On the stage, there right before me, lined up one next to the other was Cameron Woodhead (Theatre Critic), Joanna Murray-Smith (Playwright), Andrew Upton (Sydney Theatre Company) and Simon Stone (Writer/Director). Were it not for the presence of Adena Jacobs (Fraught Outfit) and Jane Montgomery Griffiths (Head of Theatre and Performance, Monash University), my PhD supervisor/career mother/academic therapist/the-reason-I-try-to-write-plays-and-be-an-academic, chairing this panel, I would say this was just another one of my theatre nightmares.
In my nightmare, Upton, the King of Theatre, refuses to read my original, multicultural Australian play and reads Murray-Smith’s, the Queen of Playwrights, play instead. Wrought with jealousy because of her success and great hair, I leave his office and then suddenly Stone steals my script, but I, not Stone, get a bad review from Woodhead who destroys my play writing career before it even begins.
Regardless of my own neurosis, the final event in Melbourne Theatre Company’s free NEON Conversations, The Art of Adaptation, was the most captivating and dramatic event at the whole festival. Finally, the Melbourne theatre community had the opportunity to talk publically about the hottest theatre topic – adaptation – with the people doing and critiquing the adaptations themselves.
Even defining the term adaptation became a contentious issue. Theatre makers in Melbourne adapt films, plays, novels and many other art forms, in such diverse and interesting ways, from devised work to visual art, to just a different script.
From Upton’s perspective, most theatre is adaptation as it adapts a written text onto stage.
“Adaptation is about survival and translation is about making a zoo,” he confidently stated.
On the one hand, you have this “slash and burn” adaptation perspective where all texts, including canonical masterpieces, from Sophocles to Chekhov, can be used and abused to create a relevant and entertaining performance for modern audiences. This is of course dependent on the rights of the script. To put it simply readers, theatre makers can do whatever they like with a play out of copyright (cue Stone’s Wild Duck) and with plays still in copyright, they must get approval from the estate (cue Stone’s Death of a Salesman that changed the ending, but did not get permission). This type of adaptation, usually director led, is about saving a classic story from the tyrannical original, written text and bringing it back to life for a modern audience to enjoy.
On the other hand, you have Australian playwrights and many other theatre practitioners who are frustrated by these adaptations. There are many reasons for this and they range from adaptations taking over original Australian work, to adaptations being considered original Australian work, where directors profit from a classic playwright’s original idea.
“I do find myself feeling very uncomfortable at the idea of taking on a classic, slashing and burning that classic and retaining the name…If you’re going to take a classic text and you’re going to do what you want with it, without real regard for the original intention, I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, but I’m just saying that you shouldn’t then capitalise on the kudos of the original work, you can’t have it both ways,” said Murray-Smith.
Conflict of interest aside, Montgomery Griffiths was unafraid to facilitate this debate, asking the tricky questions in a hilariously intellectual way. She both engaged and impressed her audience with her shrewd plethora of comments and questions, which ranged from the cultural literacy of theatre audiences to the new fashion trend of beards and cardigans.
The highlight of the event was when Montgomery Griffiths actually asked Stone whether he was more of a genius than Anton Chekhov and he responded by saying “absolutely”. This inevitably hit The Australian newspaper the next day, but after playing back the panel discussion on the Melbourne Theatre Company website (yes readers, unlike some so-called auteurs/adapters/translators/authors or whatever it is they call themselves, I did my research), he actually was agreeing with Upton’s previous comment about adaptations being a survival mechanism against museum theatre. One wonders, however, whether his “absolutely” was a Freudian slip as his stance and tone all throughout the discussion reeked of arrogance, reminiscent of my high school students who refuse to make eye contact with me when I ask them whether they did their homework.
At the same time, I did feel slight sympathy for Stone who has rocked the theatre world with his “rape and pillage” method of “slashing” canonical texts, from Seneca to Arthur Miller. His comments are ridiculous at times, but they are indicative of his age and experience and there is no denying there is a certain thrill and charisma to his ambition and this is what gets audiences to his shows. Yes, I am only one year older than Stone, but I know better than to tell one of the leading Classical researchers in Melbourne (Montgomery Griffiths) about Phaedra. Call me old fashioned, but I believe in research and revere experience. I am aware of my own ignorance and continually try to find ways to connect with people, even with my students who think they are too good for homework. Unlike Stone who in a recent RRR radio broadcast said that when you use classics you do not have to do that much research, I am stupidly researching tragedy before I write a tragedy, but clearly the real tragedy is in our culture and its anti-intellectual sentiments (see Alicia Simmonds’ article, Why Australians hate intellectuals) that seem to even exist in our theatre community.
Montgomery Griffiths also brought up the “gendered difference” to how theatre makers approach adaptation and translation and after reflecting on how words were used by some of the panel, this argument might be a thesis waiting to happen. Jacobs used words like, “adhered to”, “permission” and “service”, while Stone used “mutated”. Murray-Smith brought up “moral obligation”, while Upton discussed “just doing it”. I’ll let you put the dots together about what I’m alluding to, but suffice to say it is a relief to have more female voices in our midst.
Whether you love or hate adaptation, one thing was quite clear that afternoon; the NEON Festival has encouraged intense and fascinating discussions about theatre in Melbourne. This was the best way to end a thoroughly successful and enjoyable festival we all hope to see continue next year and in years to come.
