EVERY BREATH - WHAT IS THE PLACE OF FAILURE IN AUSTRALIAN THEATRE?
As you are probably aware, there has been a fire-blazing debate raging around the debacle of Benedict Andrews’ production of Every Breath at Belvoir. I have not seen the show and so will pass no comment here but instead pull out some of the more fascinating debate points that have arisen.
1. An excellent comment was passed by Alison Croggon (inevitably) in response to Augusta Supple’s blog response (which you can read here.)
“I do worry that the major reason given here for lack of interest is that the characters in the play are too different from you for you to be interested in their concerns. Is theatre really a forum for narcissicism? Or is one of its virtues the way it makes an imaginative bridge to possibilities different from ourselves?
I agree that failure is something we have trouble parsing in Australian theatre. There’s sometimes a savagery in the damning of those who fail that suggests an unacknowledged hostility to art itself. If we choose to support art, we take the risk of supporting failure, otherwise that support is meaningless: are we really calling for guaranteed “success”? That way lies the hell of comfortable, conforming theatre. Or is “risk” only “risk” if the gamble wins?”
2. Supple’s comment on our ambivalent relationship with success: the tall poppy syndrome versus our love of/with celebrity (and the question of how does this affect our willingness to take risks and experiment?)
3. A small side note that I very much enjoyed from Jimmy Waites about Sam Strong’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses at STC sitting at the other end of the directorial spectrum: “Opening night it felt like a perfectly bred foal, exquisite if a little overwhelmed that it was now in the world – and I have no doubt, even by now, it high-stepping around the paddock and humans are gawking in delight at its beautiful proportions and confident character.” Can’t wait to see it.
4. I would like to point out that the show has created a unique event in making Jason Blake ropable: “Worse still, Every Breath gives those who think Sydney’s theatre scene is being held hostage by auteur-wankers a clip full of told-you-so ammunition.” Woah now. Read the rest of his article here.
5. Interesting insights are conveyed through an interview with Andrews on the Belvoir website. It turns out Every Breath is not his first play as he also wrote plays during high school and the beginning of uni. Make of that what you will. What I found interesting was his thoughts on what playwriting offered him in contrast to directing:
“It is a great blessing to have started writing plays again. Writing them offers me a more compact, private act of theatre-making than directing. It is a very precise and tender way of listening to the voices inside me and of observing the world around me. Playwriting, like being a director, involves a conversation about the life of the theatre and the theatre of life.”
Read the rest of the interview here.
I have some sneaking suspicion, totally unfounded, that these issues around lack of new work development and vicious backlash to artistic failure have something, whether directly or indirectly, to do with our status as a philanthropic culture (read: that status is very low to the ground). Has our inability to ask for money lead to the reverence of a few celebrity directors, who we bank upon to deliver the goods and who we eviscerate when they fail? If we had more funding, we could have both more support for the development of new work as well as more theatres (heaven forbid!) and thus more avenues for more work to be shown and more artists to practice their craft, thus dissipating our current microscopic hold on this handful of flashy ‘auteurs’.
What is the place of failure in our theatre culture? Do we allow it?
![Kevin Jackson.
What a guy.
I was updating myself on his blog posts and I am came upon a grand throwing-down-the-gauntlet challenge to Australian theatre. Within his review ofBabyteeth(currently showing at Belvoir), which included a small side-note onPygmalion(STC), I found this:
“Having been recently inspired by the pleasure and wit and challenge of the writing of George Bernard Shaw’s PYGMALION, the sheer complexity (relative, of course) of the Act Five clash between Eliza and Henry, mesmerizing and cumulatively life enhancing, it seems I want more from our Australian writers than what I am getting. Do we as a culture not have it in us? The persistent voice of the Australian writer and, perhaps appetite of the Australian audience, (or the one our Artistic choosers of plays at the company’s we attend) seems to be content with, is the relative sentimental affirmation of having the world shown to us as it is without much further interrogation. A sense of making us relaxed and comfortable with what is transpiring around us, being moved by our feelings of grateful recognition but not necessarily thoughtfully challenged about the morality of it all. The simple decency of it all.
[…] These recent new Australian plays are good but mostly an anaesthesia. I would like something more. Maybe these writers are not that kind of writer and we should be grateful for what they can do. But there are others, surely? There are plays, being written, surely, that deal with Australian culture, history and lifestyle with a seriously discriminating intelligence and offer of balanced controversial debate?”
Phwoar. I do not know whether this is a fair assessment of the current Australian theatrical landscape or not but I do know that there is definitely not enough gauntlet-throwing of this scale going on. Read his whole post here.
We are lucky enough to be having Kevin hosting an Open Class for the public on Sunday 18 March. This will be your chance to observe as he teaches a class of 10 professional actors and maybe gain an insight into the ‘mystery of the craft of acting’. For more info, check out the Griffin website here. Get on it.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ic19jFpM1qldm75o1_400.jpg)
