Post-Show Discussions in New Play Development

T. Fisher

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137410962
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Performing Arts

Many theatres host post-show discussions, or talkbacks, as part of their season. This book is a critical examination of what has/has not worked with post-show discussions utilized in new play development, providing a framework for understanding discussions, steps for building the foundation of them, and various strategies for structuring them.

Part I

Introduction

1

Introduction

Abstract: In this chapter, I argue that post-show discussions have been woefully neglected in both the literature and academia, to the point that they do not serve either the playwrights or the audiences for whom they are ostensibly for. Unfortunately, there is very little information, beyond the anecdotal, to guide theatre professionals in building stronger post-show discussions. I also critically examine what is working in post-show discussions including two examples of successful post-show discussion models. I highlight the key elements that successful post-show discussions get right including understanding audience demographics, properly preparing the playwright and audience, and including a debrief with the playwright as a follow-up to the discussion.

Keywords: post-show discussion models

Fisher, Teresa A. Post-Show Discussions in New Play Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137410962.0004.

When I recall the first time I facilitated a post-show discussion, I remember thinking, “How hard can it be?” I had read an article about Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process. I had seen post-show discussions facilitated for a variety of shows, both those in new play development and established works. Before facilitating this particular discussion for a new play in development, I observed a few rehearsals and talked to the playwright. I even attended all three readings that happened before the post-show discussion. But as I started that facilitation, I quickly realized that what I’d assumed was a fairly simple process was, in fact, not so simple. I looked at the playwright sitting expectantly in the seat next to me, the director sitting next to him. I looked out at the audience who stared blankly back at me. All were looking to me for guidance; all were waiting for me to lead them. And I realized, in that moment, that I had assumed all I needed to do was throw the audience a question or ask them to offer questions, step back, and the discussion would just naturally flow. But for what felt like an interminably awkward amount of time, no one took me up on the offer to ask a question. Suddenly, the weight of not fully understanding what I was doing crashed onto my shoulders. I don’t remember much else of what happened during that discussion. As I recall, borrowing from Liz Lerman’s process, I asked for the audience to think of an image or moment that stood out for them (Lerman and Borstel, 2003). Finally, someone asked a question. Then someone else asked another. After no more than 20 minutes, the discussion was wrapped up. While standing on the stage afterwards, I remember turning to someone and saying I couldn’t remember the last time I facilitated a discussion and then, after wracking my brain trying to remember the last time, having the realization that I’d actually never facilitated a discussion before. For some reason, I just assumed I had done so. Unfortunately, that realization led me to downplay any concerns about my facilitation and blame the nerves and the ineptitude on inexperience. If this was my first time facilitating, no wonder it felt awkward. Obviously, I’d get better over time. But it didn’t get better over time. And I couldn’t think of a way to make it better based on the tools available to me and what I had seen other facilitators do. So I started asking questions and reading all I could find about post-show discussions. As I learned through reading the literature, from my own experiences, and from talking with other theatre makers about their experiences, successful post-show discussions require balancing a number of factors including structure, intent, demographics, and skillful facilitation.

Why post-show discussions?

Until I started looking into the subject, I never questioned the idea that post-show discussions were useful for playwrights. Now, however, I have my doubts about that assumption. While most of my questions and concerns come from my own experience and the generously shared musings and observations from theatre professionals in the US and around the world, my thinking also shifted after reading the thoughts of folks such as Richard Nelson and Todd London (Nelson, 2007; London, 2009). In 2007, Richard Nelson gave a formidable and memorable speech for the Laura Pels Foundation Keynote Address of the Alliance of Resident Theatres/New York’s Curtain Call annual meeting that has since been published (in excerpts) by Dramatics and American Theatre. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, Nelson has serious concerns about the status of playwrights and playwrighting in the US, a concern that trickles down into post-show discussions. In 2009, Todd London with Ben Pesner and Zannie Giraud Voss raised more alarms about the state of playwrighting and new play development in his book, Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Play (London, 2009). As do Nelson’s, London’s observations inform the discussion of post-show discussions in this book.

London’s and Nelson’s thoughts along with those of theatre professionals I surveyed and interviewed inspired the questions I ask here. They also spurred my desire to question the current use of post-show discussions in new play development, wanting instead to take a closer look at why we use these discussions, whether there was a more effective way to structure them, and if we should abandon them in favor of a more appropriate post-show event.

Although the following questions may appear harsh, they reflect a frustration felt by some toward the ubiquity of post-show discussions in new play development. One question to consider is when did we as a field decide that we could not determine a script’s worth without feedback from an audience? A related question is when did it become de rigueur for audiences to be the sounding board through which theatre producers made their production decisions? The goal of this book is not so much to answer these questions, but to recognize they exist and reframe how post-show discussions are used.

Whatever your personal opinion regarding the desired outcome of post-show discussions, the reality is they are commonly sold to audiences as a way to help playwrights improve their scripts. Theatres can use them to judge the audience’s interest in that particular play. The playwright generally does not have a say in the matter as the post-show discussion is a built-in component to most play-development programs. And the playwright is not the only one whose feelings we need to consider, as the audience and facilitators also often come up with the short end of the stick with regards to post-show discussions.

What is working in post-show discussions?

Michael Wright examined developmental programs throughout the US and incorporated the post-show critique session in his analysis, including how various programs have changed their post-show discussions over time (Wright, 2005). In his book, Todd London listed several developmental laboratories and theatres that have won praise from playwrights for overall experience of development (London, 2009, pp. 258–9). There are also other examples of successful post-show discussions throughout the country. The Last Frontier Theatre Conference in Alaska has a format that mostly works well for them, as does the Barter Theatre’s “Appalachian Festival of Plays and Playwrights” in Virginia. Nevertheless, the formats these organizations use may not work as well for other theatres. In other words, there is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to post-show discussion, but there are best practices to follow as well as strategies that can be adapted, as discussed in Part II of this book.

While no one model will fit every situation, there are a few areas noted as pivotal in creating successful post-show events. Playwright preparation is an important factor in the success of a post-show discussion and will be discussed as part of the facilitator’s role in Chapter 5. Taking care to debrief with the playwright following the discussion, preferably hours or even days later to allow thoughts to settle, is another feature of good post-show discussion structure. Debriefing will be discussed in Chapter 6. Having a skilled facilitator is another key aspect of successful post-show discussions and will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Another aspect that successful post-show discussions manage is audience demographics. In their book exploring the director’s role in new play development, David Kahn and Donna Breed suggested both controlling the kind of audience and guiding the post-performance responses (Kahn and Breed, 1995, p. 93). They argued that the “most sophisticated and technical response” one receives is from a panel of experts citing New Dramatists in New York as an organization who uses this model (ibid., p. 94). An invited audience is the next best type of audience while the general audience is the least helpful with the exception of observing their responses during the reading (ibid., pp. 94–5; Werner, 2013; Bray, 2013). In other words, who is in the audience plays an important role in the feedback received. This will also be discussed in Chapter 4.

Although we will never be able to please all audience members—a terrifying or freeing thought, depending on your perspective—we can strive to understand our audiences and welcome their observations so as to develop a stronger connection with them. As dramaturg Hannah Hessel Ratner wisely pointed out, no matter the format or the specific strategies employed, one important goal in the post-show event, besides giving helpful response to the playwright, is to ensure that the audience feels a part of the process and not marginalized (Hessel Ratner, 2013). As will be discussed, particularly in Chapter 7, theatre practitioners’ abilities to meaningfully connect with their audiences can create strong relationships that allow theatres and organizations to push the boundaries of the work they present without the fear of failure that often plagues those efforts today.

Across the pond: the UK’s “scratch nights”

While the scope of this book is practice in the US, it may be helpful to remember that theatre professionals in other countries face similar struggles. We can look into their experiences as another venue for new strategies as well as for cautionary tales. One such example comes from the UK.

In the UK, some theatres hold “scratch nights” which are opportunities for artists to try out new material and receive feedback afterwards. The format can vary, but one popular model is to allow artists anywhere from 2–20 minutes to present part of a script, a new dance, an improvised theatre piece, or the like. Following several such presentations, the artists and audience head to another location, perhaps a pub where drinks and feedback are shared. As audiences can include industry professionals as well as are generally hosted by theatre companies, part of the appeal for artists is in the possibility of having their work noticed and offered further development and production.

In collaboration with UnderConstruction Theatre Company, Arts at the Old Fire Station in Oxford hosts a scratch event on the third Tuesday of the month (Arts at the Old Fire Station). In the description of “Theatre Scratch” on their website, the program is described as having

[a]risen out of the desire to share ideas and new work with audiences, producers and other theatre makers in the city of Oxford, UnderConstruction has developed a monthly platform for artists, performers, writers and directors to share work in a theatre space. The night will usually consist of three short pieces performed with feedback given immediately afterwards in a forum style with group discussion. (Ibid.)

Artists are invited to submit for an up to 15-minute slot in which to present their work in progress in a “supportive environment” (ibid.). Audiences are also encouraged to come and see the new work as well as to “give artists your feedback over a drink” (ibid.). In association with Matthew’s Yard, DVM Theatre hosts a similar scratch night program on the last Friday of the month (DVM Theatre).

The Made From Scratch Theatre Company hosts scratch nights as part of their writer development initiative. As an added twist, they give each scratch night a theme, often connected to social change. According to their website, past themes include political, made in Britain, and dead party animals (Made From Scratch Theatre Company).

The Arches in Glasgow, Scotland, also hosts a scratch night. The low ticket price (just three-and-a-half pounds) includes a glass of wine or soft drink. Their online description depicts the event as, “The anarchic, anything goes evening which sees theatre companies, performers, writers and dancers from all fields take ten minutes to try an idea in front of an audience. Afterwards, the action moves to the bar, where the audience talks back” (The Arches). They further describe the event as “the Arches’ way of giving companies, performers, writers, dancers and visual artists—basically, artists from any genre—a chance to try out a new idea in front of an audience’ (ibid.). Audiences and artists for their quarterly event include “theatre makers, performance artists, creatives and industry professionals” (ibid.).

As part of the CASA Latin American Theatre Festival, the Nuestra CASA Scratch Night consists of artists from a variety of disciplines presenting new work. The work is assessed by a panel of professionals who choose one of the works to receive grant money for further development (CASA Latin American Theatre Festival). The year 2013 marked their fourth season.

In a model more familiar to those in the US, on September 13, 2013, Tamasha Developing Artists at Tamasha Theatre Company offered a panel discussion with industry professionals following the reading of artist Tuyen Do’s new work. In their online description of the event, organizers noted the “performance will be followed by panel discussion and audience debate ‘Creating from where we are’ ” (Tamasha Developing Artists). They even listed the discussion questions on their website. Rather than focusing on multiple artists and works, this scratch night was devoted to one artist and one piece, as generally happens in the US. However, the discussion appeared less focused on the work itself and more on the process of creating the work and the larger questions that came from that. One of the questions noted on the website was, “What needs to happen to see a multiplicity of narratives on UK stages?” (Ibid.). As noted on their website, the organization has a twofold focus. One focus is on supporting theatre artists. The second focus is to “encourage greater diversity in British theatre” (ibid.). Their discussion structure thus appears to match the organization’s mission.

Town Hall Seattle brought the scratch night model over to the US, holding a scratch night in the fall of 2012. On their website, they define it as, “Originating in the UK, a Scratch Night is a free-form, anything goes space where artists of all stripes have freedom to experiment in front of a live audience. Afterwards, the action moves online, to a bar, or another open place of conversation where the audience talks back and the performer listens” (Town Hall Seattle).

As for the specific origins of scratch nights, they were created at the Battersea Arts Centre (BAC). According to a 2011 blog post by Laura Turner, the term “scratch” was created at BAC 15 years prior to her article, but was now being used globally (Turner, 2011). As described on the Nightingale Theatre’s website, “Pioneered by the Battersea Arts Centre, “Scratching” is the process of presenting work in development to audience [sic] in order to receive their feedback. There is now lively Scratch culture throughout the UK and since the Nightingale introduced Scratch Nights to Brighton in January 2005 they have become increasingly popular” (Nightingale Theatre). But just as London found in the US, there is concern that scratch nights promote a development culture in which work is consistently being developed, but not produced (London, 2009).

Speaking to that concern, in a February 24, 2005, article in The Guardian, the efficacy of Battersea Art Centre’s scratch nights was raised (Thomas and Goode, 2005). Half of the article is playwright and composer Richard Thomas supporting scratch nights. The other half is playwright Chris Goode expressing his concerns about them. Thomas explains that scratch nights offer artists an opportunity to see if their work in progress is on the right track, if it has any potential. He holds up his own experience as an example (ibid.). On the other hand, Goode notes the irony that scratch nights tend to be exciting displays of artistry, but have led to what he calls “Scratch culture” in which the “safe space to fail” of the scratch night short circuits the necessary “risk-taking” by both artists and companies needed to create theatre (ibid.). Theatre companies can endlessly try out new works in scratch nights rather than commit to a full production. This was a concern London had with new play development in the US (London, 2009). An additional concern noted from Goode in the UK is that artists can keep on working smaller parts of a piece rather than diving into completing the full piece (Thomas and Goode, 2005).

In Goode’s definition, “Scratch culture is, simply, what happens when artists, venues, commentators and funders collude to disguise a massive buckling of confidence in what they’re doing” (ibid.). From Goode’s perspective, scratch nights allow theatre professionals to hide behind the illusion of moving forward and creating innovative work while actually remaining still. Additionally, Goode highlights another concern in that, “Even after an apparently successful Scratch outing, artists can find themselves overwhelmed by fragmentary and inconsistent feedback, with [sic] para-lysing consequences” (ibid.).

This issue of problematic feedback also plagues post-show discussions in the US. Not everyone has the same tastes. If you listen to an audience as they leave the theatre following a performance, particularly of a new play, you will almost always hear a range of comments from those who loved it to those who hated it. There is simply no accounting for taste! How is an artist to wade through all the conflicting comments to find the helpful feedback? That issue will be raised in Chapter 4 and 6.

In any case, it would seem that the discussion portion of many scratch nights is much less formal than those in the US, including mov...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Part I  Introduction
• Part II  Building the Post-Show Discussion
• Part III  Conclusion
• References
• Index