Head of Drama and Features... went on three years leave to be head of Elizabethan Theatre Trust.
He graduated Oxford in 1935 and went to work for the BBC. After the war he became the BBC's representative in Australia.
Dec 1945 arrived in Australia
May 1947 article on Australian comics on the BBC.
Aug 1947 would travel around Australia.
Nov 1948 Hutchison writes letter to paper talking about how BBC is independent. This was slapped down by the Australian Worker here.
Nov 1948 appointed Director of Features at ABC. (Patrick Jubb took over his old job.) Another piece here with a bio on him.
Jan 1949 controversy over Hutchison's appointment to ABC. His salary of 25 pounds a week the third highest. Smiths Weekly talk about it in May 1949. Unions protested it saying should have given preference to Australian soldier.
Sept 1949 profile on him in Smiths Weekly says he "speaks with a slight nasal intonation which is quite pleasing and entirely un-American,and with the clear carrying ability of a trained voice." (That article gives an indepth bio)
1950 hosted a party for Tyrone Guthrie
May 1950 visited Hobart. Seemed to do a lot of travelling.
June 1950 article about how he helped discover Rod Taylor.
In Dec 1950 he was appointed Director of Drama and Features. Paul O'Loughlin was assistant.
Jan 1951 says "His aim he says is to encourage local talent, to provide a market for writers and work for actors who want to present Australia to Australians through radio features and plays.
April 1951 he wrote article in ABC Weeky here about radio plays. Wants to encourage Oz writers but they alone won't satisfy to imports from around the world.
Oct 1952 first conference of ABC producers.
In Dec 1953 did the first ABC worldwide broadcast.
1954 offered Rockefeller Foundation grant to go to USA (see NAA Neil Hutchison files)
1955 married Frances Nightingale - his second marriage - in England.
In 1955 he took a round the world trip to study TV. He said ‘TV is essentially a mass medium of entertainment — with the stress on en tertainment,’ he said. ‘We in public service broadcasting must use this medium for additional ends — dissemination of educa tion and information. ‘The danger is that the enormous cost of TV may compel its development less along the lines of sound broadcasting than of the cinema, with its box office preoccupation, and its as sessment of value by the counting of heads.’
Sept 1955 impressions of overseas TV.
He overlooked training in December 1955.
Dec 1955 replies to letter of complaint about ABC radio drama here.
Jan 1956 went on a six month trip overseas.
March 1956 piece on picking radio plays here.
Aug 1956 reponsds to letter accusing ABC drama of producing communist propaganda rdio plays.
Jan 1957 attends first seminar for TV writers.
June 1957 discusses TV acting on Shadow of Doubt.
Ocr 1957 adapted Hamlet for radio.
Nov 1957 discussed TV vs radio: "“A poor television play will be looked at in preference to listening to a good radio play,” he said, a little gloomy about the implica- tions of “this medium of mass entertainment.” It was estimated, he added, that television had an impact of nine to one when com pared with radio. “Television is bread and circuses’ for the masses,” he went on, “and I’m not sure to what extent it can be call- ed an art form.” For these reasons Mr. Hut-chison finds that a TV play is easier to cast. Restraint “If an actress looks good, she will probably succeed in a straight part,” he said, “but in radio great flexibility of voice is needed. “There are good actors and actresses whose great strength lies in vocal sensibility, and it is unlikely that they will make a success in television.” (He mentioned several names.) “They may be dif ferent in appearance from what the listeners imagine.”
Aug 1958 went on another overseas trip. ABC Weekly piece on that here.
Feb 1959 he came back from overseas saying we need to develop local writers. He advocated only picking the best international plays. He chatted with Rex Rienits. He whinged about how hard it was to secure good overseas plays.
March 1959 article about how radio plays better as stimulate the imagination more.
In 1959 he produced the round the world Christmas broadcast for the Queen to the Commonwealth. Here he says he wanted to emphasise the “looking forward” attitude of younger Common wealth countries, their aspirations and the future they see within the peaceful context of evol utionary democracy our legacy from Great Britain. “We plan, too.” he said, “to put special emphasis upon Australia’s relationship with her Asian neighbours in the Commonwealth and the in- terest and understanding which we have for their de- velopmental problems. “Those who speak will be asked to express their own personal views. This is be- cause the most successful and best remembered items in these great Commonwealth broadcasts have always re fleeted the personal and emo- tional attitude of characters with whom listeners can readily identity themselves. “The idea.’’ Mr Hutchison said, “is to show what the Commonwealth means and could mean in a world torn by rival ‘isms’ and ‘ologies, to present a statement of faith in the Commonwealth as a third and liberal force among the great pressures of the modern world. “From the legacy left by British democratic institu tions, there emerges a feeling that perhaps one day mem bers of the Commonwealth will look back to Britain with the same affection that Bn tain looks back to the legaev of ancient Rome.”
Sept 1959 overlooked the TV writers workshop.
Dec 1959 joined the Trust.
He started there April 1960. It was meant to be a year. This was extended for two more years. He returned early 1963.
May 1960 he went overseas to Britain and US for a six week trip. Came back in July complaining about their talk of sex and despair.
Jan 1961 piece in The Bulletin where he talks about how hard his job is because people are watching TV. Says also got criticism for being an Englishman who took an Australian job.
Jan 1961 he's on board of Australian Ballet Foundation see here.
1961 the trust did a play One Day of the Year. June 1961 wrote article to SMH about the Trust. Dec 1961 Leslie Rees criticises Hutchison's lack of support for Australian plays. June 1962 Combs criticises Australian plays and Hutchison criticises critics. Whiny SMH critic responds. Hutchison had helped the Trust invest in Australian ballet. (Stefan Haag would replace him.)
While head of trust gave job of directing plays to some of his TV colleagues - Ray Menmuir did Candida, and Henri Safran did Shipwreck.
Feb 1962 a draft verse from Robert Hughes about Hutchison and Patrick White.
1962 says Canberra visit in Canberra Times In the long run, the nation’s thought, and culture
are the things that count,” Hutchison said. “We remember the Greeks for their paintings, theatre and sculpture, not for their battles and political wrangles.” http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article104298407
In October 1962 it was announced he would return to the ABC. Also Aug1962 in Variety see here
He returned to be Director of Features for eight months.
Hutchison was critical of Australian writing. March 1963 Hutchison criticises Australian writing and directing.
June 1965 announces program to help writers.
1965 he's quoted in a piece on censorship on Oz tv see here
July 1965 was acting controller at the ABC.
In October 1965 he was appointed Controller of Programs. Current job was then Federal Director of Productions (a newly created position above O'Loughluine) see here/
June 1966 Bulletin article aobut the Trust including a fair bit on Hutchison's regime. See here.
Hutchison’s tenure as “Executive Director-On-Loan” was comparatively brief. Having completed the two main tasks set for him, he returned to the ABC and promotion. Within the ABC he is regarded as an efficient administrator and if two of his major achievements are no more than the TV “Purple Jacaranda” and the continuance of the radio marathon “Blue Hills,” at least (so the ABC tell us) they are Australian. Paradoxically it was with his final withdrawal from the Elizabethan Trust limelight that Hutchison began his superlatively successful thrust within Dr. Coombs’ organisation. He is now Trust Board member in charge of drama, Trust/ ABC representative on the Sydney Opera House Committee, and member of Dr. Coombs’ new Drama Foundation. With the passing of time his old boss Sir Charles was taking a less active interest and Dr. Coombs had become increasingly pre- occupied with ballet. Lacking strong leadership, the Elizabethan Trust policy ... Hutchison was directly responsible for a brief season of new scripts at the Union Theatre—but his ABC television producers proved to be inadequate to stage work and the season was a failure.
Hutchison writes annoyed letter here. Author responded here.
March 1967 article on Opera House and ABC people on its boards inc Moses and Hutchison. See here
April 1967 Bulletin piece on Australa's relationship with Britain is here. Mentions Hutchison as one of several Englishmen in theatre (running Trust) along with Sumner.
In 1968 on film committee advising Australia council see here.
1982 memeber of SBS board http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2570085827
His bio Neil Hutchison, 69 years. Joined British Broadcasting Corporation 1935. BBC representative in Pacific area 1945-49. Appointed ABC Director of Features and Drama 1950. ABC Controller of Programs (Radio and Television) 1964-72. 1955 Rockefeller Grant for study of Television Production in U.S.A. 1959-61 three year secondment to Elizabethan Theatre Trust as Executive Director. 1960-64 a Trustee of Sydney Opera House. 1965-72 a Director of NIDA. ABC Manager for Europe, 1972-76.
HIGHLIGHTSJohn Croyston said in 2004 oral history interview Hutchison was prepared to take the gamble to give My Brother Jack to Storry Walton. Calls him “the first of the great Englishmen” followed by Goddard and Geoff Daniel “The genuine coated Englishman… smoked everywhere… willing to go to the edge. An extremely good director of drama. A genuine man of cultural affairs and a most engaging person... He would pick on you for some excitement and you'd have to supply it.”
Hutchison died in 2010.
Credited as an "adjudicator" at Ausstage here.
Mungo McCallum rwote a profile below - "here he was a bigger fish in a small pond and in proper modesty enjoyed the aura which then attached to the cultivated Englishman... he was as I imagine Machiavellie to have been, cynical, ambitious but nebevolent. He charmed women and attracted male disciples, the gruntled and disgruntled who thought wrongly that they had found a soulmate in the Australian wilderness... Though the compleat Englishman of his kind, he did not try to force Englishry on the ABC"
His evidence at the Vincent Committee:
That brings me to the acting potential in Australia. I think the acting potential is fairly good though not perhaps as good as has been suggested by many people. This was well instanced when an overseas company in the not far distant past produced a television series in Sydney named “Whiplash”. It was not artistically satisfactory but that is beside the point. The overseas people had been told before thay came to Australia that so many first rate artists were already available here that it would be possible to use a different cast every week apart from the leads who were imported. As soon as the visiting director had a look at the situation and had conducted auditions and talked to people generally up and down the place and so on, he decided it was not possible to do this and his plans had to be reformulated. He found it very difficult to procure the necessary number of actors of outstanding competence. This does not mean that there are not a very fair number of artists who, given more experience, would not achieve a very high rate of proficiency, but the number is limited.
We arc also looking-and I think the lack here is greater-for competent television drama producers in Australia. We have plenty of producers who can put on a small studio programme or cover a football game bot that is a different thing from full-scale drama. Although there are a few producers who have demonstrated their ability in producing drama. there are still fairly few of them. There is also a great shortage of trained camera crews because a camera crew has to be much more proficient when working on a drama, where there are often several sets in the same studio and as many as perhaps 180 or 200 shots are required in an hour, than when it is handling a relatively simple programme. In Great Britain and America-and this is very important-at least four cameras are avail-able in the studio. This means that the number of effective shots in any given period of transmission is naturallv increased. Where several sets arc im·olved in the same an extra camera is invaluable in that greater flexibility is at once achieved in moving from scene to scene. Because of this, the general tempo of overseas studio television pro- duction frequently appears to be comiderahly more vital and compclltng compared with the local show which some- times strikes one as rather sluggish and tentative.
It is in the field of television plavwrights that the need is most pressing. Good writers of dramatic dialogue are at a premium anywhere in the world. It was manv vcars before England and America managed to ‘lchiC\;e -their present position in the provision of local dramatists.
The A.B.C. drama output in the past two vcars ha<, been com-posed of 40 per cent. of Australian material and in addition 22 thirty minute episodes of serials by Australians have been televised. But there is no doubt we have not yet reached the requisite standard in dramatic writing. The important thing to my mind is that we should go on trying. H takes a long time to build up a body of efficient play-wrights. One has only to look at the Broadway theatre in the 1920’s. Look at their programme schedules and you will find by far the majority of stage productions on Broad-way in the 20’s had their origin in Europe. Of course the situation nowadays has changed completely. Nine in ten are by Americans; but it was very late in America’s life before she was able to develop fully an indigenous drama. I think it is unlikely that we shall ever supply all our dramatic needs here and I think this would be unde-sirable. We are still a small country in terms of population.
What do you mean by our needs?-
1 would think that our dramatic needs are that we should have a fine body of Australian playwrights. I think the Australian public should have an opportunity to see all that is best in drama both by Australians and by people overseas so that I feel our dramatic needs are for a forum where all really out-standing dramatic writing can be seen.
Would you express those needs in terms of an ideal to be aimed at, if never to be achieved, as a proportion of the dramatic programmes presented from time to time on television?-
! think something in the region of 50 per cent. as at this moment, but if we look twenty years ahead and see ourselves with a population double the present one, I think the percentage should be higher. I said that it was undesirable that we should supply all our dramatic needs because we are still small in terms of population and if we are to keep our standards high, we must have the best importations to be able to compare our own standards with the imported work. Of course it must be borne in mind that the great works of classical literature should never be excluded from our programmes. There should always be certain amount of Shakespeare, for instance, and the great recognised playwrights of antiquity, in the English language particularly, as our own schools study Shakespeare. lt is essential that Shakespeare should be seen on television because in remote areas the likelihood of securing full scae stage productions is remote.
My own view is at present our particular problem is to raise the standard of those plays which we are telecast-ing rather than to increase the number. I say this with some reluctance but I say it because I feel that as yet our playwrights have not mastered the techniques of television. I think too that we want to interest many people who are at present capable writers in other media in the television medium before we go ;:;ny further. Only when the local product can vie in quality and technical excellence with the imported product can we expect really significant progress. I am often asked whether the paucity of Australian playwrights is due to the fact that financial incentives are not great enough. In part this is so, but not wholly. Writing drama tor television can never be regarded as a whole- time joi:J however proficient the playwright may be. I doubt whether ‘,here are more than six or perhaps eight writers in England who make their living wholly in tele-vision. There are in America certainly, but America is so much bigger. This means that television dramatists must have another source of income just as playwrights in the theatre must have. They may be journalists, novelists, poets or essayists.
In Australia (just as in Britain ten or twelve years ago) it will be an uphill job to persuade wr.Jters :vho have already achieved a considerable pro-ficiency 111 one branch of the writer’s craft, to launch into a new medium in which they are uncertain of ultimate success, but those arc the very people we need and want. An Australian short story writer whom I could mention makes perhaps as much as £3,000 a year. If he turned h!s mind to writing a television play the effort might take h1m two or three months and there would be no certainty that his script would be acceptable so he would say t01 himself “ Why should I bother? “ Somehow he must be’ persuaded to bother. However, if the script were acceptable he might be, paid a fee of perhaps £200 for one showing of it in each state. We have paid more in the past, and if he were a writer well known in the community he might attract a considerably higher fee. His initial fee would entitle the A.B.C. to one performance in each State. Let us say he was paid £300, which would not be unlikely if he were a well-known writer, and he might be paid even £400. If the play was outstandingly successful and we were to repeat it he would earn another 50 per cent. in Australia. So if he were paid £300 initially he would be paid another half fee. If we wld it in England he would be paid 100 per cent. of his initial fee which would earn him another £300. If we sold it in Canada it would earn him another £300, and if we sold it in the United States it would earn him another £300. J f it were repeated in England, Canada and the United States he would earn another £300 on each occasion. Suppose he wrote a really outstanding play for which he was paid £300 and that we repeated it, as we certainly would if it were outstanding, and suppose we had one sale for one performance in England, Canada and the United States, he would earn £1,350 with the possibility, if it were so outstandingly successful, of repeats in England, Canada and the United States. Of course, the likelihool of making a sale on such a scale at present is very small indeed because we have not yet the pro-ficiency to be able to make such a wide sale of an Aus-tralian product.
By Senator Hannan.-Proficiency in selling or pro-ficiency in writing?
-Proficiency in writing, I believe, and proficiency in selling.
By Senator Wright.-Primarily you intended it to mean proliciency in writing, did you not?
-I meant proficiency in writing and production.
Primarily?
--Yes, presentation, production and writing, not so much acting. In many respects I think our best artists could be relied upon to give a high average per-formance which perhaps would not be equal to the star performances you can expect on television overseas but could very easily be shown without shame in all overseas countries. There is a high average standard of television acting in Australia. I do not know the fee arrangements applying to the author in Britain but I so know that it is normal to pay an initial fee of between £250 and £300 sterling for a first play whereas an writer can expect to receive £.500 sterling for a play and a big name’ writer imtance, Terence Ratti;san----cou!d receive as much as £3,000. Repeat fees would naturally accrue hut I am unable io say on what scale. I would say a .£500 fee for a script in Britain is hy no meam out of the question even for a first play but the circumstances have to be rather exceptional. My friend Allan Seymour, for instance, who wrote “The One Day of the Year” was paid £500 for his first play called “Lean Liberty” in England. I happen to know because he told me. He attracted this higher fee because the E!izahethian Theatre Trust had just produced “The One Day of the Year” in London, so that Seymour was begin-ning to he a name and people were talking about him. He had good reviews for the stage play so when he came to n:gotiate, his agent evidently found that he could get a higher fee, and he got £500 for his first T.V. play in Britain. This was considered to he rather good and I don’t think it happens very often. The search for Australian dramatists must go on relentlessly hut there are many problems associated with this research. At present the majority of television submissions -we get a great number of submissions-come from people who have heen more or less unsuccessful as writers in other SJJheres: In consequence the rate of acceptances as compared With the nnrnhcr of submissions has been very small indeed. The A.B.C. offers guidance and advice to all would-be television dramatists who show promise, but before we can be of any material help the dramatist himself must have given clear signs in his submission that he has the basic potential. To persevere with people who have no gift and only a lot of enthusiasm is a terrible waste of time. A s.:ript that is within 20 or 25 per cent. of pro- duction standard stands a good chance of being re-written in a form that is fully acceptable; but the writer must, in fact, first give evidence in his initial effort that he has the capacity to go to 75 per cent. bv his own native talent. Then we can do something to help-but not until then. Another thing that must obviously concern us when it comes to the programming of Australian plays is that such work inevitably must invite comparison with imported material. This puts us on the spot because have to realise that to programme one really effective, outstanding Australian work is far better than to programme three Australian plays which are barely worth their place in the schedule. The latter course bings us and Australian drama- tists into some disrepute. Against this, however, we have to weigh the fact that local writers are very much encouraged by seeing their work on the television screen and inevitably are spurred on to further by such encouragement. So, we have to weigh those two things one against the other. I think our first t1sk is to interest in writing for television those people whom we know to be capable of writing successfully in other media. So far as we have the time, we have to try to give those people our individual attention. The rewards from the financial point of view, perhaps, are not very great, but I do not think they are bad.
When you say " our individual attention " what do you mean by that? Do you mean the A.B.C.?
-In the A.B.C. I have a feeling that the only way-not ·the only way, but one of the ways that we can really get good writing at the moment is be getting in touch with writers and saying to them, " You made a name as a novelist. You are a well-known novelist or a well-known journalist. You should be capable of writing dramatic dialogue and drama- tic character. Why not have a shot at it?" Then you go and have a drink with him and you talk to him about this. All writers are interested in the writer's craft and in television, although they do not feel that they are quite ready to have a go at it. By personal contact, you finally get him into the mood where he says, " I will have a go at it." Then you talk over the various problems involved, the obvious problems involved in a television script. You might hand him a script which has already been produced and say, “Notice the number of scenes here. Notice why the author put that scene in. He had to put it in to allow Mrs. So and So time to go and change her frock, because she appears in a scene directly after that in a ball gown.” and so on. So you study the technique of the thing together in a script that vou know has been fully successful in the past. Then the writer concerned may write a synopsis and come to you again. Aga!n you discuss it 8nd again you discuss the possibilitv of the way it might be cast and the facilities that it requires. You might s!ly to the writer. “I see that you have a storm at sea. This is a particularly difficult thing to put into a television play. This is going to involve a certain amount of outside filminQ and it will be a tremendously expensive business. Either have to write that out or we have to have a Qo at it in a sliQhtlv different way.” And so it goes on. The writer has to be ‘!nacie familiar with all these particular difficulties. such as how many film sequences he can use in a studio plav. Often in a studio play we use 7 or R of outside filminQ work and we insert these sequences into th’? live production in the studio. In general, writers who have been successful in another sphere do not rcallv think of these things until you get down to workinP with tlli.’m. T think it is possihle to work progressively with writers in a plav. I hope that we will he ahle to do much more of thut in future. l think in the main we must start with people who already have experience of in another m’?d ium. I do not say that there are not some people who. out of the blue, never having written before will write a successful play, but they are very few. We must not dismiss the
 |
| SMH 23 Dec 1959 |
 |
| The Age 23 April 1959 |
 |
| Farmer and Settler 23 Sept 1955 |
 |
| ABC Weekly 21 April 1956 |
 |
| ABC Weekly 24 Sept 1955 |
 |
| ABC Weeklt 10 Dec 1955 |
 |
| ABC Weekly 3 Nov 1956 |
 | ||
| ABC Weekly 5 March 1959 |
 |
| SMH 28 Jan 1951 |
 |
| This is the ABC |
 |
| This is the ABC |
 |
| The Age 12 Feb 1959 |
 |
| The Age 12 Feb 1959 |
 |
| ABC Weekly 20 Nov 1957 |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
 |
| NAA Neil Hutchison |
Alan Burke on Hutchison in 2004
He didn’t throw his weight around. He never to my knowledge forbade anything or said you can’t do that. He certainly liked initiative. His own taste was, I think, impeccable if I recall correctly. He’s a beautifully articulated man, articulate not articulated...
 |
| Mungo McCallum Plankton's Luck |
 |
| Mungo McCallum Plankton's Luck |
 |
| Mungo McCallum Plankton's Luck |
March 1956 piece on picking plays
A.B.C. Play Selection and Production The A.B.C.’s Director of Drama, NEIL HUTCHISON explains some of the difficulties of finding new plays for broad- cast. In answer to critics who complain of too many repetitions, he points out that last year no fewer than 95 new plays and serials were broadcast by the A.B.C.
RECENT letters in The A.B.C. Weekly and elsewhere about the A.B.C.’s drama policy prompt me to venture one or two remarks on the subject with a view to clarifying some misunderstandings. The most important factor con-ditioning play selection is avail- ability. We programme in the metropol- itan areas a 60-minute play each Saturday and a 70-min- ute play each Monday, both National broad casts. (Regional list- eners hear a recording o f the Saturday Neil Hutchison. night play on a Tuesday night.) This means 104 plays in a year. In addition, we broadcast an hour play every Sunday afternoon. Half of these Sunday plays are given on a. national basis: half on a State basis, that is, a play is produced for local consumption once a fortnight in each State, as part of the Com- mission’s declared policy of encour- aging the development of drama and acting potential. Furthermore, on at least twelve Tuesday nights, when Parliament is not in session, we programme a high quality production of a classical masterpiece or a modern play of established substance, usually run- ning 90 minutes or two hours. This, with other seasonal presentations, increases our annual output to be- tween 270 and 300 play productions, of which about 168 could be con- veniently heard by any one listener. What are the sources from which we draw our material? W/E have always main- ™ tained a policy of en- couragement towards the true radio play, written specially for the radio. Nevertheless, because so much material is needed, we largely depend upon plays written for the legitimate stage and adapted to radio. Financial rewards for writing a good radio play are small, as com- pared with those for writing a suc- cessful stage drama. Consequently, good radio writers are few and the demand for them is far greater than the supply. In the past year we have had some very good radio plays from Australian sources, such as Deserter and The Shark Fishers, also some from overseas. But these are not enough, so we have our eyes con- tinually trained on what the stage is offering, including the Austra- lian stage. For* instance, last year we programmed such previously unbroadcast plays as The Illusionists, Hot Gold and Pacific Paradise. But we must look farther afield, so we comb the stages of Britain and America and look to translations from French, German and Italian. About half the annual supply of new stage productions are, for one reason or another, unsuitable for radio adaptation. (Plays, for in- stance, which depend for their effect on the visual element are unlikely to make good radio drama.) More than half the remaining new stage plays are unavailable because the film rights have already been sold and this sale precludes radio production in Australia until the film has been seen here. It also sometimes happens that Australian theatrical interests have purchased an option on the play, which again delays for months, sometimes years, its presentation in broadcasting terms. A further difficulty arises from ihe fact that at least four other Aus- tralian broadcasting organisations are in the market for plays, which means that no fewer than 480 plays of 60 minutes o. more are broadcast by Australian radio organisations each year. |>LAYS broadcast by the A-B.C. are drawn from a number of sources, which can be listed as follows: 1. Plays written especially for broadcasting. 2. New plays currently running in the theatre. 3. Great plays and commercial successes of the past. 4. Dramatic adaptations of books. 5. Repeat broadcasts of plays sug- gested by listeners and judged popu- lar by public reaction. As a comment on one of the above categories, it is worth men- tioning that plays of the past can only serve us in a limited way. The great successes of the 1920’s and early ’3o’s, for instance, are for the most part tedious fare for the audi- ence of 1956, and there are no more than a dozen or so such works which still carry their former vitality and glitter. It is a great play in- deed which can outlive its own generation for more than a few years. Among the classical plays broad- cast in the past 12 months, we find the names of Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Strindberg and Tchekov. We have also produced the works oi such contemporary giants as Piran- dello, O’Neill, Jamies Bridie, T. S. Eliot, Christopher Fry and Jean Cocteau. In fact, it would be hard to name an outstanding stage play- wright whose best work the A.B.C. has not tackled. With regard to the complaint that there are too many repeat broad- casts, there are two sides to this question. We get large numbers of requests from listeners wanting to hear a second performance and large numbers protesting at such repetition. If the play at its first performance is markedly successful, we sometimes arrange for a second performance within a few months, but seldom in the same programme. ENERALLY speaking, we work on the prin- ciple that a* successful new play, having had one repeat, should then be heard no more for at least a couple of years. As for “old” plays, at least two years, sometimes more, are required to elapse between pro- ductions, unless there is some special reason. Nevertheless, the repetition of plays is by no means as frequent as some of our correspondents have suggested. Taking four consecutive months, October, November, Decem- ber, 1955, and January, 1956, what plays were repeated within three months of the previous broadcast? October: Nil. November: Fire on the Snow (a special revival starring Judith An- derson). The Shark Fishers. December: Nil. January: Hot Gold. Ashes of Roses. Pacific Paradise (repeated in three States owing to previous cancellation caused by elections: an unusual circumstance). There were rather more repeat programmes during the above period than there are likely to be during the next period of four months, be- cause December and January cover the actors’ holidays, when we are obliged to use programmes previ- ously recorded. Even so, is this such a bad thing? All of the plays mentioned are by Australians. Surely even the most avid campaigner for new plays would agree that our Australian writers should have a second oppor- tunity of showing their wares. TN the course of 1955, 95 new plays and serials were broadcast by the A.B.C. We define “new” in this context as a play or serial which has never pre- viously been broadcast by the A.B.C. It will be seen that the quest for new plays goes on ceaselessly, and that the task is by no means an easy one. That we were able in 1955 to find over 90 plays which have not been previously heard by A.B.C. listeners is witness to the work which has been put into our drama effort. In terms of dramatic output, the Commission broadcasts many more plays in the course of 12 months than does the 8.8. C., and the re- sources available in Australia, Europe and America are strained to the uttermost to fulfil our re- quirements, both in terms of number and quality.
 |
| Bulletin 11 June 1966 |
 |
| Hutchison reply |
 |
 |
| Bulletin 6 July 1966 |
No comments:
Post a Comment