"State of
Play" Victorian Playwrights' Conference
Malthouse March 28-29,
1998
Article by Kate Herbert
The thud of 30 feet
pounding the floor of the Hoopla Room above, interrupted the forum: "A
variety of writing approaches" downstairs at the Malthouse.
Why would 15 writers wag this animated discussion? Simple.
They wanted to do Jenny Kemp's "Generative Writing" workshop. Why
were they jumping? To free the mind and body for inspiration after a morning of
analysis.
Playwrights live a schizophrenic existence. The split
between the creative act and producing and selling one's work is mind-bending;
no wonder that Glen Perry's 7 point plan for playwrights includes "Give up
writing" - twice.
We've all given up before - and twice on Sundays. Almost
every discussion involved despair at the government's elimination of the
middle-sized theatre companies and venues that provided a balance between the
cheap and cheesy fringe and the ritzy mainstage. A healthy industry, and a
government truly committed to culture in the community, supports all three
layers.
"How many times a day are you touched by an
artist?" quotes Graham Pitts. "Hundreds," replies John Romeril.
Writers weave the fabric of our culture, tell our stories, create images and
resonances that enrich our lives. They struggle to survive in an economic and
social environment that cares more for profit than cultural enrichment.
This insidious decline in support places artists in
competition instead of collaboration. A country relies on its culture for its
identity. If we stifle their creativity, promote spectacle over creativity, buildings
over art, uniformity over diversity, what are we showing the world? - American
musicals and a failing Casino?
Says Andrew Bovell, ' Stop telling us we can't afford it and
start counting the cultural cost." The government insists that the private
sector will take up the slack, which is not viable. Said Bovell, "It is
the government's responsibility to sustain the organisations and institutions
which nurture our culture."
Even the language which theatre workers are now forced to
use is derived from commerce. "Purchaser-provider models",
"tendering", "pro-active", and the unnerving,
"Outsourcing". The last takes creative control and responsibility
from theatre companies and plumps it into one central body that decides who to
support, what is a good play, and what an audience sees. So much for autonomy
and creativity.
Writers are jaded. We are accustomed to having no 'career
path", says Liz Jones, which makes us better prepared for new government
work practices "But", quipped one delegate, "were turning into desiccated
dried-up old work nodules."
Opportunities are shrinking with the disappearance of
companies such as Anthill and Whistling in the Theatre, venues such as The
Church and Napier Street, and funding cuts to innovative middle-sized
companies: Theatreworks, Kickhouse, IRAA.
The great joy of the conference is feeling part of a peer
group in a job which is chronically solitary. The importance of positive
working relationships between artists, particularly writers and directors, was
exemplified by Nick Enright and Neil Armfield in the creation of their hugely
successful stage production of Tim
Winton's Cloudstreet.
Script development attracted much discussion. Aubrey Mellor
(Playbox) dreams of an ensemble of actors to develop scripts yearround. Chris
Corbett proposed 'active' models from the US that purposefully cultivate
writers for the future rather than our 'passive' models which wait for scripts
to arrive.
Roger Hodgman and Janis Balodis suggest schmoozing a
director with a company that can mount your work. Unsolicited scripts, we
heard, never get produced, even though Playbox
and MTC receive 300 scripts each a year.
At least Geoffrey Milne's statistics demonstrated a marked
increase in Australian plays produced nationwide since 1968. Plays by women
leapt from 15% in 1973 to 25% in 1993. Melbourne's achievements top other
states with 36% of plays being by women in 1996, which was over 40% of the
Australian content.
However, these are often smaller productions at La Mama or
in the Fringe or Comedy festivals. It’s funny that the conference was about 50%
women but the writing workshop had only one man present.
Are the men more interested in product than process?
Two of the final conference motions call for "State and
Federal governments and both parties to accept and actively pursue their
responsibilities for the development of a diverse, vital and economically
viable Australian theatre" Here's hoping.
Janis Balodis suggested, "Hugging a critic". as a
way to disarm them, eliminate their sense of power and make them give up.
Perhaps "hug a politician” would be more effective. As a critic, I'd quite
like to be hugged by writers..
KATE HERBERT
MOTIONS FROM THE CONFERNECE PLENARY SESSION:
Motions (passed unanimously)
1 That this conference call on state and federal governments
and both parties to accept and actively pursue their responsibilities for the
development of a diverse, vital and economically viable Australian theatre.
2 That this conference call on institutions which represent
us : companies, guilds, unions, membership organisations and training
institutions to take a pro-active position and collaborate in the development
of policy and a theatre industry plan.
3. That this conference recommend peer assessment of writing
grants, diversity of opportunities for funding development and the production
of new Australian works of theatre be established on primary principles in
government theatre and arts policy.
