German-Australian Studies/Deutsch-Australische Studien 18

Brecht & Co. German-speaking Playwrights on the Australian Stage von Ulrike Garde

1. Auflage

Brecht & Co. – Garde schnell und portofrei erhältlich bei beck-shop.de DIE FACHBUCHHANDLUNG

Peter Lang Bern 2007 Verlag C.H. Beck im Internet: www.beck.de ISBN 978 3 03910 832 9

Inhaltsverzeichnis: Brecht & Co. – Garde

Introduction

In her contribution to the Brecht-Yearbook in 1995, Australian director, writer and singer Robyn Archer states that “the legacy of Bertolt Brecht’s stage theory and methodology pervades everything we see on the stage [in Australia].”1 Archer acknowledges a Brechtian influence on the Australian stage that extends beyond the production of Brecht’s plays, encompassing the Australian theatre scene in general. Thus she points out an influence that is easily overlooked because it has become deeply interwoven with the multifaceted performance and reviewing history in Australia. However, Archer’s remark is not only important for the Australian reception of Brecht’s work. Her recognition of Brecht’s legacy applies to the overall reception by Australian audiences of drama by German-speaking playwrights. Other German-speaking playwrights have had, albeit to a lesser degree than Brecht, considerable if subtle influence on the Australian performing arts scene as a whole. This study will analyse this influence by concentrating on two aspects, that is Australian productions of Austrian, German and Swiss plays and their reviews between 1945 and 1996. The processes involved in staging and reviewing the performances under consideration have both left an indelible mark on Australia’s cultural memory. According to Jan Assmann, cultural memory represents the way in which a society ensures continuity in its cultural identity. He refers to “a We that takes this past as its own and appeals to this past for elements of its self-definition and narrative orientation. Whether it’s done orally or in writing, pictorially or theatrically, is a matter of indifference here.”2 These references to the past supply the members of a society with an awareness of their unity and singularity, reassuring them of their collective identity. With the help of texts, images, rites – and theatre – they pass on their collective knowledge from one generation to the next.3 1 2 3

Archer (1995), 144. Assmann (2006). Cf. the definition of ‘cultural memory’ in German: Der “jeder Gesellschaft und jeder Epoche eigentümliche Bestand an Wiedergebrauchs-Texten, -Bildern und -Riten [...], in deren ‘Pflege’ sie ihr Selbstbild stabilisiert und vermittelt, ein

11

The analysis of individual case studies will show that there is a smooth transition between cultural memory and communicative memory, the so-called ‘short-term memory’ of a society.4 The cultural memory of the Australian performing arts in its current multifaceted form has been shaped over the years by Austrian, German and Swiss plays, their performances and reviews, together with numerous influences from other cultural backgrounds. This study appears at a time of increased interest in the performing arts as part of Australia’s cultural memory. Monographs, such as Geoffrey Milne’s Theatre Australia (Un)limited,5 and websites, such as AusStage: A National Electronic Performing Arts Database,6 aim to preserve this aspect of local history. Yet, “texts about the history of Australian theatre practice are still few and far between”7 and Australian theatre reviewing does not fare any better.8 More importantly, both past and more recent publications contain only brief references to Germanspeaking playwrights, their work and Australian productions of their plays. The publications tend to surmise the varied influences from Europe under the heading “European influences”9 or to focus primarily

____________________

4 5 6

7

8

9

12

kollektiv geteiltes Wissen vorzugsweise (aber nicht ausschließlich) über die Vergangenheit, auf das eine Gruppe ihr Bewusstsein von Einheit und Eigenart stützt.”, Assmann (1988), 15. Cf. Welzer (2004), 168. Milne (2004), cf. 3 with respect to cultural memory. Cf. http://www.ausstage.edu.au. AusStage defines itself as follows: “In 1999 [...] theatre scholars from eight Australian universities, together with other organisations such as the Australia Council, PASIG (Performing Arts Special Interest Group) and industry representative, Playbox Theatre, combined to commence a project to index performing arts events in Australia, and to develop a directory of research resources on the performing arts.” I have made the data which I had collected initially for my doctoral thesis available for Ausstage’s database. However, since then, I have collected additional data which has been included only in the present study. Maryrose Casey, “Review of Geoffrey Milne’s Theatre Australia (Un)limited”, 159, australasian drama studies, 46 (April 2005), 159–162. Casey indicates, though, that “the situation is changing”. An exception is Katharine Brisbane’s Not Wrong – Just Different. Brisbane (2005). Apart from the introduction, this collection of theatre reviews does not contain a critical analysis, though. Parsons (1995), 213–217.

on what they call “migrant drama.”10 Yet, it is worthwhile and necessary to dedicate a separate study to the performance, dramaturgical and reviewing history related to German-language plays because they have played a specific role in the history of Australian theatre. This study sets out to illustrate this specific role and influence through a data collection and a text corpus which have been compiled specifically for this research. The extensive data collection provides information about Australian productions of drama, originally written in the German language, performed in English11 and reviewed in the Australian press. Every attempt has been made to make the list of performances as comprehensive as possible. However, the result has been limited to some extent by the accuracy of the record keeping of theatre companies with limited financial resources, the availability of records in archives and the memory of interviewees.12 Nevertheless, the reliability of information entered into the database has been assured by cross-referencing with other sources, in oral or written form, through interviews and reviews in the press. As a result, the data allows a statistical assessment of how many plays have been performed in a given year. Most importantly, the resulting graph indicates that the rise and fall of performance numbers coincides basically with the patterns of developments as displayed in Milne’s study.13 To a large extent, the production of German-speaking drama follows the overall outline which reflects the creation and losses of local theatre companies and infrastructure organisations;14 thus it mirrors general developments of the Australian theatre scene from its inception. 10 11

12 13 14

In addition to this, Geoffrey Milne dedicates a sub-chapter to “Theatrical influences from Europe and new Australian companies”, Milne (2004), 260–264. My study focuses on productions in translation, although early significant productions in German have been taken into account. The question of translation has been considered whenever program notes or reviews have indicated that it played an important role. Large parts of the study are dominated by performances of ‘literary’ drama written for the stage. Hybrid performing arts productions only come into play in the last chapter. Apart from Brecht’s plays with music and The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, opera has been excluded from this study For instance, performances, where neither the ensemble nor the venue could be established, have been omitted. Cf. Milne (2004), 5. The ‘waves’ in the production of drama by German-speaking playwrights correspond more to the development of losses, i.e. organisations that went out of busi-

13

For a detailed chronological analysis based on this data, this study concentrates on the period between 1945 and 1996; however, in the case of the reception of Brecht, this time frame has been extended to incorporate the centenary of Brecht’s birth in 1998 and Australian reactions towards it. For the purpose of detailed analysis, selected case studies have been taken from a comprehensive inventory of reviews related to these stage productions.15 These reviews have been located in daily and weekly newspapers as well as theatre magazines, such as Theatre Australia and, more recently, Real Time. Relevant publications from the literary magazine Meanjin have been included as well. In addition to these reviews, the text corpus for this analysis consists of ephemera, such as programme notes, as well as interviews16 and correspondence17 with producers, directors, actors, arts administrators and German publishers. The analysis proceeds in two parts; the first part concentrates on the Australian reception of Bertolt Brecht’s plays and theories on theatre, the second on other German-speaking playwrights. Amongst the case studies, Brecht plays a central role, for his plays have become part of the Australian theatre repertoire. In line with Robyn Archer’s statement, Part I focuses on the legacy of Bertolt Brecht; it analyses material related to his plays and theories in order to provide paradigms of production and reception. These will serve as a touchstone for the reception of other German-speaking playwrights, to be analysed in Part II. This part offers insights into the productions of plays by prominent German-speaking ____________________

15 16

17

14

ness and theatres that closed, than to the development of major and minor events as listed by Milne. Only cursory reference is made to play readings; reviews on radio and television have been included in exceptional cases only. Personal interviews make up an important part of this research. Interviewees shared their recollections of past productions, added data to the production records and put me in contact with other people who had been involved in or attended a production of an Austrian, German or Swiss play. In this respect, this research resembled that of Page and Wagner (1979) who “listed as many Brecht productions in Australia as the editors could discover from various sources and with a lot of help from friends”. O’Brien describes the theatre historian as “a detective, hunting out bits and pieces of information”, O'Brien (1996), 106. In 1995, I sent out a letter with a request for relevant information to all theatre companies listed in Thérèse Radic’s The Playwright’s Handbook in order to complete my findings. Cf. Radic (1994).

playwrights such as Max Frisch, Rolf Hochhuth, Peter Handke and Franz Xaver Kroetz. It establishes connections between the choice of plays, their production style and contemporary approaches to staging Brecht’s plays and relates these insights back to the wider context of developments in Australian theatre and theatre criticism at the time. The final case study provides an analysis of The Aboriginal Protesters..., a production which has resulted from the collaboration between Mudrooroo and former East German playwright Heiner Müller. The study will conclude by considering recent developments in producing Germanlanguage drama in Australia.

Cultural identities and beyond Following this chronological order also facilitates the tracing of the processes involved in creating cultural identities for the Australian theatre scene in a transnational context. Culture, in this context, is defined as “world(s) of meanings” which presuppose a minimal semiotic coherence, that is, the ability to share a common code.18 Consequently, engaging in cultural practice requires individuals, as members of various communities, to be able to use their respective semiotic codes. This practice, in turn, shapes the community.19 Being able to use and vary the code not only gives an individual the feeling of belonging to the community whose code he or she shares, but this ability also provides him or her with an instrument for creating, modifying and reinforcing a cultural identity. This also applies to theatre reviews. In the communicative processes involved in writing reviews for potential readers, theatre critics create, modify or endorse cultural identities. By reacting towards the cultural elements of the performance which theatre critics perceive as Austrian, German or Swiss, they develop cultural identities for what they consider to be the Australian theatre scene. In a large number of these reviews, critics consciously or unconsciously rely on argumentum a contrario in order to define a cultural identity for the local theatre scene with respect to an ‘other’ Austrian, German or Swiss drama and theatre culture. 18 19

Sewell (1999), 36–61. Hermann Bausinger refers to this interplay of being shaped by a culture and simultaneously shaping the culture, cf. Bausinger (2003), 274.

15

Underlying this mechanism of creating cultural identities is largely a concept of culture characterised by social homogenization, ethnic consolidation and intercultural delimitation, as described by Welsch, with reference to Herder.20 Welsch also acknowledges that every concept of culture affects us as a frame of reference for interpreting our lives.21 This becomes obvious in many Australian reviews which form part of the case studies; here, “every explicit characterisation of another nation as foreign is always also an implicit (often unconscious) characterisation of one’s own nation”22 and one’s own theatre scene. In this context, Alois Wierlacher’s notion of the unfamiliar as an “Interpretament der Andersheit”23 comes into play; thus alterity is not an inherent characteristic of the unfamiliar; instead, it depends on and results from the interpreter’s perspective. With reference to this study, it is the reviewer, director or actor who defines a component of unfamiliar drama or theatre as foreign, strange, different. This positioning with respect to the unfamiliar allows them to create cultural identities through argumentum a contrario or a simili. The ‘creative’ aspect involved in defining cultural identities becomes particularly obvious in reviews with a strong ‘performative’ character. In these reviews, it is obvious that the comments referring to an artistic event attribute meaning in a specific way that resembles a mise on scène. While it could be argued that ‘performativity’ is a characteristic of language per se, it is not always apparent in every text.24 Depending on the individual review, this aspect of ascribing meaning in a ‘performative’ way unfolds to a varying degree. In most comments, a basic Gestus of staging identities can be detected, which influences how meaning is generated and how a theatre performance and play are perceived, presented and understood in the particular review.25 20 21 22

23 24 25

16

Welsch (2000), 329–332. Cf. also Welsch (1999). Welsch is critical of this concept of cultures as separate spheres or islands, which he considers “untenable”, 194. Welsch (2000), 344. Nünning (1999), 326. With reference to cultural memory, Assmann observes that each object of cultural memory is attributed a meaning with respect to cultural identification which is “either positive (“this is us”) or negative (“this is the opposite of us”), Assmann (1988), 13. Cf. Wierlacher (2003), 284, 294 Cf. Also Gutjahr (2000), 15. Cf. Neumann (2000), 13. Gerhard Neumann describes this kind of “Theatralität” as “ein dem Textgeschehen eingefaltetes ‘generatives’ Element, das den Stil von Wahrnehmung, Darstellung

This performative aspect becomes evident in some of Barrie Kosky’s speeches which could be easily taken for verbal theatrical performances. These are characterised by an “Ästhetik des Performativen” (an aesthetics of the performative), as defined by Erika FischerLichte.26 Due to their performative character, these mises on scène of cultural identity result in identities which are neither stable nor homogenous. Hence, when terms such as “the cultural identity of the Australian performing arts” are used in this study, it is implied that the identity referred to is valid for the respective communicative context of each review. The result is a double mise on scène of cultural identities, with the first one taking place on stage and the second being staged more or less explicitly in the reviews. A doubling effect can also be detected in the reception or interpretation of the foreign drama as it appears on paper and on the Australian stage. Thus, directors and their ensemble27 are the first ones to attribute a concrete meaning to an Austrian, German or Swiss drama text. This local concrete meaning is derived from the broader potential meanings of the drama texts. The concrete meaning fills in what Wolfgang Iser would refer to as the ‘blanks’28 of the original play. For example, for the performers, spectators and reviewers one or more elements of the script may become dominant, while others recede temporarily. During the performance theatre practitioners and their audience accord their own meaning to the production, drawing on the wealth of ____________________

26

27

28

und Erkenntnis prägt, wie er sich in den Texten äußert.” Neumann (2000), 13. Although this extensive research is predominantly directed at literary texts and at the theatricality of language, these theories can be applied to the case studies used in the present analysis because they are characterised by a Gestus of staging identities. Erika Fischer-Lichte (2003), 97–111. Fischer defines the “aesthetics of the performative” by drawing parallels between a range of cultural phenomena and dramatic performances on stage. With respect to Kosky, cf. “Hello Wien!”, 31, australasian drama studies 44 (April 2004), 17–35. In this context, it is assumed that some ‘ensembles’ only come together for the limited time of working on a production. This is particularly true of the so-called alternative theatres. Wolfgang Iser’s concepts of a fictional text’s “character of indeterminacy” (Unbestimmheitscharakter) and its “blanks” (Leerstellen) can be applied to the performing arts. Cf. Iser (1975a), 234–241 and Iser (1975b).

17

information presented on stage.29 This results in a personal version of the production through a selective reading30 which critics express in their reviews. Consequently it is often difficult to assess to what extent an individual critic’s response is characteristic of the general reception of a particular production. Therefore comparison with other sources is the only way to discover general tendencies in contemporary expectations.31 The fact that overall tendencies in the reception and production style of drama by German-speaking drama exist at all, can be explained through the recipients’ “Erwartungshorizont” (horizon of expectation).32 Thus, theatre practitioners and spectators read a text or performance “with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning”33 and approach it with “pre-knowledge” and “pre-judgement.”34 These fundamental principles of reception can also be applied to the performance of a text, both from the performer’s and the spectator’s point of view. Both ‘read’ the performance in the context of frames of understanding and reference which lie outside the actual drama text or performance35 and which are largely shaped by their concepts of culture, 29

30

31 32

33 34

35

18

Peter Brook made the surplus of information a criterion for judging the quality of a play in performance stating that a “play in performance is a series of impressions; little dabs, one after another, fragments of information or feeling in a sequence which stir the audience’s perceptions. A good play sends many such messages, often several at a time, often crowding, jostling, overlapping one another.” Peter Brook, “Introduction to Marat / Sade”, V, in: Weiss (1965), V–VII. This is especially the case in recent productions which focus on the surplus of information as a special characteristic of theatre productions, cf. Fischer-Lichte (1993), 418. Accordingly, Zima points to the fact that it is impossible to attribute a homogenous horizon of expectations to the society at a given period, cf. Zima (1992), 187. Gadamer (1990), 270–312 and Gadamer (1975), 235–274. Like the interpretation of other literary texts, any interpretation of a play in a theatre production and its reviews are embedded in history in general and, more particularly, in the play’s effective history. Gadamer (1990), 271, Gadamer (1975), 236. Gadamer (1990), “Erhebung der Geschichtlichkeit des Verstehens zum hermeneutischen Prinzip”, 270–312; “The elevation of the historicity of understanding to the status of hermeneutical principle”, Gadamer, (1975), 235–274. Gadamer promotes a “rehabilitation of the concept of prejudice” because it belongs to historical reality itself and is not an obstacle to understanding, but rather an inherent condition of the possibility of understanding. For a rehabilitation of the concept of misunderstanding cf. also: Veit (1997). Cf. Steinmetz (2003), 462.

their historical and social experiences.36 The last two factors make it possible to establish general tendencies for certain periods of reception and interpretation. If a text has been taken from a culture other than the recipients’ there are additional elements shaping its reading. In this context, Horst Steinmetz suggests a differentiation of the terms “reception” and “interpretation.” “Reception” refers to the process whereby the audience seeks to understand the unfamiliar text within the familiar frame of reference of their own culture, ultimately leading to a “normalisation” of the text.37 In the present study, this approach will be called ‘naturalisation’, by analogy to the Australian – and other countries’ – citizenship process.38 Steinmetz reserves the term “interpretation” to the ‘reading’ of a text in which the reader has made a deliberate choice with respect to a methodological approach. In the case of an intercultural interpretation, this requires an initial reading which simulates an interpretation within the text’s original context. This is followed by a second reading, which combines the initial frame of reference with the context familiar to the reader. Ideally, the final, “intercultural interpretation” does not ‘normalise’ or ‘naturalise’ the unfamiliar elements, the “Unbestimmtheitscharakter” (character of indeterminacy), the unusual elements and the polysemy of the text. Instead, it should challenge the fixed boundaries between the familiar and the unfamiliar,39 resulting in the “mutual enrichment of the 36

37 38

39

Similarly, Iser refers to individual factors as well as to social and historical context as influencing an approach to a text; cf. Wolfgang Iser, “Der Lesevorgang. Eine phänomenologische Perspektive”, 259, in: Warning (1975), 253–276. Cf. also O’Brien (1996), 105. In this context, it might be pointed out that these mechanisms of interpretation also apply to the present study, written by a Germanist of German origin analyzing cross-cultural phenomena in Australia. The study thus reflects to some extent Philip Thomson’s observation: Der ausländische Germanist “hat zwei verschiedene [...] Kulturen ständig im Blick. Er sieht sie aber beide mit einer gewissen Distanz, beide Kulturen sind für ihn ‘verfremdet’; sie sind ihm zugleich bekannt, ja vertraut, und dennoch immer wieder neu und fremdartig.”, in: Thomson (1985), 241. Steinmetz (2003). For this and the following quotes, cf. pages 462–466. This term describes a conscious or unconscious adaptation to local standards in the sense that a non-Australian becomes ‘naturalised’ by taking up Australian citizenship. Steinmetz also would like to modify insular and traditional points of view and to overcome exploitative interpretations which favour one of the cultures involved, 466.

19

familiar and the unfamiliar, which leads to a better and more critical understanding of the familiar culture on both sides.” Yet, Steinmetz himself concedes that this is an ideal outcome which is rarely achieved and that “reception” and “interpretation” are not always easy to distinguish. Therefore this study only points out tendencies towards ‘naturalisation’ wherever they can be uncovered and emphasises the importance of those productions which appear to achieve an “intercultural interpretation” in their attempt to make the text of German-speaking origin their ‘own’. In this respect, the work of Australian director Barrie Kosky is of great interest because Kosky has not recoiled from the challenges of intercultural interpretations on stage. He has also reflected publicly, often in a provocative way, on theoretical aspects of his productions. For instance, he referred to those elements which influence the frame of reference in intercultural productions as “baggage”, stating at the Shakespeare Youth Festival 2000: You take on a lot more than the text [when performing it]; you take on a history of performance, the history of the culture, which you are in [...]. [As an audience member], you remember the last time you saw the play, you remember the last time you were in the theatre [...]. There is a lot of baggage and you cannot ignore this baggage.40

With this in mind, Kosky suggests an approach to interpreting texts for the stage which has the notion of ‘ownership’ at its very centre. He describes this notion as follows: One of my big things is the notion of ownership. Shakespeare does not belong to th the English. [...] At the end of the 20 century, everyone owns it [Shakespeare’s work]. And it is what you do with it and why you do it that is the important thing.

Although expressed in colloquial terms, this statement involves the notion of informed decision-making when working on and with a text. In the context of this study, an approach which advocates ‘ownership’ of a production, seems to be all the more important with respect to texts which might appear unfamiliar because of their historical or cultural ‘distance’.41 Kosky’s freedom to use this approach relies on dispensing 40 41

20

This and the following quotes have been taken from Kosky (2000). Cf. Krusche (1984).

with traditional notions that imply in some way a kind of ‘fidelity to the text’, which dominates so many earlier approaches to plays by Germanspeaking authors.42 He expresses this more forcefully when he insists: We have to be bold, we have to take these texts, throw them up in the air, rewrite them, adapt them, develop them, pull them apart, don’t give a monkey’s arse about the historical notions of when and how these plays were done, ignore it.43

This quote seems to imply that Kosky condones ignorance of the cultural context in which a text was originally written and performed. However, it is important to note that his actual productions and director’s notes in fact invite his audience to “interpret” the text by combining in a productive way its original frame of reference with a context that is familiar to many recipients.44 Kosky acknowledges the producers’ and recipients’45 horizons of expectations and challenges future directors and actors to take into account “the cultural, social and historical world of the audience,”46 for instance, by asking themselves “what do the characters represent [in contemporary Australia]?” According to Kosky, these factors need to be included for a production to build a strong connection between stage and audience. It is noteworthy that Brecht figures amongst his examples when he comments: “The only way we should tackle Brecht now is [to ask] ‘what has it got to do with living in the 20th century’?” Ultimately, Kosky’s aim is to foster a theatre which audiences can relate back to their ‘world’; it should allow audiences as well as people involved in the production to “assume ownership” of the text and the production. Kosky himself applied this ‘bold’ approach to texts by 42

43 44 45 46

For instance, in an article about “European influences” on Australian theatre, Katharine Brisbane, Tony Mitchell and Anne Murch have taken the view that European “plays that can find a bond with audiences without making too great a leap from a foreign context, are probably the most successful [in Australia]. Audiences are generally incurious about what they do not easily understand.” In the restricting context of an enty into a reference book, the authors tacitly assume that a play remains largely unchanged when performed in a foreign country, thus implying a concept of ‘fidelity’ to a text. Parsons (1995), 216. My emphasis. It bears repeating that the Australian audience is not a homogenous group. Stressing the importance of spectators’ expectations, Kosky says that these “do not pass the door into the theatre and somehow become neutralised”, in: Kosky (2000). In 1968, Peter Brook has pointed out the danger of “the gap between it [a traditional performance style] and the life of the people around it”, Brook (1968), 18.

21

German-speaking authors, for example when directing Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust.47 Ideally this approach towards a text, which is originally perceived as unfamiliar, enriches both the recipient and the text because it offers new perspectives.48 The subsequent production would thus illustrate the ‘surplus of meaning’, which a familiar text can obtain through its interpretation and production in a foreign country.49 This study will outline the developments in Australian theatre which have paved the way for a ‘bold’ approach towards plays from Germanspeaking countries, amongst them the Australian Performing Group and Australian director Wal Cherry’s search “for an Australian style.”50 The following history of the Australian reception of German-language drama will trace the evolution of an Australian “stage identity.”51 It will uncover the development of increasingly ‘bolder’ approaches over time, as a deeper narrative emerges in these Australian productions and their reviews. Thus this study traces the ‘coming-of-age’ of the Australian theatre scene from a particular angle. It will contextualise this development, paying particular attention to cultural, socio-political and other possible factors which have influenced Australian expectations of theatre, the style of productions and their function. Historically Australian theatre has been marked by cultural adherence to European and American 47 48 49

50

51

22

Cf. my analysis of the production. For an analysis of a very successful production inspired by “In the Penal Colony” cf. Garde (forthcoming). Cf. Steinmetz (2003). Walter Veit elaborates on the concept of the ‘surplus’ of meaning in Germanspeaking literature which can obtain, through Australian eyes, “einen in den Heimatländern unbekannten und unbegriffenen Sinn- und Bedeutungszuwachs, einen Sinn-Mehrwert” in: Veit (1999), 260–261. Cf. also Veit (2003), 598. For an example in this study cf. the analysis of Michael Kantor’s interpretation of The Caucasian Chalk Circle. The following remark, which Cherry made with respect to French drama, can be easily applied to German drama: “We must do the plays of Molière quite differently to the French. We have to do them like Australians, which might be a completely erroneous view of Molière. [...] We have to search for an Australian style.” Morphett (1966). Cherry moved towards a ‘bold’ approach with respect to The Threepenny Opera when he collaborated with Willett on the production of 1975. The detailed analysis will also point to elements of a ‘bold’ approach used in productions by John Ellis and Elijah Moshinsky and immigrant writer Roger Pulvers. Meyrick, The Australian, 13 Jan. 2005.

imperatives. Therefore a notable feature of the ‘coming of age’ of Australian theatre is the appearance of self-confident theatre directors, such as Kosky, who feel free to use a ‘bold’ approach towards drama texts, including the respected classics.52 Investigating the transcultural relations between Australia and German-speaking countries from this particular angle, the study provides new information on Australia’s relationship with German-speaking cultures. These have contributed and continue to contribute to Australia’s current cultural make-up, but have not yet received enough attention when it comes to their role in shaping Australian cultural identities, particularly in the performing arts. Analysing the processes of making German-speaking drama their ‘own’ sheds new light on Australian identities in line with David Malouf’s observation, which is valid beyond the direct reference to classics: There is a peculiar freshness and originality in the way we take what is classic and remake it as our own. It is here, unconsciously perhaps, that we catch the clearest image of ourselves as Australians.”53

Australian theatre and Australian theatre reviews This section introduces the main factors in Australian theatre and theatre reviewing relevant to the Australian reception of drama by Germanspeaking playwrights.54 A later section will provide a detailed analysis, based on individual case studies. Also, a separate section will be dedicated to “discussions about Australian theatre criticism in the 1980s. In her article on Australian theatre for The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre, Katharine Brisbane notes that “Australia is the largest island and the smallest continent in the world.”55 These geographical factors have had a considerable influence on Australian theatre productions and their reception. In general terms, they have led to the

52 53 54 55

For the specific role which the status of the classic plays in the reception of drama by German-speaking playwrights, cf. Garde (2004). David Malouf, “Foreword”, in: Nugent (1999), 20–21. I have made cursory reference to play readings, programs and reviews on radio and television in exceptional cases only. Katharine Brisbane, “Australia”, 40, in: Rubin (1998), 40–57.

23

“historical mindset of isolation from European civilisation,”56 which, given Australia’s colonial history, resulted in the country turning to Britain, and later America, for cultural orientation. Austria, Germany and Switzerland as non-English-speaking countries without colonial ties to Australia fell outside this category of cultural relationship. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that their influence in theatrical terms was restricted to activities of the relevant cultural institutes and by migrants and refugees57 from those countries. This study will uncover a number of theatre practitioners and reviewers who felt inspired by the unfamiliar German-German-language plays and, in the case of Brecht, by his theories on theatre.58 Another important geographical feature affecting Australian theatre has been the distance between the regional capitals’ dense populations. Distance hindered the exchange of productions between these cities, contributing to the existence of separate State theatres in the regional capitals instead of a single national company, and might have also prevented to some extent the scenes in the different capitals to inspire each other.59 As far as reviewing is concerned, it took until the launch of The Australian in 1964 for a newspaper to cover the entire nation, leading to a growing awareness of other centres of activity and a sense of comparative standards. 60 As a result, “it became possible to think of an ‘Austra56

57

58

59

60

24

Katharine Brisbane, “Australia”, 40, in: Rubin (1998), 40–57. Cf. also Elisabeth Wynhausen who reiterated recently that Australians represent “a society that feels itself [...] cut off from European culture”, The Australian Magazine, 2 Sept. 2000. I shall analyse these influences in more detail in the case studies. Cf. my analysis of the Kleines Wiener Theater. In Australia’s everyday life, German-speaking cultures were introduced mainly through migrants and refugees from Austria, Germany and, to a limited extent, from Switzerland. It is difficult to discern how much Brechtian acting style and body language have influenced the Australian theatre scene because reviewers mostly omit this aspect. Yet, Milne mentions acting workshops held at La Mama on Sunday afternoons which focused on “the development of a ‘new’ physical style of acting based on the theories of Brecht, Grotowski, Schechner and anyone whose recent ideas appeared in the latest issues of The Drama Review.” Milne (2004), 127. It can be presumed that a similar interest existed in other alternative performing groups at the time. In a personal interview (28 May 1998), Australian director Kim Durban expressed the opinion that this might have also slowed down the development of the Australian theatre scene. Cf. also Milne (2004), 10–39. The ‘snow ball effect’ resulting from my interviews, led to this research becoming orientated to a certain extent towards the theatre scene in Melbourne and Sydney. In

lian’ theatre rather than a number of semi-autonomous regional dramatic movements.”61 Yet, even nowadays, local newspapers exert considerable influence as far as theatre criticism in the regional capitals is concerned. In comparison to its European counterparts, white Australian drama is a young genre. Most scholars relate the emergence of contemporary Australian theatre to the writing of Australian drama. While some name Louis Esson’s plays in the 1920s and his amateur Pioneer Players,62 the majority of scholars identify the 1955 premiere of Ray Lawler’s The Summer of the Seventeenth Doll as the birth of Australian playwriting.63 Aboriginal theatre in the sense of traditional, word-based performances on stage, is an even later development, since Aboriginal performances traditionally consist of songs, storytelling and dance within and between Indigenous communities. In the 1970s, this changed with the arrival of playwrights Jack Davis, Kevin Gilbert and Kath Walker whose work was written also for non-Indigenous people. Against the background of a young Aboriginal tradition of theatre of the spoken word, the Mudrooroo/Müller-Project64 is significant for this study because it represents the only Aboriginal response to German drama. On an organisational level, Australian theatre has developed several types of companies, two of which are important for this study. These are the State theatre companies, which exist in regional capitals as major government-subsidised companies, and the alternative companies, which are funded to a considerably lesser degree or only on a short-term basis if ____________________

61 62 63 64

this respect, this study continues the tradition of looking towards “the principal centres of performance, as well as of the production and publishing of arts criticism and comment” Griffiths, “The parochial metropolis. A view from the west”, 460, in: Richards and Milne (1994), 460–466. Katharine Brisbane labelled them “Australia’s theatre capitals”; Brisbane, “Australia”, 49, in: Rubin (1998), 40–57. For the years covered by the ANZTR, this statement is confirmed by the fact that productions in Melbourne and Sydney outnumbered those in Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart and Perth together. However, I have endeavoured to balance the emphasis on Melbourne and Sydney through the extensive research in libraries and archives in other Australian cities. Richard Fotheringham, “Criticism, Scholarship and Publishing”, 75, in: Rubin (1998), 75–76. Glaap (1996), 391. The importance of The Doll as a watershed in Australian playwriting is reflected by the following publication: Fitzpatrick (1979). Fischer (1993).

25

at all.65 Government subsidy for the performing arts began in 1968 with the founding of the Australia Council.66 Brisbane summarises the funding structure for State companies as follows: They are structured as non-profit organisations with an honorary board of directors; they receive subsidy from the federal government through the Performing Arts Board of the Australia Council, and from their state government through their arts ministry. They are also expected to seek private sponsorship through tax-deductible donations. However, most companies still derive between 70 and 85 per cent of their income from the box office.67

In this respect, Australian theatre differs greatly from theatre in Germany, where “municipalities [...] bear about 63 per cent of public expenditure for theatres and orchestras.”68 Kosky spoke from experience when referring to Switzerland, Germany and Austria as the three countries which, together, “form the largest, best-funded, theatre environment in Europe.”69 The lower level of government funding in Australia explains a number of differences between the Australian and Germanspeaking theatre scenes which can largely be summed up by less security and steadiness for all involved in Australian productions. Here, most theatre companies do not consist of permanent acting ensembles, although this study will point to attempts at creating and maintaining

65

66

67

68

69

26

Most of the productions under consideration are professional ones with some of them having come from amateur theatre. Professionalism has not been an important criterion for selecting the case studies, though. Established in 1968 as the Australian Council for the Arts. Before the council existed, “commonwealth and state funding – and private donations – had been channelled though the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust.” Parsons and Chance (1995), 69. Katharine Brisbane, “Australia”, 49, in: Rubin (1998), 40–57. For the role of the AETT before that time cf. Milne (2004), 100–108. Recent publications by Milne (2004) and Meyrick (2005) mirror that it is still contested whether Australian theatre has reached a ‘national’ status. Kappler and Reichert (1999), 485. During the time under consideration for this study, financial support for German theatres has been steady. Even if there have been severe cuts since, the financial situation in Germany is still better than in Australia for most theatre companies. For recent funding statistics cf. http://www. buehnenverein.de/presse/statistik_thstatistik.php, 28 Nov. 2005. Kosky (2004), 24.

them.70 Moreover, Australian theatres tend to perform one or several plays en suite for a number of weeks before going on to present a new production. Funding shortages, combined with the organisational structure of Australian theatre, result in a great number of actors being unable to make a living from their profession. Many alternative theatre companies are short-lived. In addition to standing theatre companies, local and foreign performances at various Australian Arts Festivals are of great importance for the Australian theatre scene and its patrons. However, as this study will only take into account productions in which Australians have participated, these festivals only play a minor role for this research. Apart from other sources enumerated earlier, this study relies to a large extent on press reviews both in daily and weekly newspapers71 and in specialist theatre magazines, such as Theatre Australia from 1976 until it folded and was replaced by New Theatre Australia (1987-1989) and RealTime72 from 1994 onwards. What is the role and impact of reviews in this situation? In the case studies which follow, theatre critics see themselves as mediators and informers or as judges; in some cases they assume both roles.73 To a large extent, the critique of a performance reflects the general processes involved in any reception or interpretation of a play as defined above.74 It relies on a more or less conscious preference for aesthetic and social ideals or on a deliberate choice of criteria for assessing a production. As these expectations and criteria are embedded in history, reviews in the newspapers and in theatre magazines

70 71

72 73 74

Cf. the analysis of Wal Cherry’s work at the Ensemble theatre and Jim Sharman’s work at the STC in Adelaide. The emergence of the Australian and New Zealand Theatre Record, ANZTR, facilitated this research from 1987 onwards.This reproduction of published newspaper reviews ceased in 1996. The Elizabethan Trust News, Theatregoer and Masque have been used to a limited extent because not much relevant material could be found in these publications. For a discussion about the expectations of critics’ duties with respect to general readers and audiences cf. Daniel Schlusser, RealTime, no. 67, June /July 2000. In an article on “Theaterkritik”, Dirk Pilz mentions “readings [by critics], which reveal more about a critic’s educational background and personal preferences than about what has happened [on stage]”; “Deutungen, die mehr über den Bildungsstand oder die Vorlieben des Kritikers erzählen als über das Geschehene selbst.” Pilz (2004), 20.

27

represent an ideal tool for depicting the Zeitgeist and, as Meyrick explains, give “a sense of Australian theatre’s developing self-identity.”75 What is specific about theatre reviews as a journalistic text, is that they are part of the general arts market.76 One the one hand, they compete with reviews by other critics, on the other hand, they influence the market themselves by directing their readers as potential theatre customers. However, there has been continuous disagreement about the extent of this influence.77 It can be assumed, though, that reviews have bigger repercussions if the local reviewing sector consists of a small number of specialist journals and newspapers, as is the case in Australia. For instance, Kosky compares the great variety in the Viennese and Berlin press favourably with the three newspapers whose reviews reach the general public in Melbourne.78 In his eyes, this is not a significant disadvantage as far as long-term audience reactions are concerned, “but it makes a big difference to how the audience initially respond to the work.”79 If the readers of a negative review trust its author, this can represent a potential threat to smaller companies or those just building a reputation. There is general consent in relation to the lack of recognition which Australian theatre critics face. They have frequently indicated that better payment and working conditions, together with improved training would increase their status. In this respect, Brisbane’s observations from 1971

75

76 77

78 79

28

Meyrick adds rightly that enough continuity exists between different journals to enable these insights. However, while he limits his corpus to specialist journals this study incorporates reviews in the daily and weekly press. Cf. Meyrick (2003), 45. The recent publication of Katharine Brisbane’s collection of her theatre reviews, which is subtitled Observations on the Rise of Contemporary Australian Theatre, illustrates again the way in which a history of reviews provides insights into the overall development of Australian theatre. Cf. Brisbane (2005). Pilz (2004), 20. The following two opinions are representative of a range of comments: Gareth Griffiths points to the “a state of war” between some critics and artists and to the reliance on one dominant critic in Australia’s cities to attribute a certain power to critics. Cf. Eccles (1987) Brisbane, however, thought the influence of reviews to be “very little” in 1967. The Australian, 5 June 1967, quoted according to Brisbane (2005), 11. Cf. also the analysis in the main part of the book of the conference organised by Parsons and Brisbane in 1985. The situation would be comparable in other big Australian cities. Kosky (2004), 32.

are still valid. In her comparison of the poor recognition of Australian theatre critics with the high regard for German critics, she stated: The toughest adverse theatre criticism in the world is written today in West Germany and this is not because the West German theatre is worse than any other theatre but because its purpose is held in higher regard by its audience. 80

However, an overall greater respect for theatre criticism is tied to the general esteem in which the performing arts are held. Yet, since the 1980s, this sector of the arts has been increasingly marginalised and the current bleak outlook is reflected by many recent relevant publications.81 Despite these shortcomings, a number of critics have continued to aspire to a high standard in their work. This involves certain challenges, in particular if they are commenting on a production based on an unfamiliar text caused by its geographical or historical distance.82 Here, critics need to be informed about drama and performance traditions of cultures other than their own. In this respect, they might benefit from special training which enables them, as a first step, “to [adequately] describe unfamiliar languages, cultures and forms, in order to criticise them as a second step.”83 This study will illustrate how indeed the standard of reviewing rises with increased knowledge. Yet, in the context of relevant discussions in 80

81

82 83

The Australian, 18 Aug. 1971, quoted according to Brisbane (2005), 180. Brisbane explained that “[t]he artist has very little dignity and his audience very litle concern in the newer cultures like Australia and America.” This marginalisation becomes also apparent by the fact that newspapers subsume their theatre reviews under various sections which are frequently renamed. Cf. Milne (2004), 392–402 (“Epilogue: stock taking”), Brisbane (2005), 6–7 (“Introduction”) and Meyrick (2005). Cf. Steinmetz’s concept of an intercultural interpretation described earlier, Steinmetz (2003a), 462–466. Maria Magdalena Schwaegermann (formerly Hebbel Theater, Berlin), responsible for bringing Michael Laub’s Total Masala Slammer to Australia, stated: “Ich denke, es bedarf einer Auseinandersetzung, eines Diskurses für die zukünktige Ausbildung von Journalisten. Wie können wir Grundprinzipien vermitteln, die es ermöglichen, dass man fremde Sprachen, Kulturen, Formen beschreiben kann, um sie dann vielleicht auch zu kritisieren?”; Personal interview, 8 Nov. 2002. In Australia, Katharine Brisbane, the first major national reviewer for The Australian, expressed a similar opinion in The Australian, 5 June 1967, quoted according to Brisbane (2005), 11. Similarly, Pilz demands in Theater der Zeit that critics first of all make an effort to understand what the performance tried to tell them. Pilz (2004), 19.

29

the 1980s, it will also point to other factors which affect the standard of reviews, such as the allocated space in the press. Additional information with respect to particular critics and performances will be provided in the context of individual case studies.

30