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.
Walter PlingeSat, 2 Mar 2002, 04:39 pm
When 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.
danni_skyeSun, 3 Mar 2002, 12:13 am
RE: Where is the Passion?
David,
I totally agree with you! But.... is this a dig at a particular person because they slayed you relentlessly and you feel it necessary to defend yourself by changing the subject at hand?
I say this with all respect to you, because I feel that your arguement is very valid.
Keep up the great philosophical arguements!!!!
Yours truly
Miss Danni :)
I totally agree with you! But.... is this a dig at a particular person because they slayed you relentlessly and you feel it necessary to defend yourself by changing the subject at hand?
I say this with all respect to you, because I feel that your arguement is very valid.
Keep up the great philosophical arguements!!!!
Yours truly
Miss Danni :)
crgwllmsSun, 3 Mar 2002, 05:18 am
RE: Oh -oh, the Power and the Passion...
hey 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)
NormaSun, 3 Mar 2002, 11:37 am
RE: Oh -oh, the Power and the Passion...
I appreciate that 'tech talk' is NOT the place to advertise a show, but - in reply (in part) to Craig's comment that he liked "risky" plays, come to the Old Mill Theatre's production of Ronald Harwood's "Taking Sides"
This is certainly NOT a drawing room comedy, in fact it's a very in-your- face drama about the clash between power and culture and will, hopefully make the audience indulge in some soul searching of their own.
For details see the 'what's On' section. It starts on March 22 until April 6
This is certainly NOT a drawing room comedy, in fact it's a very in-your- face drama about the clash between power and culture and will, hopefully make the audience indulge in some soul searching of their own.
For details see the 'what's On' section. It starts on March 22 until April 6
Walter PlingeMon, 4 Mar 2002, 02:21 am
RE: Oh -oh, the Power and the Passion...
>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 my frustration is born of the fact that I honestly believe I have that skill, and yet at every turn I'm being denied the chance to prove it.
>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.
And yet it motivates many to compromise the sheer quantity of theatrical output here.
>Are your statements about The Hole In The Wall and
>Effie Crump entirely accurate?
Probably not. I expect to be brought to task for them. I just find it frustrating that -- for whatever reason -- they have limited themselves to a fiscal situation that necessarily restricts them either from producing certain material, or from producing material at all.
>you seem to imply that under it's current direction there
>is less opportunity
Not "under its current direction", but rather throughout its history as a provider of the fully-paid gig.
>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!
Which is precisely my point. 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.
>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??
"BELOW" was "in-yer-face". Cool. Marcelle took some risks. Fantastic. But when was the last time Effies did that? And when will be the next time?
>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.
That's because companies like Effies get their patrons used to certain type of play, and then curve-ball them with a dark horse. But if you've got a company that -- from the start -- repeatedly produces both side-by-side, you get people used to diversity.
>You are cynical about classical plays, new plays, and
>experimental plays
Not at all. I'm cynical about the fact that it seems to be an "either or" situation. I'm cynical that when classics are done, they are generally poorly done, due to the fact that there is no culture of producing them here.
>The sort of stuff you advocate is "Fringe" at its best....
No. It's not. "Uncle Vanya" is not fringe. Nor is "The Glass Menagerie", or "Death of a Salesman", or "King Lear", or "Summer of the Seventeenth Doll". These are major plays that audiences will "want" to see. But if they see my productions of them, they will not soon forget them. "Brutal honesty" is not a genre.
>....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 know where it all fits in. It fits in perfectly with what everyone else is doing, because it's filling a currently vacant niche.
>I'll make a point of seeing your next production.
Actor: Hamlet (at the New Fortune)
Director: Some political diatribes at the Blue Room, if the application is successful.
>"Safe" theatre will only evolve once companies respond
>to audiences who are trained and encouraged to appreciate
>"dangerous" theatre.
If "dangerous" theatre can be safe (which it can), then "safe" can be dangerous.
I'm talking the middle ground, here.
D.M.
>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 my frustration is born of the fact that I honestly believe I have that skill, and yet at every turn I'm being denied the chance to prove it.
>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.
And yet it motivates many to compromise the sheer quantity of theatrical output here.
>Are your statements about The Hole In The Wall and
>Effie Crump entirely accurate?
Probably not. I expect to be brought to task for them. I just find it frustrating that -- for whatever reason -- they have limited themselves to a fiscal situation that necessarily restricts them either from producing certain material, or from producing material at all.
>you seem to imply that under it's current direction there
>is less opportunity
Not "under its current direction", but rather throughout its history as a provider of the fully-paid gig.
>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!
Which is precisely my point. 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.
>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??
"BELOW" was "in-yer-face". Cool. Marcelle took some risks. Fantastic. But when was the last time Effies did that? And when will be the next time?
>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.
That's because companies like Effies get their patrons used to certain type of play, and then curve-ball them with a dark horse. But if you've got a company that -- from the start -- repeatedly produces both side-by-side, you get people used to diversity.
>You are cynical about classical plays, new plays, and
>experimental plays
Not at all. I'm cynical about the fact that it seems to be an "either or" situation. I'm cynical that when classics are done, they are generally poorly done, due to the fact that there is no culture of producing them here.
>The sort of stuff you advocate is "Fringe" at its best....
No. It's not. "Uncle Vanya" is not fringe. Nor is "The Glass Menagerie", or "Death of a Salesman", or "King Lear", or "Summer of the Seventeenth Doll". These are major plays that audiences will "want" to see. But if they see my productions of them, they will not soon forget them. "Brutal honesty" is not a genre.
>....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 know where it all fits in. It fits in perfectly with what everyone else is doing, because it's filling a currently vacant niche.
>I'll make a point of seeing your next production.
Actor: Hamlet (at the New Fortune)
Director: Some political diatribes at the Blue Room, if the application is successful.
>"Safe" theatre will only evolve once companies respond
>to audiences who are trained and encouraged to appreciate
>"dangerous" theatre.
If "dangerous" theatre can be safe (which it can), then "safe" can be dangerous.
I'm talking the middle ground, here.
D.M.
KristineMon, 4 Mar 2002, 10:09 pm
RE: Oh -oh, the Power and the Passion...
David
if only we could eat applause.
keep up the good fight.
K
if only we could eat applause.
keep up the good fight.
K
crgwllmsTue, 5 Mar 2002, 03:03 am
"..sometimes you've got to take the hardest line."
David 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!
Walter PlingeTue, 5 Mar 2002, 03:46 pm
the hardest line
>everything worth achieving starts with someone
>dreaming an "impossible dream".
Better believe it, baby!
>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.
This does not seem to affect the activities at the Blue Room, so why should it affect the activities of a company based in the same ideals, but with a more open artistic policy?
>Why do we have professional theatre?
Ego. Somewhere along the way, actors decided that they were too important to starve. (Even Shakespeare's actors were paid a pittance, and that was from the profits)
>How does it differ from amateur?
Level of pay. Level of passion. Don't get me started on the cynical pros.
>What makes the standards better?
Level of passion. No payment required for the real thing.
>What elements are poorer?
Depends on what your standards are.
>There must be justifying arguments, because it continues to exist.
Only in the minds of those who see themselves as "better" because they get paid occasionally.
****much valid stuff about box-office snipped****
No-one denies that box-office is vital... I'm not arguing (and never have argued) for extremist fringe theatre. I'm arguing for a volume and a diversity that is currently not being provided. If the fully-professional companies can't/won't do certain works because they're too expensive, and most amateur companies are afraid of them, who's left?
Why is John Milson giving away his services for "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"? Why did he (and Andy King) give away their services for "King Lear"? Why has another prominent professional director offered to direct next year's New Fortune Shakespeare?
If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet (especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)?
Could it be because there is no extant professional platform on which to do this kind of work?
Where is the platform for "professional" practitioners to stage, and audiences to enjoy, Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Brecht, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, David Mamet, et al.?
>Venues like the Blueroom provide that incredibly
>important middle ground - where they are funded
>to provide opportunities for independent artists &
>companies to take risks.
But only if they fit a certain, limited, criteria.
>Consequently, some of the most exciting theatre in
>Perth happens under the banner of the Blueroom.
Certainly. But even you must agree that its necessarily restricted selection process prevents some very important theatrical works from ever being seen there.
>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.
And my argument is that we push it even closer to this ideal. We need a company that mirrors the Blue Room's open-access submission policy, but which broadens its artistic scope to encompass the range of repertoire we see in community theatre, but which is neither completely giveaway, nor completely pro.
But no-one's doing this. We're all too busy accepting the status quo... playing the same tune for the same paltry returns, creating a community with no passion, and therefore no opportunities... resulting in practitioners abandoning ship to go east or o/s.
>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.
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. I simply replied "When a professional company starts doing Shakespeare in Australia's only architecturally authentic Elizabethan theatre, I'll be first in line to audition. Until then, I'm going with the current mob."
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.
D.M.
>dreaming an "impossible dream".
Better believe it, baby!
>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.
This does not seem to affect the activities at the Blue Room, so why should it affect the activities of a company based in the same ideals, but with a more open artistic policy?
>Why do we have professional theatre?
Ego. Somewhere along the way, actors decided that they were too important to starve. (Even Shakespeare's actors were paid a pittance, and that was from the profits)
>How does it differ from amateur?
Level of pay. Level of passion. Don't get me started on the cynical pros.
>What makes the standards better?
Level of passion. No payment required for the real thing.
>What elements are poorer?
Depends on what your standards are.
>There must be justifying arguments, because it continues to exist.
Only in the minds of those who see themselves as "better" because they get paid occasionally.
****much valid stuff about box-office snipped****
No-one denies that box-office is vital... I'm not arguing (and never have argued) for extremist fringe theatre. I'm arguing for a volume and a diversity that is currently not being provided. If the fully-professional companies can't/won't do certain works because they're too expensive, and most amateur companies are afraid of them, who's left?
Why is John Milson giving away his services for "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"? Why did he (and Andy King) give away their services for "King Lear"? Why has another prominent professional director offered to direct next year's New Fortune Shakespeare?
If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet (especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)?
Could it be because there is no extant professional platform on which to do this kind of work?
Where is the platform for "professional" practitioners to stage, and audiences to enjoy, Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Brecht, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, David Mamet, et al.?
>Venues like the Blueroom provide that incredibly
>important middle ground - where they are funded
>to provide opportunities for independent artists &
>companies to take risks.
But only if they fit a certain, limited, criteria.
>Consequently, some of the most exciting theatre in
>Perth happens under the banner of the Blueroom.
Certainly. But even you must agree that its necessarily restricted selection process prevents some very important theatrical works from ever being seen there.
>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.
And my argument is that we push it even closer to this ideal. We need a company that mirrors the Blue Room's open-access submission policy, but which broadens its artistic scope to encompass the range of repertoire we see in community theatre, but which is neither completely giveaway, nor completely pro.
But no-one's doing this. We're all too busy accepting the status quo... playing the same tune for the same paltry returns, creating a community with no passion, and therefore no opportunities... resulting in practitioners abandoning ship to go east or o/s.
>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.
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. I simply replied "When a professional company starts doing Shakespeare in Australia's only architecturally authentic Elizabethan theatre, I'll be first in line to audition. Until then, I'm going with the current mob."
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.
D.M.
crgwllmsWed, 6 Mar 2002, 01:59 am
better to die on your feet than live on your knees
You 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.
JessThu, 7 Mar 2002, 12:13 am
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Well, I've been reading your debate with interest, as I think you have some very good points.
I am definitely still an amateur, but regardless of amateur or pro, there are some things that I would never do onstage, because they go against my own morals and beliefs. One of those is being naked. You may call me a prude or whatever, but my body is my body, and I don't want to share it with the whole world, only with my partner.
I, too, would love to create and be involved in theatre that "burns" people, but I question that nudity is necessary to this. I want a piece of theatre to be able to provoke deep thought, but at the same time be entertainment.
The performing arts industry has a bigger population than ever these days, and I think that people enter it knowing that it is precarious, and that they will most likely be out of work for 9 months of the year. However, this doesn't deter them. I think there are those whose sole aim is to "get rich", but obviously they haven't thought about the reality a lot. Personally, I would prefer to be financially comfortable, than not knowing how I was going to pay the rent but having a fantastic experience putting on a really good production of something. Does this make me not passionate? I hope not. Safe? I don't have a problem with that.
> If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet (especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)? --- Man, why are you?? You CHOSE to do it, so I hope you're not complaining. You didn't have to do anything.
Why don't you start a company like one you've suggested. I don't know a lot about that sort of thing, but it seems you have the passion for it. I'm sure there are others around who would love to be part of it, you've just got to figure out how you're going to achieve your dream. It's possible.
have a good one,
Jess.
I am definitely still an amateur, but regardless of amateur or pro, there are some things that I would never do onstage, because they go against my own morals and beliefs. One of those is being naked. You may call me a prude or whatever, but my body is my body, and I don't want to share it with the whole world, only with my partner.
I, too, would love to create and be involved in theatre that "burns" people, but I question that nudity is necessary to this. I want a piece of theatre to be able to provoke deep thought, but at the same time be entertainment.
The performing arts industry has a bigger population than ever these days, and I think that people enter it knowing that it is precarious, and that they will most likely be out of work for 9 months of the year. However, this doesn't deter them. I think there are those whose sole aim is to "get rich", but obviously they haven't thought about the reality a lot. Personally, I would prefer to be financially comfortable, than not knowing how I was going to pay the rent but having a fantastic experience putting on a really good production of something. Does this make me not passionate? I hope not. Safe? I don't have a problem with that.
> If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet (especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)? --- Man, why are you?? You CHOSE to do it, so I hope you're not complaining. You didn't have to do anything.
Why don't you start a company like one you've suggested. I don't know a lot about that sort of thing, but it seems you have the passion for it. I'm sure there are others around who would love to be part of it, you've just got to figure out how you're going to achieve your dream. It's possible.
have a good one,
Jess.
Walter PlingeTue, 12 Mar 2002, 12:03 am
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
>For whatever reason, there is a perception that "professional"
>service is different to "amateur", and there is a demand for it.
Precisely... and my point all along is that whether you're paid or not is no arbiter of quality work.
>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).
This _can_ be the case. I never said it was _always_ the case.
>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".
This was never my point. Without back-checking my posts to see if such ambiguity was carried in my choice of words or phrasing, I'm pretty sure I never asserted that.
What I was trying to point out, was that the insistence on payment, by definition, excludes certain works from being staged on a fully professional scale, and that those amateur or semi-professional ("semi-professional" defined -- by me, at least - as "profit-share") companies that _do_ stage these works are contributing something to a theatrical community that professional companies dare not. So in that sense, yes, there is some (justifiable, I think) snobbery about the level of commitment amongst amateurs and semi-pros.
The defiant pros have stymied their own employment prospects by insisting on full payment, thereby limiting the opportunities they have to do some of the more important plays (both extant and new) in the canon, merely due to the prohibitive cost of professional companies producing such works.
An example: when Andy King swallowed his professional pride to star in John Milson's amateur production of "King Lear" in 2000, he had (from what I understand) not done any theatre for about two years, and had not done any Shakespeare in EIGHT years. Is this how we define a "professional" actor in Perth?
IMNSHO, a true professional keeps his finger in as many pies as possible, as often as possible, irrespective of the "standing" of the show (ie: "amateur" or "professional"), or the amount of money on offer. If you have to work a day-job to do that, so be it.
When the paid work comes up, take it... but if the only Shakespeare (or Chekhov, or Aristophanes, or Tennessee Williams, or whatever kicks your can) available is not paying the full Equity rate, boo-hoo. Once again, are you devoted to the pay-check, or your continued evolution as an actor?
>>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*.
Isn't that what I said?
D.M.
>service is different to "amateur", and there is a demand for it.
Precisely... and my point all along is that whether you're paid or not is no arbiter of quality work.
>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).
This _can_ be the case. I never said it was _always_ the case.
>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".
This was never my point. Without back-checking my posts to see if such ambiguity was carried in my choice of words or phrasing, I'm pretty sure I never asserted that.
What I was trying to point out, was that the insistence on payment, by definition, excludes certain works from being staged on a fully professional scale, and that those amateur or semi-professional ("semi-professional" defined -- by me, at least - as "profit-share") companies that _do_ stage these works are contributing something to a theatrical community that professional companies dare not. So in that sense, yes, there is some (justifiable, I think) snobbery about the level of commitment amongst amateurs and semi-pros.
The defiant pros have stymied their own employment prospects by insisting on full payment, thereby limiting the opportunities they have to do some of the more important plays (both extant and new) in the canon, merely due to the prohibitive cost of professional companies producing such works.
An example: when Andy King swallowed his professional pride to star in John Milson's amateur production of "King Lear" in 2000, he had (from what I understand) not done any theatre for about two years, and had not done any Shakespeare in EIGHT years. Is this how we define a "professional" actor in Perth?
IMNSHO, a true professional keeps his finger in as many pies as possible, as often as possible, irrespective of the "standing" of the show (ie: "amateur" or "professional"), or the amount of money on offer. If you have to work a day-job to do that, so be it.
When the paid work comes up, take it... but if the only Shakespeare (or Chekhov, or Aristophanes, or Tennessee Williams, or whatever kicks your can) available is not paying the full Equity rate, boo-hoo. Once again, are you devoted to the pay-check, or your continued evolution as an actor?
>>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*.
Isn't that what I said?
D.M.
Walter PlingeTue, 12 Mar 2002, 12:36 am
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
>I, too, would love to create and be involved in theatre that "burns"
>people, but I question that nudity is necessary to this.
It's not *always* necessary, but it is a useful tool to have in one's arsenal (both as an actor and a director) should the work in hand require it. My fear is that political correctness, fears (mostly female, it has to be said) about body-image and the perception of "exploitation", not to mention the new "vanilla" conservatism that has come to dominate all forms of performance culture in recent years, is slowly but surely eliminating what can be (in the right hands) and incredibly potent theatrical device.
>Personally, I would prefer to be financially comfortable, than not knowing
>how I was going to pay the rent but having a fantastic experience putting
>on a really good production of something. Does this make me not passionate?
I'm not talking about "drop-it-all" passion. I'm talking about a calculated assessment of your priorities in specific circumstances. If it's a choice between being "comfortable" doing a paid gig you don't have your heart in (unless, of course, it comes in the form of a speaking role in the new Star Wars film), or only just scraping by doing something you feel passionately about, I suspect that the true artist would go for the latter.
But I would never ask anyone to risk homelessness or legal bankrupcy for art.
>>If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet
>>(especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job
>>to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)?
>Man, why are you?? You CHOSE to do it, so I hope you're not complaining.
I _am_ complaining. The constant precariousness of professional theatre in Perth means that I have never been, and probably never will be, offered the chance to play Hamlet in the New Fortune for full pay. And under current conditions, neither will anyone else.
The only chance for me to play this role in this theatre (while I am still the right side of forty), is to give it away. It p-sses me off royally to have to give up my financial security to do it, but the that's what the monumentally f--ked up theatre scene we have here dictates. NO-ONE ELSE IS DOING THIS STUFF.
Once again, my priority is the work. I would ***_LOVE_*** to be paid to play Hamlet (indeed, I was, the last time I did it, five years ago, in Queensland), but as long no professional company in Perth can afford to offer me a paid gig as Hamlet, I will happily fuscal my fiscal, because my devotion is to art, not money.
>You didn't have to do anything.
True. And let my skills get stale and rusty.
>Why don't you start a company like one you've suggested?
Already in the works. Just looking for a venue and some passionate souls to go the hard slog alongside me.
D.M.
>people, but I question that nudity is necessary to this.
It's not *always* necessary, but it is a useful tool to have in one's arsenal (both as an actor and a director) should the work in hand require it. My fear is that political correctness, fears (mostly female, it has to be said) about body-image and the perception of "exploitation", not to mention the new "vanilla" conservatism that has come to dominate all forms of performance culture in recent years, is slowly but surely eliminating what can be (in the right hands) and incredibly potent theatrical device.
>Personally, I would prefer to be financially comfortable, than not knowing
>how I was going to pay the rent but having a fantastic experience putting
>on a really good production of something. Does this make me not passionate?
I'm not talking about "drop-it-all" passion. I'm talking about a calculated assessment of your priorities in specific circumstances. If it's a choice between being "comfortable" doing a paid gig you don't have your heart in (unless, of course, it comes in the form of a speaking role in the new Star Wars film), or only just scraping by doing something you feel passionately about, I suspect that the true artist would go for the latter.
But I would never ask anyone to risk homelessness or legal bankrupcy for art.
>>If it come to that, why am I giving away my performance as Hamlet
>>(especially since I have had to quit a perfectly good full-time day-job
>>to do it, resulting in me further crippling myself financially)?
>Man, why are you?? You CHOSE to do it, so I hope you're not complaining.
I _am_ complaining. The constant precariousness of professional theatre in Perth means that I have never been, and probably never will be, offered the chance to play Hamlet in the New Fortune for full pay. And under current conditions, neither will anyone else.
The only chance for me to play this role in this theatre (while I am still the right side of forty), is to give it away. It p-sses me off royally to have to give up my financial security to do it, but the that's what the monumentally f--ked up theatre scene we have here dictates. NO-ONE ELSE IS DOING THIS STUFF.
Once again, my priority is the work. I would ***_LOVE_*** to be paid to play Hamlet (indeed, I was, the last time I did it, five years ago, in Queensland), but as long no professional company in Perth can afford to offer me a paid gig as Hamlet, I will happily fuscal my fiscal, because my devotion is to art, not money.
>You didn't have to do anything.
True. And let my skills get stale and rusty.
>Why don't you start a company like one you've suggested?
Already in the works. Just looking for a venue and some passionate souls to go the hard slog alongside me.
D.M.
tomasfordTue, 12 Mar 2002, 03:20 pm
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
As an actor, I object to doing work that isn't on a cost-share or paid basis because I object to not being offered dosh for the work I do. I don't mind working for nothing, or even next to nothing, as long as I'm not playing to full houses (as I have done in some amateur theatre shows) and not getting any cash out of it. If I'm not offered a share of the profits then that usually disheartens me somewhat. That said, I seem to be only losing money from my "pro" endevours lately, so financially I'd be better off doing amateur stuff.
I agree with your point about quality. As I said to you on Sunday night, Grads' Hamlet was the best Shakespeare production that I've seen in WA and was certainly better than the Mel Gibson film. Not that I'm an expert, but I've been dragged along to quite a few Shakeys (including some pro companies) and I liked this one the best - though I just remembered watching Richard III with the inflatable bouncy castle and I think it might come very close. Anyway, point is that it was bloody good and the fact that it was an "amateur" show didn't matter at all to the audience who seemed to love it.
Many theatre workers in Perth I find have had some form of university education. Now you may go into uni with all the ideals in the world but many people have trouble with the idea that after sacrificing three years of their lives in a similar fashion to their friends who studied accounting that their contribution to society is not equally finacially rewarded. Pressures come from elsewhere to make cash too and while as an individual it may be fine to live in squallor, when you have to live with somebody else/a family, it makes it a bit harder to justify to yourself. Not an issue for me so much as I'm pretty good at ignoring pressure from other people, but from what I can see, that seems to matter to a lot of people.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't mind not being paid/being paid squat, but ultimately for the sake of my continued evolution of my acting I need food, shelter and other basic human needs to survive. I also need to pay off the bank loan that is currentlly funding my education at some point, and would rather use what I'm studying and am passionate about to do it than have to get a job working at a god-damned restraunt. But I would rather wash dishes on a weekly basis than comprimise my artistic integrity.
Does any of this post make sense? I think I'm a bit frazzled.
Tom.
I agree with your point about quality. As I said to you on Sunday night, Grads' Hamlet was the best Shakespeare production that I've seen in WA and was certainly better than the Mel Gibson film. Not that I'm an expert, but I've been dragged along to quite a few Shakeys (including some pro companies) and I liked this one the best - though I just remembered watching Richard III with the inflatable bouncy castle and I think it might come very close. Anyway, point is that it was bloody good and the fact that it was an "amateur" show didn't matter at all to the audience who seemed to love it.
Many theatre workers in Perth I find have had some form of university education. Now you may go into uni with all the ideals in the world but many people have trouble with the idea that after sacrificing three years of their lives in a similar fashion to their friends who studied accounting that their contribution to society is not equally finacially rewarded. Pressures come from elsewhere to make cash too and while as an individual it may be fine to live in squallor, when you have to live with somebody else/a family, it makes it a bit harder to justify to yourself. Not an issue for me so much as I'm pretty good at ignoring pressure from other people, but from what I can see, that seems to matter to a lot of people.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't mind not being paid/being paid squat, but ultimately for the sake of my continued evolution of my acting I need food, shelter and other basic human needs to survive. I also need to pay off the bank loan that is currentlly funding my education at some point, and would rather use what I'm studying and am passionate about to do it than have to get a job working at a god-damned restraunt. But I would rather wash dishes on a weekly basis than comprimise my artistic integrity.
Does any of this post make sense? I think I'm a bit frazzled.
Tom.
JessTue, 12 Mar 2002, 11:14 pm
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Good work. I hope it happens for you. Living your dream has got to be a great place. I'm really looking forward to it, because I know, for me, it will happen.
"Art for art's sake", huh? Sounds reeeeeally good. I just had a weird idea, how cool would it be to get some of those Hollywood people who have more money than they know what to do with to sponsor a company here? I don't know what kind of dodgy recognition they would want, but they've certainly got the money for it. Just a random thing, that popped into my head.
"Art for art's sake", huh? Sounds reeeeeally good. I just had a weird idea, how cool would it be to get some of those Hollywood people who have more money than they know what to do with to sponsor a company here? I don't know what kind of dodgy recognition they would want, but they've certainly got the money for it. Just a random thing, that popped into my head.
JessTue, 12 Mar 2002, 11:18 pm
RE: better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Personally, I studied theatre at Uni for more knowledge, skills and training. I didn't expect it would lead to a job.
crgwllmsWed, 13 Mar 2002, 03:54 pm
RE: and no one goes "outback", that's that
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>>The defiant pros have stymied their own employment prospects by insisting on full payment...
I'm being a stickler for semantics, but I don't think you can mean "employment" prospects. You mean "opportunity to get on stage" - which is possibly a minor quibble in your view, but seeing as it pretty well defines the difference between "pro" and "am", your argument about the two makes no sense while you continue to use the word "employment" in this way.
I could just as easily comment that the "non-defiant" pros that DON'T insist on full payment have ALSO stymied their own employment prospects...because they've undersold their talent and don't reap what they're due.
>>...thereby limiting the opportunities they have to do some of the more important plays (both extant and new) in the canon...
If you mean "large cast plays", then I would have to agree. Economics usually prevents these from showing as often as smaller cast plays. And I have to admit only ever professionally doing 2 Shakespeares, one Tennessee Williams, and one broadway musical at His Majesty's, as my only "classic" plays. I don't know that I have particularly suffered by this, though. I was never that desparate to do those sorts of plays, as my personal preference.
It seems that about 90% of what I have done has been new Australian work (if you don't count the fact that so many of those works were remounted in repeat seasons). And the fact that the professional companies (PTC, the old Swy, Deckchair and BGko, mainly) were casting smaller plays meant that these new works could be created, which to me has been far more exciting. I'm sorry that opportunites weren't there for more actors to be involved, but I'm certainly not complaining! That's showbiz.
>>An example: when Andy King swallowed his professional pride to star in John Milson's amateur production of "King Lear" in 2000, he had (from what I understand) not done any theatre for about two years, and had not done any Shakespeare in EIGHT years. Is this how we define a "professional" actor in Perth?
I believe it's been a bit less than five years. Andy's was the BEST interpretation of Polonius I have ever seen, (sorry I can't see Grant's to compare) in Ray Omodei's '97 production at The Hole when it was on William St.
...We still seem to be debating about how you define "professional".
>>IMNSHO, a true professional keeps his finger in as many pies as possible, as often as possible, irrespective of the "standing" of the show, or the amount of money on offer.
When the paid work comes up, take it... but if the only Shakespeare (or Chekhov, or Aristophanes, or Tennessee Williams, or whatever kicks your can) available is not paying the full Equity rate, boo-hoo. Once again, are you devoted to the pay-check, or your continued evolution as an actor?
Well, I also seem to manage to keep my finger in as many pies as possible, as often as I can, but I DEFINITELY consider the amount of money being offered; to the extent that I don't consider auditioning for amateur shows, and have only participated by invitation (as perhaps Andy did for Lear?). In those instances I saw my contribution to the amateur company something of a benevolent SOURCE of professional pride, not in any way a case of "swallowing" it.
Luckily, I'm not an afficionado of any of the playwrights you listed, so I don't feel particularly hard done by, and perhaps that's why I am where I am. I've found other, more available cans to kick.
Am I devoted to the paycheck or my continued evolution as an actor? Can I insert the word "professional" and say "Both"? I consider myself "devoted to my continuing existence as a professional actor who earns a paycheck for his efforts". So far, I've had no complaints with a 14 year career in Perth.
IMalsoNSHO, I am one of those "true professionals" that you are speaking on behalf of. And I still think there are other points of view you ought to consider.
Burning the Midnight Oil,
craig
<8>-/====/--------
-------------------------------
>>The defiant pros have stymied their own employment prospects by insisting on full payment...
I'm being a stickler for semantics, but I don't think you can mean "employment" prospects. You mean "opportunity to get on stage" - which is possibly a minor quibble in your view, but seeing as it pretty well defines the difference between "pro" and "am", your argument about the two makes no sense while you continue to use the word "employment" in this way.
I could just as easily comment that the "non-defiant" pros that DON'T insist on full payment have ALSO stymied their own employment prospects...because they've undersold their talent and don't reap what they're due.
>>...thereby limiting the opportunities they have to do some of the more important plays (both extant and new) in the canon...
If you mean "large cast plays", then I would have to agree. Economics usually prevents these from showing as often as smaller cast plays. And I have to admit only ever professionally doing 2 Shakespeares, one Tennessee Williams, and one broadway musical at His Majesty's, as my only "classic" plays. I don't know that I have particularly suffered by this, though. I was never that desparate to do those sorts of plays, as my personal preference.
It seems that about 90% of what I have done has been new Australian work (if you don't count the fact that so many of those works were remounted in repeat seasons). And the fact that the professional companies (PTC, the old Swy, Deckchair and BGko, mainly) were casting smaller plays meant that these new works could be created, which to me has been far more exciting. I'm sorry that opportunites weren't there for more actors to be involved, but I'm certainly not complaining! That's showbiz.
>>An example: when Andy King swallowed his professional pride to star in John Milson's amateur production of "King Lear" in 2000, he had (from what I understand) not done any theatre for about two years, and had not done any Shakespeare in EIGHT years. Is this how we define a "professional" actor in Perth?
I believe it's been a bit less than five years. Andy's was the BEST interpretation of Polonius I have ever seen, (sorry I can't see Grant's to compare) in Ray Omodei's '97 production at The Hole when it was on William St.
...We still seem to be debating about how you define "professional".
>>IMNSHO, a true professional keeps his finger in as many pies as possible, as often as possible, irrespective of the "standing" of the show, or the amount of money on offer.
When the paid work comes up, take it... but if the only Shakespeare (or Chekhov, or Aristophanes, or Tennessee Williams, or whatever kicks your can) available is not paying the full Equity rate, boo-hoo. Once again, are you devoted to the pay-check, or your continued evolution as an actor?
Well, I also seem to manage to keep my finger in as many pies as possible, as often as I can, but I DEFINITELY consider the amount of money being offered; to the extent that I don't consider auditioning for amateur shows, and have only participated by invitation (as perhaps Andy did for Lear?). In those instances I saw my contribution to the amateur company something of a benevolent SOURCE of professional pride, not in any way a case of "swallowing" it.
Luckily, I'm not an afficionado of any of the playwrights you listed, so I don't feel particularly hard done by, and perhaps that's why I am where I am. I've found other, more available cans to kick.
Am I devoted to the paycheck or my continued evolution as an actor? Can I insert the word "professional" and say "Both"? I consider myself "devoted to my continuing existence as a professional actor who earns a paycheck for his efforts". So far, I've had no complaints with a 14 year career in Perth.
IMalsoNSHO, I am one of those "true professionals" that you are speaking on behalf of. And I still think there are other points of view you ought to consider.
Burning the Midnight Oil,
craig
<8>-/====/--------
crgwllmsWed, 13 Mar 2002, 04:12 pm
RE: ears can't hear what eyes don't see
crgwllms wrote:
------------------------------
>>I think you'd be closer to the point if you said it's about *perception*.
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Isn't that what I said?
No, in the paragraph before you said, "It's about status". I proceeded to disagree with that perception.
You DID talk about "perception", but it was all simply YOUR perception, and so I drew attention to that with my above sentence, and disputed your arguments with my own perceptions.
And that's still what it's all about - merely different perceptions.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/----------
Hope Elsinor is treating you well.
------------------------------
>>I think you'd be closer to the point if you said it's about *perception*.
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Isn't that what I said?
No, in the paragraph before you said, "It's about status". I proceeded to disagree with that perception.
You DID talk about "perception", but it was all simply YOUR perception, and so I drew attention to that with my above sentence, and disputed your arguments with my own perceptions.
And that's still what it's all about - merely different perceptions.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/====/----------
Hope Elsinor is treating you well.