Typewriters and Eggs A hardboiled view of a painter’s life

Every typewriter has its provenance, its own fingerprint – the crooked key that leads detectives to the blackmailer. My friend, the writer Elizabeth Harrower, who still types her letters, told me that she and Patrick White had a typewriter mechanic they used regularly, in North Sydney. It was like getting your piano tuned.

Cormac McCarthy’s battered Olivetti typewriter was considered so talismanic that, in 2009, it sold for $254,500, at a charity auction, after which a friend replaced it for him with the same model, bought for less than $20.

As a teenager I found a grey portable on which I attempted to teach myself ‘touch typing’ from an instructional booklet, doing the exercises, ASDFGF etc. I never really succeeded. The eyes kept looking at the fingers.

My remaining typewriter is a large office model Remington, bought in 1982 from a secondhand office supplies shop near Central Station. I nearly broke my arms carrying it home on the train. The Remington was a step up from my tinny portable with awry keys; a V8 of a machine with a lovely action. I wrote my first book Days & Nights in Africa on it, in many drafts. In following decades, since the advent of word processing, this hefty machine has languished beneath my desk. I use it now and then to weigh things down, glueing primed linen to plywood boards.

Last year I felt like typing a letter and brought it up to the kitchen table, to show my son Felix how things used to be done. It revived an old memory, the way it clarified my thoughts, the physicality of pounding the keys. Felix reckoned it was very ‘steampunk’. After that, I lugged it downstairs, placed it on some old dark floorboards, removed from a hatch near our letterbox, and started a painting. My partner Jan nearly broke her ankle when I forgot to put the boards back. A month later, I borrowed my friend Alex’s Olivetti Lettera, the same model as McCarthy’s, and then a Remington portable that I saw in the Grand Days shop on William Street. A friend Fiona lent me her 1970s beige Optima, next to which I placed my father-in-law’s watch. I painted them all.

Painting of a typewriter on a yellow desk, with a wristwatch next to the typewriter. By Tom Carment.

I came late to still life painting, waiting until I was sixty, three years ago. I had tried at times before that, but was never happy with the results, and so I stuck with painting landscapes and portraits, which I enjoyed so much. Then one day I saw a Velasquez painting in an old masters exhibition at the Art Gallery of NSW and noticed some beautifully painted red onions in one corner. On the way home I went to Harris Farm and chose two red onions with the hairiest white roots, took them home and did a painting on the concrete outside.

One day Jan came home and saw me downstairs sitting on a fold-up stool in the lightwell of our terrace house, painting some dirty potatoes. She called out, “Shouldn’t you wait until you’re too decrepit to leave the house before you start doing still lifes?”

For more than half my life I’ve lived in the same part of Sydney, for most of that time with Jan and our children, in a house on Womerah Lane, Darlinghurst. From this address I’ve gone out on many journeys to paint. I work always from life, in oils, gouache or watercolours, on a small, portable, scale. Over that time, I’ve found my range of subjects gradually becoming more local. I take increasing pleasure in exploring things close to home: walking down to Rushcutters Bay Park with my backpack of oils, or to the ledge of grass at McKell Park, for that long view north up the harbour, exploring the back lanes of Kings Cross. The buying of fruit and vegetables is one of the daily routines that I’ve decided to make paintings about.

In the spring of 2016, our daughter Matilda finished school and came home to study for her HSC. I stayed home too, and began a new series of still lifes. The idea was to create an atmosphere of industry and also to keep her company. I’d sit down in the lightwell of our terrace house painting cut pumpkin while, upstairs, she’d be reading about Stalin’s purges and methods of resuscitation. We’d meet up for lunch, sometimes eating the fruit or vegetable I’d just finished painting.

Jan would come in from work and suggest things to me, bringing tamarillos one day from the shop, and, a few weeks later, asking the question: “What about eggs?”

How could I have overlooked them?

I ended up doing seven paintings of eggs, in different lights with different eggs, including my neighbour’s ones, from hens who had eaten our kitchen scraps.

I said to Jan that you can’t really paint eggs in an expressionist way; they require care. One morning I forgot a medical appointment in Bondi Junction, so exclusive was my concentration on the pale browns of the two eggs sitting in front of me. By way of inadequate apology I sent a postcard, made from a photo of the finished painting, and titled it, the missed appointment.

Painting of two eggs on a cream surface, by Tom Carment.


Tom Carment’s exhibition, ‘New paintings – old habits’ runs from 7 November until 2 December 2107 at King Street Gallery on William, 177 William Street, Darlinghurst: www.kingstreetgallery.com.au

Tom’s website: www.tomcarment.com

Jimmy Barnes

Planes fly in low overhead, red brick houses line up in neat rows. Weatherboard residences are plonked next to mismatched terraces; here and there sit light industrial sites with rusty fences. One afternoon, a few reprobates run amok at the local park. But hang on a sec, here comes a man. Not tall but solid, with a boxer’s stance and a don’t-fuck-with-me air. You know his face and he’s come to sort out the troublemakers. Apocryphal or not, I can see it clearly.

“I’m that guy around here, I’m like bloody Neighbourhood Watch,” Jimmy Barnes says, laughing, as we sit in his warehouse-like home in Sydney’s south-east Bayside suburbs. “When there’s any hoons hanging ’round the park, I’ll go down and scare them off, sort ’em out.”

The image of Cold Chisel’s legendary hellraiser as a pillar of the community sits at odds with his past. This is a man who, in his searing second book Working Class Man, readily talks about having snorted “tonnes” of cocaine and who spent decades fighting, boozing, and causing general chaos across Australia.

“We were living in Vaucluse previously [but] there wasn’t a real sense of community and as a family we were sort of splintering,” the 61-year-old says, at ease in his home studio that seems to double as the grandkids’ toy repository. “It’s a community here that cares about each other. My neighbours ring me and say ‘Hey Jim, there’s someone playing with your car.’ Without wanting to sound corny, this is what I’ve always pictured a working class community to be about. This is where we’ve found our niche, found our comfort. They’re all Souths supporters out here and they’re trying to convert me – even though I was a Tigers supporter they’ve almost got me, just because of the sense of community.”

Things haven’t always been so comfortable. His first book, Working Class Boy, detailed a childhood of deprivation and abuse in Adelaide’s suburban Elizabeth. As part of a poverty-wracked immigrant family from Scotland, he and his siblings would often be forced to hide in a cupboard while his alcoholic father belted the hell out of their mother. Working Class Man looks at the period after he hit the road with Chisel, leaving Adelaide and never wanting to look back.

“When I jumped in the back of that truck with Cold Chisel, I’ve just turned 17 and I literally think I’m never gonna see Adelaide again because I had such bad memories of being a child there and I just thought, that’s it, I’m gone, I’m running.”

Jimmy Barnes leans on his studio desk at his home in Sydney.

Jimmy Barnes at home. Photography by Dakota Gordon.

What followed, as documented in an often harrowing yet regularly hilarious book, written in a muscular and surprisingly measured voice, was decades of sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ rock ‘n’ roll, the whole clichéd shitstorm that tore through Australia. Barnes was the plastered king of the raised vodka bottle, Cold Chisel giving him the platform on which to try to rinse the past away, via booze, drugs, and one night stands. With the words of Don Walker as raw material, Jimmy found he was the medium through which Walker’s message could find voice, often coming to embody the stories being told.

“We’d go all up and down the coast of Australia, and I’d be drinking and getting run out of town and fightin’ and chasing chicks,” he says, “and then Don would write a song about it. There were points where I thought I’m sure he’s reading my mail. But I’d be laughing to myself about how lucky I was to have these songs. When Don presented ‘Khe Sanh’, I remember thinking ‘what a great piece of writing, it’s like a novel!'”

But Barnes eventually realised the story couldn’t last forever. “The trauma of the poverty and shame and guilt, the abuse, started coming back into my focus and I started drinking more to try to block it out, but that got harder and harder and eventually I couldn’t run from it any more and it overwhelmed me.”

The result was a stint in rehab, a booze- and prescription drug-fuelled suicide attempt in an NZ hotel and eventually the cathartic experience of sitting down to write his memoirs.

“I’d been bottling all this stuff up for years and I felt a weight lifted off my shoulders when I began writing this stuff down,” he says. “It doesn’t matter whether you are a rock singer or a plumber or if you’re rich or you’re poor, that sort of childhood has a profound effect on how you behave as an adult.”

Walking through his sprawling home, mementos of a musical life strewn with the casual disarray, wife Jane cooking up a storm in the kitchen, there’s largely a sense of calm about Jimmy. An easy laugh and childlike eagerness spills out when showing me around, pointing out this particular piano or the bass guitar that survived attempted obliteration on a Countdown Awards show way back when.

But, while looking fit and relaxed, he still possesses a tough glint in his otherwise genial eye. The healing may have occurred but the scars are still just visible – and when I leave I’m convinced Jimmy Barnes likely does make one hell of a Neighbourhood Watcher.

 


Jimmy Barnes,
Working Class Man, Harper Collins Books, 432pp, $49.99.

‘Working Class Man: An Evening of Songs and Stories’ will see Barnes performing in a stripped-back mode on a national tour in March 2018. Tickets here: www.frontiertouring.com/jimmybarnes

Cold Chisel are meanwhile releasing The ‘Last Stand’ of the Sydney Entertainment Centre – The Live Tapes – Vol 4.

Cold Chisel performs live in Hobart at Wrest Point Lawns on Wednesday November 22; Newcastle at the Coates Hire Newcastle 500 on Saturday November 25; and next year in Adelaide at the Adelaide Street Circuit on Friday March 2. Tickets here: www.coldchisel.com/tour-2/

 

Jimmy Barnes curated the playlist below for NEIGHBOURHOOD.

Down the Hatch The Marly, Newtown

I’m a man of the arts, so I went and saw Blade Runner 2049 at the cinema before strolling over along a humid, brightly lit, mostly empty King Street. If I were more of a hack I’d make some comparison between Sydney’s broken nights under a Liberal state government and the suffocating authoritarian dystopia presented in the Blade Runner films, but I’m only a partial hack so I’m just going to say that much and make you do the work.

Inside, the place is empty. By that I mean the Marly, but it applies also to whatever broader geography you assumed.

In the main bar there are at least a dozen sports screens of different sizes tessellated onto the wall, and all are switched off. I think that now with the main footy seasons over, the bar staff must just want a break, which I can empathise with. Then I remember that it’s midnight on a Wednesday and there’s actually no sport on TV at a low cost at this hour, besides horse racing or dog racing, which can’t really be called sports or low-cost by anyone with an ounce of morality. And only an idiot would pay for ESPN for an empty room.

But the outside courtyard is packed, for two reasons. Firstly, because rich kids look good with cigarettes. And secondly, because while the Marly isn’t the closest pub to the private colleges populated by rich kids at the University of Sydney, it is the second-closest, and it is on King Street, which means it’s adventurous for them.

And that’s the thing that gets me. The Marly is a Newtown institution but tonight, midnight on a Wednesday, it’s empty but for a hive of rich kids out the back, tarring up their lungs like their dads did state politics and conversing with the kind of arts degree accents that made you drop out after two semesters and go learn a trade.

There are varying ages of “Newtown was different in my day”, and depending on what follows, it’s like a sociolinguistic carbon-dater. I think I might be four eras deep, and there are now even people under 25 with cause to say it. I’m generally suspicious and distrustful of urban protectionism, but mostly what we’ve all identified here is just different waves of rich people crashing in at different tide marks. ‘Keep Newtown Weird’? Keep Newtown affordable, the rest would have looked after itself.

None of this is The Marly’s fault, of course. As I’ve said before, a pub has to cater to whoever its locals might be, and it does a good job of it. I love The Marly. The bar staff are still cool and queer and this is still their neighbourhood. But the kids they serve tonight could buy the place tomorrow and slash their wages without even feeling bad, and it makes my stomach twist. (Don’t think for a second that they wouldn’t do it. Go join your union.)

Smoking rollies got cool because poor people do it, so here in this courtyard I have to witness the searing insult of a man-child whose dad probably owns a vineyard and a yacht asking to borrow tobacco. And it’s always the rich kids who ask if they can take a few additional pinches for their pouch, because they don’t know the true cost of anything and because a poor kid would never dare. The one element of working class identity that could never be aped is the kind of humility that comes from being ashamed about being ashamed of where you come from.

As I stew on this, I get hit on by a beautifully masculine but otherwise unremarkable young man, and I rebuff him so tersely, and he respects it so immediately, that I feel awful. He didn’t feel even remotely entitled to more of my time. That kid didn’t come from money.

When I later walked past to go inside, rather than look up at the gently apologetic glance I hoped to offer, he instead just stared down at his shoes. I know he was wishing they weren’t from Kmart, and that he could get things in life as easily as his mates do. They could afford to buy his family, but they still won’t buy a drink outside their shout.

Anyway. I saw Mike Whitney’s band play here once. That seems worth mentioning. They’re called the Mike Whitney Band. People queued to get in and everything. It was really fun.

 

The Marlborough Hotel, 145 King Street, Newtown. Phone: (02) 9519 1222.

Danger in the Past Stranger Things Season 2

It felt impossible, last year, to avoid the first season of Netflix’s Stranger Things. It began with a paranormal, missing child storyline: on the way home from a Dungeons and Dragons session with friends, a sensitive and intelligent twelve-year-old called Will vanishes into the reedy woods of Hawkins, Indiana, in the autumn of 1983. The wheel of a pushbike is left spinning; a headlamp glows.

Despite the increasingly grim evidence, even a body, Will’s harried mum, Joyce (Winona Ryder), senses that her son is alive. But she can’t convince law enforcement officer Jim Hopper – a man still haunted by the loss of his own daughter – to chase the leads. Hopper sees Joyce’s maternal instincts as a form of hysteria, though he’ll steadily tread his way into the darkness that has taken her son.

Will’s friends Mike, Dustin and Lucas, the show’s central heroes, pick up the trail early. It leads them toward a mysterious fenced-off centre called the United States Department of Energy – much like the CIA’s rumoured MKUltra mind-control program – and its runaway human test subject, a psychokinetic girl called Eleven.

We were left on a cliffhanger: Will was found, or more accurately freed – but he and his friends had uncovered a larger, more troubling place, the Upside Down, an alternate dimension inhabited by a monster so unspeakable it has left Will with something resembling Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

 

Audiences globally were instantly enamoured of Stranger Things’ neon typography, evocative of Stephen King book covers of the 80s, and the spot-the-clue hints to Sam Raimi and James Cameron movies. Beyond the specific references was a certain mood and approach to genre: the pulpy storytelling beats of John Carpenter and Steven Spielberg – the cliffhangers and moments of epiphany – that formed the series’s loving blueprint.

The new season begins on Halloween a year after the cliffhanger, and takes us through Will’s readjustment to everyday life, Eleven’s hermited reinsertion into the real world since her escape from the government, and a deeper investigation into the Upside Down and the conspiratorial lab on the edge of town. We flick through allusions to Mad Max (the title of the first episode), Terminator (playing at the local theatre), and countless others.

And we realise the new season has lost its centre of gravity: without the easy, central mystery of solving Will’s disappearance, we’re in murkier terrain, and it takes many episodes for Eleven and Will’s crew to reunite their posse and get back on track toward the nature of the Upside Down and the Hawkins National Laboratory.

But the emotional core remains: the idea that a bunch of misfits can stumble on a world of adult conspiracy, that young people have pockets of secrecy and the ability to experience horror. Will realises he’s not haunted by PTSD flashbacks, but real and present visions of the Upside Down, a universe that he describes tearfully to his mother Joyce as “almost just a feeling” – a place of pure fear, and a metaphor, perhaps, for coming out of childhood. Will’s fright on Halloween, captured on home video and witnessed in playback by Joyce, of a gruesome, giant spidery form arching over the sky, offers another moment in which evidence of the Upside Down leaks into the realm of the real.

Stranger Things Season 2: Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin.

Gaten Matarazzo (Dustin) and Caleb McLaughlin (Lucas) on the lookout. Image courtesy Netflix.

Popular American cinema is full of spaces where children and teens have their own freedom and social lives beyond their parents’ oversight – lingering in lockered hallways, on school football fields, riding bikes through grim suburban streets, bus shelters, pastel postered bedrooms, Halloween itself – and Stranger Things recreates its own version of these spaces with devotion to both its cinematic precedents and the complexity of its pre-teen protagonists’ inner lives. These spaces render in exterior Mike, Dustin, Lucas, Will and Eleven’s young desires and their capacity for cognition and emotion on their own terms.

 

But there’s a part of the Stranger Things creation story that doesn’t fit the picture, yet makes the series’s onscreen universe much richer and odder. Self-mythologically branded in the credits as the Duffer Brothers, its creators, twins Matt and Ross Duffer were only born in February 1984, and the bulk of their recallable childhood, as well as their true coming-of-age, belongs to the 1990s.

Their vision of childhood in the 1980s is a romantic fantasy; through the era’s cultural detritus, they have sampled their childhood, or rather, an ideal of their childhood, and created a new kind of dreaming about their boyhood selves. Even the setting – Hawkins, Indiana – is imaginary, yet fleshed out with the kind of detail that saves it from being generic.

Stranger Things is a mythic pastiche of the most lasting pop culture impressions of the 1980s – an homage of homages, a zooming black hole of collaged parallel universes. It’s not the only program structured in this way. The New Yorker’s Troy Patterson says that Rick and Morty, the animated anti-comedy currently embroiled in fan-PR disaster, “supplies an artful answer to the question of what follows postmodernism: a decadent regurgitation of all its tropes, all at once, leavened by some humanistic wistfulness.” The difference in Stranger Things is that in Will and his friends, we sense cyphers for the Duffer Brothers themselves – the 1980s throwback is personal.

 

What’s so significant is that the pop culture references in Stranger Things are so faithfully resurrected that you don’t have to have experienced boyhood in the 1980s to connect to the story’s universe: they feel right, because they build toward a world that speaks to that tenuous space between childhood and adulthood. At its ebbs, Stranger Things feels bingeable and relaxing after a long dull day, and at its best, it feels like seeing one of your parents cry for the first time.

Strangest of all is that fact that if you look beyond the screen of Stranger Things, the 1980s wasn’t such a lovely era. The Duffer Brothers have carefully omitted a wealth of other cultural and political references from their wonderful, hermetic world: those belonging to the Cold War atmosphere, rank with nuclear fears and geopolitical rupture. Absent are the real horrors of the adult world, steeped in a brazenly conservative fog.

After all, 1984 was the year of Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi’s assassination, the year that the USSR boycotted the Los Angeles Olympic Games, that seventy US banks failed as the economy sunk into recession, that the contested superpower encountered its first ever bio-terrorism attack. So why do we look back on that time with such an affectionate form of nostalgia?

Stranger Things Season 2: Caleb McLaughlin, Gaten Matarazzo, Finn Wolfhard and Sadie Sink.

The emotional core remains. Image courtesy Netflix.

 

Will Eleven and Will and co encounter news of the Chernobyl catastrophe, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the Ashland oil spill or the Unabomber as a new figure of domestic terrorism? Will they watch War Games, the 1983 sci-fi in which a teenaged video-gamer (Matthew Broderick) almost starts a nuclear war by hacking a military computer?

There is one recurring image in the first four episodes – a front yard election sign for ‘Bush/Reagan 1984’ – that gestures to the some of the era’s greater, realer monsters. Perhaps it’s a sign of unexplored things to come – that the It-like monsters of the nerdgang’s universe will be thrown into collision with more grownup realisations of the darker aspects of the 80s.

As phantasmal as the world of Hawkins, Indiana is, it’s a place we evidently prefer to the present. Stranger Things tells us that we can go home again – comfort in the monsters of childhood is the message of the moment. This is a time to think about the past, to return to some mythical place rosier than today, with romantic heroes whose adolescence is on the brink.

 

Stranger Things Season 2 is now streaming on Netflix.

Russian Resurrections A retrospective appreciation of filmmaker Andrei Konchalovsky

There is now such a flood of film festivals in Sydney dedicated to different nations that our screens can feel like a meeting of the UN General Assembly. It’s difficult for even the most dedicated cinemagoer to figure out what films are worth seeing.

So here’s a tip: look out for those that program seasons dedicated to the great cinema of the past. If a filmmaker or actor is interesting enough for their work to be revived years after its original release, that should tell you something.

Sidebars of classics drawn from Russia’s rich cinematic history, many hard to see, have been a consistent strength of the Russian Resurrection Film Festival, now in its 14th iteration and running in Sydney this year between 26 Oct – 5 Nov.

Say what you will about the subject of this year’s look-back, veteran director Andrei Konchalovsky, but you could never accuse him of predictability. From adaptations of Chekhov and Turgenev to collaborations with art film legend Andrei Tarkovsky to Hollywood action movies starring Jon Voight and Sly Stallone, and then back to Russian art films, his career has been one of the most wide-ranging of any director alive.

And although this year Konchalovsky (brother of fellow director Nikita Mikhalkov) celebrates his 80th birthday, his filmmaking hardly looks to be fading. His most recent film on the program, the astoundingly well acted and photographed Holocaust drama Paradise, last year won the Venice Film Festival’s prestigious Silver Lion (second prize) for directing.

The RRFF’s Sydney-based director, Nicholas Maksymow, says Konchalovsky’s huge career breadth highlights the fact “he’s been in the film industry so long that he’s willing to try different styles and genres. His film The Nutcracker in 3D we screened six or seven years ago. It was a bit of a disaster, but I believe he answered his critics by saying that it gave him the opportunity to do something he’d wanted to do, that is to work in England. I think he likes to experiment.”

Andrei Konchalovsky sits backwards on a chair, looking at the camera.

Filmmaker Andrei Konchalovsky

Maksymow has chosen six of the director’s 22 features, selecting them in pairs from three main career phases. His early career is represented by two archetypically Russian adaptations – Turgenev’s A Nest of Gentlefolk and Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya, subtle films that already showed the director’s command of movement within the frame and ability to get the best out of fine actors. Next up – and talk about a startling change – are the action movies Runaway Train and Tango & Cash from the director’s 1980s-90s Hollywood spell.

Finally, to bring things up to date are two of his 21st century pictures, Gloss, a satire on the Russian fashion industry and its connections to prostitution, and Paradise. Konchalovsky told the Russian media this year that “for me, Paradise is definitely not a film about the Holocaust. It shows the tragedy of the Jewish people, but this is not the main theme of the film. For me it was much more important to make a film about the charm of evil. The main character in the film is an SS officer, an incredibly well educated and attractive man. But that is the horror.”

The banning of the director’s second film, Asya’s Happiness, by Soviet authorities may partially explain his mid-career shift to Hollywood, though the move was far from abrupt. In his first of two memoirs, Ugly Truths, the filmmaker describes a love affair with the US that began with a Jefferson Airplane concert and the discovery of stereo radio and packaged chicken livers in supermarkets. American life “fell on me like a ton of bricks,” he recalled.

Yearly visits eventually led to his resettling in LA in the 1980s, where he had an affair with Shirley MacLaine – a Russophile along with her brother, Reds director and star Warren Beatty – which opened the door to other Hollywood stars and power brokers.

As a director he impressed with the lyrical Maria’s Lovers, starring Nastassja Kinski (though released in Australia at the time, sadly the festival was unable to source in a copy) and made a wider impact with the thrilling 1985 Runaway Train, starring Voight and based on an original script by Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa. It’s understandably revered as among the greatest action films ever made.

If any serious director could have forged a partnership with post-Rambo Sly Stallone and pull it off, it would appear to have been Konchalovsky. The pair got on well – but the excessive creative interference of Warner Bros., shocking to someone from a nation where directors were respected and revered, culminated in Konchalovsky being sacked.

Significant films not screening include one of the greatest ever made, Andrei Rublev (which Konchalovsky co-scripted with its director, Tarkovsky); and 1979’s Siberiade, which starred his brother, Nikita Mikhalkov.

The brothers are from a highly artistic family (their writer father penned the lyrics to the Russian national anthem in both Soviet and post-Soviet versions, and their mother was a poet and daughter of the artist Pyotr Konchalovsky). “Early on they had a very good relationship,” notes Maksymow, “and Mikhalkov was even in a couple of Konchalovsky’s films, but as time went on I think they obviously had a falling out.”

It’s intriguing, he adds, that Konchalovsky’s good reputation remains intact in Russia while his brother, once revered for directing the classics Burnt by the Sun and Urga, aka Close to Eden, is now a highly contentious, pro-Putin member of the Duma (Russian parliament) and head of the Russian Cinematographers’ Union, mistrusted by some in the nation’s film industry for what they regard as his misuse of influence and power. But that’s a subject for another day – and perhaps another retrospective.

 

The Russian Resurrection Film Festival screens at Event Cinemas in Sydney CBD and Burwood, 26 Oct – 5 Nov.

Perth: 27 October to 1 November at Cinema Paradiso, Northbridge;
Brisbane: 01 to 08 November at Event Cinemas Myer Centre Brisbane City;
Canberra: 10 to 15 November at Capitol Cinemas Manuka;
Melbourne: 09 to 19 November at ACMI;
Auckland NZ: from 08 to 12 November at Rialto Cinemas Newmarket.

Full details here: http://russianresurrection.com/2017

Address from the New President, 2020 #potus #guns #numb #toughmeasures #shooter #prayers #clichés

America, I stand before you yet again with an all too familiar story. It’s a story we all know backwards. It’s a real-life horror film we see replayed almost weekly. And still we watch and still nothing changes. Is there no end to this terrible epidemic, this on-going malaise, this grimly repeating history that is daily paraded before us? It’s time we woke up to ourselves and squarely faced the facts. They’re facts that many find hard to confront. But confront them we must.

Recent years have seen a pall, a plague, a blight cast over this once great and freedom-loving nation. Over and over again it happens. It happens, and yet nothing happens to make it stop happening. And it won’t stop happening until we say it stops, all of us. For make no mistake, we are all, to some extent, complicit – the government, the media, the powers that be and you the very people. We all of us must come together with a will as one to fight this scourge. Together we must take a stand to put an end to these mindless crimes against language.

Yes, this plague of hackneyed phrases must stop. These meaningless, glib, easy clichés must stop. This windblown rhetoric, this empty anguish and hand-wringing, these mounds of mouldering prayers and petitions and invocations piled up to a God, who by now must surely think we’re a joke – all of these must stop! Yes, God can move mountains, but you’d better bring a shovel. And right now, from God’s point of view, we’re just staring at a rusty spade. You can pray all you want, till you’re red in the neck and black in the face, but faith without action is dead. In short, we must put an end to this meaningless rhetoric of grief.

The statistics are grim. But if we’re too numb to speak we’ll let the facts speak for us. This year alone has seen a three-hundred percent increase in the use of grievous cliche. There is a platitude epidemic. Starting with the worst offender, there have been literally hundreds of thousands of indiscriminate uses of the phrase ‘senseless tragedy’. It is often coupled with ‘innocent victim’, ‘had everything to live for’ and ‘didn’t deserve to die’.

Similarly, the phrase ‘tonight, every parent will hug their child a little bit tighter’ has been scatter-sprayed with abandon by columnists, commentators, senators, governors and – mea culpa – the President himself. Also, the phrases, ‘our thoughts go out to’, ‘our hearts are with’, ‘had her whole life before her’ and ‘never be forgotten’ have been wantonly unloaded. Other clichés to be repeatedly fired include ‘how could this happen again?’, ‘soul searching’ and ‘America is left wondering’.

People ask ‘is there a pattern to these language sprees? Is it just a “white privilege thing?”’ To a degree, yes. Statistically, there is a liberal-raised-college-educated-top-earning bias in the use of the phrases. But make no mistake, these words are not the sole province of any particular kind of individual or special interest group. They are used with abandon by persons of every social, political and cultural stripe, from those in power, like the government and the media, to average American men, women and children on our streets. From Aspen ski lodges to deep-south trailer parks people are saying these things.

The rest of the world is shocked. It cannot comprehend our attachment to, and catastrophically casual use of, this language. This epidemic of hand-wringing and soul searching has swamped us in a tide of ‘the time has come‘, ‘meaningful action’, ‘engage in dialogue’, ‘tough measures’, ‘stay the course’ and ‘see this thing through’. But as my father told me, the definition of insanity is saying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This will be a hard road. There are those who don’t want change. We’re up against the entrenched forces of the NRA. The National Rhetoric Association is an old and honourable organisation. But even it by now must recognise that America has a major language problem.

Hand in hand with this rising tide of grief clichés has come a rise in professional synonym makers, searching desperately for fresh ways to describe events that remain, in outline, essentially unchanged. Only the names, dates and numbers vary. ‘Barbaric’, ‘inhuman’, ‘psychopathic’, ‘horrendous’, ‘mindless’ have all been exhausted from their linguistic arsenal. These professional synonym makers have hit a wall trying to meet the insatiable demand to mint fresh words and phrases with which to reload the magazine of grief. We’ve all been hit by, and ourselves have been guilty of using, ‘horror’, ‘loss’, ‘unspeakable’, ‘unimaginable’, ‘shattered innocence’, ‘devastated lives’. But these are now spent shells, as are ‘despair’, ‘incomprehension’, and ‘mustn’t let this happen again’.

Meanwhile, countless variations on the phrases ‘quiet, shy loner who kept to himself’, and ‘seemed like a nice guy’, have infected our press and public discourse. The National Rhetoric Association, of course, is sticking to its guns in its resolve to preserve what they say are our sacredly enshrined language rights, backed by those with political power and influence in its service. It seeks to silence and paint as unpatriotic calls for a ban on platitudists, rhetoricians, prayer mongers and synonym makers.

The NRA says ‘clichés don’t kill people, people kill clichés’. But it makes no sense. The NRA says that we will only take their iPhones, and the words these devices spray, if it’s from their “cold, dead hands”. But I say, our hearts go out to all these poor tortured words and phrases that get murdered with such rampant indiscrimination. We must come together as a nation and stop this killing tide. Thankyou, America. Let us pray, Godbless and goodnight.

The Email Eunuch A Friday night report on sexual politics, Harvey Weinstein (again), Facebook and #MeToo

“The World has lost its soul, and I my sex.” – Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch

The other day on social media – that glorious platform designed to elicit white hot burning, incandescent, self-righteous rage over clickbait and hashtag ground movements – I was perceived as having abandoned my sisters in favour of inferring that women could cool it a little.

When, a few days after the Harvey Weinstein sex spectacle, female Facebookers started posting #MeToo, I felt concerned that an overcorrection was occurring and men were copping it a bit. And so, I expressed as such in a social media post.

What happened next was a curious thing. Apparently, I hit a nerve and a spring of male gratitude burst forth. That was a surprise. And then what happened was a powerful, frothy geyser of female fury (and some support) exploding over the comments – and I was suddenly controversial.

I probably could have refrained from using the word “strident” when talking about certain women, but it’s a difficult, chewy, gaze-focussing word, so I bit down on a leather strap and used it anyway.

Here’s what I said:

“I’m reading the strident reports by women saying ‘hashtag me too’, who recall some edifying moment a man showed them his dick or attempted to kiss them etc. Meanwhile, I am sitting here wondering whether I will ever get a date on a Friday night, or whether men will be too scared of litigation and give up real women, settling instead for the antisocial activity of swiping right and left on Tinder.

“I have never met a person who has not had a mild-to-moderate form of unwanted sexual experience. From the moment we are born, male and female, we are in the world without a map, without a compass, and for the large part, off to fend – and fend off – for ourselves … born to parents who are just people too, who stuff up, who miss critical signs and signals, and who have experienced their own sexual narrative to varied results.

“Sex and reproduction – and even just the human race – isn’t always nice, from mythical cavewoman-dragging, to hunting outside the tribe, to being sized up on the street. It’s not ‘nice’ but it’s part of the whole rock n roll.

“The current era of fixation on people’s sexual proclivity is distasteful: who is doing what with whom, and should or shouldn’t they? It’s at once prudish and overt. Obscenity is the new normal.

“All of our negative experiences substantially influence our worldview, and the stories we tell ourselves. Freud probably started it, and Harvey Weinstein probably finished it, with the middle bit teased out by overpaid psychologists encouraging their clients to be angry and not accept the treatment they have received.

“I hate the list of sexual misconduct I have been at the receiving end of. However, I live in a chemically reactive world, and for the list of hated moments, I have a lovely list of loved moments. I wonder if people did not ever experience some snippet of misconduct, would the species go to hell in a handbasket? Because one may not be able to have one without the other. And by snippet I’m talking a slap, a grope, a leer, a kiss, an indecent exposure, a whatever – not rape, or institutionalised abuse.

“The emasculation of men, the looming shadow of litigation, the strident tones, the outrage, and the merging of the sexes into one is really ruining my prospects for Friday night.”

Well. The responses were urgently heartfelt. Women fiercely chastised me, sent me emails of abuse, and men thanked me for saying words they feel they are not to say out loud. I have never seen such a divided set of comments where males were meekly appreciative and females were out for blood.

The current version of the #metoo movement has created yet another divide, in a world increasingly divided. Men feel marginalised and a loud majority of women feel the burning spear of unforgiving righteousness. The digital castration has begun, the email eunuch is born.

There are specific events that have triggered the movement. Donald Trump’s abusive and unpunished sexism is one event: a ticking bomb if ever there was one. The death of female exploiter / liberator Hugh Hefner, a quiet affair with women’s eyes mostly dry, is another. And Harvey Weinstein, a producer who did what we always suspected is the norm in Hollywood, is the third.

But there is a nagging hypocrisy in the events that have catapulted warrior Diana to her spear. It had to be high profile American culture that really ticked everyone off and got them sitting on television news panels decrying the inner world of every single man on the planet. Until then, a woman being stoned to death, having one’s face burnt off with acid, or being burnt alive, were all National Geographic tragedies. Something to send donation support to, to sign an online petition about, or to discuss at dinner parties, or to set off and attempt to help, one small location at a time. It had to be white, American, and pop for the shining blade of justice to be seriously drawn.

The #metoo movement is one massive unmonitored, potentially damaging, public therapy session that may trigger a landslide of new business for the therapy business. It’s boom time for psychologists, and hopefully not end times for men.

The upshot? The mob stir of social media is disciplinarian and only allows for a narrow deviation from the accepted moral code, and when rebelled against the hunt can be scary.

Bickering about complex and multifaceted issues on the global and unfiltered platform of social media has reduced critical thinking and debating down to knee jerk reactions and simplified thought processes. I face castigation for imploring a less aggressive approach to complex issues of our times, and imploring for less divide. Hopefully, like all critically important issues, it will blow over next week when somebody in the USA does something else that garners gasps of indignation across every social media platform – and we collectively forget this week and focus on the new blue jeans.

 

 

Note: Original story posted on Friday, October 20, 2017 at 6.06pm has been updated and expanded on Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 12.13pm. New material begins at end of italicised section, starting from “The current version of the #metoo movement…” and continuing till very end of story.  

Blade Runner 2049 Does the ability to have a relationship grant us a soul?

 

Warning: This piece contains major spoilers.

The sink of leather armchairs and the fug of stale popcorn. The cinema is nearly empty this Wednesday afternoon as I sit down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with my lover, M. He’s a filmmaker who should be at home editing the corporate videos that are his bread and butter. I’m a freelance film critic, and I should have seen this feverishly anticipated sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi classic, Blade Runner, at the distributor’s media preview last week. But some films are best seen with a loved one – especially if you’re not called upon to rush out a review.

Mackenzie Davis as Mariette in Blade Runner 2049. Pictures and international distribution by Sony Pictures. Photo courtesy of Double Negative © 2017 Alcon Entertainment, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The feeling of skipping school to see a movie is still slightly thrilling, though these days the school hours that rule us belong to our children. When we showed them the original Blade Runner in preparation for this sequel, they were nonplussed, with the determination of teenagers who must resist being impressed by anything their parents revere. “There’s not much story,” they said. “It’s a bit boring. Is Deckard a replicant? Who cares?”

“But what about the cinematography?” said M, dismayed. “That light, those shadows. The score by Vangelis?”

“You’ve got to understand,” I explained, fancying this to be a teachable moment, “this was a fully realised futuristic world as we’d never seen it before.”

“Yeah, that was the eighties,” they said.

And so we decided to spare them the sequel and spare ourselves their withering glares whenever we hold hands or kiss. These days we feel the need to escape their disdain, in the way we used to need to escape the prying eyes of the world when we were having an illicit affair. Those were the days, three years ago, when every moment together might be the last. We lived in the shadows, often in the plush darkness of cinemas, and had never met each other’s children. There was no future for us; I had a family I could never break.

Pictures and international distribution by Sony Pictures Releasing International.

Ryan Gosling as K in Blade Runner 2049. Photo by Stephen Vaughan ©2016 Alcon Entertainment, LLC All Rights Reserved.

Blade Runner 2049 is a love story. Like the earlier film, it’s also a neo-noir detective story, and, as with all good science fiction, an interrogation of what it is to be real, to be human, to have a ‘soul’, if such things exist. The screenplay is by Michael Green (Logan, Alien: Covenant) and Hampton Fancher, who also wrote the earlier Blade Runner, loosely adapting Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. That film was set in a drizzling dystopian Los Angeles of 2019 where LAPD ‘blade runners’ were employed to seek out and ‘retire’ rogue replicants – androids created to look exactly like humans and to do the dangerous work on other worlds, but forbidden on earth.

While Ridley Scott returns as executive producer, Blade Runner 2049 is directed by Denis Villeneuve, the French-Canadian who gave us last year’s intelligent, restrained and sometimes sublime Arrival, starring Amy Adams as a linguist attempting to communicate with tentacled ink-squirting aliens. Villeneuve brings to Blade Runner 2049 that same serious and unhurried (some might say too serious, too unhurried) intent. Where Scott’s sci-fi direction so often veers towards the obvious and even the tacky (remember Prometheus and The Martian?) Villeneuve is sophisticated, capable of great emotional delicacy.

Not even the most ardent fans of the magnetic Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) death scene, or of the stoic declaration of love from blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) to the replicant Rachel (Sean Young) would go so far as to call them delicate.

“You only like films about relationships,” M says to me sometimes after we’ve disagreed about a film that he loves and I don’t, or vice versa. He adored Scott’s The Martian, watched it two times and then listened to the audio book, fascinated by the story of a solitary botanist (Matt Damon) stranded on Mars and trying to “science the shit out of it” to get home. I rest my case on that single line of dialogue. But perhaps M is right, the cinema that really turns me on is the kind that unfolds the complexity of human psychology and the relationships between people. Or between people and androids or holograms who seem to be people.

And so to Blade Runner 2049, set thirty years later in a world even bleaker and darker than the first, though still beautifully and convincingly realised, thanks in large part to the cinematography of Roger Deakins and the stunning production design of Dennis Glassner. The weather is relentlessly awful, switching for variety between rain and sleet and snow. It’s been decades since a real tree grew out of the soil. Honeybees and dogs are either fake or miraculous. Anyone who can afford to leave for brighter planets has fled. The new improved replicants are so reliably subservient they’re allowed to work and live on earth now, though they are harassed and casually insulted like a maligned racial minority. A few of the older rogue replicants are still in hiding and need to be retired.

Our hero, K, is played by Ryan Gosling, an actor whose mournful puppy-dog eyes and wounded, sensitive-but-strong persona have made him every modern woman’s movie boyfriend. My lover looks nothing like Ryan Gosling, and yet it continues to amaze me how I see his likeness in every desirable man on screen, whether it’s in a set of wide shoulders, a kind smile or a graze of stubble on a cheek. So it has been for lovers since the start of cinema, I imagine. M says it’s the same for him, that he sees something of me in every dark-haired beauty, though I can’t truly believe it when he raves about Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman.

But back to Gosling’s K. He knows and accepts he’s a replicant, created to do a job. Like Deckard before him, he’s employed to find and kill rebellious androids, and like Deckard before him, he’s in love with an artificial woman, but this time she’s not even a ‘skin-job’, she’s a hologram named Joi and she’s played by Ana de Amas, whose own warm wide green eyes and soulful European beauty might well make her every man’s movie girlfriend. She’s adorable. But she’s essentially a sex slave. This worries me, as does the fact that almost all the other important women in the film exist to serve or service male visions. But problematic sexual politics can be discussed in a million other online essays, and here I’m absorbed in the unfolding of this particular and very touching connection between two beings, both of whom are slaves, ‘artificial’ yet capable of rebellion and ‘becoming’.

Joi cooks K’s dinner with care, jazzing up the worm-like protein meals with holographic decoration. (“Don’t fuss,” he tells her gently, and it’s obviously an old routine.) She dons sparkly dresses for dinner, and greets him with kisses he can see but can’t feel. His hands go straight through her. But there’s nothing robotic about the pleasure she seems to take in his company, and in the new ‘emanator’, a piece of technology which allows her to travel outside K’s apartment, accompanying him on errands. Joi is prepared to sacrifice herself for K’s safety, “just like a real girl” and as they uncover together the mystery of a replicant woman who may have given birth, she whispers in K’s ear that he’s special, with a real soul, maybe even “of woman born”.

The idea of this miracle birth – artificially created beings becoming capable of transcending their inbuilt limitations and procreating – is the fascinating driver of Blade Runner 2049. K’s boss, Lieutenant Joshi (an excellent and fierce Robin Wright) wants him to find the child and kill it because its existence “breaks the world” between humans and the others. “We’re all just looking out for what’s real,” Joshi tells K gruffly. But what does real mean?

 

“I want to be real for you,” Joi says to K one evening when she introduces him to the ‘skin-job’ sex worker she’s employed as her surrogate. “You are real to me,” he argues, but she silences him, focusing on merging her features with the replicant so he can finally make love to a flesh and blood body. It’s a stunning and disturbing scene, far better than the similar one in Spike Jonze’s A.I. love story Her (2013). Here, we see the features of both females wobbling and blurring, the technology struggling and only partially successful in producing the desired effect. But the need and yearning behind that technology seems indisputably real.

“I want to be like a real girlfriend to you,” I used to say to M when we grew tired of the secrecy of our affair. “You are a real girlfriend to me,” he always said. “But I wish I could see you on weekends or at Christmas.”

That was before we knew what was possible if we told the truth and held fast to what felt real. I still think polyamory is an ugly word, but it’s a beautiful concept, as mutable and porous and generous in its way as the word ‘family’, and we’ve created a new one of those, built from elements that seemed so artificial and impossible at the start. We feel so fortunate these days that we’re allowed to be real.

I don’t call M my lover anymore (except when I’m joking, or looking for an arresting first line in a feature article); he’s one of my partners. And as the credits roll on this beautifully made and very long film (nearly three hours long) I think about where it won me, and where it lost me. It’s a story about fathers and children, about memories and war. But it’s the love story – problematic sexual politics and all – that feels so real.

Dirty Harvey 2 In shameless times like these can Harvey Weinstein fall from grace, ask for forgiveness and pick up the option on a comeback story?

You don’t hear Gary Glitter on the radio much anymore. Or the hits of Rolf Harris. They have become pariahs. We, their fans, have judged their transgressions to be so heinous that we have banished them from polite society.

I have a friend who won’t watch a Woody Allen film since he took up with Soon-Yi Previn in 1992. I don’t have a problem with Woody – but I got rid of my Cat Stevens records when I saw him endorse Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie. Although I love the film Chinatown, I can’t watch a Polanski movie anymore (except that one).

Does any of this make any sense at all?

In this era when pop culture and entertainment are so pervasive, the latest scandal unleashes a torrent of tweets expressing righteous anger and calling for retribution. Outraged members of the public, newspaper columnists and bloggers – and god-help us ‘Celebrities!’ – all chime in their epithets.

The hallmark of the Kardashian Age, which is how these years will be remembered, is that everyone is obliged to have an opinion on everyone else. But are we obliged to act on it?

I recently deleted all my Jerry Lee Lewis songs; he may well have killed one of his wives. Yet he still proudly refers to himself by his showbiz moniker – ‘the Killer’ (some kind of joke?). I didn’t want to think of this sleazy woman-hater any more, let alone listen to his music, no matter how great a founding rock ‘n’ roller he is.

Personally, the Roman Polanski case bothered me even more. He was a child survivor of Nazi death camps whose wife, friends and unborn child were slaughtered by the fame-crazed Charles Manson in 1969. How does one come back from that life? Let alone make a masterpiece like Chinatown. Then, in 1977, Polanski gives a 13-year-old girl drugs and seduces her. He flees the US for France from whence he can’t be extradited – and continues to make films. And people go and see them! He wins an Academy Award while in exile. Does this mean that the cinema establishment is prepared to just overlook the crime of a rapist because he can make great films? I guess so. Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Sigourney Weaver all agreed to work with Polanski – with no qualms whatsoever.

Would you go to work with a man who drugged and raped a 13-year-old?

Roman Polanski & Sharon Tate at the London Premiere of ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ January, 1969.

Yet I admit that I listen to the Rolling Stones almost every day even though Bill Wyman was a self-confessed paedophile. Am I looking the other way because I love the Rolling Stones but I don’t really feel as strongly about Jerry Lee Lewis? Is my morality as likely to be decided by my taste in music or films as anyone’s actions?

It used to be that a sex scandal would put an end to a career. In the Golden Age of Hollywood publicists were paid to keep crimes and indiscretions out of the papers.

Something changed for us. Shame evaporated in the 1980s.

Teen heartthrob Rob Lowe was caught on a sex tape with a teen. It put a big stop to his career. Then Hugh Grant, a massive breakthrough star with Four Weddings and beautiful girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley, and of course good looking and funny, gets picked up in flagrante with a sex worker. Hugh Grant immediately hit the talk shows, accepted blame, confessed weakness and asked for forgiveness. Things couldn’t have gone better.

What seemed like a career ending moment, Grant turned into a great character talking point. He was now more COMPLEX. Able to be tempted. Rather than having to endure a season in purgatory, Hugh was bigger than ever. And what has followed has been a conga line of celebrities falling from grace and asking for forgiveness on talk shows. Rob Lowe came screaming back with heavy roles in serious dramas like The West Wing.

Anyone can come back now.

Michael Jackson clearly preyed on children – he wasn’t paying out those massive sums for nothing. Everyone looked the other way. The outpouring of praise for Jackson when he died was phenomenal; he was lauded, correctly, as a great artist and the public wept for Michael’s lost childhood – but not much for the childhoods of the kids he molested.

They were not stars.

Are we, who are outraged at child sex abuse, getting rid of our Michael Jackson records? It does not seem likely.

The Jackson 5 from 1974. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

So now the papers are full of the Harvey Weinstein stories – to nobody’s surprise. It has overtaken rapper R. Kelly and his sex farm of teen girls as a focus for disgusted interest. You can use Google Search to see what some of Dirty Harvey’s less-famous victims looked like: concern and outrage devolve into entertainment, complicity and voyeurism at a click.

We expect big shot movie producers (not all by any means) to be exploitative, of course. The casting couch has been upholstered for many years. A lot of Weinstein’s movies are about the wielding of power. He has a reputation as an alpha male. Apparently “everybody knew”, “it was an open secret”. It almost feels like even I knew!

If so, what business do the agents and managers have sending their ingénue clients unaccompanied to meet Weinstein at night in his hotel room? Shouldn’t they at least warn them beforehand? Surely those agents are as complicit as Weinstein? If the girls keep coming and no one complains, you can hardly expect him to stop; clearly the commission was more important than the back rub.

And then there’s all the other big stars and producers and directors crying crocodile tears now, when at no point did they speak out, or decline to do business with Weinstein. Sexual assault is pretty bad – but it’s not worth losing a film deal over, right?

Harvey Weinstein is probably the best film producer in the last twenty years. His contribution to cinema is incredible – more than many of the directors he has supported, harassed, berated, made and sometimes ruined. So how long will he have to wait in purgatory before a deal is made?

The Oscars aren’t until March. That should be just enough time. As the last line in that Polanski film proclaims: “Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.”

Love Hurts Ibsen’s ‘Ghosts’ at Belvoir Street Theatre

“It is the very mark of the spirit of rebellion to crave for happiness in this life.” – Henrik Ibsen

What do we do when our ideals fail us? When they lead us to deny what makes us human? Deny us love? Ghosts was written in 1881, a time which saw works challenging the place of idealism in our lives: Friedrich Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, William James’s Pragmatism, Henry Sidgwick’s Methods of Ethics.

Sidgwick doubts there is “something under any given circumstance which it is right or reasonable to do, and that this may be known”. Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts is about this and more: marriage, family, faith, incest, love, STIs, ageing, youth, euthanasia… It’s life.

Helene Alving (Pamela Rabe) is building an orphanage in homage to her late, abusive husband. She’s helped by the idealistic Pastor Manders (Robert Menzies). Mrs. Alving and the Pastor share secrets of the past, and denials of passion boil beneath coy courtesies.

Her liberal son Osvald (Tom Conroy) has returned from life in Paris as a bohemian painter. He knows nothing of his father’s abuse, whose ‘ghost’ haunts and infects him. (As his mother Mrs Alving observes: “I almost believe we’re all ghosts. Every one of us…It all returns. Not just what we inherit from our parents. Everything. Dead ideas. Dead beliefs. Dead customs. Lodged in us… As many ghosts as grains of sand. And we think we know who we are. We have no idea.”)

Taylor Ferguson, Tom Conroy, Pamela Rabe

Photography by Brett Boardman

Mrs Alving’s maid Regine (Taylor Ferguson) – who has been eagerly waiting for the return of her love crush Osvald – tends to the house blissfully unaware of the family’s secrets, and of her own father Engstrand’s deception (Colin Moody) and how all this will change her life.

Ignorance, ghosts and secrets haunt this provincial house with a vengeance.

For ourselves, we sit and first see Michael Hankin’s purgatorial set. Mrs. Alving’s garden-room with whitewashed walls empty but for table, chairs and plants. There’s nothing that belonged to her late husband but perhaps for a crucifix hanging stage-left – the deafening silence of Him. And a small landscape painting stage-right – “the joy of life” to which Osvald later alludes.

A problem is posed by the stage-left exit: the walls stop and the theatre black takes over but action occurs in this space, out of view. The set finishes before the actors leave the stage ­– what to make of this?

Director/adaptor Eamon Flack’s script is immediate, with the urban Australian cadences lively. His direction unseen but for a moment in which we’re implicated in the play: the stage is left empty, calling us to attention and to ourselves as we overhear Osvald: “[There is] just us. No one else.”

And just wait for the disquieting final moments. Why does Mrs. Alving not touch her son? Can we be driven by reason or are we slaves to passion? This play doesn’t ask the question ‘to be or not to be’ but ‘to do or not to do’.

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke wrote that Ibsen captures everything that is “barely measureable… emotion that rises by half a degree, the angle of deflection… of a will burdened by an almost infinitesimal weight”. Actors show this angle of deflection: performances reveal how our inner and outer lives come apart at the seams. This is rendered acutely in Pamela Rabe’s shining performance as Mrs. Alving. Though if she shines, her light is lit by the embers of the others: Robert Menzies’s Pastor edges upon a stereotype – a psychologically inconsistent opening showing the Pastor as pathetic fool – but then his tenderness shines through the cracks, prompting us to ask ourselves, what can we do with the pathetic within ourselves (from pathos – ‘suffering’)?

Note Colin Moody’s convincing portrayal of Engstrand: how to trust those like him who know how to cower at will? Taylor Ferguson’s Regine – Engstrand’s daughter – is well rendered. She is more innocent than sensual, prompting us to question Osvald’s intentions towards her.

Tom Conroy’s Osvald is incessant in mannerism and histrionic gestures, asking us what kind of mannerism we ourselves employ with our own loved ones – the gestures, tones of voice, that keep us apart, the masks of day-to-day living.

Which means the last performer is us, the audience. Our sense of humour! I was dismayed at the laughs, baffled at the chuffs. The play gauges the community; we are are either not as sympathetic as we would like or enjoy a healthy dose of schadenfreude.

Stefan Gregory’s sound design is of ascending chromatic organ drones evoking the church. But it is at odds with the intimacy of the play – the organ isn’t of intimate timbre. The pure drones neatly represent ‘ideals’; the chromaticism – each small step – leads us to the next tone without ever finding rest, leaving behind only dissonance. It is smarter than it is beautiful: the organ is piercing.

Colin Moody as Engstrand

Colin Moody as Engstrand. Photography by Brett Boardman

Julie Lynch’s costumes are elegant: Mrs Alving’s deep-blue and Osvald’s cool-greys match the characters’ dispositions. Michael Hankin’s white walls and floor boards provide canvas for Nick Schlieper’s elegant lighting chiaroscuro.

In 1881 Ghosts was called “a dunghill at Delphi”. But what a dunghill. Ibsen’s work challenges us to live lovingly. With the plebiscite, the play storms into our present: the $122 million would have been better spent on an eternal tour of Ghosts.

The final moments: Mrs. Alving in a tragic double-bind, imploring us into herself. Her predicament is of the same form as ours in which no ideal or principle helps: when we don’t know what to do, lost in the dark, waiting for the sun, with only love. Go to discover her predicament, and share in it.

 

Post-show I’d recommend Talking Head’s song ‘Once in a Life Time’, Toril Moi’s book Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism and Anne Carson’s Antigonick (on YouTube).

Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts runs till 22 October 2017. Duration 1 hour and 45 minutes. Belvoir Street Theatre, 25 Belvoir Street, Surry Hills. Details here: https://belvoir.com.au/productions/ghosts/

Performance date: 10 October 2017

Down By Law Julian Assange on English twats, tweets from Trump, and Hillary Clinton

They shuffled in, found their seats, settled in as best they could. Many had travelled a long way to be a part of this, but what exactly was this? A ‘conversation’ with someone who, according to our guide “literally needed no introduction” and yet was an elusive outsider, disconcertingly challenging conventional rules of the game. And ‘rules’ is what it’s all about, isn’t it?

So it was, at lunchtime on Wednesday 11 October 2017, and with some geographical irony, several hundred legal eagles from around the world packed into a Sydney theatre. They were there to watch an Australian, Julian Assange, be cross-examined from his refuge of more than 5 years at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

He was, despite, or because of, his nonconformity , one of the major drawcards to the International Bar Association (IBA) 2017 annual conference that has seen more than 4,000 lawyers descend on Sydney this week. As recently as April 2017, the US Attorney General reconfirmed that Assange’s arrest remains a “priority”.

The founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, subject of a seven year United States Grand Jury investigation, and recently victorious in his battle with Swedish authorities over a rape charge, suddenly appeared on the big, green screen.

A weary-looking Assange (it was around 3am in London and he hadn’t been to bed) fielded questions by video link from IBA Executive Director, Mark Ellis, and the audience at the Pyrmont Theatre in the International Convention Centre.

This is an edited extract of his ‘testimony’ about everything from claims that Russia was the source of documents released by WikiLeaks during the 2016 US election campaign to his unflattering views of the media, the Swedish legal system, WikiLeaks’ ‘perfect’ fact checking, and the Australian government.

 

On WikiLeaks’ decision to publish thousands of emails just before the 2016 US election, which Hillary Clinton said contributed significantly to her defeat, but caused Donald Trump to tweet: ‘I love WikiLeaks’.

WikiLeaks is committed to being the most aggressive publisher in the world, the strongest defender of press freedom. We’ve never been accused of censoring one of its sources. We‘re not in the business of censoring information. If we get information before an election we will do everything possible to publish it at the moment where the public is most interested in it, which is before the election. It would be a betrayal of our role before the public to suppress information for the benefit of one candidate or another.

We looked at the polling like everyone else did and essentially the whole establishment in the US, with the exception of perhaps Fox News, was behind Hillary Clinton and our view was the publications wouldn’t make a significant difference. They might of course discolour her…Even if we had known Trump would be elected it wouldn’t have changed. You have principles, you have to live by them. I disagree with the analysis, the hysteria about the US President and frankly the power of presidents in general.

 

On a perceived dislike of Hillary Clinton.

I think that is common to about 50% of the American population and probably the majority of the world’s population. I don’t know the woman. I’m not in high school, I don’t have dislikes of people I haven’t met. It’s more I don’t like their policies…

 

On evidence that leaks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were sourced from Russian intelligence.

Our source is not a member of any state. There has been an intentional conflation of a variety of publications and other material that appeared in other US publications and our publication … The formal position of US intelligence [agencies] is that they believe – one organisation with high confidence, the other slightly less – that Russian actors hacked the DNC and through some circuitous chain of intermediaries that information was given to us – that’s what they claim. Of the emails that we published I am confident our sources will never be shown to be [Russian military or other state agents].

 

On whether WikiLeaks would publish information it knew came from Russian military intelligence, or from a particular state.

I don’t know – we haven’t been in that position. It’s an interesting hypothetical question. I’ve thought about it in a different way; what if a large state, say China, gave us information to publish about Taiwan, a much smaller state, would we have a problem with that? Maybe. We don’t have a rule about it. We’d have to think about it, what that rule is. It’s not like if we don’t publish it, it disappears. When we publish it gets properly assessed and analysed. If we don’t publish it, it appears somewhere else. It’s not like we’re contributing to the problem; we’re contributing to understanding what the information actually is.

 

On journalism and journalists.

I would say in the big Western countries something like 2% of journalists are credible in terms of accuracy. I’m sure everyone in the audience who’s found themselves being reported in the press will understand exactly. It’s quite an interesting syndrome: you’re involved in something, you see [it] reported in the press and it’s nothing like that. It’s largely fabricated, sometimes completely fabricated. What people then do, and I catch myself falling into this, is we then look at a story we don’t have direct knowledge of its truthfulness because we are not direct participants and we assume it’s accurate. But no, that dog food is made exactly the same way as the stuff that you saw and understood how bad the process was.

We see that all the time, the corrosive effects of selective news reporting, complete fabrications, hype, hysteria. I think the press is in general a very toxic mix and extremely corrosive. When it does its job right – and it does sometimes as a result of a few good journalists – then it’s a remarkable thing. The gap between its potential achievements and its actual achievements is so immense you really have to question if the world would be better without it. I don’t think alternative media is any better, it’s frequently worse.

 

On Swedish legal system (Sweden has recently dropped arrest warrant for JA).

Sweden would not guarantee I would not be extradited onto the US. I have a complete lack of faith in Sweden’s judicial system’s ability and more broadly as a political society to fairly carry out a hearing in relation to US extradition. My experience in Sweden made me very concerned about its resilience as a judicial system. My philosophical takeaway from that experience and others is that every state has a level at which its judicial system breaks down, where [because of] the political nature of the case or the opponents of the accused, they have a level where they break down. Every country has it, there’s no exception… The only question really is where is that level and where are you as a defendant on that level.

 

On suggestion he avoided a proper legal process.

Absolutely not. Sweden avoided a legal process and engaged in an illegal legal process… Sweden was formally condemned by the UN [Working Group on Arbitrary Detention]… We won and now we’re suing for damages.

 

On how WikiLeaks decides what information is in the public interest.

My view is that there is a well-established tradition and it’s about newsworthiness when we’re talking about publication, and newsworthiness is pretty much ‘of interest to the public’ not ‘of public interest’. We’re interested in material that is newsworthy in the fast news sense, but also over a long period of time, archive –and that can include information that’s completely unnewsworthy in isolation but adds to the rich context of something that is being published … Otherwise there’s a selection criteria and inevitably psychological, cultural biases and fears about reputational management would enter into that selection process.

 

On support from the Australian government and diplomatic representation he’s received.

I wasn’t aware there was any. Every so often they call up and ask, ‘Do you want consular support?’ and we say what are you offering and they don’t say anything.

When Rudd was Foreign Minister they once forwarded us a letter they had received from Sweden and they gave me a pen and pencil when I was in prison. That was the sum total of the consular/diplomatic support from the Australian government and since then there has been none at all.

 

On WikiLeaks focusing more on Asia, especially India (a question asked by an Indian lawyer in the audience).

It’s a question of expansion. When we get such information we publish it.

What does an organisation need to expand? We need to not be distracted by a number of different serious legal cases and it needs to expand its capital. If you know of Indians who could form some kind of intellectual nucleus for WikiLeaks India I’d be interested to hear that.

 

On WikiLeaks’ confidence that what it publishes is accurate.

We’ve become the best forensic analysers of digital information. At least as far as any organisation in public. Interesting question whether intelligence agencies exceed our capacities, probably not.

So far, [we have] 11 million documents published. Now to be fair sometimes a million documents from the same source, but so far we’ve never misdescribed a document we’ve published, we’ve never mis-authenticated anything we’ve published. I think that’s an enviable record. In some way it’s a bit burdensome and in some ways I wish we didn’t have that record. There’s a phrase ‘perfect is the enemy of the good’. We have perfect and because we have perfect and to lose perfect would in some sense be a reputational calamity, we have to reduce volume a little bit to keep perfect.

 

On media he thinks are doing a good job (apart from WikiLeaks).

C-SPAN is good; they’re a primary source publisher like we are a primary source publisher.

There are fine journalists working across all major mainstream media outlets, it’s just that they’re a minority. Politico Europe has just started and it’s very interesting. Politco EU does some fine work especially in the European context. It’s taken some of the good traditions which are in rapid decay from the US print press and transported it to Europe. The Intercept does some good things. Some of the German press, sometimes the French press.

 

On whether, in response to a question from a ‘humble’ English lawyer, he has any respect for the rule of law, and has come to terms with the fact that, in absence of coming out from the Ecuadorian Embassy voluntarily, he may end up dying there.

Is this a British twat? You sound like it; where are you from? I’m curious because I’ve developed an understanding of London culture, if you can call it that… you are a member of the state which has been acting unlawfully in relation to me addressing my rights… I don’t know exactly how you form part of it culturally or whatever. But that’s an example of the sort of garbage I get, I face in this town.

 

On Donald Trump’s use of social media to subvert the mainstream media control of the narrative.

In general, yes, it’s an extremely positive thing. In the particular way Donald Trump uses it, well he’s a very unusual psychological character, very, very unusual. Because he lies like that constantly, gargantuan lies. So, it’s not a positive, every time a lie is communicated it’s very rarely a positive, it’s a type of intellectual pollution in the library of mankind. On the other hand, he also tells the truth like that in situations where normally people would not tell the truth. And the result of the second part is that very many interesting things are revealed about the structure of US power. And the result of the first part is all sorts of dangerous distortions enter into our perception of reality, or some people’s perception of reality.

 

We might, as the chief questioner, Mark Ellis said, have let this inquisition go on for another hour, but time was up. Assange seemed even more weary from lack of sleep, years of confinement or yet again beating his drum – it was hard to tell from afar.

The Lost Opera Composer George Dreyfus and the sound of silence

In 1969, Opera Australia commissioned one of Australia’s most notable composers, George Dreyfus, to compose an original Australian opera. It was never performed. Almost 50 years on, Dreyfus is still campaigning for justice.

It’s the opening night of Opera Australia’s performance of The Ring Cycle. Outside the Melbourne Arts Centre the weather is typical for the city; blue skies and sunshine sparring with storm clouds and rain.

It’s not all pearls and bowties arriving for the show. Some have chosen comfort-wear, as if preparing for a long-haul flight. Wagner’s 16-hour opera is divided into four parts. Tonight, it’s the prelude: Das Rheingold.

The program states that The Ring Cycle is a story about humanity. Who cannot identify with a story about power, betrayal and relationships, it asks.

The 135-strong orchestra is warming up inside. A trumpet sounds, its notes fading in and out, carried on the wind. A tambourine and other instruments join in. It’s not coming from inside the Arts Centre — George Dreyfus has arrived and he has brought with him an ensemble, an opera of his own.

White and black typed placards nailed to wooden stakes criticize Opera Australia; one reads ‘Justice for The Gilt-Edged Kid’, a reference to the work Opera Australia commissioned from Dreyfus in 1969 but never performed. Almost half a century later, the now 89-year-old Dreyfus is still campaigning for justice.

Dreyfus works the crowd of arriving guests; he has a fistful of flyers and his shirt is wet from the rain. Some patrons are indifferent, brushing off Dreyfus’s approach. Others recognise the Australian icon, “That’s George Dreyfus!” I overhear one say.

“Oh Dad!”, Jonathan Dreyfus, a successful musician and composer in his own right, exclaims, as Dreyfus lowers himself down onto the ground and lies on his back in front of two of the glass doors. Some of the Ring Cycle patrons are forced to go around Dreyfus to enter the theatre via another door.

A ‘falsetto’ is a high pitched male vocal far above the natural range — it is also the pitch of the security staff member who has been trying unsuccessfully to persuade Dreyfus to reconsider his protest. The security guard pleads with Jonathan to try to persuade his father to get up. Jonathan simply shrugs and says, “He’s your problem I’m afraid.”

The music and madness peaks as the ensemble of family and friends — many of them talented musicians — gather around Dreyfus. They are belting out ‘Ballad for a Dead Guerrilla Leader’, a passage from Dreyfus’s opera.

One of Australia’s most renowned composers lying in the rain in front of the Arts Centre. It has the look and feel of the finale of a blood-soaked opera. He’s just missing the dagger buried in his side.

 

Born in Wuppertal, Germany, in 1928, five years before Hitler came to power, Dreyfus was forced along with his parents to flee Germany in 1939 due to the rise of anti-Semitism and the fear of what a Hitler-led Germany would bring. Escaping before the Holocaust, the family survived while many other family members perished. George and his brother were separated from their parents for six months before being reunited in the Melbourne suburb of St Kilda.

In Melbourne, Dreyfus discovered his love of music at Melbourne High School where he played the bassoon in the high school orchestra and eventually conducted the choir. In 1948, he was a bassoonist in J.C. Williamson’s Italian Opera tour. He went on to be a bassoonist in the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (then the Victorian Symphony Orchestra) for 11 years, from 1953 to 1964.

His career crossed over into film and TV with around 15 television and 35 movie scores. His most famous was the catchy score for the much-loved weekly television show Rush. In 1992, Dreyfus was made Member of the Order of Australia for his service to music. Dreyfus has written four operas that have been performed in Germany, Australia, and the USA. He has also written four books and still plays the bassoon, his “lifelong companion”.

George Dreyfus in New York, 1975.

“Australian music history is very light, because the people in it are very light,” Dreyfus tells me. “It’s only because I stirred, that it ever got into public notice.”

We are sitting in Dreyfus’s lounge room, which doubles as his studio. A writing desk and piano are positioned in front of large bay windows that overlook his garden. A bronze bust of George Dreyfus watches on.

“You might not know, but [for some time] the arts didn’t get money in Australia. Like under Brandis,” he says, in a reference to the former Minister for the Arts, “where all the money is being cut from the arts.”

Things started to pick up in the late 60s, he explains. The Australia Council for the Arts (‘the Australia Council’) had been set up and Herbert Cole ‘Nugget’ Coombs was appointed the founding chairman.

In 1968, Nugget asked Dreyfus to compose an opera based on Coonardoo, a 1929 novel by Katherine Susannah Prichard. Prichard’s novel is a story about race and identity in Australia, focusing on the relationship of a white pastoralist and an Aboriginal woman, set against a backdrop of discrimination, prejudice, and division.

Photography by Sebastian White

If it were produced, Coonardoo would have been Dreyfus’s second opera. Dreyfus recruited Lynne Strahan – author, poet, and short story writer – as librettist to draft a three-act opera and they sent it to Nugget.

But it wasn’t Nugget who responded. Instead, Dreyfus received a call from Claudio ‘Claude’ Alcorso. “He said, ‘I am the new Chairman of Opera Australia I want to come and see you.’”

George invited Claude and his family over for lunch. The lunch would change the course of Dreyfus’s life, setting him on a decades long journey for justice and recognition.

“He said, ‘It is off!’” Dreyfus exclaims dramatically.

“‘Instead of you writing a three-act opera we’re getting five other composers to write one act operas.’” He told Dreyfus that he could be a part of it and create a new shorter opera or ‘just leave it’. Coonardoo, the opera, was discarded and never revisited again.

Dreyfus recalls a feeling of “betrayal”, although he didn’t say it aloud. Instead he decided to accept the new commissioning and signed the new contract.

 

Lynne Strahan and Dreyfus regrouped and soon had the beginnings of The Gilt-Edged Kid: a political fairy-tale depicting the clash of left- and right-wing ideologues during an Australian leadership contest.

The rebel leader — the Gilt-Edged Kid — wields a belief in human betterment. The incumbent party is ruled by the Administrator, a political moderate who is outmanoeuvred in a series of theatrical leadership games as they struggle for power.

It is Hunger Games meets opera. An archery tournament is the final round and the scores are tied. The Kid hits a bullseye but as he retrieves his arrow the Administrator shoots him dead. It is a slow and furious death. After which, the Administrator is killed by his Chief of Police. The Kid enters the revolutionary ranks of dead heroes. The Administrator is forgotten.

Dreyfus and Strahan received lots of encouragement along the way from Opera Australia — then called ‘Australian Opera’. It’s uncanny that each letter sent from Stephen Hall, Opera Australia’s Artistic Director is also signed ‘Administrator’.

“Do you have any idea as to when the work might be completed?” writes Stephen Hall enthusiastically in September 1969. And then in September 1970, “It is good to know you are in the last stages of The Gilt-Edged Kid.”

It took Dreyfus and Strahan a year to compose the opera. They were pleased — not just with the opera itself, but the presentation too — all the notes were hand-drawn on dyeline transparencies and copied into a manuscript. They wrapped the score in tissue paper, cardboard, and brown paper and sent it off.

It was a shock to Dreyfus and Strahan when they found out via the press that only the ‘best’ opera would be performed. “In the beginning, it was a commission. Gone, it’s now a competition,” Dreyfus says.

Then, on 19 August 1971, Stephen Hall wrote to Dreyfus: “We regret that we do not wish to perform the opera [The Gilt-Edged Kid] at this stage.” Dreyfus felt like the Gilt-Edged Kid himself, shot in the back by the Administrator.

Dreyfus was paid for the commissioned piece, but he recalls that they got paid “less than a street sweeper”. He met with Nugget several times over the years that followed. “But it never led to anything because I had already been wiped off the map.”

In the 1970s newspapers ruled the media landscape, arts reviewers were kingmakers and they were reporting on an opera company in complete disarray.

It was not just the shows that were getting bad reviews — the management and direction were also under sustained attack. The lack of original Australian content and talent was being questioned and it was reported that morale amongst staff and performers at Opera Australia was “at an all-time low”. There was also criticism of the commissioning process that had affected Dreyfus and The Gilt-Edged Kid.

Two of the loudest voices were music critic and composer Felix Werder and theatre critic and librettist Leonard Radic. They were invited as latecomers to enter an opera into the same ‘competition’ for which Dreyfus had submitted The Gild-Edged Kid. Dreyfus claims that Stephen Hall was attempting to buy more favourable publicity by getting the critics on board.

 

“It’s one in a million works that turns up in a director’s inbox as a completed PDF and suddenly gets put on. It’s a fairy tale,” says Jack Symonds, the Artistic Director of Sydney Chamber Opera. A composer, conductor, and accompanist himself, Symonds believes there is a misconception about the amount of Australian operas that get performed in Australia – and that the number is actually quite high.

“At Sydney Chamber Opera, I would estimate that I get between 20 and 30 completely unsolicited submissions every year.”

At any given moment, he says, there are many artists working on an opera. “The positive thing it produces is a composition culture where opera is revered as the ultimate statement of a composer’s intent for a certain branch of composer. The downside of that is it produces an equally powerful culture of resentment when these composers don’t get their works performed by whom and when they think they should be.

“A commission doesn’t necessarily mean it will be produced. There are many more operas commissioned than there are produced.

“It’s an impossible dilemma. I would say that if a piece is commissioned, and that’s all been paid off, and the deal’s done, then the composer is left quite exposed sometimes. And in a position where they’ve spent years of their life exhaustively pumping out this piece [where] perhaps it might not even reach the stage.”

 

The full score of The Gilt-Edged Kid is hard to come by. There are only a few complete copies: one is housed in the National Library of Australia, another in the Australian Music Centre library in Sydney, and one in the State Library of Victoria.

Before they were shelved, Dreyfus took a no-frills version of the opera on the road.

“Among the many things I did to keep my opera alive and not let it die by sleight of hand … I reduced the scoring of orchestra to an ensemble of seven players.” The opera was performed in Sydney, Melbourne and Ballarat. There were eight performances in total — the performances were a labour of love. “Nobody ever got paid, but we did it.”

During the 70s, Dreyfus sent letters to Opera Australia and received responses as to why the Opera was “not suitable” or not “worthy” of performance.

The correspondence was full of indignation, which runs both ways. Dreyfus escalates his complaints to the Australia Council and others, protesting the decision. It’s clear that in some missives passion outweighed tact.

As the letters escalate it appears both sides dug in. At one point, Hall wrote to Dreyfus on 21 July 1972, “Your letter has been considered by the Board, and I am directed to inform you that the Company does not intend to give reasons for its decision not to perform your opera The Gilt-Edged Kid.”

The letter went on to say that decisions of this nature “involved difficult matters of assessment” but it did not detail what these difficult matters of assessment were.

“I’m nobody,” Dreyfus says. Then he says it again dramatically. He did not have connections, “friends in high places”, like he thought some of his competitors had.

 

In recent years, Opera Australia has never been far from controversy. Criticism has ranged from the high cost of tickets, to the lack of Australian content and leads, to the use of government funds on non-opera productions.

Gone are the days of opera companies living hand to mouth. According to their 2016 Annual Report, Opera Australia made $61.8 million in sales revenue and $53.5 million in other revenue of which $25.5 million was government grants. This is a huge amount when you consider that the 28 major performing arts companies had to share in $107.8 million in the same year, an equivalent of about $3.8 million per company.

Opera Australia has come under fire for putting on popular commercial musicals instead of operas. Critics believe that government funds should not be used to prop up blockbuster musicals. There is also the criticism that what is meant to be a national company is highly concentrated in Sydney.

An 18-month National Opera Review was handed down in 2016 which made 118 recommendations to the federal government in relation to Australia’s major opera companies; Opera Australia, State Opera of South Australia, West Australian Opera and Opera Queensland. The review found that Australian Opera companies should present Australia’s distinctiveness in opera. “Australia’s Major Opera Companies should be leading exponents of Australia’s cultural distinctiveness within opera’s artistic traditions.”

The report states that new work “that reflects Australia’s national character and is emblematic of its own time and place is essential to the ongoing artistic vibrancy of the artform.” It recommends that “Governments should support the development of new work, particularly through experimentation, workshops and smaller scale activities.”

It also states that the “track record” of the Major Opera Companies developing new work has been sporadic, recommending that “Governments should create an Innovation Fund which will include discrete competitive funding to encourage the development of new works to which the Major Opera Companies can apply either on their own or in conjunction with smaller companies.”

The National Opera Review recommended that activities funded by the government should be clearly defined and questioned whether commercial musicals should receive government funding in this way.

The government is yet to implement any of the recommendations. However, it seems opera companies have used the review to make some changes. The review has prompted a flurry of Australian productions. What this all means for The Gilt Edged-Kid is unclear. But what is clear is that the winds of change are beginning to blow across the Australian opera landscape.

 

“It is incomprehensible,” says Dr Thomas Reiner. “Why would you pay all that money to commission someone to write a whole opera which is a significant amount of work and then simply say, ‘Oh, we’re not going to do it.’ I’ve never experienced anything like it.”

Dr Thomas Reiner is a composer, an Associate Professor at the Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music at Monash University and has read the score of The Gilt-Edged Kid. Reiner is a friend of Dreyfus’s, they are part of the same small contemporary art music scene in Melbourne.

Reiner is of the view that if an opera is commissioned then it should be performed. Reiner says that sometimes there are discussions between the commissioning body and the composer along the lines of ‘performability’.

“Someone might write something that is incredibly difficult, or incredibly long, or in any other way unrealistic in terms of performing the piece.” But Reiner says that is not the case with Dreyfus, “because he writes relatively conventional music.”

“The score suggests that there is a substantial and competent work — as one would expect from George. As often with George’s music, the style is rather traditional, but not anachronistic,” Reiner says.

“Would the work appeal to a contemporary audience? Sure, why not; as long as it is carefully staged.”

 

Mark Dreyfus is the Shadow Attorney-General, and George Dreyfus’s eldest son. He was in his first year of law school when his father was commissioned to write the opera and remembers it well.

“His career was going well… I thought it was a great development that he had been commissioned to write an opera by the Australian Opera.”

But Mark Dreyfus is perplexed that almost 50 years later it still has not been performed. “When you’ve received a commission there has got to be at least some expectation that it’s likely to be performed.”

“As someone who has got standing not just in this country, but in Germany where George has been commissioned to write operas and those operas have been performed…” He pauses, searching for the right words. “It’s a disappointment,” he says with a sigh, “that this opera has yet to be performed in Australia.”

One of the reasons Opera Australia receive so much money is that it is an expensive art form. “I do not begrudge them a cent,” says the former Shadow Arts Minister. “I think it’s great we have a world-class opera company, but it is a fact that it receives a lot of government money, more than all the other opera companies.”

Mark Dreyfus believes there is a tension at the heart of all artistic endeavours and finding the balance is key.

“To what extent are you going to perform works that you know will sell or put audiences there paying and watching and to what extent do you engage in cultural activity that less people might wish to go and see, but will nevertheless be of tremendous interest and enrich Australia’s cultural life? The tension of that decision is one that every arts administrator, every arts ministry has to resolve,” Mark Dreyfus says.

Mark Dreyfus admits to being unashamedly biased when it comes to his father’s work. But it is clear he is not just speaking from the heart. He genuinely admires his father’s work. I ask him if he thinks it will be produced one day.

“Yes, I’ve got no doubt about it,” he says, and adds, “I hope it is performed in my father’s lifetime.”

 

Brush Off is the name of George Dreyfus’s fourth book. It’s also how he feels he has been treated over the past decades. “I don’t have a future anymore,” he declares. “I’m dead soon, so I can afford to take risks that I would not have taken in the 70s and 80s when I didn’t really do much at all [to protest against Opera Australia’s decision not to perform the opera]. Except yell at a person now and then, of influence, who turned the other way, because Brush Off is about turning the other way. That’s what brush off means.”

“A number of people said ‘George stop’, as in ‘get over it’,” he says. “My aim is not to reform anything. No, I want justice for The Gilt-Edged Kid.”

Dreyfus might not be calling for reform, but it is clearly on the way. Many of the findings by the National Opera Review echo the criticisms that have dogged the opera company since the 1970s. In the intervening years, the company has received more and more funding while the medium seems to have become less and less popular. It is difficult to see Opera Australia changing its mind anytime soon — but perhaps a future Opera Australia will reconsider performing Dreyfus’s opera.

“Australian music history is not overpopulated with issues. It hasn’t got much going. I am filling in a void. I’m doing something which a PhD student, a VCE student could say, ‘Oh I think I might do this unperformed opera.’

“I think human being tradition tells us to fight for what is right.”

“I think it was wrong not to play this opera. And I would like to right the ship before I die.”

Opera Australia was provided with a draft of this story before it was published. They declined to comment.

Photography by Sebastian White

 

*The Opera company has had several names over the years; Elizabethan Theatre Trust Opera Company, The Australian Opera and most recently Opera Australia. The current name, Opera Australia, was used in this story.

X

Sign up to our newsletter, Word on the Street, for your weekly dose of news, features, and culture direct from your neighbourhood.

* Mandatory Privacy Policy