Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 9. 1962.
Sir,—I read with interest the letters about Extrav. in your last issue. I am sorry if anyone was mishandled as a result of the show and offer my apologies to them.
I would like to make a few comments though. I notice that both writers mention a skit called "Life on the Waterfront." This leads me wonder if either of your correspondents actually saw the show. If they did, they certainly didn't waste their money on a programme. My copy says—"Scene 3—Wellington Wharf." This just one scene in a full-length show, intended to further the plot line and was more concerned with the actions of the Hero and a certain politician than with Life on the waterfront. It certainly wasn't a skit.
I can understand why Mr St. John is reluctant to discuss the factual basis of his accusations, but I must say that I find his letter more reasoned than that of Mr Turner, who manages to compare the industrious wharfie with the idle student. I am afraid that the public only knows what it sees and as Mr Turner knows that all students are bone idle so the public knows that all wharfies are very industrious. This brings me to his next point. If Mr Turner would care to prepare for me the outline of a plot which is political, topical, has plenty of pace, is a dramatic unity is funny, runs very close to two and a half hours, and contains comments about the pressure groups in the country—on both sides of the House—about all the local and national happenings, and all the topical international happenings; then I will be as out of breath as this sentence. It can't be done without ruining the pace of the show. If you want to be funny as well your plot has to pick on one thing and stick to It. Mr Turner should try it sometime. has every chance of doing better than me—if he tries. The attack on the standard of the cast strikes me as being very typical of the usual jealous sour grapes that are dished out at Extrav. each year, never by anyone who has had a hand in any of the hard work concerned with putting on the show.
I have no doubt that as Mr St. John says the unions are hyper-sensitive, but I can only answer in Mr Turner's words paraphrased slightly—"As soon as they, and your two correspondents, take themselves less seriously, they may be able to appreciate the workings of the world around them."—Yours etc.,