A forest of well dressed, well spoken women gather around a hunched hooded figure as sound throbs and squeals from an electric guitar. They look on in wonder as sound scratches and echoes from an amplifier. Its the noise of a tortured animal – desperate and dangerous. The women look on. They applaud and cheer the young, scruffy man -they toast his brilliance with champagne and offer their money and influence to promote and support his art.

Written by Brecht in 1918, and now adapted by Simon Stone and Tom Wright, Baal is a very bleak portrait of an artist as a young man. An ugly, selfish, self-obsessed, righteous misogynist/ extremist/outsider, seducer/anarchist. Though Brecht’s first play (at the age of 20) -it was not produced until five years later. And then after a period of development with Elisabeth Hauptmann – it was remounted. And here we are nearly 100 years later, on the opposite side of the world with Mr Adaption himself (Tom Wright) and Mr Wunderkind (Simon Stone) reworking this “classic.”

In this production, Baal is a sexual and emotional tyrant – not only to the women he plows through, but to his best friend. We see women, spellbound and silly and self-destructively sacrifice their dignity (and lives) at the altar of Baal’s art/fame. We watch as the artist rants and raves and retaliates against the very society/infrastructure that supports him. We watch as hedonism rules absolutely – scantily-clad orgies on sodden mattresses. The story line is very simple and so I’ll reference that excellent source of theatre/literary criticism – Wikipedia:
“Baal roams the countryside, womanizing and brawling. He seduces Johanna, who subsequently drowns herself. He spurns his pregnant mistress Sophie and abandons her. He murders his friend Ekart, becoming a fugitive from the police. Defiantly aloof from the consequences of his actions, Baal is nonetheless brought low by his debauchery, dying alone in a forest hut, hunted and deserted, and leaving in his wake the corpses of deflowered maidens and murdered friends.”
Which leads us to the message – “pride comes before a fall.”

All these ideas are portrayed very clearly in this production. We see the lifestyle carry Baal into a deeper level of searching for some sort of sensation, satisfaction – or perhaps a barrier – we watch as he disposed and destroys all around him – even those he loves. But the surprising this for me is how little this mattered to me. I watched as I saw self-destructive/needy people destroyed by their own behaviour. And I was left sitting there unmoved, uninterested and slightly bored. And I think this is a wonderful reaction to have to theatre, mainly because it forced me to question -
1. Why was I bored?
2. Why was this story told here and now.

And in examination I guess I uncovered a lot of my own reflections on contemporary society. I must admit that the excessive hedonism and nihilism and self-harming behaviour of my generation – a generation so over-loved by our baby boomer parents we feel numb to everything but our own self-obsession and wants – is everywhere. It is on TV, in magazines – sex, drugs, alcohol, re-hab, scandal, overdoses, suicides, misogyny, use and abuse of people, capitalism, fashion, fame, money – it’s so commonly popularised, so often talked about, and exposed. The underbelly of celebrity and society is so exposed, that I am numb to it too. I feel surrounded by images of beautiful women who are ultimately pawns of male ego. We live in an age where there is no shame. Where there are no taboos. Where extreme behaviour is accepted and somewhat expected. I need go no further than the popular website “Girls Gone Wild” – which I heard about when I found myself at a biker convention in Port Dover, Canada some years ago (it was an accident – I wasn’t there on business) where I witnessed first-hand the roaming camera crews encouraging women to show their bits to camera.

So -what about all the “provocative” aspects of the show. That is, the nudity. Well, a bit ho-hum, really.

And this is what I think about nudity on stage – It’s a bit like blasting the audience in the eyes – we get distracted. We start thinking about other things – so to pull off nudity on stage (pardon the pun) – I think the story has to be the strongest, most compelling thing – and it must be told in a strong and compelling way.

And for me, it wasn’t.

The adaption itself seemed to be obsessed with the sound of the language – declamatory and forced and overt – and therefore clumsy. The delivery seemed equally as staccato, stylized and forced. I found the style itself alienating (harking back to Brecht’s ideas within Epic Theatre – which is interesting since I don’t think he’d yet developed that idea when he wrote BAAL – so to overlay that directorial style on this texts seems somewhat anachronistic). I found the characters to be utterly basic and one dimensional – with little to no sub-textual level and therefore without any major transformation or change. And I wasn’t sure what I was being asked to feel. Was I to feel sorry for Baal? Or his friends? Or the women? I felt was disconnected from them all. I also felt like it was all a fore-gone conclusion. They brought about their own demise – but did I care? Nope.

And so I asked myself, “why don’t I care?”

Is this an example of my own numbness? Perhaps. But I guess it came back to the fact that I feel like that world- where desire is soley manifested in the act of sex, and sex is confused for love. And stimulation is synthetic and drug-induced and it is so far away from my life, reality/experience that I had no connection to it – at all. I watch on as the embarrassing pink-fleshed animals of my species destroy each other and I think – well… I’ve learnt nothing – this is what I assumed of this world and it follows what I believe – ego is ugly, fame is fickle, fame creates a false sense of power, entitlement and immortality, having no values hurts. So I was vindicated, but not transformed.

So I was not shocked. Not engaged with. I felt disinterested in the story and the characters.

Why was this story told here and now? Well, I guess it’s a reflection of moral decay – as discussed above. A portrait of hero-worship at its most sick and destructive. Sure. So is Amy Winehouse’s descent as documented in the tabloid newspapers of 2007… what does Baal add to this portrayal of tortured artist?

Well, I must admit the set and the lighting by Nick Schlieper was simply spectacular – like that of Olafur Eliasson – and of course, it wouldn’t be a STC show if something (water, snow, glitter) didn’t rain down on stage. So thumbs up for the set.. I just found the story dull, the characters un-likeable and the language overly formal and over the top and overt. (Vocally, the most interesting moment for me was the last 90 seconds when we heard a slice of naturalism.)

There has been a simmering discussion amongst AWOL (Australian Women Playwrights On Line) about the presence (or lack of presence) of female writers included in the mainstage theatre seasons. Currently in Main stage seasons women are grossly unrepresented – and it’s not because there aren’t any women writing plays. There are. When curating the multi-playwright seasons I have produced in the last 4 years, I have not struggled to find quality female playwrights, and not just any female playwrights – excellent playwrights.

In late 2009, the Philip Parson’s Award hosted a panel discussion “Where are the women?” to which 200-ish female theatre workers turned up to prove exactly where the women are (Just in case Belvoir couldn’t see them, as their 2010 suggested) – they were filling the theatre. that day I sat with Suzie Miller and Vanessa Bates. When confronted with the argument that women aren’t being programmed because scripts and directors are assessed on merit not gender – Miller told of her experience which was having a play of hers knocked back for an Independent Season at Belvoir, only to have the very same play receive awards and productions overseas. Rachel Healy turned to Neil Armfield and said, “Well, Neil, it looks like we stuffed up.” And I think everyone in that audience agrees: there has been some major stuff-ups when it comes to theatre companies being committed to equal opportunity employment. So much so Melbourne Theatre Company have since implemented an EEO policy.

The stats for 2011’s mainstage season looks like this:

Sydney Theatre Company
Twelve plays, one by a woman (the American Sarah Ruhl).

Belvoir
Thirteen plays, three by women: two by Australian women (Lally Katz and Angela Betzien),
one by an Australian female choreographer.

Griffin Theatre Company (all Australian works)
Four plays, one by an Australian woman (Jane Bodie).

Ensemble Theatre (not subsidised)
Eight plays, none by women.

Melbourne Theatre Company
Thirteen plays, four by women: three by Australian women (two by Joanna Murray-Smith, one by Lally Katz).

Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne
Ten productions (not all are text-based): two by Australian women (Lally Katz and Vanessa Bates), one by an Australian female choreographer (Narelle Benjamin).

Queensland Theatre Company
Six plays, none by women.

State Theatre Company of SA
Seven plays, none by women.

Black Swan Theatre Company, Perth
Seven plays, one by an Australian woman (Joanna Murray-Smith)

In recent months with the start of AWOL, discussion has been furious, fast, eloquent and frequent… the names contributing to the discussion include Suzie Miller, Vanessa Bates, Verity Laughton, Tee O’Neill, Peta Murray, Noelle Janaczewska, Van Badham, Donna Abela, Kate Mulvany, to name but a few. I really would love to see the mainstage theatre programmer (Lit Manager, Artistic Director, Associate Director, etc) who has the balls to look these women in the eyes and honestly tell them, that their plays are not being selected because they “aren’t very good.”

And it’s not because these are horrid vindictive playwrights who should be feared because they can’t take criticism -it’s because it’s just simply not true.

Not only does Vanessa Bates have her play Porn.Cake coming up in a production in Melbourne this year… let’s not forget the major successes of Australian female playwrights – Alana Valentine’s Run Rabbit Run had a sold out season at Belvoir in 2004… Kate Mulvany won multiple awards and has also enjoyed sold out seasons for The Seed, Recently Verity Laughton’s the Sweetest Thing also packed out houses in a B-sharp season. Van Badham (current Lit Manager at Finborough Theatre in the UK) has enjoyed multiple awards, productions and is a regular gigging writer who has just published her first book through Pan Macmillan. What is stunning about the “chosen on merit” argument is that it is absolutely nonsensical. How can female writers win award after award, receive residencies after residencies, workshops after workshops, enjoy sell out seasons, gain international recognition and productions and yet, STILL are confronted with the argument “sorry, your play isn’t very good.”

For some this is an example of a boys club which is so deeply obsessed with it’s own maintenance of power that women must be kept at bay at all times. For some there is a question of HOW/WHY some of the taste makers/programmers have earnt their positions (One anecdote tells of a certain programmer/person of influence recently requesting an established/award winning female playwright for a coffee meeting -which is pretty tricky because she’s been living in the UK for some time, thus exposing his level of detachment with the writing community). For others there is a bafflement over why some playwrights are given opportunity after opportunity for productions (yes practice makes perfect) and they are allowed to fail… and yet others aren’t.

Recently an article in the SMH has aired the topic outside of the safety of the AWOL email group:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/a-hard-road-from-page-to-stage-20110107-19isb.html

I know for a fact programming has to do with taste. Not with merit. And main-stage companies and their programmers have to face up to the responsibility and consequences of their taste.

To even up the clear gender imbalance, it has been suggested quotas for the inclusion of women practitioners to be introduced for theatre companies funded by the Australia Council. The initial proposal was for 30% of all plays programed should be by women. My immediate reaction was “why not half?”… then I thought more about it. I thought more about it. What would this mean for a predominantly male company (BELL SHAKESPEARE – there is no female Shakespeare to counter balance that – not even Aphra Behn wrote as many as WS -but frankly this is a can of worms discussion I’m not going to touch in this post… so stay tuned for my thoughts on that)? I also thought about the affect this would have on a female playwright: would she forever be left wondering/thinking “I was chosen because they need to fill their girl-quota, not because I’m good”).

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/dramatists-stage-protest-about-gender-but-do-they-protest-too-much-20110107-19it6.html

I think the problem is not with the playwrights. The problem is with the positions of creative decision making are made by men. Men who are programming to their taste. Tom Wright programs himself because he likes his own plays – that’s his taste. Tom wright says in one of the articles “The STC had commissioned an equal number of male and female playwrights since Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton became co-artistic directors.” And my response is “Yeah, but have those commissions translated to productions? Because really commissioning 50/50 male female but only producing the male writers does absolutely NOTHING for the visibility/representation of female writing on the stage. It really feels like a gesture designed to shut people up. The whole top level of theatres needs to be overhauled… the Boards, the Artistic Directorship, the literary managers (And I believe there should be two for each theatre company) should be 50% women who hold 50% sway- not merely a token photo-copy girl in hotpants) Then effectively and naturally the balance of taste and representation would naturally re-adjust.

(As a side note to bolster the “taste not merit” argument” typically I’ve noticed when the artistic directorate is male and gay, sometimes they plays produced include characters that are gay men (Tommy Murphy directed/championed by Bertold and Armfield)… and yet I find it strange that the lesbian writers of Australia don’t get an equivalent chance for representation on stages.) Surely the themes, love stories and characters in gay theatre are no different to that of lesbian theatre or hetero theatre for that matter? Yet there is a predomince of gay male representation on our stages.

And then a part of me says, “Yeah yeah… we know it’s unfair. We know the merit argument is stupid and that women are treated differently than men are treated. what are we going to do about it?” This is what I choose to do – always support women writers who are great see their shows, offer feedback, promote it when it’s good and because it’s good. Always encourage emerging women writers to feel as entitled about their right to work and get paid as their male counterparts do.

This is the much awaited debut for The Sydney Theatre Company’s Residents- a collective of hand-picked young actors who have been brought together to be hothoused and nurtured for a period of 18 months… with a view of creating work. Words being bandied around include: “edgy”, “young”, “collaboration.”

The SMH ran an article back in June with a grungy/hip picture of what appears to be the spice-girls equivilent of these actors….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/new-kids-on-block-have-an-edgy-agenda/2009/06/12/1244664849352.html
…. an idea which takes the idea from Robyn Nevin’s Actors Company and transforms it somewhat into a tight bunch of “multi-skilled artists.” But this time it is strengthening the rise of the actor as prominent creator of Australian theatre. It seems that the actor/writer, actor/producer, actor/director is the most prominent form of creator on Australian stages… And I wonder is this yet another side effect of a celebrity driven world? We are now in the age of actor as auteur! Is this project about grooming the actors of today to be the artistic directors of tomorrow?I this what this project is about? I was curious- desperately curious – to see what this residence would yield as their remarkable, innovative, edgy collaboration… Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. The STC actors residents have yielded (drum roll please…)…

Genesis!

Yep.

No. Not the Phil Collins band. We got The Bible. The first book of the bible (which means there is room for quite a few sequals!!!) Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noahs Ark. For three hours. Two intervals. Three directors (Matthew Lutton, Andrew Upton and Tom Wright) and an absolutely laughably HUGE budget, for the first three bible stories.

Now, let me first declare a few things.

1. There are two writers that I hold in remarkably high esteem- Lally Katz and Hilary Bell- as far as I am concerned you can not get two more significant and impressive, classy and intelligent and elegantly perfect craftspeople. And they are the playwrights on this project… an interesting co-authorship- one with a perchant for the bizarre and gruesomely hilarious , the other with the grandest command of the poetry of the English language of any current Australian playwright.

2. I am not a church goer. I am not baptised. I did attend a Catholic School for a bit in my primary years. Had a Prespetarian grandfather who I would attend church with on regular occasions… for a while I dated the son of a preacher man… and most people know me as a woman who enjoys the aesthetic of men who have a remarkable resemblance to Jesus. I own 3 versions of the bible- even studied it as a text during university… and wrote a huge assignment on the York Crucifixion during my degree. I’m not religion adverse- infact I find it fascinating.

3. I spent 5 months working with one of the leading directors of promanade theatre in the UK- Mr John Oram… who taught me a huge amount about blocking promenade theatre, managing crowds and sight-lines and story in a mass of spectactors (all without the use of lighting) so I was curious to see how Andrew Upton handled the challenges of promenade.

So now I have all my confessions out of the way… I will say this. I can’t really talk about the performance, because I was absolutely dumbstruck/awestruck by the space. The seats of the Wharf 2 space- the stage… ripped out completely and transformed architecturally. A huge square space- with a mezzanine floor with hard wooden benches. Audience peering down into Eden from a one storey height.

And it has really made me think about the true essence of promenade- which came from a desire of taking theatre to the people. It came from using the qualities of everyday community space and creating work that fit in the space that everyone could access. I wonder if a very similar effect could have been acheived had the audience been asked to stand along the foyer of the wharf two space and look down on the actors/action in the corridor of the wharf? But regardless- the Sydney Theatre Company has completely changed the architecture of the theatre space.

Also it also made me think about the history of liturgical plays of which the Mysteries (The Fall , the flood, the crucifixion) were performed by the Guilds of the town- and this was a significant step in the development of Community Theatre. So the history of this style of play or performance to me is steeped very much in tradition and history. It is also about the building of community and the relationship between church and theatre (which is a really fascinating relationship, politically and socially).

However- The Mysteries: Genesis to me, has absolutely ignored this history. A history where in community space is re-defined as artistic space. (Instead Artistic space is re-defined as architecturally conquered). A community event is made elite (the lucky chosen 9 are showered – literally in resources – as opposed to inviting the community in (theatre or otherwise)). It also seems to ignore Australia’s relationship with Christianity.

(On a side note- One thing I must also mention is that the acknowledgment/opening night speech of Sydney Theatre Company events always manages to thank Audi and Georgio Armani- and never the original custodians of the land. I for one always wonder why that is?)

So I am left thinking: who is this production for? Is it for the punters who spend their days battling traffic and interest rate hikes? Is it for Christians keen to see the bible embraced (be warned – there is a breathtakingly overt amount of nudity in this production and scant clad folks- something I’m sure they don’t talk about in Sunday school!)? Is it for theatre folk to see what amazing epic budget can acheive?

And what is it saying about these stories? Are we to believe in God’s mercy or love or fickleness or vengence? Is it about explaining our history? What are these myths illuminating in us? What am I seeing beyond the impressive flourishes of well-sponsored project?

Mainly I feel a little disheartened that the production values and the design overwhelmed my experience of connecting with the actors performances. Perhaps I am a little old fashioned in thinking that all one needs to create an amazing transforming piece of theatre is an actor, a space and an audience… or perhaps I am too simplistic in my vision and have been living too long in Grotowski’s poor theatre?

This post is dedicated to Associate Professor Gay McAuley and Professor Penny Gay who both were absolutely instrumental in my theatre education- I didn’t probably appreciate you at the time- but if you are out there- thank you. I wish all practitioners could have the benefit of your perspective, knowledge and intelligence.