The Independent: Matt Smith has weighed in on a debate over the inclusion of trigger warnings in theatre productions, stating that he believes it can lead to art being “sanitised”.
The Doctor Who and House of the Dragon actor has also appeared in several professional stage shows, including the current run of the Henrik Ibsen play An Enemy of the People in London’s West End.
5 comments:
I thought that this article was really interesting and brings up strong points of view. I fully agree that for health reasons, warnings are very beneficial to keep all of the audience members safe. The example that they brought up in the text, of flashing or strobing lights being dangerous for people who have epilepsy is a very serious matter and should by default be disclosed before people watch a performance of any kind. However, I think the article left out mental health in this discussion. For example, if a person has dealt with trauma or addiction, there could be content in a piece of art that triggers them, possibly resulting in a relapse or a set back. I think that these issues should be taken just as seriously as physical health concerns. I understand wanting to leave surprise and risk in a performance, but I think that a trigger warning does not have to give away everything that happens in the plot. Even as someone who hates blood and gore with no particular reasoning tied to it, I would much rather know that going into it then be surprised and probably disturbed for a week long.
I could not disagree with this article more. I am someone who often avoids seeing live theater that I do not know because I am worried about triggers and things that overwhelm my system. I think that there is a balance to the amount of information that is given in the triggers. I think you can properly provide a trigger warning without spoiling the entire show and taking away the shock factor. I personally am incredibly noise sensitive especially when it comes to things like gunshots and other people with serious ptsd and other issues would seriously be harmed by the lack of a trigger warning. Theatre is supposed to push boundaries and make people feel uncomfortable but it is not supposed to hurt people. If theater is hurting people we are doing something wrong. I think taking away trigger warnings is a terrible idea seeing that there are loud sounds in a show does not take away from the experience. In Fact for me it makes it so that I can actually enjoy the show and take it all in instead off being afraid of what might happen next and if it will trigger me.
To be honest I have not thought about trigger warnings enough to wonder if they are necessary or not. What I would like to reiterate is that Matt Smith says that warnings for strobe lights and aspects of theater or movies that directly affect health should remain. But He does bring up some interesting points, like when he expresses worry that we are draining “danger and Ingenuity” out of everything that will affect the art. He is worried that it is sanitizing it, While at the same time, I think this might be a slightly tone-death view. I am not saying that every person attending a show or watching something has to have a trigger warning known to them. But I think they should be available because maybe people who have deep traumas in their past are allowed to check if something within the media they are paying to watch. I think I understand the concern around the argument that we are getting too “soft” with art but I think there is more nuance to this.
As much as I’d love to agree with Matt Smith because he is Matt Smith, I actually disagree pretty strongly. I think it’s important for trigger warnings to be available for those who need them so audience goers who have experienced trauma can make informed decisions about what they put themselves through. That said, I totally understand the point that those against trigger warnings are trying to make –– I just think eliminating the warnings completely is the wrong stance. Having trigger warnings or asterisks available doesn’t prohibit shows from getting into difficult topics. It doesn’t mean you can’t incorporate “dangerous” themes, as he says, in your work. It just means the audience knows what they are getting into. And if we’re really worried about trigger warnings acting as spoilers, can’t content warnings be made available in the program? Or posted on the back of signage, with a message on front telling people who want to know them where to look, and people who don’t want to know to avoid them? I just don’t think this has to be an all-or-nothing decision. We should make them available, and then leave individuals responsible for moderating their own audience experiences. But I definitely don’t think that giving a heads up to themes in the play “sanitizes” the work, any more than a synopsis spoils it.
I have a lot of opinions on this. I believe that the lack of trigger warnings serves no beneficial aid to a show. The argument of a trigger warning being about something scaring someone isn’t fair, a trigger warning serves to stop harm before it happens by not triggering a trauma response. A lot of people have deep rooted trauma. You would never say to an army vet with PTSD that they should “listen to fireworks anyway, for the shock value”. You would say to not go to a carnival with fireworks. And that’s the same thing here, except instead of it being a carnival known to have fireworks it’s a tv show and you don’t immediately know if it has something that will trigger your ptsd. I can understand maybe wanting them to be behind a spoiler warning or something because sometimes if you don’t need the warning it can spoil aspects. But it’s not a bad thing to give more people the opportunity to watch these shows by allowing them to prepare themselves and not just skip away because it might have something but they don’t know what or when because the show never said
Post a Comment