It appears that based on a sample of nearly 2,500 plays, around 54% of writers (or co-writers) were male and 46% were female. (There were also a number of texts where the gender of the author couldn’t be determined but I’ve taken these out of the percentage calculation.)

The guidelines for script submissions to the Australian Script Centre are here:

http://www.ozscript.org/scriptreg.php

I’ve held back releasing this review because I wanted to complement the analysis of published plays with an analysis of produced writers and directors across a range of theatre companies over the past decade or so. But I haven’t had the time to do so and figure might as well get something out there for anyone who, like me, has a decidedly un-artistic interest in slicing and dicing data.

Any quantitative analysis that involves a level of data massaging and subjective categorisation should be open to questioning, so the spreadsheet, including the raw data (as received from the ASC), the categorised data, notes on my methodology and pivot tables can be downloaded here:

http://www.worldinprogress.org/theatre/Australian_plays_analysis-200912.xls

Or go to the following and click on the link to download:

http://www.worldinprogress.org/theatre/

Note that the file is in Excel 2007 format and may not open entirely correctly in earlier versions.

My meaning was that the debate was immediately put on the defensive, and the action at best dismisses the legitimacy of the award, at worst is libellous toward the judges.

If the intention was to draw attention purely to the issue of gender inequity, why mention that he has previously been nominated? Why suggest that the winners will never know if the award was ‘politicised’ – it’s a bit much to presume on behalf of the other nominees. In any case, whoever does win it may now well wonder ‘what if?’ as for my quip about taking the money, well, if that’s indecent he could always give it to charity!

i honestly don’t think this has added anything of value to this issue.

logistics = set up mic. press record.

Is it evident? The companies that have been most criticised of late are STC, MTC and Belvoir, the three companies that, I’d argue, are at the pinnacle in terms of the theatre hierarchy that exists in this country. By that very definition these would not be very open, with some exceptions, to ANY artist “at early stages”, regardless of gender.

If we’re looking at chances being taken on emerging artists shouldn’t we be looking at the track record of (in Sydney) the Old Fitz, the Darlo, the New, the TAP Gallery, the Newtown, NIDA and so forth? I’ve not seen anyone do an analysis of these “entry point” theatres.

I ran some numbers on Griffin’s main stage programming in the period early 1990s – early 2000s and (as I recall) about two thirds of writers and directors were female. Griffin programmed exclusively new Australian works during this time. Some of these women have gone on to become mainstays… why haven’t more? Probably because Ros Horin didn’t go on to become AD of one of the bigger companies. If she had, I’m sure she would have programmed more of the people she grew to “like and trust” from her previous tenure, just as everyone does.

Everyone starts out somewhere… and what seems to be getting lost is that that’s exactly what’s happening. Artists with drive and talent are creating their own opportunities. Kate Revz, Sarah Giles, Joanna Erskine, Augusta Supple, Nicki Bloom and others, they’re out there writing and directing and producing works right now; for no money, no prestige and little recognition. Just as Richard Wherrett, John Bell, David Williamson, Neil Armfield and others did 30-40 years ago. Keep going, and the recognition and prestige will come (though not the money, unless you’re the next Williamson). Can’t get into the Company B season? Well, leapfrog them. Keep going, and in 2050 it’ll be someone else complaining bitterly because they can’t get into the season of Cry Havoc, the country’s pre-eminent theatre company, because Kate Revz and Jo Erskine only ever work with the people they like and trust.

> is it possible for one of our esteemed correspondents
> to take audio of the panel discussion?

Or for Company B to make a transcript/recording available? David Marr’s speech a few years back was distributed in full, as were some other lectures (either through Currency Press or less formal means). It’d be nice if something like this was possible through official channels this year. Granted, it’s a more logistically difficult thing to do for a debate/panel discussion.

For the record i stand by my analysis that Caleb’s actions are the ‘two-steps-back’ part of the dance we all know so well. He’s polarised the issue when the way forward is clearly an open discussion. Remember, his protest is AGAINST Belvoir offering a chance to talk to issue through publicly. Me? I’d just take the money and write a letter privately…

In any case to elaborate on my comments about nepotism, it cuts both ways. Personally i struggle to imagine the arts without it! at least half of the jobs I have taken (paid or otherwise) are a result of people approaching me directly because they trust my ability and know i can work a rehearsal without fuss. There are plenty of actors/directors equally as capable as me who never stood a chance.

anyway. best be off. i have monologue to learn for some people who i have never met. but that casting should be based on merit, right?

i am really keen to try and come on Sunday but i may have to work.
is it possible for one of our esteemed correspondents to take audio of the panel discussion?

A blogger called 5th Wall wrote the following, which I think is worth cutting and pasting:

“… in creative industries, people go with the artists they trust. This is what is really behind the gender gap. In the major companies especially, any risk must be calculated, so the ones getting the director jobs are the ones that have shown they can handle the pressure. Statistically there are less women with track records because, well, there are less women with track records, and as such, less women get given the nod, and the cycle continues.”

http://5thwall.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/caleb-spits-the-dummy/

Putting aside the comments directed at Caleb Lewis personally, I think it’s worth asking: is any gender inequity not so much as a result of discrimination or personal preference per se – positive or negative – but rather as a result of a reluctance to take (presumably commercial, but maybe also artistic) risk?

Does this mean that any bias is not so much directed against female writers/directors as against _less experienced_ artists, of any gender?

Of course there are experienced women writers and directors… and these DO tend to get work on regularly: For instance Marion Potts, Gale Edwards (more overseas where she’s better compensated), Katherine Thompson, Verity Laughton, Joanna Murray-Smith, Lee Lewis (who’s set to have a good 2010 after a decade or more of putting in the hard yards).

Note I’m drawing a difference between experience and talent. So one might have the talent to match that of Gale Edwards, but not necessarily the extensive track record to back it up, to make the decision to go with you a safer one.

Some might argue that emerging male artists are getting more big breaks than emerging female artists, but it’d be interesting to run the numbers on that argument. Eg, if you include overseas writers as well as Australians, then off the top off my head, Nicki Bloom, Nina Raine and Polly Stenham have had/will have mainstage seasons at Griffin, STC and Company B respectively. Are there male writers of a similar level of experience – two of whom are in their early 20s (not sure how old Nina Raine is) – who’ve had such opportunity recently? (I’m honestly not sure and realise the answer could go either way.)

Raine and Stenham both have “wunderkind” reputations (as does Bloom actually), so this mitigates somewhat the risk of programming their work… which does seem to support the argument that these choices are driven by a desire (conscious or unconscious) to manage risk. Or does it?