Walking Out Of Performances at interval.
Sun, 29 July 2001, 05:48 pmGambler28 posts in thread
Walking Out Of Performances at interval.
Sun, 29 July 2001, 05:48 pmWalking out of a performance at interval or at any stage is serious bad form. Not only is it disrespectful to the cast, crew and anyone else associated with the show; it is a waste of money. The first act of travesties, for example, is confusing but the second act ties up most of the confusion. There are medical conditions in which case it is perfectly fine to leave at any stage(Unless they are faked), but I have no respect for anyone who leaves a performance because they don't understand it.
RE: Walking Out Of Performances at interval.
Wed, 1 Aug 2001, 02:20 pmWalter Plinge
Dear Alan,
Hello, I will address a couple of your points: You wrote "I'm on stage crew for travesties and I don't even understand the plot too well. However, I am not as educated as others but I still find it an entertaining play."
The point here is that if the play is difficult to understand even for the crew, then it's obvious that at least some of the audience won't understand it. And okay, you feel you don't need to understand it in order to enjoy it, but the audience is not necessarily there for sole purpose of empathising with the cast and crew. Usually they're there to see a play - and for them "entertaining" and "understandable" are indivisible. If they don't understand it, then most likely they won't enjoy it, regardless of the "intention" of the cast and crew.
There is a real danger in all productions for the cast and crew to be so wrapped up in their own work that they cannot see how this work is translating to the auditorium. So no matter how much the crew may enjoy the experience, the end product can be less than the sum of the parts.
You also quip about keeping the intelligent people. Is this the attitude of the majority of your crew? If so, I trust your company will in future place a disclaimer on your fliers stipulating that only intelligent people need attend performances.
There's no law that says you have to cater to the audience, but if that's the position you decide to take, then don't criticise those who leave! This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you're not there to please the public, then don't play to the public.
I may come across as being pro-audience and anti-performers. But the truth is I'm pro-responsible theatre! And that means not condemning the audience for doing what they feel is best for themselves.
You also said: "None of us (stage crew or cast) are offended by the absence of some of the members of the audience"
Not offended? Please go back and read all the posts from the members of your production!
"so why should it bother anyone else?"
What bothers me is that instead of learning from the audience's reaction, the crew seems deadset on condemning the audience. The greatest lesson that a storyteller can learn (and performers are all storytellers) is that if you haven't caught the observers' curiosity within the first few minutes, then the story leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm not familiar with your production, so I'm not in a position to comment on it, but if the numbers that left are in the double figures - as one person wrote - then SURELY that's a cue to step back and have a look at your own work.
Hello, I will address a couple of your points: You wrote "I'm on stage crew for travesties and I don't even understand the plot too well. However, I am not as educated as others but I still find it an entertaining play."
The point here is that if the play is difficult to understand even for the crew, then it's obvious that at least some of the audience won't understand it. And okay, you feel you don't need to understand it in order to enjoy it, but the audience is not necessarily there for sole purpose of empathising with the cast and crew. Usually they're there to see a play - and for them "entertaining" and "understandable" are indivisible. If they don't understand it, then most likely they won't enjoy it, regardless of the "intention" of the cast and crew.
There is a real danger in all productions for the cast and crew to be so wrapped up in their own work that they cannot see how this work is translating to the auditorium. So no matter how much the crew may enjoy the experience, the end product can be less than the sum of the parts.
You also quip about keeping the intelligent people. Is this the attitude of the majority of your crew? If so, I trust your company will in future place a disclaimer on your fliers stipulating that only intelligent people need attend performances.
There's no law that says you have to cater to the audience, but if that's the position you decide to take, then don't criticise those who leave! This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you're not there to please the public, then don't play to the public.
I may come across as being pro-audience and anti-performers. But the truth is I'm pro-responsible theatre! And that means not condemning the audience for doing what they feel is best for themselves.
You also said: "None of us (stage crew or cast) are offended by the absence of some of the members of the audience"
Not offended? Please go back and read all the posts from the members of your production!
"so why should it bother anyone else?"
What bothers me is that instead of learning from the audience's reaction, the crew seems deadset on condemning the audience. The greatest lesson that a storyteller can learn (and performers are all storytellers) is that if you haven't caught the observers' curiosity within the first few minutes, then the story leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm not familiar with your production, so I'm not in a position to comment on it, but if the numbers that left are in the double figures - as one person wrote - then SURELY that's a cue to step back and have a look at your own work.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···