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.
better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Wed, 6 Mar 2002, 01:59 amYou make some interesting statements, David, worthy of discussion. To say that I don't fully agree is not to say I don't appreciate your train of thought. We seem to have settled into two camps with common ground but no shared plumbing. Maybe that's as close as we'll get. But it's worth listening to each others' views. Thanks.
>Why do we have professional theatre?
>Ego. Somewhere along the way, actors decided that they were too important to starve.
Yes, but isn't ego ALSO why we have amateur theatre? What else would cause an artist to get up and perform for no reward (in fact, often at personal expense), apart from the applause and the personal satisfaction at displaying their talents onstage?
Dictionary definitions of "Ego" = the individual as aware of himself; that part of the psyche which experiences the world through the senses and consciously controls the impulses; self-worth; conceit.
All of which describes actors pretty well but doesn't quite address why some demand to earn money and others are content not to...I would blame ego in BOTH cases, so it doesn't quite answer the original question.
Somewhere along the way barbers, too, decided they were too important to starve. There was a demand for what they do, and they found they could specialise and demand money. This has never stopped hobbyists who enjoy cutting hair and are good at it from "cutting in" with their own free services, and so people (with hair) are free to go to whichever they like to get the job done. Why do we have professional barbers? Is "their ego" your only answer?
For whatever reason, there is a perception that "professional" service is different to "amateur", and there is a demand for it. Same with acting, I believe.
You have passionate views about your art and about how the arts industry should be, which is admirable. But your posts seem to indicate a "reverse snobbery" about amateur status, and a belief that the level of passion in a project is aligned with the level of payment received (or foregone). Can you really justify that line of argument, or are you over-demonstrating your passion here to bolster your point of view?
Your "amateur actor" is ego driven; they do it for the love of it, for the thrill. No payment is required. They find the time to perform despite holding down another job to pay their bills. Therefore they must be highly passionate and committed to create. With little or no budget, but innovation, good work can be produced. Do they see themselves as "better" because they do it for no other reward? There is certainly pride in what they do.
Your "professional actor" is also ego driven ("too important to starve"), they place a monetary value on their skills. They must also do it for the love of it, and the thrill, because it's highly unlikely that they'll be achieving financial independence in the industry. And yet they demand to be paid at an industry-agreed-upon minimum rate. This may actually limit their performance opportunities, even though this is their main income industry. So there is certainly pride there as well. But are they any less highly passionate and committed to create? With access to professional training and resources, good work can be produced. Do they really see themselves as "better" because "they get paid occasionally"?
I highlight this, David, because I don't think it helps your point at all to be comparing amateur with professional in terms of who is "better" (or perceives themselves so), who has bigger standards, or who is "more passionate". I don't think that's something you can quantify or generalise, so what you're saying in those paragraphs just isn't true.
I'm not trying to be "professional elite", but I am cautioning against being "amateur elite". I think the quality of the work should speak for itself, and that both camps equally produce works spanning the whole spectrum of quality. It doesn't make any sense to elevate one over the other. They're similar, but different.
And lastly;
>>It's about status. A "professional" will happily do a Blue Room show, because the perception is that it's a "professional" gig, because it's profit share. The frowns I got from fellow "professionals" when I told them I was doing an "amateur" production of Hamlet were telling.
>>Even if I only got $130 at the end of it, the gig would still be *perceived* as professional. The impact this has on perception is manifold.
I think you'd be closer to the point if you said it's about *perception*. I'm what you call "a professional who will happily do a Blue Room show", but I would NOT consider it "a 'professional' gig because it's profit share". There's a good chance the only professional advantage to me would be if I could use it as a tax write-off. I'm not going to be compensated for my rehearsal time, and $130 probably wouldn't cover the cost of my petrol and parking.
Rather, I would choose to do it for similar reasons to yours for doing Hamlet. My "status" would be relative to the quality of the production and my role in it. (Recent example - my role in "After The Fair". No pretense at being professional, but a brave exciting production that earned me high status.)
My perceptions of the Blueroom are: it's a venue for potentially exciting, innovative, risk-taking theatre; it gives artists opportunities to create that they may not have realised elsewhere; it doesn't always satisfy me but then neither does anywhere else, so it's a pretty good bet; it's an extremely valuable resource in Perth; it's a good night out with a subsidised bar; it allows access to amateur and professional artists alike; and it often operates on profit share.
None of this creates in me the perception that the venue or its gigs are professional.
The "status" of being at the Blueroom is not a given, but is based on perception. And it seems mine differs from yours.
Good thing too. It'd be a pretty boring website if it didn't.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------
That's enough blah from me. I've gotta get up early tomorrow to go scubadiving.
>Why do we have professional theatre?
>Ego. Somewhere along the way, actors decided that they were too important to starve.
Yes, but isn't ego ALSO why we have amateur theatre? What else would cause an artist to get up and perform for no reward (in fact, often at personal expense), apart from the applause and the personal satisfaction at displaying their talents onstage?
Dictionary definitions of "Ego" = the individual as aware of himself; that part of the psyche which experiences the world through the senses and consciously controls the impulses; self-worth; conceit.
All of which describes actors pretty well but doesn't quite address why some demand to earn money and others are content not to...I would blame ego in BOTH cases, so it doesn't quite answer the original question.
Somewhere along the way barbers, too, decided they were too important to starve. There was a demand for what they do, and they found they could specialise and demand money. This has never stopped hobbyists who enjoy cutting hair and are good at it from "cutting in" with their own free services, and so people (with hair) are free to go to whichever they like to get the job done. Why do we have professional barbers? Is "their ego" your only answer?
For whatever reason, there is a perception that "professional" service is different to "amateur", and there is a demand for it. Same with acting, I believe.
You have passionate views about your art and about how the arts industry should be, which is admirable. But your posts seem to indicate a "reverse snobbery" about amateur status, and a belief that the level of passion in a project is aligned with the level of payment received (or foregone). Can you really justify that line of argument, or are you over-demonstrating your passion here to bolster your point of view?
Your "amateur actor" is ego driven; they do it for the love of it, for the thrill. No payment is required. They find the time to perform despite holding down another job to pay their bills. Therefore they must be highly passionate and committed to create. With little or no budget, but innovation, good work can be produced. Do they see themselves as "better" because they do it for no other reward? There is certainly pride in what they do.
Your "professional actor" is also ego driven ("too important to starve"), they place a monetary value on their skills. They must also do it for the love of it, and the thrill, because it's highly unlikely that they'll be achieving financial independence in the industry. And yet they demand to be paid at an industry-agreed-upon minimum rate. This may actually limit their performance opportunities, even though this is their main income industry. So there is certainly pride there as well. But are they any less highly passionate and committed to create? With access to professional training and resources, good work can be produced. Do they really see themselves as "better" because "they get paid occasionally"?
I highlight this, David, because I don't think it helps your point at all to be comparing amateur with professional in terms of who is "better" (or perceives themselves so), who has bigger standards, or who is "more passionate". I don't think that's something you can quantify or generalise, so what you're saying in those paragraphs just isn't true.
I'm not trying to be "professional elite", but I am cautioning against being "amateur elite". I think the quality of the work should speak for itself, and that both camps equally produce works spanning the whole spectrum of quality. It doesn't make any sense to elevate one over the other. They're similar, but different.
And lastly;
>>It's about status. A "professional" will happily do a Blue Room show, because the perception is that it's a "professional" gig, because it's profit share. The frowns I got from fellow "professionals" when I told them I was doing an "amateur" production of Hamlet were telling.
>>Even if I only got $130 at the end of it, the gig would still be *perceived* as professional. The impact this has on perception is manifold.
I think you'd be closer to the point if you said it's about *perception*. I'm what you call "a professional who will happily do a Blue Room show", but I would NOT consider it "a 'professional' gig because it's profit share". There's a good chance the only professional advantage to me would be if I could use it as a tax write-off. I'm not going to be compensated for my rehearsal time, and $130 probably wouldn't cover the cost of my petrol and parking.
Rather, I would choose to do it for similar reasons to yours for doing Hamlet. My "status" would be relative to the quality of the production and my role in it. (Recent example - my role in "After The Fair". No pretense at being professional, but a brave exciting production that earned me high status.)
My perceptions of the Blueroom are: it's a venue for potentially exciting, innovative, risk-taking theatre; it gives artists opportunities to create that they may not have realised elsewhere; it doesn't always satisfy me but then neither does anywhere else, so it's a pretty good bet; it's an extremely valuable resource in Perth; it's a good night out with a subsidised bar; it allows access to amateur and professional artists alike; and it often operates on profit share.
None of this creates in me the perception that the venue or its gigs are professional.
The "status" of being at the Blueroom is not a given, but is based on perception. And it seems mine differs from yours.
Good thing too. It'd be a pretty boring website if it didn't.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/-------
That's enough blah from me. I've gotta get up early tomorrow to go scubadiving.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···