I’d been looking forward to seeing Annie Baker’s The Flick; I knew it was a polarizing play. During its run at Playwrights Horizons, the artistic director responded to the varying reactions of some subscribers (both vocal complaints and walkouts) by sending out a letter to them, discussing the process of developing the play, and the creative team's artistic decision to keep it at its length and pace.. Then, of course, the play won the Pulitzer Prize. I was pleased when it moved downtown for a commercial run.
6 comments:
I’d like to say that I agree with the author of this article on how shocking it is to me for a person to shout something like that during intermission, but unfortunately, I don’t think I truthfully could say that. I do, however, agree with how disappointing and inexcusable it should be. The author makes a good point about how artists risk their lives in other countries to get their opinion out, and in New York City, the home of western theatre, you should be granted the gift of not receiving death threats for a work you have put on a stage. I mean for god’s sake all these people have spent time and money on a production, and you don’t need to like it, but publicly shouting death threats is not the course of action you should take. If you have that much of an issue, try and have a conversation on what was bad, or offensive, or inaccurate. Spreading fear in public places should be an outdated tactic, and instead it has been proven as a tool that can be entirely effective. I’m glad that nobody reinforced that asshole’s actions.
I'm honestly a little confused by what the author of this article is trying to convey. Is it yet another not-so-subtle commentary on theater etiquette in the modern age? Is it was not-so-subtle commentary on Annie Baker's work and how it's received by audiences? Maybe it's because it's 11:30 on a Wednesday night, but something about the article didn't seem like a coherent thought. I think this idea of yelling "kill the playwright" does have an interesting element to it, however. There's the initial panic that the author mentions, but then the settled implication of what just happened: a "sacred space" where someone's idea is being brought to life by a multitude of people is violated by one upset viewer. I think an interesting twist on this scenario is if someone was in the middle of a crowd of people in an art museum and then yelled "kill the artist" at the top of his lungs. I think there would definitely be the same (or even more) sense of panic, but the feeling that your personal experience has been violated would be lessened-- mostly because art-viewing is something done in a larger, less-intimate space, unlike theater.
I feel like yelling this was somewhat rude, though given that they didn’t yell it in the middle of a scene, I don’t necessarily think they should be ejected from the theater over it. I also think that, despite the wording, it is pretty safe to assume their shouting was just expressing their opinion about the show, not an actual death threat. That being said, I wonder what the person was trying to accomplish. I assume they were just impulsively venting their dislike of the show, but if they had a more specific complaint about it, they probably could’ve found a better way to get it across. Also, if this person took the time to think before shouting, I wonder how much weight they thought their opinion would hold. I don’t think yelling at the start of intermission was a major problem, it just seems rude and pointless.
I'm not even the least bit surprised that the play that caused such a ruckus is the flick. Annie Baker is the pioneer of a new kind of naturalism, a type that is meant to imitate the nature in which we converse, with all the pauses and awkwardness that lend themselves to the young characters she has chosen to center her plays around. The Flick itself has many of the pauses written in the script, but I can easily see how actors would revel in these moments and potentially take longer to resume the action than the script would initially dictate. This is fine, as every theatre experience should be a unique moment in time, and you should connect with the characters, but for the typical theatergoer, it is easy to see why you would be distressed If you were going to see a play that won the Pulitzer, it is easy to assume that you would be getting quick action, snappy dialogue, and a scathing indictment of the human condition, not people sweeping up a fake movie theatre for twenty minutes at a time.
Until this week, I'd never heard of Annie Baker. But this, combined with what else I have heard of her makes me want to see this so badly. Or at least to read the play. I'll champion any esteemed female playwright that make others uncomfortable in their truth and realism. I love that sort of play. I Have never heard anyone in a crowd boo, or yell anything negative, unless prompted to do so. Complaints and criticisms are generally held off until intermission, or after the show. The idea that someone felt strongly enougha bout any art onstage that he felt he had to yell about it, and to "Kill the Playwright" even, intrigues me. What a crazy response to live theater. Maybe that's the direction it needs to take, as well. For some people to regard it as an F, and others an A. To have the universally acclaimed things we do now, with musicals, and with movies, like with the Oscars- perhaps we need more vocal obstinance to what we are told is good.
This is in interesting article. Honestly, I think the production team has done a very good job when a play is able to invoke this type of response from people. In my opinion, that means that the theatre presented is, for sure, real. I’d like to see this play purely for the unique rhythm that the author pointed out. Of course, I’d also like to see what kind of response I have to the play and examine others’ responses. This is the first time I’ve read an article on here about an audience member threatening death. Even then, there weren’t any riots or anything like that. It’s generally frowned upon to say anything out loud in a theater (maybe besides “bravo”), so the man’s statement was inherently shocking. I still respect that the man had a response to the play. It means he truly felt something and was moved by the work. Did he have to shout, though? Not really.
Post a Comment