This
time the baddie was the Tasmanian Heritage Council wanting to delist
the building and leave it to the whims of future avaricious
developers. But Haydn and Penny, well Haydn alone really, was going
to fight for it. The unsung heroes of heritage are the people who
stubbornly hang on to a dilapidated old shack despite all the
criticism, and in so doing, give it some breathing space until public
attitudes, government regulations or market forces come round to
recognising it is worth keeping permanently.
The
bigger
heritage story,
however, – of the proposed massive reduction in the number of
places protected under the Tasmania Heritage Register - was lost in
the ungenerous main themes of the story – Haydn takes forever to do
things and never finishes a project, and Penny resents it and so they
bicker – a heritage soapy. But under the guise of "Reviewing
the integrity of the Tasmanian Heritage Register"
a Tasmanian government directive is to cut
the list by a third.
Was the chair of the Heritage Council, Dianne Snowden herself, in
hardhat, steelcaps and fluros, to put a more friendly face on the
policy that has led to some severe
criticism?
In
a contradictory bit of omission, probably because it does not fit the
struggle narrative, there is no mention of the $13000 grant for works
to the building from the Heritage
Conservation Funding Program,
deadlines for spending of which have been extended.
Haydn
and Penny must have a pretty strong relationship to weather the
restoration struggles (as Sibella portrayed them). The obsessive
theme comes through again however, with a bit of Anglo-Australian
American
Pickers
thrown in for good measure. There is a fair bit of emphasis on the
psychological damage of "doing the hard way" such as
cutting and dressing replacement timber from scratch, hand plastering
(again) and shingling, and not enough on the personal
achievement and aesthetic satisfaction.
Again,
not wishing to labour the comparison with Grand Designs, the
implications of personality, motivations and relationships don't
always help inform the building story. Or they are just too
simplistic - for example, the narrative puts the line that the place
was nearly destroyed by fire and the project set back years, because
Haydn took too long to set things right. When the reality is that
care for our history is not always accompanied by the means to
protect it. The oft-repeated rule is that a project can be quick, or
cheap, or high quality, and sometimes a combination of two, but never
all three.
I
found a hint that there was some archaeology associated with this
site, which helped date it. Nick Brodie, (described by Andrew
Zacharek
as "historian and archaeologist and Hobart's answer to the Time
Team") evidently dug into archives and under floor
deposits to determine the age of the building, its builder and dated
artefacts from its industrial history.
Another
developing (but disguised) theme in the show seems to be how
narrative complexity gives way to melodrama. Why bother with details
and facts when you can just show people arguing, which is how the
show unfortunately finishes, despite Sibella's little bit of
psychotherapy. The emotive music in the premature climax, doesn't
help either, certainly in terms of fitting the images since the
building only looks halfway there, rather than the 'incredible'
phoenix risen from the ashes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReally, you are sharing an informative article that is very interested for me, please provide this type of information on regular basis and thanks for sharing. Currently I am waiting for Cedar Weatherboard Restoration.
ReplyDelete