Cluster

36 Responses to “Dear Company B…”

1. dismayed
   September 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

   Check out the MTC season 2010 when it goes up on their site tomorrow. An interesting number of female directors taking part next year…

2. Laura
   September 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm

   Here, here Sista!
   My sentiments were exactly the same…As a female director it’s extremely disheartening. Time for the theatre to get into the 21st century and show leadership on issues of diversity and equality.
   L

3. Gareth Butler
   September 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm

   I respectfully think you’re way off the mark here.

   Firstly, I don’t have exact figures at hand but I would hazard a guess that there are more females than males working day-to-day at Company B Belvoir. So I really doubt that gender bias is an issue that affects this organisation.

   Secondly, I would also hazard a guess that plays (and thus playwrights) and directors are chosen on merit, not on whether they are male or female. If I were a creative, I would be disappointed if my work (which I would want judged on it’s quality, not my gender) were overlooked for another piece, purely because it was deemed that there wasn’t enough female representation in the season book.

   This particular gender argument may hold water in a different industry, or a different decade, but I don’t think it has any currency in this context.

   Write a good script(s), get runs on the board and your stuff will be considered on it’s merit, not by what you have (or don’t have) between your legs.

   Gareth

4. Jean Prouvaire
   September 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 am

   I’m writing this pretty much off the cuff and this post might get me booted off the blog (j/k!), but here goes anyway…

   According to Wikipedia 19% of the Australian population is under the age of 15 and and 13.5% is over 65. 24% of residents were born overseas (with about 6% born in the UK and 2% in NZ with Italy, China and Vietnam making up around 1% each). While 37% of residents claim their ancestry as “Australian”, 32% proclaim it English, 9% Irish, 8% Scottish, 4% Italian, 3% Chinese and 2% Greek. An estimated 2.5% of residents are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent. 26% are Roman Catholics, 19% are Anglicans and another 19% other Christian denominations. 19% professed no religion while Muslims and Buddhists make up around 2% each. And so forth.

   Let’s, for simplicity’s sake, assume a main stage season of 10 plays. So, should Company B – or any theatre company for that matter – make sure that it programmes two shows per year that are written and/or directed by kids and another one by senior citizens? Should it ensure that a quarter of directors and/or playwrights are born overseas? That their ancestry reflects the proper demographic proportions of UK, NZ, Italian, Greek, Chinese, indigenous and many other ethnic/cultural backgrounds? (In the case of indigenous shows that would work out to be about one writer every four season, or one writer OR director every two years.) That a quarter of key personnel are Catholics, one in five Anglican, one in five some other Christian denomination and one in five atheist? That at least one Buddhist and one Muslim playwright or director is represented every few years?

   Is Company B discriminating against non-indigenous talent by being consistently and disproportionately biased towards ATSI-themed programming? For that matter, I think two of the last five appointed associate artistic directors/associate artists/artistic associates – that’s 40% – have been of indigenous descent, even though demographically they represent only 2.5% of the population.

   Or how about this? I believe somewhere between 5 and 10% of the population is LGBT. Should companies therefore ensure that 18-19 out of 20 writers/directors in a season of ten plays are straight and only one or two homo/bi/transsexual?

   Obviously not. That sort of thinking would be ludicrous and counterproductive. The people make these decisions should choose the best work regardless of who the people producing the work are. Sex, race, sexuality, political affiliation, religion, body weight, hair colour, fashion sense and personal hygiene should be of secondary, no of zero, importance.

   So it begs the question. How many accomplished female writers and directors are there today compared to male ones (accomplished to the level where they can justifiably get a gig at one of the leading companies in the country)? Maybe it just so happens that, right now, the best writers and the best directors are statistically more likely to be men than women. (I said “maybe” because I honestly don’t know, and I grant that the assessment is to a certain extent subjective anyway.)

   If there are fewer females than males in these roles at that (or, say, any) level of expertise, you might then argue that women aren’t given the opportunity to develop to that point. Someone isn’t standing up for their chance where and when it counts.

   Fair argument. But consider also this. Yes, the male Neil Armfield has been the primary creative driving force since Company B’s inception. Not that I personally think he’s in any way anti-female, but let’s for the sake of argument assume he is, either deliberately or subconsciously. As far as I’m aware Company B’s general manager has always been female, and certainly for the last 15 years. The GM has input into programming, along with an artistic advisory body (whose current composition I’m not clear on). The current Company B chair is female and the board is composed of five women, including the GM in an ex officio capacity, and four men. (The Belvoir St Theatre board, which has more men than women, has no involvement in the running of the production company, only the venue.)

   On the 7-On blog Kit Brookman provided statistics that shows the imbalance in the number of females in key creative roles (writer/director) at a number of Sydney companies, including the Ensemble… where the artistic director has been female for decades.

   So if you believe that there should be some sort of … oh, let’s throw some bait in the water and call it “affirmative action” … that favours women over men by trying to ensure that they are represented to some sort of acceptable proportion, then why not call Louise Herron, Mary Vallentine, Ann Sherry, Gail Hambly and Brenna Hobson at Company B and ask them to do something about it? Why not call Hilary Bell, Tina Bursill, Kate O’Brien and Sophie McCarthy, the 4 women out of 6 board members at Griffin (where only 3 out of 10 writers/directors in the 2009 season were female). Why not call Sandra Bates at the Ensemble? (Only 1 out of 10 writers in the 2010 season is female, though 6 of the directors are, but this is counting Bates herself 4 times.) Or Cate Blanchett, Genevieve Lemon, Sandra Levy, Catherine Martin and Sam Mostyn, the 5 of 12 female board members at STC (where only 7 out of 24 mainstage writer/directors were female in 2009 according to Brookman’s numbers). Or Ilana Atlas, Jane Caro, Kathryn Greiner and Margy Osmond at Bell – the 4 of 11 women on the BSC board. (6 of 8 Bell’s mainstage writer/director slots were male in 2009 … though obviously that’s with an asterix… but see also below.) Or Antoinette Albert, Nicole Abadee, Jill Berry, Alexandra Holcomb, Anne Knoblanche and Cathy Robinson at ATYP, the 6 female of 8 board members. (Not sure of ATYP’s creative stats.)

   Females make up almost exactly half of all people in Australia and, as the above numbers seem to indicate, they reach key positions of influence and control in theatre companies at a rate that reasonably reflects this demographic. So if there is a deficit of female key creative representation in these organisations, why haven’t the women at board level done something about it?

   In terms of taking proactive steps – yes (as suggested by Gus Supple in the other post), create companies and put on festivals that are limited to – or “heavy with” women. I personally have no problems with that, even if it means rejecting stronger work by males. (I personally wouldn’t do it, but I don’t have a problem if others do it in order to take a principled stand on something they feel strongly about.) But then should you mind if men create companies and put on festivals that exclude – or curtail opportunities for – women?

   To go off on a slightly different tack. Is it a sign of discrimination to form a company where the main stage repertoire is drawn almost entirely from the works of a single dead white male… supplemented only occasionally by the works of other dead white males? Or does it just reflect the (likely) reality that – during the time periods that the company draws its work from – the best work just happened to be written by people who were white and male, and now dead?

   To push things a bit further, is it somehow more acceptable to create an artistic venture that is limited only to – say – Vietnamese-Australians, or Mormons or the transgendered? I understand the argument that these are “minorities” and that therefore affirmative action (ie exclusion or inclusion based on race or religion or orientation et al) is more justifiable. I do. But in this, the 21st century, more and more I’m coming to the view that the principle has to cut all ways so that it can ultimately be retired. If it’s okay – in 2009 – to discriminate in favour of the black, Jewish, disabled lesbian … is it really that much of a sin – in 2009 – to discriminate in favour of the white, Christian, able-bodied straight male? Does historical injustice justify asymmetric application of principles?

   Actually, yes, in my view … but less and less as time goes by. I’m not so naive as to believe that there is no longer any social inequity… but having been born in the 20th century, I can’t help but be optimistic enough to think that the rose-coloured future is now, or at least around the next bend. And that people who continue to define themselves along traditional axes of gender, race, religion, orientation and all the rest are somehow… old-fashioned. It’s 2009. Be, and be judged on, who YOU uniquely and individually are. Not by what subgroup you happen to belong to.

   Anyway, this is a fascinating topic and I almost certainly haven’t expressed myself as clearly as I would like to… but hey, it’s a blog comment, not an academic paper.

5. Jo
   September 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am

   Thank you all for your responses – I think this is proof that this is worth talking about!

   Let me just reiterate that as I mentioned in my post, I don’t for one moment think that Company B deliberately programmed a majority of male creative teams. Let me also reiterate that I do believe that their 2010 season is great, and I will be there for every show.

   Yes, people can roll their eyes and say that this issue is no longer applicable to our industry or times. But I do still firmly believe that something like this shouldn’t be ignored. I have had that many people talk to me about this issue, seeing the lineup on Monday night finally prompted me to write about it and at least raise it for discussion.

   For those that are raising stats of admin roles held by females in theatre companies, I think this is irrelevant. Creative positions and decisions are a different kettle of fish.

   I agree 100% that theatre should be programmed based on quality. I want to see good theatre like the rest of us. It most certainly would be a cop out to program a gender-equal season out of obligation. But does everyone really believe that there were no other female directors or writers out there who were up to the challenge in Company B’s perspective?

   Maybe there was a shortage of writing from females this year to select from. But I know more than enough directors out there who don’t have work for next year, and should.

   The lovely Augusta Supple has continued the conversation here: http://augustasupple.com/

   And no, I don’t live in a dream world where I think that programming should reflect the current Australian statistics of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, etc. But please, it’s not much to ask – we can do better.

6. Sancz
   September 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am

   given Neil’s unimaginative direction & programming of ‘Gethsemane’ (i know, there’s nothing happening in this scene, so lets have the actors walk around an empty room a bit more…like change it up, yeh?)

   one might argue that prior artistic merit has nothing to do with it either?

7. Mex
   September 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am

   I believe that it was said, that the work should speak for it self, despite the gender of the creatives attached.

   My questions is do people look purely at the work?

   The fact that Jo has to make the point about very few female playwrights kinda answers the question…no?

   Wasn’t it once the case that we thought women could not direct, write or act? Shakespeare in his time… no female actors, correct?

   Perhaps gender of the creative does subconsciously come into play when viewing a performance. That is my opinion… lets look at the facts.. in my job I always get asked questions by actors, are they male or female writer/director. Pretty strong fact.

   I would like to think that gender doesn’t come in to play and that we live in this ideal world. To seriously generalise here, older generations can be set in there ways… maybe things will change when our generation are running things??

8. Sancz
   September 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am

   also, it may be worth mentioning, while we are on the subject of statistics, my experience of the industry is that there are easily twice as many female theatre artists in Sydney than there are men, and of the men, probably over half of them are gay. (i know, it’s not cool to mention the gay theatre mafia in surry hills, but there you have it____ )

   not that it matters to me what you do in your own time, but do we factor in all that when we look at issues of equity? when it is clear that the demographics of the theatre world are not the same as the ‘rest of world’ stats.

9. Anne Mackerall
   September 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 am

   These posts get my back up. Jo has clearly identified a problem that has been brewing in our industry here in Sydney for a long time, particularly in the red festooned foyer at Belvoir.

   I would like to name a couple of female directors who are around at the moment, slogging their guts out. Instead of “hazarding a guess”, I’ll give you some firm examples.

   Let’s start at the top rung:
   Marion Potts ( Venus & Adonis was brave, refreshing and incomparable to the usual trite/polite John Bell shows), Lee Lewis (please compare Stoning Mary to The Distance from Here, for a small example), at the very very top we have Gale Edwards, who in a 30 year career has blitzed box offices, won awards, created the Boy from Oz (for which she has been stripped of a credit by the Broadway producers), built up the Andrew Lloyd Webber phenomenon, the Oregon Shakespeare festival hosts her production of Macbeth year round in repertory. Basically she is hailed around the world as a genius – and does not have ONE job in Australia next year.
   Not one.
   Not even a NIDA student production.

   Let’s move to the second tier of female directors, we could call them emerging, but if they were John Sheedy, they would have as many bookings as he for this year:

   Tanya Goldberg (one bad show out of at least 10 amazing shows and we write her off?), Kellie Mackereth, Sally Blackwood, Laura Scrivano, Crystabel Sved (we all loved her Dealing with Claire didn’t we?), Shannon Murphy is doing well, but is wise and cunning enough to know she has to mix in certain circles to be considered. Sarah Giles is known to pitch her ass off for every season, and after three consistently high quality sydney shows in the last 12 months, is yet to progress to even a B-sharp. Kate Revz is another director who consistently delivers and where is her sponsored production?

   To add insult to injury, members of the “skinny jeans mafia” repeatedly get up at season launches and proclaim they have “no idea what they’re doing with the show yet…”

   It is not about injecting a quota to ensure gender equality – “2 kids direct shows…” (way to be reductive Jean Prouvaire) and the issue is NOT about how many women sit in the office doing the leg work for the mainstage to be possible! It’s about women in the KEY CREATIVE ROLES.

   It is horribly insulting to suggest it’s purely on merit or that the best creatives just “happen to be men” when Gale Edwards, Tanya Goldberg, Sarah Giles, Christobel Sved, Sally Mackereth, Kate Gaul, Kate Revz or Shannon Murphy (to rattle off a few) aren’t directing at Belvoir.

   I haven’t even started on the writers as my father is a director I know more about this subject. But I think Jo is right – can’t we do better?

   Anne.

10. Revz
    September 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am

    I think Jo has merely put in print, something we have all being thinking / discussing for quite some time now.

    And the idea that our best creatives are “more likely to be men than women” – I do find hard to swallow.

    I would like to state that this is not a gender equality issue: its a blindingly obvious disregard of some of our city’s most established and promising new talent. We cannot let it go by without comment.

    Good on ya Jo.

11. Jean Prouvaire
    September 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Just to note that I wrote my post before Gareth Butler’s was approved and visible, otherwise I wouldn’t have made a big jokey deal about disagreeing with you.

    Anyway…

    If, on the one hand you believe:

    “I don’t for one moment think that Company B deliberately programmed a majority of male creative teams.”

    and on the other hand:

    “I agree 100% that theatre should be programmed based on quality. [..]It most certainly would be a cop out to program a gender-equal season out of obligation.”

    Then aren’t you implicitly saying that the cause of the imbalance result from the insufficient quality of female writers and directors?

    > “For those that are raising stats of admin roles held by females in theatre companies, I think this is irrelevant. Creative positions and decisions are a different kettle of fish.”

    I’m not sure why it’s okay to talk about the gender inequity in one set of roles in an industry but not in another. If it’s a sign of bias (conscious or otherwise) that more men are given creative opportunities at a company, isn’t it also a sign of bias that more women are given management roles? Or is it merely a reflection of the makeup of the talent pool?

    The uni course where I’m studying has (at a very rough guess) about 70% females and 30% males, both at student and faculty level. In some classes the imbalance is more like 90/10. Does that mean there is a policy of discrimination against men going on there? Or is it just a reflection of the talent pool?

    > “But does everyone really believe that there were no other female directors or writers out there who were up to the challenge in Company B’s perspective?”

    So what IS responsible for the imbalance, in your view?

    Gus in the post on her site talks about how every artistic director is shaped by the attributes that define her or him. If – among other things – you’re a female who sees that femaleness as being an essential part of you, if it’s a subject matter that resonates strongly within you, then isn’t it understandable if you choose works – and by implication also people – that reflect those themes? Like hires like, right?

    So, if you accept that premise, then I again raise the issue of board representation. Formally speaking at least, the AD reports to the board and certainly it’s the board’s – and primarily the chair’s – role in a long-running organisation to choose an AD. If you think that Company B’s artistic profile is weighted against women (and believe that having a female AD will help address, if not solve, that problem), then NOW is the time to do something about it. Louise Herron and the other four women and four men are in the process of choosing Neil Armfield’s successor even as we type. Organise with people who feel the same way and talk to the them about this issue. You probably won’t have another shot for three to seven years.

    (As you know from when we talked about this a few weeks ago, of the handful of people I could think of that would likely do a credible job as Company B AD and/or be in the running, two happen to be female. And two happened to be indigenous. But that’s not so important to me. What is important is the number of musicals the new AD is going to programme!)

12. Trev Whitcombe
    September 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am

    I’m pretty loyal and have been for a while at Belvoir, and I feel very grateful to Neil. And I was pleased to be invited to the launch.

    The mistake they made was having the artists go up and sit in a row behind Neil. It just emphasised that the inner club had given themselves jobs and that the company clearly doesn’t care that it’s perceived as a boy’s brigade. My partner was dismissive, no, sneering about it.
    But it has been happening for years…it’s just this time we had a stark visual image of one woman sitting next to a line-up of mostly boys who had almost nothing to say and weren’t able to articulate anything that made me want to see their shows.
    A woman I spoke to afterwards said she thought it was ‘smug’.

13. Sancz
    September 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Jean – you hypothetical: “I don’t for one moment think that Company B deliberately programmed a majority of male creative teams.”

    While I was not involved in the process – i am certain that the progamming did not occur by accident!! it follows that Belvoir did “deliberately program a majority of male creative teams.”

    i doubt the motives were malicious, but they certainly were conscious of their choices.

14. Jo
    September 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am

    Sancz, sorry that was my badly worded statement. I meant that Neil and his team didn’t sit down and think “Ok, majority men this year!”

    Trevor, I agree. The visual image of the lineup was the trigger for me.

    Jean, I didn’t say talking about admin roles was ‘off limits’, simply that they belong to a separate conversation to the one we are having.

15. Sancz
    September 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Jo – of course :) … i’m being slightly obtuse, but i think my point still holds. it’s not as though they got to the end of the program and said:

    “oh wow I did not even notice here’s only one female on the list this year, that’s how focussed i was on choosing artists by their merit”

16. Jean Prouvaire
    September 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am

    > “way to be reductive Jean Prouvaire”

    Well, yeah. That was my point. But why is it NOT reductive when we’re talking about fairly reflecting the number of females?

    > Marion Potts [...] at the very very top we have Gale Edwards

    Jo can confirm that in a conversation we had about Company B’s succession planning some weeks ago, two of the five names I mentioned as IMO either likely being in the running or IMO capable of doing a good job were in fact Marion Potts and Gale Edwards. For the record the other three were Wesley Enoch, Wayne Blair and David Berthold, plus whoever was running Company B’s equivalent companies interstate, ie La Boite, Black Swan, Malthouse etc. As Jo informed me, David Berthold in fact is currently at La Boite. I’d LOVE to see Gale Edwards in the chair – as you’ve pointed out she’s a big force in musical theatre and that’s very important to me – but I doubt very much she’ll settle for the $50-odd K that the position pays.

    > “Jean – you hypothetical: “I don’t for one moment think that Company B deliberately programmed a majority of male creative teams.””

    Just for the record, I was quoting Jo. I personally don’t know and don’t particularly care how the selection process worked. I do care how good the results will be. And how many musicals make it into the season. ;)

17. Ruth
    September 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    For anyone interested in what’s being discussed, this article is definitely worth a read:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/theater/24play.html?_r=2

18. Jean Prouvaire
    September 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    On a related note, the artistic director of Malthouse in Melbourne, Michael Kantor, has announced he will be stepping down at the end of 2010:

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/malthouse-prepares-for-new-era/2009/09/22/1253384992323.html

    My first thought of course was that he’s gotten the Company B job, but in the Age article above he explicitly denies that he’s interested.

    But it does open up another important artistic position for a female (or whatever demographic subdivision one may feel can be better represented).

    I suggest again: If this is something that you feel strongly about, then take it to the people who are in a position to effect change. Blogging about it is one step, true, but ultimately I think it will be seen as just taking potshots from the bushes. The people who can most directly do something are the people who have the authority or influence to appoint the people. In the case of key creatives, the AD and the artistic advisory counsels, in the case of ADs, the board.

19. Jean Prouvaire
    September 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    That NY Times article is interesting, though of course there’s the issue as to what extent the US industry structure reflects the situation here. For instance, almost no straight plays have open-ended runs in Australia.

    But this surprising extract is worth pulling out:

    Ms. Sands found, over all, the work of men and women is produced at the same rate. [ie, in proportion to the amount that are written and submitted.] The artistic directors have a point: they do get many more scripts from men.

    For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.

    Amid the gasps from the audience, an incredulous voice called out, “Say that again?”

    Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”

    I haven’t read the thesis itself – it’s 178 pages!! – but have cast a quick glance over the Powerpoint summary (also 47 pages!). As slide 35 says: “Women say a script fits less well with their theater’s mission statement when
    purportedly written by a woman than when the exact same script is purportedly written by a man.”

    So, could it be that it’s women holding women back? For instance, it was pointed out that B-Sharp’s season was also light on females, and B-Sharp’s I believe has been curated by females since its inception. As I noted earlier, Sandra Bates has programmed a 2010 season dominated by male writers.

    Out of interest’s sake I ran the numbers for Griffin Theatre Company’s main stage from 1993 to 2003 which I think is the period that Ros Horin was responsible for programming. The results are:

    1993 – 3 women out of 4 writers/directors
    1994 – 16 of 20
    1995 – 3 of 7
    1996 – 2 of 8
    1997 – 6 of 8
    1998 – 6 of 8
    1999 – 3 of 8
    2000 – 4 of 10
    2001 – 6 of 12
    2002 – 6 of 8
    2003 – 5 of 6

    total: 60 of 99 writer/directors were female.

    Overall Griffin under Horin certainly more than reflected the female/male demographic mix but even then there were years when she might have been accused of doing the opposite (eg 1996 or 1999).

    Has anyone run the numbers over the length of Sandra Bates’ tenure at Ensemble? Or Robyn Nevin’s at STC?

20. Jean Prouvaire
    September 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Nicholas Pickard is blogging this issue:

    http://artsjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/09/where-are-women.html

21. Revz
    September 24th, 2009 at 11:56 am

    Jean, I would have to respectfully say that you’re missing the point. And question why you are so vehemently opposed to the idea that there could be something a-miss at Belvoir?

22. Jean Prouvaire
    September 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    The point, if I understand it correctly, is that Company B is not including sufficient female writers and directors in its programming. But correct me if I’m wrong.

    To characterise my stance as being “vehemently opposed to the idea that there could be something a-miss at Belvoir” is incorrect. May I ask you to quote the paragraphs that have led you to this conclusion, highlighting the relevant parts, so that I might use this as an opportunity to improve my writing? As I mentioned in my first post, these things are written very much in an off-the-cuff manner and without much rigour and revision so there’s certainly room for misinterpretation.

    My stance is more like: I’m not so much concerned about the demographic make-up of the people involved in a season, but rather with how much I like the final results. But I am enjoying participating in the discussion for its own sake.

    A couple of my other points are:

    * If you think there are insufficient women represented creatively, then a good place to start doing something about it might be to have a talk to those people who can make a difference. The Company B board has more women than men on it and is led by a woman. They will be picking a new AD soon.

    * The issue of whether or not enough women, or men, or homosexuals, or heterosexuals, or Aborigines/TSIs, or Caucasians, or Christians, or Muslims, or any other demographic segment, is fairly represented is only important if you define your identity in these terms. I personally don’t. They are attributes that are attached to me, but not definitions of who I am. Who I am is – among other things – a fan of musical theatre. So I’m glad that I’ll have a chance to see The Sapphires, a show I missed last time around.

23. Revz
    September 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Ah, the old, “If you’re not happy about it, do something about it” argument. Must remember to keep making theatre and pitching to Belvoir…

    I 100% agree with you on the quality argument – and herein, I believe lies the problem.

24. Jean Prouvaire
    September 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    It’s honestly hard to tell online sometimes, but I think there was some sarcasm in that response. But I’ll reply by reading it “straight”.

    > Ah, the old, “If you’re not happy about it, do something about it” argument.

    Is there any other? Commiserating with one another about the woeful state of affairs might make one feel better for a while, but it doesn’t – by itself – lead to change.

    While we are all affected by the actions, inactions or reactions of others, we are ultimately only directly responsible for our own.

    There are issues I feel passionate about and at times I have gotten involved in advancing those causes. Sometimes things have gone well, often they haven’t. When I HAVEN’T gotten involved and have NOT tried to improve the things I wanted to see improved I know the person most responsible for this failure of action (as opposed to the failure of outcome) is me.

    > Must remember to keep making theatre and pitching to Belvoir…

    And not just to Belvoir, but to the dozens of other companies around the country. Not to mention establishing and running your own company the way you want to run it with the people you want to collaborate with producing the theatre you want to see. The way Nimrod-cum-Belvoir itself got started.

    If, for some reason, you have your heart and soul set on being part of the Company B season specifically then I understand that it might be frustrating not be included. But there are other opportunities out there, as high profile, or in some instances even higher, as Company B. And, if there’s one thing I’ve noticed, the vast majority of successful practictioners create their own opportunities.

    But I’m guessing you’re doing that – and that’s fantastic.

    And anyway, a change in AD is coming soon at Company B (and Malthouse) and I suggest again: now would be the best time to make a case to Louise Herron and the rest of the board that an artistic leadership that facilitates a greater percentage of female (or whatever subgroup you want to see more of) creatives would be a good thing.

    Blogging about it is one method of doing something about it. But I believe it’s only one and not that effective, not compared to taking the argument directly – preferably face to face – to the people who can make a difference. But of course I could be wrong as I freely admit.

    > I 100% agree with you on the quality argument – and herein, I believe lies the problem.

    I’m not sure I follow. My argument is that the quality of the work (granting that “quality” is subjective) is what matters, and the demographics of the people creating it does not. This doesn’t mean I object to a selection process that favours one demographic over the other, but neither does it mean I advocate it. Ultimately, I don’t care about it. If, for instance, I were to see a show that was created by an all-female company that specifically excluded males from any and all roles, and I like the results, then I like the results. I see nothing wrong with that.

    Your argument, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that the demographic dimension, specifically one dimension, whether or not a creator is female or not, does matter.

25. Sarah Vickery
    September 24th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    WOW… I jumped on this band wagon a little late. After reading all your comments has anything been left unsaid? Allot of intellectual conversation, clearly quite a sensitive subject matter. But let’s be honest this has been an issue for centuries, womans rights/equality… will it ever catch up to where it needs to be? Maybe, maybe not. I’m in a particularly blunt mood tonight and as I am directing at the moment, I must direct ( no pun intended) all my passion into that… I say let’s just get on with it, maybe less talking and more action. Focus on our work at hand and follow through to where we want to see our creative careers now and in the future. I personally intend to direct theatre small and big, alongside worthy fellow creatives whatever gender they are, I expect equal treatment for my written work and for my directing as a human being on this planet and i will bloody well fight for the life of my work the fact that their is a woman (me) attached to it is completely irrelevant, if you fight for your work right that’s all the other side should be seeing. Unfortunately this industry has been primarily dominated by men, I think this is more human habit and the industrial machine chugging over more than purposeful male selection for work and direction. I think us as woman writers and directors need to fight for the rights of our work and the talents we know we possess and make that the point of argument and not our gender. If any company is small minded enough, old fashioned and irrelevant enough to base their seasons purely on male based works with conscious purpose of gender, to me are IRRELEVANT to this industry period, and will eventually be left behind. Merit, credits and acknowledgments should purely be based on the quality of the work. How will we ever know that this is purely how companies select, we will never know and it’s probably not. Personality, presentation of character at times have just as much appeal as work itself (not that I am saying this is how it should be) but that’s human nature no matter the how high up the selector/s are in the industry.

    Here’s a thought, perhaps on submissions across the board ( as I know some companies do this already) writers should have NOTHING but the title of their work on them. So that scripts, from being read though, discussed about and decided upon are done so under unknown gender to those deciding. On this strict diet of consideration, work would purely be based on the quality of the work so no bias can be given to work based on gender.

    Sarah

26. Revz
    September 24th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    To spell it out: There are just as many female directors and writers out there, working at the same quality as male directors and writers. There are.

    Yet a disproportionate amount of men are given work than women.

    The solution is not to divide equally for the sake of it. But does it add up, that if there are equal amounts on each side, that the programming is so startlingly lop-sided?

    No it does not.

    In the last 6 months I have pitched to Griffin, Belvoir, STC, Malthouse and Darlinghurst, as well as launching my own theatre company for which I have cast 12 actors and employed three designers and have been working for the STC. I’m out there, “solving the problem” – but if I uttered one word about the “issue”, I could kiss goodbye to work. Because a woman with an axe to grind, is even worse than just a woman.

    And I care too much about the work to make myself about anything else.

    Perhaps I’m reading it wrong, but your denial of a problem, or the hyper-literal extraction of the issue to be about proportionate-demographic-equality is, oh god…oh no, making me emotional.

    And we don’t like that in our theatre.

27. Jean Prouvaire
    September 25th, 2009 at 12:35 am

    > There are just as many female directors and writers out there, working at the same quality as male directors and writers. There are.

    Do you have sources to support that claim? For instance the US Sands study quoted in the New York Times article found that there were twice as many works submitted to theatres written by male writers. But that’s in the US.

    In one of the other blogs someone contacted PWA and found that the male/female ratio for Playwriting Australia’s National Script workshop (I think it was) was just about 50/50. But that – presumably – was for writers not yet near or at the top level of accomplishment, which – presumably – is where Company B is positioned. I’m happy to be corrected of course.

    So I’d truly like to know if your assertion that there are just as many male as female writers and directors, and at the same quality, has a basis in something other than anecdote and personal opinion. I myself don’t know what the answers are, but I did suggest that a possible reason for the imbalance in who gets selected was an imbalance in the talent pool. Because that, to me, is an inherently more plausible explanation than discrimination. As I asked before: is it a sign of discrimination that the Uni course I’m studying is dominated by females? I certainly don’t think so. I think it’s just reflective of the make up of the talent pool.

    > In the last 6 months I have pitched to Griffin, Belvoir, STC, Malthouse and Darlinghurst, as well as launching my own theatre company…

    See, that’s great. Seriously (without any sarcasm or condescension): Congratulations. You’re operating at a level and with a degree of initiative and drive that I can only (currently) dream of. Keep going like that and you’ll probably make it. I say “probably” only because no one can predict the future.

    > – but if I uttered one word about the “issue”, I could kiss goodbye to work

    I would like to think you’re wrong, but can’t support that opinion other than with the statement that I’ve never heard anyone (in my limited exposure to the industry) say or do anything that would make me think they’re against outspoken females (or males for that matter). But that doesn’t really count for anything given my limited and biased sample set.

    If it’s true however, then that sucks. Any workplace/industry/society should encourage discussion on any issue important to the people who comprise it.

    > Perhaps I’m reading it wrong, but your denial of a problem,

    I’m not denying the problem per se. It’s just not the issue for me that it is to you for the reasons I explained earlier. But so what? I might care deeply about the plight of the Peruvian mountain goat, but if you don’t, does that affect my ability to speak out and/or do something about the issue? Should I expect you to feel strongly about the Peruvian mountain goat just because I do?

    > or the hyper-literal extraction of the issue to be about proportionate-demographic-equality

    I was being deliberately reductive, as mentioned in an earlier post. I don’t believe in quotas, and counting numbers of X and Ys (no chromosomal pun intended) is – arguably – implicitly a way of instigating “soft” quotas.

    But I do think it’s valid to ask why the question isn’t being broadened to include other demographic dimensions. Why aren’t you up in arms about, say, the lack of … oh, I don’t know … purple-haired midget Christian guitarist writers/directors from the outer west in the season? Because it’s likely that (a) none of these attributes apply to you and/or (b) even if they do, they’re not very important to the definition of your own identity. But there might be a fervently purple-haired midget guitarist in Fairfield right now throwing darts at a picture of Neil Armfield and praying for forgiveness.

    > is, oh god…oh no, making me emotional. And we don’t like that in our theatre.

    Personally, I think theatre – and all art – must first and foremost evoke emotion. Intellectual wankery and didacticism is all well and good to impress the critics (and, yeah, to give a work a bit of depth and all that… *grumble grumble*), but PASSION is where it’s at. You’re obviously passionate about this issue and your work. (Again, please don’t take this as me being condescending or sarcastic:) Good for you. I admire that.

28. Hannah
    September 25th, 2009 at 8:47 am

    Not weighing in on this debate because I’m not far enough into the industry to understand the ins and outs. However I’d like to respond to this Jean:

    “As I asked before: is it a sign of discrimination that the Uni course I’m studying is dominated by females? I certainly don’t think so. I think it’s just reflective of the make up of the talent pool.”

    I’d argue that it’s not so much the talent pool, but more the people who picked that course (the people more predisposed to study that sort of subject). I’m not sure what you’re studying, but that’s the reason engineering courses, for example, are overwhelmingly populated by males – because it’s a traditionally male field that is only just changing. If you’re studying the humanities, that field has been “traditionally” female for close to a century, which would be why it’s dominated by females.

    Also, uni courses are slightly different to a play season – for the vast majority of the former you need a mark to get in (there is no judgment of character/age/experience/etc, unless you are a mature age student – a minority), whereas the later is all about talent/notoriety/age/sex/character/etc because they don’t give you the gig based on a number you earned, but rather on who you are. Perhaps there should be a system in the theatre industry where you earn points and those with the most points (regardless of sex) get the gigs? ;)

29. Jean Prouvaire
    September 25th, 2009 at 10:08 am

    > I’d argue that it’s not so much the talent pool, but more the people who picked that course

    That’s generally what I was referring to, though my use of the term “talent pool” was ambiguous and may have implied something else. Bad wording on my part. Not that “talent” isn’t a factor, but if you have 700 women and 300 men applying for a course that will take 50, then it’s statistically likely that there’ll be around 35 women and 15 men good enough to get in.

    The comment about “traditionally male” and “traditionally female” fields is relevant I think. Is theatre writing and directing, even today, still a (somewhat) “traditionally male” enterprise, as it was in ye olden days? In the US for instance, even today, twice as many scripts are written (or submitted rather) by men compared to women. But that might not be true in Australia. (The PWA stats for instance seem to imply otherwise, at least at a certain developmental level.) The issue is whether there are as many high quality women as men writers/directors in the theatre today. If the answer is yes, then the under representation at the top tier may indicate a bias. If the answer is no, then the imbalance might just be the law of numbers at play, with the occasional outlier.

    I’m doing a Writing MA and entry was based on a combination of portfolio, CV, personal “why I want to do this course” essay and academic transcript (which in my case might not have counted for much because I don’t have an Arts undergrad). I’m also doing a non-accredited writing course at NIDA where entry was based on CV, brief personal statement, exercise and interview. I think the fact that selection for these courses were based on a combination of all these factors indicates that it’s a much more subjective and qualitative determination than just, say, a TER mark. So it’s not unlike (but yes, not identical either to) getting into a theatre season. Granted, it’s easier to just go by a number and ranking when talking about a Maths or Accounting course, fields which are inherently numerative and where demonstrably “correct” answers exist.

30. Jean Prouvaire
    September 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am

    > In the US for instance, even today, twice as many scripts are written (or submitted rather) by men compared to women

    Just checked the report summary and the numbers are even worse. According to Sands’ study of 20,000 playwrights and 80,000 scripts (which is drawn from a database of English texts written since 1956) only 32% of playwrights are women. So there are twice as many male writers. But only 26% of scripts are written by women. So males in this particular data set write three times as many scripts as females. These proportions are carried over to production.

    That’s in the US. I’m not aware of a similarly rigorous study conducted in Australia.

31. Sarah Vickery
    September 25th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Spot on Revz!

32. Jean Prouvaire
    September 30th, 2009 at 5:24 am

    Neil Armfield responds:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/armfield-denies-boys-club-accusation/2009/09/29/1253989912789.html?page=-1

33. Jean Prouvaire
    September 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Similar criticisms have been directed at the MTC…

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/womens-theatre-group-slams-mtc-as-a-boys-club/2009/09/29/1253989911973.html

    … by the Australian Women Directors Alliance, whose blog is here:

    http://australianwomendirectorsalliance.blogspot.com

34. Jean Prouvaire
    September 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    More web coverage:

    http://kjtheatrereviews.blogspot.com/2009/09/women-in-theatre.html

    http://collisionprojects.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/female-writers-directors/

    http://www.aussietheatre.com.au/index.php

35. Alex Dick
    October 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    There is another pressing gender issue in Sydney’s theatre community. I work in stage management, and it seems that more stage management jobs go to women than they do to men. Every time there is a stage management team, at least two thirds of it seems to be women, if not all of it. As a male in stage management, I feel like the inequity is starting to make my blood boil. When will people realize that men make just as good a stage manager as women.

    Also, as a straight male stage manager, I feel like I am in the minority and treated unfairly. Why is it, in all of Sydney, I can only name two, maybe three white, straight, male stage managers. Surely you can see the discrimination.

    I also come from an ethnic background (my dad was English, so I’m only half Australian). There seem to be very few ethnic, white, straight, male stage managers. No wonder I can’t get a job higher than Assistant Stage Manager. It’s a real girl’s club. Perhaps I’ll go become a flyman (or should that be flyperson).

36. Alex
    October 8th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    PS at the opera, where I work, I have done shows this year, directed by Elke Neidhardt, Francesca Zambello, Orpha Phelan Gale Edwards, all female and all excellent Directors. The other 2 shows I have done were directed by men, equally as good. At no point did their gender come up in rehearsals though. For any of them.