spinofflive
Getty Images
Getty Images

SocietyMay 14, 2019

WW100 was great at raising WWI awareness. Understanding? Not so much

Guest writer
Getty Images
Getty Images

The WW100 centenary programme was exceedingly effective at raising awareness of New Zealand’s involvement in the First World War. But did it leave any lasting impression?

At the end of April the commemorative body WW100 released its final report on New Zealand’s First World War centenary programme. Alongside the report were the results of a 2018 Colmar Brunton survey on the impact of the commemorations. The report some interesting questions. How successful was WW100 in achieving its goals for the centenary? And what effect has the centenary had on our long-standing national myths around the First World War?

Established in 2012 as a partnership between several government organisations, WW100 was designed as an umbrella under which New Zealand’s First World War centenary commemorations could be organised. In its own words, WW100 provided “a shared identity for all New Zealand’s First World War centenary projects, from the official national ceremonies and legacy initiatives to community and personal endeavours”. Running for five years, the WW100 programme’s “mission was to foster appreciation and remembrance of how the First World War affected our nation and its place in the world”. In attempting to achieve this, WW100’s primary goals were commemorating New Zealand service and sacrifice in the First World War and deepening understanding of the First World War in New Zealand.

Upon releasing its report and the results of the 2018 Colmar Brunton survey, WW100 has naturally focused on the positive takeaways. A list of key findings on the WW100 website emphasises, among other things, that 93% of New Zealanders aged 15 and up engaged with the centenary programme in some way; 83% say they have at least a basic understanding of New Zealand’s involvement in the First World War; 89% feel the centenary commemorations were important; and 82% believe the First World War was relevant in shaping our national identity. Colmar Brunton’s overall conclusion following their survey was that “New Zealanders’ knowledge of the First World War has improved over the commemorative period”.

It is true that since Colmar Brunton conducted its first survey into understanding of the First World War in New Zealand in 2012 the numbers have gone up. The 83% that claim at least a basic understanding of New Zealand’s war has gone up from 77% in 2012; and 39% stated in 2018 that they had more than a basic understanding, up from 31% in 2012.

These headline figures are all well and good, but when you go deeper and assess the full range of results from the 2018 survey the picture starts to become more problematic. While the numbers quoted might show that awareness of the First World War has increased in New Zealand, how deep does this awareness go? And has actual understanding of New Zealand’s role in the conflict increased over the course of the centenary?

In a question that asked respondents what first came to their mind when they heard the words ‘First World War’, the most common responses in both 2012 and 2018 were ‘Death’, ‘Gallipoli’ and ‘Anzac’. Other terms such as ‘tragedy’, ‘waste’, ‘horror’ and ‘stupidity’ were also common responses. While references to the Western Front and battles such as the Somme and Passchendaele increased marginally in 2018, they were still nowhere near as widespread as references to Gallipoli or Anzac, and in Colmar Brunton’s graphic of results for this question there were no references at all to the campaign in the Middle East. Indeed, more respondents had ‘Hitler’ come to mind, in both 2012 and 2018, than the Middle Eastern campaign – New Zealand’s longest of the entire war.

New Zealand’s costliest campaign of the war was on the Western Front, yet the percentage of those respondents who believe Gallipoli had the highest death toll actually went up from 52% in 2012 to 57% in 2018. Although the number who know more lives were lost on the Western Front also went up nine percentage points, it still only represented 26% of the total – less than half the Gallipoli figure. This fixation on Gallipoli is not surprising when you look at the ways New Zealanders engaged with the centenary programme. According to the 2018 survey, by far the most popular WW100 projects in terms of awareness and attendance were the two Wellington-based exhibitions – Gallipoli: The Scale of our War at Te Papa and the Great War Exhibition at Pukeahu National War Memorial created by Sir Peter Jackson. The first of these exhibitions focuses almost solely on the Gallipoli campaign, and the second, although it covers a broader range of subjects, has a large stand-alone gallery for Gallipoli – the only campaign to receive this treatment.

Given one of the aims of the centenary programme was “to increase knowledge beyond the best-known facts, [and] to challenge some of the myths and bring a greater range of stories to light”, the above responses seem to call into question the extent  to which that goal was achieved.

Perhaps most telling are the responses Colmar Brunton received when it asked people to further analyse their answers to the main survey questions. WW100 is right to be proud of the fact 93% of respondents engaged with the centenary in some way, but when asked which aspects of their engagement left a lasting impression the most common response (44%) was ‘don’t know’. ‘Don’t know’ was also the most common response (49%) to the question of how the centenary commemorations evoked thoughts about the past, present or future. Of the 82% who felt the First World War was important in shaping New Zealand’s national identity, 26% did not know why, the second most common response behind the broad category “helped shape who we are as people, and how we think about ourselves” (27%).

What am I trying to say here? I do not want it to seem like I am dismissing the centenary programme out of hand. I’m not saying it was a waste of time and achieved nothing. As the headline figures point out, WW100 was very successful in engaging New Zealanders with the centenary and raising awareness of the First World War. But engagement and awareness are not the same as understanding. WW100 and Colmar Brunton’s statement that understanding of the war has improved in New Zealand over the centenary does not seem, to me at least, to be borne out in responses to the 2018 survey. As a nation, we still place disproportionate emphasis on the Gallipoli campaign, to the extent it perpetuates misunderstanding about the rest of New Zealand’s involvement in the war. We still fall back on generalised tropes of ‘suffering’ and ‘tragedy’ to describe the war, and when asked to go deeper into our thoughts about the war many of us are unsure.

More Reading

    Should WW100 feel bad about this? Probably not – after all, national myths are difficult to dispel, and a large nationwide commemoration programme is probably not the most effective way to educate people on the nuances and complexities of the First World War. However, what the 2018 survey results show us is how powerful those national myths of the First World War are and how, a century after the end of the war, they still have a strong hold on our understanding of history.

    The quotes and figures in this article were drawn from WW100’s final report and the 2018 Colmar Brunton survey. The report, and the results of all the Colmar Brunton First World War surveys, can be accessed here.

    Josh King is a postgraduate student in history at Victoria University of Wellington.

    Keep going!
    Theresa Healey stars in Auckland Theatre Company’s The Audience as Queen Elizabeth II. Photography: Michael Smith.
    Theresa Healey stars in Auckland Theatre Company’s The Audience as Queen Elizabeth II. Photography: Michael Smith.

    SocietyMay 13, 2019

    Review: The Audience is a missed opportunity on almost every level

    Contributing writer
    Theresa Healey stars in Auckland Theatre Company’s The Audience as Queen Elizabeth II. Photography: Michael Smith.
    Theresa Healey stars in Auckland Theatre Company’s The Audience as Queen Elizabeth II. Photography: Michael Smith.

    Much like its subject, The Audience is blandly pleasant and frustratingly naive. Sam Brooks reviews Auckland Theatre Company’s latest production.

    Every week, Queen Elizabeth II has an hour-long meeting with her prime minister to discuss the matters of the day. This has happened since her coronation in 1953, and will happen until she abdicates, she dies, or the inevitable heat death of the universe, whichever comes first. All these meetings are unsupervised, off-the-record and, to some people, the source of much interest and scrutiny. These weekly meetings are the basis for The Audience, written by Peter Morgan, currently being staged by the Auckland Theatre Company.

    The appeal of The Audience is simple: it gives the public a peek behind closed doors, and if there’s one thing people love more than a real-life story, it’s a story that might have happened. The structure of the play is also simple: a series of two-handers between the Queen and whomever happens to be prime minister, and even though Morgan shuffles up the order of scenes, it’s never difficult to follow and remains anodynely intimate. Ultimately, it’s a one-stop performance showcase, and that’s where the The Audience‘s primary pleasure can be found.

    That’s because The Audience lays itself at the feet of whomever might be playing Queen Elizabeth II. In the premiere West End season, it was Helen Mirren, doing what felt like a state-appointed victory lap of her an Academy Award-winning performance in Morgan’s film The Queen. Here, we’ve got Theresa Healey. She has an uphill battle, especially compared to Mirren, who was coming off the inherent goodwill of, you know, everybody having already seen her and loved the original performance. To Healey’s credit, it’s an absolute triumph against adversity.

    As a writer, Peter Morgan has a tendency to walk the line between depicting politics and engaging with politics. Even his previous play, Frost/Nixon, seemed less interested in the ramifications of Nixon’s actions and more interested in divining humanity in America’s second-most reviled president. As such, despite Morgan’s skill with a bon mot and his ability to give insight into people who exist mostly as headlines, his work can seem more like fanfiction than theatre. And even if it’s meant to be journalistic observation, he’s more the Daily Mail than the Guardian.

    Morgan’s approach works especially poorly in The Audience, which sits at an awkward mid-point between The Queen and The Crown, which, yes, Morgan also created. While The Queen attempted to lionise Elizabeth II’s actions during what was deemed the monarchy’s roughest days, and The Crown attempts to humanise Elizabeth II full stop, The Audience tries to canonise Elizabeth the monarch. She’s presented as a fount of wit, a political heavyweight, a woman of tremendous compassion, all at the same time.

    Which is why Healey’s performance is such a triumph. She makes the headline into a human being, the image into flesh, by force of commitment. In a way, she surpasses Mirren’s work. When you watch Mirren as the Queen, there’s a sense of stuntiness to it – she’s always Helen Mirren-as-Elizabeth. Healey, despite her charisma, sinks fully into the role. The transformation between ages is entirely seamless, and when the scenes lack an emotional anchor, she provides one. Morgan’s script obfuscates whatever arc the Queen might have had by shifting the chronology of the meetings, flitting from John Major to Gordon Brown, but Healey manages to tell the story of a woman moving from insecurity to dominance to wearied disappointment.

    Adam Gardiner and Theresa Healey in The Audience. Photography: Michael Smith.

    The production as a whole doesn’t help its star. The ensemble of prime ministers is lively and vivid, particularly an especially crustacean Ian Mune as Winston Churchill, and all stamp their mark on their specific PMs. But the design is oddly static. The most damaging aspect is the decision to keep all Elizabeth’s transformations offstage; it cuts any potential momentum the play might have dead in its tracks, and robs Healey of vital connecting tissue between the stages of Elizabeth’s life.

    There’s room for a production to have fun with what the shuffled chronology of the play means – when is Elizabeth remembering? What is she reliving? When is she actually in the moment? – but Colin McColl’s production keeps it shockingly literal. Given that this is a play largely full of two-handers with the characters sitting down and talking, it’s a crucial missed opportunity to inject some theatre magic into a production that sorely needs it. Hell, in a space like the ASB Waterfront Theatre, it makes little sense to see a production of this scale that doesn’t utilise what magic the space is actually capable of.

    Which brings me to the question that sits underneath the shaky foundations of the production: Why The Audience, why here, and why now?

    It seems willfully naive to programme a play like The Audience, which features arguably the most famous woman in the world and the current face of the world’s most famous colonising power, in our current climate. But to programme this show in New Zealand, a country which is still feeling the daily damage of colonisation, and to give it the most traditional, conservative production that doesn’t begin to address the world sitting just outside the theatre door, seems like both a display of ignorance and, yes, another missed opportunity.

    At no point in The Audience does the play brush against any discussion of class, any discussion of race, barely any discussion of sex or gender – which is no surprise, given Morgan’s tendency to observe his subjects rather than engage with them. It’s important to note that The Audience premiered in 2013, pre-Brexit, pre-Trump, pre-whatever hellscape we’re living in now. Not that any of those events were the creation of racism, classism, sexism or social inequality, but these are global events that demand some kind of response, whether you want to respond to them or not. There’s no question that if The Audience premiered post-2016 it would have addressed Brexit and while I’m not sure if it would do so in any meaningful way, it would have been a start. The Auckland Theatre Company production of The Audience in 2019 feels like a museum piece. In no meaningful way is it different from what an Auckland Theatre Company production of The Audience in 2013 would be like, and that’s unfortunate.

    There are any number of ways that you could shake up The Audience to make it relevant and responsive. Imagine a woman of colour playing Queen Elizabeth II. Imagine a person of colour playing any of the prime ministers, or any of the supporting characters. Imagine a cast with no men in it. Imagine an all-youth cast. Would it be historically accurate? No! But this is all fanfiction anyway – there’s no reason not to move the line between an acceptable fiction and an unacceptable one a few metres further down the field. I’m sure that there’s a bevvy of legal paperwork longer than the actual script that prevents decisions like that being made, and I’m equally sure that it would make the roast-on-a-Sunday members of the audience furious, but if our leading theatre company isn’t going to make a show that responds to the world outside its door, then who is?

    You can only go so far down this road before you realise that the destination that you have in mind is not, actually, what the play is setting out to do. You can queer it, you can colour it, you can shake it up as much as you want, but Peter Morgan’s The Audience is never going to be a show that meaningfully interrogates its subject, or its subject’s place in the world. You can’t pay for a Big Mac, expecting it to be a salad. No amount of shaking up would change the lack of incident in the play, or infuse it with meaningful political critique or commentary, but it might give the production a point of view and a purpose that it doesn’t.

    The Audience is a cynical, if understandable programming choice for Auckland Theatre Company, nestled in the schedule between its energising, exciting Here & Now youth programme and a collaboration with Prayas Theatre, A Fine Balance. It’s a soft lob down the middle – a crowd-pleaser about a famous person, one that comes with borrowed four star reviews and awards overseas – and one that seems primed to please ATC’s subscriber base. For all the humanity and life that Healey lends the production, not even she can take it over the line into making it necessary, or even justifying its existence. And, for our leading theatre company, that’s simply not enough.

    Society