Apocalypse NOW
Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 09:37 amcrgwllms14 posts in thread
Apocalypse NOW
Wed, 22 Oct 2008, 09:37 amBack in July I jumped on a thread to defend a concept I thought was interesting.
I'd heard about it through the director & writer in person, and assisted them to promote the as-yet-unwritten play at the Blue Room Season Launch.
I then came online here to find out what it was really about, got involved in some already involved discussion, decided it really was a concept I'd be keen to see bear fruit, and put my hand up to participate.
Along the way I've been fascinated and amazed by the number of people who felt entitled to post forth an opinion without feeling they needed to qualify it, and were happy to centre their argument on a stance of closed-mindedness. I've always considered theatre (actually, art in general) to thrive on the possibility of new ideas...hence my original indignation when I entered the debate. Now I don't pretend that I don't have strong views, and can exert a certain arrogance in arguing them, but I hope my history shows that I always side on the concept of open-mindedness and seeing more than two sides to any argument.
(Of course there have been many others here also with open minds, who have put forth much valid and reasonable debate.)
At the time of my original post, while defending the project, I made no claim to guess if the outcome would be good or bad, successful or not...simply that it was an idea that at least deserved a good go rather than being shot down.
Now with the combined talents of a good dramaturg, a good director, a good cast, a good lighting designer, and a good musician, I'm prepared to pre-judge the result and announce that: it's going to be good!
Whether it's successful is now partly up to you, at least in terms of attendance. I feel confident that artistically it tells an interesting story well, so by that measure it's already a success.
But now it's your turn. We'd all be fascinated to discover what people think, whether we meet or exceed expectations, whether you think our blustering confidence was actually able to deliver or not, whether the style works for you, and whether we've managed to entertain.
I'm sure no one's missed the coincidence that we've put ourselves right back where we started, in the position to have our show criticised and commented upon by all who see it...or who don't.
I hope if nothing else it shows that theatre has many possibilities, ideas can be drawn from all kinds of interesting places, stories about human feelings can create great drama, and that creative people can achieve the unthinkable when they refuse to listen to what most people think.
See you in the bar afterwards.
Cheers
Craig
~<8>-/======\--------
crgwllmsWed, 22 Oct 2008, 09:37 am
Back in July I jumped on a thread to defend a concept I thought was interesting.
I'd heard about it through the director & writer in person, and assisted them to promote the as-yet-unwritten play at the Blue Room Season Launch.
I then came online here to find out what it was really about, got involved in some already involved discussion, decided it really was a concept I'd be keen to see bear fruit, and put my hand up to participate.
Along the way I've been fascinated and amazed by the number of people who felt entitled to post forth an opinion without feeling they needed to qualify it, and were happy to centre their argument on a stance of closed-mindedness. I've always considered theatre (actually, art in general) to thrive on the possibility of new ideas...hence my original indignation when I entered the debate. Now I don't pretend that I don't have strong views, and can exert a certain arrogance in arguing them, but I hope my history shows that I always side on the concept of open-mindedness and seeing more than two sides to any argument.
(Of course there have been many others here also with open minds, who have put forth much valid and reasonable debate.)
At the time of my original post, while defending the project, I made no claim to guess if the outcome would be good or bad, successful or not...simply that it was an idea that at least deserved a good go rather than being shot down.
Now with the combined talents of a good dramaturg, a good director, a good cast, a good lighting designer, and a good musician, I'm prepared to pre-judge the result and announce that: it's going to be good!
Whether it's successful is now partly up to you, at least in terms of attendance. I feel confident that artistically it tells an interesting story well, so by that measure it's already a success.
But now it's your turn. We'd all be fascinated to discover what people think, whether we meet or exceed expectations, whether you think our blustering confidence was actually able to deliver or not, whether the style works for you, and whether we've managed to entertain.
I'm sure no one's missed the coincidence that we've put ourselves right back where we started, in the position to have our show criticised and commented upon by all who see it...or who don't.
I hope if nothing else it shows that theatre has many possibilities, ideas can be drawn from all kinds of interesting places, stories about human feelings can create great drama, and that creative people can achieve the unthinkable when they refuse to listen to what most people think.
See you in the bar afterwards.
Cheers
Craig
~<8>-/======\--------
Walter PlingeWed, 22 Oct 2008, 04:50 pm
How can Kate Rice claim to
How can Kate Rice claim to be the sole writer when, in fact, the piece was written by numerous posters on this website? Isn't that like taking a page out of 100 plays over the past 20 years, mixing them up, and then calling that work your own?
HaimzWed, 22 Oct 2008, 07:14 pm
Legitimate Writing
That's actually a valid form of writing. Some poets used to use that technique and I have myself on occasion for creative writing courses, at my tutor's insistence. Using other people's work is fine and yours as long as you put it together and don't use too much of any one piece.
Note: I haven't seen this play or it's script and am not agreeing or disagreeing with the comment that material off the website was used. I'm just saying that is a legitimate form of writing.
Walter PlingeWed, 22 Oct 2008, 10:26 pm
Rumour has it that people
Rumour has it that people who have had their posts used are a bit miffed that Kate Rice is taking the sole writing credit. The story in the West said she "interviewed" the people involved; no mention of her paying them.
crgwllmsThu, 23 Oct 2008, 12:57 am
Get your Write and your Wright right.
I don't think Kate is claiming this. You're putting those words in her mouth.
She's always acknowledged that the quotes come from other people. Er...that's what verbatim theatre IS.
But this script is not a collaboration, and has never pretended to be. It’s one person’s creative concept, with material drawn from many existing sources. Those sources are acknowledged in the programme, and primarily in the open admission that this is verbatim theatre.
And so the script is attributed to the one person primarily responsible for its creation and for its existing form. There is definitely a creator of this play. I call that a playwright...what would you have us call it?
Similar examples exist throughout various artforms:
Look up ‘verbatim theatre’, and refer to anything you find there.
David Bowie, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, the band Radiohead,…are a few examples of artists who have used the technique of cutting up an existing text and rearranging it to make new lyrics.
William S Burroughs did this to create his poetry.
Grimm’s Fairy Tales were compiled from many various tellings. They simply wrote them down. Yet we acknowledge them as the authors.
Modern music mixes & sound collages eg FatBoy Slim’s version of ‘Praise You’…take loops and phrases from previous works and incorporate them into original mixes to make something new.
In the world of Fine Art: Collage, Decoupage, Photomontage – all techniques of collecting existing images to create a new unified work – deemed the work of the compiling artist.
Pop Art…the famous Campbell Soup can. Andy Warhol didn’t create it, all he did was put a frame around it and call it ‘art’. But it is definitely HIS art.
Cheers,
Craig
PS:
Look up the word 'playwright'. There's a reason it's not spelled 'play-write'. It's similar to the word 'shipwright'... A playwright is a maker, a creator, an adapter of material into plays. This can sometimes, but not necessarily always, include writing.
~<8>-/====\---------
jmuzzThu, 23 Oct 2008, 10:45 am
Here's another way of viewing it....
....given many of the posters chose to do so anonymously I'm guessing that their lack of ownership for their work puts it in the public domain anyway for anyone to use and adapt as they see fit.
My guess is that many of those posters would be unwilling (unwise?) to come forward and reveal who they truely were,in a fit of indignation that their words have been appropriated, if only because they showed they could not spell, form sentences, or espouse a cogent point of view. It would seem that the playwright has done everything in her power to acknowledge the contributions of the posters she has been able to identify and beyond that I would politely suggest she owes the anonynmous posters sweet bugger all.
Ladies and gents, this is a public forum and it's my opinion that general chit-chat posted here is up for grabs by anyone if they so choose. Anyone care to put forward an alternative argument?
I find it amusing that any anonymous poster could take umbrage for not having been acknowledged - you can't have it both ways y'know.
Let's sum it up this way - it appears Kate has taken several nothings and made something from it - that's called creativity.
Originally the posts themselves were a disconnected array of nothings which actually had the combined effect of stifling creativity.
So, when you really think about it - the only creative thing that has come from the whole sorry saga is what Kate has woven together with the help of her cast. Hell, I would want to take credit for that if I was in her shoes.
BTW Craig, I've changed my mind - I'm positively fascinated now to see what you folks have come up with. See you next week at the Blue Room :)
Walter PlingeThu, 23 Oct 2008, 11:06 am
It's not the anonymous
It's not the anonymous posters getting upset from what I hear - it's the ones she's *paid* and had contact with. All the arguments above are valid but if the named, verified posters are upset the fact that she takes the sole writing credit, then it's clear Kate Rice didn't explain herself properly to them in the first instance.
Walter PlingeThu, 23 Oct 2008, 11:29 am
Avoiding weasel words
Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them.
For example, "Perth is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Perth is the nicest city in the world."
Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:
Who says that? You?
When did they say it? Now?
How many people think that?
How many is some?
How many is most?
What kind of people think that? Where are they?
What kind of bias might they have?
Why is this of any significance?
Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.
jeffhansenThu, 23 Oct 2008, 12:18 pm
What's your point Weasel?
What's your point Weasel? Is this relevant to this thread?
www.meltheco.org.au
Always Working ArtistsThu, 23 Oct 2008, 12:22 pm
Rumour has it...
Please, if you are contributor and have concerns, contact us.
Jeremy Rice: 0409 988 728
jeremy@alwaysworkingartists.com.au
kate@alwaysworkingartists.com.au
The Blue Room and Always Working Artists present
APOCALYPSE PERTH 21 Oct - 8 Nov 2008
The Blue Room Studio. Bookings: (08) 9227 7005
http://www.blueroom.org.au/blueroomseasons/apocalypseperth
http://alwaysworkingartists.blogspot.com/
John E CarsonThu, 23 Oct 2008, 01:08 pm
Do you need it pointed out?
Well, have you looked for the relevance, Jeff?
The point is that Julie Hill is using those "weasel words" in this thread.
"Rumour has it..."
"...from what I hear".
She might sound authoritative but is so far completely unsubstantiated.
She's basically being a troll.
Unfortunately your asking this question makes you sound like you're being a troll too.
LabrugThu, 23 Oct 2008, 01:43 pm
Disagree
Jeff H. only echo'd mine and I'm sure the thoughts of a few posters on here. Thank you for pointing out what he was trying to say John. That too is appreciated. However, asking a fairly understandable question about another person's meaning has very little to do with Trolling. It's a request for clarification which I am sure we all do from time to time. Trolling is comments designed to evot strong emotional reactions and to cause disruption. Jeff's request for more details does is not insulting, confrontational or provoking in anyway that I see and I would consider it to rather enhance the topic by allowing for more constructive dialogue.
As for Weasel Words, I personally have never heard of the term, even though I know very well the senarios it describes, probably because people talk like that all the time, or at least they do in the circles I personally mingle in, and yes it is quite frequently employed by Tolls also, but (and correct me if I am wrong) your statement would lead me to think that you personally consider Weasel Words a predominately Toll activity which I would have to disagree with. It's a human thing. We all want to look important, even Trolls.
Apologies in advance if I have mis-understood you point Mr Carson. My Respects.
Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)
Jeff Watkins
jeffhansenThu, 23 Oct 2008, 05:19 pm
In fact, yes I did look for
*EDIT* Dammit, I put this post in the wrong place :P
In fact, yes I did look for the relevance. I also have never heard the term "Weasel Words". Now the particular phrases have been pointed out to me, I can see where the point was aimed.
I just don't read that far into what people are saying, I suppose, and tend to read the "weasel words" without even noticing they exist.
Is it Weasle, or Weasel, like the animal, as it has been spelled both ways in the post?
www.meltheco.org.au
NaThu, 23 Oct 2008, 05:42 pm
Have you tried
wikipedia? Weasel words is a term they use there for describing certain actions when editing their articles.
Free halloween shadow puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne