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
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Ralph Fiennes calls for trigger warnings in theatre to be scrapped
The Independent: Ralph Fiennes has called for trigger warnings in theatre to be scrapped, saying audiences should be “shocked” and “disturbed” sometimes.
Trigger warnings are issued before the beginning of a show to alert theatregoers to upsetting or distressing content.
I have noticed how ubiquitous the use of trigger warnings in theater has been in recent times, and this article forced me to think about it a little bit more. I don’t think that there is any question that warnings about strobing lights, loud sounds, and haze are appropriate to have as audience members enter a theater. I think that whether content warnings should be included is a more complicated issue. On one hand, there is a value for events in the theater being a surprise, but on the other hand, a person can have a history with a topic which will make it unhealthy for them to consume that piece of theater. I think that this is somewhat related to the idea of whether or not a person should read a synopsis of a play before they see it or go in not knowing anything about it. My personal opinion is probably that theaters should find a way to provide content warnings if people want them, in such a way that you do not have to see them to walk into the theater. This could be anything from a QR code to a piece of paper that can be lifted up from a sign.
Trigger warnings are such a tricky issue because for some people they are necessary in order to go to the theater but for others trigger warnings can ruin the surprise of a theatrical experience. I believe that physical warnings such as strobe/loud sounds/etc are a non negotiable and necessary in any theatrical setting. Although I believe that theater should be disturbing to the audience at some points in time, I believe content warnings are sometimes necessary as shows should not be traumatizing or triggering to viewers. Although I see where Fiennes is coming from in his argument I do not agree with it in its entirety. I think a good compromise would be having extremely visual trigger warnings for physical triggers such as strobe and having content warnings easily accessible for those who want to view them but not public. I hope a solution is found that preserves the shock of theater while protecting audiences.
The use of trigger warnings in theaters is definitely complex and I can see many good points being made on each side. On one hand, theater is meant to be surprising and shocking at times, like Fiennes said, but on the other hand, some audience members have had previous experiences with content that may make them have a particular aversion to it. In my mind, having content warnings won't stop anyone from seeing theater, but not having them will make some people unwilling to see shows out of fear of being triggered. I think a possible solution is to simply state that there are content warnings, and anyone who wants to know exactly what they are can easily find them, but at the same time, it is not being revealed to the general public. I really don't think, however, that content warnings actually spoil a show, because I feel like based on the name and any marketing for the show alone, it can usually be pretty clear if a show does or doesn't have a chance at having triggering content.
I love Ralph Fiennes as an actor and as an activist. I haven’t seen much about his activist side until reading this article. The first part of this article discusses his opinions on trigger warnings and I do mostly agree with his opinions. I think that physical warnings should of course continue to be issued because they are extremely important and nobody’s health should be put at risk during a show. I do agree with Fiennes’s opinion about the shock and surprise factor of theater and how that plays a big role in how the audience perceives a performance. I do, however, feel like there should be exceptions to this opinion because some of the content in a lot of newer plays can be on the edge of too uncomfortable for some audience members. Moving on to the activism, I think that Fiennes is advocating for a great cause and is using his fame to get the word out in a good manner.
I think this can be a very complicated issue for some. While I get the sentiment that shocking moments in shows should be unexpected, I think there should be some kind of resource for people who have strong emotional or physical responses to certain topics. However, I do want to note that these resources should be sought out rather than pushed onto an audience unexpectedly. It is important for things like flashing lights, haze, and loud sounds to be disclosed though, since these can actually hurt people if unaware. I think this falls into the same category of discussion as theatre etiquette, i.e. what should be acceptable in theatre, and what should audiences expect. I don't think most people are going to agree on what should be done, however, they will be able to agree that something should be done. I think both sides of the argument have valid problems, however, I don't super care if a theatre does or doesn't have trigger warnings.
I have mixed feelings about this. I agree, sometimes, but I can also understand the need for them. I think that without a question things that can affect people physically should be included in trigger warnings, and I would go so far as to say that at least in America, this should include warnings about any gun shots that take place during the show, due to our unfortunate tendency to gun violence. When it comes to emotional triggers, the conversation requires a lot more nuance. Personally, I know that there are certain things that I would prefer to not see in media at the moment, as I have not finished processing their impact on my own personal life, so I know that seeing them performed, not always in the most helpful way. When there aren't trigger warnings for these certain things, it is more difficult for me, because when these topics are mentioned, it's harder for me to not spiral than it would be if I knew that the topic was approaching. On the other hand, oftentimes these mentions are throwaway lines that only negatively affect me because of my personal connection with them. Because of this, I understand that having a trigger warning for these specific topics would be extremely difficult, as they're barely relevant to what's happening.Obviously this didn't solve that problem, but I think often the best solution is to look broader scale at the heavy topics or potential heavy topics that you are portraying in your work, and think about the likelihood that someone in your audience we'll go in there expecting something different that doesn't involve those triggers, as well as the likelihood that the things that could be considered triggers in your show are triggers that the audience would have.
As someone who has been directly involved in gathering the Content and Sensory Advisories at CMU for the past year, and who has been the person who has walked out of a production due to a moment in the show that caused distress, I know the importance of Content Advisories. First off, let’s stop using the phrase “trigger warning” it already has a negative connotation. Second, there are ways to go about writing content advisories without spoiling the play, and without placing the onus on the audience to find the synopsis of a play (if they can even find it). Many places have moved to QR codes that connect to their website; we have that at the School of Drama. With the School of Drama, we also post them on the backs of our signs leading into the theatre, so that if someone doesn’t have their phone with them, they can look and see. I think the problem with the whole argument that theatre should “cause a reaction that makes you uncomfortable”, is that without content advisories we are taking away someone’s choice to not be “uncomfortable”. We don’t know the lived experiences of the audience, we don’t know how recently someone has had to handle a traumatic event, or if they know that certain topics have a deep impact on them. With content advisories, you can be vague enough that it doesn’t ruin the plot but gives people the right to choose if the show is right for them.
7 comments:
I have noticed how ubiquitous the use of trigger warnings in theater has been in recent times, and this article forced me to think about it a little bit more. I don’t think that there is any question that warnings about strobing lights, loud sounds, and haze are appropriate to have as audience members enter a theater. I think that whether content warnings should be included is a more complicated issue. On one hand, there is a value for events in the theater being a surprise, but on the other hand, a person can have a history with a topic which will make it unhealthy for them to consume that piece of theater. I think that this is somewhat related to the idea of whether or not a person should read a synopsis of a play before they see it or go in not knowing anything about it. My personal opinion is probably that theaters should find a way to provide content warnings if people want them, in such a way that you do not have to see them to walk into the theater. This could be anything from a QR code to a piece of paper that can be lifted up from a sign.
Trigger warnings are such a tricky issue because for some people they are necessary in order to go to the theater but for others trigger warnings can ruin the surprise of a theatrical experience. I believe that physical warnings such as strobe/loud sounds/etc are a non negotiable and necessary in any theatrical setting. Although I believe that theater should be disturbing to the audience at some points in time, I believe content warnings are sometimes necessary as shows should not be traumatizing or triggering to viewers. Although I see where Fiennes is coming from in his argument I do not agree with it in its entirety. I think a good compromise would be having extremely visual trigger warnings for physical triggers such as strobe and having content warnings easily accessible for those who want to view them but not public. I hope a solution is found that preserves the shock of theater while protecting audiences.
The use of trigger warnings in theaters is definitely complex and I can see many good points being made on each side. On one hand, theater is meant to be surprising and shocking at times, like Fiennes said, but on the other hand, some audience members have had previous experiences with content that may make them have a particular aversion to it. In my mind, having content warnings won't stop anyone from seeing theater, but not having them will make some people unwilling to see shows out of fear of being triggered. I think a possible solution is to simply state that there are content warnings, and anyone who wants to know exactly what they are can easily find them, but at the same time, it is not being revealed to the general public. I really don't think, however, that content warnings actually spoil a show, because I feel like based on the name and any marketing for the show alone, it can usually be pretty clear if a show does or doesn't have a chance at having triggering content.
I love Ralph Fiennes as an actor and as an activist. I haven’t seen much about his activist side until reading this article. The first part of this article discusses his opinions on trigger warnings and I do mostly agree with his opinions. I think that physical warnings should of course continue to be issued because they are extremely important and nobody’s health should be put at risk during a show. I do agree with Fiennes’s opinion about the shock and surprise factor of theater and how that plays a big role in how the audience perceives a performance. I do, however, feel like there should be exceptions to this opinion because some of the content in a lot of newer plays can be on the edge of too uncomfortable for some audience members. Moving on to the activism, I think that Fiennes is advocating for a great cause and is using his fame to get the word out in a good manner.
I think this can be a very complicated issue for some. While I get the sentiment that shocking moments in shows should be unexpected, I think there should be some kind of resource for people who have strong emotional or physical responses to certain topics. However, I do want to note that these resources should be sought out rather than pushed onto an audience unexpectedly. It is important for things like flashing lights, haze, and loud sounds to be disclosed though, since these can actually hurt people if unaware. I think this falls into the same category of discussion as theatre etiquette, i.e. what should be acceptable in theatre, and what should audiences expect. I don't think most people are going to agree on what should be done, however, they will be able to agree that something should be done. I think both sides of the argument have valid problems, however, I don't super care if a theatre does or doesn't have trigger warnings.
I have mixed feelings about this. I agree, sometimes, but I can also understand the need for them. I think that without a question things that can affect people physically should be included in trigger warnings, and I would go so far as to say that at least in America, this should include warnings about any gun shots that take place during the show, due to our unfortunate tendency to gun violence. When it comes to emotional triggers, the conversation requires a lot more nuance. Personally, I know that there are certain things that I would prefer to not see in media at the moment, as I have not finished processing their impact on my own personal life, so I know that seeing them performed, not always in the most helpful way. When there aren't trigger warnings for these certain things, it is more difficult for me, because when these topics are mentioned, it's harder for me to not spiral than it would be if I knew that the topic was approaching. On the other hand, oftentimes these mentions are throwaway lines that only negatively affect me because of my personal connection with them. Because of this, I understand that having a trigger warning for these specific topics would be extremely difficult, as they're barely relevant to what's happening.Obviously this didn't solve that problem, but I think often the best solution is to look broader scale at the heavy topics or potential heavy topics that you are portraying in your work, and think about the likelihood that someone in your audience we'll go in there expecting something different that doesn't involve those triggers, as well as the likelihood that the things that could be considered triggers in your show are triggers that the audience would have.
As someone who has been directly involved in gathering the Content and Sensory Advisories at CMU for the past year, and who has been the person who has walked out of a production due to a moment in the show that caused distress, I know the importance of Content Advisories. First off, let’s stop using the phrase “trigger warning” it already has a negative connotation. Second, there are ways to go about writing content advisories without spoiling the play, and without placing the onus on the audience to find the synopsis of a play (if they can even find it). Many places have moved to QR codes that connect to their website; we have that at the School of Drama. With the School of Drama, we also post them on the backs of our signs leading into the theatre, so that if someone doesn’t have their phone with them, they can look and see. I think the problem with the whole argument that theatre should “cause a reaction that makes you uncomfortable”, is that without content advisories we are taking away someone’s choice to not be “uncomfortable”. We don’t know the lived experiences of the audience, we don’t know how recently someone has had to handle a traumatic event, or if they know that certain topics have a deep impact on them. With content advisories, you can be vague enough that it doesn’t ruin the plot but gives people the right to choose if the show is right for them.
Post a Comment