Anxious futures: Magpie2 and 'new generationalism' in Australian youth-specific theatre

The field of contemporary youth-specific theatre in Australia is one of change and, in some cases, anxiety. While Drama Studies continue to grow in popularity in schools, previously conventional developmental paradigms have become less mandatory for theatre, for, by, and about young people outside the school context. Instead, 'new generation' approaches in youth-specific performance are placing greater value on young people's own preferences in cultural activity. Yet this development is being tempered and further complicated by a cultural 'generationalism', particularly in larger arts organization as the youth sector becomes a more integral part of marketing strategies for the future. The resulting ambiguity in the representation, value, and positioning of young people and youth-specific arts in Australia's theatre industry is considered by focusing on Magpie2, a former youth-specific company attached to the State Theatre Company of South Australia. Magpie2 ceased operation in 1998 after experimenting with a 'new generation' approach to theatre for young people in the State Theatre realm. Both the artistic policy of Magpie2 Director, Benedict Andrews, and the critical reception of his two productions in 1997, Future Tense and Features of Blown Youth, demonstrate how competing systems of cultural value characterize the field of youth-specific theatre in Australia.

'Homescapes' and identity reformations in Australian multicultural drama

A consideration of identity formation in contemporary Australian multicultural theatre is offered through a re-assessment of the unsettled (and unsettling) constructions of Australia as 'home' in the work of three playwrights. William Yang's Sadness disrupts a localized perception of home, space, and cultural communities to amalgamate two disparate communities (the queer/homosexual community in Sydney and the Asian-Australian, or 'Austasian' community) into a reconfigured Australian identity. Janis Balodis's The Ghosts Trilogy uses many actors who play across the unsettled lines of history, amid numerous voices, homes, and homelands that indicate the enormity of what 'Australia' comes to signify. Noelle Janaczewska's The History of Water constructs a way of locating the self by means of a metaphoric home as each character establishes herself on a psychic plane rather than choosing the strictly physical locations to which she has access. In their interrogations of home and homeland, these plays challenge assumptions regarding identity, disrupt notions of the ultimate ownership of land/culture by anyone, and problematize the idea of settlement as it is currently articulated in Australia.

Amphitheater staging: In-the-round or to the front (and what about asides)?

When the existence in Utrecht of the DeWitt/Van Buchel drawing of the Swan Theater became known in 1888, William Poel was already seven years into his inquiries into the best means of staging the public amphitheater and great hall plays of the English Renaissance.1 I mention this to emphasize that the discourse came before the fact: the belief that Shakespeare's plays are best staged as it was then imprecisely imagined they had once been staged-simply, without elaborate settings or time-consuming scene changes, with direct actor-audience address, "in-the-round"-had as much to do with reactions against the late nineteenth-century stage's pictorialism, with its set-changing interruptions and cut-and-paste revisions to Shakespeare's texts, as it had to do with presenting the Bard "authentically." Some of the confusion caused by the uneasy mixing of historical scholarship and the assumptions and practices of our own contemporary theater profession can be glimpsed in the phenomenon of modern in-the-round staging, often claimed as a more "authentic" approach to Shakespeare in performance, but one which is then modified to make possible post-Stanislavsky acting methods and to satisfy modern audience expectations.

Performing race, culture, and gender in an Indigenous Australian women's music and dance classroom

One perpetual concern among Indigenous Australian peoples is authenticity of voice. Who has the right to speak for, and to make representations about, the knowledges and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples? Whose voice is more authentic, and what happens to these ways of knowing when they make the journey into mainstream Western academic classrooms? In this paper, I examine these questions within the politics of “doing” Indigenous Australian studies by focusing on my own experiences as a lecturer in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of Queensland. My findings suggest that representation is a matter of problematizing positionality and, from a pedagogical standpoint, being aware of, and willing to address, the ways in which power, authority, and voice are performed and negotiated as teachers and learners of Indigenous Australian studies.