Where is the Passion?
Sat, 2 Mar 2002, 04:39 pmWalter Plinge17 posts in thread
Where is the Passion?
Sat, 2 Mar 2002, 04:39 pmWhen I recently called for expressions of interest in a play that required actors to perform nude and in some graphic, but nonetheless simulated, sex scenes, the overwhelming response was negative. Actors (mostly female) accused me of being a creep. My motivations were called into question by complete strangers, falling just short of libel, and attacks on my personal integrity and my character became the order of the day.
While the response was not unexpected, the vociferousness of it was.
As a result, the past few weeks has seen me do some serious thinking about theatre, particularly in Perth (since this is where I live), and my own reasons for doing it.
What *are* my motivations as a professional theatre practitioner? And do they gel with the motivations of other "professionals" practising theatre in Perth?
Well, the second question is easy. The answer is unequivocally "no".
But why?
To answer this, I must answer the first question.
(deep breath) Here goes:
My motivation is to create theatre that burns people. Theatre that asks you to re-examine your self. Not the glib, superficial, self-congratulatory theatre that has been crafted for us, and in which we so happily wallow... the depressingly predictable parade of theatre that re-inforces stereotypes, pats ourselves on the back for our magnificence, sucks up to politically correct socialist rhetoric, preaches self-indulgently in a faux-provocative fashion to the converted, and perpetuates cliches and platitudes under the guise of bemoaning them.
I am interested in theatre that truly and profoundly confronts an audience, both in a messy, "in-yer-face" way, and in a wry, subtle way.
After one particular performance of "Hamlet" at the Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney, director Neil Armfield was approached by a member of the audience. The man shook ArmfieldÂ’s hand passionately, and, in doing so, squeezed three $50 notes into it. He said "Buy the cast a drink".
When Swy Theatre presented "A Night in the Arms of Raeleen" back in the early nineties, a member of the audience, who had lived a life similar to that depicted in the play, approached one of the actors, shook his hand, and with tears in his eyes, said repeatedly "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you".
This is called affecting the audience, and on the few occasions when an audience member has approached me in a similar fashion, I have been profoundly humbled by their response.
This has led me to realise that theatre performs a civic function, and is not just a way for actors to earn money and get their names in the paper.
This is why IÂ’m different to the bulk of the so-called "professionals" in PerthÂ’s theatre scene today... IÂ’m in it for the work, not the pay-cheque.
I'm not denying anyoneÂ’s right to earn a living (God knows, I could do with some income about now... I am quite literally having to sell everything I own, just to pay the bills), but what bugs me is that it appears that money is the prime motivating factor in the mind-set of the vast bulk of Perth actors. How else would you explain the demise of the Hole-in-the-Wall, reduced, in its most recent incarnation, to the same fractured state as any other independent production company, instead of being the on-going production house it should have been? Or the turning of Effie Crump from a once open, egalitarian springboard for semi-professional practitioners, into just another professional company struggling for survival?
Industry pressure forced these companiesÂ’ hands. Actors pressured their union to pressure these companies to pay full equity rates to all. As a result, HITW is now effectively dead, and EffieÂ’s is a closed shop, providing limited opportunities to actors and directors, and constantly flirting with liquidation.
So where is the love? Where is the passion?
The simple, necessarily pessimistic answer is: there is none.
Actors want to be paid. They would rather be *paid* to be an actor once or twice a year, than to actually *be* an actor all year round.
And those that do decide to perform year-round, in profit-share productions, would rather be liked than be good.
They want to do plays that re-inforce the nice things in life, and that make them look good to casting directors. They want professional directors like Becher, Ross, Schmitz, etal., to come and see them in "nice" plays, and not something where their tackle is on display or where their performances are too close to the bone for anyone's comfort.
Classical texts have become an excuse to show-off, new plays an excuse to get in good with the funding bodies, and experimental productions a chance to be seen as "cutting edge" and "cool".
When it comes to theatre in Perth, street cred seems to have superseded artistic integrity.
*Is it* just about the money and the glory?
"Oh, of course not, David. I do it because I love it!"
Prove it.
While the response was not unexpected, the vociferousness of it was.
As a result, the past few weeks has seen me do some serious thinking about theatre, particularly in Perth (since this is where I live), and my own reasons for doing it.
What *are* my motivations as a professional theatre practitioner? And do they gel with the motivations of other "professionals" practising theatre in Perth?
Well, the second question is easy. The answer is unequivocally "no".
But why?
To answer this, I must answer the first question.
(deep breath) Here goes:
My motivation is to create theatre that burns people. Theatre that asks you to re-examine your self. Not the glib, superficial, self-congratulatory theatre that has been crafted for us, and in which we so happily wallow... the depressingly predictable parade of theatre that re-inforces stereotypes, pats ourselves on the back for our magnificence, sucks up to politically correct socialist rhetoric, preaches self-indulgently in a faux-provocative fashion to the converted, and perpetuates cliches and platitudes under the guise of bemoaning them.
I am interested in theatre that truly and profoundly confronts an audience, both in a messy, "in-yer-face" way, and in a wry, subtle way.
After one particular performance of "Hamlet" at the Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney, director Neil Armfield was approached by a member of the audience. The man shook ArmfieldÂ’s hand passionately, and, in doing so, squeezed three $50 notes into it. He said "Buy the cast a drink".
When Swy Theatre presented "A Night in the Arms of Raeleen" back in the early nineties, a member of the audience, who had lived a life similar to that depicted in the play, approached one of the actors, shook his hand, and with tears in his eyes, said repeatedly "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you".
This is called affecting the audience, and on the few occasions when an audience member has approached me in a similar fashion, I have been profoundly humbled by their response.
This has led me to realise that theatre performs a civic function, and is not just a way for actors to earn money and get their names in the paper.
This is why IÂ’m different to the bulk of the so-called "professionals" in PerthÂ’s theatre scene today... IÂ’m in it for the work, not the pay-cheque.
I'm not denying anyoneÂ’s right to earn a living (God knows, I could do with some income about now... I am quite literally having to sell everything I own, just to pay the bills), but what bugs me is that it appears that money is the prime motivating factor in the mind-set of the vast bulk of Perth actors. How else would you explain the demise of the Hole-in-the-Wall, reduced, in its most recent incarnation, to the same fractured state as any other independent production company, instead of being the on-going production house it should have been? Or the turning of Effie Crump from a once open, egalitarian springboard for semi-professional practitioners, into just another professional company struggling for survival?
Industry pressure forced these companiesÂ’ hands. Actors pressured their union to pressure these companies to pay full equity rates to all. As a result, HITW is now effectively dead, and EffieÂ’s is a closed shop, providing limited opportunities to actors and directors, and constantly flirting with liquidation.
So where is the love? Where is the passion?
The simple, necessarily pessimistic answer is: there is none.
Actors want to be paid. They would rather be *paid* to be an actor once or twice a year, than to actually *be* an actor all year round.
And those that do decide to perform year-round, in profit-share productions, would rather be liked than be good.
They want to do plays that re-inforce the nice things in life, and that make them look good to casting directors. They want professional directors like Becher, Ross, Schmitz, etal., to come and see them in "nice" plays, and not something where their tackle is on display or where their performances are too close to the bone for anyone's comfort.
Classical texts have become an excuse to show-off, new plays an excuse to get in good with the funding bodies, and experimental productions a chance to be seen as "cutting edge" and "cool".
When it comes to theatre in Perth, street cred seems to have superseded artistic integrity.
*Is it* just about the money and the glory?
"Oh, of course not, David. I do it because I love it!"
Prove it.
RE: Oh -oh, the Power and the Passion...
Sun, 3 Mar 2002, 05:18 amhey David
I found it interesting to read your argument, and while there are points I feel I want to take issue with, I want to be careful arguing against you because I actually agree with much of what you say.
I'd been wondering about the way the thread you started has been heading...particularly the level of suspicion and mistrust that was aimed about the nudity thing.
Nudity on the big screen, small screen, computer screen, has become so commonplace that it hardly raises an eyebrow anymore, let alone any other part of the anatomy... But you're right, in those cases (even the Big Brother type voyeur shows) there is always reasonable money involved. For some reason, theatre nudity has a different quality; it's live, it's unedited, it's real and revealing. So it's confronting. And there's rarely any huge monetary incentive above standard wages; so it's not mercenary, it's committed and dedicated.
When I see nudity onstage it almost always snaps me out of the "fourth wall" and "suspension of disbelief" that is part of becoming involved in a story, and there is an element of thinking about the actor in a room full of people, being brave. I admire that aspect (and those actors), but it's inevitably distracting.
Because you can hardly avoid drawing attention to nudity, directors are forced to be very specific about where to focus it for best effect, and unfortunately that often draws accusations of sensationalism and titilation. But I think, perhaps, for a lot of people the titilation is not just from seeing the body parts displayed, but a deeper thrill of witnessing an act of bravery: someone getting their gear off in public is a powerful, brave statement, that often eclipses the theatrical intention in the play. It takes some clever direction to ensure it doesn't cut at cross-purposes to the play, and yet the audience still may not recognise how integral it all is. Of course, if the director screws up and it all becomes completely gratuitous, you'll never hear the end of it. So there's a fair bit of bravery on the part of the director as well, who is only likely to be recognised for their sensitivity by the immediate cast, but is open to accusations of all interpretation.
If anyone saw "Lady Chatterly's Lover" a few years ago you'd remember the controversy it generated, and how it also sold very well. I remember it being a pretty good interpretation, which would have lost a lot without the nudity, but nevertheless could've worked well enough without it. But was it well attended because of the nudity, the well-known story, the competency of the players, the outdoor picnic setting, or the promenade-style direction? We'll never know, because you can never really separate the individual elements from the event. It's the whole, not the sum of the parts.
I've been onstage in various degrees of undress and revealing costume, but never been required to go the full monty, and to tell the truth, I'm undecided how I would react if asked. I've had no problem getting around like that in public at a nude beach, so again, it's not the body thing, it's the context of individual display of bravery that's probably the issue. In principle I wouldn't be too concerned, but I still want to reserve that call for the specific circumstances, including the play, the cast, the director, the target audience, and what other projects I was concurrently involved in.
Yes, I have to be honest and say I'd have to also consider the money - but no more than that is a consideration of every job I do. When I've been in the pleasant position of having multiple offers to choose from, the money aspect is a large factor. But then, having been lucky enough to have been offered choices several times in my career, I can at least proudly say that I've quite often turned down gigs that looked good on paper in favour of less lucrative but more satisfying ones. And often participated in shows where I didn't even expect to cover my expenses (After The Fair is a recent example) but I did them because I believed in the project, the personal challenge, or the director's vision.
So, I love your statements regarding your motivation. I'm not hugely familiar with your work, but all indications seem to be that you are pursuing this dream with passion and integrity. And I sympathise with your opinion that not everyone is as brave as you'd hope them to be. I too, yearn to see brave choices in theatre.
I'm wondering, though, about the accuracy of your statements that actors are in it for the money? I would have thought the opposite was true...those of us who are actually making any are surely in the minority, and most people you see on stage count it as only a small proportion of their income. They are there because they are driven to be there - isn't that passion? Yes, I don't deny your suggestions that many may want to "look nice" or seek "glory" rather than push the boundaries in the kind of brave fashion you profess to; but don't discount their own motivation. I think it is almost always going to be stronger than their want for the money - otherwise the economic reality would show us FAR fewer theatre performers.
Are your statements about The Hole In The Wall and Effie Crump entirely accurate? The Hole never recovered from an ill-fated merger with the dying WA Theatre Company (to form the short-lived State Theatre Company) where it inherited their problems of mismanagement and instability. (I was there to witness some of the financial turmoil; Acting Out was fortunate enough to jump ship from the WATC intact and became Barking Gecko). The merger was plagued with political problems and a vote of no-confidence in the artistic management. When the whole structure finally collapsed, "The Hole" existed as a board of directors only, which is why we occasionally see plays under that banner, on a single-project basis.
But these companies had ALWAYS paid professional Equity rates, so I can't see that any sudden demands from actors could have caused their demise, as you claim...?
Similarly for Effie's, Elizabeth Caicob established it as a production house (with Equity's blessing) that, because of it's limited seating capacity, operated on a more profit-share basis. Negotiated wages were set at below Equity minimum, but frequently actors made well-above minimum if the season sold out - it was TRUE "profit share". And there was an intention in their original charter to attempt to bring wages into line with industry minimum, gradually increasing each year. I'm not sure what you mean by it being "a once open, egalitarian springboard for semi-professional practitioners" (if "semi-professional" means what I think you mean, then what professional ISN'T?), but you seem to imply that under it's current direction there is less opportunity and that actors demanding wages are to blame(??) May I remind you that for most of it's history, Effies did only EXTREMELY safe "drawing room" plays (the kind you are now raging against!), the bulk of which were two-handers - hardly a glut of opportunity! Compare that to the most recent production, "BELOW"... In your own words I would describe it as "theatre that truly and profoundly confronts an audience, both in a messy, "in-yer-face" way, and in a wry, subtle way."...isn't that what you are asking for??
I won't deny that Perth Theatre has been heavily influenced by industry pressure. But I would locate the source of this pressure in the companies themselves, pandering by necessity to predictable markets. THEY'RE the ones who are concerned with money as the bottom line. Perth audiences flocked to Effies and the Playhouse to see bedroom farces. Anytime something more left-of-centre is produced, companies run a considerable risk. I personally prefer to go to those "risky" plays, but when it boils down to it, people go to see shows they "like".
You are cynical about classical plays, new plays, and experimental plays...what's left? And where are you going to find your audience?
The sort of stuff you advocate is "Fringe" at its best - because it pushes boundaries, steps outside them, creates its own rules...and by definition tries to be as far away from the "safe", "nice" centre of mainstream theatre as possible. That's great. I applaud your vision. I reprimand your attackers.
But I also recommend you step back and don't lose perspective of where it all fits in.
I'll make a point of seeing your next production. "Safe" theatre will only evolve once companies respond to audiences who are trained and encouraged to appreciate "dangerous" theatre. You're at the bottom of the food chain, but I'll support you all the way as you tunnel through the guts of it.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====/------------
(call me Tolstoy)
I found it interesting to read your argument, and while there are points I feel I want to take issue with, I want to be careful arguing against you because I actually agree with much of what you say.
I'd been wondering about the way the thread you started has been heading...particularly the level of suspicion and mistrust that was aimed about the nudity thing.
Nudity on the big screen, small screen, computer screen, has become so commonplace that it hardly raises an eyebrow anymore, let alone any other part of the anatomy... But you're right, in those cases (even the Big Brother type voyeur shows) there is always reasonable money involved. For some reason, theatre nudity has a different quality; it's live, it's unedited, it's real and revealing. So it's confronting. And there's rarely any huge monetary incentive above standard wages; so it's not mercenary, it's committed and dedicated.
When I see nudity onstage it almost always snaps me out of the "fourth wall" and "suspension of disbelief" that is part of becoming involved in a story, and there is an element of thinking about the actor in a room full of people, being brave. I admire that aspect (and those actors), but it's inevitably distracting.
Because you can hardly avoid drawing attention to nudity, directors are forced to be very specific about where to focus it for best effect, and unfortunately that often draws accusations of sensationalism and titilation. But I think, perhaps, for a lot of people the titilation is not just from seeing the body parts displayed, but a deeper thrill of witnessing an act of bravery: someone getting their gear off in public is a powerful, brave statement, that often eclipses the theatrical intention in the play. It takes some clever direction to ensure it doesn't cut at cross-purposes to the play, and yet the audience still may not recognise how integral it all is. Of course, if the director screws up and it all becomes completely gratuitous, you'll never hear the end of it. So there's a fair bit of bravery on the part of the director as well, who is only likely to be recognised for their sensitivity by the immediate cast, but is open to accusations of all interpretation.
If anyone saw "Lady Chatterly's Lover" a few years ago you'd remember the controversy it generated, and how it also sold very well. I remember it being a pretty good interpretation, which would have lost a lot without the nudity, but nevertheless could've worked well enough without it. But was it well attended because of the nudity, the well-known story, the competency of the players, the outdoor picnic setting, or the promenade-style direction? We'll never know, because you can never really separate the individual elements from the event. It's the whole, not the sum of the parts.
I've been onstage in various degrees of undress and revealing costume, but never been required to go the full monty, and to tell the truth, I'm undecided how I would react if asked. I've had no problem getting around like that in public at a nude beach, so again, it's not the body thing, it's the context of individual display of bravery that's probably the issue. In principle I wouldn't be too concerned, but I still want to reserve that call for the specific circumstances, including the play, the cast, the director, the target audience, and what other projects I was concurrently involved in.
Yes, I have to be honest and say I'd have to also consider the money - but no more than that is a consideration of every job I do. When I've been in the pleasant position of having multiple offers to choose from, the money aspect is a large factor. But then, having been lucky enough to have been offered choices several times in my career, I can at least proudly say that I've quite often turned down gigs that looked good on paper in favour of less lucrative but more satisfying ones. And often participated in shows where I didn't even expect to cover my expenses (After The Fair is a recent example) but I did them because I believed in the project, the personal challenge, or the director's vision.
So, I love your statements regarding your motivation. I'm not hugely familiar with your work, but all indications seem to be that you are pursuing this dream with passion and integrity. And I sympathise with your opinion that not everyone is as brave as you'd hope them to be. I too, yearn to see brave choices in theatre.
I'm wondering, though, about the accuracy of your statements that actors are in it for the money? I would have thought the opposite was true...those of us who are actually making any are surely in the minority, and most people you see on stage count it as only a small proportion of their income. They are there because they are driven to be there - isn't that passion? Yes, I don't deny your suggestions that many may want to "look nice" or seek "glory" rather than push the boundaries in the kind of brave fashion you profess to; but don't discount their own motivation. I think it is almost always going to be stronger than their want for the money - otherwise the economic reality would show us FAR fewer theatre performers.
Are your statements about The Hole In The Wall and Effie Crump entirely accurate? The Hole never recovered from an ill-fated merger with the dying WA Theatre Company (to form the short-lived State Theatre Company) where it inherited their problems of mismanagement and instability. (I was there to witness some of the financial turmoil; Acting Out was fortunate enough to jump ship from the WATC intact and became Barking Gecko). The merger was plagued with political problems and a vote of no-confidence in the artistic management. When the whole structure finally collapsed, "The Hole" existed as a board of directors only, which is why we occasionally see plays under that banner, on a single-project basis.
But these companies had ALWAYS paid professional Equity rates, so I can't see that any sudden demands from actors could have caused their demise, as you claim...?
Similarly for Effie's, Elizabeth Caicob established it as a production house (with Equity's blessing) that, because of it's limited seating capacity, operated on a more profit-share basis. Negotiated wages were set at below Equity minimum, but frequently actors made well-above minimum if the season sold out - it was TRUE "profit share". And there was an intention in their original charter to attempt to bring wages into line with industry minimum, gradually increasing each year. I'm not sure what you mean by it being "a once open, egalitarian springboard for semi-professional practitioners" (if "semi-professional" means what I think you mean, then what professional ISN'T?), but you seem to imply that under it's current direction there is less opportunity and that actors demanding wages are to blame(??) May I remind you that for most of it's history, Effies did only EXTREMELY safe "drawing room" plays (the kind you are now raging against!), the bulk of which were two-handers - hardly a glut of opportunity! Compare that to the most recent production, "BELOW"... In your own words I would describe it as "theatre that truly and profoundly confronts an audience, both in a messy, "in-yer-face" way, and in a wry, subtle way."...isn't that what you are asking for??
I won't deny that Perth Theatre has been heavily influenced by industry pressure. But I would locate the source of this pressure in the companies themselves, pandering by necessity to predictable markets. THEY'RE the ones who are concerned with money as the bottom line. Perth audiences flocked to Effies and the Playhouse to see bedroom farces. Anytime something more left-of-centre is produced, companies run a considerable risk. I personally prefer to go to those "risky" plays, but when it boils down to it, people go to see shows they "like".
You are cynical about classical plays, new plays, and experimental plays...what's left? And where are you going to find your audience?
The sort of stuff you advocate is "Fringe" at its best - because it pushes boundaries, steps outside them, creates its own rules...and by definition tries to be as far away from the "safe", "nice" centre of mainstream theatre as possible. That's great. I applaud your vision. I reprimand your attackers.
But I also recommend you step back and don't lose perspective of where it all fits in.
I'll make a point of seeing your next production. "Safe" theatre will only evolve once companies respond to audiences who are trained and encouraged to appreciate "dangerous" theatre. You're at the bottom of the food chain, but I'll support you all the way as you tunnel through the guts of it.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====/------------
(call me Tolstoy)
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···