Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Monday, November 19, 2018
Trigger Warnings at the Theater: Should This Be a Thing?
www.clydefitchreport.com: I recently went to Seattle Public Theatre to see Fade, a two-character, one-act 2016 drama by Tanya Saracho. This column is not about Fade. It concerns the trigger warning posted at the house door.
8 comments:
Annika Evens
said...
While I agree with some things the author is saying, and I recognize the studies that have been done, I still have a difficult time realizing how trigger warnings can only be harmful. To me, I see trigger warnings at theatre for things such as sexual content, language, and violence as more like what you see in movies and TV shows saying this is rated PG-13 for dialogue and violence or other things like that. Theatre does not have ratings and I do think it is important for people to know the nature of what they are seeing if they think it might be problematic for them. In my experience people who don’t feel any content will be a problem for them just choose not to look at these warnings. This article mentions that trigger warnings can be harmful because they may cause people to avoid what they fear, but I also think in some if not most cases the triggers aren’t about fears. I think that people should have the option to watch a production or not knowing that what they are about to see may cause a very negative emotional reaction. I completely agree that theatre is supposed to evoke an emotional reaction, but I do not believe it is the job of theatre alone to provide mitigating therapy for all of the patrons. Dr. Richard McNally says that’s people recovering from PTSD need to “involve gradual, systematic exposure to traumatic memories” but maybe it is possible that when they go to see the show it isn’t gradual enough.
This is another one of those things that people aren’t talking about or expressing their opinions about for fear of offending someone. We’re living in a time where people’s “feelings” are being considered before anything else and the result is numbing, not progress. Art exists to make people feel, it is born out of controversy and discomfort. You cannot expect to look at a piece of art or see a show or anything of that nature and always be happy the whole time. That’s not real. The idea of trigger warnings has gone too far in my opinion, and I’m glad the author brought us the studies about PTSD patients and how people without PTSD are likely worsening their situations by demanding to be informed before they experience any kind of discomfort. I do absolutely agree about the physical warnings about lights and fog and the like, but to tell someone that strong language will be used, race will be discussed, etc. is a bit excessive to me. Are we going to start putting these kinds of warnings on the news? It makes sense to make excessive violence or sexual content known, so that people know whether or not to bring their children, but I don’t think that’s what people should be directed to think about as they walk into a theater.
I agree with the closing statement of this article : "Isn’t the whole idea of art to trigger something emotional?" The best shows I've seen have been the ones that have emotionally affected me the most. Laughing, crying, and being shocked or surprised are one of the great pleasures of going to see theater in the first place and I do think that having explicit warnings of what is about to happen in a play is counter-productive to the whole experience. This whole matter is, however, more complicated than what I am making it seem like. People have multivariate experiences and fears and traumas and, as the author made clear in their article, the individual things that trigger those fears and traumas are never the same from person to person. It may be a futile effort to try to cater to everybody's needs and even may become inconsiderate when trying to warn people of the most common triggers and ignoring or mischaracterizing other less common triggers. I think trigger warnings should probably be kept to personal discussion, perhaps with a house manager, to determine whether any show has content that might be personall triggering to yourself.
Yeah see, but this whole article is kind of shitty right. Because at the end of it all, a trigger warning is a piece of paper. It’s a piece of paper posted at a door, meant to help some people who might need it. And honestly, I usually don’t even read it. Most people don't read it. Most of us just walk right past it and sit down and enjoy the show. And if the thought of a mildly helpful piece of paper bothers you so much you can’t enjoy what you’re doing, then maybe you should stay indoors. There’s no reason to get this upset over a warning. Do you also get angry at ratings on movies? Or when the warning plays before any episode of Law and Order SVU? I really don’t care how many ‘non-scientific’ studies you throw at me. That piece of paper by the door is hurting no one. If people say that piece of paper helps them, then I am pro that piece of paper. Simple. And on a side note, if your emotional reaction to a piece of art is dulled by having read a piece of paper on the way in, maybe that art wasn't very effective.
I think trigger warning should not be required nor do I think they should be limited. I think its up to the director on what their intentions of the show are. If they want to tell a story, trigger warnings seem appropriate, but if they want to cause a stirring and bring about a point, trigger warnings may not be the best way to go about it. Sometimes, theater needs to exist to bring about a certain point. If there were trigger warnings on the controversial shows, the people who really need to see the show and learn from it might not choose to go see it. But on the flip side, I understand how protecting yourself from triggering material is just as valuable. However, I think that trigger warnings are just as much of an important choice for the director to make as any creative decision that affects the show.
Hmm, this article has a big opinion and one that differs from many of the things that we have been taught to be sensitive in school so I am not sure how to react to it. I see the points that the author is making with this article. I think this article poses an interesting challenge when it brings up the point that we can cause anxiety by warning people against possible things that could trigger them. I can see this being true, but if I were sensitive to things like sexual misconduct, I wouldn't want to be surprised while sitting in the middle of an audience. I can see the argument that many people can be triggered by many different things and thus trigger warnings do more harm to anxiety than good to helping people avoid their triggers. This is why I think the conversations should be switched from whether we should have trigger warnings at all, to how we define warnings and how we decide something is present enough in the piece to warn against it.
Wow, what a dismissive, ignorant article. I could refute the claims made by this author all day, but the part that stood out to me as particularly baffling was the very end. The author argues for physical trigger warnings such as strobe lights and smoke which can cause physical impairments for audience members with conditions, but is seemingly incapable of applying the same exact reasoning to those individuals in our community who might deal with mental health issues, trauma, or other experiences that may have affected their psychological functioning. The clear root of the author’s understanding, in my opinion, is the distinction between emotions and psychology. Of course, the arts depend on the emotional generosity of audiences, and audiences likewise commit their time, energy, and money to the arts because they see value in experiencing such emotions. Trigger warnings offer a gentle heads-up when there are elements of the work that may cause undue psychological stress and prevent an audience member from taking away the emotional intent of the piece.
I appreciate this well-researched article. I’m also going to point out the fact that it was written by a middle-aged white guy. Anyway: there are two issues at play here. The first is trigger warnings, which are intended to prepare people with PTSD for something that will occur in the presented material. The second is the concept of “safe spaces.” My biggest frustration with this article is that the author found a specific trigger warning annoying, pointless, or frustrating because he personally didn’t think the content upsetting enough. Mr. Harrison: not everything is about you. Trigger warnings are an accessibility tool. Does it really diminish your experience so greatly to view information provided for people with PTSD to help them see the show? As for safe spaces: obviously the world at large is not like these safe spaces. No one denies that. The idea is not to protect people from it, it’s to create a population that seeks to quash the crappy things that people say and do to each other, and to move forward as a society. Creating insular safe spaces engenders a desire to make the world outside them a kinder place.
8 comments:
While I agree with some things the author is saying, and I recognize the studies that have been done, I still have a difficult time realizing how trigger warnings can only be harmful. To me, I see trigger warnings at theatre for things such as sexual content, language, and violence as more like what you see in movies and TV shows saying this is rated PG-13 for dialogue and violence or other things like that. Theatre does not have ratings and I do think it is important for people to know the nature of what they are seeing if they think it might be problematic for them. In my experience people who don’t feel any content will be a problem for them just choose not to look at these warnings. This article mentions that trigger warnings can be harmful because they may cause people to avoid what they fear, but I also think in some if not most cases the triggers aren’t about fears. I think that people should have the option to watch a production or not knowing that what they are about to see may cause a very negative emotional reaction. I completely agree that theatre is supposed to evoke an emotional reaction, but I do not believe it is the job of theatre alone to provide mitigating therapy for all of the patrons. Dr. Richard McNally says that’s people recovering from PTSD need to “involve gradual, systematic exposure to traumatic memories” but maybe it is possible that when they go to see the show it isn’t gradual enough.
This is another one of those things that people aren’t talking about or expressing their opinions about for fear of offending someone. We’re living in a time where people’s “feelings” are being considered before anything else and the result is numbing, not progress. Art exists to make people feel, it is born out of controversy and discomfort. You cannot expect to look at a piece of art or see a show or anything of that nature and always be happy the whole time. That’s not real.
The idea of trigger warnings has gone too far in my opinion, and I’m glad the author brought us the studies about PTSD patients and how people without PTSD are likely worsening their situations by demanding to be informed before they experience any kind of discomfort. I do absolutely agree about the physical warnings about lights and fog and the like, but to tell someone that strong language will be used, race will be discussed, etc. is a bit excessive to me. Are we going to start putting these kinds of warnings on the news? It makes sense to make excessive violence or sexual content known, so that people know whether or not to bring their children, but I don’t think that’s what people should be directed to think about as they walk into a theater.
I agree with the closing statement of this article : "Isn’t the whole idea of art to trigger something emotional?" The best shows I've seen have been the ones that have emotionally affected me the most. Laughing, crying, and being shocked or surprised are one of the great pleasures of going to see theater in the first place and I do think that having explicit warnings of what is about to happen in a play is counter-productive to the whole experience. This whole matter is, however, more complicated than what I am making it seem like. People have multivariate experiences and fears and traumas and, as the author made clear in their article, the individual things that trigger those fears and traumas are never the same from person to person. It may be a futile effort to try to cater to everybody's needs and even may become inconsiderate when trying to warn people of the most common triggers and ignoring or mischaracterizing other less common triggers. I think trigger warnings should probably be kept to personal discussion, perhaps with a house manager, to determine whether any show has content that might be personall triggering to yourself.
Yeah see, but this whole article is kind of shitty right. Because at the end of it all, a trigger warning is a piece of paper. It’s a piece of paper posted at a door, meant to help some people who might need it. And honestly, I usually don’t even read it. Most people don't read it. Most of us just walk right past it and sit down and enjoy the show. And if the thought of a mildly helpful piece of paper bothers you so much you can’t enjoy what you’re doing, then maybe you should stay indoors. There’s no reason to get this upset over a warning. Do you also get angry at ratings on movies? Or when the warning plays before any episode of Law and Order SVU? I really don’t care how many ‘non-scientific’ studies you throw at me. That piece of paper by the door is hurting no one. If people say that piece of paper helps them, then I am pro that piece of paper. Simple. And on a side note, if your emotional reaction to a piece of art is dulled by having read a piece of paper on the way in, maybe that art wasn't very effective.
I think trigger warning should not be required nor do I think they should be limited. I think its up to the director on what their intentions of the show are. If they want to tell a story, trigger warnings seem appropriate, but if they want to cause a stirring and bring about a point, trigger warnings may not be the best way to go about it. Sometimes, theater needs to exist to bring about a certain point. If there were trigger warnings on the controversial shows, the people who really need to see the show and learn from it might not choose to go see it. But on the flip side, I understand how protecting yourself from triggering material is just as valuable. However, I think that trigger warnings are just as much of an important choice for the director to make as any creative decision that affects the show.
Hmm, this article has a big opinion and one that differs from many of the things that we have been taught to be sensitive in school so I am not sure how to react to it. I see the points that the author is making with this article. I think this article poses an interesting challenge when it brings up the point that we can cause anxiety by warning people against possible things that could trigger them. I can see this being true, but if I were sensitive to things like sexual misconduct, I wouldn't want to be surprised while sitting in the middle of an audience. I can see the argument that many people can be triggered by many different things and thus trigger warnings do more harm to anxiety than good to helping people avoid their triggers. This is why I think the conversations should be switched from whether we should have trigger warnings at all, to how we define warnings and how we decide something is present enough in the piece to warn against it.
Wow, what a dismissive, ignorant article. I could refute the claims made by this author all day, but the part that stood out to me as particularly baffling was the very end. The author argues for physical trigger warnings such as strobe lights and smoke which can cause physical impairments for audience members with conditions, but is seemingly incapable of applying the same exact reasoning to those individuals in our community who might deal with mental health issues, trauma, or other experiences that may have affected their psychological functioning. The clear root of the author’s understanding, in my opinion, is the distinction between emotions and psychology. Of course, the arts depend on the emotional generosity of audiences, and audiences likewise commit their time, energy, and money to the arts because they see value in experiencing such emotions. Trigger warnings offer a gentle heads-up when there are elements of the work that may cause undue psychological stress and prevent an audience member from taking away the emotional intent of the piece.
I appreciate this well-researched article. I’m also going to point out the fact that it was written by a middle-aged white guy. Anyway: there are two issues at play here. The first is trigger warnings, which are intended to prepare people with PTSD for something that will occur in the presented material. The second is the concept of “safe spaces.” My biggest frustration with this article is that the author found a specific trigger warning annoying, pointless, or frustrating because he personally didn’t think the content upsetting enough. Mr. Harrison: not everything is about you. Trigger warnings are an accessibility tool. Does it really diminish your experience so greatly to view information provided for people with PTSD to help them see the show? As for safe spaces: obviously the world at large is not like these safe spaces. No one denies that. The idea is not to protect people from it, it’s to create a population that seeks to quash the crappy things that people say and do to each other, and to move forward as a society. Creating insular safe spaces engenders a desire to make the world outside them a kinder place.
Post a Comment