Ghost of Moliere

A couple of points R. Mays raised, somewhat confusedly, in his letter published last week, deserve further discussion. First, however, I would like to correct some misconceptions he has. Over the past six months or so I have given about equal space in my reviews to shows from the three theatres I go to regularly: Unity, Downstage, and the University Theatre. I have not reviewed all the shows I have seen, for various reasons, I did not review Waiting for Godot and I have mentioned that show only twice and in passing. I would also like to point out that I do not have a monopoly on Salient reviews. To that extent I am 'self-styled', Which only means there is nothing to prevent R. Mays or anyone else publishing their own reviews. The other point Is that Misanthrope was not an attempt at a period production and nor did it aim to be 'realistic' — whatever that means. The supposed contemporary relevance was to derive from its setting in 1966, three hundred years after the death of Moliere. I said in my review that this aspect of the production had been 'overstated'. So much for Misanthrope.

Now for 'bourgeois art and culture', I would say that with a very few exceptions (and even those are arguable) all NZ theatre is bourgeois and elitist — in that the aim is to entertain rather than challenge or question; in that the drama is conceived to meet the expectations of habitual theatre patrons; and in that those patrons comprise an exceptional minority with various identifiable characteristics. University Drama, of whatever sort, is not and cannot be considered one of the exceptions. To say a theatre is bourgeois and elitist does not, however, mean that its productions are always and necessarily bad, though it may mean there is a certain kind of achievement they cannot manage. In this situation a reviewer or critic has three choices — he can pretend that everything is as it should be and write his pieces regardless; he can condemn out of hand 99 per cent of what he sees or will ever see here, in which case he need not write at all; or he can take each production on its merits and attempt to distinguish between the necessary and the gratuitous. I have tried to adopt the third stance, with what success I cannot say. It is easy to call Downstage 'fur-coat theatre' and therefore dismiss it altogether, easy to arrogate all sincerity and judgement to ones own position, easy to throw away such words as bourgeois and elitist. Finally it is also Irresponsible, in the same way that uninformed assertions about misuse of 'our' money is irresponsible. The proposed festival of student written and directed plays was not abandoned because $3000 had been spent on Misanthrope. There was a separate amount set aside for it, some other reason must be found for its non-occurence.

R. Mays seems to be saying there is a different kind of theatre waiting in the wings and that this theatre is prevented from taking the stage by the moneyed prima donnas and elitist entrepreneurs. That, this can happen is undoubtedly true; I know of at least one relevant example. Yet I take leave to doubt his claim that such a potential exists now, within the university. If it did exist anyway, I would hope it has the sense to act without invitation rather than whine outside the door. Its not that hard a world. And if you want 'positive, sincere, critical encouragement' you'll have to make some effort to earn It.

One more point in passing — can a diatribe really be complimentary? Perhaps R. Mays should consult his dictionary before he writes again. And get his thoughts in order and his facts straight, if he expects me to take any account of his criticism of the way I write.

P.S. I do think some explanation is demanded of the people who produced Misanthrope — as to how and why they spent $3000, who spent it, and In what state It has left Drama Society finances.