April 1, 2012

SILO Theatre’s 2012 Programme

John Smythe      posted 8 Dec 2011, 09:57 PM

I cannot help but feel dismayed at SILO Theatre’s abject failure to include anything by a New Zealand playwright in its 2012 programme.  Yet again, by staging nothing original, they are just being a cover band for other people’s cultures: just being merely re-creative rather than truly creative.  And Creative New Zealand rewards this behaviour (while reducing funding and placing all sorts of impediments in the way of Downstage, for example, as they attempt to support innovative homegrown theatre). 

If Silo was an Australian theatre company they would be seen as deserving Australia Council support, such has been their commitment to Australian Theatre in recent years. And where do they think those plays came from? Likewise the contemporary work from elsewhere: all generated through the commitment of other theatre companies to nurture and develop their local playwrights; helping to make it worth a writer’s while to contemplate theatre as their preferred means of expression; attracting audiences who like their theatre to reflect their world.

Yes, Silo’s 2012 plans include working with two local playwrights (who have already been nurtured through the Auckland Theatre Company next stage initiative). This is not much return, in my opinion, on the investment NZ taxpayers have been required to make through public funding.

Obviously theatre is a global phenomenon, good plays are timeless and universal, and the plays that travel best are culturally specific. So why don’t theatres like Silo see it as their primary responsibility to bring New Zealand work into the mix? If they don’t do it, who else in the world is going to?

What it boils down to for me is this: who in their right mind would choose to be a playwright as a vocation in 21st century New Zealand? Beyond the student and post-grad no-budget co-op opportunities and the awards that encourage and reward emerging talent, where is the evidence NZ’s better resourced professional theatres are hungry for New Zealand plays?

What is Silo’s rationale for being anything but a New Zealand Theatre? 

Dean Parker       posted 13 Dec 2011, 03:00 PM / edited 28 Feb 2012, 09:56 PM

How far we have failed to come. Let me quote this:

“Home-grown plays are the key to audience growth in New Zealand theatres. This simple truth became evident at the National Playwrights’ Forum mounted by Playmarket in Wellington over Labour Weekend… The Sydney Theatre Company routinely programmes 40% Australian plays as part of its strategy for sustained success… It was in the context of such awareness that a proposal emerged from the National Playwrights’ Forum that it should be a condition of Creative NZ funding that major theatres produce a minimum level of New Zealand work, say 40%.”

That’s from 10 years ago. We should have carried it through.

Dean Parker       posted 28 Feb 2012, 12:59 PM / edited 28 Feb 2012, 01:29 PM

There was a forum at Q Theatre last night organised by Silo Theatre to precede a production of Caryl Churchill’s TOP GIRLS. The forum was billed as “Silo confronts the unspoken politics of what it means to be a woman in the modern world.” There was a panel and I asked the panel its thoughts on whether one of these unspoken politics was that local female playwrights were biologically less clever than their overseas counterparts, given the fact that Silo was doing no plays by them (in fact no plays by any local writers… as was the case last year and the year before). A spokesperson for Silo Theatre then said, “Do you know why we’re not doing any plays by local women writers?” and answered,  “It’s because they don’t send us any.” It sounded like a pretty desperate lie to me, but it ended the discussion. For the record, and for the information of those on the panel and in the audience, in the last twelve months Playmarket alone has sent Silo ten plays by local female playwrights.

John Smythe      posted 28 Feb 2012, 03:26 PM

That is astonishing Dean.  Does Silo sit passively waiting for scripts to arrive in the mail, taking no initiatives to seek out the fare that fits their objectives? Pathetic! I think the NZ theatre community – not to mention the NZ taxpayers who fund them – deserve a better answer and I shall request one.

Dean Parker       posted 28 Feb 2012, 05:04 PM

I received an e-mail from Silo a few hours ago inviting me to meet with it “to discuss Silo’s programming framework and process so that you can more fully understand the parameters in which we work and the diverse artistic and business challenges we face.” Sir Humphrey couldn’t have said it better. You could build a character round that. I think I might.

There seems no point in meeting with Silo to listen to this and I replied along those lines. The actions of its board and artistic management over the past few years speak out far more clearly. Silo does not programme NZ work. That is its mission statement. Full stop.

What would be more useful would be for the board at Silo publicly to endorse the proposal that emerged from Playmarket’s National Playwrights’ Forum of 2001 “that major theatres produce a minimum level of New Zealand work.” The minimum level was suggested as 40%. Silo might like to indicate it intends reaching this level.

John Smythe      posted 28 Feb 2012, 05:15 PM / edited 28 Feb 2012, 05:16 PM

NZ is sorely in need of a NZ Playwrights Theatre – not necessarily located in one place but a funded entity that maybe works with existing companies to develop and produce NZ work, both new and from the repertoire.

While having a specific venue where you may expect to see nothing but NZ work, in various stages of development, is very attractive, it could not be allowed to absolve existing companies from their responsibility to develop and programme NZ work themselves.  Rather it should work towards making NZ work so attractive (including to all those who do not currently go to the theatre) that it would be bad business for them not to programme NZ work.

Meanwhile, rather than just talk to one playwright in Auckland, I invite Silo to use this forum to explain their policy.  

Martyn Wood    posted 28 Feb 2012, 05:49 PM / edited 28 Feb 2012, 09:56 PM

There is something arrogant about saying that Silo doesn’t deserve CNZ money because they don’t produce NZ plays. I think, over the past 10 years, Silo has made a huge committment to developing the careers of a number of exceptional theatrical talents – actors, designers, technicians, composers – all NZ artists.

Silo has, in the past, produced some great productions of Kiwi works, including the works created by their Ensemble Projects in 2 Auckland Festivals. Silo is working to connect with a very specific audience, and in doing so has built a very specific brand – the works they have selected for their 2012 programme reflect this explicitly, and I can’t imagine any other company in the country staging “Tribes” or “The Pride,” both exceptional international works that will resonate strongly with Kiwi audiences.

ATC is developing and producing Kiwi works, Circa is committing to a larger percentage of Kiwi works, Centrepoint has had 2 years of 100% Kiwi works, Downstage is focusing exclusively on Kiwi work, over 80% of the BATS programme is homegrown, the Court regularly commissions and stages new New Zealand work, as does the Fortune – surely there is space in NZ for a company bringing us the best contemporary work from overseas, and surely you (John and Dean) can see the value in this?

Having seen and enjoyed productions as diverse as “Holding the Man,” “The Only Child,” “Love You Bro,” “That Face,” “When the Rain Stops Falling” among countless others, Shane and the team at Silo have demonstrated their knack for selecting challenging works that speak of the here and now.

By actively working with Arthur and Victor to develop new works for 2013 it’s clear that Silo is recognising the value in supporting local playwrights among the myriad of other theatrical artists they champion, so maybe it’s time to let them get on with what they do so well, rather then expecting them to defend their position when they have already jumped through the many hoops demanded by CNZ and secured funding.

Maybe NZ does need a Playwrights theatre – it is clear that it’s not Silo, so why hold them accountable for not achieving things they have never claimed to be striving for?

John Smythe      posted 28 Feb 2012, 10:56 PM / edited 29 Feb 2012, 07:51 AM

Telling us it arrogant to ask Silo to publicly justify its policy is an extraordinary claim, Martyn. We have every right – a responsibility, even – to seek a clear understanding of their policy and values.

New Zealand must be the only country in the English-speaking world that does not make producing a significant proportion of homegrown theatre a precondition of receiving major taxpayer funding. (Countries with their own distinct languages do not have this problem.) It would be unthinkable in Australia, which has also had a local content quota for all commercial television channels from the inception of TV. And before anyone plays the “but they are so much larger than us!” card, the same is true for Ireland, which has a similar population to NZ.

Just “developing the careers of actors, designers, technicians, composers” while ignoring playwrights makes us ‘below stairs’ servants in the ‘mansions’ of other people’s cultures.  Yes we are wonderful at imitating and serving others and as such we do well world-wide and in international theatre, and in films and TV series shot in NZ. 

But as long as we do not have a theatre culture that encourages our best creative writers to consider play-writing as a serious vocational option, not least because it is possible to be well paid for the work involved, we fall way short of being a fully mature nation with something to offer the rest of the world whose produce we so avidly consume.

Cover bands have their place but we cannot be creative without being original.

Dean Parker       posted 29 Feb 2012, 01:03 PM

Why are writers so often at the bottom of the heap, ignored, dismissed? I don’t know who Martin Woods is but clearly he’s not a writer. Why do we have to lead this twilight life? Standing in the gloom with our begging bowls, always the last to be paid off, fed with scraps of “public readings” and “development programmes”, excluded from any guaranteed minimums, waiting, waiting, waiting upon ordinary decent courtesies, lied to. What is it about NZ theatre? Why do you hate us? What do you fear?

Martyn Wood    posted 29 Feb 2012, 02:03 PM / edited 29 Feb 2012, 02:47 PM

Hi Dean. I’m the Programme Manager at BATS Theatre, so actually know quite a bit about what I am talking about. I have also programmed two of your works in the last 6 months – because they fit with our brand, our aims and proved themselves against the other pitched works (currently about 3 times what we have space for). I’m not in any way afraid of New Zealand writers, or their writing and in fact champion it wherever possible by supporting funding applications, recommending scripts that I can’t programme to other organisations and connecting writers with production teams who can help stage works under the co-operative model we operate. I just take umbridge that a respected, successful theatre that is thriving in tough times and has come back from severe financial strife is being attacked for not adhering to your ideas of what theatre in this country SHOULD be.

I agree with many of John’s points, but he seems to have missed mine – that in assessing the health of NZ theatre we should look at the entire cultural landscape rather than focusing on individual organisations. Playmarket reporting another record year in licenses issued and scripts distributed suggests that perhaps things aren’t nearly as dire as you suggest and that there is indeed space for the work that Silo does – their sold out production of “Tartuffe” last year also indicates that there is an audience for it. Had Silo been able to go ahead with their production of Richard Huber’s “Glorious” in 2010 I’m sure they would have been in the firing line again for not programming a kiwi work that was “NZ enough.”

Playwrights may be at the bottom of the heap, but they are down there with actors and probably every other artist that wants to work in the theatre. The ones that I know are successful because they diversify – writing for stage, screen, radio, columns, reviewing as well as acting, directing, teaching… This is the reality of the performing arts in New Zealand and applies to actors, designers, technicians etc. No one is owed a living in the arts and criticising successful individuals and organisations is really not doing a lot to push the culture forward.

I have never worked for Silo (and after a handful of terrible auditions nor am I likely too…), I have hated their work, disagreed with their programming and any number of their creative and casting decisions, but I fundamentally believe they have the right to operate in the way that they see fit for their company and that there is a place (and even a neccessity) for their work. When I said it was arrogant to demand accountability for their programming it is because it implies that somehow you know better than the funding body they have successfully applied to, the Artistic Director who makes decisions on programming and policy, the Board who approve this and (most crucially) the audience that support them.

I’ve had this conversation with John many times, and he is unlikely to change his mind. I would just hope that, whether NZ needs a playwrighting theatre or not, you would appreciate that Silo is unlikely to fulfill that role anytime soon and to appreciate the inherent value in what they do – even if that doesn’t go beyond being happy that they employ so many local artists. I also ask that when dismissing my opinion you spell my name right.

John Smythe      posted 29 Feb 2012, 02:26 PM

Thank you for your clarifications, Martyn. I remain interested in hearing from Silo themselves.

Of course there is value in lifting our eyes beyond our own horizons – TV, film, literature and music offer us this opportunity every day. And yes, a record number of licenses issued for NZ plays last year – but how many involved 4 to 5 week seasons in theatres with capacities that allow for a return to the playwright that represents anything like a reasonable fee for the time and talent expended?

I repeat: where is the incentive for a creative writer to consider writing for theatre in NZ? Where is the proof that the better-funded theatres are hungry for it and see homegrown work as fundamental to their reasons for being? 

What worries me is that Silo is cultivating an audience that may develop an ingrown antipathy to the NZ voice – especially if the only NZ plays they do are set elsewhere. When arguing that the audiences are getting what they want, it is always worth considering those who do not go to live theatre, because their wants and needs are not being met.

I am also happy to say very clearly that my beef is also with CNZ for rewarding a company which fails on its primary responsibility (to be truly creative rather than simply re-creative) while punishing those who strive to build a true NZ theatre (e.g. Downstage, whose funding was drastically reduced in order to increase the funding to Silo when they moved out of the Basement).

James Nokise     posted 29 Feb 2012, 05:20 PM / edited 29 Feb 2012, 05:23 PM

… … Jihad against SILO?… … Seriously John – you have to start providing web links to the online information / letting people know your sources when you write sentences that essentially put Downstage’s woes at SILO’s feet. Yes, even if your saying it was them via CNZ.

Martyn’s really said everything else. Wonderful Pwoning of Parker. Just beautiful. The Hackman for Best Fight this year may have to be re-named the “Why do they hate us? Why do they fear us?” Award. C’mon Dean – you’re a great writer, and better than that.

Corin Havers       posted 29 Feb 2012, 05:35 PM

Having been caught out in a big fat lie, I think it’s unlikely we’ll be hearing from Silo very soon. They’re probably being picketed by a crowd of angry female playwrights as I write.  But it is a pity they weren’t honest, as their reasons for not doing (or doing so little) NZ work, and NZ women’s work in particular, could have been very interesting. 

I too think there is definitely a place for non-NZ work, and maybe even a theatre that specialises in it. All theatregoers, including NZ playwrights I would have thought, are keen to see the best of foreign work and be inspired by it, and so I see no reason why it shouldn’t be publicly funded.

John Smythe      posted 29 Feb 2012, 05:44 PM

I have long been aware, from reputable sources, that Silo’s campaign for better CNZ funding included the argument that they were funding 2 major Wellingtoncompanies while Aucklandhad a much larger population and therefore its 2nd largest company deserved greater support.  The increase in Silo’s funding coincided with a drastic cuts in Downstage’s funding – hence the widely held belief that one occurred at the cost of the other.

If this is untrue, I’ll be the one who spits it out so a common misconception can be cleared up.  This is public funding we are talking about so we are entitled to know.

I hasten to add that I do not believe Silo should not receive healthy funding – the problem is there is not enough money in vote Arts – and/or too much is siphoned off into activities other than the actual producing of NZ arts.

Do I need to add that nothing I’m saying should be construed as arguing that there should be no funding whatever for NZ productions of non-NZ plays? I simply say that the exclusive production of international plays – the total ignoring of NZ playwrights – misses the fundamental purpose of having theatre in any community anywhere ever in history. And when it comes to publicly funded companies, that is an issue that must be confronted.

Rima Te Wiata   posted 2 Mar 2012, 02:23 AM / edited 2 Mar 2012, 03:46 AM

This is all very intriguing. None of us can say what resonates with an audience, we can only say what we individually believe ought to, because it suits our personal objectives and ideals. We all have a passion for live scripted stage work. I understand everybody’s views so far, and a few questions that have sprung to mind are:

1) If a NZ play is so treasured by John purely for being a NZ play, where does he draw the line when it’s a bloody awful one? Or doesn’t that matter?

2) If it doesn’t matter, then what is the point of being an actor? I certainly don’t want to be in bloody awful plays.

3) As an actor, I love being in plays from all over the world because they exercise my ability to examine other cultural perspectives and manners, and link me into a world family.

4) There is of course a joy in being in and seeing brilliant NZ work, The Perfumed Garden by Dean Parker at The Court was a brilliant work, and worked very well in the Forge space at the old Court Theatre. Is there a big enough paying public to stage a complex work about Afghanistan, or do they want to blow their buck on trying to forget about it?

5) Is there any grace for Silo in making the decisions it has made for the 2012 season because it is going to present these plays in  a different way? Or hasn’t that actually crossed anybody’s mind? What do the words “creative NZ” actually mean, or is there a restricted, didactic ideal that somebody would like to burst out with after this blog? Please feel free, we may as well get it all out now.

Shane is a fantastic director, he is dedicated, democratic and inspiring. I am sorry that you are attacking Silo, because it will hurt his feelings, which he does not deserve. I don’t hate any of you for spruking forth your thoughts, but I would like some of my questions answered.

All the best,

Rima TW.

6) If a famous play from overseas is presented within a NZ context, does that count as NZ content? Do NZ actors NZ content?

7) If a playwright sets a play somewhere else other than NZ, is he/she a lesser playwright for doing so, or is she/he not allowed to have an imagination or any political agenda or social agenda by doing so?

8) Are novelists in fact the last bastion of NZ writers to have the freedom to set their work anywhere at all without having to fit a criteria for funding because the publisher is indie and in some cases an international publisher who likes the skill of the writer?

 9) Is anybody out there reading this prepared to admit they have read awful NZ plays at various times in their career, whether or not they were produced or left to gather dust? Or are we all going to pretend that anybody who sets pen to paper is a brilliant writer? That’s about as stupid as saying anybody who directs is a genius, and anybody who takes up acting is the next George Henare.

Sam Bunkall        posted 2 Mar 2012, 10:55 AM

While I agree wholeheartedly that there should be more support of NZ writers and their work in this country, I feel that a huge and very important point has been missed in relation to SILO’s programming. Of the many New Zealand theatre companies, SILO are, in my opinion, one of the most thoughtful in terms of the way they construct their programme and it is clear that they put a large amount of time and effort into thinking about what it is they want to say and investigate through it. This year they have included, amongst other things, works by feminist writers and also writers who depict gay characters as complex, three-dimensional people.

Yes – they could have included a piece by a NZ writer. Maybe that play where the “lesbian” character realises at the end that she was sexually repressed all along and in fact just needed a man. Yeah, the one where the “Maori” character is constantly on his cell-phone making under-the-table deals and selling NZ land to the highest bidder. However, something tells me that this kind of work doesn’t fit into SILO’s political and social ethos. Instead they put on work that is particularly pertinent in an age where the Tui beer company still refuses to address the inherent sexism in its ads and people are still protesting against gay marriage and equal rights. To me, it seems that the SILO brand is built around placing high value in the under-lying themes of their work and linking that to the current climate.

Therefore, I would say to you John and co, that the onus is not on SILO but on NZ writers (and before this gets labelled an attack, I’d hasten to include myself in this category). I feel certain that if the NZ plays addressing these particular themes were of the same high quality that “Top Girls” is, SILO would have absolutely considered them. I agree with Rima, plays should not be favoured just because they are New Zealand plays – they have to also be well-constructed with something pertinent to say. SILO, as I have said, often have a very specific political and social theme to their work. If there are no well-written NZ plays that align with this, I’d argue that their hands are tied. If you want to write slightly rascist, sexist and homophobic dad-jokes for the general masses, then it’s no wonder SILO aren’t knocking on your door. But if I’m not mistaken, they have already knocked on the door of a few writers who don’t to discuss future collaboration.

Rima Te Wiata   posted 2 Mar 2012, 12:51 PM

I wish I was as eloquent as you Sam.

Shakespeare wouldn’t have been able to write at least half his canon if he was restricted to writing plays set in England. These days he probably wouldn’t have been allowed to have suicidal teens in a play whether it was set off shore or not.

Just as no actor can solely be a theatre actor to stay earning a crust in this profession, it is unrealistic to believe that there is the possibility of a playwright not also writing for tv, film, or radio, and doing circuit talks about their work, and doing debates etc. Nobody in this country or in fact any other country can work solely in theatre and make a living unless they are on an annual income. Stoppard and all that lot do not just write for theatre, and not all their work is original, they translate work from other countries. You know, it isn’t just all this ideal world where you can write about the post office master from around the corner or whatever and get a massive audience response, even if it is good. Overseas there is a trend for very visual work in theatre, almost as if words are not enough anymore, people bore very easily, they don’t want to think so much, and if you want them to think, then capturing their attention visually as well is important to get people in the door. God, sorry, on and on.

Joseph Harper   posted 2 Mar 2012, 01:26 PM / edited 2 Mar 2012, 01:47 PM

mate. i hate to be a person who writes on a forum. completely aside from anything to do with silo, that comment (re- sam b.) is too much dude. it reveals a pretty narrow grasp of new zealand literature, and hints pretty strongly at the supposed cultural cringe that people are objecting so strongly to above. seems pretty insulting to seemingly sum up the entire canon of contemporary new zealand playwrighting as “slightly rascist [sic], sexist and homophobic dad-jokes for the general masses”. i’m not commenting on whether or not silo wants to programme work by new zealand writers, just the assertation that there doesn’t exist any work that explores ideas to the same standard as international work. as if ‘ideology’ is (literally) a foreign concept.

it’s a pretty insulting idea, man. and your example (that new zealand has produced nothing addressing the same themes as ‘top girls’ that could fit the bill) falls flat, given new zealand’s rich and proud tradition of feminist theatre (rodwell, betts, renee, randerson et al). i mean, maybe i’m wrong, but ‘ophelia think harder’ right? ideologically and thematically similar to ‘top girls’. comparable bite. relative post-modern bent.

i don’t mind what yr position is in regard to silo’s programming. but don’t use ignorance as the crux of yr thesis. i mean, hearing that kind of stuff from ‘random punters’ is frustrating. hearing it from people who actually work in theatre is blimmin’ atrocious.

Sam Bunkall        posted 2 Mar 2012, 03:50 PM

Ok – fair enough. I suppose, Joseph, it would seem that if you so desired, you could take what I wrote as meaning what you have read it to mean. So I shall clarify for you. I am very aware of the amazing work that exists by New Zealand writers. I have worked with, and respect many of them greatly. I would never want to suggest that EVERY NZ writer is all about writing dad-jokes for the masses. Some do. Some don’t. My point is about alignment of interests and agendas, not insulting NZ writers. It does somewhat bother me that I have to make that point clear.

And in the same fashion, I think this whole forum treats SILO with a similar disrespect. Of course they also know about the work of these many fantastic writers from NZ. So if we give them that credit, then we should really be asking ourselves “why did they go for Churchill instead of one of the many talented NZ writers?” I am suggesting that Churchill may have aligned more closely with what they wanted to say in their programme, rather than because they have some ridiculous aversion to NZ work as is being suggested.

Joseph Harper   posted 2 Mar 2012, 04:17 PM / edited 2 Mar 2012, 04:20 PM

yes. sure. what i was saying is that, [“Maybe that play where the “lesbian” character realises at the end that she was sexually repressed all along and in fact just needed a man. Yeah, the one where the “Maori” character is constantly on his cell-phone making under-the-table deals and selling NZ land to the highest bidder.”], and the insinuations of that ilk, are demeaning to both new zealand writers and yr case. if your point is about silo’s choosing top girls because it aligns most closely with them or whatever, and has nothing to do with the quality of new zealand writers and their work, then derogitory statements like that are totally unneccesary right? that’s all i’m saying man. again, nothing to do with yr opinions or justifications re silo. what you were saying was clear. i just didn’t like the attached asides.

Sam Bunkall        posted 2 Mar 2012, 04:19 PM / edited 2 Mar 2012, 04:33 PM

I hear you Joseph, its all good. My point there was that we like to pat theatres on the back for their “NZ content” which is great – but SOME (I stress the word SOME) of that content is racist, sexist and homophobic. And the fact that SILO hasn’t included NZ writers in their programme seems to be a bigger issue for us here and I don’t understand why. They could have put on one of those plays (like most other theatres in this country did last year) and by doing so, escaped this forum attack. But they didn’t. Instead, they chose an overseas playwright coming from a feminist perspective and I don’t see why that has caused more of a stir.

Oh and please don’t ever use the “cultural cringe” argument against me. It’s a lazy argument. Cultural cringe implies that I don’t want my own culture reflected back at me in theatre. This couldn’t be further from the truth, I love it, I embrace it. What I don’t want is bigotry being reflected back at me as if it’s part of my cultural landscape. Because it’s not.

John Smythe      posted 2 Mar 2012, 05:52 PM / edited 3 Mar 2012, 09:02 AM

Hi Rima, thanks for participating …

1 & 9) I have never suggested – and nor has anyone else as far as I know – that “all NZ plays are to be treasured” or that “anybody who sets pen to paper is a brilliant writer”. Of course there are “bloody awful” ones, as there are all over the world (which is why I characterise those we do here as ‘the best of the best from overseas’). 

2) Taken care of above.

3) Of course you do, so do I. And beyond, before and alongside that, what we can truly contribute better than anyone else in the world is our own stories in our own voices.

4) Given we take complex works about world affairs from all over the world (cf: Top Girls), why should we not also put Dean Parker’s plays on our main stages? Why should those plays not be done internationally too (but they won’t be if treated as ‘fringe’ back home.)

5) If Shane and Silo were not fantastically talented it would not matter that their skills and resources were not turned, in part, towards homegrown work.

6) Doing overseas plays in a NZ context cons us into believing we are seeing our own lives reflected and does nothing to encourage good NZ writers to write for theatre.

7) I have never suggested NZ playwrights should be restricted to NZ stories, although I do have difficulty with totally fictional stories being written as wannabe American scripts (Bruce Mason et al railed against NZ writers pretending to be English in the 1950s for heaven’s sake). Dean Parker’s international political palys are totally valid NZ theatre.  I have recently performed in a New Zealand-written play about the daughter of James Joyce and regard it as an NZ play that explores aspects of dance and literature that totally impinge of our lives. Plus its central theme is the quest for distinction in all senses of the word – which is also NZ’s theme.

8) Given I believe the particular gives us access to the general and it’s culturally specific work that travels best and resonates universally, and that NZ has a great advantage in being able to bring a fresh voice to universal themes, I do wonder why so many novelists want to be soaked into the morass.  Joyce lived ‘abroad’ yet wrote about Ireland; likewise Katherine Mansfield … 

– – – – – –

Sam B, suggesting Le Sud is the yardstick for all NZ theatre is absurd. Populist theatre like that does get a go. Of course NZ has people capable of matching Caryl Churchill etc. Playmarket is full of unread scripts – by playwright talents who could grow to be world class if, like actors, they were able to develop their craft and realise their potential. Hence my call for a NZ playwright’s theatre in some shape or form. 

My key questions remain: Who in their right mind would choose play writing as their vocation in life when every other English-speaking culture seems to be preferred by our better-resourced theatres? And what would it take to get people into theatres who feel the usual international fare is not for them? 

sam snedden     posted 3 Mar 2012, 02:34 PM

I’m sorry John but this argument simply doesn’t hold water. I don’t believe that there are great New Zealand playwrights who remain undiscovered. Unless of course they are shut-in’s writing plays that they stack under the bed.

The reason work gets put on is because it is creatively or financially sound, or both. There is no way that work that fits those criteria is being ignored; the notion is totally counter intuitive.

The Silo choose their programme based on the above criteria and more often than not the work they produce fulfils both. Having worked with the company a number of times, and in a New Zealand play no less, I can say without doubt that there is no cultural cringe at work, just a hunger for producing the best possible work with the resources available.

As for “who would choose Playwriting?” Ask Eli Kent, Arthur Meek, Albert Belz, Natalie Medlock and Dan Musgrove or any of the other writers who have had their work produced by “better resourced theatres” either this year or in the last twelve months. I would bet that if you did a statistical analysis of plays performed that there are more New Zealand plays on our stages now then at almost any time in our history.

What would get people into the theatre? Good productions of good plays. And I don’t want to get into a “Well Sam what do you consider good?” type back and forth, I really don’t give a shit if the subject is the Springbok Tour or the French Revolution I care about the QUALITY of the work and I think most people feel the same.

John Smythe      posted 3 Mar 2012, 04:24 PM

Yes Sam, young entrepreneurial writers willing and able to form their own production entities and get their work up on a co-op basis are well catered for in the current environment. But where do they go to get to the next level, and earn something like a living wage for their work?

And what about the ‘paper writer’ who doesn’t have the entrepreneurial chops and submits their script on paper, in good faith, fondly hoping that someday someone will read it and want to produce it.  Which of our better-funded companies are resourced to a) actively seek out the new work available, b) bring good work through a development process, and c) produce it?

The point you seem to be missing is that many proven NZ playwrights have withdrawn from theatre because they sense no hunger for homegrown work, and it is too dispiriting to keep on conceiving in isolation only to have yet another ‘stillborn baby’. And – as I keep on saying – good writers who may well have lots to offer as playwrights see little evidence that theatre is an attractive option.

Of course excellence is the goal, but not, I suggest, in the absence of cultural context or socio-political relevance. There are some who see plays as artefacts to be judged as objects on their own aesthetic terms (a view which has prevailed regarding classical ballet and opera) but I am not that way inclined.

Whichever way you look at it, how can homegrown excellence be achieved and sustained in an environment where NZ playwrights are not seen as fundamental to the health and wealth of our truly professional theatres? Consider the plays that Silo does do and ask yourself how they came into existence. How can they not aspire to emulate their creators and bring something homegrown to the banquet of their annual programme?

sam snedden     posted 4 Mar 2012, 02:15 PM

The ATC has a development programme that they invest both time and money in. The plays they do develop, The Upside Down of the World is one example, frequently end up in their main stage programme.

Unfortunately development of this kind is expensive and most companies, no matter how deep you perceive their pockets to be, simply cannot afford it. If you want to have a gripe about this John I suggest that you direct your griping towards the woeful per capita tax subsidy for the arts in New Zealand, which  is one of the lowest in the first world.

I also feel that this singling out of the Silo is a little unfair. Circa get plenty of support and yet I don’t see them developing anything. They may produce a lot of NZ content but what percentage of it is by the writers that you are talking about?

Once again though I have to ask, who are these unfortunate playwrights? Those who write brilliant plays but don’t know a single person in the theatre that they can give them to to read? If you’ve got an example of one send it to me, I’ll produce it.

Dane Giraud       posted 4 Mar 2012, 06:26 PM

Not enough money for development? Yet enough for tax payer funded trips to NY to “get ideas?” Come on…

John Smythe      posted 4 Mar 2012, 11:14 PM

Sam, I thought I had made it clear my gripe is also against funding priorities, and apparent reward and ‘punishment’ regimes. The lack of NZ content at Silo is the effect and what we are interrogating here is the cause.

You seem unaware that I raised similar questions about Circa in the past, so in the interests of consistency I felt compelled to comment on Silo plans for this year. The when Circa’s 2012 season was announced I was delighted to acknowledge it’s value (here). And let me repeat: I am fully aware of the very high quality of Silo’s work; there is no dispute about that.

As to who the playwrights are, Sam … As Playmarket for a list. Better still, go to their website, pay the modest fee and download as many scripts as you like … And consider this:

There is a play by a highly respected NZ playwright which has been shopped around for years and not been picked up in NZ, and now a Sydney theatre company has found it on Playmarket’s website and is to produce its world premiere later this year.  Are we embarrassed? I hope so.

One more thing. People tell me in theatre foyers that I have my facts wrong but they choose not to come on line and correct them. In the interests of historical accuracy, I implore them to. I have no desire to peddle misinformation.

sam snedden     posted 5 Mar 2012, 08:44 PM

All right I will. I disagree with you John and I’m unlikely to come round to your way of thinking, as you are unlikely to come round to mine.

Dane, if you can’t see the value in artists gaining another perspective I feel sorry for you

Editor    posted 5 Mar 2012, 10:25 PM / edited 5 Mar 2012, 10:35 PM

Sydney Independent Theatre Company Audition Notice 

World premiere of award winning New Zealand play 

The Liar’s Bible by Fiona Samuel 

Directed by Julie Baz and Designed by David Jeffrey 

Winner of the Special Prize for Woman Playwright and joint runner up of the Adam NZ Play award, The Liar’s Bible by Fiona Samuel explores life, death, art, children, sex and poetry… six contemporary characters grapple with the big questions in this smart, funny and intriguing drama spanning seven life-changing weeks.

Sydney Independent Theatre Company (SITCO) is a newly established theatre company with its own performance space in Newtown and is the sister company of Sydney Shakespeare Festival. Their aim is to entertain, challenge and inspire Sydney audiences with new, inventive and thought-provoking theatre.

Venue

Sydney Independent Theatre Company

8A / 32-60 Alice Street, Newtown

Roles

Gus – a house painter

Dave – an entrepreneur

Mary – a doctor

Baby – a student

Gabrielle – a would-be filmmaker

Leo – a poet and academic

Actors required

3 x males (range 30-60yrs)

3 x females (range 25-50yrs)

Auditions

First auditions (by appointment only) – Sat 10 March 2012 – individual 15 minute timeslots

Call backs – Sun 11 March 2012 – individual 45 minute timeslots

Please check your availability against the call back date above and ALL the dates below BEFORE applying to audition.

Performances

1 May – 19 May 2012

Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sat – 8pm-10pm – cast call time 7pm

Sat 2pm-4pm – cast call time 1pm

Rehearsals

25 Mar – 30 April 2012

7.30-11pm – Tues, Wed, Thurs

11am-6pm – Sat, Sun

Sat 28, Sun 29 & Mon 30 April – 11am-11pm

All the cast will not be required at every rehearsal, however, ALL the cast will be required from 11am – 6pm on ALL Sundays during the rehearsal period and at ALL scheduled rehearsals from 24 April onwards (NB: no rehearsal 25 April – Anzac Day).

Payment

Each cast member will receive an equal share in 20% of the (gross) box office.

To apply

Email a maximum ONE page CV and low res headshot to admin@sitco.net.au

More information

Visit our website: www.sitco.net.au 

Owen Lindsay    posted 1 Apr 2012, 03:02 AM

Ah yes, the slow mutation of the Silo, once the honourably impoverished underdog to the bland tyranny that was the Auckland Theatre Company’s absolute domination of the professional theatre landscape in Auckland 15 years ago, into its current incarnation as that company’s slighty poorer, more pretentious cousin, has been extremely sad to witness. Ultimately, without a well-funded and conscientiously run national showcase, free from ideological constraints or commercial imperatives, New Zealand playwrites and playwriting (and indeed the perfroming arts in general) will never get the exposure or the opportunities to develop their craft, necessary if they are to consistently produce work that can stand on it’s own against the best from overseas. Obtaining this should be the main objective of anyone involved in live performance in this country, rather than endlessly putting up new theatre buildings to house non-existent companies