Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 37, Number 25. 25th September 1974

Dramatic replies

Dramatic replies

Dear Aunty Sal,

I realise that replies to replies are always going to contain a certain amount of the 'But you said that I said that you said that I said that you said in order to say what I said instead' type of nonsense and general pin-pricking. And its all part of the fun (?) of indulging in this type of anonmouse (sic) serialised debate (I hope); so to start off with just a point here and there to maintain the honourable tradition. If you've got to write a reply to something, don't end up by saying that you're not going to take any account of what the other guy has said — in the light of The Reply you've just written, it diminishes your argument. And if Martin Edmond looks up Salient Volume 27, Number 6, page 12, April 10th 1974, he will find contrary to expectation and belief, a 'theatre manifesto' and 'review' of the play 'Waiting for Godot' written by himself — or are we talking about two different Martin Edmonds? — oh, and there's the small matter of the 'complimentary diatribe' — sorry, bad joke.

I can't help feeling however, despite the above comments, that this has got a little out of proportion. I am aware that I am entitled to write my own reviews, as is any other person, and in part of my letter was just that — an alternate review. I did not say the production was bad (if by good you mean something that says nothing well) nor did I dismiss it out of hand. Of its type (for argument's sake, period production in drag) it was fairly proficient, but all things considered, disappointing. No production should be considered merely on what is presented to the audience. The reviewer is in a position to ask; 'Why was this play produced?', 'Why in this manner?' even 'Why did these actors chose to act in this play?' If the contemporary relevance had been 'overstated', what was it that validated the performance? Moliere wrote this play as relevant to his own age; a product of his own society — middle class, bourgeois and elitist.

No critic can ever be above the criticism of those he professes to criticise for. You, for instance, glossed over the extravagant nature of the production, speaking of it only in theatrical terms — as a set and costumes — and not in actual terms of capital cost. There is no need to demand how and why the money was spent. You saw the play and the expensive window-dressing that adorned it; that should be answer enough. My assertion that the money was misused was not a misinformed one. Drama Soc. 1) never had the funds to put the play on in the first place and should have acted within its financial limitations, 2) is now 'bankrupt' and the Students' Association will have to pay the balance owing its creditors. If I made a mistake about the reasons behind the cancellation of the student plays, I apologise, but that does not alter the fact that student funds have been misused for something most students had nothing to do with.

You admit that most if not all NZ theatre is bourgeois and elitist (and later on in your letter say that the use of such terms is irresponsible...? oh well.) but you don't seem through your criticisms to be doing much to remedy the situation. There is a type of criticism that will foster 'fur-coat' theatre, just as there is a type that will help foster something more meaningful. Drama Soc. has a bad enough reputation amongst students in particular as it is so that when a play like 'The Ecstasy of Rita Joe' is staged, no one is going to risk coming to see it because according to the reviewers, most of the productions are 'second-best' and 'stand-ins for the real thing'. Instead of these negative comments it would have been better to have given credit where credit was due rather than to have dismissed the good along with the bad.

A different kind of theatre does exist, and it isn't just waiting in the wings — its acting there. The potential for alternate theatre exists wherever there are people. Children you will find, of all social backgrounds appreciate and enjoy theatre written and performed for them. But most grow up distrusting and disliking it. Is this because they have lost their taste for drama — or because they have lost their taste for the particular type of drama prevalent; the type that Downstage and 'Misanthrope' represent?

I hope of people are actually taking any notice of these pontificating harangues (Concise Oxford 5th ed. p. 558) they might gain an increased awareness of the possibilities that drama has, other than for entertainment. Not all plays are pretentious ego-centric celebrations of technical finesse. Some actually have something to say in either a humourous or serious way. Drama Soc. I'll admit has done a lot to deserve its bad name. Too many "period pieces' and not enough guts. If any of you do feel like going along to see any productions next year, remember that the student actors, producers and playwrights are students and not professional experts. This is because they lack experience and this can only be gained by performing before an audience and responding to its constructive criticisms. If you feel that you can do better than Drama Socs' 'hollywood hopefuls' there's nothing to stop you.

R. Mays