July 8, 2007

Producing locally, touring internationally

John Smythe      posted 22 May 2007, 10:23 AM

The following post to the King Lear forum precipitated this one.

______

Zip (posted 21 May 2007, 10:04 PM)

Does anyone else think we’re too obsessed with ‘touring internationally’?  What’s all that about?

______

John Smythe (posted 21 May 2007, 11:40 PM / edited 22 May 2007, 08:59 AM)

The good things about international touring include:

    it gives good shows wider exposure and greater longevity, and employs the companies for longer

    it redresses the balance of imported entertainment with quality exports that improve our profile abroad

    it proves the intrinsic value of the arts in achieving cultural distinction in the more global arena.

The danger is that the exportable tail wags the home market dog. Or, to change the metaphor, I sometimes worry that too much is spent on the flash shop window and not enough on tending the home market gardens.

We have to sustain ourselves first.

______

Sonal Patel (posted 22 May 2007, 07:33 AM / edited 22 May 2007, 08:29 AM)

[2 posts combined here]

The danger is that the exportable tail wags the home market dog. Or, to change the metaphor, I sometime worry that to much is spent on the flash shop window and not enough on tending the home market gardens.

When has that happened? I can’t recall a case of a NZ show that has gone on to tour internationally having an adverse (or perhaps multiple spin off) effect on the content of what is happening on the home stage.

If you, dear reader, know of an example, please educate me.

John Smythe      posted 22 May 2007, 10:36 AM / edited 21 May 2009, 11:02 AM

I’m thinking much earlier in the evolutionary process, Sonal; not from the perspective of shows that have toured adversely affecting the content of home stage productions. And these are semi-formed musings that may be easily answered by those who know more or think more clearly.

Consider, for example, what misses out on being commissioned for the NZ International Arts Festival and why? I have not been privy to the process so I can only say “I sometimes worry” that the potential for works to be picked up by international festivals may take precedence over its value to us in the first place.

What, for example, was the thinking behind the (re)commissioning of The Holy Sinner and what missed out in its favour? Is internationalism of content permeating the thinking of the powers-that-be in theatre, as it clearly has with book publishers? (Conversely, was international touring potential ever a consideration as Alan Bennett’s The History Boys began its development journey in the UK?)

Personally I think that developing works that look as if they could have come from anywhere else in the world is counter-productive when it comes to attracting the interest of other international festivals. No-one picked up The Holy Sinner did they? And from the same year, did Fiona Samuel’s adaptation of Carol Ann Duffy’s The World’s Wife ever tour beyond NZ? International festival directors want NZ work from NZ. Yet I do have this idea that one of the reasons those works got commissioned was in the belief they would attract overseas interest. Am I wrong?

But when it is recognised that cultural specificity is a plus when it comes to distinguishing ourselves abroad, does the clear point of difference offered by Mâori and Pacifica works disadvantage Pakeha works? Why, for another example, was the SEEyD trilogy – inSalt, SEEyD and SAnD – not finally commissioned in 2004 when it had been given development funding to be packaged as a trilogy? Here’s part of what I wrote at the time (National Business Review, 26 March 2004):

“Given the festival’s long-standing focus on Mâori, Pacific Islands and NZ Indian theatre, it is tempting to wonder if the SEEyD trilogy missed out because (despite having a strong Mâori dimension in inSalt and two of the five actors who people each play being Mâori) it brought a largely Pakeha perspective to its historical, contemporary and futuristic scenarios.

“But no. That would mean the festival has no interest in distinguishing Pakeha New Zealand from its other European content. That would suggest the festival directors think Kiwis are happy to make do with theatre from other English-speaking cultures and have no fundamental human need to express, confront and celebrate themselves. It would imply they think Pakeha-generated New Zealand theatre has nothing of artistic theatrical value to offer the wider world. And that, of course, is absurd.”

I also wonder to what extent the Audience & Market Development wing of Creative New Zealand is influencing the grass roots development of New Zealand theatre. And it’s not that I’m saying international markets are not important. I just worry that some woolly thinking may be – or may have been – behind some counter-productive policy. If someone can prove me wrong, I will be the first to cheer.

Solo       posted 22 May 2007, 10:47 AM

I’ve got examples of things that haven’t done well here and not surprising, they were average to pretty bad; somehow they go on to have a performance ‘overseas’ and just because they’re there and not here that’s supposed to be proof they’re good, everyone’s suddenly impressed as if foreign audiences and critics know better than us. They’re just as stupid as us if not stupider, I think we have really high standards. I thought the cultural cringe was supposed to be gone?

Moya Bannerman            posted 22 May 2007, 11:15 AM

Actually naming your examples would be a great help, Solo. But I agree the cultural cringe is still twitching. Look at the way NZ films are taken to overseas festivals to boost their profile at home before they are released locally.  Is this warped or realistic thinking on the part of marketers?

Besides, is there any proof that winning an award at an overseas festival improves the box office takings at home? I suspect it turns off many ‘ordinary New Zealanders’ who assume it must be arty farty to win an award like that.

I also agree with, or at least pick up on, JS’s point that some of our best book writers have been hijacked by the international market. Except for our Māori writers. Is this because they know their point of difference sells internationally? If so, why doesn’t the same apply to Pakeha writers?

So where does all that leave live theatre? We already use the ‘vote arts’ budget allocation to fund NZ productions of overseas plays whereas we would never countenance that with TV drama of NZ films (except co-productions). I’m not saying we shouldn’t but I certainly support the position that it is the culturally specific work, in any medium, that travels best around the world. And of course homegrown work that does the business for us, regardless of its international potential, is the most important thing our theatres do. If they didn’t, who else would?

Where was it I read about an American comedy guru who said the problem with the older cultures was they’d said everything many time over whereas we in NZ could say it all again in our own voices and make it seem fresh! Sounds good to me.    

Robert Catto      posted 22 May 2007, 01:41 PM

If I may borrow from Canada’s official foreign trade policy:   “International successes by writers, musicians, filmmakers and other artists open doors through which Canadian exporters, investors and educators can follow. Such informal cultural diplomacy presents Canada’s values and national experience. On trips abroad, delegations of distinguished artists, Aboriginal leaders, scientists, scholars and business people show Canada’s contemporary face to the world.”

It’s referred to as the third pillar of foreign policy: the promotion of Canadian culture and values abroad.  It’s not just about what individual artists can gain and learn from touring (and who says travel doesn’t broaden the mind of any individual, artist or otherwise?), or what audiences here make of international successes or otherwise; it’s also about defining what New Zealand culture means in the context of the world, and demonstrating that to audiences / readers / listeners / viewers everywhere.

Aside from which, opportunities beyond anything we could achieve within the country exist and should be pursued – John Psathas’ work at the Olympic Ceremonies in Athens being a perfect example.  Why limit yourself to the domestic market, when there’s so much more out there?

If we (as New Zealanders, now that I have dual citizenship and can play for both teams) want to be defined in the world by more than The Lord Of The Rings, taking our living, changing, dynamic and unique culture to the world is vital.  Touring’s not just a good idea; it’s our national duty!

Zip          posted 22 May 2007, 10:32 PM

Yes Robert fair enough but you’re avoiding Johns point – that “the potential for works to be picked up by international festivals (etc) may take precedence over its value to us (the domestic market) in the first place.”?  

I know far too many people developing work basically for some often imagined market abroad and seeing their NZ season as a little more than a tryout.  They’re not interested in making sense here or speaking to us and therefore (as John says) ironically they’re actually likely to make less impact anywhere else.

John Smythe      posted 25 May 2007, 11:33 PM / edited 26 May 2007, 08:42 AM

Trackers of ‘Producing locally, touring internationally’ should read the News item about the latest Creative New Zealand initiative to promote our performing arts in Asia.  Indian Ink is, of course, an excellent example of a company that developed productions for the home market and then gained traction abroad. 

holly jones          posted 3 Jul 2007, 02:48 PM / edited 3 Jul 2007, 02:50 PM

We have excellence in local work, that can travel. Does this have to be limited to just NZ plays, (although we need to continue to support and build our local material), an inventive classic, a NZ interpretation of an Opera etc. We are part of the international theatre community, with productions equal to anywhere in the world….the world may want to share in them..

Dandy   posted 3 Jul 2007, 08:06 PM

One thing to bear in mind is, where is the quality control?

To use the nz music scene as an example, you must have read Neil Finn’s comments during this years music month.  We are sending bands overseas (simply because they have the money), who are playing to houses of 10-20 people and Helen Clark is labelling it as a success.

(Sorry to veer off topic)

But my point is that we NEED to be sending our BEST work overseas.  Original work, we are proud of and are success stories here first.

I have two questions and I’m sure someone out there can enlighten me.

Generally in New Zealand where does funding for touring overseas come from?

And when are the decisions made for funding work to be toured overseas?

Because if they are made before a successful season has been mounted in New Zealand I find that very scary.  We should be sending, our best, most successful works.

Robert Catto      posted 7 Jul 2007, 04:38 PM

> We are sending bands overseas (simply because they have the money), who are playing to houses of 10-20 people and Helen Clark is labelling it as a success.

Oh, for goodness’ sake, that’s ridiculous.  I’ve been trying to ignore this comment, but really – name me a successful band who didn’t play to houses of 10-20 on their first international tour, or indeed their first tour outside their home city.  (I doubt such a band exists.)  Whether Helen or anyone else involved declares it a success or not may have more to do with WHO the ten people were, and what they wrote about the band later, than the actual quantities involved – or other media coverage, that had little to do with the audience on the night.  It’s certainly not a reason to stop touring our arts beyond our borders, quite the opposite – what kind of numbers would they reasonably expect to get on their second tour, or the third?

And I think we’re missing a bigger picture here: some things that appeal locally simply don’t overseas – and others, that don’t sell well domestically, are well received elsewhere.  Having been in Toronto for the Film Festival premiere of Black Sheep, I can say with some certainty that other cultures, whose upbringing hasn’t centred around sheep jokes, really (and quite vocally) enjoyed the film – and having seen it again at the Embassy when it opened here (to surprisingly low numbers, and some fairly average reviews), the audience reaction was quite different.

So: should that have been ‘tested at home’ first, and that be the guide to whether it ‘earned’ export to other markets?  Or would that have been cutting it off from potential success that it might not eventually reap here?  Why should it have to be able to do both?  And who would be the ultimate arbiter of this ‘quality control’?

stephen gallagher            posted 7 Jul 2007, 05:42 PM / edited 7 Jul 2007, 06:14 PM

I agree with Robert. “Testing at home”. Hmmmm…I really don’t buy that. At all. Keeping with the NZ music scene comparison…we could take the example of The Dead C. Ignored and ridiculed in their home country of good ol’ New Zild and considered as one of our greatest musical exports in Europe and the States. Neil Finn? New Zealand radio refused to play/support Crowded House until they had chart success in the US. Other examples of NZ being somewhat indifferent to home grown brilliance, until the rest of the world decided otherwise, include Len Lye, Vincent Ward and Douglas Wright to name a few. Our track record as a country for ‘testing at home’ and deciding what our best works are in the arts…… is not so great. Sometimes the best stuff that comes out of NZ is ignored and written off by NZ until other parts of the world decide differently. I guess sometimes it’s a difficult thing deciding what our own best work is…..

Sonal Patel          posted 8 Jul 2007, 11:45 PM / edited 9 Jul 2007, 11:10 AM

And to bring it back from Robert and Stephen’s examples, home to theatre, let’s look at Miria George’s play and what remains which was pretty much dismissed by reviewers at home and yet was invited to the Pasifika Styles Festival in Cambridge, UK.  The play was received very well and sparked some excellent discussions/dialogue that sadly did not happen back in New Zealand.  Some people (as can be noted in an old thread on theatreview) would have balked at the idea that Miria’s play was one of our best whereas others (myself included) would have argued that it is – as Stephen says, our barometer at judging greatness is, well, not great.

As an end note, Miria did not receive any CNZ support for and what remains until she was invited for the Festival (and even then, judging from the amount given by Te Waka Toi in the 2006-2007 funding round, it would only have been enough to cover airfares)