While Performers Shined at HIFA, Zimbabwean Directors Were Exposed.

Samuel Ravengai

Sunday Mirror, Mirror Review 30 May 2004

The Harare International Festival of the Arts (Hifa), which opened on the 27^th of April and closed on the 2^nd of May 2004, left a mark on the Zimbabwean cultural calendar. I have been following reports on HIFA since its inception while still in the Diaspora and this has been my first ever attendance. I am aware of a myriad of debates that HIFA has generated ranging from organisational issues, politics, race, culture and many others. I am not prepared to delve into these issues in this article as my major preoccupation is on art itself.

There were a variety of shows I attended ranging from dance, (Moving into Dance) music, (Ismael Lo and Soweto Kinch) and theatre, (Two Hungry Men, Independence Day, Vivace, Unveiling, African Macbeth, Harry, the Brother from Another Mother, Wedding Night, Mathew and Jimmy Show). As you can see from the choice of shows, I am a theatre person and therefore incompetent to give insight into other forms of art. All I can say is that on a subliminal level the dances and music motivated an instinctively satisfying feeling and they uplifted my spirit. I cannot wait for the 2005 HIFA!

In all the shows that I watched, performers generally excelled in their craft of acting. However, they were key areas that needed directorial intervention. Most of the failures were noted in the visual dimension of theatre, which encompasses the ground plan, composition and picturisation among other things. But let us first investigate the way performers handled the craft of acting. The Unveiling cast was fabulous. What I admired about Watson Chidzomba, John Dhlakama and Eleanor Madziva was their excellent ownership of lines. The words were very fresh and they were exchanged between them as if they were spoken for the first time. Their voices were well coached by their director Susan Hains. We could hear every word, breath, syllable and consonant. The area of voice is Susan Hains’ speciality and she demonstrated beyond doubt that she is a voice expert. Although the action was restricted around the two sofas and a coffee table, we had very good moments of performers’ picturisation where they gave the audience an internal story by showing motivations, actions and feelings. When Vera and Michael dominate Ferdinand, the story is told in words as well as gestures, voice modulation and bearing. I will bring out directorial challenges of this production shortly. My only concern was with Watson Chidzomba. I have seen him perform in many stage and screenplays, but what is worrying is that he tends to give the same package for all different characters he is playing. I would like to see him play different characters differently. The same criticism can be levelled against Dylan Wilson-Max who featured in Harry, the Brother from Another Mother. I have seen him perform in three television series and one stage play so far and like Watson, he is offering the same package.

The craft of acting was also handled well in other theatre shows. The Walter Muparutsa directed Wedding Night was highly entertaining. All the performers did well and I am in agreement with NAMA adjudicators who voted Joyce Mpofu the best actress this year. Kevin Simomondo and Lucky Saungweme of Two Hungry Men were good in terms of using their bodily instruments and silence. They could have been better had they given attention to their articulation. Part of the problem was the way their script was written. It was constructed from complex and multiple sentences that did not reflect the way people talk in everyday life. This affected elocution and sometimes the audience missed on key issues that were deliberated on. The Independence Day cast was equally good- especially the main actress Sara. However, the cast’s energy needed directorial intervention. They employed the Amakhosi bravura melodramatic style of acting, which was inappropriate for a work based on a classical realist text – Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. It all looked overacted and the director Thoko Zulu should have intervened and brought individual energies down to the same fundamental beat.

In all the aforementioned Zimbabwean productions with the possible exception of Wedding Night, quite a number of directorial challenges were evident. The most obvious one was the disorientating use of space. The use of space must be logical and should aid the illusion that the director is trying to project. The arrangement of properties did not aid the creation of a three-dimensional quality to staging. Take Unveiling for instance. It had three acting areas – the sofas, a coffee table with beverage bottles and a music centre. This should be applauded, as an effective ground plan should have a variety of acting areas. However, all these acting areas were placed along the lateral plane. It was difficult to reinforce the illusion of a living room as we did not know how wide or deep it was. The properties were not strategically positioned to define the space. Consequently, this arrangement forced the performers to use more of the lateral plane than anything else. Only two dimensions of the living room were clear; the third one was missing as performers had no or little motivation to move into the upstage area.

The same can be said about Harry, the Brother from Another Mother. The director Mandisi Gobodi arranged furniture – bed, cupboard, two chairs and a coffee table along the lateral plane. The blocking of the play was limited to those areas with properties. The same movements were observed in Thoko Zulu’s Independence Day. She had just one couch stretching along the lateral plane. All movements were executed left and right along the axis defined by the couch. Directors should realise that theatrical space is three-dimensional and that illusion should be impressed upon the audience all the time by directing movements in all three areas. This helps in creating a variety of body positions rather than the monotonous full front and profile positions. A variety of body positions embellishes spectacle. ‘Variety of body positions’, according to one of the best American directors, Converse, ‘adds a great deal of visual interest to a scene, and is a very powerful communicative tool’.

I have already commended the directors for coaching well the performer’s language and speech skills. The same rigour should have been exercised in the area of visual communication. The visual dimension encompasses how performers and properties are arranged on stage in order to achieve an instinctively satisfying clarity and beauty. On a subliminal level, the visual aspect of theatre if well executed gives the audience a sense of completion and artistic wholeness to what is presented before them. Apart from the clarity and beauty radiated by the stage pictures, the visual aspect of theatre must also tell a story. In the aforementioned productions, the major compositional technique employed by the directors was creating emphasis through varying the heights of performers – sitting and standing. All things being equal the tallest figure gets the attention of the audience. The triangle was the most prevalent shape noticeable on stage in performer relationships, probably because in these plays only three performers could be seen on stage at any particular moment. While these are good compositional techniques, the directors should have searched for a combination of other techniques to create a variety in emphasis. Monotony is a state which in real life is very boring. In art it is a taboo to be avoided unless it is used to gain a special effect. A variety of compositional techniques should have been used to enhance spectacle. In as much as the word is important, the visual dimension is also important as elegantly described by Eugene Ionesco: ‘the theatre appeals as much to the eye as to the ear’. It is more than words as it also speaks in images. In fact the audience comes to watch and not to hear theatre. Our theatrical productions should go beyond the standard of an excellent radio play. Of the four productions cited, the Walter Muparutsa directed Wedding Night was ahead of others in its use of space and execution of compositional and picturisation techniques. No wonder Muparutsa was chosen the best theatre director during this year’s NAMA. E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com

Studio 263: A Focused Pro-Development Soap Opera

By Samuel Ravengai

The Herald 29 March 2005.

Response to an article authored by Wonder Guchu entitled ‘Studio 263 Storyline Loses Focus’ which appeared in the Herald of 7 March 2005 refers.



Characters from Studio 263

This article should be applauded for its depth of analysis. Rather than the openly judgemental reports that we normally get from most of the journalists in this country, this article was rigorous in its analysis of thematic issues that Studio 263 is grappling with. The level of understanding of characters and what they stand for was very good. It tallies with our original conceptions; for when characters are conceived, they are not fictional beings, but symbols of poetic vision. When we give them goals, values, obstacles, commitment and some such things, we breathe life in them and transform them into fictional beings. We also agree with Mr Guchu in his submission that there is no central family in the story. That problem was noted about a year ago. The characters were inherited from A.C Moyo like that; however, efforts are being made to redress it. However, we do not entirely agree with all the concerns that Mr Guchu has levelled against the Studio 263 story.

The first accusation raised is that ‘with every new episode, the storyline gets more warped and the themes more shadowy…’ This is the premise of the argument. Instead of going ahead to provide substance to support this standpoint, Guchu goes for the entire article analysing the themes of Studio 263 with such amazing dexterity. If they are shadowy in the story, how come they are so clear to him as a reader? Studio 263 is indeed a pro-development soap opera, and it has not shifted from the thematic concerns of HIV/AIDS it originally set for itself. It has only endeavoured to make them more exciting so that they don’t seem forced down the viewers’ throats. Our interest at Studio 263 is to tell a story that has believable characters that reflect the lives of real people in Zimbabwe. We want as much as possible is to avoid stereotypes and two-dimensional characters whose every move is predictable, but at the same time we must remain aware of the show’s raison d’etre, which as we understand it, is to use character driven television soap to educate people about HIV and AIDS with the ultimate aim of bringing about sustained sexual behavioural change in youths. If Mr Guchu can, indeed, prove there has been a shift, we will be too glad to redress the issue. After all, that is the role of critics.

We see no problems in having the story turning and twisting this way and that way (warped). That is the nature of soap opera structures the world over. A soap opera scholar Allen Roberts can help us most with regards to problems that Mr Guchu has when the story ‘warps’. Allen says that when soap opera viewers follow the story they are not like the ‘driver of a sports car down a superhighway, but rather like the uncertain tourist provided with a rather sketchy map, who frequently stops to look back where he or she has been, occasionally taking a side road and constantly trying to glimpse what lies around the next bend’ (1985: 78). What this means is that the story can take a false route, retrace its footsteps, stop and go forward again. It requires a lot of skill to do all these movements with the story. If any reversal was written in an unconvincing manner, we challenge critics to take us on.

While it would please Mr Guchu and his ilk if we cut to the chase and resolved all the conflicts and killed all the characters that – according to him and his sources – are supposed to die young, it wouldn’t work for us in the business of education through entertainment and our target audience. So with this in mind, we would like to clear up some of this, and other writers’ conjecture and maybe help them better understand our seemingly irrational behaviour. Except for Farai Muwengwa, who came to his brother for help when he was already too sick for help, none of our characters are, or ever were supposed to die young from HIV/AIDS. Our aim is to educate people about living positively with HIV, so we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by prematurely killing our message bearers. We don’t know whose plot Mr Guchu is referring to when he says Muwengwa must die and that he must pay for his sins.

The next point is not an accusation, but a fear that Mr Guchu has over what will happen to Tom and Tendai. Without risking telling him the full text of the story, Tom will not ‘transform’, but he will be a very good actor in order to win Vimbayi. ‘Acting good’ and ‘being good’ are miles apart. Tom will act good, while deep down he will remain the same old villain. Mr Guchu shouldn’t also worry about Tendai. This character that was built over the years will not be destroyed. Tendai is living positively facing one challenge at a time. Her HIV status in not, as Mr Guchu puts it ‘likely to fade away’ because Kenge is locked up. Unfortunately, for us filmmakers, we do not have the entertainment reporters’ luxury of arguing and resolving issues within a few paragraphs, so Tendai – like most HIV positive people, will struggle to tell her boyfriend about her status, she will continue to face stigma, she will have periods of depression. She will be human, not a cardboard cut out that fits a writer’s preconceptions about HIV positive people.  A good storyteller must present challenges to the strong character to get the most out of her. Some writers advice that when you have forced the character to climb a tree, you must throw stones at her. We are simply throwing stones at Tendai. She will do the right thing. Sorry if that pains you!

Mr Guchu has also branded relationships in the making at Studio 263 scandalous. He suggests that bringing Mai Jari and Shereni together is a sign that the writers have run out of ideas. What could be so untoward or scandalous if Mai Jari were to fall in love with Shereni? Does being a widow or widower preclude any chance of finding love again? Is it immoral to fall in love after one’s spouse dies? By advancing his argument against a relationship between the widow and widower, Mr Guchu seems to suggest that once married, women become the property of a family and thus cannot venture out even after they lose their husband.

In a telephone conversation with Mr Guchu to find out what he meant by ‘Studio 263 storyline is losing focus’, he indicated that he measured the success of a story by its ability to achieve set goals. To him Studio 263 is generating other issues which seem to drift it away from the set goals. It is quite clear that Mr Guchu is reading Studio 263 like a realist novel. This particular genre is a ‘closed text’ as it aims at pulling the reader along a predetermined path. Every step of the story in a realist novel is structured according to an inflexible project. The pathway constructed by the novelist for the reader leads in a straightforward manner to its end. A soap opera, however, is an ‘open text’ with multiple levels of interpretation built into it. The soap opera reader with sufficient knowledge of the codes at work in the text will read it competently. The elaborate network of character relationships, events, and situations in Studio 263 allows multiple readings in excess of those necessary for narrative functions. We have no capacity and none has any capacity to totally control which codes to be engaged by any viewer to generate meaning at any given time. When such meanings, as those derived from Tamara’s troubles are generated, it should not be misconstrued as lack of focus. We certainly have an idea of what a story has to be. The story for the period January-July 2005 is in place and most of the narrative questions Mr Guchu raised are answered in the master story.

Finally, thanks for your in depth analysis of Studio 263. Keep up the good work Guchu. Mr Guchu may, however, want to know that Studio 263 became successful because we got a lot more things right than we got wrong. We don’t have a template to go by and so we make mistakes and continue to do so like all artistes. But we strive for perfection, which is an elusive goal for art, as that day of artistic perfection will herald the end of the world and the end of art. Nonetheless, let’s face real issues here. Why it is that Studio 263 is one of the few media products exported from Zimbabwe? Why do people continue to watch it and why do advertisers continue to fight for space on Studio 263 shows?

Story Consultant and Associate Director Studio 263

               

The Strengths and Limitations of Waiters: Zimbabwe's very own Sitcom

The Strengths and Limitations of Waiters: Zimbabwe’s very own Situation Comedy

Samuel Ravengai

The Sunday Mirror, Mirror Review, 23 May 2004.

In the Mirror Review of 11 April 2004 I made a bold claim that “it should go in the history of broadcasting that the first Zimbabwean made sitcom was Waiters”. I had looked at other programmes which claimed to be sitcoms, but found them wanting in most of the generic codes I outlined. However, the mere fact of qualifying to be a sitcom does not render Waiters free from blame. It has got its own limitations that need to be rectified before it qualifies to be an exportable media product. But let us first look at its strengths.

The first strength stems from Creative Native’s involvement of intellectuals in the creative process. It will be remembered that last week I bemoaned the undeclared animosity that exists between intellectuals and production houses in so far as both of them do not seem to be working together for the good of art. However, in this particular programme (which is a rare case in Zimbabwean art) Steven Chifunyise was engaged to create Waiters characters. All of the characters created by Steven Chifunyise are firmly rooted within parameters that define a situation comedy. Edgar Langeveldt, a University of Zimbabwe practical drama graduate is also one of the scriptwriters. A combination of writing skills from Leonard Matsa, a film writer and Edgar Langveldt, a theatre creator helps to catapult Waiters miles ahead of either Timmy na Bonzo or Chatsva. This marriage between artistes and artistic intellectuals is also evident on programmes that ZTV imports. On titles, portfolios like consultant script editor, consultant director or consultant so and so are often a common feature at the end of each of each programme. It goes on to support the view that people who are knowledgeable and action oriented should occupy creative portfolios. However, I must add that the mere fact of being an intellectual, but without passion and discipline does not guarantee a great work of art. I am informed that because of Edgar’s failure to meet deadlines among other things, the task of scriptwriting has been taken back to the originator of the idea Steven Chifunyise.

Waiters has got an experienced cast which makes it an erstwhile programme. Waiters director Marian Kunonga once described her performers as “an intimidating cast”. Dylan, Ehyra, Tickeys, Simon and Jason have got a wealth of experience from the theatre. The bravura melodramatic style of acting, which they got from the stage, suits the sitcom genre, which does not normally rely on close-up shots. These performers are not chancers; they have a passion for art and most of them are trained. In Zimbabwe, some directors still think that performers are born and therefore can be picked from the street in the fashion of modelling schools. They will give their friends and relatives a chance to appear on television and get some little pocket money even if they have never seen an acting school in their lives. The results are obvious on our sets. We are not cursed. We have to kill the enemy of art within ourselves who believes that art is any fools’ game. Art loving directors should repent from this sin against art.

Waiters is very Zimbabwean in its tone, texture and flavour. The opening montage of each episode of Waiters is accompanied by some sweet African jazz theme music played by a Zimbabwean musician Willom Tight. It prepares the viewers to get into an African restaurant with those ethnic colours on the walls. The laugh track plays a typically Zimbabwean laughter. It gives the viewers the feeling that they are watching a Zimbabwean product.

The final but not least strength of Waiters lies in the fact that it satisfies all generic codes of a sitcom- a four part narrative structure, humanoid characterization, exploration of internal space and the inclusion of a laugh track. Let me expand on characterization. There is a great deal of stereotyping in Waiters. It should be noted that whereas in other dramatic television genres it is a weakness to create stereotypical characters, it is a strength in sitcom characterization. Much of the humour comes from this stereotypical depiction of characters. Take Marcelino, for instance as the ‘brandaya’ house cook who is fuss and stupid. Get me right here. I am not insinuating that it is wrong to create a three dimensional character. In fact it is an extra bonus if a scriptwriter achieves that level. Some channels like BBC actually require three-dimensional characters as asserted by Matthew Carless “the characters that force us to reject scripts are often one dimensional or stereotypes”. For those who want to create comedy characters, this is the realm of characterization that they should be operating in.

While Davies Guzha and his Creative Native should be credited for producing Waiters, ZTV Quality Control Committee should be cracking the whip at Creative Native to mend the seams inherent in Waiters. A major shortcoming in Waiters is the absence of a recognizable main character. Everybody in Waiters seems to attract the same kind of attention. This does not help the entertainment value of the sitcom. The main character should carry the bulk of the action and is the one that viewers are supposed to watch for the better part of the episode. Because of the time limits of each episode (24 minutes) it is painstakingly difficult to give every character enough spotlight to make all of them main characters. This is the major dilemma of Waiters. When each character is equally important, each takes away from the others time that viewers can spend with other characters. Ideally, there should be one or two main characters and a sizeable number of supporting characters. Need should be the guide for the inclusion of supporting characters. They should be included to inspire or force the main character to act or react. The nearest Waiters have come to having a main character is when they bring ‘a guest star’ like the MP, Brenna Msiska or Oliver Mtukudzi. In these episodes, the viewers spent more time with guest stars. Dishearteningly, not all guest stars lived up to the expectations of stardom. The result was that when viewers were supposed to have quality time with the so called guest stars, they had torrid times with novices who struggled with lines and the craft of acting. It was much better with Mtukudzi and Masuku as they are   artistes by profession.

Waiters is also limited in its scope of comedy creation. Essentially, the funny thing should come from the situation/story itself. The scriptwriters and the director seem to be doing well in that area, although they are not always successful in all the episodes. There are, however, other techniques of creating comedy over and above the ‘situation’. One way of doing this is through dialogue. In American sitcoms, there is meant to be a laugh every thirteen seconds. Zimbabweans should decide at what intervals they want laughter. However, the bottom line is dialogue must also be funny. This is generated through juxtaposition of two contrasting modes of speech. Ambiguity is another technique. Here an utterance is made in all innocence but is suddenly seen to carry a second possible meaning which clashes with the first.

Puns can also be employed. This is sheer pleasure in the perfidy of language (word play). “the forms of everyday speech are praised but transcended: copiousness of insult, fluency of repartee and inventiveness of word play go far beyond anything encountered in everyday world” (Nelson, 1990). Another source of comedy is visual comedy (Mr. Bean style). Here characters exploit parody, comedy of errors, comedy of manners and so on. It looks like Marcelino is the only character operating in this realm. The rest do not want to experiment with visual comedy. Sutherland (2000), a specialist in sitcom writing warns: “if you are not funny for any length of time, it had better be deliberate and you had better have a good reason”. If all these techniques are employed, Waiters can be a better comedy than it is at the moment.

Another worrying thing found in Waiters is that not all episodes follow the generic sitcom structure. I have watched a good number of them, but here let me single out the one in which Marcelino was dancing through out the episode. A drunkard later joined the dancing but the narrative remained on the same structural level. This did not precipitate further complications and confusion. The climax should not be taken out of the protagonist ‘s hands. If the events are going to be funny but without movement of the narrative, it will most likely put off the viewers. In his Ten Commandments of Writing Robert Mckee explains how characters have to be manipulated: “thou shalt seek the end of the line, taking characters into the furthest reaches and depths of conflict imaginable within the story’s own realm of predictability”. Multiplying complications on one level surely does not help the story, as it also remains static. The same mistake was committed on the 24 April episode where Marcelino got drunk and the story remained at that level without venturing into further complications. The introduction of Willom Tight did not add any further confusion. Viewers cannot be hooked to the screen by stasis.

In as much as I respect Steven Chifunyise, I have problems with his construction of sitcom characters. I appreciate the fact that the characters are unique. Apart from the Mariyawanda- Simon and Marcelino-rest-of-them relationships, the other combinations are not clear to me. A good script should make clear each character’s relationship to other characters in the series. Each character must have a comic flaw which creates potential for comic clashes between personalities and that will make these relationships funny, an excellent attribute of a sitcom. A situation comedy should really be called “character comedy”. We have seen from previous false sitcoms that a series of jokes strung together will not carry the day. Good writing is reliant on strong character outlines, which seem to be lacking in Waiters.  E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com  

The Drama of Wiseman Magwa: Njuzu/Water Spirits (1991)

Samuel Ravengai (2011)

The play follows a linear narrative structure, by following the life of the main character Nyika and his antagonist Matope. Like Mujajati’s The Rain of my Blood (1991), the play starts from the time of the liberation war in Zimbabwe and ends in the post-independence era. The play is satirical. Matope, the antagonist is a soldier who is fighting on the side of njuzu (water spirits) whilst Nyika fights on the side of people of the land. In Zimbabwean mythology water spirits are visually depicted as white and it is not difficult to link Matope with white Rhodesians. It is likewise easy to link Nyika with the land hungry African people; and interestingly nyika means land in Shona. The issue of land was to decide the politics and dramatic oeuvre of Zimbabwe from 1997 onwards.

As the play opens, a heavily pregnant woman, Mai Nyasha and her ten year old son are ambushed by Matope, the mermen fighter, who it seems has refused to listen to the Rhodesian Front’s order to stop fighting. Matope subjects them to all manner of savagery by looting the food they were carrying and seriously injuring the young lad Nyasha who refused to co-operate with Matope. When Matope is about to kill Nyasha, he is restrained by his girlfriend Dudzai.

On the other hand, Nyika who fights for the land inhabiting people also seems to have refused to lay down arms and go to the nearest Assembly Point as required by the conditions of the 1979 ceasefire agreement. Indeed, in lived experience there were violations of the ceasefire agreement from both sides. Nyika features addressing the masses at a pungwe (night vigil) amidst dancing, singing, ululating and whistling. Like a political commissar, he explains to the masses the theory and practice of socialism as it would obtain in the new Zimbabwe he envisioned.

As if Matope is on the very brink of getting mad, he sings and dances to himself and even singing liberation songs such as ‘povho yaramba zvamadhisinyongoro’ [povo does not like disorganisation]. This seems less likely from an RF soldier, although this might be acceptable given the near snapping of his mind. Matope is at war with himself whether he made the right decision to stay on in the bush or respond to the ceasefire announcement to come back to camp. He is persuaded by his girlfriend Dudzai to go back to camp and he is finally convinced that unity is better than dissidence. He goes back to camp and is enlisted in the new army- Zimbabwe Defence Forces- which we know, at independence was led by Ian Smith’s army general Peter Walls.

Meanwhile, after finally laying down arms, Nyika returns to his rural home where his father throws him a big welcoming party attended by the chief, the village head and villagers. There is a lot of dancing, singing, speeches, chants, whistling and ululation to welcome Nyika back to village life. After this symbolic return to the source, Nyika finally decides that he wants to stay in the new army, but in the new Zimbabwe, he is confronted by so many problems that he thinks he is getting a rough deal.

·         Most of the senior military positions have been given to the former water spirit fighters

·         Most of the female land fighters were either impregnated or married by former water spirit fighters, perhaps because the mermen were paid better owing to their higher positions in the new army

·         Education in the new Zimbabwe is not free contrary to what he was telling the masses during night vigils

·         Even though he lost two fingers during the war, he was not given any money by the War Victims Compensation Fund because he was considered to be still able bodied.

·         Some ex-land fighters had accumulated too much wealth which was contrary to the spirit of socialism which they were coached to preach during the war. This was to lead to the Sandura Commission which saw several government ministers charged of corruption and relinquishing their portfolios (see Nyarota 2006).

The water spirits continued to own the land while people of the land did not have enough to conduct meaningful agriculture. This was contrary to the reasons for going to war (1991: 31). All this is revealed during a heated debate between Nyika and his fellow ex-fighter Mhungu (pp.28-35).

One incident, however, drives Nyika insane and ends with him living a miserable life. He argues with Matope, his former nemesis, who is now his senior in the army about who was the better side during the war of liberation. They end up fighting and Nyika is arrested by military police, who it appears are mainly composed of the ex-mermen fighters. Nyika is punished but decides to leave the army when an option for demobilisation is offered to him. Without work, he becomes a porter at Mbare bus terminus and like Jemusi in Tsodzo’s Shanduko (1983) or Spencer in Musengezi’s The Honourable MP (1984) becomes a domestic servant washing dishes, napkins, underwear and cooking for the new black land owner Muchengeti. He earns $40 (US$24 at the time) instead of the government gazetted $100 (US$59) in 1991 for domestic servants. Thus like Ndhlovu’s The Return (1990) and Mujajati’s The Rain of my Blood (1991) Magwa’s Njuzu/Water spirits (1991) deals with the theme of the plight of ex-combatants especially at the hands of the new black petit bourgeoisie class.

Samuel Ravengai 2011.

Official Views on Theatre Censorship in Manicaland Province - Zimbabwe

On the 7^th of January 2008 Grace Maguri and Samuel Ravengai hooked up with Mr Athanasius Ruswa at the Manicaland Provincial Arts Council offices to discuss issues relating to theatre censorship in his province.  Mr Ruswa was the provincial arts manager. Sadly he died in early July at the age of 55 before I had published my report on censorship and political control of Zimbabwean theatre. He joined the National Arts Council as a provincial arts officer in 1994 and rose through the ranks to become the Provincial Arts Manager. The following is an interview that he gave us.

Samuel Ravengai (SR):            We are on a reconnaissance mission to know the status of theatre in your province. What was the state of theatre like in the early 80s up to about 2000s

Athanasius Ruswa (AT)           All the arts were doing very well. We had a number of theatre groups doing very well in the whole province. They could live from art.

SR        what has gone wrong?

AR        When the economy in a downward trend all aspects of the economy suffer including the arts. We now have fewer groups as compared to the early days. The reasons for that are many. The state of the economy, the political environment which has forced many of our artistes to diversify into cross border traders and into small scale mining.

SR        Let’s talk about the political environment. How has it affected theatre?

AR        Theatre benefits or suffers from both social and political problems of the country. But I like what our national director Mr. Titus Chipangura has said regarding the issue of politics. He has said that NACZ[1] deals with art. Nobody was asked about their political affiliation when they got the job in the Council. The incumbents must deal with issues relating to the arts and not politics.

SR        We understand as Provincial Arts Manager you represent the artistes during Provincial Development Committee meetings. That is a political gathering isn’t it?

AR        Yes and no. We discuss issues relating to development and what is happening in the province. Every sector is represented in this committee…the police, education, CIO[2] everybody. If there is a problem emanating from the behaviour of our theatre groups, it is discussed at that level. As Provincial Arts Manager I am supposed to attend all PDC[3] meetings present and hear problems relating to the arts. Sometimes the police and CIO complain about political issues raised by some theatre groups. I tend to go back to the groups and tell them to recreate so that they don’t get in trouble with the security agents. Our policy is that for all arts to be marketable they must be independent of all political interference. The political side of our committee comes in the sense that the chair of the PDC who is the Provincial Administrator sits on the national board to formulate policies and acts of parliament to solve problems that affect government at provincial level and of course the issue of freedom of expression you were talking about.

SR        What kind of help do you give to groups that would like to perform in your province?

AR        Any group that would like to perform at any school in our province must come through the Provincial Arts Council and get a letter which must be endorsed by Provincial Education Officer. The letter must state where the group must go and when the letter will expire.

SR        Is that a form of censorship?

AR        The reason is that of the quality and morality of the art work. We also want to make sure that one school is not oversubscribed by certain groups. It’s a way of controlling. It’s an operational system which has nothing to do with politics. You may never know about the actual intentions of the education secretary who crafted that circular. To us it’s just a system and nothing else.

SR        Have you ever denied any group the right to perform in your province?

AR        No licensed group has been denied a chance to perform in Manicaland province. I am not aware of that.

SR        How about Vhitori Entertainment who were meant to bring a play called Final Push?

AR        That group was not registered by any association. That was the reason why it was denied permission to perform here. As a matter of fact Daves Guzha and his Rooftop Promotions have brought political plays to this province and we have allowed them to perform plays like Super patriots and Morons. The same thing with Global Arts who have brought What they Said and What they Got[4].

SR        What is your comment on political plays?

AR        If an artiste is sincerely partisan s/he has a problem. If you are an extremist you will face some problems. An artiste must be non-partisan. Anything that I am doing must not play rough on the authorities. If you are political you have lost direction, especially these days when we are moving towards March elections. We shouldn’t be extremists. As PAM[5] we have got a way of helping our artistes out of this. We normally have an end of year meeting with artistes where we discuss and reflect on the previous year. At the beginning of the year, we have another meeting where we advise artistes on themes and the way to avoid politics. I give the artistes the calendar of events like performances at Heroes Day where we normally ask them to perform for free and then performances at Independence Day where all artistes must be paid. We discuss the fees for that year and make recommendations for the new year. This is done so that when I go to the PDC I report on the parameters that we would have set

SR        It was a pleasure speaking to you sir

AR        Thank you.

---

[1] National Arts Council of Zimbabwe

[2] Central Intelligence Organisation

[3] Provincial Development Committee

[4] This play and Super Patriots and Morons were written by Raisedon Baya

[5] Provincial Arts Manager

Zimbabwean Drama Since 1958

Banana, Canaan Sodindo. 1981. Sponono Sami (My Beautiful One), Gweru: Mambo

Baya, Raisedon. 2009. Tomorrow’s People and other Plays, Harare: Sable Press

Baya, Raisedon. 2009. The Moment. In Tomorrow’s People, Harare: Sable Press

Baya, Raisedon. 2009. Madmen and Fools. In Tomorrow’s People, Harare: Sable Press

Baya, Raisedon. 2009. Super Patriots and Morons. In Tomorrow’s People, Harare: Sable Press

Chidyausiku, Paul. 1968. Ndakambokuyambira, Gwelo: Mambo Press

Chigidi, Willie and Magwa, Wiseman. 1990. Atsunzunya Regai Atsikwe, Gweru: Mambo Press

Chigidi, Willie. 1988. Mhosva Ndeyako, Harare, College Press

Chigidi, Willie. 1986. Imwe Chanzi Ichabvepi, Gweru: Mambo Press

Chigidi, Willie. 1986. Mufaro Mwena, Harare: College Press

Chifunyise, Stephen. 2008. Intimate Affairs and Other Plays, Harare: Cyber Card Trading

Chifunyise, Stephen. 1984. Medicine for Love and Other Plays, Gweru: Mambo Press

Chikanza, Juliet. 1984. Vakasiiwa Pachena, Gweru: Mambo Press



Tsitsi Dangarembga

Chingono, Julius. 1980. Ruvimbo, Harare: Longman

Chipunza, Arthur. 1981. Svikiro (My Spirit Sings) Harare: Longman

Dangarembga, Tsitsi. 1987. She No Longer Weeps, Harare: College Press

Dorras, Joanne and Walker, Peter. 1987. The Big Wide World, Harare: College Press

Dorras, Joanne and Walker, Peter. 1987. She Cant Even Cook, Harare: College Press

Calderon de la Barca, Pedro. 1600-1681. (Translation, teachers and students, Gokomere). 1958. Mutambo Wapanyika, Gweru: Mambo Press

Diki, Basil. 2000. The Tribe of Graves, Gweru: Mambo Press

Dzoro, Simbarashe T. 1978. Mukwasha Aba Nyama, Gweru: Mambo Press

Gambanga, John. Mari Ine Chitema, Harare: Longman

Grace, Fraser. 2005. Breakfast with Mugabe, London: Oberon Books

Gurira, Danai and Salter, Nikkole. 2009. ‘In the Continuum’ in Kilalea, Rory. Ed. In The Continuum and other Plays, Harare: Weaver Press

Hamutyinei, Mordekai. 1973. Sungai Mbabvu, Gwelo: Mambo Press

Hodza, Aaron. 1984. Mitambo yaVasikana naVakomana Pasichigare, Harare: College Press

Kavanagh, Robert Mshengu. 1997. ‘Mavambo/First Steps’ in Making People’s Theatre, Harare: UZ Publications, pp. 189-227.

Lwanda, Julliana. 1976. Mudyazvevamwe, Gweru: Mambo Press

Magwa, Wiseman. 2000. Jemedza, Gweru: Mambo Press

Magwa, Wiseman. 1991. Njuzu, Gweru: Mambo Press

Mahanya, Morgan. 1976. Chidamwoyo, Gwelo: Mambo Press

Makhalisa, Barbara. 1977. Umhlaba Lo (What a World), Gweru: Mambo Press

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. The Alley in Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. The Breakdown Scrapiron Blues in Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. The Servants Ball in Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. Alien to the People in Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1994. Killwatch in Scrapiron Blues, Harare: Baobab Books

Marechera, Dambudzo. 1984. Mindblast, Harare: College Press

Marachera, Dambudzo. 1984. The Skin of Time in Mindblast, Harare: College Press

Marachera, Dambudzo. 1984. The Coup in Mindblast, Harare: College Press

Marachera, Dambudzo. 1984. The Gap in Mindblast, Harare: College Press

Marachera, Dambudzo. 1984. Blitzkrieg in Mindblast, Harare: College Press

Mashiri, Pearson. M. 1978. Ushe Ndohwangu, Harare: Longman



Cont Mhlanga

 Mathema, N Cain G. 1985. Silubhekise Ngaphi? Harare: College Press

Mhlabi, Stephen J. 1981. Ibuzwa Kwabaphambili (Wisdom Begets Age), Harare: Longman

Mhlanga, Cont. 1992. Workshop Negative, Harare: College Press

Moyo, Aaron C. 2004. Pane Nyaya, Harare: Priority Projects Publishing

Moyo, Aaron C. 1987. Wandibaya Panyama Nhete, Harare: Longman

Moyo, Aaron C. 1983. Chenga Ose, Gweru: Mambo Press

Msora, Bertha. 1984. I Will Marry, Harare: ZPH

Mugabe, Davidson. 1972. Rugare Tange Nhamo, Gweru: Mambo Press

Mujajati, George. 1997. Zinyekenyeke, Harare: College Press

Mujajati, George. 1991. The Rain of my Blood, Gweru: Mambo Press

Mujajati, George. 1989. The Wretched Ones, Harare: Longman

Mungoshi, Charles. 1980. Inongova Njakenjake, Harare: Longman

Musengezi, Habakkuk Gonzo. 1984. The Honourable MP, Gweru: Mambo Press

Ndlovu, Temba Petros. 1990. The Return. Gweru: Mambo Press

Ndhlovu Themba Petros. 1983. Umkhunjulwa Ufelokwakhe, Gweru: Mambo Press

Nyika, Tambayi Oliver. 1986.  A Rat on her Back, Gweru: Mambo Press

Nondo, S.J. 1982. Icala Lezinduna. Harare: Book for Africa



Ben Sibenke

Pearce, Daniel. 1983. Generation Gap, Gwelo: Mambo Press

Sibenke, Ben. 1982. My Uncle Grey Bhonzo, Harare: Longman

Sidambe, L. C. 1977. Okunje Akuzange Kwenzakale (It Has Never Happened Like this before), Gwelo: Mambo Press

Sigogo, Ndabezihle. 1976. Indlalifa Ngiebani? (Who is the Heir?) Gwelo: Mambo Press

Tsodzo, Thompson Kumbirai. 1983. Shanduko, Harare: College Press

Tsodzo, Thompson Kumbirai. 1982. Tsano, Gweru: Mambo Press

Tsodzo, Thompson Kumbirai. 1977. Babamunini Francis, Gweru: Mambo Press

Tsodzo, Thompson. 1976. The Talking Calabash in Mcloughlin, T O. ed. New Writing in Rhodesia, pp. 103-146

Whaley, Andrew. 1991. The Rise and Shine of Comrade Fiasco, Harare: Anvil Press

Wolffe, Bart. 2006. Africa Dream Theatre, Johannesburg: DALRO

Zambuko/Izibuko. 1987. Katshaa: The Sound of the AK! Harare: UZ Press


Bart Wolffe, writer of African Dream Theatre (2006). He performed his one person show pieces at Theatre-in-the-Park



The Arts in Zimbabwe

An Overview of the Arts in Zimbabwe: Issues and Prospects.

Sunday Mirror Review 13, 2 May 2004

Samuel Ravengai

The 21^st century in Zimbabwe is as much an epoch of Agricultural Revolution as it is of Cultural Revolution. The reaction of two statesmen, in different times of history, to the phenomenon of culture is very interesting. When Goebbels, the brains behind Nazi propaganda, heard about the word ‘culture’, he reached for his pistol. Contrastingly, about sixty years later, when Professor Jonathan Moyo heard about the word ‘culture’ he opened his arms to embrace it. I guess he could have jumped into the cockpit of the nearest hawk fighter and fired missiles had control of culture been in the hands of the opposition.

                        Although the divide between art and politics is virtually blurred, let me leave the more overt politics to political analysts and concentrate on art which is the tangible and intangible manifestation of culture. The embracing of culture by Professor Jonathan Moyo is supported by various acts of parliament which encourage and accentuate the production, packaging and dissemination of Zimbabwean art products by Zimbabweans. This Cultural Revolution is already bearing fruits as evidenced by an extraordinary national scramble for the arts in the form of established musicians, upcoming urban grooves musicians, emergence of private and public art schools, and proliferation of various arts groups. National institutions now more than ever before recognise the work done by artistes through annual merit awards as those conferred by ZIMA and NAMA. The corporate world has also more than ever before come on board in supporting the arts. Non-governmental organisations have also added their weight behind this Cultural Revolution. They established the Zimbabwe Culture Fund this year some of whose objectives are to provide financial, material/human support for artistes in all sectors. The Zimbabwe Culture Fund also aims to facilitate capacity building at policy and administrative levels. Their focus is on supporting new and innovative work from emerging mid-level and high level artistes. The juiciest part of their objectives is to help in the ‘commercialisation’ and ‘professionalisation’ of the arts. This is a welcome development in the arts in Zimbabwe.

                        The immerse power that the arts possess has forced the ruling ZANU PF party to retrace its footsteps and rediscover its old self in the face of a stubborn opposition. It has realised that creative arts are an important weapon in winning the hearts and minds of the masses. Those of you who are fortunate enough like me to have inhabited the frontline positions during the 1970s liberation war will remember how liberation movements exploited the arts to win the support of the masses. Their art genre was more on the side of agitprop. The guerrillas gave short speeches during pungwes punctuated by bursts of singing, slogans, ululations and dancing; the type that you see on the sendekera track. They performed mock battles and sketches during the shadowy and ghostly hours of twilight. On the other side of the political spectrum, Mr. Ian Smith, in the fashion of Goebbels, banned art as a subject in schools when he realised its potential to be instrumentalised by those who were against his policies. Most of the traditional performing arts were banned as they qualified to be ‘means or devices used in the practice of sorcery’ under the Witchcraft Suppression Act (1899). Politicians who do not appreciate arts tend to view artistes with repugnance and more often than not as enemies. As one Nigerian artiste Dr. Segun Akinlolu advised “African leaders have to learn that without arts, society is dead”. The present government, through its various ministries, has realised the power that the arts possess in society. But one wonders why the selfsame government did not create an enabling environment for the arts in the last twenty years as it has done recently. In 2001 the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe Director Mr. Titus Chipangura is on record for saying that “the biggest let down for the arts is the government of Zimbabwe through customs people. Government has not realised equipment used by artistes is capital goods”. The government should not wait for political fortunes to dwindle, as they almost did at the turn of the last century, in order to negotiate a marriage of convenience with the arts. Artistes and politician-cum-artistes like minister Manyika, Professor Jonathan Moyo and the soul of the late Border Gezi should examine their consciences and ask themselves if this ‘hypocrisy’ is good. I think that artistes should refuse to be condomised. A situation where artistes are dumped and politicians dump art when political fortunes are high is deplorable. There must be a steadfast, Hosea-Gomer relationship between these two institutions for the betterment of both. However, if the present cultural courtship is genuine, steadfast and perennial, we say well done and I am ready to withdraw my word ‘hypocrisy’.

                        Given this overwhelming support from almost all corners, the question remains: what is the artiste on the ground doing in order to make sure that s/he uses this kind of support to improve his/her artefact? The question of training comes into the scene. Most of the artistes whose works we see in streets, parks, community centres, shopping malls and galleries have trained themselves and have in turn trained others. As for theatre, community institutions have taken the lead in the process of training. Amakhosi takes the lead in Bulawayo, while ZACT and more recently ZAAED are taking the lead in Harare. These institutions being community based, most of their products join the community theatre movement. These community groups value animation of amateurs. Their work is owned by the community as opposed to ownership by the state or private institutions. Their artistic emphasis is on participation as opposed to individual genius. Their standards are more local as opposed to national/international taste. The result is that groups that originate from Matebeleland or are influenced by Amakhosi employ the bravura melodramatic style of acting associated with Cont Mhlanga. Those groups that come from Mashonaland or are influenced by ZACT employ the narrative-song-and-dance style associated with Ngugi wa Mirii. I see a void left by the almost non-existence of a university which teaches ‘art theatre’- the method based approach. A university will establish a national standard that will harmonise all the different styles. A university will help in the democratisation of culture as opposed to the current pluralism or cultural democracy upheld by community art schools. A university will help in the conservation of national heritage and establish an artistic taste palatable to the whole citizenry.

                        In South Africa, most of the performers we see on either e TV or SABC have gone through a university drama school. Achie Moroka of Generations is the external examiner of UCT Drama School. Katlego Danke of e TV’s Backstage is an alumni of UCT Drama School, so is Omotoso of Generations. The list is endless. Where is the University of Zimbabwe’s Theatre Arts Department going wrong? It is not performing at full capacity as it is understaffed. Of the eight people in Zimbabwe trained up to at least a Masters degree in Theatre Arts, only three are at the UZ. The rest cannot be attracted by the meagre salaries that their colleagues are getting at UZ. All legitimate attempts to have them rejoin the department have dismally failed. I feel sorry for Masvingo and Lupane State Universities who want to open mega-faculties of performing arts because they will never get personnel if the fundamentals are not addressed.

                        The other problem is that UZ is too elitist. In order for a student to be enrolled in the Theatre Arts department, s/he needs to have scored at least 11 points at ‘A’ level. Isn’t it disheartening to tell Tatenda Mavetere, Annie Nhire or Ben Mahaka that they cannot be actors, directors or scriptwriters because they don’t have 11 points (not that I have evidence that they don’t). At South African universities, entrance to a drama school is by audition or experience in the theatre and a basic minimal pass at matriculation. And they produce wonderful artistes! In a survey carried out in the Department of Theatre Arts last year, most of the students who enrolled for the course had never applied for it and a good number of them did not know that it even existed. Since most of the students enrolled are not artistes and they don’t even have the passion for art, as soon as they graduate, they rush to go and teach and that is the end of the story. Since Theatre Arts Department’s first students graduated in 1994, to date, no more than twenty of its ex-students are directly involved in the arts.

                        The other problem has to do with established artistes’ attitude towards UZ theatre arts graduates who have a genuine interest in art. There is an undeclared animosity that exists between UZ and them. In the past few years we have not seen these groups working together for the good of art, let alone willing to take on board some of the theatre arts graduates. They want to maintain the status quo. Very few production houses have been willing to cast theatre arts graduates in their soap operas and dramas. They believe actors can be picked from the street. I wish it was that easy! Then how can artistes improve without proper training? All over the world where media arts have considerably developed, training is at the centre of that success. We will forever envy SABC if we don’t put our act together.