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.
"..sometimes you've got to take the hardest line."
Tue, 5 Mar 2002, 03:03 amDavid Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>>The more you have to pay, the less people you can afford to use. Hence the whole "no more than four actors" thing. Okay, the venue is small, but I've seen plays in the Blue Room that have had seven actors. Why can they get away with what Effies can't? Because you've got seven people working for a share of profits, and not full pay.
David, I appreciate your utopian vision, and I'm not trying to step on it. Just because I believe it is difficult doesn't mean it's not possible, and everything worth achieving starts with someone dreaming an "impossible dream".
I'm really playing devils advocate here, and hoping that you throw yet another convincing argument in my face to quieten the cynics.
When you've got seven people at the Blue Room working for a share of the profits, you've often got seven people not making ANY money out of the venture at all. This usually means you've got seven people who need to find their rent/food money from other occupations, which takes up valuable time and relegates their artistic pursuits to the status of "hobby".
I know that there are some mighty dedicated and talented hobbyists out there, who manage to produce great work.
But surely the standard is going to be raised if those actors are able to earn a basic minimum income for their efforts, allowing for full time rehearsals and complete focus on their artistic duties? With the certain knowledge that their efforts will earn income (and not relying on elusive profit-splitting), artists will be more willing to participate in risky ventures that may not necessarily attract box-office.
When you start talking about actors putting in a dedicated effort but not being guaranteed a minimum wage, you start to stir up the old arguments about professional/amateur status, and the notion of exploitation.
Why do we have professional theatre? How does it differ from amateur? What makes the standards better? What elements are poorer? There must be justifying arguments, because it continues to exist.
Professional companies need to strike a balance between the number of actors they employ in a budget season, the number of productions they mount, and the "box-office saleability" (an elusive element in the equation) of the particular plays. So yes, smaller casts often mean potentially more productions, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with quality or success.
Amateur companies also have to keep tabs on their bottom line. Sure, they may have less expensive overheads, and can manage bigger casts, but they still need to attract the bums on seats and earn SOME income to sustain their operations. This influences their artistic direction also...you tend to see them mount the type of plays that will attract an audience (eg large-cast musicals), rather than be overly risktaking.
Venues like the Blueroom provide that incredibly important middle ground - where they are funded to provide opportunities for independent artists & companies to take risks. Consequently, some of the most exciting theatre in Perth happens under the banner of the Blueroom. And this in turn encourages many "professional" artists to participate for little or no money, blurring the lines and coming closer to the situation you are expounding.
But I really feel this is a particular scenario. I think you weaken your argument by comparing professional companies like Effie Crump to the Fringe venues like the Blueroom. I agree with your observations that risks need to be taken, and that so-called "popular" plays need to be presented in a fresh and challenging style, which is quite possibly not happening much in ANY of the theatre venues, or at least not to the extent we'd wish.
But your argument about cast sizes and actors demanding to be paid appropriately in professional theatres seems to me to be a red herring. Are you complaining that it limits work opportunities for actors? I don't know if that's true. As a professional, I would find that not receiving an appropriate wage would limit my work opportunites far more. If I couldn't expect to pay my rent from acting, I would need to find alternate work and would then be less available to present myself for acting work. I would be forced to leave the ranks of fulltime professional actors, and join the crowd who compete for amateur roles - because I would still wish to perform, like any other hobbyist.
But by valuing actors' contributions with appropriate wages, there is an acknowledgement that the arts is an industry, and that performance skills are a valuable commodity to be invested in, to produce quality art. This investment, both in monetary terms and more importantly, in esteem for the arts, is more likely in the long term to boost the standing of theatre and help to develop our cultural identity...and work opportunites.
(If we're talking utopian dreams here, then think about those countries in Europe that recognise and value their cultural identity to such an extent that artists can be paid an annual wage to be a part of a company that spends an entire YEAR to rehearse and develop a SINGLE work..!)
There is no correlation between the size of the cast and the quality or bravery of the production - which is what I thought was your original point. And I would think that your artistic vision can still be applied equally to professional OR amateur theatre - so your statements about paid or unpaid work seem beside the point. I still agree with your initial sentiments, but wanted to contest you where it seemed to me you've veered off the track.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/------------
The body of your discourse is sometime guarded with fragments, and the guards are but slightly basted on neither!
-------------------------------
>>The more you have to pay, the less people you can afford to use. Hence the whole "no more than four actors" thing. Okay, the venue is small, but I've seen plays in the Blue Room that have had seven actors. Why can they get away with what Effies can't? Because you've got seven people working for a share of profits, and not full pay.
David, I appreciate your utopian vision, and I'm not trying to step on it. Just because I believe it is difficult doesn't mean it's not possible, and everything worth achieving starts with someone dreaming an "impossible dream".
I'm really playing devils advocate here, and hoping that you throw yet another convincing argument in my face to quieten the cynics.
When you've got seven people at the Blue Room working for a share of the profits, you've often got seven people not making ANY money out of the venture at all. This usually means you've got seven people who need to find their rent/food money from other occupations, which takes up valuable time and relegates their artistic pursuits to the status of "hobby".
I know that there are some mighty dedicated and talented hobbyists out there, who manage to produce great work.
But surely the standard is going to be raised if those actors are able to earn a basic minimum income for their efforts, allowing for full time rehearsals and complete focus on their artistic duties? With the certain knowledge that their efforts will earn income (and not relying on elusive profit-splitting), artists will be more willing to participate in risky ventures that may not necessarily attract box-office.
When you start talking about actors putting in a dedicated effort but not being guaranteed a minimum wage, you start to stir up the old arguments about professional/amateur status, and the notion of exploitation.
Why do we have professional theatre? How does it differ from amateur? What makes the standards better? What elements are poorer? There must be justifying arguments, because it continues to exist.
Professional companies need to strike a balance between the number of actors they employ in a budget season, the number of productions they mount, and the "box-office saleability" (an elusive element in the equation) of the particular plays. So yes, smaller casts often mean potentially more productions, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with quality or success.
Amateur companies also have to keep tabs on their bottom line. Sure, they may have less expensive overheads, and can manage bigger casts, but they still need to attract the bums on seats and earn SOME income to sustain their operations. This influences their artistic direction also...you tend to see them mount the type of plays that will attract an audience (eg large-cast musicals), rather than be overly risktaking.
Venues like the Blueroom provide that incredibly important middle ground - where they are funded to provide opportunities for independent artists & companies to take risks. Consequently, some of the most exciting theatre in Perth happens under the banner of the Blueroom. And this in turn encourages many "professional" artists to participate for little or no money, blurring the lines and coming closer to the situation you are expounding.
But I really feel this is a particular scenario. I think you weaken your argument by comparing professional companies like Effie Crump to the Fringe venues like the Blueroom. I agree with your observations that risks need to be taken, and that so-called "popular" plays need to be presented in a fresh and challenging style, which is quite possibly not happening much in ANY of the theatre venues, or at least not to the extent we'd wish.
But your argument about cast sizes and actors demanding to be paid appropriately in professional theatres seems to me to be a red herring. Are you complaining that it limits work opportunities for actors? I don't know if that's true. As a professional, I would find that not receiving an appropriate wage would limit my work opportunites far more. If I couldn't expect to pay my rent from acting, I would need to find alternate work and would then be less available to present myself for acting work. I would be forced to leave the ranks of fulltime professional actors, and join the crowd who compete for amateur roles - because I would still wish to perform, like any other hobbyist.
But by valuing actors' contributions with appropriate wages, there is an acknowledgement that the arts is an industry, and that performance skills are a valuable commodity to be invested in, to produce quality art. This investment, both in monetary terms and more importantly, in esteem for the arts, is more likely in the long term to boost the standing of theatre and help to develop our cultural identity...and work opportunites.
(If we're talking utopian dreams here, then think about those countries in Europe that recognise and value their cultural identity to such an extent that artists can be paid an annual wage to be a part of a company that spends an entire YEAR to rehearse and develop a SINGLE work..!)
There is no correlation between the size of the cast and the quality or bravery of the production - which is what I thought was your original point. And I would think that your artistic vision can still be applied equally to professional OR amateur theatre - so your statements about paid or unpaid work seem beside the point. I still agree with your initial sentiments, but wanted to contest you where it seemed to me you've veered off the track.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/------------
The body of your discourse is sometime guarded with fragments, and the guards are but slightly basted on neither!
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···