CMU School of Drama


Monday, April 25, 2011

Adult themes, nudity, occasional walkouts

theage.com: "Sydney theatre audiences are accustomed to notices posted in foyers warning of such hazards as smoke haze, herbal cigarettes, strobe lighting and loud noises. But recently these have expanded to include all manner of potentially objectionable content as a new generation of theatre-makers pushes the boundaries of what can be shown and theatre managements seek to insulate themselves against complaints.

5 comments:

Joe Israel said...

I actually think the theatre's method of using warnings when entering a show is way more production than the rating system used for film or TV. Audiences are actually forced to read what is in the show and make their own judgments about the content instead of simply reading an arbitrary rating that may have only been given because a certain word is used more than once in a film. It is much harder to judge whether or not the reviewer who called a sexually explicit show "smut" is in the wrong or not. I'm sure there are shows out there that sensationalize sex and nudity and would fairly be called smut. If the show doesn't overdo it, though, this is an unfair claim.

Elize said...

In the case of Lulu I pushed for a trigger warning. It's responsible to put warnings in lobbys and on websites but the audience takes on a sort of responsibility to have a feeling about a piece of theater. If walking out is what expresses that feeling than so be it. There are worse things that could happen in a theater than some patrons getting offended and leaving. And the truth is that no matter what you do, some people will be offended and leave. I'd rather throw up during Lulu than fall asleep during The Music Man and so would plenty of other people.

Nic Marlton said...

This may seem like a tangent off of Joe's comment, but I really like the idea that a show could display all the worst parts, and let the audience make a judgement about how they feel the show should be rated. i think that it could be much more effective to, instead of having a stark rating, have lists of the graphic parts of a piece of entertainment, and allow the audience to judge for themselves if the media which they are about to consume is good or bad, and just how vulgar they expect it to be.

Dale said...

I will present two sides to this argument. One)Audience members need to do homework. Do not go to Equus less you are comfortably with some man on horse action. Two)Theaters need to be respectful that not all people are comfortable with all things and they should not be judged as un-educational or unsophisticated. Personal example. I saw the clean up crew from Lulu clean up the blood after rehearsal one night but I elected to see the show regardless the following day. During the show I became very nervous about the anticipation of how the blood was to be used and I was concerned that if there was graphic violence it would stick with for some time and I considered walking out. (I did not and most of the violence was done in the dark so it worked out.) Theatre patrons are consumers. If they choose not to continue consuming, that should be their prerogative. If they want their money back, then that is another issue.

MaryL said...

I think that letting the audience know what they are about to see is important. It is just responsible to put this in the lobby. When the audience knows the "rating" of the piece they are about to see, there will be less or no walk outs which may disrupt the show for other audience members. Of course, in today's movies there is considerable nudity and adult themes, but in live theater, you never know who may bring their children (or first date). It is nice to have some idea what to expect and who to bring or leave home.