Australian TV Plays: March 2023

Dr Darling's Speech Sydney Uni 1966

SMH 23 Dec 1966

Joanna of Arc (19 November 1961)

A ballet by Joanna Priest. Mentioned in a thesis here

I think was on television in Adelaide in 1961 as part of a show called Southern Stars.

Ellershaw, Margaret. "Joanna of Arc: Joanne Priest's Biggest TV Venture ready for
Cameras. " TV Times 15 November 1961

Joanna of Arc. "southern Stars" second anniversary, 19 November 1961

Title No: 468026
Title: [JOANNA OF ARC, SOUTHERN STARS] : ORIGINAL RELEASE
Alternative Title: SOUTHERN STARS
Production Date: c. 1961
Produced as: Play; Telemovie
Category: Children
Media: Television
Summary: The story of 'Joan of Arc' in three acts as told by dance and music, the choreography is by Christine Hanboun who plays Joan of Arc. The play is staged in a TV studio, before each act Joanna Priest gives a brief description of each act. Adults and teenagers dance and act in the play. The music is a classical piece.
Country of Origin: Australia
Language: English

Southern Stars. A woman introduces it. Says based on de Quincy's essay and the words spoken by narrator are De Quincy's.

The Piccadilly Bushman by Ray Lawler

Lawler's follow up play to Summer of the Seventeenth Doll.

Premise

An Australian writer who has spent years in Europe returns home.

Production History

Done by JC Williamsons in Australia in 1959.

Adaptations

It was done on ABC radio in 1970.

Bulletin Saints and Sinners

Series of bitchy letters written to ABC by complaining people at organisation

Letter 10 March 1962 see here

A SINNER FROM THE ABC

Sir, It was an act of great public service for you to publish part of Dr J. R. Darl- ing’s address to the New England Uni- versity conference on Mass Media. His remarks went almost unnoticed in the daily Press. A minority of ABC staff members will be delighted to learn of their new chair- man’s enlightened views on the aims and responsibilities of the ABC. The majority, who are more interested in agonizing and meddlesome administra- tion than in the production of good quality radio and television programmes, will be filled with alarm: they, rightly (we hope), fear a blitz on mediocrity, from the top to the bottom: they tremble at any investigation into the staff pro- motion and appointment scandals of recent months: they are bewildered and frightened at the mention of such phrases as “educating and elevating the taste of the community,” “ . . . technical experts and producers on whom we are, or should be, dependent,” “the main re- quirement is quality,” .. . the industry must now be regarded as a profession.” Who is this man Darling to cause a ruffle in the comfortable ABC dovecote of, yes, “bureaucracy, complacency, favoritism, inefficiency”? There’s one very important point the chairman neglected to mention in his remarks in The Bulletin. Has he yet had a chance to look at the salaries offered to his “professional” men, particularly in such departments as Religion, Talks, Education, and Music? Has he compared these salaries to those of, say, a competent lawyer, a senior journalist, a doctor, an industrial economist, a capable schoolmaster? And if the ABC wants to encourage competent “profes- sional” men in its ranks, does Dr Darl- ing want them to remain nonentities, anonymous administrators with no thoughts or opinions, the helpless victims of a bitter anti-Personality Cult in the national broadcasting system? These questions must be answered by the Commission; and it’s therefore very heartening to know that Dr Darling is there to help tackle them. Yours (under the Crimes Act), ABC EMPLOYEE (Name and address supplied) A ustralia

24 March 1962 - a second letter see here

ANOTHER ABC SINNER

Sir, I freely admit that I’ve refrained from writing to you earlier because I was a bit scared . . . no-one with a wife and three kids wants to take too many risks with a job which pays well and offers security— as long as one toes the line and keeps one’s mouth shut. It took someone else with the neces- sary guts to wake me up.

The letter, “A Sinner from the ABC,” (Bulletin, March 10) is like a breath of air, not just to me, but to the many, many of us who would dearly like to take pride in the organisation for which we work. That we don’t take this pride is a tragic thing, attributable in the main to the ABC’s attitude towards its employees, and most especially towards those of us who are supposed to be skilled in our profession, but who are treated as though these skills are the least important thing in the industry. Professionalism is largely frowned on by our masters: mediocrity is the desir- able standard ; ideas exist to be squashed —unless they come from On High or from the friend of Someone Up There.

Training in programme work, in the writing of scripts, in world-standard pro- duction is virtually non-existent, and there’s entirely too much of the amateur attitude which says, “Here’s a space, let’s think of a title and put it in.” Beyond that, the planning, organising and actual presentation of material is left to the middle echelon of people who know the work from practical experience, and who have to struggle against the lack of practical knowledge from above. Look at some of the anomalies—the ABC is against the establishment of Personalities, so we have Russ Tyson and Michael Charlton built up as personalities ; the ABC is supposed to be impartial and objective in its outlook, and (for once) stood up for this in deciding to screen “The Candidates,” then about- faced and took Dick Healey off the air to satisfy a political objection; the ABC is a national broadcasting organisation, yet it does little, if anything, to foster a national outlook in its programmes, and indeed, the bickering and rivalry between the States and the suspicion of Head Office is rife.

There is a prejudice at the top level against incurring expense through shoot- ing film, so that the News Department is frequently limited to no more than thirty seconds of film on any one news story, and other departments are restricted from making films . .. this is particularly so in the case of the Talks Department which has people capable of making film pro- grammes, but which has to drop them, or let the Film Department take the thing over. And this in an industry which depends so much on film! We now have videotape— -at last—but, as yet, no means of editing the tape electronically, so we are told that it’s too dear to think of editing by cutting, therefore we don’t edit, therefore little if any videotape!

It would seem that the line of thinking behind any new programme idea is (1) How much will it cost? (2) Will it offend either of the political powers? (3) Has it been done before? (Because if it hasn’t, it might be too dangerous to try it) (4) Which Department (for “Department” read “Empire”) can handle it? (5) Can we pass it to someone from outside? (For more money than it would cost to let one of our Staff people do it) (6) Is it a good programme? Sometimes this last can be left off the list entirely. Without attempting to rail against our lunatic salary setup, it’s pertinent to point out that there are skilled officers being paid reasonable salaries and holding middle-level and semi-senior jobs who are so busy at desk work and form-filling that they cannot undertake the active duties in which they are expert. To compensate for this, freelances are engaged, many of them ex-employees who can earn more from the outside. This boils down to paying more overall for out- siders, plus an insufficient number of insiders, than it would cost to increase the staff —but, of course, this argues a desire to spend wisely, rather than well. It would be a delight to those of us pro- fessionally engaged in broadcasting and television to work for an organisation which believed in quality of output, sufficient people to do the job properly, adequate training for new staff and refresher courses for old hands, incentive for staff officers to undertake more than standard routine duties, a more realistic view of payment for skills and a sincere interest in entertainment as an industry rather than bureaucracy as a vocation. Another under the Crimes Act, (Name and address withheld by request)

14 April 1962

LETTERS THE ABC OF SIN - see here

Sir, Literally hundreds of resentful, de- pressed, frustrated and underpaid em- ployees of the ABC all over Australia must have by now aligned themselves with the Two ABC Sinners (Bulletin, March 10 and March 24). Let me make a third and say at the risk of imprisonment that in a number of years’ work with various organisations in various countries in the field of radio and tele- vision I have never come across such a repressively bureaucratic system as exists in the ABC, nor been distressed by con- tact with such a collection of disloyal employees.

In a number of years I have never heard one single employee and I have met hundreds who had a good word to say for Management. Those production people who can leave, leave. We have lost dozens of first-class people in the last few years. Some have gone to commercial stations, many have left the country. Those who stay know they will never be admitted to a share in ABC government. They know some- thing of television. This is unforgivable.

My own reaction to the partial reprint of Dr Darling’s Armidale address (Bulletin, February 24) is one of stunned amazement. Is he so blind, so led-by- the-nose, as to actually believe what he writes? Surely not. Is he, then, an utter hypocrite? Or is ABC Sinner No. 1 right in supposing that he actually in- tends to make a clean sweep and set things up so that they function humanely and efficiently? If No. 1 is right, then I have news for Dr Darling.

First, the Staff Association, “strong” according to the good Doctor, has gone on record to many members of staff as saying that it can do nothing for the TV production staff, who can be reduced in pay and grading, or kept marking time on the bottom of their grade in spite of increased responsibilities, without reason assigned. The system is that of a Pro- ducers’ Assessment Committee, before which producers cannot appear, to whom no representations can be made, and who are uniformly unacquainted, practically, with production problems. They have, none of the four of them, ever con- trolled a programme in their lives. No member of the Auxiliary staff among whom most of the producers are num- bered has any pension rights, any Due to an oversight in our last week’s issue, the signature of the first letter on the “Letters” page was omitted. The author of the letter, “A Reply to Senator Spooner,” was Mr H. W. Herbert, who originally wrote the article, “Snowy Elephant,” for the February 10 issue of The Bulletin. promotion rights; they can be dismissed, without reason assigned, or threatened with dismissal for such reasons as being late for a weekly staff meeting al- though in ABC regulations, “crimes” leading to dismissal are defined as drunkenness on duty, conviction before the courts of criminal offences, etc. One senior official was heard in the presence of three witnesses to say to a new employee who had suffered financial loss and degradation of status after joining with a guarantee of work : “I had to give you a bum steer, you know, to get you in.”

Producers have been re- fused entitled increments, assigned pro- grammes for which they have protested their unsuitability, and subsequently been refused promotion or degraded on the unbacked assertion of “bad work.” The reason given, straight from Kafka, is “The needs of the organisation.” In the Talks Department, five supervisors and a Head are passing around the paper on jobs handled until six months ago by two men without any noticeable appreciation in programme output in fact, “Four Corners,” one of the few successful shows mounted by Talks in the past year, has been removed from their control. As one depressed Officer put it (and isn’t that word Officer indica- tive of the bogus Army attitude of the bosses?) “All those chiefs and only us few Indians . . .”. In this same depart- ment, men earning two to three thousand a year must seek permission to use a taxi; may not use their car to cover fifty necessary miles a day; and must have their memos vetted by the Head. They may not see what alterations he makes in these memos, and may never receive any written answer to their complaints. All initiative is carefully beaten out of the ideas men on whom Dr Darling professes himself to be so dependent. But, let us be fair . . . this is all the fault of the system. A series of regula- tions designed to expedite and/or check the activities of Government clerks in, say a department of Lands or Health, has been clamped, holus bolus, on to the highly skilled, sharply differentiated and creative activities of professional people. It doesn’t come off, and it never will.

The system ensures that the mediocre, the bully, and the crawler get to the top. Never praise anyone except your superior. There they sit, usually knowing a minimum of practical techniques dating from their extreme youth in radio, and having no practical experience of TV administration or production, or of film. This wouldn’t matter if the system, plus their own terror of being discovered in their ignorance, did not prevent them from delegating responsibility.

There is literally no delegation to production level, except what is stolen unperceived or given by a rarely generous head, or one who knows darn well that if he doesn’t, the programme will never get on. Every documentary programme the ABC has put on has been produced under this second method, cutting out the departmental ignoramus who would otherwise, though an eager beaver, clutter up the producer with well-meant but un-informed “arrangements.” All this is strictly contrary, of course, to regulations, which firmly maintain that the producer should have no say in “content.” When —or if the clamp-down occurs, the output will seize up. Of course, it doesn’t matter ... we can always buy more stuff from America and Britain, can’t we?

Most senior officers don’t even know the difference between a film treatment, a camera script and a commentary script. Five of these men form a committee to decide what ideas shall be filmed and what not filmed. None have any ex- perience of film-making, from the point of view either of budget, or staff time, or methods. They can’t even understand simple film terminology. Yet they earn more for impeding those who do know than the technical and production experts on whom Dr Darling relies. When they have finished their term of office they will be pensioned; the experts will be fired without compensation when their usefulness declines. If Dr Darling really does intend to be a new broom, it can only be through extensive high-echelon sacking, which in its turn can only be achieved through an Act of Parliament. Will this occur? I prophesy NO. They say every country gets the Gov- ernment it deserves. What can ours have done to deserve a system which leaves us so far behind every other Western country in this medium? Canada has a similar population, but sells TV shows overseas regularly. Here it is headline news if one of our products is even acceptable. How can we arrange our national broadcasting organisation so that it is no longer run by Buz-fuzes, Heeps and Squeers? ABC SINNER No 3

Clement Semmler 1962 see here

The bulletin.Vol. 83 No. 4290 (5 May 1962)
LETTERS THE A.B.C. AND ITS SINNERS An official A.B.C. reply Sir, Since three ABC Sinners (Bulletin Letters, March 10, 24 and April 14) have had their say, may a fourth enter the arena, picking his way gingerly among the stones with which the anonymous throwers of criticism have littered it? The business of the ABC is first and foremost to put programmes on the air. I am, therefore, concerned only with the reckless charges made against our pro- gramme policy and its workings. Never- theless, I think the ABC’s reputation among thinking citizens, and especially those aware of its achievements, is sub- stantial rebuttal to allegations of bureauc- racy. prejudice, bickering, rivalry, and so on.

On the matter of programmes: 1. Sinner No. 1 alleges an anti-person- ality cult. Certainly the ABC’s senior programme officers do not court publicity —it is not their function to do so. But at the production and presentation level— producers like Ray Menmuir, James Upshaw, Alan Burke, Christopher Muir in television ; John Thompson, Alexander Turner, Eric John in radio, get full credit for their work and are surely familiar names to our viewers and listeners. Russ Tyson, Michael Charlton, Bruce Webster, Diana Ward, Corinne Kerby, James Dibble, Kay Withers, and when they were with us, Tanya Halesworth, Dick Healey —these and many more —surely they are household names?

2 - Sinner No. 2 —again, on some pro- gramme points. Training in programme work? The ABC regularly conducts train- ing courses, general and sectional. Only recently it has concluded a four-week training course in television in Sydney to which men and women came from every Australian State and a few from New Zealand for good measure. Simultan- lousily, we had a training course in Mel- bourne. At the moment the ABC has in its employ 34 Programme Trainees and Cadets, and there is a waiting list of educationally well-qualified young men and women who wish to take these positions. Training in the writing of scripts? The ABC supplies brochures compiled by experts on all aspects of script-writing ; and we will always offer guidance to a novice script-writer if his work shows promise. Additionally, the ABC conducts seminars for script-writers and our Directors of Drama, Talks, Children’s Sessions and myself frequently address meetings of writers’ groups and similar bodies. No national outlook in ABC pro- grammes? To give the lie to that I point to: Our record in music (John Anthill, Robert Hughes, Clive Douglas) ; our record in Drama (Leslie Rees and Alex- ander Turner) ; our drama festivals and regional drama productions in all States ; the production of Australian plays on television ; our record in Features: John Thompson on Melba and Bill Harney ; the Italia Prize-winner, “Death of a Wombat” —all this and much more. As for the fate of programme ideas: 1 am the ABC’s Head of Programmes and whatever my sins, the rejection of worth- while programme ideas is not one of them. How else “Four Corners”; the revival of “The Critics” on a national basis ; “Showcase” ; essaying the produc- tion of “Lola Montez” in TV and “The Girl from the Snowy” in radio ; “Uni- versity of the Air” ; “Stormy Petrel” and “The Outcasts” ; numerous experiments in jazz; a two-hour disc jockey radio programme on Sunday afternoons? Sinner No. 2’s six-point charge on this point is as ridiculous as it is baseless.

3. Sinner No. 3 achieves a new low in disregard for the facts and I am not concerned about the malevolent and splenetic undertones in which this Sinner’s charges are couched. But have we “lost dozens of production people in the last few years”? The facts are that in television we have more than 40 producers working in all States.

Since 1956, three have resigned to go to commercial work and one of these came back immediately—virtually in a matter of days. On the other hand, we have recently engaged five producers from Australian commercial television who applied to us for jobs. Of the remainder of those who have left us two resigned to go into other work and two recently resigned but only to go overseas for experience. Another is overseas with our help and will return to us this year. And that is the tally in television. I know of no radio producer leaving us in recent years.

The Producers’ Assessment Committee, of which Sinner No. 3 says “ ... none of the four of them ever controlled a pro- gramme in their lives”, includes one man —Paul O’Loughlin—who has produced several television dramas with distinction and another who passed, summa cum laude, the BBC’s Television Production Course. Of the five members of the Film Com- mittee, three have studied film-making in Europe and America, and one (our Con- troller of News) closely directs, with a success revealed in television ratings, all the complicated processes that go towards the filming of news and newsreels. Those of us concerned with ABC pro- grammes and programme policies expect criticism. And we get plenty, but usually at a level that is respected. This includes your own television columns. However, contributors to Letters on this subject, I respectfully suggest, fall far short of your own standard of criticism.

C. SEMLER (Assistant General Manager, Programmes ABC) Sydney

26 May 1962 - THE SINNER’S ABC - see here

Sir, Mr Semmler (Bulletin, May 5), by dint of name-listing and bald assertions of superiority, probably quite genuinely imagines he has quashed the peevish critics within the gates of the ABC. For instance producers usually don’t even rate a credit in the ABC’s own weekly programme magazine. Again, to list training courses is not to convince staff of their effectiveness. (One trainee said: “What training? A week hanging round, four hours on a tape recorder, and I’ve been in business ever since.”)

Brochures? Advice? Ad- dresses to writers’ groups? Any ex- perienced programme man will tell you that there is only one way to train writers —subsidise them, turn them loose, then produce the results so they can see where to improve next time. Three hundred and sixty-five brochures will never add up to One Day Of The Year. Nor will present rates of pay for ABC playwrights even reimburse them for the overseas fare that well-spent kudos-experience we all find so invalu- able in dealing with ABC executives.

That list of “national” programmes, by the way—only one Italia Prize for us in all those years? And that only in radio? How can that be? Now, programme ideas (here again we have from Mr Semmler only the care- fully pruned list, the bald unbacked assertion: “whatever my sins, the rejec- tion of worthwhile programme ideas is not one of them.”) The corollary here, inescapably, is, “If / reject it, it is worthless.” This wouldn’t by any chance be complacency, would it? Anyhow, it’s a pointer to what lies behind the ABC’s failure last year to get up the three important series it planned: on Aus- tralia’s Defence Policy; on Australia’s part in World War II; and on Abori- gines’ problems. It is most illuminating to learn what Mr Semmler thinks of these important national issues.

What is the function of a production team? To function it must first exist and, according to Mr Semmler, it does not exist. “Production people,” their departures in busloads lamented in my last letter turn out in Mr Semmler’s book to be just one or two little old producers, wandering off in ones and twos for overseas experience. But the TV industry in happier climes has a broader interpretation of production men’s functions: not only are there producers, there are directors (unrecognised in ABC staff listings and only admitted last month in film —to the tune of one man): there are production assistants (non- existent here); scriptwriters (ditto on ABC staff lists); film editors, film camera- men and production secretaries. If Mr Semmler cares to sit down for. a quiet half-hour with the auxiliary staff files and a bit of paper, he can tot up well over two dozen irreplaceable. men and women, some Australian, some from overseas, who have walked out of these vital jobs in the past three years.

One of the eight producers who have left the ABC’s staff in the last three and a half years did so because he met an ad- ministrative blank wall every time he asked for a raise to match increased responsibility. He was then replaced by a less experienced man at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly twenty pounds a week more in salary. Which of the five ABC sins would this be? Bureaucracy? Favoritism? Inefficiency? Complacency? Or timidity?

Several people who have attended the BBC’s TV production course have noted with interest Mr Semmler’s use of the American Latinism “passed summa cum laude” for one of our producers’ Assessors. The truth of the matter, just for the book, is that in this course nobody passes, nobody fails, no marks are awarded, no judgments handed down. It is exactly what its title says— a training course—usually attended by people who already have jobs earmarked for them, and who will subsequently be judged by their ability to profit, on a practical level, from what they learn. This course, some seven winters ago when the gentleman in question went through it, lasted four weeks.

It in- cluded an hour and a half spent in charge of a control booth —on closed circuit. The course is designed for pro- duction assistants and learner-producers not for executives who expect thus magically to acquire the power to deter- mine the abilities of men with years of practical experience. As for those members of the Film Committee who have, it is vaguely as- serted, “studied film-making in Europe and America,” this rather reminds the present writer of that Prestidigitator whose billboards bore the magic words: “Performed Before All the Crowned Heads Of Europe.” Let’s just say that “From NBC to Movietone On A Bicycle” might be a suitable subtitle for this epic in parvulo. Not even the most cynical and dis- gusted of the ABC’s angry swarm of busy TV bees would deny the difficulties their executives experience, caught with inadequate budgets between the Scylla of a Government which cold-bloodedly, regards them as propaganda tools, and the Charybdis of getting the wretched stuff on the air with the help of produc- tion men more experienced than them- selves in the medium. But MUST they make like nothing at all is wrong, when, there is such evident misery and con- cern among so many devoted and dedi- cated staffers? Shame on you, Uriah Wackford Semmler! ABC Sinner Number Three

AN ABC NON-SINNER = 16 June 1962 see here

Sir, -As a very junior member of the ABC’s Permanent Staff who has had a modest acquaintance with some aspects of tele- vision, may I claim space for a word on those anonymous “ABC SINNERS” whose inarticulate frustrations have found refuge in your columns?
I have read the Sinners with mingled feelings:
Interest—because of my own involve- ment.
Disgust— at people who attack the organi- sation which has the misfortune to employ them, in public, without the guts to use their own names.
Amusement—at the curiously involved, self-consciously “clever” style in which they convey their particular brand of bitchiness.
However, one appalling fact emerges from their turgid prose, and that is this: If they are as muddle-headed and inarti- culate in their approach to the pro- grammes they produce as their writing appears to indicate then there is in- deed little hope for the quality program- ming some of us, at any rate, are working for in the Commission. GERALD I vONS Broadcast House, Melbourne.

Italia Prize

1948 Italia Prize starts -see here, here

1958 first Australian entries

March 1958 ABC announces it will enter things in the Prize see here and here

Aug 1958 ABC enters two radio works, the feature Hartney's War by John Thompson and the drama A Little South of Heaven by Ruth Park and D'arcy Niland see here, here and here - also submitted TV documentary The Happy Island by Maslyn Williams see here (radio prize won by Late Autumn by Austrian writer see here)

Feb 1959 announced French comic Fernandel would appear in a version of Harney's War which was disqualified from Italia due to technicality see here - article also says Happy Island will screen in USA and Holland

Aug 1959 ABC announces will submit three entries into Italia Prize held first week of Sept - music (Terra Australis), radio documentary (Death of a Wombat by Ivan Smith), television documentary (Growing up with Guba - set in PNG) - article here

Sept 1959 Death of a Wombat wins Italia Prize! See here (BBC won three of seven awards see here)

Nov 1960 refers to Music on the Moon being ABC Italia entry see here

May 1961 ABC annouces it will enter into Italia prize see here - She'll be Right by George Kerr was radio play entry

1962 entry from ABC - Dancing Orpheus - see here TV doco I think see here - later article called it perhaps ABC's most successful export see here

Oct 1962 refers to Speaking of East and West, radio feature from ABC entered in Italia prize see here

Feb 1963 refers to George F. Kerrs Look at Me Everybody! an entry into Italia Prize in 1962 - radio feature I think see here

June 1963 Ray Menmuir back to make Ballad for One Gun - ABC Italia Prize entry see here

Aug 1963 see Pilgrim Island - Italia Prize entry see here

ABC entered The Fifth Continent - musical work see here - also Snowy a ballet see here

1964 refers to Twilight of a Hero by Pat Hooker being ABC Italia Prize entry see here

Another Item says Solo for Several Plays by Kay Keaveny was ABC 1964 entry see here

Sept 1965 doco Living on the Fringe an Italia Prize entry see here

Oct 1965 refers to Living on the Fringe and another entry, the doco McBride and his men see here

Aug 1966 ABC enter Done Away with as Italia Prize see here and also In the Head the Fire (music) see here, Five Days (radio feature) see here

Sep 1966 - In the Head the Fire wins Italia Prize! See here, here and here

May 1967 Interaction entered see here - also Tony Morphett writing radio doco On the Road from Lae to Mount Hagen that will be entered see here and here

1967 radio feature Out West Its Worse

March 1970 ABC enters opera Fall of the House of Usher see here also My Brown Skin Baby They Take Away see here

1971 The Defeat radio feature by Kevin McGrath

1972 The Little Desert (radio) , The Twinkling Ornaments of the Night (radio drama)

1974 Essington entered see here also The World of JK

1980 The Last Summer of Childhood (radio) won - see here

Chris Gardner

English housewife. real name Marjorie Gardner. Lived at Woody Point.

She had moved from England to Australia eight years before Dark Under the Sun. Was living in Woody Point. She started writing when briefly bed-ridden due to a slipped disc then became more serious about it when she joined a Brisbane radio group in 1956. Dark Under the Sun was her first TV play.

*Dec 1958 - Pub at Pelican Creek commended in General Motors Theatre Award

*1959 short story in Coast to Coast see here

* Dark Under the Sun (28 March 1960) - TV play

*1961 Pub at Pelican Creek performed

*April 1962 - House of Mancello TV play

*1963 House of Mancello performed on radio

*Dec 1964 - A Private Island

*May 1965 - A Private Island radio play

*Oct 1968 Who's Perfect - radio play see here

*Feb 1974 To Travel Hopefully - radio play see here

*Sept 1980 A Thing of Wonder radip play see ere