the box office. Tell our stories. Not stories of Berlin pre WW2, not the communist block in the 60's, tell Australian stories to Australian audiences. They are out there! Maybe this is why Williamson is so successful. whether we like it or not, Big Brother in a way is giving us a clearer insight into modern Australian culture than most of the theatre out there. (am I going to get hit for that or what?!) cheers Nev It's the simple things stupid...

Grant MalcolmMon, 29 May 2006, 07:43 am

Audience figures

I dug up some of this detail a couple of years back and have added a link to some ABS stats to the FAQ: http://www.theatre.asn.au/book_page/audience I'm sure there's a lot more we could add to an FAQ about audiences... let me know if you'd like access to update the FAQs. Cheers Grant

LogosMon, 29 May 2006, 08:09 am

Big Brother is a symptom

not a cause. We certainly live in a culture where we prefer to get our experience vicariously, witness all the various "fly on the wall" stuff that is being created and fed to us. I actually respect some of the people who do this except of course most of them are doing it in order to achieve instant fame without doing the hard work. Wouldn't we all love it. Getting back to Abbz's original point. I remember when I was at Uni in the eighties I found a monograph that suggested that during periods of depression in society it is art that suffers. People want to be entertained at levels that require less intellectual involvement so the low comedies and bright musical stuff and populist pub style entertainment will do well in those periods. We certainly seem to be in one of those periods now. Terrorism, rising prices, environmental concerns and the issues we have been speaking about in various other threads all add to the burden we face every day. We just want to be entertained. For god's sake I watched that silly celebrity singing thing last night and quite enjoyed it although I probably won't bother again. Any way. Diatribe over for now.

Don AllenMon, 29 May 2006, 08:13 am

Offstream Theatre

One of the main reasons why theatre is not mainstream is publicity. Pick up a paper and look at what is showing at the movies and then try and see what is playing in theatre. Thanks to Grants efforts we have an accessable whats on for the already established theatre audience to find out easily whats on. Professional companies use flyers, posters and mailouts. Most amateur theatre groups use their newsletter and an occasional mention in community newspapers. When I see an amateur theatre group put effort into publicity, it usually equates to good door sales for a good show, unless they are unlucky to have their season clash with a professional show. Any show is the sum of all disciplines, not just acting but front of house, backstage, parking, venue etc. Don

NaMon, 29 May 2006, 08:27 am

Fringe v mainstream

I don't think you could possibly expect an income from any theatre in Melbourne - even the big name companies. A friend of mine is now looking for a new agent because her old one folded - not enough work to make commissions from. The fact of the matter is that down here good publicity can only get you so far. Example - the 2006 Comedy Festival announced a loss, despite the fact that it is one of the largest comedy fests in the world. The Four Noels had to cancel a show. I worked with Michael Chamberlain (Skithouse) once, and he had really poor audiences. It doesn't matter what your name is, how much 'good' publicity (actually, if you get your name in The Age your ten times more likely to get an audience and be promoted again by the papers - don't get me started on the media coverage of the arts please) you get, or how much funding... the fact of the matter is that we have so much competition around. Amateur works because you can rely on your community - not just family and friends. If you lose money, you just raise your fees next year. Professional I think is so much harder, because you're trying to earn an income from it. And what theatre audience really reads this site, if they are not already involved in theatre? Publicising to the choir. (Hmm, perhaps I need my morning coffee...) The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LogosMon, 29 May 2006, 10:07 am

Fringe again

Having just gone through the "most successful Adelaide Fringe ever" when just about everybody was offering two for one deals even on Saturday nights I sympathise. We broke even which is better than most did. People go to stuff they won't normally go to during Fringe but the Festival keeps growing and even with tourism there are only so many people to try to get into your theatre. 600 acts this year and that was just the fringe add the festival (which attracts most of the tourism) and wow!!! We work as co-op equity model which means sometimes we make money sometimes we don't. We don't rip people off if there's money we all share equally. Its getting to be the thing in Adelaide. Fully pro is harder and does require funding. But back to the issue. Neville I get your point about telling Australian stories in Australian ways but the audiences seem more comfie with old stories than new. Even old Aussie stories get better audiences than new ones and didn't I hear that Williamson has given up writing for the stage. I have a vague memory somewhere. That leaves us Nowra doesn't it plus all the borderline writers including (modestly) myself. Publicity is good when it's focused and also marketes the company and venue. You've got to build the habit of seeing your shows among the audience. Na We have the same issues her in Adelaide with the media but you've got to convince them you're releases will sell a few papers and buying advertising doesn't hurt if you want editorial but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. Sorry. Way off original line.

LogosMon, 29 May 2006, 10:09 am

Fringe again

NaMon, 29 May 2006, 11:06 am

The media

Like I said - don't get me started on the media. I've given up on buying some advertising. I've found that the best way to get attention is to be really really unique. Like the 'D-cuppetry' girls (think puppetry of the penis but with breasts). But basically, it's up to the editor to write about what they think is interesting, and often that's not exactly helpful to the thousands of small fringe companies out there. And unfortunately, those running the publications must create advertising space, which is often too expensive for a local group to afford, leaving it taken up by companies like STC and MTC, et al who really don't need to publicise themselves to get tickets sold. Even the musical flops sell more tickets than most fringe companies. As I said, I think the fringe sector is much different in Melbourne than anywhere else. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LogosMon, 29 May 2006, 02:34 pm

Sorry I doubled up

Trouble with my computer. Must have hit the button twice by accident. Grant please remove the second one.

EugeneMon, 29 May 2006, 04:10 pm

MAINSTREAM THEATRE.

Hello everyone! My opinion about the lack of mainstream theatre may result in the publics opinion that theatre serves the interests of pretentious, left-wing arty-farts rather than the ordinary person. As a teen I was dragged to plays for my highschool study and hated them - how could a coloured Queenslander relate to England in the early 1880's or the French revolution? It wasn't until I was an adult that I was dragged again (notice how I have to be dragged to the theatre?) to see "Stolen" - about aboriginal children taken from their families. It was amazing! It was FANTASTIC! I loved it because I could relate to it; I want to see Australian stories....I want to experience Australian things. Is that so much to expect? Personally I think theatre is a high art and, in general, is a great experience, provided that the audience is included and can relate to the story. Okay, that's my opinion, thanks!

Walter PlingeMon, 29 May 2006, 04:30 pm

Main street

Maybe Theatre is slowly shrinking to its Economically Realistic base. Once there was only Theatre, the along came Movies, Silent at first but they still grabbed a section of the entertainment penny. When movies went to talkies they took with them more of the market. Even the Old Valve radios had an impact on people attending Theatre. Television took a bigger chunk, now with DVDs and Home Theatre, the punters have a plethora of cheap ways to be entertained. Because that what's all about for the majority of people. Entertainment. I may prefer Live Theatre for my kicks, but there are many who prefer a remote in their hand and their own loungeroom. Comunity Theatre is still surviving because as others have mentioned they have a local support base and are relativly cheap. I can go to three shows at Rep Clubs, and enjoy a Glass of Red, or a cup of Coffee for less than 1 Professional show. If you look at the soaring costs of attending proffesional Musicals they are getting out of the reach of many average wage earners. I think profesional Theatre needs to be more innovative not only in the way it advertises but in what they are presenting. It doesn't matter if you are selling Potatos or Theatre Seats, the public want value for money and Fresh product. Not something past its use by date. The tax payer does not owe us a living because we choose to be Actors. The Theatre has to be relevant to the public and above all the general punter wants to be entertained, not preached at. While I may consider what we do as an Art. John and Jane Doe consider it entertainment and there are cheaper thrills to be had elsewhere. I believe ther should be a subsidy available for the Theatre, it is an important part of any Cultural History and has a place, but we have to do our bit and get the Public on side,the Arts in General are seen as Elitist and full of Egotistical, air kissing Luvvies.. whether we like it or not that is the current perception of a lot of people, so there is no pressure on the holders of the Public Purse to give us a cent. Sport has always marketed itself as "of the People" and nationaly important to the psyche of the masses. So there is pressure for Politicians to be Seen there and to be supportive. Unless we get Ministers of the Arts that are dinky di lovers of the Arts we will never get the same traction as the Sports minister in Cabinet. We have a Cricket loving Prime minister, a card carrying member of Essendon as the Tresuruer...That is why we suffer as the poor relations. There are aproximatly 300,000 members spread between 16 AFL Clubs let alone two codes of Rugby and then Cricket. Approximatly 400,000 People attend AFL matches each week during winter. That is what people see as mainstream and Sport is Entertaining, It is real live Theatre in its own right. Every week a new script with different plot twists and the intrigue. This week Chris Judds Groin and the Dockers Dilema or Dean laidlys verbal stoush will get more air time and print space than ALL the arts put together. Cheers

LogosMon, 29 May 2006, 04:50 pm

I so agree

People like yourself who do not share the anglo-centric culture that dominates live performance in this country are ill served by our arts world. Not just indiginous Australians but immigrants from all over the world see that performing arts is still vastly white anglo saxon and feel it has no relevance to them. Soon I hope we will see changes in that area.

Alicia StarrMon, 29 May 2006, 06:41 pm

Carry on

I think that the theatre isnt mainstream becuase, as someone said previously, some people just dont have the intellect to appreciate the theatre these days. Im not implying that most people are dumb, but the world has changed a hell of alot and what was valued 50 years ago isnt as highly regarded in todays society. As a student in year 9, i can say that i find it much easier to talk with older people rather than my peers. I think this is becuase we are not taught about culture in schools, so many times i have heard about the next math talent quiz coming up, but have i ever heard about the next school production? The answer is no. Theatre, Music, dance and even visual arts arent promoted throughout schools, especially primary school. I think this is the main problem. Perhaps if young people were given more oppurtunities to experience the arts, theatre would beome more popular. I grew up in a family of actors,painter,musicians and writers so i had an abundance of sources at my fingertips but many kids go through life without being introduced to the finer things in life. The bes most get is a day out to see disney on ice and the schools end of year concert where they are all forced to sing 'the aussie jingle bells'. My brother and i have set out to 'change the world', as we call it. We started by forming a youth theatre group in melton for the younger youth, to give them a chance to experience theatre without paying heaps of money. Its definately not the ritz, but they are an AWESOME bunch of kids and we have alot of fun whilst we produce some good quality shows. So maybe, if we give younger people a chance, we can all help bring the theatre back. It wont happen overnight, so in the meantime we simply have to....carry on.

NaTue, 30 May 2006, 08:25 am

Arts ministers and the theatre

I think you'll find we may be getting a new federal arts minister soon. But whether or not they'll be a dinky di arts lover is another matter. Since when do politicians actually have careers in the arts (or anything else related to their portfolios for that matter - imagine how many people would have been 'accidentally' sent deported if the ministers in charge were actually people who have worked in the mental health system)? As for the 'lack' of challenging theatre - it does exist. Just not in the large and mainstream companies. Go into the fringe venues and you'll find a lot of out there stuff... The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Walter PlingeWed, 31 May 2006, 05:13 pm

help

hello, i'm milene, from brazil. i found this website in last days and i think its fantastic. i'm in sydney to study english, but i want to know some drama courses. i'm profesional actress in my country. if you know something good, please email me, or say where can i find more information. i used to work in brazil with ads, but as i'm foreigner there's no much chance here for me, i think. but if you know good and reliable actors agencies here, please, tell me. if i can do some extras i would be glad. i have no idea in how is this profession here. i will go to the nida open day, next saturday. hope hear from you soon, thanks.

NaThu, 1 June 2006, 08:06 am

Email?

How can we email you if there is no address listed in your post? The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LabrugThu, 1 June 2006, 08:28 am

Sus Username

The linked username is very sus. Takes you to Blog Site. Looks to like an attempt to increase web traffic... Spam.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

Grant MalcolmThu, 1 June 2006, 08:42 am

Common garden caution

Labrug wrote: > The linked username is very sus. Takes you to Blog Site. > Looks to like an attempt to increase web traffic... Spam. My Portugese is a little rusty, but I think there's nothing suspect about this at all. It's currently possible for anonymous users to add a link to their own website. In this case Milene has simply linked to her blog. Cheers Grant PS. I don't really read Portugese!

Paul TreasureThu, 1 June 2006, 03:29 pm

Arts Ministers and the Theatre

"Since when do politicians actually have careers in the arts" As a bit of trivia... When Glenda Jackson was a Minister in the Blair Government she was Junior Minster for London Transport... even she wasn't given the portfolio one would have thought she would have been a natural for. The only really good sign is when the Premier/Prime Minister decides to take the portfolio for themselves... that shows they have a genuine interest in the arts. Best example of that is Sir Charles Court... who cares about his other politics, his arts policies were great, but then he was himself a musician! Oh.. the Greeks made Melina Mercouri Minister for Culture for a while Thus endeth the lesson Paul

LogosThu, 1 June 2006, 03:40 pm

And in SA

Don Dunstan was Minister of Arts as well as Premiere and he was great. So was John Bannon and he was OK. So is Mike Rann and he's crap. It's become a habit in SA for labour Premiere's to be Ministers of Arts and a habit is never good. Nor is a generalisation.

LogosThu, 1 June 2006, 03:56 pm

I'm sorry Paul

In this world of instant electronic communication it is easy to be quite rude if you don't think before pressing the button. I didn't mean you with the generalisations comment. I meant me.

David RydingThu, 1 June 2006, 05:50 pm

Stirring the pot

I think you're being a bit generalised saying there is no challenging theatre in mainstream theatre What exactly is Mainstream theatre when the industry is in itself Mainstream ,as Neville outlined so clearly in the second reply of this post. So no challenging theatre from the 'mainstream' companies? Barry Kosky is devising two productions for Sydney theatre Company this year Melbourne Theatre Company just did Jane Bodies new work ' A Single Act" (Actually i am surprised if you think any of their program is safe) Queensland Theatre Companies next production is Constance Drinkwater and the Last days of sommerset. In Melbourne, Melbouene Workers Theatre just did We Built this City (site specific theatre involving front end loader choreography) and I would again struggle to call Malthouse's program safe and Mainstream. Opening in under a month is Stuck Pigs Squealings ( i expect one of the fringe companies that you allude to) new show...funded by Australia Council. So, a little surprised when you say the funding bodies and companies are looking for Mainstream, safe and non challenging theatre. The reality is 1) you wont get funded if you do 'safe' theatre solely and in some what of a contrast, 2) you neeed an audience. Of course their are the seat fillers out among the programs but it think it's ill informed to wipe off all the companies with a quick key stroke. And for all of us thinking a new Arts minister will make a difference...Won't happen. Until we can put a doller value on the cultural value of the arts to Australian Society we won't be getting their respect. Which I find ironic when John and Janette clap along to opening ceremonies enjoying the spectacle and ignoring the Arts that made it happen. And now i'm typing, I want to play devils advocate here and say i think theatre gets a good level of press coverage. The newspapers aren't a service organisation. Adverts pay for them and the companies that contribute to the bottom line of the company get more editorial space. With regional papers they tell you straight out, "we won't write about you unless you pay for an advert" Taking a quick swing around the country and talking papers. The West Australian has a page a week and Simon Clarkes excellent column ( some editorial space which dosen't happen too much). The review all the funded companies and the Blue Room and Re4chabites. Fair enough, it isnt a big city and they make very little off the industry The Adelaide Advertiser reviews more and gives more coverage and also has its own theatre awards. Theatre artists are interviewed for magazine articles The Age i think has a good coverage. the recent coedy festival saw they review a quarter of the acts, not bad effort i would say The Herald Sun wasn't so active (it wasn't a sponser) but reviews all the major venues (both fring and mainstream) as wellas the companies MX is excellent with interviews, the occasional review and articles a plenty, just look at their recent coverage of the Next Wave festival. The street press in all towns are good, with a definate leaning towards no press if you don't advertise during their respective festivals. The Syndey Morning Herald reviews and previews heavily. I expect the question is what are we expecting? Community Theatre often asks for review space but with so many companies ine very city where does it end?

NaFri, 2 June 2006, 09:43 am

>The Age i think has a good

>The Age i think has a good coverage. the recent coedy >festival saw they review a quarter of the acts, not bad >effort i would say That doesn't mean the cover theatre (or the arts) very well. It just means they were a sponsor. I think you'll find that the newspapers are trending towards 'entertainment' news rather than 'arts' news. They also tend to report on things that everybody else does, and are hardly reporting on anything that isn't high-profile or odd enough to get a mention. Reviews I find particularly annoying - The Age has a tendency to review one show several times in the one issue of the paper. As for 'mainstream' - Stuck Pigs Squealing I would not consider fringe. Though most people might not have heard of them, they are big enough to be considered medium... It's like the Government recently handed Chambermade Opera funding because they were 'small'. I'm sorry, but I have three people in my company, no budget for a second show (we lost most of it on the first!), no funding, no premises, no sponsors, and no audience interest because we don't have the money to maintain it. Chambermade have their own premises, presumably a board of directors and a skeleton full-time staff, national touring, a high profile, funding, etc. I have no disrespect for the people working within Chambermade, I just have a problem with the Government's definition of 'small'. But herein lies my point - what is mainstream for one person, isn't for another. Having found MTC's work highly trite when I was in school, I have not seen their work for at least 7 years. I would hardly call MWT's performances 'mainstream', since they are written by and for the workers of the city. The Malthouse has gotten considerably more mainstream since the new AD arrived and cancelled their Indigenous seasons, and meanwhile the MTC's new venue is millions of dollars over-budget. Having watched many small and unknown cast and crew struggle to find even one-tenth of the publicity that one of these companies can afford, 'mainstream' becomes less about creativity, and more about what you can sell. Yes, this is all generalisation - but then, what does the term 'mainstream' mean? There are non-mainstream performances in every mainstream company, and mainstream performances in every non-mainstream company... But I digress... What are we talking about? The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

Walter PlingeFri, 2 June 2006, 12:52 pm

I think if you were to

I think if you were to compare say, Stuck Pigs to whichever company is producing 'Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks', or HIT Productions, then yes. Stuck Pigs are very much a fringe/indepenent company. And as I heard Todd McDonald say at a forum on 'Fringe' theatre last year, the term fringe is something of a misnomer. It suggests that the groups labelled thusly are wanting to become 'mainstream'. Often, they are happy to exist within their own right - if they can â€“ and produce the work they want. The work just generally doesn't happen to be classic western narrative theatre. Being funded by OzCo and getting a lot of publicity and support doesn’t mean they’re mainstream or large; it means that these bodies are validating the work by supporting it. They recognise that new audiences are slowly developing for these new works, and in their own small way, supporting it. And I’ve found that the projects that mostly get funded aren’t mainstream. It seems the folks at the funding bodies with the $$$ actually often want something original and fresh, but with involved personnel who have some kind of solid track record. And they usually have gotten this ‘track-record’ by - like you and I and many other indepenent theatre artists have -stumping up and frequently losing their own dough, and doing everything themselves. I know what you mean though, Na. A company like Chambermade or MWT get funding in the tens to hundreds of thousands. It sounds like a lot (despite many amateur musical groups here in Melb having budgets of $100,000 to $200,000 plus, and they don’t even pay their actors â€“ but don’t get me started on that…), but considering that they pay their artists and tech equity rates (a stipulation of govt. funding, generally), the money doesn’t stretch that far. So even though they have that money (usually) coming in annually or triennially or whatever, it still doesn’t make them MTC or Oz Opera. And I disagree with your assesment of Malthouse becoming mainstream. A quick look at the quality and quantity of their programming over the last year suggests otherwise to me. New works, Australian works, presentations, forums, physical theatre, etc etc….AND they’re deservedly getting audiences! I do agree to an extent about the Age reviews though. Its not unusual for them to review the same show a couple of times to the exclusion of others. But of course, if you are that show that gets reviewed a couple of times, and favourably, then it’s not something you complain about. Although I agree wholeheartedly with David The Devils Advocate. I think the theatre coverage isn’t too bad in Melbourne, and the press isn’t there to serve us. MX, The Hun, The Age, InPress and Beat, amongst others are all reasonably good ports of call for publicity. It’s just a matter of timing (your screwed if the International Arts Festival’s on and you’re not in it…), an interesting (therefore perhaps not 'mainstream')production, and luck. Anyway. That’s enough for now. Say, what was the topic again? And what did I just say? Dan

MMS01Fri, 16 June 2006, 10:48 am

to Don

Don: As Publicist for an amateur group think you have a valid point about publicity as a contributing factor, and make a very true statement about the sum of all disciplines - I couldnt agree more! Our group like the pros, print flyers and posters, place ads and endeavour to get press releases printed in as many local and state papers as possible. Obviously the biggest constraint to effectively marketing an amateur show is BUDGET! As a non profit group the cost to effectively publicise shows can be killer. Thankfully our last 3 shows have been a box office success. Then there is the very much realted age old issue of chosing a show. A show that will be a ticket seller (and therefor cover costs) versus popular with the talent (usually less well know to the general public).

LabrugFri, 16 June 2006, 11:35 am

DixiJeff WatkinsPerth based

I must admit I have kept out of this discussion being quite content to simply read through everyone elses comments. Now through a quirk of fate (accidentally hitting the Add Comment button) I find I have to now provide some cort of comment.

When I am struggling with a "how to begin" mental block, I often check the definition of a key word. In this case, mainstream

The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity, or
Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group.

Why isn't theatre Mainstream? One thought is that current society as a whole are a technologically focused bunch. Every wonder why most theatre goers are at the higher end of the age bracket? Is it coincidence that they are also the group most pron to Technophobia? Please note that I am being deliberately stereotypical here.

Most of our potential audience are more interested in Flash Back special effects and immediate results. Scene changes in a movie require no patience what-so-ever. Just a quick flick of screen flutter and you are there. With theatre, you have messy scene changes and all that stuff. Can't wait for that now can we?

Mainstream is quick and easy from the user point of view. Theatre simply cannot stack up to this expectation.

However, I believe that the thrill of live theatre is slowly but surely making a come back. Like those old flares you used to wear back in the late seventies, people are find a reason to come back to theatre. I have been in theatre for well over 15 years and I have seen a definite increase in the number of younger patrons attending as audience participants. There has also been recorded increases in the number of younger people getting into theatre as actor/director/etc.

Is it possible then that the impersonallity of technology and films/TV has begun to overwhelm the the instant gratification factor? I certainly hope so. The amount of traffic on this web site is an indicator of the swelling interest in theatre across Australia.

Theatre is not mainstream currently. It was once, and I believe it could be again.

Happy hunting.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

LogosFri, 16 June 2006, 02:03 pm

Yes well, I think we're beginning

a different discussion really. The subjects of "attention span" and "instant gratification" raise their ugly heads. We have gone throuh a period starting in the sixties when first TV then Video now computer games and DVD are making it extraordinarily easy to be entertained with no personal effort in your own home. In all these forms of entertainment most of the decisions are made for you and you only have to sit in your arm chair not go out the front door. I am cheered by the fact that once you get past all the complete crap of fly on the wall TV that costs nothing to produce and keeps actors out of work that the programs doing well are comparatively intelligent. West Wing is extraordinary Television and even if the premises are weak at least Jerry Bruckheimers stuff requires you to switch on your brains occasionally to follow what is going on. Maybe you're right and the effects of this will bring people back to us hoping to have their lives enriched instead of made grubbier by "the Biggest Loser" Oh by the way I think it's the people who watch it who lose the most. Sorry rave over.

NaFri, 16 June 2006, 02:04 pm

I don't think theatre is

I don't think theatre is making a 'comeback' - when a new technology enters society, there is an obvious slight downfall in a previous one. Book sales decrease slightly as e-books become more popular. Records go out of style (and return as 'fashionable retro items') as tapes come in. Tapes go out of style when CDs come in. CDs go out of style when MP3 players come in. Theatre is the oldest form of communication, and has survived thousands of years in one format or another, despite technological advances. We're just feeling the brunt of these changes... I don't necessarily think it will get better, but I don't think theatre will die off completely. It will just change and merge and re-emerge with other ideas and ways of doing things. The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com

LabrugFri, 16 June 2006, 03:09 pm

Fashion and Trends

I guess I could be suffering from a terminal case of wishful thinking. I see fashion trends around me reverting back to older styles. Classic looks, disco digs, you know and I think, hmmm, maybe this theory can work elsewhere? This is the "Comeback" Generation it would seem to me, where anything and everything is making a 'Comeback' of sorts. Hopefully theatre too.

Dixi

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
Fight/Sword Choreographer

http://au.geocities.com/labrug

Bass GuyFri, 16 June 2006, 08:12 pm

Slowly from the ashes, the phoenix will arise...

Not wanting to put a dampener on the optimism flowing here, but I feel we may have to wait until Rome has burnt down before a genuine rebirth of the art is upon us. Judging from the tone of some of these posts, I'm not alone in thinking that Western civilisation is approaching the very nadir of its existence, and will soon spontaneously combust. But these are dark thoughts- brought on by excesses hitherto unchartered by the sane... (??) Anyhoo; turn off the telly, kids! Sell your computers (use the ones in the libraries- they're free!) and get out to more theatre. There's a lot on at the mo... "Open the pod bay door, Hal."

melodyThu, 22 June 2006, 10:49 am

maybe theatre will never

maybe theatre will never become mainstream, but is that such a bad thing? i think those who appreciate the passion and the excitement of what theatre is about will always be the ones that will be returning back and back for more. And those people will be the ones to bring others along, their families, their friends, people they know and then people they know. Eventually through this I think more people will come to appreciate the talent and greatness that goes into a theatre performance and maybe not everyone can appreciate that but for those of us who do... we know what they are missing, they obviously dont.

← Back to Green Room Gossip