Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Let's Hear It For the Pre-Show Talks For Plays At Theaters
Courant.com: Studies show that audiences want more from their theaters than simply what they see on the stage, however well-done.
They want engagement, they want a social dynamic, they want to feel connected to the art as well as each other. They want to feel invested in the theater.
One of the tried-and-true ways that theaters have traditionally done this (more tired-and-true in so many cases) is the post-show discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I disagree with what this article's author proposes. Talk-backs at the end of a show are meant for those audience members who REALLY have a vested interest in the theatre. It is a time for the audience members to ask questions and reflect on what they just saw. It creates an interdependent environment, as the actors and directors are able to gain feedback from the audience, and the audience is able to speak directly to the performers they just witnessed on stage. I believe that a pre-show talk would take away from the audience's experience. The author proposes that pre-show talks take place before classic works such as The Tempest and various Shakespeare pieces. I believe that this is pandering to the audience, and it would take away from the intellectual experience of seeing a play. I believe that any necessary information in order for the audience to understand the play should be added into the playbill, and it should be left at that. There are certainly other ways to make the audience feel "involved."
I want to start off by saying I am appalled by the number of typos and grammatical and spelling errors in this article. Coming across such obvious errors like this does not prompt me to foster a great respect for the author. That aside, though, I do think the author makes a good point. My family attended the Utah Shakespeare Festival for many years and their pre-show discussions were quite fun and informative. The festival was smart about their programming because they also offered post-show discussions (which were usually the next day, because much of their audience was older and wouldn't want to stay out too late after a show). This gave people the option of either getting some insider information before the show that would help to enhance their appreciation and understanding of it, or participating in a post-show discussion that helped them to grapple with their understanding of the play and what the play's production team intended for them to take away. Of course, someone who wanted the full experience could attend both sessions. That seems like a smart model to me, if a company has the personnel and facilities to swing it, because it opens up the possibility of interacting with more audience members, based on which kind of discussion they are more inclined to be engaged in.
I disagree with the author. I think shows often are unable to start on time as it is because of audience delay. A preshow discussion would only contribute to this dilemma, not reduce it. Also, I think that if you have to explain your concepts of the show before the show in order for the audience to appreciate it, then you didn't do a good job executing it--or it was a weak concept to begin with. Either way, it detracts from the intellectual experience of the show. Maybe this is a poor analogy, but I think of previews at the movies. As it is, people frequently ignore them or show up late so as to avoid them. As it is, I'm not a curtain speech fan. But they're a necessary evil to remind people to turn off cell phones....
I remember when I was younger and seeing "Les Mis" for the first time. The playbill explained the show so I enjoyed it much more because I understood what was going on. This was my opinion a long time ago when I wasn't even involved in theatre myself. Now that I am, I see things from a totally different point of view. Like another person said, Having a show start on time is already a challenge so adding the dynamic of a pre-show could hurt the timing of everything. Most people who come to a show already know about it to some degree and I don't know if they would actually take the time to arrive early. I also agree that most people are ready to leave after a show so don't think that is a very good idea either. The example of coming the next day to further discuss the show is probably the best idea of all the options as it doesn't effect the production of the show itself.
There really isn't a whole lot to discuss before seeing the actual show. There is really no need for theater foreplay like this article suggests. That's ridiculous. As an audience member I would be so annoyed if I sat down and before the show even started I had to listen to a discussion about something I can't even have an opinion about yet. I also don't want to spend time having people introduce there art, I just want to see it and draw my own conclusions - then I might want to hear a discussion. This seems like it would lose a lot of audience members and take away from the show.
Okay, two things.
First of all, one of my summer theatres did a pre-show talk on several days of the production, EXCLUSIVELY discussing historical context for the production, not the design choices. This is the type of pre-show talk I'd be in favor of - it was specifically geared to providing information for the understanding of the show's references, not for explaining the artistic choices involved. Also, it started 1 hour before the performance and ended 30 minutes before, so there was no reason why the show couldn't start on time (it was moderated by the dramaturg or literary manager, but even if an actor was to attend, they still got their full half-hour).
Second, NO ONE READS THE PROGRAM NOTE. We would love to believe they do, and they may at a later date after the show, but never before the talkback. It can't be assumed that they do. So what's wrong with presenting the same information in a more palatable way by letting someone lecture about it? The director's a great choice to do this because of their ability to field questions and intelligently drive the discussion toward explanation of the relationship between the text, what you see on stage and the context in which both were developed. I think that the objective info's better before the show, while the artistic questions should be held to after the performance (for their own context).
Also, yeesh, typos. I'm with Shannon, unprofessional.
So what this person is saying somewhat makes sense; yes, it's interesting to know certain things about the show, the production, the process, etc. before the show. But isn't that what the director's note is for? Those who are interested in it, and who would want to attend and benefit from a pre-show discussion, will read the program and learn all they can about the production; that's usually what I do while waiting for a show to start. I'm not sure however that it would necessarily be useful to replace a post-show talk-back by a pre-show discussion.
Post a Comment