I have to pull my head in and apologise to Bell Shakespeare. It was Chris Boyd from The Morning After that pointed out something to me... "Tell me Nicholas," he said, "was the M word used in a photo caption or a headline? Or on any other page of the Tele that day?! Then you're fair game! (Heh!)"
And there it was, sitting all pretty under the photo accompanying the review - Masterful. I didn't even see it there. Gulp.
I still don't think its very cool to use it, but, what can I say? It was there. So, apologies to Bell.
But aside from this, Othello has generated some marvellous theatre blogging over these last few weeks, with the Othello debate still raging.
It all started with Theatre Notes' review and then follow up article about 'Black Face' acting. Then the Sydney Morning Herald ran, not one but two stories centred around an essay by STC Director Lee Lewis about the limitations in ethnically diverse casting. The marvellously passionate Mink Tails then takes up the baton with a plea for sanity.
Then the reviews for Othello come out in Sydney generating even more debate about the casting of Wayne Blair as Othello, which then attracted some absolutely superb debates within the comment boxes.
Then we have Chris Boyd with the insight to run one of the comments from this blog as a posting, which has driven the debate to even more marvellous avenue. If you haven't read it, check it out here.
And then the debate about blogs, the media and arts journalism is still simmering away beautifully with this post in Theatre Notes.
This is what theatre debate is!
Image: Prompt Communications
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
The Othello Debate Still Rages
Posted by Nicholas Pickard at 11:01 am
Labels: Arts Journalism, Blogs, Review, Theatre Critics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
At http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22038817-16947,00.html The Australian quotes Lee Lewis, in another article about Love-Lies-Bleeding and her Currency House paper:
"I'd be more impressed if he (Blair) was Hamlet or King Lear," Lewis says.
"I think that Wayne Blair as Othello should be normal to us. When (John Bell) comes out and says he's been waiting 17 years for someone capable of playing it, I'd like to go back and talk to some actors that feel they were capable of playing it years ago.
"A complete example of the cross-racial casting I'm talking about would be if Wayne was playing Lear or Henry VII. Othello's pretty straightforward casting from my point of view."
Yes I saw that article and was hoping it might contain the director's thoughts on the actual play she's directing, Love-Lies-Bleeding, by one of the most extraordinary contemporary novelists,rather than another press release for her Currency House paper. Also, she may be right about casting a non white actor as "Othello," being expected, but I think Lewis would do well to learn about the casting choices that have been made over the past ten years at Belvoir, STC, Bell, etc before being so quick to generalise. A lot of interesting, cross-racial casting occurred before she got here.
Hey, anonymous - I'm very interested in what you say. Can you please tell us more about the "lot of interesting, cross-racial casting" that has occurred in classical works performed by Belvoir, STC and Bell over the last ten years, and give us a list of examples?
Well I'm no expert, and my resources for buying tickets are limited, but I remember seeing Paula Arundel doing Chekhov, Justine Saunders doing "La Dispute" a wonderful older aboriginal actor playing the gravedigger in "Hamlet" an all-aboriginal musical "The Sunshine Club" (in black and non-black roles) at the Opera House, directed by an aboriginal director, and no doubt if you (or Lewis for that matter) bothered to check with Neil Armfield, John Bell, or the STC staff you could be given a full list. If your hands are so idle, why not put them to use and find out?
I’ve already found out. As has Lewis, but you’d know that if you’d actually read her essay – you know, that one you're so blithely ridiculing but obviously haven't read? The dearth of cross-racial casting in classical work - the focus of her essay and her argument - is undeniable. Perhaps you need to look at a little more than your crusty ticket stubs "before being so quick to generalise" (as you might say).
Not to mention Deborah Mailman has been cast in a lot of non-culturally specific roles (incluing her work as part of the Actors Company with STC)
I'm going to go out on a limb here in saying this, but: Is that what you'd seriously call cross-racial casting? It's hardly diverse, nor far-reaching, Anonymous & Simon.
I'm sorry Nicolas to be throwing such foul language around in your comments box, but: Tokenism, tokenism, tokenism.
But hey. I am going to read that paper meticulously, come hell or high-water before I engage further in this.
Seems we're not colour-blind in this country: we're just f**king blind.
Here, here! ming-zhu. Elements of this debate smack of small-town tokenism - not to mention generous lashings of condascension. Nothing erks me more in creative debate that when a group of people protest on behalf of people whom, if they really wanted to, could put on a production of whatever they felt like ... "Hamlet" ... whoever, whatever.
As a writer/director/producer, I have cast Greek actors, Hungarian actors, English actors, Italian actors, Australian actors, Greek/Australian and Hungarian/Australian actors in whichever role(s) they were best suited for.
Casting is never that black and white.
Now now idlehands (as in the devil makes work?) let's not get in a twist. I was merely suggesting that classics such as Beaumarchais' "The Marriage of Figaro" in which Neil Armfield cast Leah Purcell as the female lead Susannah might be a step in the right diretcion. But of course you and Ms lewis already know all about all these productions, because, as you say, you both did extensive checks and asked questions of all these artistic directors...
Good to see you've gone and done a bit of research of your own, anonymous. Read the essay yet? No, I didn't think so. Come back when you've earned the right to an opinion on it.
And what was Neil Armfield's response when Ms Lewis asked him about his casting process? Because of course no one would write an essay without thorough research, would they? Unless they were a self-promoting lightweight, that is...
My! What a provocative debate this has turned out to be! Let me declare up front that I haven’t read the paper (sorry idlehands – am I still allowed to speak?), but anything that can get people talking, even fighting, about this issue has to be good for the Australian stage! The UK/US went through precisely the same process years ago. It’s about time we caught up.
On the face of it (no pun intended), Lewis’ argument is self-evidently true: the faces you see on the mainstage are not the faces you see in the street. And while talent rather than skin tone should always be the key determinant when it comes to casting, one would expect the stage to roughly reflect the diversity of the broader community unless you believe that whites are proportionally more blessed with the ability to act. So why don’t we see more diversity, especially in classical productions? Racism is a strong word, and I doubt overt racism is the real explanation. But something’s going on here. Anyone with the balls to put the question, as STC’s Lewis seems to have done, deserves a hearing.
By the way, anonymous - far be it from me to stand between you and idlehands in your amusing blog bitchfight, but, for what it's worth, I understand from the media coverage that Lewis’ paper is derived from her Masters in Directing thesis at NIDA. One would expect a reasonably rigorous level of research to be a pre-requisite for that. Can’t wait to read it!
Perhaps 'white' (although that is a term I hate using) people have access to more opportunities to learn to act and consider acting as a potential career than other ethnicities; especially amongst communities where the people have to focus more on surviving day-to-day rather than leisure activities. And especially if it is at school where one first experiences being on stage, then if you aren't given that kind of opportunity then you are also limited... Then later on of course it falls to the drama schools to enroll a broad range of students, because they are the ones who are supposedly training the students to be stage-worthy performers. So if white children have a more privileged education, it is not unforeseeable that they will have a more privileged access to the arts, like other industries.
I know for myself that it wasn't until I took drama classes that I thought that hey, I actually quite like this, and maybe I could make a career out of it. Up until then I was more interested in science, but once I was given the chance to explore my creativity I became more confident in my self and my ability as an actor.
Anyway, those are just some musings of mine... I haven't read the paper yet and I am not particularly knowledgable about this, so feel free to disagree with me - especially if you have evidence that contradicts me. I hope what I wrote was understandable!
You may well be right, Anna. The decisions of casting directors are one thing, but it’s hard to cast non-white kids if they’re not there to be cast. If non-white kids don’t get the same opportunities to experiment with various forms of expression and possible career choices, then it’s unlikely they’ll ever discover acting is their path. Regrettably, there could even be a tendency for some non-white kids to self-select OUT of the arts, simply because they don’t see sufficient positive role models up there on the stage already. I think indigenous actors are finally making a mark, but where are the Asian actors? The rise in Asian immigration we experienced in Australia through the 70s and 80s should see the second or third generation coming of age about now. So where are they? Actually, come to think of it, we’ve had Chinese immigrants here since the goldrush! We have a Chinese mayor here in Melbourne. We have Chinese writers. Where’s our Chinese cast?
Asking "where are the Asian actors?" is a little disingenuous. (One needs only to point to this comment box, where there is at least one - sorry Ming, don't mean to box you inside identity politics...) There are very many accomplished actors of incredibly various ethnic origins in this country, and as kids, if they are raised here - many are as Australian as fifth generation Anglos - they get the same education as white kids. But when was the last time you saw, for example, a Middle Eastern actor - and we have more than a few, some with enviable depths of experience - who wasn't playing an Iraqi refugee?
Good point, Alison. I can't think of a single example. So what do you think is the cause of the problem? Is it racism amongst casting directors? Or is it a more or less unconscious assumption that while a white actor can morph into anyone, a non-white actor will always be read by a predominantly white, middle-class, subscription audience as first and foremost non-white - and is therefore unsuitable to play, for example, a key role in Shakespeare? Or is it something else entirely?
I think your last hypothesis, dpk, is nudging closer towards the accurate diagnosis. It IS complex, but I think that's certainly one of the elements involved.
I've heard hilarious (read: atrocious) stories about your average punter approaching directors I've worked with after the show who employed so-called 'colourblind' casting (which, I might add, always has to be done very, very carefully), accusing them of political stunts, pursuing an agenda, or 'ruining the story'. The context of the casting in these cases was never profoundly significant - putting a Eurasian actor in these roles was more about casting the right person for the job, and had no to very little impact on the plays content. It did not cause the work to err from form or context. The impassioned, negative feedback in these cases was from long-suffering, conservative audience members who expected their senses to be entertained in a specific way, and to whose ears, the challenging of cultural stereotypes is a dirty phrase. I exaggerate. But the bile in this sort of response drove myself and my colleagues through the roof.
If this is how directors and producers are going to be received by making bold (albeit not THAT bold) cultural casting choices in the mainstream, then what hope HAVE we? It isn't the audiences' fault. We're the ones who have the power to instigate change here. They're only reacting to what they've been fed. Put enough non-white actors on stage together in non culturally specific roles for a long enough time, and I guarantee your subscription audience, will, eventually be able to watch the thing without raising an eyebrow or making snide remarks in the foyer to the director.
Just to let you know that I bought the essay on thursday (by all means, don't let me stop this excellent debate)... and will pen something over the weekend.
It might help, so that we don't get bogged down in the terms of reference...
So, all of you, go out, get it and read it!
Readings (after several attempts) finally located it on their shelves for me yeterday, and I'm off to collect it post-haste, en-route to the Inaugural Melbourne Theatre Bloggers' Luncheon...
Off topic:
I'm wondering whether Mr. Pickard's review of Othello on the Bell Shakespeare website (http://www.bellshakespeare.com.au/bellMain2007/productions2007/othello/othelloReviews.htm) is a modified / paraphrased version of Mr. Pickard's full review found at : http://artsjournalist.blogspot.com/2007/06/review-othello.html
Does that mean the review in the Daily Telegraph was edited?
Hi Anonymous. The review on the Bell Shakespeare site is the very same that appeared in the Telegraph.
The version on my site is unedited.
To save for any further confusion, any review I do for the Telegraph will appear on this site as a facsimile of the published version.
Anonymous - I neither know nor care if Lewis interviewed Armfield or any other director about their casting choices in preparing her essay. I wouldn’t care if she’d not spoken to a single one. You don’t need to interview a director to see who he or she cast – it’s a matter of public record. Anyone can look it up, even you (as you’ve demonstrated). Whatever their particular reasons for not casting diversely, those reasons don’t change the fact that they didn’t do it, and they don’t change the consequences. Moreover, what guarantee do you have that a director would answer such questions honestly, especially if they thought racist intentions might be imputed, or if they were in fact secretly racist? Imputing such intentions to individual directors is NOT what the Lewis essay is about – but you’d know that, if you’d read it. So, have you? Or are you still choking on infantile rage? Your gripe with Lewis is clearly a personal one, so I expect you’ll never get around to soiling your eyes with her writing. But keep your chin up: in calling her a “self-promoting lightweight” you’re actually half right. On the evidence of her productions she’s certainly no lightweight, but like most people making a solid go of it in this industry she’d probably wear “self-promoting” as a badge of honour.
Hi anonymous and idlehands... thanks for the argy bargy! I love it. However, before we go too far in talking about Lewis, I think we should probably keep the passion directed at the institutions that she uses as case studies in the essay.
And as far as qualified is concerned, I have to agree with most. She is no lightweight... (in fact I don't even know what that means...) and she has well qualified as a director and as a member of our community to know what she is talking about. BUT - this isnt about her... it's about what she has said. Lets try and keep it there.
Like you, Nicholas, I think maybe the more excitable contributors should take a deep breath...this is an important discussion and needs to include everyone. Tom Gutteridge, Michael Gow, Robyn Nevin, Adam Cook, Simon Phillips, Nick Marchand, Michael Kantor, Neil Armfield, Marion Potts and John Bell, surely are all good and dedicated people doing their best to make the most interesting theatre they can and at the same time not go bankrupt. Wouldn't it be great if a some sort of symposium could be set up in which those people (and those from independent theatre where the financial imperative is less, like Lee Lewis)could all offer their thoughts.
Apologies, Nicholas. For the record, I actually intended my last comments about self-promotion as a compliment to Lewis, who seems to have fought hard to get where she is. But I take your point and will hereafter behave.
Idle Hands - self promotion in the theatre world no! Come on! It seems to me like a form of self annihilation to come out and say this stuff. I wonder what the company's think of this and who'll be giving her a job next year? Very brave or very dumb...
Chris, I'm wondering whether you'd clarify your comment for my own comprehension. Are you saying that you believe Lee Lewis' vocal and published stance on cross-racial casting to be "self annihilation" and either "very brave or very dumb"?
Are you inferring that perhaps she might have done better by the advancement of her career in staying silent, and not writing all of that pesky, controversial material?
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comment, but if you'll only clarify your thoughts, I'll be much more enlightened.
Because what it sounds like, and if what I've surmised really is the gist of your argument, then a: I assume you have indeed read the paper in question, and b: would never be so "brave or dumb" yourself, as to do anything that might bear the remotest possibility to jeopardising your career, such as being vocal about something in which you believe passionately.
Because who would want to rock the boat or sacrifice the throne in their ivory tower of self-preservation, for the sake of ideology, politics or humanity?
Aren't we all just supposed to shut up, smile, and take what we're given (without forgetting to lick the boots belonging to the body of the hand that feeds)?
Clearly that's the solution to the world's impassioned shit-stirrers: self-imposed gagging. Better yet, let's just disappear them all. Nobody should be unsettling the status-quo. The world turns more smoothly on its axis that way. Amnesty International will find them one day. If enough people write enough letters. See how many people give a shit about their opinions then!
Ming sorry I wasn't blunt enough - yes I do think her career would go better if she kept silent and just put plays on. That is the tried and true path for career advancement in any profession anywhere. Do I think it's right - of course not. But you've got to be realistic. If I said this kind of thing where I work [arts admin] I would be out on my arse. Maybe not straight away because that would be illegal, but I'm sure they'd find a way to get rid of me/ I'm lucky I've got a salaried job [thank god for blogs so people like Idle Hands, anon and me can say this stuff], but with her line of work I'll be surprised if the job offers come rolling in. It's more likely we won't see her stuff on the main stages for years to come. Pity that. Yes [and to you Idle Hands also] I have read the essay - to be honest I hadn't thought about the issue before this, but will now when I go to the theatre. No I don't think she's dumb, it's a good essay - nothing lightweight about it all.
Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. I'm glad to know that you're happy shutting up and putting up. It's interesting to know that there are people out there who are content with hanging on to their salaries, and who don't feel passionately enough about something to jump out into the ether for the love of it.
I don't personally endorse that approach to living in this world, and I don't believe that I am alone in that sentiment. I am therefore impressed that you actually confess to keeping quiet for fear of losing your salary.
This is beginning to veer somewhat off-topic now, so I'll just make one last quick point, Chris, that it is the people who frequently put their opinions (and neck) on the line in a public forum who create the blogs that allow those such as yourself to throw your two-cents around behind (what I, for etiquette's sake, call) the seeming, relative safety of anonymity.
I know I said I was leaving at that, but one good thought deserves another, really: What kind of social change could we imagine might have been effected had the majority of the populace just "kept silent" and followed a "tried and true path for career advancement"?
Don't you for a second wonder that if an employer is going to punish you for being outspoken about your beliefs and ideologies, then they might not be the best person/organisation to be working for, anyway...? I personally wouldn't want to be stuck in a salaried position where the hirers and firers however obliquely, did what they could to silence their employees.
Besides which, the idea that someone just "keep silent and put on plays" is a contradiction in terms, Chris. After all, what is art FOR, if not, on a very significant level, to effect social change?
Go Ming! As one has been good at (as they say in Yes Minister) "courageous decisions", I've probably committed career suicide several times. But a career - in poetry, or literature, or criticism - has never been the point for me, although most of the time I would like to make more money. I do know full well that my outspokenness has been on the whole better received elsewhere than in the small pond of Australia, but I don't think, all the same, that keeping schtumm for the sake of a career is really how it works: I doubt that it's that simple. In some places, people are valued precisely because they are brave and thoughtful; and one place where those qualities really count is in the arts. Robert Wilson, Haold Pinter, Lorca, Brecht, amid countless others, come to mind... And what about Barrie Kosky, who is working at the Berliner Ensemble and other negligible theatres after a lifetime of telling people exactly what he thinks, (sometimes to good purpose, sometimes not).
Idle Hands Ms Lewis' self promotion worked with me - I read the article in The Australian, that Anna references, which prompted me to see her production 'Love Lies Bleeding' at The Sydney Theatre Company. Anonymous, I think that you must have only received the bottom half of the newspaper as The Australian article went into considerable detail surrounding the play and then went onto describe the essay at the core of this debate. I have not read it, but will now. I am beginning to sound like a victim of her self promotion. By the by, the production was excellent with Robyn Nevin and Max Cullen sizzling together in a septegenarian manner which I, as one not far off them in age, found life affirming in a play surrounded with imminent death (Mr Cullen's character not my own).
The 'career' and what is/what is not good by it idea is a funny one. I know we throw that term around a lot to mean different things. When it comes down to it, I'll always remember being taken aside by David Field shortly after having graduated from drama school (I'd just seen Silent Witness, too, so I was in a bit in awe all-round). After I stopped gushing, he gave a chuckle, looked me in the eye and started to discuss what I felt were my political responsibilities as a female, non-White artist in this country. And then he said something wonderful to me, "Sister. You get to make a choice here. Are you gunna have a career? Ore are you gunna have a body of work?" I think I must have laughed out loud with the simplicity of the question, but I remember replying, "Well - a body of work, of course. But..."
and he said, "Well then, that's all you need to know. The rest is easy."
And that one small incident made me bolder and happier and more confident about my journey not only as an artist, but as a human being in this life, than I'd ever been before. I carry it with me at all times, and let it wash through my consciousness whenever I have a big decision to make.
"The rest is easy."
I love David Field.
Yes I also saw "Love-Lies-Bleeding" and agree with Vintage 46 that it is a beautiful, finely detailed performance by Robyn Nevin, the sort of truthfulness that is often mistaken for effortlessness and thus rarely acclaimed. A masterclass in acting. Lewis handled her first mainstage production quite well, and although the STC might have been a bit surprised that she would choose this moment (in the midst of several gigs with them) to take state theatre companies to task, no doubt as a company they are strong enough to weather some well-meant (if ill-timed) critical remarks.
Given their well-documented history of attacking the author of this blog, I doubt that would be the case anonymous. However, it is marvellously optimistic of you to think so. I would be fascinated to know just exactly how one 'directs' La Nevin. Now that would have made an interesting documentary.
Well, given that hers is the only performance that ignores the heart-on-the-sleeve American style in which the others have clearly been steered, I would say in this case she relied on forty years of instincts rather than La Lewis' ideas.
As one would have imagined.
Two comments:
First, Anonymous (most recent) I must both agree and disagree with you. Nevin was wonderful, as were all the other cast members in bringing out their character’s responses to a difficult and complex issue that, yes, does involve a great deal of emotion. Ms Arundell’s funeral monologue left me moved and distressed – I was incapable of speaking at my partner’s funeral. John McCallum’s review of the production in yesterday’s Australian was a fair response.
Second, I noted in reading in the programme for Love Lies Bleeding that Ms Lewis is currently the recipient of a fellowship in Richard Wherrett’s name. I am sure that Richard would be smiling down on this marvellous debate. He caused a huge stir towards the end of his life when he attacked the local establishment for mounting mediocre Anglocentric productions and being in the grip of a self-destructive malaise. Let’s hope Sydney Theatre Company continues to give the fellowship to young directors who are clearly strong practitioners of theatre craft, and just as capable of making a strong intellectual contribution, too.
Let's move on from yet another discussion of yet another play. We all know how subjective this can become. In a bid to get this discussion back on topic...
There's an anecdote in the Lewis essay that says it all about cross-racial casting, I think. American critic Dan Sullivan explains his unexpected reaction to seeing the black Harry Lennix play the very white Jay Gatsby in Chicago in 1992. Against all expectation, it worked. Lennix owned the part; he played Gatsby to perfection. Sullivan's personal reaction was revelatory. He says he did not for one moment forget he was watching a black actor play Gatsby, but nor for a moment did he see Jay Gatsby as a black man.
I suspect a lot of the angst about cross-racial casting is really the worry that audiences will not share Sullivan's magical experience; that they might sit there confused, or spend the entire performance wondering if they aren't being subjected to some kind of political stunt. I think this underestimates audiences and their capacity to participate imaginatively. Of course, some people don't have this capacity. Some people may have a strongly negative reaction to cross-racial casting, and a few of them may continue to nurse that reaction even when the casting choices are unambiguously explained. So what? Let them be discomfited, or let them stay home. These people are in the minority, and I don't believe theatre companies will go broke by not pandering to them. A mainstage production of a classical work isn't simply entertainment. Like any public act, it has an ethical and a political dimension to it, whether you want it to or not. I don't see why its ethics and politics should necessarily be adjusted to avoid offending the least imaginative or the most conservative people in the audience.
I find the deathly silence of the theatre companies in this important discussion peculiar - MTC, STC, Bell Belvoir et al are you listening? Where are you? Nicholas or Alison are you going to respond to the essay itself as Ming has done?
If I may cross-blog, perhaps both this issue of re-defining racial or ethnic casting concepts and the choice of a new B Sharp director could happily merge. What if Wesley Enoch took the position? A writer (Seven Stages of Grieving) and director (most recently "Paul") who has used his own experiences of being an aboriginal theatre practitioner in a largely white environment to broaden his own his audience's expectations. If B Sharp became known as a company that led the way, surely no better example could be set for other companies to follow?
"Nicholas or Alison are you going to respond to the essay itself as Ming has done?"
Anonymous. I would love to blog 24 hours a day... but sometimes one has other commitments. Patience.
That's tops Alison, I look forward to booking overpriced Melbourne Festival tickets to see Lee Lewis's productions that she brings back from Europe in 10 years time from the Belgium National Theatre for Expelled Australian Creatives. Or perhaps you could take me as your date with some of your review tickets? Love Chris.
Please tell me Lewis was mis-quoted by Bryce Hallet in the Herald when he has her state that actors such as Helen Mirren (Russian) and Kirk Douglas (Jewish) were forced to "pass for white" in order to be accepted. I had no idea Russians weren't white. Or that Judaism was a skin colour.
If you actually read the essay, showtime, you'll find that the concept of being "white" or "non-white" is about much more than skin colour. Even a black person can "achieve whiteness" if they are embraced by the culture's dominant Anglo establishment. It means that their racial difference is given no negative relevance; they are seen as "one of us" by the dominant culture. By the same token, a man with blue eyes and lily-white skin might be seen as "non-white" if his name happens to be Issur Danielovich Demsky. Much better to change it to Kirk Douglas to conceal his Russian origins, especially if he's looking for work in America in the '50s.
Thanks idlehands for explaining that. Gives new meaning to the old chestnut "white is black."And yes I do look forward to reading the essay, and also to how Lewis will practice her beliefs in the casting of her upcoming PUSH project at STC.
I am going to respond - I have to get the book first and, as Nicholas points out, we all have lives (I have several) beyond blogdom. There will be some public discussion here in Melbourne. Keep an eye out.
If Australia keeps exiling its most exciting talents - yes, a long and dishonourable tradition here - then our culture will continue its mediocre slumber. I live in hope that will change, and perhaps is changing already.
Showtime - Is the PUSH project staging classical work, or is it all new work? Lewis argues in the essay for aggressive cross-racial casting of the classical repertoire, not of every show staged (mainly because of the privileged place classical work occupies in the culture). If PUSH is doing something classical, I'm sure she'll be delighted to put her proposals into action.
By the way, I'm glad to hear you're planning to read the essay, and I'd encourage everyone with an interest in Australian theatre to do the same.
Not sure about the PUSH but doubt that it is a classic (unless you consider Dead Caesar a classic!!) as I think the manifesto is to do rough stagings of new work. And yes I'll read it an also follow her career with interest. I have enormous respect for the theatrical nous of Robyn Nevin, and if she has picked this young woman and offered her four jobs at the STC, I can't imagine a higher endorsement.
Post a Comment