May 21, 2008

Could the EFA apply to plays? + arts funding matters in general

John Smythe      posted 16 Apr 2008, 11:04 PM / edited 16 Apr 2008, 11:15 PM

In today’s Capital Times Stephen Franks, ex-ACT MP, now the National candidate for Wellington Central asks: “If Downstage puts on a return season of The Hollow Men in the run-up to the election, should production costs come out of the Labour Party’s production budget?” [My hyperlink added]

It seems Franks didn’t bother to go to the trouble of finding out that it was already on, right now, in this election year, at The Maidment in Auckland, so he and his colleagues can raise the question with The Electoral Commission immediately.

Franks has added that “The Hollow Men playwright was surprised at the suggestion his play could fall under the EFA, but he doesn’t expect the arts to have a special exemption. (Only the news media and non-profit blogs are specifically exempt from the Act.)

“I don’t think the arts should be exempt from anything. The arts should stand alongside everything else,” Parker says. However, he says his play is not party political – while it deals with National, it exposes political machinations that would be familiar to all political parties. But Franks says the intention of the author is not as important as the effect of seeing the play. The Act applies where a presentation influences people to vote for a particular party, he says. “It doesn’t require intention, or even that it be the dominant effect of seeing the presentation.”

Franks should also check out forthcoming performances of On The Conditions and Possibilities of Helen Clark Taking Me as Her Young Lover.  My review included the following:

“OTCAPOHCTMAHYL should tour the country as an ideal counterpoint to the inevitable earnestness of electioneering. Which raises the further point of where the show stands in relation to the Electoral Finance Act. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the purpose of the production is to urge people to vote Labour in the coming election.

“The project has already received a $9,750 grant from Creative New Zealand, which is alright because although it’s a donation and over $1,000, it’s not anonymous. But if the show’s budget is over $12,000, does this mean the co-op must register as a third party? Then what if it goes on the tour it richly deserves and the spend – offset by healthy box-office receipts, one hopes – ends up exceeding $120,000? Can we really countenance such a disincentive to artistic success?

“Except OTCAPOHCTMAHYL is not urging its audiences to give their votes to Labour. It is urging the Prime Minister to take a course of action that could possibly elevate her chances of re-election. Or not. Who knows?”

Anyway, I hope Franks does pursue it: it’ll be excellent publicity for both productions.

Dean Parker       posted 17 Apr 2008, 08:40 AM / edited 17 Apr 2008, 08:49 AM

John, Stephen Franks says I was “surprised” at hearing the adaptation of THE HOLLOW MEN might fall under the Electoral Finance Act. I don’t know where he gets that from. I’d discussed the matter with a friend from the parliamentary press gallery earlier this year when a season in Auckland looked likely and mentioned it to the producer. I found it all a bit of a joke. It highlights the fact that the Act is messy and probably unworkable.

When the Capital Times contacted me I replied that politically I was indifferent to the Act. I could understand the reason the Labour Party wanted to limit the effect secret big-money donors could have on an election but it shouldn’t be money that counted. You win people’s trust by actions, not advertising. Labour won the last election despite the Exclusive Bretheren’s funding of a National campaign and it won it because the working class of South Auckland came out and voted for a party that was historically formed by the union movement and stood up for workers. If Labour has delivered to those South Auckland workers over the last three years then it’s got nothing to fear from big money. But if it hasn’t, if the gap between the rich and the poor has been increasing, you can understand Labour getting desperate.

One thing more. I live in Auckland Central, but if I lived in Wellington Central – and I’m tempted to take temporary accommodation upstairs at Bats so I could then vote happily in November – there’s only one Franks I’d be voting for and it’s not Stephen. Don Franks is hugely respected by performers everywhere and by low-paid workers. He’s the low-paid workers & performers candidate. You don’t often get that.

Aaron Alexander              posted 17 Apr 2008, 08:46 AM

Stephen Franks, it would seem, is not unaware that The Hollow Men is playing in Auckland, according to his website:

http://stephenfranks.co.nz/

even if that wasn’t clear in the Capital Times.  I expect to see him pushing this barrow round every media outlet that will give him 5 minutes.

John Smythe      posted 17 Apr 2008, 09:14 AM / edited 17 Apr 2008, 09:30 AM

No way can The Hollow Men be seen as a pro Labour polemic: it’s all about the National Party in the first instance and the political process in general.

Given the play is sourced from a book that is sourced from material that was – it now seems clear – passed on by a member of the National Party, the question is: who benefits from the production of The Hollow Men?  Media commentary today suggests National has benefitted hugely from the shake-down in leadership and re-energising of the party (witness the polls), and that was the intention of the member who leaked the material in the first place.

Doesn’t this mean the cost of production, this year, should be set against the National Party cap?

Then there’s the question of whether it should be the gross or net production costs. If the Maidment season makes a profit, nothing will have been spent at all – will it?  

Aaron Alexander              posted 17 Apr 2008, 09:44 AM / edited 17 Apr 2008, 09:58 AM

To me, it would seem there is a crucial difference between advertising, which is put into my line of sight by way of billboards, flyers or television advertising, and something that takes place behind the closed doors of a theatre that I actually have to make a choice and pay money to witness. That is not what I would call ‘delivered or displayed to the public’, which seems to be Franks’ angle on it.

Dane Giraud       posted 17 Apr 2008, 10:50 AM  

If the play has helped the National party (due to party shake up etc.) then isn’t it time someone wrote a play about this bill and the desperate measures of the Labour Party to stay in power.

Blair Cooper       posted 17 Apr 2008, 11:35 AM

The Hollow Men isn’t advocating votes for any particular party, so how can it be construed as coming under the Act? After seeing it you might feel less inclined to vote National (then again you might not) but it’s not saying you should vote Labour or Māori or Green or anything else.

Dane Giraud       posted 17 Apr 2008, 05:05 PM

I think it should come under the act, if only to highlight how wrong the act is. The fact we are needing to have this discussion should say it all really… We are discussing whether or not a play should be deemed illegal by an act of our parliment. This is scary. Way scarier than brethrens, don’t you think?

Aaron Alexander              posted 17 Apr 2008, 05:16 PM / edited 22 Apr 2008, 09:25 AM

It might be scary if Stephen Franks wasn’t willfully distorting the truth and using exaggeration to attack his political opponents and grab some headlines. No one seriously thinks there is the slightest chance that a play will be ‘deemed illegal’. No one. No matter what party they are a member of. For a start the EFA doesn’t actually have the power to do that. Franks and his mates would like you to think it’s a possibility, and be scared by it.  I don’t know about you, but I find it more than a little annoying when a politician is trying to win my vote by making me afraid. Guess that’s why I’m not a big fan of the Right.

What he has highlighted is that, legally speaking, the Act seems poorly worded and too vague. To call it on that basis ‘wrong’ and ‘scary’ is, in my opinion, an overreaction.

John Smythe      posted 17 Apr 2008, 05:44 PM / edited 17 Apr 2008, 05:50 PM

Agreed, Aaron. The discussion is satirical and anyone seriously suggesting any production of any play could be deemed political advertising is being mischievous.

That said, here are the relevant parts of the Act and live performance has clearly not occurred to the drafting person as a possibility.  (See 5 (2) (b), (c), (d), (g) & (e)

ELECTORAL FINANCE ACT 2007

Part 1, Preliminary Provisions

5   Meaning of election advertisement

     (1)  In this Act, election advertisement—

          (a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:

               (i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:

               (ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated); and

     (b) includes—

           (i) a candidate advertisement; and

           (ii) a party advertisement.

(2) The following are not election advertisements:

          (a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral Commission, or any other agency charged with responsibilities in relation to the conduct of any official publicity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf of the Government of New Zealand and relating to electoral matters or the conduct of any general election or by-election and which either contains a statement indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by that officer or agency:

          (b) any editorial material, other than advertising material, in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

          (c) any content of a radio or television programme, other than advertising material, that has been selected by, or with the authority of, a broadcaster (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1989) solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining its audience:

          (d) any editorial material, other than advertising material, published on a news media Internet site that is written by, or selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person responsible for the Internet site solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

         (e) a book that is sold for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election:

         (f) a document published directly by—

              (i) an incorporated body to its shareholders or members:

              (ii) an unincorporated body to its members:

        (g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).  

Dane Giraud       posted 17 Apr 2008, 06:01 PM

So, the right are the only people that use scare tactics? Thats all Labour has left!

Dane Giraud       posted 17 Apr 2008, 06:21 PM

“encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated)…

You could argue the play does this, even if unwittingly, don’t you think?

I am not trying to prove either way, but I do believe the definitions are far more grey than some make out…

Michael Smythe                posted 17 Apr 2008, 06:59 PM / edited 17 Apr 2008, 08:42 PM

“election advertisement— means any form of words … that can reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties …”

So is the script a ‘form of words’? What about the script as spoken and heard rather than read? I guess we can argue that it is the equivalent of a “book … planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election” – except that it does have regard to the 2005 election.

Ah well, we can say it’s the equivalent of editorial content “written …  solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining …” – at least we assume that was the purpose of the original writers of the words (which makes me wonder why the email writers haven’t taken a class action against Nicky and Dean for breach of copyright)

Anyway, I saw The Hollow Men last Monday night and I can confidently suggest it would not have made any difference to the voting intentions of anyone in the audience – it was a Labour Party fundraiser.

Dane Giraud       posted 17 Apr 2008, 09:29 PM / edited 18 Apr 2008, 07:26 AM

“I don’t know about you, but I find it more than a little annoying when a politician is trying to win my vote by making me afraid. Guess that’s why I’m not a big fan of the Right”…….. Are you for real? All parties scaremonger, Aaron. Wasn’t it the leftists that convinced many of us that National was going to let the brethren run the country last election? And to Dean Parker, are you planning to write a play about Owen Glenn (?) and his funding of Labour anytime soon? Just as fertile material there don’t you think? Look, I don’t begrudge you any of your views, any of you, but for the sake of art we need some balance.

Aaron Alexander              posted 18 Apr 2008, 09:12 AM / edited 18 Apr 2008, 10:44 AM

>Are you for real?

Yes, I am for real, Dane. This was established on the forum a little while ago, after some doubt was expressed.

>All parties scaremonger, Aaron.

Agreed, but I find it more of a characteristic tactic of conservative parties, particularly on the issue of law and order.

>Wasn’t it the leftists that convinced many of us that National was going to let the brethren run the country last election?

Well, I don’t know how many people were convinced of that. But judging by your massive knee-jerk reaction to Stephen Franks’ scaremongering, maybe you’re just easily spooked.

>And to Dean Parker, are you planning to write a play about Owen Glenn (?) and his funding of Labour anytime soon? Just as fertile material there don’t you think? Look, I don’t begrudge you any of your views, any of you, but for the sake of art we need some balance.

Am I understanding you? Are you suggesting that a playwright who writes a play which makes a point, an argument, or a suggestion, ought to immediately write a companion piece arguing for the exact opposite – for the sake of art?

If you think the material is so fertile, and that balancing needs to be done, go ahead and write it.

John Smythe      posted 18 Apr 2008, 10:42 AM  

So Brash and Foreman happened to go to THE HOLLOW MEN on the same night! Check it out.. (This may deserve a Forum topic of its own, if anyone wants to discuss accuracy and artistic licence. Feel free to start one.)

John Smythe      posted 18 Apr 2008, 02:04 PM

Let’s not forget it was the Green Party (specifically publisher Craig Potton who was one of their list candidates) who instigated the whole ‘Corngate’ scare in the run-up to the 2002 election. The panic that ensued had some people thinking their cornflakes were going to be toxic, not least because the author chose to call the GE crops in question “contaminated”.

And the author, of course, was Nicky Hager, who also wrote The Hollow Men (also published by Potton). Findlay McDonald summed ‘Corngate’ up nicely in a Listener editorial.

Dane Giraud       posted 18 Apr 2008, 04:41 PM

The implication I don’t like, Aaron, is that you imply that the left are more honest. They are not. Politics is politics as recent events (Owen Glenn’s donations) show clearly. the left are no more honest than the right, THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN, and to think so, and to approach art believing this to be so, will only produce  diatribes… nothing of substance… work that the slightest intellectual scrutiny will see fall like a house of cards…

John Smythe      posted 18 Apr 2008, 05:13 PM

In my observation over a number of decades, a great deal of political theatre written by ‘Lefties’ has been dedicated to critiquing the ‘Left’, usually by showing how infighting between factions and splinter-groups distracts the party from its core objectives and threatens it with self-destruction. Trevor Griffiths’ THE PARTY (1973) springs to mind – but in London in the mid 1970s I saw at least 3 productions in that vein.

I concur with Aaron, by the way: good plays are written from a driving passion – and I see you’ve got a good head of steam up there, Dane, so I too look forward to your writing the play you seem so desperate to see.

Dane Giraud       posted 18 Apr 2008, 05:56 PM / edited 18 Apr 2008, 09:52 PM

I love a good lefty play as much as the next man… I just wish these plays were smart, thats all. When I hear comments like, the right are more likely to use scare tactics… and then I read a few reviews on “the man who lovelock couldn’t beat” and I hear more than one reviewer say that the piece seemed to imply that middle-classes don’t deserve their achievement as much as the lower classes… I just wonder when our writers are going to smarten up! Left, Right… whatever… smarten up… be complex… The left wing plays you brought up are just that, John… complex. But we always seem to be a few shades short of fully demensional …

I find it most scary when the chief apologists of our nanny state seem to come from the arts sector.  Is that healthy?

back to the original strand tho, you pasted into your reply some notes on the EFA. Despite what some have said they are NOT clear. I think if anyone really wanted to go after the play they probably could. To call it scare-tactic’s is to use the standard tactics of an ostrich!

John Smythe      posted 18 Apr 2008, 09:49 PM  

I detect Act or Libertarian leanings in your “nanny state” rhetoric, Dane. May I remind you that back in 1999 when Richard Prebble was standing for ACT in Wellington Central, there was some confusion as to whether Act had an arts policy at all!

Before he did a ‘Dennis Connor’ and stormed out of an interview with Paul Bushnell on a Radio NZ arts programme, Prebble made the memorable point that an Act-led government would not cut funding to the arts because ‘Vote Arts’ in the Budget was such a pitiful amount it would be of no use whatever to any other sector.

The arguments rehearsed during that election campaign, and those since, included:

    If we let ‘Market Forces’ prevail, our performing arts activities would be reduced to being ‘cover bands’ for the dominant English-speaking cultures, achieving no distinction (in both senses of the word) in the global market place [and this remains more the status quo than not]

    Cultural Health and Economic Wealth are indivisible

    If we take the Lord of the Rings trilogy as an example, its worth noting that:

    – Peter Jackson and Co made a concerted effort to ensure the world knew it was made in NZ (otherwise who would have known?)

    – There is no art form that is not represented in film and the live performing arts are crucial training grounds for the development of the relevant art and craft skills

    The performing arts (and all the arts) are of intrinsic value in themselves at personal, community and national levels, regardless of whether international recognition is achieved [which still seems to be unduly important when it comes to marketing our cultural wares, even at home].

As usual the quantum leaps of progress have been made by the Labour-led government. So far Labour is the only party that seems to have a clear vision and understanding of the value of the Arts sector.  Which is not to say there is not too much bureaucracy and too little filtering through to the actual artists – but does anyone think things would have been better under a National-Act government?

Dane Giraud       posted 19 Apr 2008, 10:20 AM / edited 19 Apr 2008, 10:32 AM

Hmm. So the arts sector are apologists for the nanny state (Labour) because the nanny state is the party that has done most and will continue to do the most for the arts?

Under which government did the Film Commission come to be?

Who approved the tax breaks that were necessary for the Lord of the Rings to take place?

Under which government did we first see CNZ (formally QE@ Council?)…

And so on and so on…

We would need to answer these and many more to know who has truly made the most telling contributions to the arts… we may be surprised by the outcome…

I would also challenge that increases in arts funding don’t raise the quality of art… they just get more people doing it… More people that probably shouldn’t be doing it!

Songwriter Joni Mitchell was asked to speak at a Canadian arts inititive and apparently shocked all present by saying as much… To paraphrase, she basically said that true artists make their art out of a passion, despite themselves! Nothing will stop them. If they had $50, then, with it, they would present a play. All govt funding does (her words, but I think there is something in them) is encourage mediocrity.

An argument?

I personally think that state sanctioned money is not the way to go. There are restrictions on what one can explore whether people here want to admit that or not.  

John Smythe      posted 19 Apr 2008, 10:37 AM

Government is an instrument of collective responsibility.  Your “nanny sate” and “state sanctioned” rhetoric is misleading and unhelpful, Dane. And personally I’d much rather young people sorted themselves out by pursuing artistic endeavours that, for example, joining the armed forces. Those with talent survive, those without move on.

All state funding for all arts is sought in extremely competitive environments and no-one I know is getting a free or easy ride.

Michael Smythe                posted 19 Apr 2008, 11:18 AM

If we head down your road Dane we will surely encounter Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi – and find ourselves singing: “Don’t it always seem to go /That you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone /We lost paradise ‘[when we] /Put in ‘the other lot’.”

Some of the best are lost to the arts when ongoing careers prove non-viable and they take their creative talents to other fields. That realization hit me like a bolt of lightning when I was remembering Roger McGill this week.

The arts are intrinsic to civilized societies – all healthy societies no matter how ‘primitive’ engage the arts as a means of exploring and expressing their humanity. The arts are an investment in our collective wellbeing. They are as deserving of public funding as National Parks, museums, sportsfields and playgrounds.

Dane Giraud       posted 19 Apr 2008, 12:15 PM / edited 19 Apr 2008, 12:16 PM

Your “nanny state” and “state sanctioned” rhetoric is misleading and unhelpful, Dane.

Can you explain to me how?

“And personally I’d much rather young people sorted themselves out by pursuing artistic endeavours that, for example, joining the armed forces”

I really don’t know what you mean by this, John. Are we funding the arts to sort people out?  You really lost me there, sorry.

Dane Giraud       posted 19 Apr 2008, 12:29 PM

“The arts are intrinsic to civilized societies …

Have I given the you the impression that I am anti-arts? Maybe I am not articulating more points clearly. I was compared to Richard Prebble a few posts back… something is amiss!

I ask you both, what would you prefer? govt funding for all arts projects or no govt funding but a policy of incentives for private investment?

My personal preference would be private funding. I have made projects in this way, have been able to negotiate terms with my investors and have ultimately made projects that were more in line with my vision.

Dane Giraud       posted 19 Apr 2008, 12:52 PM

We lost paradise ‘[when we] /Put in ‘the other lot’.”…

Would you be able to define paradise for me please…

Gavin Rutherford             posted 19 Apr 2008, 02:26 PM

Dane, bro. You should get into talkback hosting. I’ve got contacts at Radio Live? he he

Michael Smythe                posted 19 Apr 2008, 04:01 PM

“Would you be able to define paradise for me please…” – You’re the one who quoted Joni first Dane, I thought you would understand.

And why do we have to chose between public and private funding? Both apply to schools, art galleries, museums, orchestras. Movie makers draw from both sources. Much private enterprise enjoys government funding and support paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers. Your purist straw man is disintegrating fast.

Dane Giraud       posted 19 Apr 2008, 05:43 PM / edited 19 Apr 2008, 06:31 PM

govt funding and money from rates and tax payers is the same thing.

I do concede the private funding idea may be far fetched though. Private funding, pure private funding, expects a profit. Sadly many of our artistic ventures don’t make money… so yes, the upside to govt funding is that it keeps the theatres and so forth alive, and makes it look like we kinda have an industry.  G-d knows the public don’t!

But, John… Labour quantum leap what? I challenge Labours impeccable arts record. National have created their share of opportunities for the arts over the years have they not? We need to lay out their contributions objectively I say… It may surprise many…

And leave ACT out of it, John. The voters will be x

I love you Gavin

Michael Smythe                posted 20 Apr 2008, 11:20 AM

Today’s SST quotes Don Brash: “It’s unpleasant seeing yourself presented as a goofball, totally manipulated by advisers. Of course I had advisers, but I take responsibility for my own decision.”

This shows what a mild mannered gentleman Don really is – he has every reason to be furious. How dare Dean, and presumably Nicky (I haven’t read the book), depict Don as some celebrity who had been hired for his high profile and then become a puppet. What an insult! Did they really think someone earning megabucks as Reserve Bank Governor would toss that all in just to do the bidding of others? Bollocks! Don was in there boots and all – not only up to his steely eyeballs in the strategy to return to pure market monetarism, but leading the way goddammit! He is owed an apology!

Now, in an attempt to return to the original topic, does the fact that the character of the main character was not correctly characterised make any difference to the play’s vulnerability to the Electoral Finance Act?

Dane Giraud       posted 20 Apr 2008, 01:53 PM

Futile argument for two reasons; firstly the play is fiction not docu-drama. Second, no one would prosecute a play, the negative press would be a party killer, but I believe they COULD- which talks about more about sloppy legislation than anything else, laws that are rushed through for no other reason than that the public don’t want them… It’s like anything though isn’t it. When asked why the Americans keep certain dictators in power the answer is…”Sure, he’s a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch”… Is this the art sectors relationship with the Labour party? Just a question. If so I hope people do investigate the respective histories of both parties in regards to the arts. You could be surprised.

Aaron Alexander              posted 21 Apr 2008, 08:52 AM

>The implication I don’t like, Aaron, is that you imply that the left are more honest. They are not.

The argument has moved on over the weekend, but I’m sorry, i couldn’t let this go.

Nowhere have I implied any such thing Dane.

I implied that the right seemed to employ scare tactics to win votes more often, which, as was clear, is a personal opinion, an impression I have. By all means disagree with me on that point. But don’t put words in my mouth.

Dane Giraud       posted 21 Apr 2008, 11:28 AM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 11:32 AM

I think opinion or impression is wrong, Aaron. I think that, because you have decided you are a liberal, you therefore feel you must assume the right is more nasty. If you had arrived at your thinking by fair analysis of both sides you would find that scare-tactics are to ALL polititians what the spanner is to a car mechanic!

Which takes me back to my point. Fair analysis is what creates great art.

Aaron Alexander              posted 21 Apr 2008, 12:34 PM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 02:00 PM

Is that the same kind of ‘fair analysis’ that leads you to proclaim that the EFA can make a play illegal? Or that the ‘lefties’ convinced many of us National would let the Brethren run the country? (The only people, btw, even slightly convinced of that, I imagine, were a handful of the Exclusive Brethren).

You can’t come bounding in full of blatantly slanted rhetoric, exaggeration and invention, and then backtrack to some sort of moral highground claiming that all you’re looking for is a little balance and evenhandedness.

And your claim that I lost all objectivity when I ‘decided I was a liberal’ is such an unbelievably patronising assumption I have to ignore it if I’m to keep things civil.

 I actually agree with you, by the way, on a number of your points regarding private sector arts funding, and historical support. So I’m not quite the blind liberal banner waver you seem to want me to be.

John Smythe      posted 21 Apr 2008, 12:50 PM

When exactly did ‘liberal’ become a dirty word, and why?

Dane Giraud       posted 21 Apr 2008, 01:27 PM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 01:30 PM  

You’re mixing up arguments. I believe that the play COULD fall under the EFA. Nothing I have read or heard has convinced me it couldn’t, but, that said, I do not believe anyone would do as much because of the bad press it would bring their party’s. I am sorry you are upset and reading back on my post I can see why you would be. It is an argument I have played with for a while and thought I’d give it a spin on you, but it did come across quite hard. Sorry. My point was that I feel some people think backwards when it comes to some of their viewpoints. It’s as if left or right is their default setting and every argument must fall in-line with that or be discarded without further thought. You would be amazed by the actors I have bumped into who sincerely believe that National would cut ALL arts funding. We should never pre-program political responses.

And John, liberal is a dirty word just as Conservative is a dirty word. Let’s keep them that way. These kinds of debates very seldom take place x

John Smythe      posted 21 Apr 2008, 02:40 PM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 02:57 PM

That’s fine, Dane, but when I’m not sure what people actually mean when they use certain words, I tend to reach for the dictionary (The New Zealand Oxford):

conservative  adj.  1 disliking or opposed to change, esp. if rapid; tending to want to maintain existing institutions etc.  2 moderate, avoiding extremes; conservative in his dress.  3 (of an estimate, etc.) purposely low.  n. 1 a conservative person. 2 a person having conservative political views.

liberal  adj.  1 giving generously.  2 ample, given in large amounts.  3 not strict or literal; a liberal interpretation of the rules.  4 (of education) broadening the mind in a general way rather than training it in technical subjects.  5 tolerant open-minded, esp. in religion or politics.  n. 1 a person who is tolerant or open-minded, esp. in religion or politics.

Aaron Alexander              posted 21 Apr 2008, 03:03 PM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 03:04 PM

Dane, I agree that the EFA is poorly written, with far too much grey area. And yes, you could make an argument for the play coming under it – although I think a stronger argument could be made for it to beexcluded. My argument would be that anything for which a member of the public has to pay a specific fee to see can’t be an advertisement. I’m not a lawyer, so I could be mistaken. But the important issue is that arguments could be made, whatever the intentions of the Act. This indicates a bad piece of legislation – bad, not wrong, mind.

What I objected to was you saying that we ‘are discussing whether or not a play should be deemed illegal by an act of our parliament’, which, even if the play was somehow proved to be covered by the Act, is just not how it works.

And I am sorry if I fired up a bit myself. Your theory wasn’t totally unreasonable. I’ve met many people who, as you put it well, ‘think backwards’, on political questions in particular. It’s something, again, common across the political spectrum, and something we all have to be careful of.

Michael Smythe                posted 21 Apr 2008, 03:57 PM / edited 21 Apr 2008, 04:01 PM

Enlightening dictionary quotes bro, but to answer your earlier question (and the extension Dane applied):

a) when (and because) Maggie Thatcher lead a Conservative Government in a programme of radical change;

b) when (and because) Lindsay Perigo established the Libertarianz Party whose tolerance and understanding stretches only to those who think like themselves.

Dane Giraud       posted 21 Apr 2008, 04:55 PM

Then I suggest not going back to the dictionary, John. More semantics! Sue Bradford hardly fits the dictionary meaning of liberal does she? And Don Brash (who helped fund Sleeping Dogs) doesn’t sound very conservative.

Join the ARGUMENT, John. To quote the BeeGees… It’s only words…

Dane Giraud       posted 21 Apr 2008, 06:19 PM

And why the New Zealand Oxford? Since when could Kiwis speak?!

Dane Giraud       posted 22 Apr 2008, 08:32 AM

the important issue is that arguments could be made, whatever the intentions of the Act. This indicates a bad piece of legislation – bad, not wrong, mind…

See, I feel the act is wrong and it worries me that artists don’t have more to say about it. What did the human rights commission have to say about the act? That it was undemocratic yet this hasn’t seemed to faze our arts practitioners at all? In fact many are happy about it. It is a sad fact that people vote selfishly, and because Labour serve artists (no matter how appallingly the party is doing in most other aspects of NZ society) then they can be undemocratic as they want; it is, to the artist, a nessacary evil.

Now if they were throwing money at us I could understand the point of view more, which is why I wanted to know if Michael really belived that this state we live in right now is paradise. Is it? Are artists that provided for? Really? John spoke of top heavy administration, well, it’s there alright. I was sent overseas once by an arts organisation and had to sleep in a back-packers while the crew from head-office all stayed in flash hotels and they didn’t even need to be there. It was a holiday for them. Yet the director, the practitioner, was staying in a back-packers!

What those administrators spent that weekend could have put on two plays. Is this paradise? Is this what artists want?

Artists are the traditional enemies of this type of bill. But not here it seems. Which says to me we must be short on artists.

And, to complicate it all you have Labour determined to break there own laws at present, and that too goes under the arts communities radar. Sad.

John Smythe      posted 22 Apr 2008, 10:11 AM

Satire, Dane, is a tool for many an artist. The whimsical musings amid the more serious attempts to wrestle with the implications of the Electoral Finance Act in this forum all go to point up how fundamentally absurd and unworkable the EFA is.  Anyway, I’m glad you’ve moved on from your earlier incomprehensible post (were you having a cultural cringe at the Kiwi accent or what?).

What you have to say about your trip overseas is fascinating. I have long suspected that far too much of the Vote Arts budget allocation gets purloined for such profligate and unnecessary expenditure and far too little finds its way through to the actual arts practitioners.

I, for example, have witnessed the wining and dining of international guests brought in (not entirely at CNZ’s expense) to bring their expertise to us ‘poor ignorant colonials’ – except the context in which they work is so different from ours, what they have to say has minimal relevance to us. Oh and by the way, in the one case I’m clear about (a critics’ symposium), the NZ panellists who gave their time and knowledge for free to the activity were not invited to the dinner (at Pravda) whereas a number of CNZ staff who had not been there on the day did get a seat at the rather large table. When I complained, I was invited but (unsurprisingly) I had a play to see and review that night. I did, however, avail myself of an entrée in order to continue a conversation with the visitor who had let it slip that they were going to dinner, assuming we Kiwis would be joining them. My conscience has troubled me ever since.

While I don’t begrudge the bureaucrats their jobs, and I know many of them are hugely committed and dedicated to making a positive difference, and I’m sure they deserve their pay and conditions, I remain constantly aware of how difficult it is for the artists themselves to make anything like the same annual income – yet those same bureaucrats would not have a job at all if it wasn’t for the underpaid artists.

Here’s a question: How many dollars get spent in the process of deciding whether or not to grant each dollar to actual practitioners?  I’d love to know but I don’t want CNZ to discover the answer by plundering their coffers to commission a study, which of course would involve high-level consultants’ fees.

Dane Giraud       posted 22 Apr 2008, 04:04 PM

 “I don’t begrudge the bureaucrats their jobs, and I know many of them are hugely committed and dedicated to making a positive difference…”.

Here we are getting to the heart of the matter. I personally do begrudge the bureacrats, a parasitic group that has mutliplied steadily under Labour. These are the people writing the policy, making the decisions, handing out the money and spending the majority of it… They are also the bunch who has pushed us all down the maddeningly narrow path of telling “New Zealand” stories (what does that mean for Christ’s sake!).

John Smythe      posted 22 Apr 2008, 05:27 PM

“They are also the bunch who has pushed us all down the maddeningly narrow path of telling “New Zealand” stories (what does that mean for Christ’s sake!).”

Please explain what YOU mean by this complaint, Dane. As I see it, the Recurrently Funded Organisations (RFOs) – the best-resourced theatre practitioners in the land – still get to do ‘cover productions’ of other countries’ plays (i.e. they reproduce imported product) much more often than they create/ produce original work.

These are the questions that preoccupy me:

    If New Zealand theatres don’t create original New Zealand theatre, who else will?

    Why should the NZ tax-payer be asked to subsidise the regurgitation of other people’s pre-tested and already proven product (when those other cultures are constantly available to us on the small and big screens and in literature as well as through touring productions)?

    When we go overseas we expect to be able to see a given country’s theatre on tehir own stages – but how readily are visitors to NZ able to find an NZ play on and NZ stage (produced by an RFO especially)?

    When it comes to the performing arts, can we call ourselves a creative nation if we mostly ‘buy in’ from overseas and rarely send anything the other way?

    Are we happy that most of what we do ‘export’ is Mäori and Pacifica works because they are our biggest point of difference? Will that do? Or is it equally important to distinguish the Päkehä experience and develop it to a level where it, too, can represent us to the wider world?

I am aware that CNZ has people working full time on facilitating international access for New Zealand work. What worries me is that there is still not enough focus in the RFOs on developing a strong NZ repertoire that aims to address, from OUR perspective, the same topics, themes and issues traversed in the imported plays, let alone the ones that may be peculiar to us. 

Is it fair to say that most of the really important, innovative work is being done at the fringes on a shoestring; that NZ theatre remains, by definition, alternative theatre?

Until we have a mainstream NZ repertoire that reaches beyond the ubiquitous Roger Hall (and good luck to him!) we cannot call ourselves a truly creative nation when it comes to the performing arts. 

Dane Giraud       posted 22 Apr 2008, 06:21 PM / edited 22 Apr 2008, 06:24 PM

I totally agree with you on many of your points, John.

I saw Clockwork Orange again the other night and was reminded (by Sydney Pollack interviewed on one of the many extras) that Kubrick, as a director, MADE A POINT of pushing the audience as far as they could go. Actually that’s not accurate. He went well beyond. He wasn’t interested in politeness and culteral sensitivity or inclusiveness of anything like that… He wanted to assult you!

How many forms are we as artists forced to fill out that ask if our story is culteral enough, speaks of our multi-culteral society etc… How dare they force any prerequiste on a playwrights work, ANY at all. The play is relevant to New Zealand because a NEW ZEALANDER WROTE IT. End of story. To put such stipulations on work is anti-art.

I mean, imagine if John Osbourne with his fierce, unrelenting critique of his own society, was working in New Zealand today? Would he be funded?

This is the arts paradise we live in under Labour… Lot’s of sound and fury signifying nothing. And you are right John when you say the most challenging work happens on shoe-strings etc. because our voice, as a national, is actively surpressed. We have no Ken Loach, no Mike Leigh, not even a Russ Meyer!  This is what I mean by narrow path. New Zealand is a mess right now, between the crime, the killing of children, the hospital waiting lists, the uncertainty of many peoples lives… When will we be allowed to write about that?  Instead of the boring old idea that all white men in suits are evil?

Madeleine Hyland            posted 23 Apr 2008, 01:36 AM

I’m interested by this question of what constitutes a NZ work, an NZ story… Shakespeare wrote time and again about Italy, Rome etc but they still seem like inherently English plays to me, eg. even Julius Caesar speaks volumes more in its form and content about England in the 16th century than it does about Rome hundreds of years before…

I don’t think we should worry so much about it. I think we should just get on with making the best work we can about the stories we are drawn to…’if you build it they will come’. Please, write a play, a film, about the killing of children in NZ Dane. No-one will stop you. You’ll get support. People will come and see it and support it if it’s good. It’s a little country and word gets around.

On the question of words like ‘conservative’  and ‘liberal’ – I don’t think it’s that either of them were dirty words to begin with, but when they are continuously abused and re-used and re-cycled there needs to be a new awareness around them – or again, we need to go back to Shakespeare’s lesson about language – that we need training and self-knowledge in order to be able to use them truthfully, in order that we don’t get caught somewhere between Lear’s ‘who is it that can tell me who I am’, Iago’s ‘Think , my lord?’ and Cordelia’s ‘Nothing’.

Surely our job as theatre practitioners is to keep audiences aware of language, to hold up the mirror and help us all confront our worst nightmares and aspire to our highest happiest visions of integrated humanity.

And I thought The Hollow Men was brave and brilliant.

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 08:35 AM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 08:39 AM

Madeleine, I’m still trying to get the gist of what you are saying? Do you feel that things are fine as they are? Do you think that we do have the opportunities to tell our stories, but the funding bodies only fund what is good? (if it is good it will be noticed…)

Look, if you want to put on a play, any play about anything, sure, you can do it. The Police are not going to kick your door down and conviscate your leotards. But I would still challenge that some subject matter, the most pertenant subject matters, would struggle on a good day to get funding from most govt agencies.

Now, this might not be the call from head-office. It could just have to do with the type of people who sit on these boards. I mean, I have heard of instillation artists sitting on these boards for christssakes! You know the ones… the guys who put spray-painted mannequins leaning against black and white televisions in a Krd shop windows!

Here’s the problem with your last statement…

confront our worst nightmares…

It always puzzles me when the theatre crowd use such rhetoric. Is theatre in this country really so confronting? Challenging? It’s a nice thought but it’s fantasy… It’s what we are MEANT to say but nothing backs it up. The most radical playwright we have is actually (Good) Roger Hall simply because he’s middle class! (That’s not a joke by the way).

 and aspire to our highest happiest visions of integrated humanity…

On whose terms? Look, I’m a religious guy and even I find that sentiment a yawn fest in terms of theatre. Your post shows us how conservative you liberals can be!

John Smythe      posted 23 Apr 2008, 11:28 AM

Geez Dane. It seems to me that, like that other great Dane, you feel betrayed, constrained and therefore angry. Like him you seem to be communing with ghosts and jabbing at things you mistakenly imagine are lurking behind the arras. And we all know how that story ended. In carnage. With the kingdom going to someone else.

I request that you to deal with the specifics of your anger in a more appropriate place; in a more productive way. In this forum your wild generalisations and abuse of language (and people, by implication) have become counter-productive. 

And thank you Madeleine, for bringing a fresh and intelligent voice to the discussion. While I, too, blinked at “… and aspire to our highest happiest visions of integrated humanity” I’m sure you’re not suggesting we make nice plays about good people behaving well. You are saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that when we “hold up the mirror and … confront our worst nightmares”, it’s best done with a sense of purpose connected to positive values (be they personal, social, political spiritual …) – otherwise what’s the point?

I’m not saying that, when it comes to making theatre, anger (born of disillusionment, frustration, disappointment, fear, dismay … whatever) isn’t good, as long as it’s channelled productively, creatively, constructively. Otherwise we risk the dissipation of legitimate rage, at best, or incitement to hatred and all that may follow, at worst.

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 12:47 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 12:52 PM

I thank you, John, firstly for comparing me to the greatest literary creation of all time. But, I must remind you though that Hamlet was actually proved right by the end of the play…

I fear that you consider me counter-productive because I hold a contrary opinion to your own. I have put across sound arguments and I call you to task on accusing me of making wild generalisations. Firstly as a forum, provocative statements work to pull opinions out of others that could have laid dormant… secondly, I would challenge that my accusations are any wilder than your own. They just run contrary to yous, that is all…

I mentioned the term “nanny state” and you called me unhelpful and mis-leading… why? You never answered. You act as if I am alone in these opinions which I am clearly not. Once again, it is an argument, contrary to yours obviously but still relevant and topical.

If the gusto I use is offensive then I fear you quite delicate, John. I thought this forum was here to express opinions about art?

You are clearly asking me to leave and I will do so. Ironically, your doing so proves many of my points better than a volume of my postings could have…

I will continue to read and enjoy your reviews…

                                                                                             Your faithfully,

                                                                                                                            The Dane

Ruth Brandon    posted 23 Apr 2008, 01:53 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 02:24 PM

Dane, I also disagree with a lot of what John says.  Sometimes I’ve bitched about it to friends.  But this is the first time I’ve felt like joining up and then posting, after the torrent you’ve released here lately.

The issue isn’t that you hold a ‘contrary opinion’: it is that you’re combative before you’ve done anything else.  It’s not that you engage in an impassioned argument, more that you start fighting, you verge on abuse and then you claim that you didn’t mean to be offensive.  It’s rather tiresome.  I think that might be why you’ve been chipped at.  The thing is, it stops people listening to you – and there are some worthwhile things buried in there.

Oh, and I can’t speak for John, but when _I_ hear someone say ‘nanny state’, I usually think ‘that person has no opinion of their own, that’s a buzzword/buzzphrase, with plenty of empty rhetoric, and people use it to huff loudly at others rather than listen to anything they have actually said or make an actual point’.  Because just saying ‘nanny state’ at someone isn’t an argument, Dane. 

By the way, on the subject of things that are ‘proved’ by the exchange here?  What’s far more definitive is that you prove that you’re not reading what people are actually saying.  Because the way I read that earlier post, it was a call for you to settle down a bit and stop attacking people, not a request that you just leave.  Still, it’s up to you, huh?

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 02:34 PM

I take your points Ruth

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 02:50 PM

Actually I don’t think I do…

How middle class Ruth! I just reviewed all the posts and find that people are giving as good as they get!

Ruth Brandon    posted 23 Apr 2008, 03:10 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 03:14 PM

Dane,

not quite sure what to do with your ‘middle class’ point, although I _suspect_ it’s an oblique attempt at an insult.  It’s inaccurate, but that’s to be expected.

You clearly have a selective form of reading if you can’t see that you’ve had a tendency to set other people off.  Admittedly both John and Aaron reacted somewhat strongly at times, but it wasn’t exactly without a fair lead in, and both have tried to hear you out.  Oh, and since you’re the one who has made much sabre rattling out of the need to avoid work that seems like ‘diatribes… nothing of substance… work that the slightest intellectual scrutiny will see fall like a house of cards…’, there is in fact a pronounced sense of irony in, as I’ve pointed out above, you using an empty piece of jargon (‘nanny state’) without any justification, clarification, context, or, in fact, argument.

If you can’t see the difference in tone between me pointing out this contradiction and the way in which you’re haranguing people, then I have to wonder if you’re being deliberately obtuse. 

I’m still interested to know what a ‘balanced’ piece of art consists of.  Can you give an example?  

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 03:25 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 03:58 PM

Sabre rattling? This is good. At times I have been provocative and I have admitted as much. I don’t think it’s always such a bad thing. I do not agree with the ironic quip. I happen to think I have made sound points.

I know that some people don’t like the use of emotive words like “nanny state” but I disagree with that. Put it on the table, I say…

What is the issue? That I am not making good points or I’m too combative? Or both? This, to me would be the irony. I complain that theatre is too safe then get told I’m too combative…

John Smythe      posted 23 Apr 2008, 03:49 PM

Thank you Ruth, you’ve summed it all up better than I could.

Dane, I’m not asking you personally to leave, just leave off the half-baked arguments and misdirected invective.

As for Hamlet, he might have been right, but he was also was dead. So were his mother, Laertes, Ophelia and Polonius, none of whom were his targets for the ‘ultimate solution’ (who was Claudius initially, then Rosencrantz and Guildenstern). That’s what makes it a tragedy, Dane: that Hamlet went off half-cocked and murdered the wrong man (Polonius) thereby bringing about his own demise and causing much ‘collateral damage’ in the process.

It’s wonderful that we value great classics like that but equally important that we get the universal and timeless points they (in this case, revenge tragedies) are making about human behaviour/ the human condition – which connects directly, I believe, to what Madeleine was saying. Otherwise we’re doomed to “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 04:54 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 04:59 PM

just leave off the half-baked arguments and misdirected invective…

Now who is throwing around insults? So, you claim that my arguments are half-baked? And just what is it that makes yours well-done? It is pretty clear what’s going on here John… I am running a contra-argument and rather than enter into it, you have actually attacked me. You were not able to meet me at any point during these discussions and now I hear you tell me I have half-baked arguments? That’s pretty pitiful. Why could you not challenge me on many of the questions I raised? I’m sure your answer will have a touch of the moral-high ground about it but it doesn’t cut it John. Do you hate debate so much? And what made you feel I was so angry anyway? The fact I have used caps to emphasise points? or the fact that you and the people you often talk too rarely show passion? Oh well. I was warned about the site I guess…

Aaron Alexander              posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:07 PM

FWIW I haven’t been personally offended by your arguments or style, Dane, aside from the one comment, which we dealt with.  I disagree with you on some things, , and I agree with you on others. I think you’ve brought up some points and perspectives that do need to be aired and discussed.

What you call ‘being provocative’, though’ can be…problematic, I think. By all means, as far as I’m concerned, express yourself how you like. I don’t get the impression you’re one to chuck insults about – at least, not intentionally! But what I mean by ‘problematic’ is, it would be a shame if your points don’t get across because of some bluster which allows people to dismiss you as some right-wing ranter. I’ll admit, that was the initial impression I got. That impression has changed.

I thank you Dane, for firing some vigorous and interesting debate on the site. However the fact we’re now discussing the How and not the What of your arguments (and I’m not saying that’s entirely your fault) is a shame.

So that’s my 2c.

John Smythe      posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:11 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 05:11 PM

Dane, I have attempted to engage, challenge, agree, disagree, debate and exemplify as constructively as possible – and if, in the process, I have got sucked into exchanging unproductive banter, I apologise. But now I take stock and consider my ‘conversation’ with you adds up to less than the sum of its parts, so I choose to sign off. Others are welcome to stay in the fray – I’ll watch from the gallery.

Ruth Brandon    posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:13 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 05:23 PM  

Dane,

the very reason that we’re getting sucked into the how and not the why is that your tone overshoots the point you’re making.  I don’t find it so much offensive as misguided and sometimes a little tiresome.

If you could extract the material about funding, about politics within art, about so many things without falling into empty statements like the nanny state posturing (meaningless, seriously), you’d probably find better footing.

Zia Lopez             posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:15 PM

Dane: re:- “And what made you feel I was so angry anyway? The fact I have used caps to emphasise points? or the fact that you and the people you often talk too rarely show passion?” – I fully sympathise. John is not alone in being far too quick to interpret a burst of passion or an attempt at rough humour as anger or viciousness, especially if he doesn’t like what’s being said. Trying to close down discussions this way is mean and cowardly. (That said, your arguments are often hard to follow; and damn, your spelling sucks.)

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:37 PM

I just went through the posts again and truly believe there has been some serious overreaction here from both John and you, Ruth. I overstepped the mark with Aaron and apologised. The strongest thing I said to Maddy was along the lines of “boy, you liberals can be conservative”… this seems to have been the post that set John off. I accept I am a feisty guy, and a pain in the @3%$ half the time but I really cannot see what I said that was so damning? I have to stand by my last post directed at John… what’s the real issue here?

Ruth, you obviously don’t agree with many of my arguments. If you do not think we live under a nanny-state then of course it will sound hollow to you. I feel that there is too much control from head-office and so do most media commentators both here and worldwide! So, to say I have NO argument? Strange.

Ruth Brandon    posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:50 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 05:57 PM

No, Dane, it’s just that this is the first time you’ve said what you think ‘nanny state’ actually means.

If I adopted your logic, I could post, ‘yeah! It’s Fascist bullyboys!’ and when you asked what that meant, I’d say ‘it’s a sound argument!’ and then when you said, ‘Erm, when have I have been a fascist bullyboy, or what have fascist bullyboys got to do with it?  If we could get beyond that, I like your idea about arts funding’, I’d have to respond, ‘obviously you disagree with everything I say!’

Oh, and on that front, the way you jump from what is your opinion, to saying that this is what most (?) media commentators here, and worldwide (??)  say is a good example of the hyperbole and huge argumentative leaps that you make.  It’s really odd.

Still, it’d be full of ‘passion’ and keep Zia happy.

I’m still wondering what a ‘balanced’ work of art is.  I don’t know of any.  I think that’s why different artists make different art.

Aaron Alexander              posted 23 Apr 2008, 05:57 PM

OK, cool. Let’s talk about this ‘nanny state’ business.

As a term, it’s quite effective, because it belittles what it talks about, and carries the connotation that as citizens we are being treated as children. But what was once a clever bit of word play, as so often happens, has become a soundbite for politicians to slap as a label on a whole range of things. Like the term ‘political correctness gone mad’. It’s unthinking. The government introduces a bill, such as the one designed to streamline the prosecution of child abusers by not letting the nasty pieces of work and their lawyers tie up the courts and manufacture an acquittal on the basis of the legally vague ‘reasonable force’. A bunch of people, some with legitimate concerns, some with a vested interest in making the bill’s authors look bad, some who just believe what they read, start saying ‘oh that’s nanny state’, ‘it’s just the nanny state’, ‘here they go again with the nanny state’ etc etc. It defeats discussion and argument because once you slap the label on it, you’ve dismissed it as ridiculous. Tremendously effective politics, but lazy, lazy debate.

I could go on, but it’s home time, and my son is waiting for me.

Dane Giraud       posted 23 Apr 2008, 06:10 PM

I think the film REDS by Warren Beatty tries to provide a balanced responce to issues of communism and history. The personal relationships between the characters are great too, forcing the viewers allegences to see-saw all the time…

One of the best examples I have ever encountered is the New Zealand film Smash Palace. Is the wife a so and so or is the marriages failings due to the Al Shaw character (Bruno). This is a brilliant film, our best by far, purely down to the complexity of argument and the beautiful flawed characters. Nothing is black and white here. I have had great debates with people about just who was the villian of the piece. The truth is, there are no villains, just two hurt people and unfortunately hurt people hurt others…

neil furby             posted 23 Apr 2008, 06:24 PM / edited 23 Apr 2008, 06:28 PM

Dane

Rest, rest, perturbed spirit!”

– William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1.5

Madeleine Hyland            posted 23 Apr 2008, 07:35 PM

Wow you guys have been busy…but just to nip back up John, no of course I wasn’t suggesting we should only make art about shiny happy people…I just think that all acts of art and theatre are metaphors and therefore connection points, ways of creating new pathways between people, moments of integration. As if theatres are suddenly the brain and heart of the community into one and you can see all the neurons firing up all over the place integrating synapses…that’s maybe what I meant by the ‘happy high vision of integrated humanity’ to translate my lucid 2am in the morning speak.

Dane of course I’m not saying everything is glorious in the world of funding ( I think what we really need is a  move to strengthen the infrastructure to support emerging companies nationwide, so that we can really have a continuity of practice over a long period of time – I could be guessing here but doesn’t Ireland apparently have a really excellent system like that? But then again PACE is saying they’ll help set people up as small businesses…get in quick before National takes it away) – my initial wish to post was just to say that I hope you write and produce all the plays you so passionately said we should be seeing on stage – I think you’ve got a lot of energy and you might have more fun with it channeling it into the work rather than stressing about how people like safe art. The urge for safety is a natural biological drive. But I reckon dangerous theatre in the round can be fun and useful too…but we have to grow and build the audience with a bit of gentleness first, if you really want to make a big change…a step at a time…but then of course there are those that want to rush ahead. Shakespeare made room for every sort of character though and maybe that’s the most important thing. That’s why I worry about the censorship discussion around The Hollow Men – it was appalling information but theatre must be able to accommodate it or it isn’t theatre at all…it is after all one of the last places for a community to get together and speak about what is important, and be heard…

Apart from of course the great theatreview cyber-forum. Huzzah!

Dane Giraud       posted 24 Apr 2008, 08:09 AM / edited 24 Apr 2008, 08:34 AM

Maddy,

                Some interesting points there. I have my own theorys on theatre and business. I feel that if any govt was serious about developing the arts then it would introduce tax incentives for private investment. Isn’t it strange that the recent incentives (actually a couple of years old now) for film-makers only applied to budgets of 15 million +? So, basically, this current govt wants to encourage overseas film-makers with such incentives but not their own. Pretty cynical stuff. It’s as if the incentive were designed to keep NZ film makers out on purpose (how many of us have 15 million + budgets?). Why? I think it comes down to control. And if you have run a small business or have worked on a farm or have tried to build a house you would know how controlling our govts are (the left and the right). They have their hands in everything. Govt wants to centralise everything. My recent experiences in education show me that they now want to shut down all the private providers. This was Tim Shadbolts beef I believe.

And what of PACE. It’s just the dole with another name, more cynical vote pulling. I have to say, we have an ignorant arts community…

Which takes me back to the reason I joined the thread. I have nothing against Dean Parker writing a play like The Hollow Men, but when I read a review that said something along the lines of …we were lucky we didn’t vote these guys in… on the strength of a playwright with a clear agenda and despite the fact our current govt’s contempt for freedom of speech… I just think, smarten up guys…

Aaron Alexander              posted 24 Apr 2008, 09:31 AM

It’s interesting that you bring up Smash Palace, one of my all time favourite movies, (being a big motorsport fan as well as an actor), plus the subject of tax incentives for private investment. I remember at drama school our class being spoken to by Larry Parr, associate producer of Palace, plus Sleeping Dogs and a number of other films of that era. He spoke, if I remember rightly, of the tax incentive (I think he even called it a loophole) that enabled the private investment to make those films. That private investment resulted in what you’d have to term the Golden Age of NZ filmmaking, and the launching of the careers of so many of the industry’s major players in all departments. Crucially, as Dane suggests, many of the films made then were NZ films by default, but not self consciously so, (and arguably many could never be made in the current industry – too violent, not lyrical enough, not enough te reo…) Most could’ve been set anywhere and retained their key elements. And while Battletruck may not be one of cinema’s great works, I’m sure many of us would take a job on it tomorrow if it was offered.

Ever since Larry spoke to us about this, I’ve thought it seemed like a good model, and what a shame it was that it no longer existed. I’m guessing that, as private investors will demand a profit, you’d see a lot more cheaper, broad appeal films made. Yet history suggests you’d also get some compelling and challenging stuff.

I’m sure there are some around who know more about this era, so please correct me if I have the wrong picture of things, but wouldn’t a second Golden Age fantastic? Now if only we had another Bruno…:-(

Ruth Brandon    posted 24 Apr 2008, 10:42 AM / edited 24 Apr 2008, 10:46 AM

Agreed, both Dane and Aaron – there’s excellent reason to look at tax incentives and encouragements to private investment.  I’m also a big fan of reconsidering taxation generally, regarding creative work – a la the Irish model.  That’s a whole other argument, however.

I also have to wonder, whether it’s worth considering some of the good things about the US, where I believe that there are tax incentives, and there certainly is an entrenched culture of what’s effectively an industrialist version of patronage (the difference between a rich businessman and a rich nobleman gifting money is fairly moot).  I’d think this gives a good illustration that whether private money necessarily results in imperatives towards the kind of work that’s made may in fact be a pretty arguable thing.  As you point out, Aaron, history indicates that a surprisingly wide range of creative work was made in NZ.  Besides, the difference between a model with private money as its aim and a model with private money as its basis (sizeable donations without strings attached are in fact very common from what I’ve seen in the US) may in fact be considerable.

As a point to chew over in relation to this discussion, it’s worth considering that in the 80’s, while Thatcher was busily dismantling and destroying many of the central arts funding models, a number of the UK’s most innovative and experimental independent theatre companies sprang up, spurred on by an entrepreneurial spirit in both their creative work and their organisational structures.  

Dane Giraud       posted 24 Apr 2008, 10:57 AM

So, we need to lobby for this don’t we? Which party do you think we would have most luck with?

Dane Giraud       posted 24 Apr 2008, 03:32 PM

The Thatcher thing is interesting. I feel that resistance creates great art and many of my gripes come from the fact that many people in NZ seem happy to go with the flow. That said when discussion heats up it is amazing how many people feel the same on these issues yet very rarely speak up about it. New Zealanders don’t like a “knocker” I guess, which could explain some of the reactions to my lines of thinking.

Aaron Alexander              posted 24 Apr 2008, 04:14 PM

Never mind, Dane. A genius is never appreciated in his hometown…

Dr Cameron        posted 24 Apr 2008, 09:15 PM / edited 24 Apr 2008, 09:20 PM

Dane, we’ve all been looking for you. Your parents are worried sick. Everyone here at the secure unit is missing you. We had a phone call from a member of the public who said you were communicating by way of e-mails on this site.

Dane, I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. You must keep taking the medication. Two of the pink tablets and one of the blue every meal-time. Keep taking the medication and then, when you are ready, phone me at the secure unit. I know you feel the whole world is against you, Dane, and we can talk this through.

Wherever you are, Dane, when you’re ready, do phone.

Dr Cameron

Dane Giraud       posted 3 May 2008, 10:27 AM / edited 3 May 2008, 05:24 PM

Unfortunately the last posting is a standard judgement on those who don’t hold a broad liberal view. It came as no surprise to me, when I was reading this weeks listener magazine, that after the introduction to visiting professor John Gray (… who sermonizes that trying to create a utopian society is ultimately destructive) the interviewer noted “He was surprisingly calm on the phone considering his views…”

Did this interviewer really expect John Gray to start screaming down the phone at him/her just because he holds views not commonly found in the mainstream? Is this rational?

And what would be so wrong with anger anyhow? It was John Osbourne who said “Anger is born out of grief not grievence…”

I, like many of us, grieve for the arts in New Zealand. We see potential but feel that narrow parameters (specified and politicized funding strands etc.) stifle creativity. Others are happy to take the small achievements made and, using their best Stanislavski substitution techniques, act like we are living through some sort of golden time…

….and aspire to our highest happiest visions of integrated humanity… (Sorry to drag it up again Maddy x)

How would John Gray respond to this statement? To me, here in lays the problem. Conformist thought in the arts follows a utopian line and this is reflected in many of the funding strands. I see this as being a huge issue, one more important even than the availability of money for the arts. Whoever was to address this and let people tell the stories they want to tell, how they want to tell them, gets my vote… I miss you John

Madeleine Hyland            posted 3 May 2008, 04:26 PM / edited 3 May 2008, 04:32 PM

John Gray does look interesting….I like what he says about seeing rather than believing. Seems like a Shakespearean way of operating – in that in Shakespeare too it’s hard to discern his actual beliefs, but there is the full spectrum universe of humanity all accommodated on display, no-one’s too dirty or violent or ruthless – or gentle or compassionate. And clear sight is crucial. Progress isn’t much use to anyone if it’s blind.

To redefine yet again if you will get so worried about me chucking around words like happiness and integration (not that that was the entire sentence) I’m certainly not holding onto a utopia where everyone is smiley and robotically the same – it sounds scarily like Jupiter’s ‘everlasting fields of flowers’ where the ghosts came from in Cymbeline – and everlasting fields of flowers are nothing if not unnatural, and what Gray seems to be saying is that human nature will come and stab you in the back anyway if you try and cling to beliefs about it being purely progressively wonderful. I think progress may not be a particularly helpful buzzword for keeping more people alive and fed as we rush headlong into this century where a lot of proverbial is already hitting the fan. But I think connections between people might help, and I don’t think looking out for each other and growing compassion would be a bad idea either.

By happiness I don’t mean marshmallows, what I mean by happy is that sensation of openness and connectedness – and I often find it with an audience in a theatre (or a sea scout hall or a pub) when it’s all really working, when something mysterious occurs, when audiences are in that dangerous, transitional, weird space of doing two things at once, being themselves but also experiencing that if-I-was-in-your-shoes thing of going along with the game with the actors…and beliefs are challenged but sight gets clearer. I like how the small concentration of theatre means you see bigger things clearer. And clear sight shows where the knots in the system are. And by the system I mean all the cycles of the universe (if that’s not too heavy a word for a forum), the mathematics and the colours and the breathing in and out of it (they reckon the universe does just keep contracting and expanding now don’t they? Just like lungs.)

I’m just madly in love with metaphors really and I’m probably wrong but that’s what I used to understand humanism to be, in the Shakespearean Renaissance sense where they saw the environment and people as metaphors for each other all the time (blow winds and crack your cheeks….my lord they say five moons were seen tonight….dissolve, thick cloud and rain; that I may say the gods themselves do weep…) or maybe Shakespeare just put so much of it in for that belief to be examined and seen – or heard – clearer.

 But then anyone who’s ever been on a marae knows about active metaphor too…but the crucial thing is that community happens, and keeps happening, it’s so easy for it to fall away (especially in Auckland, especially when technology replaces contact that involves sharing airspace)…I reckon everything that breathes is spiritual as well as physical – spirit used to just mean breath – and whenever a bunch of people get together and breathe, it creates space – space, not neccessarily pace/progress…call me old-fashioned but I think the worlds going too fast at the moment. More speed=more heat=global warming. But maybe I’m getting off-topic.

Bless your heart Dane, and thanks for having the argument – but lord allah gods and goddesses around and above, please don’t wish a National government on us just so that people get more rarked up and punchy and go round yelling more. Our generation is more politically apathetic than the last one not because we don’t care, we’re just all working more crappy jobs to get rid of student loans and trying to survive. But it was a radical right-wing agenda that pushed up education, healthcare and housing costs, not a left-wing agenda. I’m voting Green. I reckon they tell less lies. But then they’ve not yet been corrupted by power…

And I’m not at all claiming that this is a golden age for theatre but I’d rather try and be optomistic and keep making ensemble in-the-round shows that get lots of people together and have a cry and a laugh because otherwise it’s fucking depressing. And I’d rather keep going than slit my wrists and howl at the moon.  I don’t think I’m contradicting you here when I say that bringing people together is important. Loneliness (Shakespeare invented that word by the way) is unhealthy. And any government which likes making things easier for the rich and harder for the poor is into division (as in the opposite of integration) and will not do theatre (or the world, if you’re into metaphysics) any good, and by good I mean health, as in the anarchic vision which is also in the bible, something along the lines of all the parts being important – if my foot is sick I am not wholly well – if I value my feet less than my head I’m not healthy…if I value men more than women, white people more than black etc etc. If the world economy was based around looking after people rather than making weapons we’d probably be doing alright.

And maybe with vice versa metaphysics, if the theatre we make is effective in telling what ever stories it is telling really well in a way that gets audiences to experience – not just analyse – and be moved by than experiencing, even if they don’t   ‘understand’ – then maybe the world will get healthier. I remember being moved by you playing Merlin in a unitec production of King Arthur when I was about 12 – the whole thing was magical in that I was experiencing something I didn’t understand but it felt whole, and healthy. Maybe whole and healthy are better words than happy. But maybe I’ll stop before you accuse me of sounding like a bread commercial from Salem.

Dane Giraud       posted 3 May 2008, 05:58 PM

Maddy! I write a post, pop off to watch an Alfred Hitchcock DVD (I Confess), I come back and this gem of yours is waiting for me. It is so rich I will need to print it out and pull it apart like Torah before I can give you a worthy reply! Hang tight!

Dane Giraud       posted 4 May 2008, 02:41 PM / edited 4 May 2008, 06:24 PM

Maddy. I wanted to match your effort because it was so honest and really spoke of your heart. Thank you for sharing it with me/us.

On the point of Utopianism it seems you have interpreted John Gray as believing that the idea doesn’t work in a society because there are always people who will subvert the process; “stabbing you in the back” was the term you used. I haven’t read his book (I will) but I didn’t feel this to be his argument. He believes Utopianism to be a throwback to the Christian acopalyptic idea of society needing to progress towards a common goal. I don’t think he believes Utopianism to be noble yet unpractical. It is restraining and anti-individualist. It also runs counter to European cultural values, the values that have defined many of us for thousands of years.

From the giving of the law to Moses through to the Grail Quest stories to Ibsen, individualism (and the quest for) has been an over-riding theme. We are not a faceless mass. We share many things, undoubtably, values, core drives, but how can you seriously structure progressive movement in a society with tramping on human rights? You can’t.

You speak of theatre as a tool (potential or otherwise) for unity. Is this it’s purpose, has it ever been it’s purpose and should it be it’s purpose? Yes, the crowd may all share the same space but that, I fear, is as unified as it gets. People experience art as individuals; it they cannot experience it together. Art is interpretive, processed at any one time by an individual, through the filter of their past experiences, current values, prejudices and desires. People talk of the ritual of theatre and compare the marae experience or the synagogue or even the rugby match, but none of these are theatre. They fulfill a different purpose. So, what is theatre left to do? I feel that actors, directors and playwrights must be fearless diving into the zones that many of us are too petrified to contemplate entering. This is what I mean by danger. Y

You write as if a National party winning the election would finish off the poor in New Zealand once and for all. Are people so happy now? After 9 years in government has Labour solved the problem of the economic gap. Quite simply, no. It has actually continued to widen and will do so no matter who gets in. Is crime on the decline? Are wages increasing? Are the hospital waiting lists declining? Are our children safe? What exactly has this government done that is so worthy of adulation?

And is Loneliness really so unhealthy? Loneliness is great! It is also a defining characteristic of (good) New Zealand art. Look at our best paintings, read our great books. This theme may have given way of late for the current trend of nerd humor (passive, inoffensive male characters) but lonliness is central to the New Zealand experience. And no amount of national identity rhetoric will change that. I believe a noble quest for unity would be the lobbying of (whichever) government to through of the narrow paramters placed on us by arts funding bodies. Shouldn’t projects be judged on how good they are rather than whether or not it reflects our nationals diversity, speaks to a minority etc. If I want to see an Indian in a diary I can pop up the road and talk to my mate at the superette at anytime. Take me to Illyria!

Dr Cameron        posted 4 May 2008, 09:13 PM / edited 4 May 2008, 09:16 PM

Hello Dane. It’s Dr Cameron. Dane, do you remember what I told you? That if you ever opened your daily diary and found yourself wanting to see an Indian staring out at you from its pages, it would be because you had forgotten your medication? We’ve discussed this, Dane. And I’ve told you what would happen: that you’d see the blank pages staring back at you with not an Indian in sight, so you’d sneak out of the secure unit and go up the road to see someone that you’d think was your mate, someone at the superette. But you have no mates, Dane. It’s just another of your delusions. That and your fear that the world is ganging up on you. Dane, end the confusion and the loneliness. Clutch not at the words of rambling ingénues. Ring us at the secure unit. Wherever you are, Dane, we will send an ambulance out for you. Please, Dane, phone us at the unit.

Dane Giraud       posted 4 May 2008, 10:22 PM

I hope, hope, hope this isn’t you John

John Smythe      posted 4 May 2008, 11:02 PM / edited 4 May 2008, 11:04 PM

You hope correctly, Dane – not my style. But having read your last long post with interest, then become confused as to actually what point you were trying to make about national identity, I have to say I find your final comment utterly fatuous and completely undermining of any credibility you may have gained as a commentator on theatre.

You cannot seriously be trying to suggest that Krishnan’s Dairy in any way represents some funding body agenda to prescribe content. It offers a very individual perspective and has proved itself over and over in the free market place. And of course it stands (along with its trilogy companions The Candlestickmaker and The Pickle King) as a prime example of truly excellent homegrown New Zealand theatre that surprises, enlightens, challenges, provokes and entertains … Indian Ink productions regularly sell out well before their opening nights …

But surely you don’t need me to tell you that. You were just being … what?

Dane Giraud       posted 5 May 2008, 07:51 AM

O Lighten up! It’s all so serious in the world of New Zealand theatre. We get so angsty about things. I meant no disrespect. That play (I say that play because if I struggle spelling English, how will I cope with Indian!) has proved itself again and again as you say. The reason why? It’s good! I have no issue with the content of shows John. I guess I did run the risk of cancelling out my argument with that gag especially all the buttoned up, self-appointed pc policeman roaming around (Damn, more ammo for the banal Dr Cameron!), but I admire Indian Ink. I think you saw it was a gag but jumped on it anyway. That’s ok. I probably asked for it x

Madeleine Hyland            posted 5 May 2008, 09:02 AM

Very briefly – I meant human nature, not religious ill-wishers that can come and stab you in the back if you try and pretend we’re not animals. And I’m saying theatre is about community, not unity Dane. One of the last forums for people to get up and be truthful in public, about all the different things that make us specific and individual (hence the brilliantness of Krishnan’s Dairy). The important thing is that it keeps happening and that it’s as truthful as possible. You can’t say this government has made things worse than they were ten years ago, even if they haven’t made things hugely much better. At least they’ve kept us mostly out of the war which I doubt National would/will. And hey Dr Cam, I may be a rambling ingenue but at least I have the guts to put my own name to my opinions.

Dane Giraud       posted 5 May 2008, 12:48 PM

I am interested in your use of truthful in public. Are you talking about truthful subject matter or the actual performance style? Just curious that’s all.

Mostly out of the war? Is that like kind of having sex? Labour really had it’s cake and ate it too in these wars and I think our public don’t know the full extent of the part we actually play over there. That’s why I have used the provocative term apologists at times. I don’t think Labour will leave much of a legacy this time around. Maybe a loss will shake them out of the arrogant social-engineering schtick and make them return to the core values that most of us remember. I think people still vote on a past Labour idea. Unfortunately that party is dead.

Yes, Dr Cameron is a coward. Don’t worry about it though. You have made great points. Dr Cameron believes that anyone not content with the status quo has a persecution complex. Strange, but once again, kind of backs up some of my arguments.

John Smythe      posted 5 May 2008, 05:39 PM

In this NZ Music Month it’s worth reminding ourselves how the fortunes of NZ Music have improved over the past 8 years. 

It was the Labour government, in its first term of office following the 1999 election (Arts Minister, Helen Clark; Broadcasting Minister, Marian Hobbs), that responded to industry calls for a NZ music quota on radio, by helping to facilitate a process that has seen the fortunes of NZ music improve hugely in recent years. They played hardball just enough to get the broadcasters to commit to playing more NZ music by way of a voluntary quota. 

I think this is an excellent example of a government facilitating rather than imposing; seeing the big picture and implementing policies that finally nudge us past ‘cultural cringe’ hump and low self-esteem, towards realising we do have voices worth listening to.

As a result:

    Broadcasters now find playing NZ music is good for their ratings.

    Retailers do well out of NZ music sales.

    Talents who might otherwise have been discouraged and given up, or buggered off to fake it as Australians, now see that it’s possible to make a living in music in NZ (or based in NZ while also touring elsewhere) – if they are good enough in an even more competitive market (not for the faint-hearted!).

    NZ music plays a major role in giving us ‘cultural distinction’ around the world (with Flight of the Conchords proving how much more successful you can be by being true to your own voice instead of trying to sound like everyone else).

Here’s how New Zealand History Online (an educational resource) sums it up:

“New Zealand Music Month began in 2001. Held in May each year, it showcases New Zealand music on radio and television and in live performances. It aims to boost the visibility and success of New Zealand music. It was developed to support the New Zealand music industry so that New Zealand talent could make a living from music and New Zealanders could hear more music from their own country.

“A major concern was that commercial radio was saturated with overseas sounds and New Zealand performers needed support to have their material heard. In 1995 airplay for New Zealand songs on commercial radio registered at 1.6%. A campaign was begun for the introduction of a quota system that would force commercial radio stations to play more New Zealand music. By 2000 airtime for New Zealand music on commercial radio stations had increased to around 10% of programming, and by 2005 this figure had increased to nearly 23%. Some argued that these figures highlighted the success of New Zealand Music Month. Others argued that New Zealand music and artists had to stand or fall by their own merits and that a quota system was the wrong way to go – New Zealand music would sell if it was good enough.

“The place of home-grown music in our society is another way of exploring what it is to be a New Zealander.”

Last year Nzine reported the opening of NZ Music Month as follows:

NZ Music Month [2007] launched in Wellington by the NZ Prime Minister, Helen Clark

“Miss Clark in her address at the launch emphasized the purpose and impact of NZ Music Month. ‘Every year we reaffirm things on Anzac day, every year we reaffirm things on Waitangi Day. I think every year you reaffirm through music month that music, New Zealand music, has value to us, and that I think is the point of it. It’s a focus on what’s special about New Zealand music and supporting people who make it.’

“Miss Clark said that while music month increased the confidence in local music, the amount of airplay and the sales, it was not just about commercial success. ‘There’s some music that will be a big hit commercially at home and off shore there’s other music we’ll hear which we play for the sheer joy of it and not looking for a commercial reward at all. It’s important to be supportive of the whole range of Kiwis out there making music and enjoying it.'”    

Dane Giraud       posted 5 May 2008, 06:10 PM

John. Fair enough. Good point. And good on them for doing it. Radio is something that most people come into contact with at work, in their daily lives incidentily, so how could this model work for theatre? I’m not wanting to throw a spanner into your wheel, it is a sincere question. What aspects of this current success in NZ music could be taken over into theatre? It could be a good place to start mining.

…government facilitating rather than imposing….

Could this be the issue.? It certainly serves my argument, but thats not to say its the out and out reason for the current success. Music, as a product, is flexible in its delivery, much more so than theatre, though creative freedom always helps one reach an audience I believe.

Dr Cameron        posted 5 May 2008, 10:20 PM / edited 5 May 2008, 10:24 PM

Dane, it’s me, Doctor Cameron. Dane, you’ve started using a dictionary! (You should check the spelling of “incidentally”, though, but that’s by the bye!)

Oh, Dane, you’ve no idea how happy that has made us here at the secure unit. And how happy it’s made your parents. Because this is excellent, excellent progress, Dane! It means you’re bent on self-improvement.

Now, next step, see if you can get hold of a basic book on grammar. Learn the use of the apostrophe. Distinguish between the genetive of “it” and the contraction for “it is”.

Then comes the big step, Dane. Logic. Logic is the science of reasoning. Once you’ve mastered logic you’ll suddenly find yourself going quiet, Dane, because you’ll pause and look back on your previous postings. Now, Dane, at this point it is IMPERATIVE you keep taking the medication as you will  plummet into your down-phase. Two of the blue tablets, one of the red.

And Dane, phone your parents. Let them know everything is okay and that you’re moving toward mastering spelling and then you’ll be going on to grammar and, finally, logic.

Dane, everyone here at the secure unit misses you. Remember, when you want to return, just phone.

All the best, Dane.

Doctor Cameron.

 John Smythe     posted 5 May 2008, 10:41 PM / edited 6 May 2008, 08:33 AM

“how could this model work for theatre?”

Good question, Dane. Historically, all the arguments as to why a quota strategy (voluntary or otherwise) would not work for NZ music have been quickly brought into play whenever anyone has suggested some sort of NZ content quota incentive system as a core requirement for CNZ funding of our recurrently funded theatres.

Likewise for TV drama. Since the late 1960s Australia has gone from strength to strength with local content quotas for commercial channels, so that with no state funding, as a condition of retaining a licence to broadcast on the public airwaves, they have had to compete for viewers, ratings and advertising revenue by branding their prime time schedules with local drama. Then state-funded commercial-free channels had to not only meet the quota, but up the ante quality-wise, to justify their existence. Which set the bar higher for the commercial channels …

Meanwhile NZ television has dropped the ball every time local content quotas were suggested, and sold off the broadcasting spectra (i.e. given ‘the people’ no bargaining power), then tried to achieve quality local content through the agency of NZ On Air. Result: the commercial channels (i.e all of them) claim they can’t do anything homegrown without state funding.  And there is no requirement for them to maintain a steady flow of content that creates the breakthrough demonstrated by the music model and facilitates a local production infrastructure that attracts and retains top talent. 

As for film: Australia’s industry has grown through tax incentives while NZ’s … Talk about fits and starts … At best we are a service industry for Hollywood: good for techo and sfx crews, pretty useless for actors who want something more than extra work. Meanwhile how many Australians have scored good roles in PJ’s movies? Why? Because they have achieved a high profile – credibility/bankability – in Australian films.  And most have developed their craft in theatre: Cate Blanchette, Geoffrey Rush, Hugo Weaving, etc.

When it comes to performing arts vocations, it’s all inter-related, especially in a small country like ours. And theatre is the basic building block for developing personal responsibility for reliable, marketable skills.

There is no evidence that evolving professional actors who are adept at doing English and American accents on stage scores them good roles in film. Sam Neil played a Kiwi in Sleeping Dogs which scored him a leading role in My Brilliant Career which set him off on his international career.

Here is the Australia Council’s statement on theatre::

“Theatre connects.

“It matches vivid imaginations with a strong grip on reality. It celebrates our diverse communities, checks the national pulse, and discovers the hidden layers of meaning and emotional possibilities beneath the surface of our lives.

“Australian theatre has always been about risk. It acknowledges that genuine creativity is not afraid to fail, and that innovation and diversity are as essential to theatrical culture as are great acting, directing and production. Contemporary Australian theatre is forever testing the margins, pushing outwards.

“In its many forms – from performance arts to text-based theatre, circus to puppetry, theatre for young people to cabaret – Australian theatre tackles the central themes of our national character: the strength of family ties, the fragile spaces we inhabit, the values of friendship, the ability to laugh at ourselves.

“Australia’s theatre goes to the heart of our society.”

Here is the Creative New Zealand equivalent (I think; not easy to find on its website):

“Sector priorities

“Following consultation with a range of New Zealand theatre practitioners about theatre sector concerns, the Arts Board will give investment and funding priority over the period 2006 to 2009 to theatre activities and opportunities that clearly demonstrate they will:

    maintain and develop the theatre profession’s capacity to deliver world-class theatre across a diverse range of theatrical genres, styles and traditions

    reflect high artistic standards in the creation, presentation and distribution of work

    develop practitioners, productions and audiences through collaboration with other theatre and/or arts organisations

    have identified potential audiences for the work (or intended work).”

So what’s going on here? Does NZ On Air fund cover bands doing songs from other countries or TV drama scripted and set elsewhere? Does the NZ Film Commission fund productions from scripts written elsewhere (other than participating in co-productions)? Yet CNZ appears to articulate no clear policy for prioritising the directing of NZ taxpayer funding towards homegrown New Zealand theatre.

My question, as always, is: If we don’t do it – who will? And how else can we hope to achieve distinction?

Dr Cameron        posted 7 May 2008, 05:06 PM

Dear everyone, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you all for the tolerance you’ve shown and the help you’ve given over poor Dane Giraud. He is now back with us in the secure unit, under controlled medication. Kathryn, John, Michelle, Caroline, Emmeline, Ross, Gavin, Kirsty, Gareth, Karl, Jonty, Adam, both Madeleines – thank you for your messages. You’ve all been very patient, very understanding and very supportive.

Doctor Cameron

Polly A posted 7 May 2008, 09:58 PM

You’re flogging a dead one there, Doctor. No longer funny. Let’s move on.

Zia Loops             posted 21 May 2008, 04:49 PM

Come back, Dane, it’s boring.