Comments

Thomas LaHood (Barbarian Productions) December 3rd, 2014

I know it's poor form to complain when your own work has received a bad review, but both Jo and I were also disappointed by Mr. Atkinson's efforts in the DomPost.

I would echo many of the sentiments expressed by IL DOTTORE above - we were certainly conscious of drawing on a tradition of populist, political art-forms that were prominent in the 60s but also in the burlesques of the previous century, in the music halls and bawdy houses of Europe during the Renaissance era and all through medieval times: indeed right back to the Greek amphitheatres and travelling circuses of the Pre-Christian era and quite likely in many pagan societies before that, with their Bean-Kings and harvest festivals.

As pointed out by IL DOTTORE, the purpose of reviving these antiquated forms in the 60s was partly to popularise theatre again from where it was percieved to have become elitist - an intention shared completely by Barbarian Productions with this production, as evidenced by our effort to make ticket prices reflect our desire for ANYONE and EVERYONE to have access to the work, whatever their income. And many new audiences DID come to see this production - especially younger audiences, who were not around when Mr. Atkinson was attending theatre in the 60s and are very hungry for this type of work. Over four shows we had 550-odd punters attend and we have been humbled and gratified by their responses - many of them expressed very potently that this "much-ploughed-over material" is extremely relevant to the world they see around them.

As for the "gabbled speech taken at top speed" - this is also a known form called Grammelot, a device originating from the Commedia and used extensively in satirical theatre, clown and mime productions. You can check it out on Wikipedia. Our decision to present the most obvious stereotypes of wealth and power were entirely conscious, partly to reflect the global nature of our current predicament of inequality, but also to draw attention to the very problem Atkinson bemoans, our moth-like infatuation with these sagas of domination and servitude.

I can't expect Atkinson to enjoy our production, I'm well aware that he often dislikes the shows that we adore from the International Festival when they come to town. I am disappointed that he didn't share with an overwhelming majority of our audiences a sense that this content is extremely topical and that we are all, somehow implicated and involved in the grotesquery it portrays. But if he didn't feel that call to action - I can't criticise him, I can only wonder at his detachment.

What I do wish to criticise is his laziness in dismissing the work as retro. To talk about White Elephant as a 60s flashback ignores the rich tradition of political theatre in Wellington from that era. We would be happy to be associated with the work of such pioneering companies as Red Mole and Roadworks ensemble. For us they are a major inspiration aesthetically, culturally and in terms of social values. We are happy if their voice from the past is made stronger by own.

The bagpipe finale Mr. Atkinson recalls is wrongly attributed, it came in fact from Inside Out's controversial production The Holy Sinner. Such vague comparisons do little to illuminate the intention of the work, serving only to reveal Atkinson's own jadedness after many years in his position.

Finally, Atkinson's dismissive, derisive aside at the end of his review needs to be addressed. While it's true that it took two years for this show to be performed in front of an audience, it certainly has not spent two full years in development. Our two development workshops yielded a lot of the material for the final show, but we also were able with the gift of a longer timeframe, to revisit the work each time with fresh eyes that enabled us to make the kind of subtle yet fundamental changes that led to a result we could really stand behind. We're so very grateful to Creative New Zealand for their investment inWhite Elephantand for allowing our company to take time with a work and be able to make mistakes and follow wrong paths. There are difficulties with working over a long timeframe, too, and every process for this particular show involved major personnell changes.  50% of the cast of this final production were completely new to the work, and with only a two week rehearsal lead in to production we are incredibly proud of what we achieved and incredibly grateful to the cast for their tireless work.

Barbarian Productions stand behind White Elephant 100%. Creating it has not been easy, and we are aware of the large amount of support we have received from CNZ and also from our community. The last two years have produced not only White Elephantbut a huge series of form-busting, community-engaging works and projects, that have in turn focused our company's vision and purpose. It's a shame that Laurie Atkinson's need for a comfortable seat denies him a part in what we're trying to achieve.

IL DOTTORE December 3rd, 2014

Issue must be taken with Mr Atkinson’s review of WHITE ELEPHANT. Writing it off as “1960s experimental theatre” is fatuous, given it draws on popular theatre conventions that reach right back past commedia dell’arte to the satyr plays of Ancient Greece. While theses conventions may have been revived and reinvented in the 60s as part of the cultural revolution – to challenge the political status quo and to bring elitist theatre back to the people – they have something to offer every generation. The ‘Occupy’ movements attest to that (and are referenced in Spiegelworld EMPIRE, currently playing at Odlins Plaza).

The “gabbled speech taken at top speed and with only the occasional recognisable word” was clearly intended as a comment on how much bullshit and bluster accompanies the platitudinous rationalisations of the ‘haves’ for maintaining the status quo. I loved all that.

I did find myself wondering how it might be if the ‘haves’ were characterised in more Kiwi terms – rather than as Soviet Generalissimo, European Businessman, Dickensian Plutocrat (Maori and Pacifica practitioners have explored such archetypes within their own cultures) – but I guess it is fair to say that White Elephant represents the ancestry of NZ’s white ruling class.

Other critics have identified the ‘have nots’ as Zanni, who are bottom of the pecking order. As such, I found their white paper full-face masks blocked rather than expressed their feelings and would suggest they could be revisited according to commedia principles. The physicality of that trio was fabulous nevertheless.

For me, what Mr Atkinson seems to dismiss as “knockabout manic circus clowning” captured an essential and enduring truth about how human societies operate. A pretty good result, I would have thought.

Comments