One of my favorite pieces on the practice was written for HowlRound by Brant Russell reflecting on his experience leading the discussions at Steppenwolf Theatre. He presented 11-ish rules that were basically aimed at having the moderator employ the lightest touch while also keeping the discussion away from questions like “how did you memorize all those lines?”
4 comments:
I've never attended a post-show discussion but am intrigued by these techniques to keep them on-topic. I have definitely attended panels that dragged because of a long introduction or rant-y question. These tips to avoid those traps seem like they'd work well and make the discussions more enjoyable and engaging. One of my favorite quotes from the article is here:
"'RULE 9: If you really hate the production you’re discussing, just wait. I’ve found that if I lead enough conversations on a play, something will emerge that I will fall in love with. I have never liked a production less as a result of continued discussion.'"
I think that this is a great and truthful statement. Sometimes I don't completely understand a production, but after looking up some of the meanings and intent online, I feel much more connected to the show. For example, I saw The Band's Visit in January and was definitely confused by the plot and meaning. After some research following the show, I understood it much better and found myself wanting to watch it again with all my newfound knowledge!
Post-show discussions have the potential to create some deep thoughts and feelings if done correctly. I think that this guide is very useful to help make for much more effective conversations and to maximize the effect of their resulting knowledge.
As a theatre goer, my favorite part of the show is when (or if) members of the production staff present an opportunity to have a discussion with the audience about the piece. For example, in high school my school attended Native Son, a piece that was extremely heavy and brought up points about racism and separation of classes. This piece was incredibly moving however I benefited greatly from having the opportunity to speak with my classmates and cast members of the show about the experience of producing a play with such relevant and difficult topics. It helped me to deeper understand not only the plot but the shows relevance in a modern world despite the fact it was set in the early 1900’s. Joe brings up a relevant point in his article, the the purpose of the discussion is not to draw conclusions or state hard facts but to attempt to understand the intentions of the work, and wrestle with any emotional responses an audience member may have had in response to the work. (The most powerful theatre sparks these discussions !! )
I love the idea of moderators not trying to be objective. No one who works on a show can truly be objective. Even in the best show process, there is a design idea someone loved that didn’t or couldn’t work or an acting choice someone was invested in that wasn’t right for that production. And since much of theater is about making people feel, focusing on feelings is a unifying factor for audience members and the creative team alike. Also, feelings are not objective because they're based on personal experience so allowing feelings negates objectivity and gives a level playing field for a conversation. I also love that this article gives practical tips, like 20 second introductions and to not have directors on the panel. This makes easier to follow and these sorts of tips are more helpful then abstract concepts. Also it allows for the moderator to pull to focus from acting things and items that are full production centric.
I for one am a huge fan of post show discussions, and have always enjoyed sticking around for them. Nevertheless, I think that it can be a tad limiting to have these defined "Rules of Post Show Discussions" since I feel like the conversations will vastly depend on the subject material. While I think there can be guidelines to these types of discussions to prevent them from going completely off the rails, I find the rules set forth in Brant's original posting far too restrictive. One example came from a recent production of "Fences", where we had a talkback every night following the performance. Given the fact that we were at a university and the audiences were predominately white, we found that our talkbacks did give much more of an opportunity to talk about the experiences of black performers and racial tensions in the 60s. While they may not have been an "Expert" on black history, they had the opportunity to use both their unique experiences and the play's content to have an educational conversation with audience members who may not have understood that perspective before. Nevertheless, many of the other points (Keep it short, get out of the way, etc.) are good jumping off points to ensure a productive and respectful conversation. As with almost everything in theatre, how someone handles talkbacks entirely depends on so many variables, and should always be approached individually to ensure the audiences (and the performers as well) get the most out of them.
Post a Comment