Phoenix Rising

written by Kevin Summers, June 2002

The Age theatre critic, Helen Thomson (Definite Article 22/6), pointed to the recent emergence of small, professional groups of theatre practitioners in Melbourne. She saw this as a welcome trend, a flowering of performance away from the established, funded bodies.

Of course, creative, independent production is always needed to ensure that our theatre scape retains its vibrancy and colour but the current trend must be seen in a historical context. The growth of independent groups tends to be cyclical. Each decade witnesses such a growth, invariably the result of the frustrations of performers and writers with the existing state of Melbourne theatre.

But they struggle to remain in business. Twenty years ago this writer was a cast member of the Victorian Independent Theatre Company’s first production, Edward Bond’s Bingo. It turned out to be the group’s swansong. Since then we’ve witnessed the rise and fall of such worthy enterprises as the Church and Anthill, among many others.

The plain fact is that it is enormously difficult to put on one independent production, much less a whole season. One may discover a great new work by a tyro local playwright and convince a sensitive director and an experienced, professional cast that it is worth doing. If one has any brains one should then offer them the standard Equity contract relating to profitshare productions. The finding of a suitable theatre space, usually on a hire basis, completes the formalities.

As the season approaches, the troubles really begin. One clearly wishes to publicise the play and it cast members. Press releases are sent to critics, journalists and various media players. While it helps enormously if one of the cast has recently appeared on Neighbours or Blue Heelers, or an actress is prepared to be photographed in the nude, one mustn’t expect the press to come running. One soon realises that emails, letters and phone calls will more than likely be ignored.

While one may relieve one’s frustrations by making further abusive calls, complaining bitterly of the media’s laziness and rudeness, this is not a wise course of action. Radio hosts and arts editors have memories like elephants and will almost certainly refuse to entertain future overtures.

So one must advertise. This costs serious money. A simple space in the theatre directories of the dailies, spread over the run of the play, will cost many hundreds of dollars. It will inevitably be dwarfed by the ads run by the subsidised theatres and the maxi-musicals. Will the information attract an audience? The answer to this question, as famed race caller Bert Bryant used to say, is a pineapple.

Nonetheless, one hopes that the critics may deign to appear and heap lavish praise upon every aspect of the production, thus ensuring long queues outside the venue and a financial bonanza for all involved. Now the general rule regarding the attendance of critics is that there is no rule at all. Some may indicate a coming presence but fail to materialise. Others never look like making an appearance. A warning here: the offer of free grog on opening night does not ensure the attendance of critics but rather an influx of unemployed thespians who, of course, drink anything in a glass.

Perhaps then the captains of the sudsidised companies might come to evaluate the production? Again, it would be an error to raise one’s hopes here. Members of this caste are very busy entertaining politicians and possible corporate backers. The cost of postage would be better spent on one’s aunts and uncles.

So one has a show that few know or care about. It is likely to pass into the ether as so many other productions have over the years. All associated with it quietly shake their heads and determine not to spend the energy and time on similar duds in the future. It was clearly a lousy play; the director had no idea; the performers never got it right; the whole mess was underlit; the venue was as attractive as Vladivostok in winter.

Of course, it may have been a fine play beautifully realised but it bit the dust in an atmosphere of both rejection and dejection. Just as fledgling theatre groups bite the dust. Yet from the ashes of ambition the phoenix rises. Performers and writers are remarkably resilient. Knock ‘em over and they hop right up again. That’s why every few years a brace of new groups will appear, each with its ideas on what decent theatre ought to be.

It would be good - indeed, it would be very good - if these groups did not have to expend what working capital they have to publicise their work. It would be right if these productions - particularly if based on new local writing - were given due weight and consideration. If they are seen and judged to be tragic failures then so be it. A more egalitarian, less precious approach will at least ensure that many worthy ventures are treated fairly.

Home