The Spacey - Blanchett Factor

A kind reader has brought my attention to the fact that Michael Billington from the Guardian has now weighed into the debate on Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton's appointment as the next Sydney Theatre Company Artistic Directors.

He makes the point that "behind the Blanchett brouhaha lies a bigger question: who are the people best equipped to run major theatres? Actors, dramatists or directors? In Britain, with the growth of subsidy, the tendency has been for directors to run the show. They, the argument goes, have a wider knowledge of world drama and are more likely to possess the artistic and political skills the job requires. Actors often rail against the "directocracy". But postwar British theatre has been largely shaped by the vision of people such as Peter Hall, George Devine and Joan Littlewood - founders, respectively, of the RSC, the Royal Court and Theatre Workshop - who were, or are, directors first and foremost."

Despite the fact that he mistakes next years season as one that Blanchett/Upton have curatored and doesn't talk once of the merits of Upton's appointment, it's an interesting perspective from the city that appointed Kevin Spacey as AD of the Old Vic.

At the same time, theatre critic Bryce Hallett has also weighed into the debate with an op-ed piece in todays Sydney Morning Herald. It concisely puts into context the reasons why they felt it necessary to run last Saturday's article.

"Moody's ill-feeling towards his former boss," Hallett says, "and the validity of his criticisms about people hired from overseas to direct the company's productions is difficult to ascertain because Nevin has declined to comment. Perhaps she believes her record speaks for itself but there are issues that need to be addressed."

I'm not so sure about that. Is this reactionary stuff helpful for any of us?

He then, however, poses the biggest question of them all - where are the director-director's in our theatres?

"Why [Edward] Dick was imported for [A Midsummer Nights] Dream is anybody's guess but there are better questions to be answered: where is the new breed of Australian directors and where have the senior ones gone? Why is Gale Edwards yet to direct the Actors Company? What about the vastly experienced Rodney Fisher, who lives in Sydney and is out of work?"

Hear, hear Bryce.

Meanwhile, the letters page of the Herald has also been abuzz with the Colin Moody story.

On Monday Michael Rolfe of London wrote that "Colin Moody is to be applauded both for his courage and incisiveness in taking Sydney Theatre Company to task".

But Rolfe didn't stop there.

"I might start with the way that the STC has simply recycled most of its program of more than 20 years ago and continue with the fact that although it is publicly funded, it does not hold itself to be accountable for the way those funds are spent.

"I could also lament that its record of importing talent (there has never been an important international actor or director at the STC) is, to say the least, patchy.

"One of the pleasures about London is not having to cope with the rudest theatre administration you could find anywhere in the world," he said.

Cilla Tey preferred to put a heavenly twist to it by saying that "I don't care what Colin Moody says, our Cate is perfect."

Then on Tuesday, David Keegan pitched in saying, "How is it actors with no real experience are shoehorned into these type of positions? Has the company learnt nothing from the Nevin years?"

Richard Lynch then writes in today and prefers to put the blame squarely on "stupid audiences and brilliant producers".

It's a shame the SMH doesn't have a blog to chat about it, so come back here and feel free to let fly. CLICK HERE for the wonderful argy bargy.