Stop Talking Back

-->

A recent Facebook exchange got me to thinking. Since Facebook has trouble supporting thoughts more complicated than ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ I refrained from posting my half-cent.  But it was certainly a starting point for a worthwhile discussion.

It seems that a certain playwright has added a clause to his royalty contract that prohibits the practice of talkbacks following a performance. This was roundly poo-pooed by the commentators on the Facebook posting.

Now the playwright in question is David Mamet, which leaves me in a quandary. I dislike Mamet almost as much as I dislike talkbacks. To be fair I don’t know the man. I’ve met him only once a long time ago. I do like his early plays a great deal. But pretty much everything he’s written or said about acting, or the theater, I’ve found to be bunk. Recently, I hear he’s been teaching writing. Maybe he’ll be better at that.

So it’s difficult to side with the man. And although I do share his disdain for the talkback, I can’t rid his contractual stipulation from the usual helping of Mamet arrogance that accompanies anything he does or says. Did it really need to be commanded from on high? Thou shalt not talk back! Was it necessary he involve himself in what theaters around the country choose to do with (or to) their audiences? It’s another case of an artist trying to control his or her work beyond the simple doing of it. Reminiscent of Albee’s attempted control of casting or Di Modica’s demand that Charging Bull be removed in the face of the Fearless Girl because it’s changing the nature of the work.

But lets be clear. Talkbacks are stupid. I can’t remember when they began to proliferate but they seem to be everywhere. They also seem to have grown in tandem with the rise of the dramaturge. A talkback, for those unfamiliar with the practice, is a forum following directly after the conclusion of a performance whereby the audience is invited to stay in the theater and participate in an informal question and answer period, sometimes moderated, with some representation of the artists involved in the production. Typically the director, if present, plus several or all of the actors, perhaps the playwright and more often than not a dramaturge or literary manager type who either has worked on the production during rehearsal or somehow represents the theatre company. The purpose generally is to educate or to add to the experience of seeing a play or to engage interested audience members in discussion or to get a chance to ask questions of (usually) the director (what were you thinking!) or actors, (how do you remember all those lines).

If I were to guess at the main objection from Mamet I would think it similar to the main objection from most (certainly not all) actors. Namely, I have just spent my energy and skill creating for the last two hours a fiction and now, before it can even be half baked into the minds of the audience, you want me to go out in front of them, in my street clothes, with my own voice and opinions, and shatter that work? Shall I bring a hammer or a grinder? How many pieces would you like? Mamet’s objection might be similar. Leave the play alone. Let it work in the minds of those who just experienced it. At least for a night before you dismantle it or pollute it with your insightful (goes without saying) observations and critique.

The actual experience of the talkback is almost always fairly empty. People who like to hear themselves talk dominate, and everyone else waits out the event until they can get to the bar.  There are of course wonderful discussions to be had about a play or a particular production but they never seem to occur during a talkback.

A favorite forum of mine was a beginning-of-the-season event at a summer festival. Patrons were invited to the theater on a scheduled evening. Rehearsals were suspended so all the actors could attend as part of the audience. The directors of the productions were up onstage with some various other artistic personnel, the company dramaturge, and as special guest, a preeminent scholar from the nearby university. In a curated way the plays of the season, past productions and the plans for the upcoming productions were discussed. The insight of the scholar was a wonderful proving ground for the ideas of the various directors and actors involved and at a time where it could actually be useful. Audience members were often caught up in a lively discussion. It was intellectually stimulating while running very little chance of offending and it didn’t interfere with the experience of watching a production because it was not in close proximity to it. A good and workable model.

So I say, really Mamet? Really? As most of the Facebook posters did but soto voce I would tell him, I get it. And to the dramaturges and PHD’s of the theater world I say, I love you, I love you! But can we please keep some distance between the ‘work’ and a dissection of it. I liken it to seeing a movie with an old friend of mine who, the minute the lights come up tells me exactly what he thought of every moment in the film, thereby obliterating my experience before it even had time to gestate, or going to a museum and standing before a work trying to form my own opinions of it based on how it is affecting me only to be overwhelmed by the opinion of someone describing to their friend how the color in the upper right corner symbolizes the dawning of reason as depicted in an earlier work blah blah blah. I turn and walk away with nothing but that nasal voice in my ear and no sense of how I feel about the painting I was just trying to take in.

Leave it alone. Have your discussion at another time. I believe Mamet only requires that two hours go by between the end of a performance and the beginning of a talkback. That’s a small ask. Make it a day.