Comments

Comments

Simon Taylor March 9th, 2010

Dear Swivel,

thank goodness one did not fall prey to an absurdly contrary other thing.

Best,
Simon

swivel-chair critic March 8th, 2010

I just read all this for the first time, and am left to wonder whether Mr. Smythe may perhaps have been less distracted and consumed by the issue of cultural relevance if he had found the production more engaging in its own right?  I'm always especially keen to see local works, but if it entertains I'm less bothered about such whys and wherefores.

Seems to me it's one thing to engage in debate with a review, and a most absurdly contrary other thing to chastise the reviewer for expressing their opinion. 

Simon Taylor March 2nd, 2010

Michael, perhaps you heard it on the bloodline and can extrapolate the dead simplicity of John's Key Questions naturally and inevitably. I am happy to read that they are:

If tax-payer funded theatres do not get new New Zealand plays to the stage who will?

And is there a more legitimate time to do it than as a contribution to an international arts festival?

The first question is surely answered by John's

the groundswell created by the creative co-ops whose often extraordinary works are celebrated on this website

The second question, desperately seeking legitimacy on Circa's behalf for Circa's contribution to an international arts festival, Circa should be asked to answer. 

The shame and crime here, on which I drunkenly pour my incoherent scorn, is both that there no longer exists a national "ecology of theatre" because of the way public funds are dispensed, because CNZ lacks policy directives, among other and less important factors, AND that when in a position to condemn the agency that funds Circa, from the public coffer, John would rather lead the critique, the discussion, down the cul-de-sac to chase the red herring of moral (read 'cultural') rectitude - in an arena that is already ethically compromised - by chorusing that it ought to have done the right thing by us, and, with unwitting irony, suggesting that

the role of New Zealand companies is to produce New Zealand work, especially of the kind that might be attractive to other international festivals.

It is for me, Michael, to reconcile my nostalgia for "the good old days of theatre companies [sic!] and [my] championing of National Radio with [my] not very successful efforts to pour scorn on John's very legitimate, and clearly communicated, concerns." I think I'll pour another.

Cheers,

Simon

Michael Smythe March 2nd, 2010

Corus - don't be unkind - Simon's incoherent rambling may simply be the natural and inevitable outcome of attempting to avoid stitching himself up with the exercise of false conscience and /or pursuing shibboleths.

Simon - It's hard to reconcile your nostalgia for the good old days of theatre companies and your championing of National Radio with your not very successful efforts to pour scorn on John's very legitimate, and clearly communicated, concerns. His key questions are dead simple - If tax-payer funded theatres do not get new New Zealand plays to the stage who will? And is there a more legitimate time to do it than as a contribution to an international arts festival?

The 'what is a New Zealand play anyway' question is a red herring swimming down a cul-de-sac. All that is relevant to this discussion is that the work being reviwed is clearly not a New Zealand play.

Corus March 2nd, 2010

 He is drunk.

Simon Taylor March 2nd, 2010

And, John, I refuse to be drawn into the argument over whether Roger Hall has done more than anyone to hold the mirror up to NZ society, presented here with inimitable flippancy. He has of course done nothing more (nor less) than hold the mirror up to himself.

And, John, Roger entered the profession when there was one, not the "items of trade" you so rightly decry. As a playwright he benefitted from the contact with professional community theatres inestimably, when there were such things. He was fostered by and in a milieu that simply does not exist, that has in fact been undone.

Knowing how it was undone might help us put it back together, so long as we don't stitch ouselves up with the exercise of false conscience, pursuing shibboleths like 'the obligation to produce New Zealand plays.' RNZ's state is about to get a lot sorrier and there was a time it was the nursery and provided the necessaries for NZ writers, many playwrights among them, of criticism and encouragement. We ought not to let what's left pass without a fight.

Simon Taylor March 2nd, 2010

John, a touch of lèse majesté to say "I do not ask for the great social-realist work"! Well, I certainly don't. But perhaps if you're in a position to say "I do not ask" & so on, you're in a position to ask Circa why it chose this play.  And not Hongi, which surely ought to have sprung to mind directly. Had you suggested it.

I don't essentially agree with you. Because if state funded theatres are obliged to produce NZ plays - and I still think the question needs to be considered, What is a NZ play? - then New Zealanders are obliged to ensure that state funded theatres not only survive but flourish.

The issue is equally political and economic. While the funder, or patron, does not oblige the theatres it funds to produce NZ plays... then... and while the funder, or patron, does not provide for a dramaturg or give the director(s) enough time to engage in dramaturgy, then, it is hardly surprising nobody's dusting off Bruce Mason or The Wind and the Rain, or what have you.

We have, in other words, to ask for policy, which while not restrictive is realistic in generating a vital theatre that includes the NZ playwright's contribution as much as anyone's, without giving it precedence. I object to the precedence you give the playwright. It smacks of the easy answer with an aftertaste of the ideological: since he is an Englishman! Scrub that, A NZ playwright, then it is a NZ play! As I said, the authorial preference.

The Circa production is a NZ work of a German play. You say you're not concerned with bloodlines?

The state funds on the bases of cultural identity and proximity - to what is readily understood because it has been done before. More should be asked of the funder.

John Smythe March 1st, 2010

I do not ask for “the great social-realist work” Simon. Just one example of a long neglected work penned with ebullient creative skill is Bruce Masons Hongi (first written for radio in 1968, revised for stage by 1974). His view of the role of British royalty in facilitating the musket wars is something we should all be familiar with. Is anyone? 

Nor have I specified the “bloodlines of playwrights”. Roger Hall, who has done more than anyone to hold the mirror up to NZ society, is English born. Leo Gen Peters, who led and directed the devising of last year’s excellent Death and the Dreamlife of Elephants – set in central Wellington – is American.

There have been many NZ plays involving immigrants (Pacific Island, Indian, Chinese, Arabic …) and of course that is a distinctive and important part of the NZ experience. And when they distill the particular well, they are universal.

NZ playwright have also addressed global themes. Dean Parker’s Baghdad, Baby! springs to mind. I venture to suggest that what it’s simultaneously homegrown yet exotic to white middle-class theatre audiences and international festivals (e.g. Maori and Pacific Island theatre especially) gets more of a chance in better funded productions than Pakeha stories, which are easily supplanted by British, American and Australian ones.  

David, your argument is more valid for totally commercial privately owned theatre companies. I think there is more responsibility with public funding. And all theatre companies will tell you their biggest commercial successes have been with NZ plays. It is a sad day if we see the performing arts as no different than any other item of trade.

David Murray March 1st, 2010

> That Circa Theatre has chosen to produce this as its contribution to this
> year’s New Zealand International Festival of the Arts is puzzling. Surely
> the role of New Zealand companies is to produce New Zealand work,
> especially of the kind that might be attractive to other international festivals.
> ...[snip middle bit to which I am not responding]
> ...
> Returning to the question of why Circa chose Mary Stuart as their Festival
> play, yes, I accept it is part of our own cultural heritage. But it is interesting
> to note that last year the NTS returned to the topic – dear to their local
> hearts, of course – by reviving Liz Lockhead’s 1987 take on it, Mary Queen
> of Scots Got Her Head Chopped Off, described on their site as a vigorous
> ensemble production that is “feisty, fast-moving, peppered with live music,
> wit and cheek.”

The role of Theatre - including local theatre companies such as Circa Theatre is to entertain, to enlighten, and to educate.

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/general-advice/7166-what-purpose-theatre-2.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-callow-the-purpose-of-theatre-is-to-melt-the-ice-within-564689.html

How any particular troupe decides to do that - either by chosing to perform plays written by New Zealanders or plays written by persons of any other nationality - is their perogative. Surely this play - an international story written in German and translated into English - is a perfect choice for the International Festival due to its multi-facited international character and, not least, because it entertains.

Simon Taylor March 1st, 2010

Not so as he cannot refrain from hitting the upper-case button. Nice of you to ask. Cheers.

Corus March 1st, 2010

 Is SImon Taylor drunk?

Simon Taylor March 1st, 2010

A literary or academic assumption underlies your view that NZ theatre companies ought to be obliged to produce NZ plays, what one might call the authorial preference, as much as something else far less appetising. A hint as to what this something else might be is given by Maryanne Cathro in a review also available on this site (here), thus:

There are two adjectives describing shows I am beginning to dread as an audience goer: “devised” and “experimental”.

To which the only answer is the question: Where were you for the twentieth century? (Living in dread, as we all were, that the century would have to begin again, and again, and again.)

... then we might as well renounce any claim to distinction in either sense of the word, and resign ourselves to the ‘culture’ of a refugee camp or transit lounge. Do we really lack the root systems to contribute positively to the global ecology of theatre.

In a second we will grow the topic to include the sustainability of theatre, the luminous word-spores that pass from the playwright's over- rather than inter-active screen too quickly to critique before they fill the stages with the vitality of homespun pastiches. Does every culture really need its great social-realist work? ... again and again and again. Again and again, for each generation, for each immediate cultural context. Because? No history.

And yes, therefore renounce. To clarify: where can we look to find the history that we've lost by waging a cultural war on the institution of theatre in New Zealand? Because we won't find it among the 'many superb but neglected plays' languishing on the shelves of Playmarket. Although, I concede that that would be a start.

To further clarify: the 'transit lounge' or 'refugee camp' culture to which we resign ourselves having renounced our deference to the bloodlines of the author refers to a sense of time rather than a sense of place.

But even repeating the sense of your sentence I find that same unappetising taste in my mouth: refugee camp? transit lounge? don't they in turn refer to the catastrophe of history we are at present witnessing globally? the numbers forced into involuntary exile, dispossessed, refused entry...?

Where are the NZ plays bearing witness to what is happening on a world stage? or are those playwrights in turn forced into internal exile, dispossessed and refused entry, in a way which although kinder is no less decisive?

Simon Taylor March 1st, 2010

Thanks, John. That firms up your critique of Circa. I don't think it does theatre any good to put the playwright at the centre of the debate regarding theatre's cultural role. The play's not the thing, certainly not a cultural thing, until it's performed; as for a New Zealand play, what's that? Theatre companies should be asking this question as well as attempting to find answers to it. It appears to me that there is still insufficient critical input into this quesiton, that it usually devolves to the level of sheer expediency, on the part of funding bodies, and the good intentions of strangers, and that your review adds nothing to this debate. That there are more NZ plays performed than ever before does not contribute a cultural value in itself; after all, there's Thomas Sainsbury.

John Smythe March 1st, 2010

Thank you Simon. I shall attempt to address the points I think you want answered.

“England-cum-Great Britain”: As I understand it, King James was the first monarch to declare himself “King of Great Brittaine” (as well as France and Ireland) in 1604, although England and Scotland remained separate countries with their own parliaments until 1707.

I have never said the only thing NZ theatre companies should produce is NZ work, just that is their core responsibility. Who else in the world should do it? And where in the world do those other plays come from if not from cultures (that word again) that create their own theatre as well as recreate that of others? In contributing to an international arts festival it seems especially appropriate to stage something homegrown – doesn’t it?  

If that is “a facile agenda” then we might as well renounce any claim to distinction in either sense of the word, and resign ourselves to the ‘culture’ of a refugee camp or transit lounge. Do we really lack the root systems to contribute positively to the global ecology of theatre.

It is to our benefit that we are more aware of other cultures – English-speaking ones especially – than they are of us. No day passes without our hearing their voices though one medium or another. But were not prisoners in our own land. We have a voice too, the right and a responsibility to use it, and the failure to do so is wimpish and pathetic.

The live theatres that do ‘originals’ are a great deal more vital – in all senses of that word – than those which specialise in ‘covers’.  My argument is that our better resourced companies (thanks to tax-payer funding) should either be leading the way, or building on the groundswell created by the creative co-ops whose often extraordinary works are celebrated on this website, or both.  And I am claiming that Circa is especially lax in this regard. They don’t have a literary unit, or similar, and I would be interested to know how they go about keeping up with the new material coming through and factoring it into their considerations when developing their programme of productions.  

Simon Taylor March 1st, 2010

A couple of statements stick out at odd angles from this review so I feel compelled to comment. To wit, the first line:

Since Shakespeare died many playwrights have attempted to add to the library of plays about the kings and queens of England-cum-Great Britain.

No. It's really the first three words I have a problem with, "Since Shakespeare died"... Does John Smythe mean 'since 1616' or 'because of the death' and therefore having to take it into account, the death, or that he did die; or, additionally, and to gloss, 'Since Shakespeare did die in 1616, young, only 52, because of that and ever since many, many playwrights have both tried to emulate him and to enter the canon, add to the library, with plays about British kings and queens'? (What is England-cum-Great Britain? A sort of metaphorical fluffer? connoting a white-out? ... a fluff, nonetheless.) The statement is to say the least disingenuous. And as unworthy as the following of inclusion in a serious review with a serious message. But ought we to believe John Smythe?

Surely the role of New Zealand companies is to produce New Zealand work, especially of the kind that might be attractive to other international festivals.

It has become something of a strategy or model for theatre companies in NZ to produce work to appeal to international festivals. There are cultural as well as economic reasons for this: these reasons warrant examination beyond John Smythe's self-complacent sureness about the role of NZ companies being to produce NZ work. (I'm thinking particularly of Red Leap Theatre's The Arrival, here.) About that notional role, what makes John Smythe so sure?

What irks me most, I suppose, since I don't agree with the message, is the reviewer's presumption to being able to suspend our disbelief for us. For example, in lines like this:

I must suppose the way director Ross Jolly and his cast have rehearsed this play has not exploited its true qualities.

What a bizarre thing to say! Since Shakespeare died I have not heard attempted such additions to the library of bizarre things as assayed here in the name of John Smythe and under the guise of a review. The failure of the review lies in direct proportion to the degree to which it oversteps itself in finding a critical point of view. Yes, such a rare state of affairs, that the pitfall of commonplace is not avoided. Or, ought one to take seriously that the role of NZ companies is to produce NZ work? After all, what was Downstage Upfront but a protracted promotion of this facile agenda?

It's never fun to watch or read backstory, but as has become the rule, the review duly and dully provides us with its own, in a series of paragraphs commencing with one that shouts:

To backtrack: ...

I've an interest in criticising the writing of theatrical reviews but the standard has slipped so far - or trickled down so deep, as we will see - that it has become hard to find anything worth holding onto, anything worth salvaging. My interest in these lines is the inspiration behind the review, just as for the review it is the inspiration behind the choice against staging a NZ play... or NZ-cum-Aotea roa-cum what may.

Returning to the question of why Circa chose Mary Stuart as their Festival play, yes, I accept it is part of our own cultural heritage.

Whose? There's that word 'culture' being bandied about again, and the reviewer clearly does not accept that the choice of play meets with the standards he imputes to the professional culture, or cultural heritage, of our theatres! To gloss once more: 'Our theatres do our plays to serve our culture'... out of respect for what? To attract the interest of international festivals?

The concession the reviewer makes is a sham, a nod to the 'Let's-acknowledge-but-then-pass-quickly-over-the-whole-issue' crowd 'That Blighty too is in one's blood, with its bloody kings and queens, if not in one's England-cum-Great Britain.' The issue of belonging is as important here, in NZ, as the issue of what art is, because it's about what art does and whether it can or ought to have ongoing relevance.

The ad for Playmarket bores me, as if, as in the review's self-conscious rhetoric - an attempt at pointedness? - the directors of Circa can possibly not be aware of the 'many superb but neglected plays by proven [how?] New Zealand playwrights that languish on [its] shelves.' [sic]

Or do they just find it easier to ride on the coat-tails of international companies and be a ‘cover band’ for their cultures? 

Sends a shiver down my spine just to think of it! Circa, Downstage, Court, Fortune, ATC, 'cover bands'?! The suggestion is diabolical. And, again, what are the cultures of these international companies? Since they have coat-tails, must be something elitist.

The reviewer saves his graceless coup de grace - of what I wish to entertain is a far more blooded subject than he gives it credit for being - until the last when names are named:

I find it [...] strange that Peter Biggs, an ex chair of Creative New Zealand, should be sponsoring this production. I am just as bemused that Chris Finlayson, an ex-chair of the CNZ Arts Board and now our Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage, has only ever sponsored Circa productions of non-New Zealand plays.

Oh? I was hoping for so much more, that the criticism might ground itself beyond the tired stories we tell ourselves in order we may sleep at night, AKA 'Telling our own stories in our own words.' The living discussion of WHY DO THIS PLAY NOW? still seems to be one in which we are unwilling and perhaps incapable of engaging, at least, as per the evidence given here. Too soon mired in the side issue of NZ bolsterism.

To end:

The failure to recognise the fundamental responsibility of state-funded theatres trickles down from the top, it seems, and now runs very deep.

... We visit and take pictures of the Grand Canyon because we don't have our own one. But at least we understand how it was formed.

Best,

Simon Taylor