Walking Out Of Performances at interval.

Walking 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.

The Gambler wrote:
-------------------------------
Walking 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.

As I have not seen Travesties, I am unable to comment on that specific show, however I have been known to walk out on performances, purely and simply because they were crap and I was going to get more for my money by leaving and going to the adjacent pub, than sitting through another hour of self-indulgent/uncommitted/dull/ill-prepared drivel. As a performer, it is disconcerting if part of your audience disappears during interval, but doesn't that say something to the performers?

I think walking out should be used sparingly but can send a message to a cast to buck up or give up. People do pay money to see a show, even amateur ones, and you should give them more for their money, in addition to your mere presence on/back stage. If it is a matter of walking out through a misunderstanding of the script, then, yes, that is ignorant, but I might hazard to say you are not giving them enough in your performances to entice them to stay...? Again, I have not seen Travesties so can't comment on that specific show, but can think of a number of others I have seen/been in where great performances have triumphed over a difficult script (audience stays), and poor production values have destroyed a difficult (though worthy) script (audience leaves).

My two cents worth,
Amanda Chesterton

Surely this is up to the individual volition of the ticket buying public. If they wish to leave at interval, their choice. If they miss out how the ends are tied up, tough luck on them. Bottom line- you've got their money!

Walking out DURING someone's performance is truly bad form- at least most people have the decency to leave without disrupting everyone else's "enjoyment".

Eliot

I've never walked out of a performance myself but I know people who walked on one of the Bell Shakespeare's productions. Henry V, I think it was. They said they found it so loud that it detracted from the performances and escaped when they could.

P.

Well said!!!!!

I find it very difficult to watch a performance without being a critic, and I am proud to say I have only ever walked out on one production and it was a professional production of "FAME" at the Burswood. I found too many faults and it totally angered me. When interval came and I went outside for a breather. I was quite relieved to see that I wasn't the only one feeling that way, an enormous amount of people left including I. I got more entertainment on room service and football! That has got to send a message to the so called professionalism of that particular production - one hopes!

I agree with you Amanda. Everybody has walked out of a performance of some kind or the other. You hear all sorts of stories of why people have walked out. If you are not going through an experience or journey...or you are not plainly bloody enjoying yourself, then why sit through it. I do have respect for everybody within the theatre and I always wait until interval before I leave.

I'm very glad to see the response to the original post shows that the thespian society on this site is not so insular as to agree with the idea that the audience comes and goes at the performers' command!

I have worked for 12 years in regional theatre, and it took me a while to realise that the best way to judge your own work is to learn from the audience, and not just indulge in mutual back-patting among your own ranks.

If we, as performers, are offended by an unsatisfied audience, then we should be doing something else with our lives!

I don't even think it is a case of being offemded by an unsatisfied audience. Audiences seem to expect the same old drivel show in, show out (whoops vicar there seems to be a naked woman in your closet what what) and if you dare to give them something just a little different, they walk out at interval. Are you perhaps suggesting that we should cater to what the audience wants alone and leave ourselves, as actors, unchallenged and therefore ultimately unfulifilled? Keeping in mind that the reason we do this is for fun? I think that if a show isn't bad, the acting is good, but you just don't understand it, stick around and see what happens.

Melissa

PS Although I am in the aforementioned Travesties I don't really appear until the second act, so my post here is not because of sour grapes.

Hello Melissa,

I understand your argument that "we're doing this for fun", and have encountered it repeatedly in amateur theatre, but if you want to defend that argument, then you can't expect the public to pay for your fun. Can you afford to waive the admission fee?

The simple truth is that yes! we do have to cater to what the audience wants, unless we have project funds coming out of some massive grant scheme, we have to be commercial.

That doesn't mean we have to produce "whoops, vicar" shows, and it doesn't mean we can't be experimental, but we DO have to be entertaining.

But besides all this, no performance can expect every single audience member to go away satisfied, especially if they PAID good money and didn't get what they were expecting.

If we want to be in this industry, then we have be mature enough to respect the audience, whatever they may think of our productions.

Also I think you're being very simplistic to assume people either want "naked vicars" or "cutting-edge". There's a hell of a lot in between. And it can all be either great or crappy.

Cheers.

I have been in theatre for more than 18 years and the last 5 I have been working in London's west end and regional theatres. Walking out of Productions is as common as walking in. I have seen some total rubbish. I don't ever sit there and say I could do better. That in my opinion is arrogant even if you know you could. I very rarely go to the theatre to see a particular actor. So, in respect I am not walking out on the actors, but the overall production. If you order a meal from a restuarant and you don't like it, you leave if or change it, you don't eat it just to please the chef. It isn't just the chef that created the meal, but everybody from the waiter to the kitchen staff. It is the same in the theatre. I saw ' Prisoner on second ave ' with Dreyfuss at the ' H/market(lon) it was great, but sadly let down by lights, sound, slow set changes etc. I left at interval. Later on in the run I had read in the 'stage' that all of the technical factors of the producting had been rectified, so I went along and enjoyed a fantasic experience. Theatre should be an experience. Don't sit through something just to please. Theatre is about the extraordinary not the ordinary.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS SO FAR. BUT, THAT DOES NOT STOP THE FRUSTRATION THAT IS OCCURING DUE TO OUR AUDIENCES WALKING OUT AT INTERVAL.

I KNOW THAT OUR THEATRE RARELY PUTS ON PLAYS THAT ARE SLIGHTLY OFF THE WALL, BUT IT IS STILL UNFAIR TO THE CAST, CREW AND COMPANY WHEN THE PUBLIC LEAVE.

I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE I HAVE WALKED OUT OF A SHOW BUT THAT WAS DUE TO PERSONAL REASONS AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOW AT ALL.

WALKING OUT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PLAY IS PLAIN RUDE. AND I KNOW WE ARE IN THIS FOR FUN. BUT ISN'T PART OF THE FUN GETTING THE AUDIENCES REACTION AT THE END? NOT IN THE INTERVAL.

KRIS

Kris,

You're not getting the point of all the previous posts.

Here it it: If you don't like people leaving, TOUGH! Their actions are none of your business. Their money, their perogative.

What would you prefer they did? Stand up and yell out "This is a load of crap"?

This is a way for people to get away from something they feel uncomfortable about, without ruining it for everyone else. Try to appreciate that!

Talk about the thespian ego! God, if performers can get so upset about someone doing something as trivial as walking to an exit door, how the heck do they function in real life??

Ummmm, just a point. I believe that Kris is not intending to breach "netiquette" by ONLY TYPING CAPITALS, but in fact, it is due to her keyboard being faulty. I received an e-mail from her recently full of capitals and was wondering what the hell I'd done.

So, um, yes. She's not shouting, she's just unable to use lower-case characters.

Troy

Hello Troy,

My previous post was not "spiked" because of the uppercase, but simply because there seems to be a lot of discussion about a subject that I would have thought was part and parcel of live theatre.

More to the point, there seems to be a lot of discussion from offended members of the one production. It makes me wonder how many people walked out of this show? If it was just one or two, then I suggest that the offended cast and crew need to toughen up a hell of a lot!

However, if it was a large contingency of people who left, then THAT begs the questions - What IS so offensive about this play? Perhaps the crew needs to take a step back and have a good hard look at their own show.

Just maybe the exiting audience has a valid point to express.

But the bottom line is that most producers of "cutting-edge" productions that I've experienced are not at all averse to deliberately planting elements into their work that they know will offend at least a few people. And then they act surprised and offended by the walk-outs and put down the "staid" audience.

Good publicity, eh!

The best cutting-edge theatre is the kind that doesn't have to try!

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. I have had the theory that it is good that they walk out because it is confusing explained to me x amount of times but I just can't seem to grasp the concept. I think it is that either a) You keep the intelligent people, or b) You supposivly create some form of passion of confusion. None of us (stage crew or cast) are offended by the absence of some of the members of the audience so why should it bother anyone else?
At least the show isn't crap.

So, you're a give what the audience wants at the cost of the actors kinda person. And that is also a valid argument, if we were doing this for money instead of for the love of. Tell me, do you belong to one of these theatre companies that constantly moans because they cannot hang on to their younger actors? Perhaps if we gave our audiences something a little different more often, they would gain an appreciation of it. Believe me when I say that the whoops vicar scenario is usually what they get. Travesties is not experimental, in fact a wouldn't even call it 'cutting edge'. It's just different AND entertaining, it's Stoppard how could it be anything else. You cannot give the audience the same old thing time after time, ssoner or later even they will get bored with it. Money is not the bottom line. Yes, I know it's what keeps the ball rolling, but community theatre companies are not here to make heaps of money.

Melissa

Um, the director isn't offended at all. Just us actors. It seems that they aren't doing it because we are crap, merely because they 'don't get it'. As far toughening up goes, I think we've all got pretty tough hides as it is. I believe this debate was started to gather other opinions about the subject. This is the first 'different' piece if theatre I have ever done, and consequently the first time I have ever had walkouts (Earnest doesn't count, the woman was having a heart attack). Naturally I personally am a little curious, obviously I'm not the only one. But I genuinely believe that if you do not understand something, but the show is good, stick around and see what happens.

Melissa

PS I couldn't say exactly how many walk outs we've had, but I know it's reached double figures at least.

Melissa wrote:
> Earnest doesn't count, the woman was having a heart attack
What a thoroughly lame excuse! Do people have no respect for the theatre these days? Couldn't she have just died quietly? At least then you might have used it in your advertising: Earnest - the play that people are dying to see. =)
Auctor

This seems to be turning into a discussion about one particular play, which I don't think was the intention. However, is it possible that some people left because, on the night I was there, interval did not come until around 9.40?
I think I agree with someone earlier who said something on the lines "they (the audience) pays their money and they takes their choice" I really don't think manners come into the equation.

cheers
Stu

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.

Dear Melissa,

You wrote: "But I genuinely believe that if you do not understand something, but the show is good, stick around and see what happens".

If someone doesn't understand it, do you really think they're still going to think it's good?

It may be a technical masterpeice, the acting might be fantastic, but if you're not directly connected to the production, then that doesn't mean a thing if you don't understand it.

Glynn

PS: Double figures?? If I were the director, that would be ringing alarm bells in my head!

>My previous post was not "spiked" because of the uppercase, >but simply because there seems to be a lot of discussion about >a subject that I would have thought was part and parcel of live >theatre.

It wasn't my intention to imply that. Sorry if it looked that way, I was just posting to make people aware of Kris' technical difficulties in case someone took it the wrong way. I was only talking about Kris' post.

Personally I find it hard to be offended by it, as I'm on for perhaps 3 minutes, 20 seconds of which is talking, in Act One, dissappearing until after Interval. I'm slightly frustrated that all some people are seeing of my performance is a 20 second conversation in Russian (the meaning of which doesn't become clear until Act 2 - Scene 1).

Adios

This subject is obviously quite contentious.

I have to reply to your comments about me. Firstly, I would not be in live theatre if I didn't think the performer's needs were important, but I believe that an audience is no less fundamental to a production than the stage crew or performers. As mentioned several times by others on this subject, if we aren't here primarily for the audience's sake, then public performances should not be an issue, nor should the fact that some people choose to leave.

As for being part of a group that moans about not having young talent in the ranks. Well, that depends what you define as "young". As a rule, we avoid employing the services of anyone younger than 18, simply because people of that age, while enthusiastic, are not usually able to be committed to one project for several months at a time, due to studies, personal relations and the general "finding themselves" issues. We do, however, have an average age of between 25 and 35. An ideal age as such people have well and truly found themselves, and are in theatre for the sake of theatre, and not just for the sake of something to do.

I'm not saying all younger people are unreliable, but I have to say this rule was introduced because there had not been a past production where at least one person of that age didn't decide to quit a show midway because of a relationship breakup! No joke!

Also, we don't moan! Not even when an audience member walks out.

Last night we had a total attendance of 17. None walked out. Now, I don't know if that is because they did not have their own transport home or not or they actually wanted to stay, but it was a pleasant change for those envolved. We have joked that we got the intelligent people last night, but when I say that I don't mean to offend the other audience members that we have had. What I am trying to say is that some of the topics of this show are quite complex (eg. Russian Revolution) and most of us won't know much about it if anything at all. The other main concept of this show is The Importance of Being Ernest, and myself, having not seen the show, do not know what that is about. However, the play is still and enjoyable and entertaining play even if you do not understand either of these, just that the people that do will catch on to all of the jokes and enjoy it more that the other members of the audience. Personally I think that a poster for a production should have some kind of blurb on it to give you an idea what it is about. I don't mean something like "A Comedy". That is all that most of the blurbs have, so it says that if you like comedy you will probably enjoy the show. But if it says something like, "What happens when you confuse Ernest with Russian Revolution" with the comedy, people actually get an idea of what it is about. But no matter what, the play is still enjoyable whether or not you have the knowledge of the concepts.

Cheers

G'day Alan,

"Personally I think that a poster for a production should have some kind of blurb on it to give you an idea what it is about. I don't mean something like "A Comedy". That is all that most of the blurbs have, so it says that if you like comedy you will probably enjoy the show. But if it says something like, "What happens when you confuse Ernest with Russian Revolution" with the comedy, people actually get an idea of what it is about."

- Now that's good common-sense thinking! Promote yourself to the publicity committee!

I have never walked out of a show because I did not understand it.
I have walked out of a show because the cast didn't understand it.

Ah, I never moan about one audience member, just lots. I was, however, only defending my comrades. I understand about the need to please the audience, but I've been pleasing the audience for the last four years. I like doing something a little different. But that matter aside, which is probably where it should stay, as far as youth goes, wow what a broad generalisation, don't write them off as easily as that. You could be missing out on some of the most talented actors in Perth that way. Yes, a lot of soul searching goes on, but I know 35 - 40 year olds who are also doing a lot of soul searching. In fact, in my experience, it has been the older actors in a cast who proved unreliable. It seems in a lot of cases experience leads to a lack of enthusiasm ( a broad generalisation also). I have a lot of respect for older actors, those who have earnt it, and I have learnt a great deal from them. I have also worked with some amazing young people, who I respect just as much. Perhaps you should try taking the blinkers off.
Melissa
PS I'm 23, in case you didn't want to do the maths.