doors were open, the cast came into the foyer. They were recognisable as they all sported a radio microphone over one of their ears. The show began when the cast mingled with the audience. I knew from reading about the show that we were going to be asked to vote at a forum.
I was surprised that audience members were not immersed into the experience by registering, and being given name badges as attendees, for the forum. This would have built up the audience's expectations a notch - as if really attending a forum prior to entry.
have created a work that leaves you with more questions than answers. It is a thought provoking work but stirred up more issues that were not dealt with in the production.
The programme listed the cast and crew, though I cannot understand why the names of the characters were not listed as each character was designated a name. It is easier to refer to the programme and name the character than to describe the role played by (insert a name) here.
as the newsreader that provided segues and news updates between many scenes. Sadly no further information was given. I do not know what
provided a range of sequences: dance moves, fight sequences and aerial counter-balance work. The final image was the strongest statement in the show and is discussed in more detail below.
No credit was supplied as to who created the videos or the graphics for the show. Maybe it was
? Maybe this was another of the unanswered questions for the audience to consider?
provided a range of costumes that were functional for the requisite behaviour of different characters. The board room table with three sliding chambers was clever as it hid the shallow bath and two garden beds.
. Four white chairs in a diamond shape stood in the centre of the area. Two chairs stood upright, while the other two chairs were tilted forward warning us of future events.
The set also comprised the use of a television camera in one corner with six television monitors above the audience. Three monitors were positioned above each of the two longer sides of the stage.
The original cast listed in The Malthouse Theatre brochure for their 2018 Season changed to who actually collaborated and acted in the show. I appreciate the cast list can be changed due to availability or other issues. From a theatre history perspective I am noting this for future reference as I am sure many patrons are unaware of the change.
Acting wise left a lot to be desired as they all over-acted to the point of being cringe-worthy. Had the cast been more naturalistic and evolved their performances would have made more of an impact. I appreciate the show was a satire and the opening two scenes could have worked better with less is more.
The opening sequence where Hazem Shammas entered as the facilitator was nearly in-audible as his diction was so mumbled and his pace was so fast. The over the top enthusiasm was nearly like a television games show.
The other cast members were introduced as guests for the opening debate. One actress was asked a question and she introduced herself. She also asked "What was the question?" This was doubly funny after her introduction and because Hazem Shammas was speaking so fast and with poor diction, I too could not understand the question. Thankfully he repeated it.
We had the sham debate with four different perspectives. Sitting on our side of the theatre is where I guessed the directors mainly directed the work. There was a vote online with the television monitors displaying the website for voting. I did not bother as I suspected it was all a hoax vote. Audience members were adamant to vote and have their say, which was interesting as it highlighted the corruption in some societies with voting.
The debate was naive and simplistic with government funded arts versus not funding the arts. The debate revealed a lack of business acumen from the collaborators. They did not debate or reveal any other business models for artists, and showed a narrow view and a lack of financial and business management from the collaborators.
A television news broadcast would appear from time to time to create segues between scenes. We were being exposed to fantasy versus reality - fake news etc. What is fake and fact? What is perspective or a different slant on a story?
The second major scene was a board room for the Lone Pine Theatre Company and trying to work out ways to survive. This was demonstrated as a brainstorming activity with lots of feet on the table and power play. Many of the ideas of various theme parks had a contemporary reference to the television show "Westworld".
The ideas were under-cooked at times as they did not fully explore possibilities.
There were some wonderful images through the show that I felt made more of impact with the less is more approach.
My favourite image was when
Daniel Schlusser set the table ablaze. We witnessed the impact of the "slash and burn" with the funding/budget cuts to their theatre company. I recall looking up to see both exit signs when Daniel lit the flame on the table top. A table cloth was produced to douse the flames. The actors were cognisant by ensuring that all embers had been extinguished. I congratulate them on their safety concerns.
Natasha Herbert set out the serviettes for each seating placement. Her eagle eye was checking to ensure no flame had reignited underneath the tablecloth.
The board members covered their faces with their serviettes as if veils had the cultural subservience element. Here the artists were subservient to the government, funding bodies and sponsors. This was another strong image.
When
Daniel Schlusser stripped bare exposing himself physically and emotionally, he was also revealing how artists are publicly put on display. This scene also showed how financial transparency is important within funding. When he is bathed in the centre of the table it has religious undertones of a baptism or a re-birth, or being cleansed and purified to complete the funding applications in accordance with the whim of the next government policy.
Natasha Herbert suddenly could now walk without the aid of her walking stick. It was a miracle! Or was it? She sat and took out an avocado, cut it in two and stabbed the seed to extricate it. She then placed the seed into the wooden fruit box. This was a wonderful image of planting the seeds into a treasure chest. She sat and spooned out the contents of half the avocado. Again this was a wonderful image of the younger generation being criticised for eating smashed avocado, rather than saving for a deposit for their future home. This image also referred to the waste of money given to some, and living in the now.
When
Natasha Herbert planted the poppies into the soil at the two ends of the table it was as if she was planting seeds of ideas. She was nurturing, cultivating, and growing her crops for the future of Australian society. She needed to water the plants, and water is a scarce and valuable resource - as is money for the arts funding. Her story contrasted the freedom we have in Australia compared to Nazi Germany. In fact, her story paid homage to all totalitarian regimes of the past, present and future.
Tammy Anderson also stripped. She moaned and groaned as she made her way around the entire stage to ensure that everyone in the audience could see her nakedness. She mixed powder with the water, and then smeared herself in white paint ceremoniously. She seemed to be providing sexual favours for her art. Nothing is new about the casting couch with the "Me Too" movement. She provides
Daniel Schlusser with the table-cloth to cover his wet body both as a towel and with the toga image from the Roman Forum. (Remember we are attending a forum and now gaining insight into the five characters via their monologues).
Interestingly, the costume design included only one pair of coloured shoes. These were the red shoes worn by
Niharika Senapati. The red shoes stood out as both power dressing, and also referencing the fantasy of Dorothy from
"The Wizard of Oz" and wanting to go home to Kansas. This was a clever piece of subtle costume design as there was a theme of homeland throughout. The red shoes created a message of hope for the future.
Niharika Senapati began as if
Ellen DeGeneres interviewing audience members about "do you like audience participation?" She would kneel before or sit on the knee of an audience member. She went to each of the four sides of the theatre. Then she proceeded into more audience participation with different dance moves for the four sides of the theatre. We even were instructed in a Mexican wave arm movement. She ran around the theatre first clockwise and then counter-clockwise to see the audience demonstrate this wave of movement. She proceeded to dance until three actors entered and restrained her. They held her down that produced a magical moment of cause and consequences.
My favourite image of the show was when
Niharika Senapati was restrained by the three actors. The three actors bound her feet into the ends of a thick rope. The three actors pulled the three ropes to the section of rope with an obvious knot to ensure they did not lose their grip. They then hoisted her upside down.
Niharika Senapati was lifted off the ground feet first as if an aerialist. The image reminded me of an upside version of a physical
reckoning from
"The Handmaid's Tale". More so, this image reminded me of how these theatre companies are being strung up financially and artistically. It made me question: "who is pulling the strings here?" and "which of the three people has the most influence in funding, cultural and artistic decisions?"
This scene was where the censorship theme was strongest as we saw the consequences of non-compliance or non-conformity. I yearned for more of these type of succinct and powerful resonating messages as per this simple scene.
The five extended monologues were at times, as if they were all vying for their voice to be heard. It was a competition for who had the most sensational or depraved story to lure us into potentially gain our empathy.
After chaos the five returned as if at the end of the debate. The forum was concluded and left more questions unanswered for the audience to ponder. This ending was an academic approach to leaving a question for the future.
The show rammed messages down our throats. It was didactic and too long. In fact it was ten minutes longer than the ninety minutes that was originally advertised on the
Malthouse Theatre website.
The whole theme of censorship did not discuss enough about freedom of speech or freedom of thought. It did not expose the elitism of some artists and arts boards or bodies with their own in-house censorship.
Will "Trustees" survive for another two hundred years as a work of literature or a piece of theatre? No, it will be revamped into another format by new artists thinking that they are being innovative.
"Trustees" begs the question of whether this is theatre for now or the future. This production is a contemporary piece of theatre with a limited life. The arguments for funding and censorship will regurgitate throughout history and will create an opportunity for some playwright to create a timeless work.
With some refinement "Trustees" could be more cohesive and provide more articulate messages.
The arguments for funding and censorship have been around since nearly the beginning of performances. What stood out is that we are lucky in Australia that artists are able to voice their work compared to other countries.
"Trustees" will make a good festival touring project to justify the Australian taxpayer's contribution to the arts.
"Trustees" received a generous 7/10 from both my partner and I.
Note the following postscript is from my memories of seeing shows and interviews:
Postscript - historical memories:
The play "Trustees" opened up my memory vault to write this post script. Hence in the back of my mind I had reservations about the production. The production made me think of the cyclical nature of censorship and how lucky we are in Australia to be able to debate these issues, compared to some countries where you would be jailed or sentenced to death for debating let alone presenting a controversial work.
There have been many plays and works of art that have caused controversy and campaigns or protests for censorship in Australia. These include:
"Corpus Christi" was presented at The Athenaeum Theatre in January 2001 where Jesus Christ was portrayed as a homosexual. Protests occurred outside the theatre at every performance. I do not think this play would have been presented after September 11th 2001. As such, it is amazing what a date can do to change perspective of a controversy and censorship.
Tivoli Theatre Melbourne where the topless ladies had to stand perfectly still or would be arrested by the Victoria Police Vice Squad.
"Hair" both in Sydney and Melbourne, "Oh Calcutta", "Let My People Come", and "The Boys In the Band" all had the Victoria Police Vice Squad watching carefully to ensure that no breaches occurred.
The news of "Oh Calcutta" being banned by order of the Supreme Court of Victoria hit the
New York Times in 1970.
The New Theatre in NSW even has a history of censorship. The financial gains for a controversial work "American Hurrah" by Jean Claude van Italie are also given in this link to the
New Theatre.
There are many articles about censorship in the arts in Australia.
Sir Robert Helpmann even commented about the nude dancing in a ballet with two famous quotes:
- "The trouble with nude dancing is that not everything stops when the music stops."
- "I think you can be contemporary without taking your clothes off."
Even amateur shows copped censorship with the following:
"Thurber's Carnival" by James Thurber was presented with caution, as it was nearly banned, at the 20th Wagga Wagga School of Arts Drama Festival in 1974. The play was controversial as the work was deemed inappropriate and lewd for the youth performing the work from Canberra Youth Theatre.
"The Serpent", also by Jean Claude van Italie was banned in Adelaide at a drama competition, and also was banned at the Kyneton Festival of One Act Plays in 1973. An article written for The Age had the title "Hasn't Wagga Changed" by a journalist who did not see the play at Wagga Wagga. The Age article alerted the Adelaide committee to a potential controversy. In Adelaide, the director Norman Sotherby had also directed
"Ritual For Dolls" by
George MacEwan Green and said to the adjudicator that "this play was more offensive" and yet was allowed to be performed. In Kyneton the committee had a similar reaction. The committee relented and allowed
"The Serpent" to compete but was only allowed to be performed in front of the adjudicator, Simon Hopkinson, with no audience present.
Marketing leverage:
Some works of art have successfully leveraged off their controversy and potentially crossing censorship boundaries.
These include
"Chloe" at
Young and Jackson's Hotel in Melbourne where many articles were written about covering the painting over.
The famous
"David" statue by
Michelangelo and many other works of art have had articles written about it and covering up the genitalia with a fig leaf.
The famous controversy in Australia with the
Bill Henson photographs, as well as the
"Piss Christ" by
Andres Serrano controversy where it was vandalised as a result of being offensive and sacrilegious. As such these controversial works create marketing opportunities for organisations to leverage and cash in on their notoriety.
"The Blue Room" play by
David Hare was produced both in Australia and overseas. Nicole Kidman starred in the London production and is an example of the sensationalism of the nude scenes for marketing and publicity, which increased sales.
"Equus" by Peter Shaffer was another play that successfully used its controversial content and nude scene, with the stabbing and blinding of the horses. This play received an "R" (restricted) rating in some cities in Australia.
There is a book called "Banned Plays" by Dawn B. Sova that outlines 125 banned plays through history. She gives examples going back to 411 BC and even includes the Melbourne controversy of "The Boys In The Band".
Trigger warnings:
Trigger warnings are occurring more in schools, universities and the media. Trigger warnings are used for many reasons to alert students, patrons or viewers of any potentially distressing material or scenes - such as violence, sexual material, loud noise, cigarette smoking etc. I understand also the medical consequences that strobe lighting, loud noises or smoke can affect some people. I understand why trigger warnings are being used, but this made me think that the trigger warnings can be an example of censorship - by preparing audiences for a possible event that can dilute the impact of any message.
However the trigger warning signs prior to entry at "Song for a Weary Throat" were not successful as they should have made a vocal announcement before the show to allow patrons to obtain a set of headphones to muffle the loud crashes. Many patrons covered their ears. After the show a few people asked where we obtained the headphones, and they were shocked as they did not see the trigger warning sign before entering the theatre.
