Pat Schwartz
The subject was “What the f … [sic] is going on with theatre in South Africa”. The panel consisted of theatre luminaries, critics, a representative of the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST), a university cultural officer and a web master (yes, well, you may ask).
The audience was a mixture of theatre goers, performers and journalists. Absent (or, if present, notably silent) were representatives from the Market Theatre, which its managing trustee likes to call “South Africa’s national theatre”, and from commercial managements. The intentions of the Kultcha Klub, which organised it, were admirable. South African theatre (with the exception of its dance component) is in the doldrums, and who better to try to chart a way out but those who have made it their lives both the practitioners and the people who feel qualified to judge them. Sadly, good intentions weren’t enough to lift the debate out of a morass of anger, despair and recriminations. What could have been a stimulating and thought-provoking couple of hours turned out to be one of the more depressing afternoons I have spent in a long time. It’s not an expression I use often but I have to agree with the young man in the multi-coloured beanie who summed it all up with the thoroughly appropriate word “wanking”.
It was, by and large, an exercise in futility. One notable exception was poet/journalist/ playwright/film-maker Duma Ndlovu’s positive concept of identifying and developing a uniquely South African theatre which will speak a uniquely South African language and move away from the protest and agitprop which have characterised so much local work. Another was director and critic Allan Swerdlow’s call on his colleagues to “start doing work that we want to do, that we think is necessary, that excites us or disturbs us”, to regain a vision of “all the things that theatre can be”. There were some sensible words from contributors about unrealistic expectations of government support and the need to encourage the private sector to take an active interest (by lobbying the government to consider a tax-break for donors), and some impassioned and positive contributions from members of the audience.
For the rest though, from the 10-person panel (overwhelmingly white male) who were present and an 11th whose in-absentia contribution was read by actor Michael Richard who had drawn the short straw and occupied the chair, came a welter of words, most signifying little more than the personal interests, anguish and anger of those who delivered them.
There was finger-pointing: blame the cultural environment for not providing enough space, time and comfort for writers; blame critics for not being supportive; blame the government for destroying infrastructure; blame whitey …
What there wasn’t was anything much that was practical, creative or visionary.
There are no easy answers and some of the problems are very real: lack of funding; the absence of will on the part of the government; the malaise brought on by the uncertainty of transition; the heritage of apartheid; demographics; crime; poverty … the list is endless.
But, as many speakers pointed out, there was a time when South African theatre was flourishing. So what the f … is going on now?
If the standard of debate that took place on Saturday in the Wits Theatre is anything to go by one may well ask.
Pat Schwartz has edited and published the work of several of South Africas leading playwrights and is the author of a book on the Market Theatre