Death of a Salesman

Went to the Belvoir production of “Death of a Salesman” the other night. Despite two sold out seasons, the play had triggered a controversy over the removal of the final scene of the play and the changing of an essential plot line. As an actor and a dramaturg, I did not want to jump to the conclusion too quickly before I have a chance to see the production, especially when we are talking about one of the most important plays by Arthur Miller in the modern world.  

In Belvoir’s production of “Death of a Salesman” a car replaced the house on the stage. All the actions took place in a garage like convertible empty space. Yes there is nothing but a car on the stage. This is fair enough as the car was pivotal to the plot because Willy was trying to stop travelling across states for his job. Also empty multi-purpose space provides a lot more flexibility in terms of how the stage can be used without limiting the imagination of the audience.

The play then pretty much followed the plot line of the script. Things were being tweaked here and there to suit the setting of the stage and most of them were tackled smartly. Then came the last scene of the play (spoiler alert if you haven’t read or seen the play) when Willy gassed himself to death in the car. In the production that I saw Belvoir already reinstated the final funeral scene as per instruction from the agency handling the rights of the play. The curtain came down and some of the audiences were applauding, which was a bit awkward, before the rest of the cast showed up in black and delivered the last scene. There was not much staging, just actors standing there delivering the lines and walked off one by one.

Watching this unfolding on the stage I understood why Belvoir decided to cut the final scene. The way they handled the death of Willy made the final scene completely contradictory to the previous scene. In the original text, it was implied that Willy killed himself but there was no proof thus the insurance company paid out the compensation to the family. However, with Belvoir’s way of handling Willy’s death, there is no way that a pay out would be provided because it was an obvious suicide. Under such circumstance, I can understand why Belvoir decided to take out the last scene, because everything would not make sense.

However, this leads to the question of how much liberty do we have when reinterpreting classic materials. Easily said, “Death of the Salesman” is one of the most influential plays of the modern times and each scene was closely linked to each other. In Belvoir’s case, the decision to completely remove the final scene to accommodate the treatment of Willy’s death raised an important question – is this a pure artistic vision or are they tampering with the canon of the material? For me there is a main difference between the two and the most important consideration is whether the “vision” compromises the material.   In Belvoir’s case, as good as the vision was, it compromised the material. If it is not “Death of a Salesman” maybe they can still get away with it. But then when it comes to a prominent play as such, I am not surprised the agency poses threats to Belvoir on their rights to use their materials in the future, because they are responsible for keeping the integrity of the material no matter what. There are still people who haven’t read or seen the play (one of my friends who went with me was one of them), so it is the duty of the agency to make sure that everyone who went to see the production see it as it was originally written and intended, disregarding whatever artistic visions were applied.

This might just be a storm in a teacup but this does serves as a reminder to a lot of people that when being creative, they still need to consider the material in full. Having said that I still enjoyed my night out with “Death of a Salesman”

"No I Don't Act" - NIDA Neither ACT 2

Went to the Currency House launch of the Platform Paper “Changing Times at NIDA” tonight. It was great to see all the familiar faces in one room again. There were lots of greetings and lots of catching up around the room. It was a night of mixed emotions as people remembered the good old days working together and the current state of their once dedicated drama school. However what is more important is that it was a night of Who’s Who in acting training in Australia.

At the opening of the event, Katherine Brisbane mentioned that someone informed her that there was a direction from NIDA’s current management saying whoever attended tonight’s function will never be employed by NIDA again. Well so much for freedom of actions from a school that was supposed to produce independent thinking artists. Also for me that means I can tick NIDA off as one of my potential employers. The event was a risky one as NIDA previously had sent its lawyer to intimidate the publication of the paper. Lucky enough, Currency House could afford its own lawyers to make sure that foul plays cannot play foul in this whole episode.

Jeremy Sims, a notable NIDA graduate made a speech about how NIDA was in the past and his experience and years at NIDA himself. He mentioned about NIDA means “No I Don’t Act” as contrast to what seems to be something very different now in modern NIDA. He mentioned that only 4 of his acting course classmates continued to work as actors but they all contribute to the art industry in various ways and that’s the value they got out of NIDA. He joked about he used to be told that NIDA was much simpler when it was in the old school but then it seemed that now he is in a position to tell others that his NIDA was a lot simpler back then. It was a brilliant speech, but of course now he would probably go on to the black list managed by the current management.

The focus of the night was of course Chris Puplick himself. Being on the Board of NIDA from 1994-1997 and 2007-2010, and himself had an outstanding career in arts including being the inaugural chair of the National Film Sound and Archive, Chris has a passion for the Australian art industry. I still remembered that whenever I went to a NIDA production, there was a high chance that I would see him talking to students and tried to understand them. So it is a pity that now I heard the current NIDA management had banned him completely to attend events at the school. In his speech he raised a few questions, all could be read from his paper, and in between stops there were responses from the audience hailing the points he made. As an audience member, I was impressed by the depths of knowledge he has with the school and could understand where he came from. In fact the fact that NIDA refused to write a responding paper and accused Katherine Brisbane, who spent her lifetime helped sculpting the Australian performing arts landscape, as a person who is bias and had no good intentions, highlighted how insecure the current NIDA management felt about this paper.

There was Q&A after Chris’ speech. At first it was a moment of silence in the room, resembling a brief moment of mourning over the dead. Then the first hand was raised, and the discussion snowballed. Among them were graduates and ex-staff members – all risking their future with the dramatic drama school. Discussions ranged from a comparison between a similar paper with VCA but the difference in reaction; and what is the role of NIDA as a federally funded drama school – is it training future theatrical practitioners that help shaping the Australian culture or it is about producing disposable pretty face bodies for television? The discussion was passionate and sometimes emotional as there were tears in some people's eyes as the night went on. Then some ex-Board members came forward and pointed out the confrontational nature of the paper and the negativism in the room. One other ex-Board member also pointed out that NIDA needed to change to survive. Their statements were replied with “it’s not about the change but how the change was brought forward – and in this case through dumping of current staff and bullying some out of their jobs” (52 out of 76 existing staff members left since the current NIDA management took over). There were some debates going on between the ex-Board member group and the graduate and ex-staff member group.

Finally I felt compelled to bring forward my view. As a person who observed the unfolding of the whole saga from its start but without being involved in it myself, I did think that I might be able to present a fairer view. I expressed that no matter what, I saw that a paper was compiled bringing a number of points to the table and asking for actions to rectify the situation. So I expected the NIDA current management to come out and rebuttal these points one by one if reason is on their side. However, as I observed and read, all I could hear so far were name-calling and personal attacks. I said the points brought forward might feel confrontational but then I believe that if reason is on the NIDA side, they could bring their own arguments forward to deconstruct these points. Further, I told these ex-Board members that there might be a sense of negativism in the house, but then if they were not staff members at the time when all these happened at ground zero, how could they claim they understood the situation? I told them that you have to be at the bush fire to feel the heat. Accusations of ex-staff members being bitter and negative could not stand if they did not know what they actually went through under the current management. There is no question that the room was divided but then for me it was the difference between “perceiving the situation” and “experiencing the situation”. On my way home I did wonder how many of these ex-Board members did actually actively engage in the business of the school if they were so blind about what was going on – especially when at one stage there were formal complaints about staff bullying at the school?

The launch event was bitter sweet – bitter because of how the current NIDA management adopted the white terror tactics to stop people from going to the event, sweet in the sense of being able to see all these great and talented teachers in one room again. All of them have moved on to better things but then the question still lingers on – has NIDA passed its prime? Would the current management eventually turned out to be the brain tumour of the organisation? That remained to be seen and uncovered. But one thing for sure is that there are a lot of people who are willing to see the downfall of NIDA so that they can take over the crown. The Australian art industry is small and getting more and more competitive everyday. Any misstep could cost dearly, but would the current NIDA management care about that? Or it is just another plaything in their box, or even worse just another item on their CV to brag about? Would NIDA go from “No I Don’t Act” to “No I Don’t Care”? That is remained to be seen too.

Totally 'Mental'

Went to the opening screening of “Mental” at Randwick Ritz tonight. The director P J Hogan was there to open the screening. On stage he said it as a very personal story and some of the events in the movie did happen in real life. As a carer himself who has two autistic kids and two siblings who are suffering from mental illness he said he felt compelled to tell the story. The story was based on a real character he knew and he credited that person who changed his life through a very different way. He also said that he wanted to make a comedy because he understands that people who are carers themselves know that it will be hard to get by every single day if they don’t let it out and have a laugh. He emphasised that the movie is politically incorrect because he, as a first person, believes that if we tip toe around what can and cannot be said, we are not facing the issues upfront, and people will not be able to understand what these people were going through.

After rounds of applause from an audience who are mostly carers (Randwick Council reserved quite a number of seats for carers to attend the event), the light dimmed and what is left was the images and sound of a personal story to be told. The movie opened up with an imitation of  ‘Sound of Music’ as the camera flew over mountaintops, valleys, and waters, before it arrives a fancy suburbia where an ordinary housewife burst into her common looking backyard singing to the tunes of “The hills are alive with the sound of music!” It was a hardly recognisable Rebecca Gibney who twirled and sang to her daily chores. Everyone in the neighbourhood reacted with weird but “got-used-to-it” look as her four younger daughters hurried back into the house asking their eldest to execute an intervention. What they were not expecting was that Coral, the eldest of them all were obsessed with whether she has mental illness herself. The tone of the movie was set right there and then without a single bit of sugar coating. This is what we are talking about – a family dealing with mental illness.

At the beginning and from the billing, you would expect that Toni Collette, who played the title character, would turn this into her one-woman show. This is so far from the truth. Don’t take me wrong; Toni Collette was brilliant in it. Her personification of the lead character was marvellous and right on the dot. Toni Collette’s stint in “The United States of Tara” had built her versatility to a point that she was just there being the character itself. Everything looked easy and natural. However, with an out standing performance from Rebecca Gibney and other supporting cast, “Mental” had really became a mental experience that you could not take your eyes off the screen. Rebecca Gibney had delivered a performance that surpassed any single episode she did in “Packed to the Rafters”. She is not about glamour or even ordinary in this movie – she was down right there in the gutter. The five girls who played her daughters were loud but funny at the same time. Each of them exhibited her own way of dealing with a mentally ill mum while at the same time trying to come to terms with her own life. Mental illness became something they lived with and talked about at home but shied away in the public The hardships and dilemmas were captured perfectly. Even all the other characters such as Anthony LaPaglia’s “Kennedy” dad and Caroline Goodall’s doll obsessed sister were very eye catching. And no matter what, do not miss the scene between Toni Collette, Rebecca Gibney and Deborah Mailman in the mental hospital.

“Mental” is not a kind of movie that the American audience would understand. It is very Australian and the broad Australian accent littered all over the place might even make it hard for some to understand. Also it did not shy away from making references to all things Australian, including some of the biggest names in the country. However, as an Australian movie, I think it hit the right mark in many places. It was down to earth, layback and unpretentious, and that’s what I think Australian movies are good at.  I love the way that the movie did not give a damn to how the outside world sees it but just enjoy being as Australian as possible. Maybe it is a good indication that we should stop trying to please an outside world that doesn’t necessary appreciate who we are, and just be ourselves.

If you want a relaxing and fun night out, I highly recommend “Mental”. “Mental” opened today across Sydney.

Gospel According to Respect

We live in a democratic society. We believe in freedom of speech. But how far would it take for us to understand whether there are actually no go zones in this world that provides us this freedom of speech?

Australian broadcasters are not afraid of controversies. Some even embraced them to make a living out of them. To be honest, I sometimes don’t know how certain people can get on air and stayed there for such a long time. Alan Jones is one of them.

For those who don’t really know who Alan Jones is, he is a vintage Australia broadcaster who is famous for his bullish speeches on air. He is opinionated and abusive. He called the Prime Minister a liar and also shut people who have opposite opinion down by yelling at them. This is just part of him and what his program is about. There are certain sectors of people in Australia including his boss who like him and always stand by his side. However, in a recent speech he gave to the Young Liberal Party members, Alan Jones commented that the Prime Minister’s father who recently passed away had “died in shame” because he had a daughter who is a liar. For me that was shocking – the complete lack of respect for both the living and the dead.

Alan Jones for me has always been just an old demented broadcaster whom had gone way over his used by date. He was kept on air as a joke for ratings. However, his repeated assaults on the Prime Minister had gone from distance to distance, and now to a point that even her late father could not escape his acid tongue. What shocked me further is that no one from the Liberal Party, young or old, came out to apologise for the inappropriate comment. They even casually brushed it off as “could not remember” such remarks made at the speech. Now I am never a fan of politics but I do believe that democracy is built upon the basic principle of mutual respect. If there is no more mutual respect in Australian politics, why bother having a democracy? It is because of this mutual respect that everyone has a say and then let everyone to decide.

He had since came out with an “apology”. Something that he used to stab further and to tell the world that he is right and the world is against him because he is right. He even went further to say that the world is double standard when a charge for Tony Abott so long ago could be brought up but he could not say that Julia Gillard’s father died in shame because of her “lies”. For me this proved that Alan Jones really needs to consult a specialist to see whether part of his brain has stopped working. What we are talking about here is someone comparing an assault charge of a prominent politician to a personal grudge that he has with another politician. Maybe he really could not handle the fact that Australia dumped John Howard for Kevin Rudd and that Tony Abott failed to get elected. But get over it because this is democracy and this is what happened when you throw yourself out for elections. People get elected and people got dumped. But no matter what the result is you should still respect it because the society had spoken.

When I grew up I was taught that by respecting other people you earn your own respect from others. I always try to uphold this principle, not necessarily hoping to earn other people’s respect but to make sure I am doing the right thing. I always feel that I am very lucky because I grew up and live in a free society. We have freedom of speech and action, which I think is vital for the society to grow and evolve. However, in recent years, it seems that this freedom has been exploited so much that any sense of decency had become something that fell through the cracks of humanity for some people. The recent Alan Jones debacle is a true reflection of that.

I am sure Alan Jones will still be around. The so call advertiser exodus will only be short lived and then the society forgets about that. Even at the time of writing, his boss already said he stands by Alan Jones no matter what. Well it is sad to see that human conscience does not worth a cent in the eyes of the 2GB boss. But that is his call. Nonetheless to close off this blog, I would like to quote a dialogue from Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire to demonstrate what I feel about this whole Alan Jones fiasco.

Izzy: I didn’t realise there was a cut-off date?

Becca: Well there should be. For acting like a jackass there should be a cut-off date.