Sunday, May 17, 2009

Book review – “David Williamson: Behind the Scenes” by Kristen Williamson

It was time for another David Williamson bio – Brian Kiernan’s excellent work hadn’t been updated since the early 90s. And Kristen was particularly qualified, being an author in her own right, not to mention ex-journo. I was interested to get her point of view, since Williamson’s plays are full of shrewish wives and adulterous husbands, and have been criticised for bad female characters. What is it like to be married to such a man?

Well, we find out. Dave is engaging, passionate, paranoid, likeable, talented, hard working and very perceptive about his own class and generation but nothing else (including the world around him). His wife seems the same. Oh my gosh – you mean soldiers were brave in World War I? The Chinese communist government was oppressive? Open marriage doesn’t work? It’s cold in Denmark? Paul Keating has the effrontery to refer to Balmain basket weavers – which apparently offends the Williamson’s friends, who included, we are told, economists, scientists, academics and film directors. How can they be basket weavers? Apparently there hadn’t been an international star in an Australian film before Susannah York in Eliza Fraser and the only Australian play on Broadway before The Club was Summer of the Seventeenth Doll. These faults can be forgiven in a memoir but not a biography by a professional writer.

This would have been better off had it taken the former course because the personal stuff is strong, apart from needing a bit of a cut. The story of their meeting, affair, marriage troubles, fights, etc are excellent as is the account of their life in Denmark and so on – invaluable for any serious student of Williamson. It probably could have done with a little bit less “that was a fun night” and “how great are my children” but at least that gives flavour (if repetitive flavour) about their homelife. 

The “proper bio” stuff isn’t as strong; the background of political stuff is clunky, and she ridiculously shares her husband’s preoccupation with critics (calling people who don’t like his plays critics or “failed playwrights” – it is possible people just don’t like them?).

David and Kristen argue viciously, have dinner parties, support left wing causes,  have affairs, work for the National Times, are on the board of the ABC, are friends with lefy politicians, don’t like conservatives or working class people, loathe working class slappers with cash. Just like characters in Williamson plays.

Louis Nowra wrote an interesting, perceptive review of the book. The review is a little unfair in places (I think Williamson’s plays do explore dark aspects of the human condition), but in some places he’s dead right, particularly Williamson K’s sometimes clunky prose, and lack of skill evoking characters. There is too much about critics. You have to discuss critics when talking about Williamson because he’s so obsessed about them, but you don’t have to be obsessed about them too. The space spent on quoting good and bad reviews would have been far better used talking about the people who were involved in the productions. We can always look up a crappy review, but wasn't Kristen there at the time?

People often talk about how actors are childish – it’s sometimes used as an insult but there is a serious component to this as well. It’s important for actors to be childish in that they can forget their inhibitions and play pretend the way a child can. Simon Callow refers to one rehearsal where the action was “desperately, seriously childish”. Writers need to do this too. (This is why so many actors and writers have drinking problems.)

Part of the reason why David Williamson is so successful I think is that he has remained childish. Mature adults don’t sent off faxes to five critics after 20 years of playwriting asking for a fare go; they don’t tell their wives they are having an affair. This means he’s always discovering new things and being enthusiastic about it.

It’s a must read for fans of Williamson (and those just interested in him). It doesn’t mean it’s not a heavily flawed book.

No comments: