I would love to hear from the other finalists what they think of this- and what their stance of if they "win" or "lose" and if the issue of gender is anything that crosses their mind?
I'm glad the SMH has picked up this issue- and I really think theatre, arts and culture should be discussed more in the newspapers than they currently are represented… Imagine a world inwhich there is a big arts lift out called THEATRE or ARTS or IDEAS that sits along in the newspapers along with DRIVE and TRAVEL or CAREER… Imagine a world where arts, culture and identity are not synonymous with recipes, lifestyle and bikini fashion for the summer! Imagine ALL the shows on in Sydney are reviewed by a team of 12-15 people who range in age between 18 and 80! Imagine where the voices in the print media that talk theatre are as diverse as the theatres themselves!!!!
I am still trying to figure out how women make the leap from "Independent" to "Mainstage" (if that is what they want) … and if there are assumptions about women artists that I am not aware of. Is there a prejudice towards women? Or is a prejudice towards personality types?
When thinking about this topic there are a couple of books (both published by Methuen) I believe have been invaluable in affecting the way I think about myself as writer and director- who happens to be a woman.
> Is there a prejudice towards women? Or is a prejudice towards personality types?
Putting aside the comments directed at Caleb Lewis personally, I think it's worth asking: is any gender inequity not so much as a result of discrimination or personal preference per se – positive or negative – but rather as a result of a reluctance to take (presumably commercial, but maybe also artistic) risk?
Does this mean that any bias is not so much directed against female writers/directors as against _less experienced_ artists, of any gender?
Of course there are experienced women writers and directors… and these DO tend to get work on regularly: For instance Marion Potts, Gale Edwards (more overseas where she's better compensated), Katherine Thompson, Verity Laughton, Joanna Murray-Smith, Lee Lewis (who's set to have a good 2010 after a decade or more of putting in the hard yards).
Note I'm drawing a difference between experience and talent. So one might have the talent to match that of Gale Edwards, but not necessarily the extensive track record to back it up, to make the decision to go with you a safer one.
Raine and Stenham both have "wunderkind" reputations (as does Bloom actually), so this mitigates somewhat the risk of programming their work… which does seem to support the argument that these choices are driven by a desire (conscious or unconscious) to manage risk. Or does it?
Hi Jean, thanks for the cut/paste.
In any case to elaborate on my comments about nepotism, it cuts both ways. Personally i struggle to imagine the arts without it! at least half of the jobs I have taken (paid or otherwise) are a result of people approaching me directly because they trust my ability and know i can work a rehearsal without fuss. There are plenty of actors/directors equally as capable as me who never stood a chance.
anyway. best be off. i have monologue to learn for some people who i have never met. but that casting should be based on merit, right?
i am really keen to try and come on Sunday but i may have to work.
is it possible for one of our esteemed correspondents to take audio of the panel discussion?
I think its important to remember that especially if the industry is fuelled by nepotism as you suggest, then I think this RAISES the stakes for Caleb, does it not? Publicly making a declaration in online and print media- with your real name attached is a huge call… and one I admire. I think that someone withdrawing for moral reasons/ethical or personal reasons is a reason that should be applauded (even if it was a PR stunt as you suggest- which it wasn't as Caleb didn't send the letter to the SMH- he sent it to Annette Madden and to Jo Erksine and to me – He did not send it to SMH). I think taking the money when you believe that it is wrong is a far more indecent act. I thank Caleb for raising this corner of the debate- we talk about women in the theatre- but surely men have an opinion too- this is not just a discussion to be kept as womens business.
Some could see the actual PR game here is Belvoirs- who will enjoy a Philip Parsons Lecture that is full of punters. I'm sure Caleb has done them a great service by getting more visibility in the papers. Again- all debate is important- all discussion is important and there is no single answer and no one person or company to blame- but we need to discuss this.
And yes people program who they like and trust- but to get to "like and trust" someone you need to take a risk on them. And everyone starts somewhere… everyone needs a risk taken on them so they can develop that trust or that experience or that body of work. But it is very evident that there aren't as many risks being taken at early stages for women. And the question is- why is that?
> to "like and trust" someone you need to take a risk on them.
> as many risks being taken at early stages for women.
> And the question is- why is that?
Is it evident? The companies that have been most criticised of late are STC, MTC and Belvoir, the three companies that, I'd argue, are at the pinnacle in terms of the theatre hierarchy that exists in this country. By that very definition these would not be very open, with some exceptions, to ANY artist "at early stages", regardless of gender.
If we're looking at chances being taken on emerging artists shouldn't we be looking at the track record of (in Sydney) the Old Fitz, the Darlo, the New, the TAP Gallery, the Newtown, NIDA and so forth? I've not seen anyone do an analysis of these "entry point" theatres.
I ran some numbers on Griffin's main stage programming in the period early 1990s – early 2000s and (as I recall) about two thirds of writers and directors were female. Griffin programmed exclusively new Australian works during this time. Some of these women have gone on to become mainstays… why haven't more? Probably because Ros Horin didn't go on to become AD of one of the bigger companies. If she had, I'm sure she would have programmed more of the people she grew to "like and trust" from her previous tenure, just as everyone does.
Everyone starts out somewhere… and what seems to be getting lost is that that's exactly what's happening. Artists with drive and talent are creating their own opportunities. Kate Revz, Sarah Giles, Joanna Erskine, Augusta Supple, Nicki Bloom and others, they're out there writing and directing and producing works right now; for no money, no prestige and little recognition. Just as Richard Wherrett, John Bell, David Williamson, Neil Armfield and others did 30-40 years ago. Keep going, and the recognition and prestige will come (though not the money, unless you're the next Williamson). Can't get into the Company B season? Well, leapfrog them. Keep going, and in 2050 it'll be someone else complaining bitterly because they can't get into the season of Cry Havoc, the country's pre-eminent theatre company, because Kate Revz and Jo Erskine only ever work with the people they like and trust.
> to take audio of the panel discussion?
Or for Company B to make a transcript/recording available? David Marr's speech a few years back was distributed in full, as were some other lectures (either through Currency Press or less formal means). It'd be nice if something like this was possible through official channels this year. Granted, it's a more logistically difficult thing to do for a debate/panel discussion.
well, in my blog i suggested that withdrawing from the award was a stunt, not a PR stunt persay. but let us not quibble at that, as publicity was certainly one result, intentional or not.
My meaning was that the debate was immediately put on the defensive, and the action at best dismisses the legitimacy of the award, at worst is libellous toward the judges.
If the intention was to draw attention purely to the issue of gender inequity, why mention that he has previously been nominated? Why suggest that the winners will never know if the award was 'politicised' – it's a bit much to presume on behalf of the other nominees. In any case, whoever does win it may now well wonder 'what if?' as for my quip about taking the money, well, if that's indecent he could always give it to charity!
i honestly don't think this has added anything of value to this issue.
logistics = set up mic. press record.
For anyone who may be interested, I took the script/author information available at the Australian Script Centre (www.ozscript.org) and classified whether or not the writer (or co-writer if there was more than one) was male or female.
I've held back releasing this review because I wanted to complement the analysis of published plays with an analysis of produced writers and directors across a range of theatre companies over the past decade or so. But I haven't had the time to do so and figure might as well get something out there for anyone who, like me, has a decidedly un-artistic interest in slicing and dicing data.
Note that the file is in Excel 2007 format and may not open entirely correctly in earlier versions.