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.
No comments:
Post a Comment