I totally understand your position and don’t deny you your job or the opportunities to see grand shows… what I’m trying to say is that I hope that one day the Griffin Award (like all playwriting awards) one day will be such “must see” / “must attends” in the industry, that there would never be a diary clash with an opening night.

Let me be clear, I don’t begrudge anyone who did go to A:OC – I’m all for people attending theatre and engaging with it, where ever it is and where ever it comes from. It’s not about this particular show- I’ll be along to see it at some stage. I’m saying it’s particularly tough to be a playwright in Australia- when one of it’s major playwriting awards is eclipsed by a grand international production.

And as you know, many of my good friends and people I hold in very high esteem are reviewers. Reviewers are not enemies- (there would be a certain amount of self hatred if I did). I think reviewing is a difficult job held by people who want to see good shows… We all want to spruik theatre at its best… and the critique of theatre is an art and a skill just as much as the making of it.

But can you imagine, if all the industry that night, crowded into the dusty diamond shaped stage of the griffin and turned down the invite to A:OC? Just imagine… I know, it’s like imagining a world without the colour blue.

What I am saying is really a call to arms for the industry as a whole- I am saying if you want good plays: support playwrights. One way to do that is to attend awards, engage with readings… and not out of duty or “worthiness” but because you love it and you believe in it… because it is exciting.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed but go easy on us poor reviewers. When a show as big as A:OC comes to town, we go where we’re sent.

Jason / SMH

Since we were talking about the Qld Premier’s Drama Award last night (which means I am now a ‘paid’ writer for 4 months – life-changing!) I wanted to go off on a bit of a tangent and detail it here, as I’m blown away by its pragmatic structure; it’s a great award model. Essentially, they’ve got the Premier’s Department working with the State Theatre Company with extra funding from Griffith Uni…so the whole award is actually worth $241,500. The play has to be relevant to Queensland – but those perimeters are actually helpful, as it means the outcomes are measurable for everyone involved. (Last night John Romeril “high-fived” me when I told him about your process for Stories from the 428 – There’s nothing like a great vision/inspired curatorship to liberate an artist, or many artists in this case! He also alluded to how ‘service’ to a specified audience/community helps him as a writer. I totally agree.) Anyway, the process is awesome, as 12 finalists get a half hour pitch to the QTC (including their AD – I got Michael Gow AND Wesley Enoch – Lucky!) and a rep from Government and then three finalists all get $8000, two professional development workshops, a public reading at the QTC and the general benefits of development auspiced by a State Theatre Co. The ‘winner’ gets a further $4500 (so they get $12,500 in alignment with AWG standards) and a guaranteed professional production with QTC with standard royalties etc. The QTC also keep their finger on the pulse with development trends and create an evolving process – e.g. they opened it up to ‘groups’ this year (although three individual playwrights ended up winning). This particular development award is biennial, but then there is ALSO an annual Queensland Literary Award for an existing play, worth $15,000. They’ve just recently announced their shortlist: Daniel Keene for Duets, Joanna Murray-Smith for Rockabye, Melissa Reeves for Furious Mattress, Sven Swenson for The Bitterling and Rick Viede for Whore. It’s interesting to note that Joanna Murray-Smith’s Rockabye and Rick Viede’s Whore were up for consideration for the NSW Premier’s Award, where no shortlist or winner could be found (to many people’s loud dismay).

Great models do exist and what’s good about this model is self-evident. It puts a large range of 12 artists in front of the QTC, it shares development amongst three works (so all artists get to deepen their relationship with QTC), it pulls in input and resources from a number of sources and it has a guaranteed production outcome with a tangible focus and context. I’d imagine that it takes a great deal of listening, responsiveness, communication between people, hard-work and resources to create structures like this, but the results are solid, to artists, orgs and, in this case, to a defined audience. I have every reason to be optimistic right now and so I thought I’d share my sense of hope about what’s possible and add to your own positive voice – celebrating what we do, and can do, with a little bit more ‘smarts’, passion and commitment.

Yep, not wanting to break tradition, another long post from me! x