February 26, 2012
A NZ National Theatre?
Peter Silver posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:57 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 10:52 PM
Simon Bennetts idea is a good one. A discussion for a National Theatre? Not a grand UK style,but one of/for here? The NZ Actor’s Co filled a need in NZ for a company that aimed high and took risks…….and toured
John Smythe posted 3 Jul 2007, 05:33 PM
Thank you Simon and Peter (a biblical pairing for what is already an epic). What follows are the elements relating to the National Theatre discussion, lifted from the ‘Maidment to close! Ak theatre Crisis!’ forum.
___________________________________
holly jones – posted 29 Jun 2007, 11:05 AM
… we need to start thinking of a National Theatre and more outlets for NZ plays! AK and NZ is in Theatrical Crisis…All must band together to helpus find our voice and venues allover the country to express it!
Wgtn Mary – posted 29 Jun 2007, 01:31 PM
National Theatre! NoOOOOOOOO!! Run by some arrogant dickwit everybody can’t stand, soaking up millions of CNZ dollars to do NZ plays all in the same style by a raft of the same old same old boring directors! Please, give me regional variety any day! One good thing, it would probably ensure that the theatre fringe was REALLY exciting. And what’s wrong with a bit of Ak Wgtn banter!?? It’s FUN! What’s wrong with a bit of fun?? All we’re doing is flirting really, in a Wildean sort of way – and what’s wrong with that?? Telling people to behave (yet again you old fuddy duddy) won’t stop it happening, John, so it might as be aired on this site. Apart from which the different approaches to theatre in Ak and Wgtn are fascinating and would probably make a great forum.
holly jones – posted 29 Jun 2007, 02:19 PM / edited 29 Jun 2007, 02:22 PM
Hail Mary…glad 2 c ur a passionate Wellite! Nat theatre or not I reckon we need more NZ work on our stages, and in AK’s case better stages to put them on!
RE AK WGTN…Ak’s often had a very physical approach,with companies like Inside Out and Theatre at Large…alas no more…often with LeCoq, Gallie (sp?) devised approach….Welli……………..? Mary?
Marc – posted 29 Jun 2007, 05:06 PM
… a National Theatre isn’t such a bad idea. Don’t think along the British model though, whats wrong with a properly funded company whose m.o. to give new works the time they need, re stage proven works, not have a home base theatre and TOUR extensively throughout the country?
Tugol – posted 29 Jun 2007, 05:16 PM
I just worry about the monopoly of style that might develop; I have sometimes seen different productions of the same play in different centres, and the different interpretations are fascinating; the different city cultures clearly have an impact, and this is important. And also while on the face of it one Nat theatre seems a cost effective idea, touring costs are phenomenal. I suspect it would cost just the same to ‘properly fund’ a theatre in each major city to present their own productions and maybe swap occasionally as we do now. This also means that actors and other theatre workers are supported locally, making each city much richer.
Marc – posted 29 Jun 2007, 05:24 PM
That is an excellent argument for regional theatre. I don’t know what the answer is, I like your idea as much as mine.
holly jones – posted 29 Jun 2007, 05:32 PM / edited 29 Jun 2007, 05:33 PM
Maybe both…strong regional theatre and an increase in intercity shows, as in OZ between all the major companies. Plus a company that might tour new work here and offshore. Good investigation work John, re Maidment..any interest may help sway the Uni to keep this venue alive in the wider community
John Smythe – posted 29 Jun 2007, 05:41 PM
I agree Tugol, Holly, et al. The regional ‘recurrently funded’ theatres are already our national theatre. And as such their first priority should be NZ theatre. We’ve tried national touring companies before – from the NZ Players to The NZ Actors’ Company – and they haven’t worked for a range of reasons, mostly economic.
Downstage responded to the demise of the NZ Players by evolving its own idiosyncratic model within its own community – and it was the Arts Council that later made it conform more to the English Rep model (shameless plug: see Downstage Upfront – the first 40 years of NZ’s longest running professional theatre, VUP 2004).
The diversity of approach and style within each city, in response to its own community, enriches our theatre culture, offers more work opportunities for professionals (who can gravitate to the place that suits them best) and – as Tugol says – touring shows between centres can bring breaths of fresh air to each town that help to blow the cobwebs away.
Simon Bennett – posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:28 PM
I was involved with the New Zealand Actor’s Company from its inception to its rather sad demise. We produced two large-scale touring productions: A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Roger Hall’s A Way of Life. Both these tours, though very expensive, were met with such demand in the regional as well as main centres, that they were viable. What killed the Actor’s Company was our Leah production which was designed for the International Festival and an Auckland season, rather than a national tour. This was an ambitious and risky work that got critically slammed and which very few people came to see. Five years of hindsight (brow-beating and soul-searching) taught me that Leah was too risky/difficult a production this early on in the Company’s career, the central idea behind the production was probably ill-concieved and it certainly didn’t have the mass appeal our previous two productions had. Fundamentally, however, the funding/arts environment in this country is so precarious that it doesn’t allow for failure – we didn’t have the financial resources to weather that particular storm. So I do believe that national touring is viable in New Zealand. It does, however need to be backed up with infrastructure and a funding base that can allow for some failure – as failure is an inevitable part of creative endeavour.
holly jones – posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:37 PM
Hear Hear!
Simon Bennett – posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:49 PM
Maybe, John, this is a new topic? A New Zealand National Theatre?
Peter Silver – posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:58 PM
Great idea Simon, I have started one
Tugol posted 4 Jul 2007, 09:33 AM
I’m not sure what Simon Bennett means by “being allowed to fail”. Productions fail all the time, after all, with everyone’s permission (and regrets of course). The issue is, perhaps, how much public money we are prepared to see go down the drain when plays DO fail. Or perhaps, how much public money we’re prepared to pour into a national company (or other theatrical institution) just to see the institution survive, when after all, the play’s the thing.
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 09:50 AM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 11:15 PM
What I meant is that I believe that innovation and risk-taking are vital to the growth of any creative organisation, group, individual or artform. Without this, the artform will stagnate. An inevitable part of the highly risky venture that is theatre, sooner or later, is some degree of failure. People learn through failure – possibly more effectively than through success, and this is how they grow, develop and get better at what they do.
My comment was that in the case of the New Zealand Actor’s Company, there was no room for failure – it took one spectacular flop to send the organisation (with some quite spectacular success behind it) into liquidation. I’m not crying over spilt milk and have to take responsibility for my part in that creative failure, but I find it sad that the biggest problem (IMHO) facing bold initiatives, is that the backstop doesn’t exist to allow organisations such as the NZAC to move beyond failure, learn from mistakes and keep going. You may well argue that only the successful deserve to carry on.
My point is that failure in the arena of the performing arts (in fact, any creative industry) is inevitable at some stage. I believe this is one of the big contributing factors to why many senior practitioners leave the industry/artform. When I was starting out in the industry 20 years ago, my shining examples were the startlingly original work from Inside Out, The Front Lawn and James Beaumont. What are these people doing now?
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 10:03 AM
I should add to my above post that risk-taking and innovation can occur here, but it takes place at the Silo/BATS level, where emerging practitioners are able to present developmental work at minimal risk levels, because overall costs are low. As practitioners get older and develop, it becomes difficult to sustain a life on the Fringe. Personal responsibilities such as families and mortgages begin to encroach. Plus a sense that the ‘apprenticeship’ phase of a career may be over. Other than a (best-case-scenario) occasional gig at one of the organisations formerly known as community theatres, what realistic potential is there for successful mid-career practitioners who want to continue to grow/develop/take risks?
Tugol posted 4 Jul 2007, 11:19 AM
Yes points taken – though when you say “what realistic potential is there for successful mid-career practitioners who want to continue to grow/develop/take risks?”, both Bats and Silo are far more than testing grounds for the inexperienced young – they do some of the best work in the country with some of the best practitioners.
t opiate posted 4 Jul 2007, 11:43 AM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 12:19 PM
‘My Initial Thoughts’ by T Opiate…
NZ would benefit from a secure, MCH-funded touring players company.
Two-year directorships and regular cast and crew turnover. This is so important. No career public servants, and no sweet deals for old luvvies running out the clock. Keep the thing vital.
Three plays touring at any one time, as well as workshops in schools.
Respect for established theatres/ co-ops: no direct competition, and the grace to can a production if it is seen as such. Hard to police I know, but this is more a code of conduct thing.
No ‘home’ theatre. The company should rehearse in different places around the country and perform everywhere.
A mix of plays, including new NZ ones and old Russian ones.
CHEAP MOTHERFUCKING TICKETS
tugol posted 4 Jul 2007, 12:06 PM
“No career public servants, and no sweet deals for old luvvies running out the clock” … absolutely! But why go to the phenomenal expense of establishing a whole new set up? Why not fund the existing theatres sufficiently (which as John comments really are our exisiting ‘National Theatre’) so they can afford to do a wider range of work, employ a wider range of artists (at better rates), and tour more extensively themselves? Isn’t it more money for the CURRENT setup that we need to demand, rather than yet another one?
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 12:38 PM
“No ‘home’ theatre. The company should rehearse in different places around the country and perform everywhere.” The company would need a home base (if not a home theatre). Rehearsing all around the country would be very expensive if you take accommodation and per diems into account.
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 12:46 PM
Tugol writes: ” both Bats and Silo are far more than testing grounds for the inexperienced young – they do some of the best work in the country with some of the best practitioners.” Without a doubt. However, it is also a fact that the work that gioes on at these theatres is heavily subsidised by the practioners involved. I would argue that this is okay when you’re starting out, but very difficult as a basis to sustain a career on.
t opiate posted 4 Jul 2007, 01:03 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 10:53 PM
Yeah, it would be expensive. How about three rehearsal spaces in, say, Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, which can also be used by existing companies when the company isn’t using them? One dinky office in Wellington would serve as the ‘base’. There is no need for a home ground or a Te Whaea-type arts emporium. No McCahons on the walls and no cafes.
I can see a NZ company being a valuable institution. It could serve as both a training and a strutting ground. Of course, I have concerns about the uneasy relationship between art and government, but god damn it, Trevor Mallard just said they’re putting in an INITIAL $10m in to the next America’s Cup campaign. You know? Emirates Team NZ? The Prime Minister is also the Minister for Arts culture and Heritage. The government coffers are full, the artistic talent is here. I think we’re in the early stages of what may come to be seen as a vital and important time for theatre in NZ. I reckon that it’s time to reassess this area.
Come on black!
Peter Silver posted 4 Jul 2007, 05:27 PM
Simon Bennett asks where Front Lawn are now..I see an exciting new project with Don McGlashan and his new band Seven Sister’s do a theatre/music show for the Taranaki Festival: THE COLOSUSS OF ROADIES. Is this a return to Front Lawn territory? Hope so! Who else is in it? Sounds great….Rough Kiwi Theatre?
John Smythe posted 4 Jul 2007, 05:29 PM
Something good is cooking here! The discussion so far suggests this to me: Every couple of years independent producers from anywhere around the country bid to produce and tour a National Theatre season (say 2 or 3 productions) that may comprise successful productions contracted in from regional companies and/or new productions of something brand new or from the (classical) repertoire. Resources and personnel are hired / contracted in as and when required.
Tugol posted 4 Jul 2007, 05:42 PM
Simon B – a reasonable number of Bats & Silo shows get funded quite well and have producers who do a good job raising money from all over
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 05:47 PM
I know this – I’m a board member and co-founder of BATS Theatre. I also have been on the CNZ Theatre Funding committee. However, my point still stands – the risk in co-op productions is taken by the co-op members. And even with a decent CNZ grant, practitioners are unlikely to earn what used to be called ‘equity minimum’ once everything is settled up. Sustainable careers can’t be built on this kind of work.
t opiate posted 4 Jul 2007, 06:29 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 10:53 PM
JS – “Resources and personnel are hired / contracted in as and when required.” There would have to be some sort of regulation around this. Sure, the best people in the country should be a part of the company, but the company should always be changing. Actor A, Lighting Tech B and Physio C should not be able to count on four years of solid employment.
I was talking to a DOC guy recently, and he told me that rangers who live in isolated areas are replaced often, largely because they can end up feeling like they ‘own’ an island or a coast if they stay in one place too long. The theatre company I see is constantly refreshing itself, and the practitioners are aware that they will only have this amount of time, resource and money for a short while. Then they go back to the rest of their careers. This is not an alternative to the status quo, it’s a complement.
On the flip side, you could be sure that if you really did devote your life to the theatre, you’d be pretty much guaranteed to luck out at some point and be guarnateed some cash. No per diems by the way, company members would work eight hours a day like everyone else and be paid a set salary. Travel and accommodation would obviously be paid for by the company, healthcare would be provided and so would a good deal of the food. The job would be constantly on-the-go anyway, and the contract would make it clear that there was no ‘base’ for the company. You can’t do this job from home, or from your home town all of the time.
Any way, I’d like to be on the committee please.
Shane Bosher posted 4 Jul 2007, 08:40 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 10:53 PM
Simon – just be aware when making comparisons between Silo Theatre and Bats that the models are quite different.
Because of the incredibly high cost of production in Auckland the notion of profit share is completely unfeasible. Silo Theatre is now a producing company (not a receiving house as is the case with Bats) with a dedicated focus to developing actors, directors and technicians that pays all of their contractors weekly wages toward production. Obviously this needs the full commitment of funders to ensure its sustainability.
In recent years Silo Theatre has toured four works to other centres. Both Bash and The Women were successful, The Boys in the Band failed to reach target (and was unfunded) due to its graveyard slot in the programme and The Case of Katherine Mansfield toured on a no-risk basis (Downstage purchased the show). Touring is incredibly expensive and exposes companies to huge risk. Australia has an incredibly successful model with its Playing Australia fund. This means that ONE great production is toured by one company interstate to all of the major companies and cities. With the right producers, companies and funding levels this could be a feasible option. Another strategy could be for Creative NZ to establish a guarantee against loss scheme for touring initiatives of NZ work. This should be able to be accessed by both project funded companies and RFOs – to ensure that GREAT work gets seen by audiences all over NZ.
Chesapeake posted 4 Jul 2007, 08:40 PM
Simon – “Sustainable careers can’t be built on this kind of work” – well, I’m not sure about that, I know of a few. It’s healthy bank balances that can’t be built on it, that’s all. Most actors I know don’t expect to earn all their living from theatre work though, and do a variety of other things relatively cheerfully.
Anon#2 posted 4 Jul 2007, 08:54 PM
I’m not sure that ‘failure’ is as character forming as Simon suggests. And while I can see how artistic and critical failure cd fit the bill sometimes, what’s to be learned from financial failure, which seems to be the kind that he is talking about? As the smaller theatres mentioned have proved, there is a way to test artistically ‘risky’ new works WITHOUT taking great financial risks – and if the work pays off then it can be developed and have return seasons or toured which is what often happens. This is the model we should follow.
Tugol posted 4 Jul 2007, 09:04 PM
t opiate – very much like your DOC example; in a nutshell. At the moment the variety of work that actors do ensures they keep in touch with the real world and their audience too – I can think of a handful of our ‘established’ actors who could easily get very smug and boring if theatre became an 8 hour day ‘public service’ type option.
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 10:55 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 11:14 PM
Shane, I take your point that Silo and BATS do operate under different models. Sorry if I communicated the wrong idea. However I would suggest that they are both small ‘developmental’ theatres. In Silo’s case, ‘developmental’ seems to apply to practitioners, in BATS case, to the nature of the work presented. BATS also produces its own work (the annual STAB commission is an example of this), but much of the programme is ‘presented’. BATS takes a risk on every show there as its ‘rental’ is 15% of the gross box office. So there is an element of ‘joint venture with every production. BATS’ focus is predominently on new New Zealand work, while the Silo seems to focus on interesting international works.
ANON#2 – WRT ‘failure’, it’s hard to quantify what that is. I guess box ofice/critical failure can be measured. ie., if a show flops, that is a sign of failure. However, I have been involved in shows which few poeple saw which I would consider to be very successful on a creative level (Assassins at The Watershed and Conquest of the South Pole at BATS come to mind). I have also been involved in shows that have had huge box office sucess, which i have been faintly embarrassed to have been involved with. I still maintain that we learn from mistakes. If something is a critical failure and/or people don’t seem to be entertained by it, then the people responsible have to analyse why that happened and how such a situation might be avoided in the future.
Chespeake and Tugol, I don’t believe that keeping practitioners hungry through sporadic work necessarily produces work of excellence or advances the industry. I would say from observation and experience that practitioners tend to get better the more they practice. A consistent output of work and exposure to a wide body of work and fellow practitioners leads to improvement – and when the talent is there, excellence. When I talk about sustainable careers, I’m not just talking about incomes.
Simon Bennett posted 4 Jul 2007, 11:42 PM / edited 4 Jul 2007, 11:54 PM
At the risk of seeming to monopolise this topic, here are some things I would like to see in a New Zealand National Theatre:
1. A celebration of excellence. The company should be unashamedly elitist. This is the best work NZ can offer. How to achieve this? Bring together the most exciting and accomplished practitioners from around the country. Resource productions adequately to allow for ample rehearsal time – I would suggest 5-6 weeks minimum. Accept that development of a production (particularly new work) doesn’t end at the point it’s first in front of an audience. Continue to develop and polish that work until it shines. Then think about touring it.
2. A company which focusses on theatre with a New Zealand perspective. Not ruling out classics here, just saying that the bread and butter of this company should be to celebrate and present the New Zealand theatrical voice (whatever that is).
3. A company that tours within New Zealand and internationally.
4. A company which provides as part of its mandate the opportunity for an ensemble (or company) of actors who concentrate on a season of work together. I’m a fervent beliver that excellence in theatre can be better achieved:
a) when there is a level of trust and repect between performers that can be best engendered through shared methodology and sustained experience working together; and
b) when actors are able to work that acting muscle through exposure to an ongoing programme of challenging work.
5. A company with a clear, non-patronising, educational component to its activity – building audiences and practitioners for tomorrow.
6. A company with a strong developmental wing which fosters new writing. The ATC’s developmental programme is to be commended for what it achieves here. However, a better resourced version could achieve even more.
Any more for any more?
Anon#2 posted 5 Jul 2007, 12:15 AM
Fine – as long as I can be on the committee (along with t opiate) who decides what the hell “excellence” is , and what superstars are in this uber-company. On second thoughts – every activity you describe is being covered already by existing theatres, acting and production companies up and down the country – so instead of risking a character forming failure costing millions, let’s fund these struggling theatres & co better across the board so they can achieve everything you describe, eh? It seems absurd to set aside extra funds to be siphoned off by yet another theatre company when the current ones are struggling! Especially a company that sets itself up to be ‘the best’, which will cause a lot of bad feeling. Inevitiably the posh new national theatre will embarrass itself with some Holy Sinner or other, while a little oily rag group rehearsing for 3 weeks in a shed in Naenae will come up with something magical. I agree that our current bunch of regional theatres and their fringes are our National Theatre, and if there’s any money to spare, they are the ones who have earned it, and who will have every right resenting it going to some upstart new bunch.
Stuart Hoar posted 5 Jul 2007, 10:05 AM / edited 5 Jul 2007, 10:16 AM
I’m interested in the National Theatre debate and thought I might add a shortened version of an idea I’ve been floating for a year or so. It’s based loosely on the recently established Scottish National Theate. I’m not wedded to any of this detail but I think it’s crucial that some sort of National Theatre is established here.
The figures quoted may be unrealistic, if so I will simply change them to suit my argument. Frankly we could add another zero to the figures and it wouldn’t make much difference in terms of NZ’s annual GDP (projected tax income for 07/08 is something over fifty billion dollars and if we were to allow one million dollars a year for a national theatre it would be 0.0002% of that figure (I think that’s right, I’m not maths literate myself)- which is barely on the radar and why an equally insignificant amount like ten million dollars can be easily found for the America’s Cup – and why not, it’s all cheese parings really) .
Our problem collectively is with the vision thing, it’s not really a question of economics. Living as I am presently in France it is interesting to be in a culture where it’s accepted that people who work in the arts will of course not necessarily be wealthy but can expect to have a career just as one might be a teacher or a baker or a public servant.
Proposal: To establish a National Theatre in New Zealand – an idea for discussion
New Zealand already has a number of subsidised theatres. Why should we have a National Theatre?
New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre lacks the national profile and ‘brand identity’, or ‘quality guarantee’, which can lead customer growth for the sector as a whole.
New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre has a low international profile and is sometimes treated, even in New Zealand, as a second-best option to international prestige.
Yet within New Zealand/ Aotearoa Theatre there are the following core assets:
• a network of successful professional theatres, all of which actively support the idea of New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre even if the level of support is compromised by comparative low levels of funding as mentioned above
• the skills of New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre artists and technicians and the enthusiasm and versatility of New Zealand/Aotearoa audiences
• an impressive range of theatrical styles
• a vigorous modern repertoire
• a confident ability to tackle the best of world theatre
• the experience of working in every part of New Zealand and with every area of New Zealand/Aotearoa life.
As a New Zealand dramatist who has been writing plays for over twenty years I believe that local theatre lacks the momentum that was developed in the 1980’s when I first began writing plays.
I feel that the subsidised theatres first commitment as working theatres should be to New Zealand/Aotearoa plays.
This idea would drive the National Theatre process.
At present there are specific needs and problems which could and will be addressed by a New Zealand/Aotearoa National Theatre. As evidenced by Creative New Zealand’s most recent (August 2000) survey of arts audiences in New Zealand,
the national theatre audience is underrepresented (proportionately to population) by Mâori and Pacific Island peoples, men, people aged 18-24, people with less disposable income than average. The average audience is white and middleclass and while there is nothing intrinsically wrong in that it must be noted that the overall audience percentage for theatre audiences is 3% of the total population.
This can be improved and the way to improve this figure – as the recent establishment of a Welsh and Scottish National theatre attest to – is by establishing the National Theatre of New Zealand/Aotearoa.
The Plan
The New Zealand/Aotearoa National Theatre should not be based on a single building. The model I propose is based on the recently established Scottish National Theatre.
The New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre will be a creative producer which engages with the whole theatre sector as its ‘production company’, working with and through the existing New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre community to achieve its objectives.
The New Zealand/Aotearoa National Theatre should develop a quality repertoire originating in New Zealand. This will include new work and existing work. Use will be made of the best available writers, directors, actors and technicians to create, develop and tour such work.
In close collaboration with the existing theatre and festival network (perhaps the people who would call for and decide on submissions to be written and produced should be the artistic directors of the subsidised theatres and this process could be facilitated and supported by Playmarket or Creative NZ or both) the New Zealand/Aotearoa National Theatre will commission and initiate new theatrical works on a variety of scales. One excellent production in one theatre does not a theatrical summer make, however. It is absolutely important and vital that such productions are seen and enjoyed by as wide an audience as possible. The national theatre in collaboration and planning with existing theatres and festivals will facilitate touring this work to all parts of New Zealand and possibly abroad.
The plan would be to begin modestly and efficiently build up a repertoire of completely original New Zealand work (something not done by the National Orchestra or the Royal New Zealand Ballet) over a five year period. Based on an estimate of $75000 to commission and tour a show (initial production costs would be provided for by the producing theatre) and allowing $100,000 for salaries and overheads a realistic funding plan would be:
Year 1: $250,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $350,000
Year 4: $400,000
Year 5: $450,000
(These figures do not include an allowance for inflation.)
This modest proposal would allow for the creation of two new full scale pieces of work in the first year. Two new full scale pieces of work and a smaller scale work in the second year. Three new full scale pieces of work in the third year. Three new pieces and a smaller piece in the forth year and four new full scale pieces in the fifth year. The National Theatre would then be held to review and accounted a successful enterprise. If its aims (including raising total audience level up to 5% of the population) have not been accomplished then it should be disbanded.
The National Theatre would recoup a percentage of box office from each subsequent production after the initial production and this income would be used purely for National Theatre educational purposes, in order to encourage and possibly subsidise a theatre-going teenage audience.
It’s important to understand that the funding for NZ/Aotearoa National Theatre would not come from Creative New Zealand’s Project Fund. This idea can only work if the funding stands alone and is purely dedicated to funding the idea. Ideally this funding should come via the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
The Working Model – Summary
The New Zealand/Aotearoa National Theatre should be a creative producer which engages and collaborates with the whole theatre sector as its ‘production company’. It will bring together the right alliances of talent to produce, promote and tour work of excellence on a variety of scales. This production vehicle will:
• address the cultural and physical geography of New Zealand with particular respect to Mâori and Pacific Island Theatre
• provide an international platform for New Zealand/Aotearoa theatre.
Stuart Hoar
John Smythe posted 10 Jul 2007, 11:54 PM / edited 14 Jul 2007, 10:57 AM
The more I think about it the more I think a New Zealand National Theatre should acquire and commission productions for touring from existing recurrently funded organisations and independent production entities who pitch / audition / compete for the privilege.
Tasked with presenting a home-grown repertoire throughout NZ – larger scale productions in the larger cities; smaller ones in rural centres too – the NZNT would operate as a lean management company that draws on existing resources to extend the reach of existing work and offer incentives for the further development of homegrown work.
Simon Bennett posted 14 Jul 2007, 08:57 AM
One has to ask, John, if this is the way to find and present the most exceptional work this country is capable of? What you’re suggesting seems to be to elevate pre-existing work to the National Theatre status, rather than generating new work and providing it with the resources to shine.
Anon#2 posted 14 Jul 2007, 11:32 AM / edited 14 Jul 2007, 11:50 AM
One has to ask, Simon, what on earth makes one think that ‘generating new work and providing it with an abundance of resources’ is going to lead to “the most exceptional work this country is capable of”? When this very approach has a history of disaster? (In the interest of keeping this site positive I will not name names – but we all can.) When in fact it’s the opposite approach, the oily rag company starting in the shed, movin on up though the Silo or Bats or equivalent, that usually provides ‘excellence’ and undeniable ‘National Theatre status’ – Bare & No 2, The Case of Katherine Mansfield, Indian Ink, Blue Sky Boys, The End of the Golden Weather, Purapurawhetu, Skin Tight etc etc??
If John is indeed suggesting that we “elevate pre-existing work to National Theatre status”, what’s exactly wrong with that? Such work will have had its tryout in an existing theatre; we can have some certainty that our good money isn’t being poured after bad – desperately imporant when we have so little. It will have had the excellent advantage of a honing season and all the publicity associated. I think it would be great if CNZ could have a great new well-funded category for National Touring, guaranteeing adequate funding for (say) one SI and two NI productions from theatres, and 3 wild cards per year.
The existing theatre and CNZ structures can easily handle this, and while the CNZ judging panel system may not be perfect, I suspect it’s a great deal more democratic than anything Simon is suggesting. For a start, if only proven, ‘pre-existing’ productions are eligible, the NZ public will already have had some say in choosing their National Theatre, which is as it should be.
Let’s not get snobby, SImon, about the NZ public. It’s their taxes and their theatre. If one’s complaint remains that not enough ‘excellent’ work is being generated by the existing theatres and groups then the simple answer is – one should fight for adequate funding for THEM, FIRST! If a child is sickly you don’t buy it an expensive course in body building; you feed it!
Sarafim posted 14 Jul 2007, 01:26 PM
Simon wants to run a theatre company. But he doesn’t want to struggle, so he’s asking for it to be absurdly well funded, and to be “allowed to fail” so he doesn’t have to be accountable for anything or risk his massive funding being cut off. He doesn’t want to work for his reputation either, so he ‘s asking for it to be called NZ’s National Theatre (rather than just ‘The Latest Auckland Theatre Initiative, Probably Doomed to Fail”), so he can call himself the Boss of NZ theatre. Then he can say “I run the National Theatre of NZ therefore I am the Boss of NZ Theatre therefore I am NZ’s primary theatre representative and therefore only I should choose what gets commissioned and funded, or get sent to overseas junkets to meet with the heads of other National Theatres.”. Well, someone had to say it.
John Smythe posted 14 Jul 2007, 03:41 PM
Actually I can think of a number of people who would love to run a National Theatre of New Zealand and what a sad state we would be in if that were not so. This whole discussion remains valid precisely because there are people out there who are hungry for it, as providers and consumers.
So even if the aspersions “Sarafim” casts at Simon were true – so what? He knows as well as anyone that the process of configuring and forming a national theatre, let alone appointing its director (if the model were to include that), would be rigorously competitive. If I were on the selection panel I would certainly be interested in applicants with a passion and drive that was generated in part – and inevitably – by self interest. Anyone applicant who claimed to be 100% altruistic would be suspect in my book.
The ‘right to fail’ concept also needs to be put in perspective. Taking risks is fundamental to successful creativity. If the possibility of the odd committed failure was not factored into the model and budget, conservatism would rule and that would get us nowhere. As any of the existing theatre companies would tell you, nothing is predictable, playing it ‘safe’ doesn’t work and in terms of being attractive to the punters, the biggest risk is not to take a risk at all.
I agree with Anon#2 that the first priority is to increase the incentives and capacity of those working within the existing infrastructure to develop and produce the homegrown work that may go national (without that necessarily being the end goal). Meanwhile I still think a NTNZ should be more of a distributor than a producer, at least initially.
Then, once the logistics and management of a viable touring circuit are in place, and programme content rationale has evolved, maybe they could help to initiate work as a co-producer – as the various Arts Festivals do now. And if that process leads to their adding primary production to their role, alongside ‘buying in’ some productions and co-producing others, so be it.
But asking it to hit the ground running as a fully fledged national theatre production company can surely only guarantee yet another failure. Our theatre professionals and the NZ public all deserve better than that.
Sarafim posted 14 Jul 2007, 04:22 PM
Actually I don’t think we would be in a sad state at all if we had nobody interested in running an NT of NZ. Anybody genuinely interested in NZ theatre would be arguing, as you and others have here, for the NT of NZ comprising the existing regional companies, and for any spare resources to be aimed their way. They are the ones getting on with the real job of trying to keep NZ theatre alive and healthy, with a phenomenal lack of self interest, by the way, and often considerable sacrifice. It seems to me that the level of ‘self interest’ required to allow one to be dismissive of the work of our current ‘National Theatres’ and to argue for a superior ‘elite’ version is rather too high to be acceptable.
Wgtn Mary posted 14 Jul 2007, 05:42 PM
If a National Theatre of NZ is a distributor rather than a producer, then surely it shd be called the “NZ Touring Crew” rather than the National Theatre. It’s that name – The National Theatre!! – with all its pompous (not to mention UK) resonance – that’s the problem! Attracting the self-interested like moths to a flame …
Simon Bennett posted 15 Jul 2007, 09:49 AM / edited 15 Jul 2007, 11:14 AM
Sarafim, please don’t read into my posts the personal ambition you seem to atribute to me. I’m engaging in this discussion because I used to work in theatre and was driven by ambition and the desire to change the status quo (BATS and the NZ Actors’ Company were partly the byproduct of this). However the NZAC failure meant that I needed to return to my other job – television. This is where I intend to stay until my kids are grown up. Doesn’t mean I can’t maintain a passionate interest in theatre in this country.
Anon#2, in my opinion, all the shows you list would be prime candidates for a NZNT. However, my fear would be that John’s proposed structure might tend to overlook work generated from the independent sector in favour of work from the long-standing ‘community theatres’.
I wonder if the ‘anti-elitist’ aspect of the egalitarian NZ psyche is conbtributing to the antipathy towards NZ National Theatre as a notion? When I talk about ‘well-resourced’ – the main resource I am referring to is time – in rehearsal and in development of new work. I think the existing funding model, in general doesn’t encourage excellence. Not to say it doesn’t happen – it does – but this is in spite of, rather than because of, the climate in which the work is developed.
Simon Bennett posted 15 Jul 2007, 11:19 AM
Here’s another interesting idea: Endow Taki Rua with National Theatre status, and elevate its funding so that it can embrace some of the ideas that are being tossed around as part of this debate.
xxx xxxxxxx posted 15 Jul 2007, 05:50 PM / edited 15 Jul 2007, 07:45 PM
Might be an idea to ask them first. They may not want to give up their current all-Mâori theatre identity! And they already embrace “some of the ideas that are being tossed around as part of this debate”, by the way. Unless of course a NZ National Theatre that only presents Mâori playwrights is OK with everybody??
[This was posted under a name that belongs to a theatre organisation so I have removed the name. It has to be a rule that no-one may participate under a real name that is not theirs. – JS]
Simon Bennett posted 15 Jul 2007, 07:44 PM
Maybe one of the biggest obstacles to forging a NZ National Theatre is the lack of consensus within the industry that this topic is indicating? There are probably many groups and individuals in the country who secretly hold a desire to grow into this role. However, whoever tries to raise their head above the parapet is likely to be shot down in flames by their peers. This is partly a consequence of an industry/artform that has been subject to financial starvation over the last 20 or so years. Anyone who is put in the position of running a National Theatre is likely to find themselves holding a poisoned chalice.
Wgtn Mary posted 15 Jul 2007, 08:47 PM
Hold on – the correspondance here isn’t indicating “a lack of consensus” at all! All it’s indicating is that nobody seems to agree with YOU! Where there IS some agreement is around the position that the existing theatres make up our national theatre, and that if we want more of our theatre scene, that answer is to fund them better. There have been some different ideas thrown around about the best way to do that, but that’s just discussion, not ‘lack of consensus’! Yes, the job of NZ National Theatre Director (!) WOULD be a poisoned chalice because it’s a total waste of time and money – and if you want consensus, I suspect this is where you’d find it. Just because many might have a “secret desire” to “grow into that role” doesn’t mean the role is desirable! Would that we had shot Bush down in flames when HIS ‘secret desires’ popped their heads over the parapet!
Milky posted 19 Jul 2007, 07:50 PM / edited 19 Jul 2007, 07:50 PM
Before we have a national theatre, wouldn’t it be good if the artistic directors of the recurrently funded theatres we already have worked together (or even had one meeting together once a year)? Sure they pair up here and there occasionally but why don’t they discuss plans together as a regular part of their process? If they discussed their thoughts on plays and commissions they’re already working on individually then toured based on what each area wanted to buy in with each venue putting in collateral and taking a percentage at the end, wouldn’t this save a lot of time and money programming and casting-wise (this is what they do in Australia – that’s how STC came to buy MTC production of Urinetown)? I mean, I’m not at all saying there should be only a fixed amount of shows which all go everywhere with exactly the same actors etc and nothing else, but surely at least one or two shows a year (maybe one old and one new New Zealand play) could work on this basis?
Zia posted 19 Jul 2007, 09:10 PM
Don’t they do this already? I assumed they did!
t opiate posted 19 Jul 2007, 11:03 PM
I’d just like to thank Stuart Hoar for his contribution, and urge everyone to check out the Scottish example online.
William Walker posted 13 Aug 2007, 07:42 PM / edited 13 Aug 2007, 09:13 PM
New Zealand Theatre: A case for investment in regional theatres
[This has been moved to its own forum – click here to access it]
Bill Sheat posted 25 Aug 2007, 09:15 PM
I was on the Drama Panel of the Arts Council from its inception in1964. Our primary task was to foster the establishment of professional theatre. We debated for many meetings whether theatre shouls be regional or national. The Panel was almost evenly split. The Chairman, George Swan, wanted a national company. I wanted regional companies. Forty years ago the argument was regional or national. There was not enough money for both. After several meeting George saw that the numbers were going against him and he came up with a compromise – a bit of both. So the Arts Council set up the Theatre Centre to give us some National Theatre while the regional companies emerged.
I presented the Panel with a paper which argued for regional. Some of the arguments for regional included:
Having to carry on for several months with a tour of a production which was not getting audiences.(A good example of that is the “Lear” that failed to attreact audiences)
Actors having to live out of suitcases for months at a time.
The difficulty of developing audience loyalty when they only see the company once or twice a year.
The converse argument that the main centres appetite for theatre would not be satisfied by a company which they saw once or twice a year.
The panel thought that there might be interchange of productions between the regional companies. As it happenned the regional companies developed in their own idiosyncratic ways which did not readily lend themselves to that sort of interchange. The regional companies emerged so quickly and strongly that the national concept was quickly superceded and the Theatre centre was disbanded.
Today the arguument is not regional or national but whether we might have regional plus national. As several contributors to this discussion have already pointed out our regional theatres are our national theatre. Perhaps the time is ripe for more collaboration between them to be encouraged.
Bill Sheat
Julia Forsythe posted 27 Aug 2007, 12:18 PM / edited 27 Aug 2007, 12:23 PM
Auckland needs a Bats! A place where people can put on new productions and the aim doesn’t have to be making money/ proving something.
Yes, Silo has changed. Where it was once more like Bats Shane has moved it more into a slick, “commercial” venue. I don’t see the plays being put on there as overly risky, but they are usually very good- and I think this change of Shane’s was the right one to make and he’s done an excellent job (although I miss the old Silo too!). But there is now a void which needs to be filled- a place where people can risk.
Some plays will flop some will soar. It won’t all be about having a “who’s who” of Auckland actors, am I the only one who gets a little tired of seeing the same faces play after play? I thought the answer to an “Auckland Bats” was going to be Luxembourg Gardens, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Wellington, you are so lucky!
Graeme Bennett posted 28 May 2009, 04:46 PM
On a roll!
Had a read through the banter from July 07, its all very interesting. But we have moved on, especially since we have a ‘Distribution Strategy’ to launched by CNZ shortly.
However, why is that nearly all of you are conditioned to believe that funding for a National Theatre or in my case a National Touring company needs to come from the Ministry of all things Creative. I’m a Theatre producer, currently I manage and programme the Hawkins Theatre in Papakura (so far so good) but unlike many in the Creative Industries I have a solid background in Business Development for NZ and Aus companies in various industries from Electrical products to supply of corrosion protection material to the Chinese military (there’s a script in there somewhere I’m sure). Some projects have been a major success and others have flopped oh so badly, but I have an excellent understanding on how to run a company.
My point is that regardless of industry there is a solid model for success, generally most of the successful ones are very well funded, so why should a welfare position in the performing arts be the norm, in particular theatre, when we have 10’s of thousand passionate thespy type folk across Aotearoa that might like to take a punt on a production, which we largely do anyway when we enter the theatre.
Currently we are developing a model whereby we can raise capital nationally to establish the National Touring Company, privately owned, in the form of a co-op. But still have the ability to obtain funds from CNZ but not necessary if not required. In terms of programming the feeling is to use PANNZ as the vehicle to identify ‘tour ready’ productions, further encouraging our National theatre companies / RFO’s to use PANNZ including ATC (maybe) to promote and present upcoming productions.
This is about establishing a solid infrastructure, giving the venues and producers the ammunition and confidence to develop and show new and classic works. Its about building supportive audiences nationally, providing educational opportunities and inspiring our youth, ensuring solid pathways to success. But mainly sustainable long term (or atleast for as long as a tour lasts in NZ and Internationally) employment for actors ,directors and crew.
I would be interested to hear any feedback, and further dabate on the subject, at the least it will refine my Business Plan. I am on the Executive of PANNZ and also a member of EVANZ, and another group called CART (Regional Touring). The above touring project is independent of these organisations and will be developed by me as an Executive Producer, but with a programming committee.
neil furby posted 30 May 2009, 04:02 PM
Graeme
Thanks for sharing your business plan for a National Touring Company .
I must comment that I found your writing manner rather condescending and that some of the content a little self promoting . This should be avoided when say applying for funding from sponsors or when trying to get support for a venture.
You write about your previous work experience
” Some projects have been a major success and others have flopped oh so badly, but I have an excellent understanding on how to run a company.”
I admire your honesty on this but one can have an understanding on how to run a company but to manage one in a way that flopped projects can be avoided is a different skill set.
In response to your proposal of a welfare less theatre industry in reality you are proposing a belt and braces approach to funding
” Currently we are developing a model whereby we can raise capital nationally to establish the National Touring Company, privately owned, in the form of a co-op. But still have the ability to obtain funds from CNZ but not necessary if not required “
I believe that your implementation and marketing strategy is to restricted for a nation wide project .
“In terms of programming the feeling is to use PANNZ as the vehicle to identify ‘tour ready’ productions, further encouraging our National theatre companies / RFO’s to use PANNZ including ATC (maybe) to promote and present upcoming productions.”
I checked out PANNZ on the web but unfortunately I clicked on quite a few dead links (although as I use Ubuntu as my OS this might not be the case) but you might want to get this corrected
Well I hope you find my comments helpful in refining your Business Plan and I wish you all the best in your endeavours
Bill Sheat posted 30 May 2009, 06:53 PM
I thought this topic had died a natural death two years ago but now it emerges zombie-like fuelled with chinese specification anti corrosive. Its champion talks of ” raising capital for a co-op’ What’s it going to be called “the Oxymorons”?. Nothing has been said to cause me to change my 45 year old views reported in this forum in 2007. If its such a good idea and there is a business plan to prove it why not just go ahead and do it!
Bill Sheat
isobel mebus posted 5 Feb 2012, 07:49 PM
I don’t think there is any need for this debate to end. Theatre in NZ is constantly evolving and at some point in the (perhaps distant) future, when the population is bigger a National Theatre in some form will inevitably emerge. Continuing this discussion serves an interesting purpose as it documents a written trail of thoughts and ideas from people in the industry over time about the status quo.
Owen Lindsay posted 26 Feb 2012, 10:10 AM
I think the idea of a New Zealand National Theatre is a nice one – we have a national Opera and a national Ballet, so why not? I defintely concur with the suggestion that any such venture should in no way seek to emulate the English model of a bloated, self-satisfied institution run by and for an elitist in-crowd – as is sadly the case with the Irish national theatre, The Abbey, which – its historical reputation notwithstanding – despite recieving the bulk of all funding and having the pick of the county’s creative talent, remains a local by-word for complacency, irrelevance and mediocrity. Rather, a more interesting model is that of the more recently formed National Theatres of Scotland and Wales; retaining no permanent base and emphasising touring and new-work generation, these companies point the way for a country like NZ, with its small population and limited funding resources to create a theatre that is both a national institution and a national treasure. Providing funding for such an enterprise would be far more of an investment in local culture than spending any number of million$ on building new theatres.
Unfortunately, given the cultural philistinism of the current government – and the peculiar preference for projects focused around buildings rather than the work that would play in them – I think it unlikely that any such company will be formed. If it does, it will most likely be the merely the next incarnation of Theatre Corporate, with the same tired array of familar faces and hackneyed Roger Hall or Bruce Mason museum-pieces in their repertoire.
Much better even than a national theatre would, in fact, be a healthy regional theatre culture, with outposts in as many of the larger towns around the country as possible. The presence of local, small-scale professional theatre, removed from the imperative of commmercial viability, would inculcate a stronger theatrical culture in the heart of communities, allowing would-be theatre makers an outlet for their creative energies that also has a specific relevance to its audience. Again, sadly, it is hard to see how any such project will ever gain the initiative in New Zealand, as the general apathy towards arts and culture of the majority of people provides scant incentive for any central or political backing, and vested interests (whose livelihoods depend on the emasculated set-up of today) will more likely prevail to keep New Zealand theatre a largely urban, middle-class hobby.
Comments