February 19, 2010

Foul Play At Short + Sweet Auckland?

Lillian Gemmell posted 15 Feb 2010, 02:11 PM

Ever since the “Short + Sweet” Gala Final finished two weeks ago I’ve had an uneasy feeling nagging away at me this whole time about the transparency and fairness of this whole competition and festival. This has been backed up by some competitors telling me that they suspected sneaky things were going on behind the scenes. After seeing Linda Herrick’s article in the “NZ Herald” (Sat Feb 13) about one of their plays being disqualified for breaking the rules it convinced me to finally air the things that have been bugging me.

My concern mainly stems with the two plays “The Mooncake and the Kumara” (written by Kiel McNaughton & Mei-Lin Hansen and directed by Kiel McNaughton) and “Diagnosis” (written by B.C. Thomson and directed by Cameron Rhodes).

“Mooncake” made it to the final by winning the judges votes during its run in Week 1 but how could it fail when it was written and directed by “Shortland Street’s” Kiel McNaughton (“Scotty”) and three of the judges for that week were also from “Shortland Street” themselves – Andrea Kelland (the show’s casting director), Fleur Saville (Kiel’s co-actor) and Harry McNaughton (also Kiel’s co-actor and – get this! – his first cousin as well!) No surprise at all then that “Mooncake” won the judges vote for that week.

“Diagnosis” made it to the final by winning the judges votes during its run in Week 2 but how could it fail when – that I know of – at least two of the judges have close links with Cameron Rhodes and B.C. Thomson. Michael Galvin has known both of them for about 20 years ever since they all hung out together in Wellington in the 1980’s. And Graham Dunster – the other judge – is Cameron Rhodes acting agent for heavens sakes! (I wonder which way someone’s agent would vote). Funny then how “Diagnosis” won Week 2’s judges vote when after the audiences votes for that week were tallied up and the play “Uncomfortable Silences” absolutely hammered them by getting almost double the votes that “Diagnosis” did – funny that.

So am I being unreasonable and over-reacting here or do others think that the selection of the judges was a bit on the biased and dodgy side?

nik smythe          posted 15 Feb 2010, 09:46 PM / edited 16 Feb 2010, 08:43 AM

I don’t have any personal inside info on the potential scandal you imply; ultimately it’s up to those people you name to make an honest call about just how genuine their votes were.

Voting can never be entirely objective of course, since art appreciation is an essentially subjective force, almost by definition.  As a reviewer with many friends and family in the industry, I can be mindful of this issue when covering shows by persons I know.  In fact I’m not afraid to give a critical review to a friend or relative, rather I’m more concerned that if I offer praise I might be accused of nepotism.  That said, I’ve praised many a compadre’s efforts and have yet to receive such an accusation.

If there is any sort of widely held impression that these relationships might skew the votes untowardly, it may be worth considering a policy of abstinence voting where there is  perceived conflict of interest.  However, it’s not hard to forsee some works potentially going all but unjudged given what a somewhat close-knit community the theatre scene is in this city/country.

Jonathan Hodge                posted 16 Feb 2010, 12:34 AM

Hi,

I’m sad that there is an implication of intentional unfairness being placed on the competition element of Short+Sweet Auckland 2010. As an organiser I’m disappointed to hear that Lillian and “some competitors” felt like there was something untoward going on behind the scenes. I can tell you that all the votes were rigously counted and triple checked every night and were not tampered with in any way. I can also tell you that the judges were chosen for their experience as participants in our industry (actors, directors, writers, critics, agents and arts administrators, political arts supporters) and have all shown a dedication to the growth of Auckland theatre over the years. They were all briefed to choose simply their top three plays of the night, the criteria being all of the following three things equally, writing, directing and acting.

In this industry the likelihood of finding a judge who doesn’t know anyone in the cast who also has the requisite experience is very low. We attempted to counter this by spreading the judges across as many groups as possible.

So on that note lets look “The Mooncake and the Kumara” – in the first week there were 13 judges – including the three with Shortland Street connections. That is about 23% of the judging panel. However consider we entertain the possibility that all three of these lovely folk (my own opinion) were biased enough to vote for a play purely because of friendship or work connections and remove the three points each of them may have assigned to “Mooncake” the total points for the play still adds to 14 which still beats its nearest competitor by 3 points (and I haven’t removed any points for 2nd and 3rd they may have recieved from those same judges either).

Additional to that the peoples choice for that week was also won by “Mooncake” albeit by a small margin – so the judges were not the only ones who thought it was a good play. So while it was not a surprise it won the judges choice to me, as it was a great play, it was never a certainty.

On to “Diagnosis”. Again there are very few practitioners who haven’t worked with or know Cameron Rhodes over the twenty odd years he has been working in New Zealand’s theatres. He is a very busy talented man and as Nick points out could easily go unjudged if you required all the judges to not have any connection to him.

Again with the maths there were 11 judges in this week – including the 2 mentioned by Lillian as having connections to Cameron and Bruce. That is about 18% of the judging pool. Again entertaining the possibility that those lovely people (again my opinion) were also biased and removing the three points they could have given “Diagnosis” that brings its tally to 11 which now falls below “Uncomfotable Silences” but is still 5.5 points above its nearest competitor (again not having removed any points for 2nd and 3rd they may have recieved from those same judges) . So as the top 2 judges choices go into the final “Diagnosis” makes it anyway.

Then if you look at the peoples choice you’ll note that they voted “Diagnosis into second place and while it was significantly behind “Uncomfortable Silences” it was still second and well ahead of its nearest rival – again it wasn’t only the judges who thought it was a worthy play. So lets assume for second that “Diagnosis” wasn’t even an option for any of the Judges; with “Uncomfortable Silences” through to the final as a Judges choice the 2nd place People’s choice would have gone to the final anyway – “Diagnosis” makes it again.

As the festival co-ordinator I had my own personal thoughts as to which plays I preferred as much as anyone else – art is after all a subjective thing, what i like many others may not – however I still had to bow to the judges’ and People’s choice when announcing the winners as much as anyone.

I hope that my adding more information has helped clear any idea of conspiracy – I have no desire to change anyone’s mind about what they thought were the best plays, simply to counter the idea that there was anything “biased and dodgy” about the judging of the festival. A festival which saw 39 ten minute plays performed and directed, featuring 130 odd actors with solid houses over two weeks. A festival which included a great deal of young performers and newcomers who got to work on the Herald Stage and meet and work with senior industry practitioners.  A festival which received largely positive reviews.

I understand that as an organiser and someone who spent the best part of a year working largely for love of it that I’ll always be a biased voice in this argument but thats how i see it. I

Jonathan Hodge

Yee Yang (Square) Lee    posted 16 Feb 2010, 01:04 AM / edited 16 Feb 2010, 08:44 AM

Dear Lilian Gemmell

Thank you for your posting.

I was the Associate Producer for Short+Sweet Auckland 2010 (“S+S AKL 2010” or “Festival”), and in the interest of honest and full disclosure, I am also the General Manager for The Oryza Foundation for Asian Performing Arts (“The Oryza Foundation”), which was credited as a sponsor for the festival, in return for my pro bono services to the Festival, as well as administrative support from The Oryza Foundation.

To be clear, The Oryza Foundation had 5 entries into S+S AKL 2010 as Independent Theatre Company (“ITC”) submissions, there being no limit on how many ITC entries an organisation can enter into the Festival, provided that same basic rules are adhered to, including a) a director can only direct one play in any one Festival, b) an actor can be in two plays maximum in any one Festival, and c) a play that has previously been staged in the city hosting the Festival cannot be included in the Festival EXCEPT by Special Invitation from the Festival.

It should be known that The Oryza Foundation’s 5 ITC entries were invited to join the S+S AKL 2010 lineup due to the unexpected circumstance of five director dropouts very late into the Festival production process. 3 of these entries were by Special Invitation, being The Mooncake and the Kumara, Mount Head and Citizen 3, which were all first performed in Auckland as part of Asian Tales™: Native Alienz. All five ITC entries from The Oryza Foundation had different directors attached to them (including me directing Citizen 3).

However, I write now not as Associate Producer for S+S AKL 2010 or as General Manager for The Oryza Foundation. I write simply as an Arts Manager and an Auckland Performing Arts practitioner, and this is my attempt at an impartial response to your comments. This is most certainly not an official response from S+S AKL 2010 or The Oryza Foundation – merely my personal opinions.

“”Mooncake” made it to the final by winning the judges votes during its run in Week 1 but how could it fail when it was written and directed by “Shortland Street’s” Kiel McNaughton (“Scotty”) and three of the judges for that week were also from “Shortland Street” themselves – Andrea Kelland (the show’s casting director), Fleur Saville (Kiel’s co-actor) and Harry McNaughton (also Kiel’s co-actor and – get this! – his first cousin as well!) No surprise at all then that “Mooncake” won the judges vote for that week.”

There were altogether 13 Judges for Week 1 of S+S AKL 2010. Each judge was asked to a) enjoy the evening’s performance, b) pick their top three of the week’s programme, and c) rank them in order of preference. This resulted in The Mooncake and the Kumara being the 1st Judges’ choice for Week 1 with 25 points and Waiting for Jim as 2nd Judges’ choice for that week with 11 points, followed by 10,000 Cigarettes and Floor Thirteen, which both ranked equal as the 3rd Judges’ choice for the week with 10 points each. (Source: http://www.shortandsweet.org/sites/ss.ish.com.au/files/T20W1JudgesA.pdf)

Assuming that Andrea, Fleur and Harry all voted for The Mooncake and the Kumara as their top choice and assuming further that these three individuals casted their votes for The Mooncake and the Kumara with prejudice, that would account for 9 points out of the total 25 points The Mooncake and the Kumara received from the Judges. Provided all other votes remained the same, removing these three judges votes from the week’s tally would probably still land The Mooncake and the Kumara as 1st Judges’ choice.

Most importantly, even though The Mooncake and the Kumara advanced to the Gala Final as the Judges’ top pick, it was the winner by both Judges Votes and by People’s Choice Voting. (Source: http://www.shortandsweet.org/sites/ss.ish.com.au/files/T20W1PeoplesB.pdf)

I would suggest that either way (Judges Votes or People’s Choice), The Mooncake and the Kumara would have made it into the Gala Final.

“”Diagnosis” made it to the final by winning the judges votes during its run in Week 2 but how could it fail when – that I know of – at least two of the judges have close links with Cameron Rhodes and B.C. Thomson. Michael Galvin has known both of them for about 20 years ever since they all hung out together in Wellington in the 1980’s. And Graham Dunster – the other judge – is Cameron Rhodes acting agent for heavens sakes! (I wonder which way someone’s agent would vote). Funny then how “Diagnosis” won Week 2’s judges vote when after the audiences votes for that week were tallied up and the play “Uncomfortable Silences” absolutely hammered them by getting almost double the votes that “Diagnosis” did – funny that.”

There were altogether 11 Judges for Week 2 of S+S AKL 2010. Again, each judge was asked to a) enjoy the evening’s performance, b) pick their top three of the week’s programme, and c) rank them in order of preference. This resulted in Diagnosis being the 1st Judges’ choice for Week 2 with 22 points and Uncomfortable Silences as 2nd Judges’ choice for that week with 20 points, followed by Finis as the 3rd Judges’ choice for the week with 5.5 points. (Source: http://www.shortandsweet.org/sites/ss.ish.com.au/files/T20W2Judges.pdf)

Assuming that Michael Galvin and Graham Dunster both voted for Diagnosis as their top choice and assuming further that these two individuals casted their votes for Diagnosis with prejudice, that would account for 6 points out of the total 22 points Diagnosis received from the Judges. Provided all other votes remained the same, removing these two judges votes from the week’s tally would probably still land Diagnosis as 2nd Judges’ choice, with Uncomfortable Silences advancing to the Gala Final as the Judges’ top pick.

If that happened, Diagnosis, which came 2nd in the People’s Choice Voting with around two-thirds of the votes earned by Uncomfortable Silences as the 1st People’s Choice, would still have advanced to the Gala Final on People’s Choice as Uncomfortable Silences would have already gone through on Judges’ Votes.

Again, I would suggest that either way (Judges Votes or People’s Choice), Diagnosis would have made it into the Gala Final.

“This has been backed up by some competitors telling me that they suspected sneaky things were going on behind the scenes.”

“So am I being unreasonable and over-reacting here or do others think that the selection of the judges was a bit on the biased and dodgy side?”

Lilian, I cannot comment on whether you are being unreasonable and over-reacting, but I can quite comfortably say that whilst you are entitled to your opinions and perspectives, the ones you have shared are inflammatory, unbased and potentially slanderous. All the individuals you suspect of contributing to “foul play” at S+S AKL 2010 are respected or at least respectable professionals with notable standing amongst our performing arts community.

I can only give you my assurance – if that counts for anything – that there was absolutely no “sneaky things” going on behind the scenes at S+S AKL 2010, or was there any bias or dodgy dealings with the selection of judges. I should know. I scouted and invited most of them, over three-quarters of them on the night of the performance itself (i.e. I had no time to premeditate how to fix the scores).

If I sound somewhat offended or defensive, well, it’s because I probably am. It would appear that I have not been able to respond impartially – apologies. But hopefully I have responded rationally albeit passionately, oxymoron aside.

A key tenet of Short+Sweet is that its Participants (be it writers, directors, actors, crew or audiences) have a positive experience at the Festival. Like Jonathan, I too am saddenned to learn that some of our Participants, including you, have not had the positive experience S+S AKL 2010 aimed very hard to deliver.

Clearly you have, as you put it, had an uneasy feeling nagging away at you about the transparency and fairness of S+S AKL 2010, no doubt made worse by the hearsay from some of the Festival’s participants. I commend you for airing your concerns in the interest of fairness and equity, but urge you to also consider the possibility that the plays and participants that won entry into the Gala Final and/or awards at the Gala Final could actually have accomplished that by sheer hardwork, talent and meritocracy – a possibility I know to be reality.

PS    I did not make any People’s Choice votes.

Yours sincerely,

Yee Yang “Square” Lee

Arts Manager & Practitioner

John Smythe      posted 16 Feb 2010, 09:28 AM / edited 16 Feb 2010, 10:23 AM

I too thank Lillian Gemmell for spitting out what was a bad taste in her mouth – and quite likely in others – so that it could be cleaned up for everyone’s benefit. And thanks to Jonathan and ‘Square’ for taking the time to explain it all.

My question concerns the assumed integrity of the ‘peoples choice’ vote. If its anything like the Dancing With The Stars or NZ Idol process, it’s far more likely to be skewed by masses of supporters voting for their friends or those they know. It is also more likely to be populist and give less recognition to the artistic skills we so easily take for granted when they are done well.

I concur with Nik’s comments and reiterate that the only way I know to respect the professionalism of those I review – who may well include friends, relations, colleagues and acquaintances – is to call it as I see it, put it out there for due consideration and expose myself in the process.

As I see it, the more professional people are in their approach the less they are likely to play favourites. Anyone who has had professional training knows that niceness gets them nowhere. Would any actor respect a director who kept saying they were good when what they needed was rigorous feedback so they could reach their true potential?

Lillian Gemmell posted 17 Feb 2010, 02:54 PM

Thank you gentlemen for your responses. Nik and John I am 100% in total agreement with all your comments.

And Jonathan and Yee Yang I understand that the Auckland theatre scene is a small close-knit community and there’s bound to be close acquaintances no matter what you do but there has to be a line drawn somewhere between a “close acquaintance” and a “far too close of an acquaintance.” That’s part of the reason I raised this issue because I felt the acquaintances to “Mooncake” and “Diagnosis” – in particular – were a bit too close for comfort.

If you want to have Harry McNaughton as a judge then that’s fine. But why in heavens sakes have him judge the same week his cousin is on? Have him judge the other week. And if your answer is “but he wouldn’t have been available the other week,” then don’t have him at all. It’s just not worth it by arousing peoples suspicions like this. Find another judge instead. Surely Auckland’s arts fraternity is not that small. I’m sure if you kept trying then someone else just as suitable and as qualified would have been available.

Also, I don’t question the quality of either “Mooncake” and “Diagnosis.” Both were amongst the best plays for their week and both were Gala Final worthy. It just appears that the choice of judges I named and which weeks they judged in pretty much assured that those two plays did indeed reach the final. And I say this not out of malice. It’s just human nature for someone who does not make a honest living by being a judge, critic or reviewer to flick a positive vote in the direction of a fellow colleague who just also happens to be a friend of some note or a family member.

Continuing on the subject of choice of judges, the ones selected for the Gala Final also make for some interesting scrutiny. There were about 10 judges at the final. At least half of them were from “Shortland Street” so you pretty much can’t help feeling that Kiel McNaughton already had 50% of the judges strongly on his side even before the opening act had come on. I can only remember three of the “Shortland Street” judges from that night but that is still enough for me to continue to air my concerns about “close” and “far too close.”

First judge: Michael Galvin. In “Mooncake’s” / Kiel McNaughton’s favour is that they both currently act alongside each other on “Shortland Street.” And in “Diagnosis” / Rhodes / Thomson favour all three of them have been friends for over 20 years. And, unashamedly at the Gala Final where all the finalist actors, writers and directors were nowhere to be seen, B.C. Thomson was sitting in the same row of seats as the “Shortland Street’ judges and he sat right beside Michael Galvin where the two of them shared a red wine together. And if that wasn’t enough, last year at the “Herald Theatre” Michael Galvin staged and acted in his play “Station To Station” which was directed by Cameron Rhodes.

Second judge: Alison Quigan. In “Mooncake’s” / Kiel McNaughton’s favour is that they both currently act alongside each other on “Shortland Street.” And in “Diagnosis” / Rhodes favour Cameron Rhodes appeared alongside Alison Quigan about 3 or 4 years ago in her play “Mum’s Choir.”

Third judge: Harry McNaughton. In “Mooncake’s” / Kiel McNaughton’s favour – again – they currently act together in “Shortland Street” and – again – they’re family. And in “Diagnosis” / Rhodes favour just over a year ago Harry McNaughton – along with several other “Shortland Street” cast members – acted in the show “The Eight Reindeer Monologues” and wouldn’t you believe it that was also directed by none other than Cameron Rhodes himself.

So you observe all these close connections going on and then you witness the majority of the awards being handed out to these two plays in question and one really just can’t help but wondering.

Yee Yang (Square) Lee    posted 17 Feb 2010, 11:01 PM

Dear Lilian

Thank you for your response. If I may, I would like to clarify an inaccuracy in your posting – there were 8 judges in total at the Gala Final:

    Mark Cleary, CEO & Founder of Short+Sweet International

    Greg Innes, CEO of THE EDGE

    Cr Toni Millar, Auckland City Council Councillar

    MP Melissa Lee, National Party List MP

    Lily Richards, Theatreview Critic

    Alison Quigan, Director/Writer/Actor

    Michael Galvin, Writer/Actor

    Harry McNaughton, Actor

The reason you remember three “Shortland Street judges” from the night, is simply because there were only three. I think you will find that applying some basic mathematics, this changes the odds on Kiel scooping awards on the night, though from my point of view, that is an entirely moot exercise. Perhaps your time would be better spent determining the statistical probabilty of established practitioners from the Auckland performing arts industry who have not been on or involved with Shortland Street in one form or another in their performing arts careers. (I would be very keen to know the answer to this.)

I am alarmed that you still think that we are in the business of vote-fixing under the guise of performing arts practitioners and enthusiasts, but I am truly aghast that you think so little of the persons named above and more generally, our performing arts industry.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my previous posting. I must point out again that your allegations are verging on libel and serious enough that I am forced, against my own wishes, to stand up for the integrity of not only our judges and participants, but also for the Festival, and most importantly, for myself.

By accusing our judges of failing to be impartial in carrying out their duty, you are accusing me of being accessory to conspiracy, if not the mastermind itself. (Which would simply be preposterous for I strongly doubt that I possess the intellectual capacity and ethical disregard required for such a grand task.)

“It’s just human nature for someone who does not make a honest living by being a judge, critic or reviewer to flick a positive vote in the direction of a fellow colleague who just also happens to be a friend of some note or a family member.”

It is incredulous how cynical that statement reads.

Observe what you wish and all you want, Lilian – it’s funny how when one goes in search of things, things happen or connect, without reason or rhyme. Just understand that many of the statements you have made are potentially hurtful and offensive.

In any case, you are clearly full of critical opinion, and are not shy to share them in a public forum. As you can tell, your opinions do not sit well with me on principle, but I will applaud your interest and efforts in debunking this alleged conspiracy.

“Find another judge instead.”

If you would care to contact me on square@shortandsweet.org, I’ll be honored to invite you to be a Guest Judge for Short+Sweet Auckland 2011, with hopes that you will guarantee transparency and equity in our judging processes.

I look forward to welcoming you at Short+Sweet Auckland 2011.

Yours sincerely

Yee Yang ‘Square’ Lee

—

“I have a tendency to often share the point of view of the conspiracy theory.” – Marion Cotillard

“In fact, one thing that I have noticed… is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you’ll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.” – Brian E Moore

Yee Yang (Square) Lee    posted 17 Feb 2010, 11:10 PM

By the way John, I too agree with your comment.

To clarify, there is no assumed integrity of the “People’s Choice” vote and I will be the first to put my hand up and acknowledge that it is indeed very American Idol-eque and susceptible to skewing by masses of supporters voting for their friends or those they know, and is definitely populist and risks attributing less recognition to artistic skills we so easily take for granted when they are done well. This has happened before in Short+Sweet and will no doubt happen again in future Festivals. Such is the nature of audience voting. It is simply put, the people’s choice, sans conditions but one, it must be popular.

That is why Short+Sweet features both a Judges Vote component and a People’s Choice Vote component in its judging processes. However, whilst the check and balance is theoretically sound, clearly Ms Gemmell does not approve of our execution of the same.

Shame.

Cheers,

Square

Katrina Chandra                posted 19 Feb 2010, 05:45 PM

Six degrees of Cameron Rhodes.

Aaron Alexander              posted 19 Feb 2010, 10:12 PM

And then there’s the assumption that people who work together (or are family members) automatically like each other…

Maryanne Cathro             posted 19 Feb 2010, 10:50 PM

I can’t comment, I knew Cameron when I was a teenager so my comments may be preternaturally biased….