Will you PLEASE be quiet??!!

Hey kids,

Not wanting to take attention away from the interesting three way romance developing in the "Reviewers in the Missed" thread, an interesting point has been raised way down there in the Reviews forum; what do you do about noisy audience members?

The amazing Mr Kelso in the equally amazing Copenhagen at the Octogon very recently apparently employed the simple break of character and "Would you please be quiet, the rest of the audience is tying to listen." before returning to character and picking up from where he had been so rudely interupted.

Is this the best way to go about it? Or should you just ignore it and hope it goes away? Or send a runner out in the interval to hunt down the culprits and have a quiet word? Or get the cast and crew together in the car park afterwards to make sure these inconsiderate audience members never bother another actor again?

Suggestions? Stories? Annecdotes?

Leah

I think the best reply I've ever heard was Stuart Wagstaff in a production of The Rocky Horror Show to noisy audience members:

"If I wanted to hear an a**hole, I would have farted"

Don't know if it was scripted or ad-libbed, but everyone thought it was pretty funny.



Thou bootless toad-spotted clack-dish!

I 've always been of the mind that the best policy for an actor confronted with noisy morons is to ignore it and plough on regardless. However, it depends upon the actors concerned. From the sounds of things, Copenhagen requires a great amount of concentration and if this is being interrupted by lug-nuts who think they're watching TV maybe Kelso's call was appropriate.

It would take a noise akin to a Sherman Tank at a speedway to make me consider addressing the audience. Having lumps of cheese thrown at one- now, that's a different matter, and a different story for another less-restrained time...

El

"Chorus" in R and J to a couple snogging noisily in the audience -

"We can see you as clearly as you can see us. So cut it out!"

And they did.



Thou warped tickle-brained flap-dragon!

[%sig%]

Good topic Leah, this is certainly a bug-bear of mine. It seems to have got worse and worse in recent times. And if anyone reads the reviews over at theatrepeople.com.au, you'll see that Sallyann Wilson has been deploring audience behaviour in a number of her recent reviews.

It's not just talking through scenes either. Mobile phones are a major problem. In one play I was involved with at Williamstown Little Theatre (Vic), a small theatre with just 5 rows and around 70 seats, a woman in the front row not only had her mobile switched on, but when it rang, answered it and carried on a conversation! Even had the temerity to comment on the play to whoever she was talking to.

Alas, Williamstown have now resorted to an invasive voice-over just prior to dimming lights before the play starts, it's sad that this is required.

Todays audiences also seem to pay scant attention to curtain up times, at a production I directed earlier this year, there was not one night (out of 15) where we did not have latecomers. One night, a group of about 8-10 turned up at 8:40 for an 8:15 performance.

Why this is happening I don't really know. We can blame television and say that audiences have become used to productions of about an hour, and struggle through anything longer. Or that they need 'ad breaks', but TV has been around for 50 years now, and I'm sure things are worse now than they were 10 years ago.

I'm not sure what can be done, perhaps we should start sending out 'How to be an audience' leaflets with ticket sales?

Noisy audience members. HmmÂ… ThereÂ’s no point in us being up there without an audience. So, how do you deal with noisy audience members so they will still want to come back?

In one performance of I Might Be Edgar Allan Poe we had an audience member ask a question of the actor David Hayward, who was playing the role of a professor, and David calmly answered the question then continued. This does impress people, more than the fact that you have just spent the last umpteen weeks of your life rehearsing. Generally, I think that if audience noise is not too distracting I would ignore it and carry on.
However, we’ve not had a noticeable problem in this area. Maybe we’re so bad we stun them into disbelieving silence! Or (boldly) perhaps we are so ‘living the moment’ we don’t hear them?

Mobile phones - We print a large request on our programs asking for them to be switched off and also remind people as they enter the theatre.

We also follow standard theatre convention in that latecomers are not admitted. Doors closed = doors closed. One exception was where a woman had booked and rang us to say she was late due to a train strike, so when she arrived we unobtrusively allowed her in at a suitable moment. Of course I would usually leave that to the discretion of the front-of-house staff.

NowÂ… how is that three way romance developing?

Tina Jack

I honestly cannot believe Geoff did that! I have worked with him before and i thought he would have more respect for the play he was performming and acting on the whole!! It is insane to say it is appropriate to break character and ruin the moment for the audience because you cant concentrate!! If you cant keep focus whilst a few people are talking then you should have rehearsed more, been more in character or dare i say it- learn how to act proffesionaly! The correct behaviour is to continue and while backstage alert a staff member and they will get an usher ask the audience members to leave.
Well, thats just my two cents
-Jo

Well - as absurd as it may feel to do so - not such a crazy idea in this day in regards to a flyer saying "How to be an audience" - well they do have books "Computer's for Dummy's" etc. Though it would all feel like a tacky way of dealing with the occasional problem.

Probably the only way - is to add something politically correct onto that 'no mobile' sign and/or into the program: for example:

"Please remember to turn off your mobile before entering the auditorium and we trust our audience tonight will respect fellow audience members and the cast in appropriate behaviours and we welcome you to join us at the bar after the show for reflection and/or constructive discussion"

I'm not too fantastic with words but something along those lines.

[%sig%]

Jo Somerville wrote:
>
> I honestly cannot believe Geoff did that! I have worked with him before and i thought he would have more respect for the play he was performing and acting on the whole!! It is insane to say it is appropriate to break character and ruin the moment for the audience because you cant concentrate!! If you can't keep focus whilst a few people are talking then you should have rehearsed more, been more in character or dare i say it- learn how to act professionaly! The correct behaviour is to continue and while backstage alert a staff member and they will get an usher ask the audience members to leave.
Well, thats just my two cents
-Jo




Sorry Jo, but I can't say that I agree with you there at all.

I admire what Geoff did and think he would never have let it occur unless he felt there was damn good reason and the moment was being ruined for the audience anyway. Having made that decision, what he did was by far the quickest, most efficient, and respectful way to deal with it for all concerned, and the fact that he could step straight back into character probably shows how rehearsed and in command he actually was.


The 'polite' members of the audience, respecting that it's already being made difficult for the performer, were probably reticent to speak up, for fear of creating a further disturbance. So the problem gets put up with, in hope it will dwindle of its own accord; but meanwhile everyone suffers.
I really can't see an usher dealing with anyone in a less disruptive manner than Geoff did...can you honestly? How does an usher surreptitiously get to a patron in the centre of the auditorium? Chinese whispers? I'm sure it would draw my attention, away from the poor actor. Give that job to the one who already has the attention, and who will then fast win it back.


The audience wants to see the action unfold, to be in the moment and be lost in the story. But at the same time, we ALL know it's a play. The audience is a participant as much as the performers are. That's partly why we are annoyed by those who don't seem to know the protocol; it's also why it's surprisingly easy after a disruption (a lighting failure, a prop breaking, an ad-libbed line) for us all to straightaway get back on with it and pretend it didn't happen. After all, we're only pretending that it IS happening.

With all the focus on an actor on stage, if I see them so in control of that focus that they can break their routine to clean up an accidental spill, or to cover for a technical mishap, or even to address the audience ad-lib; and all the while either not losing character, or picking it straight back up where it was lost, I am more fascinated by the power they yield.
When an actor is concentrating so hard on giving a "perfect", as-rehearsed performance, that they somehow don't even react to a chair that was knocked over, or a lighting gel accidentally falling onstage, or people chatting rudely in the auditorium, it distracts me because it seems "fake".


People sometimes need to be reminded that they're not watching television, they can't just talk through the commercials and that the actors CAN hear you. There's nothing more powerful than to have an actor acknowledge his audience and actually speak TO them, not just AT them. If it's to deal with a problem, we're more likely to cheer the actor, and then give them even more respect by letting them get back to their story.


Anecdotes...

I wish I'd taken advantage of a situation during Stories From Suburban Road, when a mobile phone went off and continued ringing during my scene, playing a professor in his study criticising a student's work. I just continued, trying to focus, but pretty well knew that all the emotional effect of my scene was lost because neither I nor the audience could concentrate on anything but the dickhead with the "Flintstones" ringtone.
I realised (too late) that had I stopped, in character of the professor, and said something along the lines of "Do you mind? I'm trying to read; take your toy and play outside", I would have 1) retained my character's status and not lost the emotional content of the scene, 2) dealt with the distraction by acknowledging it, and 3) earned myself points with the audience who were no doubt thinking the same thing.


A great opportunity came up in a Barking Gecko performance of "Way Home", where Derek Nannup and I, playing tough streetkids, had a scene transition where we improvised some audience interaction, often stealing the running shoes off a kid in the audience. Just prior to this scene, a mobile phone went off. Derek (professional clown that he is) realised we weren't going to gain anything by finishing our dialogue scene, so he just cut it, went straight to the transition scene, and ran down and stole the mobile phone. The beaut payback was he not only improvised some dialogue with the poor person on the other end, but when they hung up he called a number of his own and had a conversation at the phoneowner's expense, with the rest of the audience gleefully in on the joke!



More along the lines of dealing with noisy audiences:


I think I speak with authority in this matter because of the thousands of shows I have performed in schools. Kids, especially the very young, often have no concept at all of theatre protocol. They talk to themselves, to their teachers, and to the performers.

The classic example is the pantomime "he's behind you!". If you ignore them, you only get warned louder. If you deny them ("oh, no he isn't")...we all know what the response will be. Fine, if that's what you want.
The ONLY way to deal with distractions like this is to address them, acknowledge them, and agree with them, before you can get on with it.

There have been times when kids are mucking about, heckling and spoiling it for the others. For some reason, teachers (like your ushers) are a bit powerless to step in. But the troublemakers respond straightaway if an actor talks to them like a teacher would, stopping the play. The focus is suddenly on their behaviour, and they're too embarassed to continue. It depends on the type of distraction (and the type of character) whether the actor can succesfully remain in character or needs to drop out altogether.

The best way is obviously to remain in character, and not to disrupt the play. Sometimes the action is too important to let drop, so the problem is ignored until a more suitable moment arrives, when it can perhaps be incorporated more naturally.

In "The Emperor's New Clothes", when Ingle Knight came out as the Emperor in his underwear, kids would try to save him: "You've got no clothes on!...You've got no clothes on!"...as soon as one starts, they'd all start, and not only could he not shout them down, but his character isn't really allowed to acknowledge his own folly.
In another play, "Jenny Goes Wild", my character of Ranger Kev was looking for someone who was hiding. The kids knew where she was ("She's under there!..), but if I'd found her, that'd pretty well be the end of the play.
In both these cases I'd have to get out front, take off my character's hat and talk to them as Craig Williams, actor. I'd acknowledge them and say, "yes, WE know , but Ranger Kev/The Emperor doesn't know YET in this story...let's see what happens".

This may seem a bit playschool, but in every case, the kids were satisfied and had NO trouble at all in focussing their attention back in on the story, as if nothing had happened.

I would suggest the response is virtually no different with Geoff Kelso's audiences, and that his command of an adult audience is what ultimately marks his action as 'how to act professionally'.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Tina wrote:
> NowÂ… how is that three way romance developing?




Interesting that that thread has been viewed that way.

I reckon it's safe to say that at least one of the three is has been taking the piss.



crg

[%sig%]

El wrote:
>
> It would take a noise akin to a Sherman Tank at a speedway to
> make me consider addressing the audience. Having lumps of
> cheese thrown at one- now, that's a different matter, and a
> different story for another less-restrained time...


Hi El
Bit late tonight and I've already posted an anecdotal response to this thread, but your two examples remind me of performances I've done in schools where:

1) Kids have thrown lumps of bluetac / chewing gum / small beads / grapes that would squash underfoot / drawing pins that weren't so friendly underfoot..!

2) A teacher was actually controlling kids in the crowd, during a performance, with a whistle...(!)



(....yet, for some reason, I'm back today to begin rehearsing a new school's show..!)

Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]

crgwllms wrote:

"Bit late tonight and I've already posted an anecdotal response to this thread, but your two examples remind me of performances I've done in schools where:

1) Kids have thrown lumps of bluetac / chewing gum / small beads / grapes that would squash underfoot / drawing pins that weren't so friendly underfoot..!

2) A teacher was actually controlling kids in the crowd, during a performance, with a whistle...(!)"

My anecdote refers to the sentence I served as a Minstrel with Dirty Dick's Elizabethan Theatre Restaurant Touring Company. And Kingsley Judd can back me up here, because he was there too. We performed in the wonderful town of Dumbleyung (no insults from me, as I know this is a global platform), and were subject to a food-war in the hall. Not a food fight; a food WAR! HUGE lumps of cheese (like, a quarter of a ball of Edam) would rain upon the stage.

All was well, until one said lump struck my guitar. At which point I had to refrain from turning into Pete Townshend. It's amazing how intimidating a scrawny guitarist can be dressed in bronze tights when their instrument is in jeopardy.

El

(....yet, for some reason, I'm back today to begin rehearsing a new school's show..!)

re: the latecomers thing... i don't get it..
over the past few months i have spent a considerable amount of time doing FOH at The Blue Room and Rech etc and i find it surprising how many people show up at 8.10pm for a 8pm performance, i know it's not as drastic as 30mins late but if i am going to a performance or the movies, i will always be there 15mins before it starts. but that's just me... and then there is those that show up 30mins late and wonder why they can't get in!!!
It gets to the stage where shows schedueled to start at 8 are never starting on time because we know there is going to be latecomers...
i just don't think it's good etiquette thats all...

cheers
G

> Interesting that that thread has been viewed that way.
>
> I reckon it's safe to say that at least one of the three is
> has been taking the piss.



Tee hee hee, you can get websites about that!


Sorry, I think I've been hanging out with the Blak Yak lads a little too much lately.


On the topic, I have stopped and glared at latecomers. I mean actually stopped my little monolgue, folded my arms, turned and glared at them. Of course, it was a christmas show and I could get away with it (in character). I would hardly have done it during say, The Dresser.

What about the lovely old grannies? You know the ones, deaf as a post and sitting as far away from the stage as possible "What did that girl say?" and her friend recounts the whole play from start to finish. And it's not just children who call out, so called 'grown ups' are perfectly capable of doing it as well.

Well, that's my little bit.

Melissa

PS if you want to show how an audience should behave, come and see the KADs one act season, starting on the 30th of August! Starring the lovely Leah Maher and Rayann Condy (oh and me, but come and see it for them)

I saw the event in question and I must say I don't think Geoff actually broke character. I'd say he stayed in his 'Heisenberg' character and told the audience to be quiet because what he was about to say was important, then got back to what he was saying.
That's why at interval some friends and I were discussing if it was actually in the play!

Cheers
Nath

Hello to all,


Well, "Bizarre Love Triangle" is a somewhat 'interesting' interpretation of the messages written in the other post...

In regards to the issue of the noisy spectators, which I have often encountered whilst watching a show, I would say you could only really go the sensible route which would involve a nice, polite "shhhh" or nothing at all until those concerned resort to what is "common sense" and eventually "shut up" or you could resort to the "Jeenie Little" way of handling the situation and just "shoot em". (you would probably have to watch Channel 10's "Beauty and the Beast" to get that one)

Either way, you'd have to measure up which is likely to draw the most attention.

The Review Master

Hey El,

I'd completely forgotten (read: put out of my mind); I too did a couple of seasons as a minstrel at Dirty Dick's...the one that stuck most in my mind was Kambalda ...the ones that stuck most in my guitar was probably the patrons at Cambridge Street.....


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Is it because we are conditioned by going to the major cinemas?

The programme in the paper says the film starts at 8, but you KNOW that you have at least 15min of commercials and trailers for other movies before the feature actually starts, so you don't have to worry about being late.


Maybe theatres should adapt, rather than buck this trend, and fill the first 15 minutes of waiting for latecomers with little skits promoting their sponsors, and invite performers from other shows to do short excerpts, before the play proper...?


Cheers,
Craig

Hi Craig and M'Colleague,

Cheese Stains are very difficult to remove from the fretboard.
But the Dumbleyungians didn't know what they were letting themselves in for when they conducted their mighty food war. They unleashed Milo Kerrigan in tights.

Here is another anecdote concerning talkative audiences from my uni days. We were performing one of the classics to a schools audience. They had obviously been studying this piece recently. One audience member near the front took it upon himself to recite all the lines of one particular character. So whenever the actor went to speak this audience member would begin speaking the lines. Slightly upsetting. The worst kind of prompt one can imagine.

Another story from uni days. At one show in a small venue there came a sound like someone pouring coffee in the audience - there was also talk coming from that section of the audience. For some reason it was quite a loud sound and they were pouring an awful lot of coffee. No-one said anything at the time but there was a lot of bitching and hissing after the show. Later we found out that it wasn't a thermos of coffee being poured but it was a person in a wheelchair going to toilet. So, it's a good job none of the actors did react.
And perhaps in some instances talk in the audience is for a perfectly legitimate reason. And, in SOME cases it is best if the actor does not react or respond.
Though as you say Craig there are times, and given that the actors are in character, when a response to audience behaviour is more than justified. I recently performed in a production of Bouncers where ad-libbed responses to audience behaviour became par for the course.
In the case of Geoff Kelso in Copenhagen, I feel he would have been perfectly justified in addressing the audience in the manner that he did. I saw this recent production of Copenhagen(not the night in question however) and I personally needed all my concentration for it - I'm a bit of a dummy - and any talking amongst the audience would have made it very difficult for me as a fellow audience member to maintain my concentration.

For now "Resistance is Futile!"
Cheers
Kingsley( another Minstrel)
PS: "Play the best song in the world or I'll eat your soul."

Whilst I agree with the general sentiments expressed by Damian and previous writers, unfortunately I'm not so optimistic about the position of theatre performers / producers to demand audiences to behave better. There's one thing which people seem to be forgetting here - like it or not, the audience don't actually have to go to the theatre at all. Like any other consumer, if what we provide doesn't fit what they want, they won't go. It's that simple.

I remember only a couple of weeks ago, there was a debate on here where numerous persons bemoaned the lack of local support for theater and dwindling audience numbers. Well, if theatre is produced with an attitude of 'here's our product, here's the way we like doing it - please someone come and watch it', the problem of dwindling audiences isn't likely to improve. Personally, I think that if audiences no longer want to see theatre in the traditional sense (ie with manners), then you have to adapt what you are doing to accomodate that. Of course this may be understandably frustrating - and some people may well prefer to ignore the audience in favour of artistic fulfilment. In fact, there is nothing stopping that - anyone can give a 3 hour epic whilst demanding that the audience be well-behaved - in the silence of an empty theatre for a start. The moment we want to charge people to see it so we can make a living (read: business) out of it, we have to do what any other business does and think about what the audience wants.

You can't have things both ways (well, not in the one show at least) - if you don't want to give the audience what they want, that's fine, but you can't really complain if they go and do something else with their Saturday night. Maybe it's worth it, and we'd prefer to perform in the cirucmstances which we find most fulfilling - but if that's the case, then why are we constantly moaning about the lack of popular support?

Just a few thoughts,
Craig K Edwards

Craig K Edwards wrote:
>
>I'm not so optimistic about the position of theatre performers /
> producers to demand audiences to behave better. There's one
> thing which people seem to be forgetting here - like it or
> not, the audience don't actually have to go to the theatre at
> all. Like any other consumer, if what we provide doesn't fit
> what they want, they won't go. It's that simple.




Not completely disagreeing with your statements, Craig K, but expanding the point of view.


I believe there's a reasonably well-established standard of behaviour for live theatre audiences that the majority of patrons agree to. Basically; respecting someone's right to view the performance they've paid for, and not interfering with that experience.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that that respect is offered to all paying customers.

The anecdotes of disruptive bad-mannered audience members presented in this thread represent a very minor percentage of the theatregoing public.
If reprimanding them and informing them that their behaviour is inappropriate offends them to the point that they leave, never to return, I don't think it's such the tragedy for our attendance figures that you are making it out to be.
1) They were probably being disruptive because they weren't engrossed in the show anyway, in which case there's a chance they wouldn't come back, reprimanded or not.
2) I don't pigeonhole people by their behaviour...one case of poor behaviour doesn't mean they'll be like that in future. Dealing with them may embarass them away forever, but more probably they'll return later with better manners.
3) 97% of the auditorium will appreciate the disruption being dealt with, admire the actor for dealing with it, remember the spontaneous theatrical experience and return to see more live performances.

An actor is usually very sensitive to how the audience that night is responding...if there are one or two individuals being disruptive, then to demand that they be more well-mannered actually IS giving the audience (as a whole) what they want.

Only if the vast MAJORITY of the crowd were talking and not paying attention (in which case you'd not be able to discern or isolate a disruption) would you need to consider adapting what you're doing (and start dodging the tomatoes) to accommodate them.

Cheers,


Craig M Williams

[%sig%]

Kingsley said "I recently performed in a production of Bouncers where ad-libbed responses to audience behaviour became par for the course".

I saw this show (at the Don Russell Centre?) and thoroughly enjoyed the interaction with the audience as part of the show. However, it was invited to a great degree by the way the actors spoke to the audience. It was very amusing, and really added to it. Some shows work like this. Some don't.

Tina Jack

I think we've had quite enough on this subject.
Will you all be quiet now?
Please.

Poltroon wrote:
>
> I think we've had quite enough on this subject.
> Will you all be quiet now?
> Please.



Alright, but only if you can contribute something interesting for us to discuss.

Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Craig Williams wrote:

>
> A lot (read above thread)



Sorry Craig, but I can't say that I agree with you there.


I was greatly surprised to read at the start of this thread that the wonderful Mr Kelso broke character to admonish an audience. Not knowing the circumstances of the incident, it is hard to understand why he would have taken such action. The only time an actor should do such a thing, is to inform the audience that the theatre is on fire on would they kindly make their way to the clearly marked exits in an orderly fashion and then follow them into the car park to finish the play.

A professional actor is nothing but their character on stage. If something happens unexpectedly, they will react as their character. This includes dealing with an idiot talking in the audience.
If a mobile goes off, don’t stop the show and snap at the audience ‘How rude’, ad an aside complaining about the terrible ringing in your head! Anything to avoid a greater disruption of the illusion you’ve worked so hard to create in performance.

It is rare for the 'polite' members of the audience to ask a noisy patron to shut up and near impossible for an usher or stage manager to do the same once the show has started.
ItÂ’s up to the actor to keep control between curtain up to curtain down and the only credibility you have is invested in your character. If you break that persona because your frustrated, you will more likely annoy the audience and loose them altogether.
It is a hard situation to deal with when you put so much work in to a show but then, thatÂ’s what being professional is all about.
As Jo Somerville said ‘It is inappropriate to break character and ruin the moment for the audience because you can’t concentrate’.

Never whine to your audience! Save it for fellow actors and stage crew after the show, thatÂ’s what they're for. There's nothing more weakening than to have an actor acknowledge their audience and actually speak TO them.
This is only done if you're applying CPR to the audience member who leapt to their feet suddenly, clutching their heart and collapsed at your feet. Even then remember iambic pentameter is good for keeping time with heart massageÂ…

A (push) las (push), poor (push) Yorick! (push) I (push) knew (push) him (push) Horatio (push)

breath...

ItÂ’s never easy to plan for these situations. They are unexpected, unwelcome and every time itÂ’s something different but staying in character is vital for the integrity of the performance and as a safety harness for the actor to deal with anything out of the ordinary in the great tradition that is the theatre.


Tales of the unexpected:


When I was doing Shakespeare in the park I shared a scene with Michael Loney, walking down through the audience as we discussed the upcoming marriage between Juliet and Paris, at which time a light rain began to fall. Always fun with outdoor theatre and hard to ignore but it did allow me the opportunity of replying to

Friar Laurence: On Thursday, sir? the time is very short.
With
Paris: Well...weather permitting of course...

Another time performing at Dirty Dicks, two audience members had been secured in the stocks and we launched into song. Suddenly, fresh fruit began to rain down from table four. I managed to catch an orange before it hit my guitar mid strum, drop it, and continue playing, all within two beats (a most excellent catch).
Meanwhile, Phil Milon who played ‘Dick Turpin’ got down to the table singing boisterously and drew their attention from throwing stuff at the stocks.
When the song was over, I pulled my pick from the pesky projectile and we carried on having managed to avoid concussion without stopping the show.


More along the lines of dealing with noisy audiences:


Kids theatre is a great learning ground for maintaining character. I was sorry to read that Ranger Kev took his hat off and become Craig the actor to tell the kids that itÂ’s just a play.
IÂ’ve performed now in most of W.A.Â’s metropolitan schools several times over and have always managed to keep control of the kids by getting them to focus on what I wanted them to do.
Distracting kids from whatÂ’s got them over excited by juggling or talking animatedly without sound for example, will soon get their curiosity back to you and IÂ’ve never broken character to do it.

In the worst case IÂ’ve had with a kid who wouldnÂ’t stop talking, it was simple enough to step into the audience, pick him up and carry him back to the stage under one arm while continuing the show and handing him over to a teacher by the side of the stage.
ThatÂ’s the beauty of kids theatre, if all else fails, their really lite and easy to pick up by the feet.
The point is that it was done in a manner that was consistent with the character I was playing at the time.



After saying all that I’m happy to read an eye witness account by Nath of the ‘incident’ with Geoff Kelso that started all this. It seems to indicate that Kelso remained in character and made a distraction part of the show. Truly a professional performance.





The show must go on.


Brett

Brett maaaate! Haven't heard from you for ages! Are you and Jenny back in Oz? Or if you're still in England, are you getting any theatre work? Email me some news.



Brett wrote:
>Sorry Craig, but I can't say that I agree with you there.


Well...A couple of times you actually DO seem to agree with my statements, and you disagree with what Jo said, as I did.

You agree that it is rare or impossible for 'polite' members of the audience, ushers or stage managers to quiet a noisy patron; itÂ’s up to the actor to keep control.
You advocate "Anything to avoid a greater disruption", ...as do I (although we disagree on how we define "greater disruption").
And you agree that what Geoff Kelso did was truly professional - which was the starting point of my argument with Jo.

Also, you join Jo in saying that you should not break persona and lose the audience altogether because you are "frustrated" or can't "concentrate"...and I have never disagreed with those statements. But I also don't believe "lack of concentration" was the case with Geoff Kelso; neither have my arguments supported that as any excuse to break character (which I still think you CAN do, WITHOUT losing them).


...But I get the gist of your disagreement.





I AGREE with the stuff you said about 'dealing with the problem, in character' being the best way...and nine times out of ten I do just that.
But what would you do if your character is very low status, or is simply not allowed (for plot reasons) to know something that 200 kids are trying to tell you?

Dealing with these problems in character actually DESTROYS your character.

So I'm saying that in order to keep the greater integrity of the play (which I feel is more important), leaving the character briefly, solving the problem, and then returning to it actually DOESN'T cause such a big disruption as you seem to think it does.




When you tell of picking up the kid in the crowd, you say, "The point is that it was done in a manner that was consistent with the character I was playing at the time."
I heartily agree with you; but therefore if picking him up or speaking to him was NOT consistent, then I COULDN'T do it and remain in character. But the problem would still remain, disrupting the play.

I think maybe I made my "Ranger Kev" anecdote sound worse than it was...I had introduced the play and set the scene "as myself"; I was called "Craig" several times by other actors, as well as playing many characters myself, before the scene in question. So by stopping and becoming "Craig Williams, actor", I might as well have said I became "Craig Williams, storyteller"...me as an actor was effectively just ANOTHER character, who could pull the focus back to the story without diminishing the impact of the play. It was not as out of style with the rest of the play as I may have made it sound.

The 'Ranger Kev' character was not a character who could control a hundred kids shouting, and if I HAD responded as that character, it would not have made sense. So it made perfect sense to drop the character and become another; - Craig, the storyteller (which is all an actor IS, after all.)
The shouting kids did not believe I was a ranger anymore than they believed I was the crocodile or the pigmy possum in the play; so breaking character couldn't really surprise or disappoint them. They've all played "let's pretend"; they understood the rules. (If the game stops for a second because mum calls you, it's picked up straightaway a moment later, without "breaking the illusion".)
All that the kids wanted to do was to help, by telling me something. Dropping my character allowed me to let them, without altering the play. Having given them someone else to tell, I could then pick up the Ranger character again and everyone was happy. I see this as being sensitive to my audience.

I can't even claim the credit for this technique of "crowd control". It was discussed with the director of Barking Gecko during rehearsals, as a valid way to solve a likely problem. We had frequent scenes that encouraged audience participation, but knew they were likely to backfire and stop the action, so we needed several techniques to ensure we stayed in control.




THE PARADOX OF AD-LIBS...


I agree with you, outdoor theatre is a prime situation to encounter the unexpected, and find the need to ad-lib. When I did my turn in the Shakespeare in the Park, there were different occasions every night when we could throw in a reference to either the wind or about the sudden quack of a duck, etc.

Audiences love ad-libs, because they feel "special", like they witnessed something rare that only happened then and there, that night. (This is why crafty actors sometimes try to recreate 'ad-libbed' moments night after night...it entertains the crowd immensely if they believe it really was 'off the cuff').

But what it does is remind everybody that this is a living, thinking, actor here in front of us, not JUST a character. Whether the actor breaks character or not, they are drawing attention to themselves as a skilled ACTOR.


If we think "the character would've said that anyway", then fine, the actor has covered well and completely, and we don't even comment on the incident. We think it was part of the play.
If we realise that the character usually wouldn't say this, but tonight the actor made something up in character - that's when we are impressed.

If an actor makes a bad ad-lib (inappropriate to the play or out of character), all it does is draw attention to the actor and away from the story, and distract the audience by reminding us that we are watching a play.

But the paradox is - if you make a GOOD ad-lib (a show of wit, or in character), it ALSO draws attention to the actor and away from the character and story, reminding us that we are watching a play...the difference being that we are suitably impressed by the skill of the improvising actor that we immediately forgive this transgression, and if the actor picks up where they left off, we go right back along.


If you can fit an incident into your speech without missing a beat, you're acknowledging a private joke with the audience, and they recognise and appreciate your talent as an actor and improviser.
In the end, THAT's what entertains; NOT whether or not you stay in character as per the script or the direction, but whether you handle it professionally as a skilled performer who is sensitive to the greater needs of the play and to the majority of the audience.

The illusion ISN'T isn't the most important part of the play...the PERFORMANCE is, and I believe there is a difference.
You won't spoil everyone's night by breaking the illusion, SO LONG AS you find a way to maintain the importance of the performance... and THIS is the difference we are all really talking about when we talk about "acting professionally".



Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Hi!

...and after Brett caught the orange he threw it at me.

Cheers
Kingsley

Talking of piss take, a drama teacher told me an incident concerning a colleague of his in Britain. Two members of the audience had fallen asleep in the front row while the play was in progress. This actor had started to deliver his monologue and was slowly getting incensed at the snoring. Rather then breaking out of character and waking the audience members up, he decided to pull his trousers down and urinate on them. Remarkably he did this while staying in character. I don't know what happened next but I was assured that the two audience members didn't fall asleep during the performance after that.

Hmm...not a bad idea. I might consider it myself next time.

Hey Bill, sorry for the lateness of reply but I had to go to Belgium for a few days and I only got back last night.







Lets see, you wrote:


>Well...A couple of times you actually DO seem to agree with my statements, and you disagree with what Jo said, as I did.


Well, I never thought my comments were meant to counter everything you wrote or I would have started with

‘but I cant say that I agree with you there AT ALL.’

Of course I donÂ’t expect an audience member to help with crowd control, itÂ’s not their job (though itÂ’s lovely when it happens. Go brave, polite audience member go!).

But I do expect ushers and stage managers to get involved at appropriate times, i.e. before the show starts or at intervals. There should be good communication between those on stage and those off to help identify potential problems and help the show run smoothly which I thought was the point Jo was making.
Remember, stage mangers have God like powers, they can see in the dark, become invisible if they have too, anticipate mishaps before they manifest and they wear fashionable black at all times so they go with everything. ItÂ’s good to have them on your side.

And of course I think Geoff Kelso is a professional! He is a consummate performer, a paragon of virtue upon the stage and well worth seeing in action when ever possible. If only he were a breakfast cereal, then all young hopefuls could start the day with a big bowl of acting enriched Kelso! And I think this was the other point Jo was making.

I can see that Jo SomervilleÂ’s comments were perhaps terse (please stop me if IÂ’m typing words in your mouth Jo) but generally I felt they were born from a sense of shock.
My first clue was Jo’s opening comment ‘I honestly cannot believe Geoff did that!’
Neither could I. Stopping the show because someone was talking. Would he storm off to his trailer next?
JoÂ’s outrage, which I share, is the thought that an actor would stop for something that although annoying, is fairly trivial. This is the point I was trying to make Craig.

Jo also wrote ‘It is insane to say it is appropriate to break character and ruin the moment for the audience because you cant concentrate!!’
Well, I agree with that statement but I never wrote that you or Geoff had advocated this as a course of action on stage so lets nip that one in the bud.

Infact, before continuing I would like to say although this is ‘Green room gossip’, Chinese whispers is a lousy game. I’d like to stop banding the good name of Mr Kelso about except to say that it was only used to open a discussion on dealing with disruptions during performance, which I think makes a good topic for this forum.





I think ‘Anything to avoid a greater disruption’ is a given (unless you performing Artoe)

When an actor stops performing and talks to the audience, in my mind, the show has stopped. It’s like putting a huge footprint in the middle of a Japanese sand garden. It stops the ‘flow’, stands out and grates on the nerves.
Therefore the only time an actor SHOULD do this is when the show HAS to stop for whatever reason and that reason has to be more than just someone talking or kids getting excited. Why does the actor have to break character for anything less?


You raise the point of what to do if your character is low status, well I guess you’d have to be inventive. Being low status doesn’t mean you are nothing but a piece of furniture on the stage! (Unless you’re playing the part of a piece of furniture) As for plot line, I’m talking about pulling the focus back to the performance, not revealing ‘who done it’

In the end I don’t see how dealing with a problem in character ‘actually’ destroys your character as you stated. By definition, anything you do in character will be characterful.

In order to keep the integrity of the play (which I feel is the most important), staying in character, solving the problem, and then continuing on actually DOESNÂ’T cause such a big disturbance, as you seem to think.

To put it another way, If you leave your character to solve a problem then try and return to form, you WILL produce a disturbance in the force and as a registered Jedi you should know this!

As for the story about picking up the kid. I mentioned that to illustrate my point, it was not a suggested response to use every time. Whenever you have to move beyond the confines of the rehearsed play because of a disruption, by staying in character you can reduce the severity of the problem.




What a difference your ranger Kev story makes when you mention that Craig the storyteller was also a character already known to the kids. An excellent way to handle a problem by reverting to another character. ItÂ’s a testimony to Grahame GavinÂ’s experience in theatre to have thought of that as a possible response to a predicted situation.

And I think this helps to make my point. You never DROPPED your character! You changed it, but you didnÂ’t stop the show. You say that ranger Kev couldnÂ’t do it but you still managed to solve the problem as a character, not as an actor whoÂ’s just on stage doing a job. The integrity of the play was maintained. You hit a bump but you smoothed it out instead of stopping and starting. Very professional Mr. Williams.

You wrote ‘If we realise that the character usually wouldn't say this, but tonight the actor made something up ‘in character’ - that's when we are impressed.’ Isn’t this what I’ve been saying?




THE PARADOX OF AD-LIBS...



Your right, ad-libs are fun (when well executed) and special for an audience. ItÂ’s what live theatre is about; the spontaneity of the moment and it draws attention to the SKILL of the actor.

You said, ‘If an actor makes a bad ad-lib (inappropriate to the play or out of character), all it does is draw attention to the actor and away from the story, and distract the audience by reminding us that we are watching a play.’
YES. Stopping the show to say ‘will you please be quiet’ is the worst ad-lib you could ever make!

As for your paradox;
Ultimately you are saying that ad-libs draw attention to the actor as a person. Yes.
Stopping the performance to ask someone to be quiet draws attention to the actor as a person.
Which would you prefer to see?

I think the issue weÂ’re carving up is; if something goes wrong, at what point do you stop acting? When do you cross that threshold? IÂ’d like to think never if possible.

I know there will never be a simple answer. There are far to many variables to take into account at any one time on stage. An actor has to rely on their own judgment, tempered in the fires of experiences, honed by rehearsal and above all, shielded by their embodiment of character.





The show must flow.



Brett





PS Jen says Hi. IÂ’ll be in Oxford for a few weeks so I may not be able to reply straight away if you wish to carry on the debate Craig but I hope others will write about their experiences in this area as it is an interesting problem every performer will have to face at some point. Thanks Leah for bringing it up.

Hey Kings...


...and I would have got you too, if you werenÂ’t so freakishly fast ya long haired hippy bouncer!!...


Brett

Well i hardly think that's likely.....

Interesting.

There are most definately two sides to the arguement, as we've seen. On the one hand suspension of disbelief is penultimate, especially in theatre where it is all too easy for an audience member to suddenly become aware that they are not, in fact, watching a goings-on, they are instead sitting in an audience watching a bunch of people on stage. The physical aspect of live drama is a two-edged sword; on the one hand it allows you to draw an audience into a performance in a way a film never can, on the other the moment you lose and audience they're gone for good.

I have a lot of sympathy for Jo's position (and not only because she's my director :P). Dropping character shatters suspension of disbelief, not only for yourself, but also for you fellow cast members whose no doubt sterling performances will inevitably be undermined by your outburst. Often - I would say nine times out of ten to pick an artibrary statement - the very best thing you can do is ingore it and keep going. You're far more likely to keep an audience focused by not drawing attention to the distraction. In essence your focus helps other, more polite audience members to keep thier focus. If I'm watching a performance, then I'm far more inclined to ignore a ringing phone, or a loud-mouthed theatergoer if the actor onstage can give me something else to focus on.

That said, however, there are most definately times where ad-lib audience berating is highly appropriate. Stage productions of Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example.

To my mind the more obscure a piece of theatre is, the less inclined an actor should be to ad-lib it; fairly obvious I'm sure you'll agree. Shakespeare, I'd suggest, is possibly a poor oppertunity to break into an audience beat-down as it were (unless of course you're performing the complete works of Willam shakepeare abriged, in which case it's quite acceptable, even expected).

More familiar theater, abstract or no, is probably also a good chance for audience interaction. The example given earlier of the proffesor berating a student is a good example.

And as I'm sure you're well aware if (like me) you're in that distainful business of "street theeta", then you'd better get used to ad-libbing it, because the audience is never going to let you off easily, and responding to rudeness appropriately is the only way you'll be able to carry on a scene.

The current issue though, should Heisenberg in Copenhagen be berating a loud obnoxious audience member? I'd like to say no, in as non-judgemental way as I possibly can. I didn't see the performance, so I'm loathe to make a comment (though I will anyway) the character, to my mind, seems too emotionally intense to get away with such a drop. Better to leave the ad-lib to the comic relief.

More importantly, though, is the question of Curtain times. How do you deal with a late, though paying, audience member? Proffesional theater is probably at a bit of an advantage here; you try getting yourself let into a Royal Shakespeare theater company production of Macbeth a half-hour late. Us lowly amatuer theater companies, however, have no such luxury.

I feel that this is an issue for directors and, more importantly, playwrights. A piece designed to be performed in a non-proffessional atmosphere (read: you're not Andrew Lloyd Webber) should, to my mind, have an oppertunity early in the piece for latecomers to arrive. Say 10-15 minutes into running time break off with a comic monologue, a humorous quip, a low point in the scene's tension; anything to give the actors a breif insensity respite which allows you to usher in the hordes of latecomers with a minimum of disruption. That, at least, is my humble opinion.

There ends my mini-essay on the prospect of loud audiences and how to deal with them. If you're still reading this (and I must ask why one earth? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?) keep this in mind:

You go to the theater, above all else to be entertained. You the actor/actress are responsible for entertaining your audience, not demanding they let you go about your business. If the audience will be most entertained by you ad-libbing, then by all means do so. Otherwise perhaps your best bet is to grin and bear it.

Or alternately we could always give the stage-manager half a brick and let them deal with it...