Dear Editor,
I refer to an item ‘Drama after drama festival’ by Telesha Ramnarine in the Guyana Chronicle of December 23, 2016. The article details several claims and accusations with extensive quotations from two ladies who protest biases against them and the plays with which they worked in the National Drama Festival. The prominence given to my responses is disproportionate to that given to the accusations. I was only asked by the reporter to respond to three questions, and I therefore seek to address the charges more appropriately.
They include: (1) that the NDF “cannot even attract viewers to the NCC anymore despite entry is free” as a result of “the populace losing confidence in the festival”.
That is inaccurate, and a hasty conclusion. From the very beginning of the NDF, it has never attracted large multitudes. Houses have always been small and numbers have certainly not declined. This year, 2016, showed a low turnout for the preliminary rounds at the NCC, but an increase in numbers over 2014 and 2015 for the finals. What is more, the preliminaries were held at other venues outside of the NCC and out of Georgetown. Some of those showed large numbers turning out which were unprecedented in places like the Sophia Community Centre, Kuru Kuru and other places.
Consequently large, very supportive crowds came from the communities to support their plays in the finals at the NCC, eg Sophia, Parika and St Cuthbert’s Mission. The NDF monitored these and has evidence. Did someone do a survey to show that low audience numbers result from this lost confidence? What is the evidence to indicate this?
(2) That “the Chief Judge can look me in the face and say that I should not be upset because . . . I had won the festival on three occasions in the past”. This surely suggests that “no matter how good my productions are henceforth, I will never be awarded accordingly because I had won before”. That is indeed an unsatisfactory statement, one which I, myself, would not accept. The problem is, that is not what I told her.
Mrs Cadogan Taylor advanced an accusation of bias. I said look, you won this thing for three years – dominating it; if there was bias against you or in favour of others that would never have happened. That was my argument. There is no limit to how many times anyone can win. I said she has grown to be one of the most established directors in the nation, and I have publicly acknowledged this before now. Her point is known as the ‘straw man’ fallacy. You put up a weak argument in place of that said by your opponents, and then knock it down.
(3) That “after nominations came out Mr [Ron] Robinson penned a letter to the committee voicing his concerns about those that were selected. . . In an effort to pacify Robinson, his play was tied with the other” [sic].
That is a false notion. All the judges’ decisions were completed long before Mr Robinson’s letter reached the committee. Proof of that is documented. The judges’ final meeting was on December 6. I travelled to China on Dec 7 and didn’t return until Dec 18. The list of trophies was sent to the Trophy World where the titles had to be inscribed, and to the Department of Culture by the Convenor of Judges on December 12. Mr Robinson’s letter did not reach until December 15. The committee had no time after that to meet to change the decision, get an extra trophy and inscribe it.
All of those things can be verified. On the other hand, what proof is there that there was a change because of the letter? How did Mrs Taylor know what the judges’ decisions were? What evidence is there to support the claim except that somebody thinks so? It is easy to tell such things to the public without the responsibility of providing proof.
Something else that is wrong with this piece of subjective speculation is that it assumes that anyone not liking a decision can approach the panel to have it changed. Some members of the panel felt strongly that the letter should not even have been entertained, but a detailed response was nevertheless provided to the cast of Miriamy.
(4) That Mrs Taylor has “handled every unfair decision meted out against me in the past with dignity and decorum”. I can say it is true, she has behaved with dignity and decorum. But do all those unfair decisions include the years when she dominated? Were those decisions unfair too? Or is the judging only fair when she wins?
(5) That Leslyn Bobb-Semple puts in “a lot of work into her plays but is not acknowledged” because “I am not liked or someone doesn’t want me to win”. From my recollection she has received much acknowledgement for her acting excellence in several plays, and in many reviews written by this critic. She has been nominated, and has won awards. In my public comments after the plays in 2016 she was praised highly for her work in Dot Com, in Till Ah Find A Place and in Miriamy, although her costuming in the last was criticised.
(6) And that Mrs Bobb-Semple was a late recruitment for the lead role in Miriamy, worked hard and “pulled it off”, without getting “even a mention”. I did give her good mention, but knew nothing about her being a late replacement – how was I to know? That credit needed to have come from her director.
It needs to be observed, by the way, that despite the generality of the accusations, they arise from the final placings in only one out of the five categories in the NDF – the judging is attacked in the Open Full-Length. But the judging panel used a system of evaluation; what system was used by those who question them? What makes their system better? Were they able to see their own plays and objectively compare them with all others in the category? Can they, as the judges are able to do, point out exactly what was comparatively better or worse among all the plays?
Those qualified and available to be judges are in fairly short supply. Not many are ready to put in the sacrifice and the time demanded by that thankless task. Ron Robinson, for example, was asked to judge when he was not a contestant. He didn’t do it.
However, the Critique Judge has been singled out as the culprit and singularly attacked.
He seems to be able to influence a panel of 9 competent, strong, independent judges who come with different interests and can think for themselves, and impose his flawed decisions upon them. My accusers insult a worthy panel of 9 persons.
The Critique Judge was seen by the NDF Committee as something missing from the NDF because of its vision and concept, and insisted that I should do it. It is not simply opinions expressed by members of the judging panel, it is a specialist role filled by a Dramaturg – an expert ‒ and in a festival like this the comments are given as much for the benefit of the audience as for the contestants and performers.
But it seems a bit too sophisticated a concept, is not well understood, and is used to attack me. I will therefore not be continuing in that capacity. In addition, I will not endure assaults on my professional ability and integrity. I will not continue as a member of the judging panel.
Yours faithfully,
Al Creighton
