Ethics

Today I got to attend the last MTC 'Open Up' session.  I am going to miss them.  They are so stimulating and it is great to see important issues discussed publicly.

Participants this week were Cameron Woodhouse (theatre critic), Adina Jacobs (soon to be resident director at Belvoir), Joanna Murray-Smith (playwright), Andrew Upton (STC), and Simon Stone (resident director at Belvoir).  The topic was 'The Art of Adaptation'.  And what a timely topic that was.

There were so many controversial comments, but then, this is a very controversial area.  The big question for me is whether the form of regietheatre should be taken as the yardstick for theatre or is it just another school of theatremaking.  I would argue for the latter, but I can see that the theatre makers who use the technique would absolutely refuse that idea and take the position that it is the natural evolution and base form of the art in the modern era.  I suspect they would not even consider stating it as the form in use as they would if they were doing something absurdist or commedia for example.

This was not really the controversy I refer to however.  Andrew Upton made a statement that he considers adaptations to be Australian works.  This drew a negative reaction from a number of people in the room (me included).  He also said that the STC support new work and said that the level of Australian work produced has never dropped.  At a later point in the proceedings he was forced to admit that if you exclude adaptations from the definition of Australian work, they only produce around 1-2 Australian works each year out of a season of 12 shows.

This was really a sideline to the big issue of the day was though.  What is adaptation, how far can a director go, and what are the rights of the playwright.  Simon Stone bore the brunt of this so I want to feel sorry for him, but he was so arrogant that I can't make myself feel it.  Of course, the whole controversy of his changing Death of a Salesman came up.  He had the temerity to say that it was a 'beaurocrat's' fault and that he had no obligations in this regard.  There was a young guy in the audience who saw the show and did not have a lot of theatrical experience.  He said he liked the show but later found out that it does not end the way Simon directed it and then read the play.  He said that his appreciation of the show diminished quite a lot once he had read it and his big question was why?  Why change it?  Despite his arrogant demeanour, Simon really did not effectively address the questions presented to him.  His default position was it's my art and I can do what I want. 

I think this is a really good time in the industry.  I think we need to start questioning that position.  We need to develop some ethics just like science, medicine, and the law do.  I think it does matter what we do and how we do it.  Joanna Murray-Smith was asked if she would mind if a director changed her work.  At first she said no, that she expects that and it is the nature of the industry.  I then later asked if she would feel the same if someone had applied to make a change and she had refused it, but they went ahead anyway.  She then admitted that she would be upset by that, and that every change must be applied for.

I think that is another thing we need to look at.  I suspect there is a lot of theatre happening where rights are not applied for or the whole story is not being told about what you intend to do.  Don't get me wrong.  I love regietheatre and it is an important part of my practice, but I am mindful that I am altering someone else's art, and they need to know.  I am not trying to be parsimonious.  I am trying to respect the artists around me, and therefore myself as an artist.  I would not like it to happen to me so why would I do it to someone else?

Time to get off my soapbox now:)

It's A Long Way To Tipperary...

Well hasn't it been a long time since I spoke with you!  It wasn't deliberate. I didn't decide to drop out.  There was no personal or political statement involved.  Time just disappeared.  I got swallowed up in a vortex of happening and couldn't find the space or intent to do anything but participate. 

So what was that period that had me so engulfed.  Sadly very little of true excitement.  Illness assailed me over the first couple of months of the new year and then I suddenly found myself preparing to head to the Dublin Dance Festival with (what we hope) was the last presentation of Monumental.  It was a fun time but I am finding long haul plane travel increasingly difficult, so I am nowhere near as enamored of touring as I was when I was younger.

Today I attended a forum at the MTC.  It was a Q&A session with industry leaders and was really informative.  There were great representatives - a working actor, Brett Sheehy, the AD for the Melbourne Writer's Festival, Emma Valente, Daniel Schlusser, Lally Katz, and the AD for Belvoir St Theatre.  The questions were many and varied and all of the panelists aimed to answer them concisely but honestly.  I really like this kind of public industry discussion.  It is true to say that there was very little of any kind of controversy raised and it was not a particularly interactive format.  It was still a great way to stimulate discussion and let people in to understanding a bit about how people work, and how 'the system' works.  There is another one in a fortnight about adaptations.  Now THAT should be a bit more lively I think. lol