Published comments of matthew_ryan

actually rastaman, (as someone who has commented in both posts) you'll find this one more populated because we were all there on the night.
Shared experience beats philosophical pondering every time.

Okay.

I was hoping to bow out of this conversation, having taken up so much of it already. But as people are starting to interpret my statement as part of their POVs I may as well clarify what I said.

First up, Con, I doubt you'll be ridiculed. I assume everyone on these blogs knows what they're talking about and hope others do the same. Tim was initially criticised because some jerk had taken his words from facebook (as Katherine said, also somewhat of a public forum) and pasted them here. He was basically asking for an explanation or a public apology from the Brides of Frank. At which point a few artists shot back that no one should be forced to explain or apologise for their art. It's insulting. And as an accomplished theatre maker, Tim should have known better.

As for my morality in theatre comment (as this seems to be the present topic of conversation), in was made in the context of basic suitability and appropriateness . And here's how I see it.

Morality is a particular type of measuring stick. A moral correctness and a degree of conformity to moral standards and principles. But whose principles? Who are the adjudicators of such content? A church? A West End hippy? A school teacher? An Artistic Director? How can theatre be held up to a moral measuring stick when almost every person, society and era has a different view of "morality"? You may as well criticise the design for having too much blue in it because you just don't like blue. The concept of morality and the judgement it places on others has no place in the theatre because it limits the boundaries of a play's potential breadth. It makes you afraid to "go there".

Now, I'm not saying that you should have a nude guy walk across the stage in the middle of Death of a Salesman. I'm not a huge fan of "shock theatre" either. I consider it low, cheap and hollow. What I do believe in is context. I believe in a set of parameters a theatre piece constructs within itself that the audience goes along with. If it steps outside of that context, the audience will notice. In other words, if there's a line of dialogue referring to the red walls, you should probably have a good reason for having so much blue.

As for the Brides of Frank, I believe everything they chose to do was within the context of their central idea and philosophy. Is it suitable for a night like the Matildas? With a room full of mostly left-wing artistic intellectual discerning theatre makers? Who (of all people) should be able to see through the shocking imagery to find the meaning? Yes. I think it is appropriate. Am I concerned that children might have been there? That is a question for the Matilda committee concerning the suitability of the entire awards to a younger audience and whether they should be allowed in at all. It is not an aesthetic critique of the Brides of Frank. I say no kids allowed.

There is also the deliberate "challenging morality in theatre" but my politics rant gets me in more trouble than the morality one. So I'll stop. Hopefully, that's clarified my earlier point.

As I said earlier, I'm happy to agree to disagree. At least as an end point.

Matt

well said barb!

and despite the views of some minorities on this blog, it was a fantastic night and all the fun you talked about was had by almost everyone there.

i completely agree that getting the award doesn't help one's career but it is a lovely feeling to be recognised by your peers, as winner or nominee (now that the awards aren't prize money, i think we should have a few more). but they are just an award and nothing more. truth be told it was much more of an honour to just be in a category with helen howard and michael futcher than win anything.

something like this does help a show like Attackers get out on the road so i would love the future of the awards to have more focus on independent theatre and shows that come through brisbane on tour from regional companies. shows that not only deserve recognition, but could also use some.

i think the only difference these days is that any bitching previously done in private is now a much more public event.

as always, it's nice to see these blogs visited by so many illustrious theatre practioners, throwing their two cents in when something isn't above board.

Thanks for the support, Tim. The support for Attackers has been amazing. I was a little shocked by the award, as my rambling speech may have demonstrated.

On the morality front, I guess we'll just agree to disagree for now. Don't let my weird little anarchist brain scare you (most of my peers think I'm not "confronting" enough). I'm just not a fan of the morality play.
I don't trust theatre in search of justice. Only theatre in search of truth.

Hmm... sounded less trite in my head.

"when going to an awards ceremony like the Matildas, the last thing you expect to see is those kinds of confronting and offensive images"

I don't know, tim. did you see the play they gave Best New Work too?
Yikes.
Masturbation ain't that big a deal in theatre anymore.

"Am I the only one who feels any sense or responsibilty for the sorts of things we put on stage?"

Morality has no place in the theatre. Only quality.

Not taking away your right to an opinion. I think "jared of nudah" cutting and pasting off your facebook page is completely unforgivable. that's a private discussion between you and your friends and you are entitled to it. i also congratulate you on joining the conversation here.

all i ask is that you be careful with your train of thought which wants apologies from artists and theatre with a sense of decency. unfortunately once those ideas are actualised, there is no end point.

ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Thanks norman. That made my day.

All good points Zane.

But I fear it is that exact division betwen "art" and "showbiz" (I'm going to call it entertainment) that is the problem. I think (at least in theatre) that art needs to take a few lessons from entertainment, and entertainment needs to take a few lessons from art. It doesn't have to be one without the other. Art needs to mindful of what the audience is experiencing as a form of social engagement and entertainment needs to be mindful of its content and commentary.

What's so hard about that?

I think if we find that middle ground and learn to play with it, we will thrive. There's nothing wrong with ticking government boxes and then turning around and delivering a vibrant piece of theatre. Why do we think government funding equals political/sociological introspection?

I'll paraphrase Thornton Wilder (and he was guilty of forgetting this himself): The politics is the gas the cooks the meal. If you cook the meal right, it shouldn't taste like gas.

There. Now I'm that wanker who quotes famous writers.

sorry, not sure about cinematography.

while great, there's not a lot of it around.
perhaps special mentions are in order.

wow.
yes, i have to say i'm a little floored by that decision.

lighting and sound, while hand in hand, are nothing alike at all.

the language used by a lighting designer is visual. The sound designer is auditory. The writer is written. The actor is performance. the director is interpretive. none of these are the same and all deserve seperate recognition.

Why are they lumped into a generic "technical" category? because they require electricity? so why aren't lighting designers doing sound designs and some sound designers trying lighting? because they don't know how. because they're different crafts.

Maybe i'm biased. Music is always my favourite part of any production, but (no offense intended to the unpaid matilda contributors) this "lumping together" approach seems like an oversight and a bit of an insult to some of the best artists working in brisbane.

matt

ps- i'd say the same about poor stage managers but if they do their job well, you're not suppose to notice them.

Um...

Where's Best Sound Design?