Talk-backs have become very popular. Audiences get the chance to meet members of the creative team and discuss the play. Talk-backs can be very informative. The type of thing I did on my podcast recently (Episode 27 – Comedy 101), sharing my thought process on the writing of a one-act play, is a great way for the audience to appreciate just what goes into the making of a project (I’m not going to say the making of “art” because I always find that so pretentious).
For theaters it’s a nice perk, increases attendance, and boosts subscriptions.
Mamet argues that it reduces his work, that often the people on the stage (directors, producers, actors) misinterpret the meaning of his “art,” can smooth over ambiguities, and the audience’s perception of what they have just seen can be altered by idiotic observations by some theatergoers.
And to that I say, SO WHAT?
If someone is interested enough in your play after having just seen it to stay and discuss it further, you’ve won. I’ve done a few talk-backs and I’m always thrilled when most people stick around for them.
As the playwright I’m interested in what people have to say. Yes, some of the comments and questions are insane and I have to resist the urge to say to them, “What fucking play were YOU watching, because it wasn’t this one here on earth?” I’m nice that way. But more often I’ll get good questions and I will learn from the experience. I’ve done rewrites based on talk-backs. At the end of the day the play is for the audience. If they’re confused when I don’t want them to be, or they’re angry at something when it’s not my intention then it’s my job to fix it.
Let’s say there's something I thought should have gotten a big laugh and it didn’t. It’s nice that I can say, “Why didn’t that work for you?” and someone will say, “Because I didn’t know that reference.” (Of course someone else will say “You’re just not funny.”)
Also, as a playwright I have to feel that my play can stand on its own and the audience’s appreciation of it won’t be swayed by a talk-back. If I’m worried that someone is going to say, “I thought I liked the play but then the talk-back convinced me I didn’t” then I shouldn’t be sending it out in the world.
Look, I do understand that when community theaters or college productions or even regional productions do your work they can sometimes screw it up. I’ve seen work of mine miscast and moments missed by directors. It’s to be expected. I’m sure GLENGARY GLENROSS has been done by the WAITING FOR GUFFMAN company players and it’s jaw-dropping. But so what? Theater pieces are exciting because they’re done live. And they are open to interpretation.
But the good news is sometimes those interpretations, from the actors or directors, are better than your original conception. Or at least add a shading that wasn’t already there. Boy, is that exciting.
So uncertainty comes with the territory. Not being able to control all the elements also come with the territory. Yes, they can be frustrating. I was in the audience of a talk-back of a Neil LaBute play. He was on the panel. It was a terrible fucking play. He’s written some fabulous ones but this wasn’t one of them. When I pointed out a character inconsistency that he couldn’t defend he became very hostile. Meanwhile, all the actors on the stage were smiling and nodding. I talked to one of the actors afterwards and she thanked me. She said the cast all had the same issue and LaBute just refused to change anything. They loved that someone else called him on it. My intent was not to challenge him but to get him to clarify for me something that was confusing and preventing me from enjoying the play.
At the end of the day, David Mamet can decide to impose any restrictions he wants on his plays. He is also free to deny any production of his plays if he so desires. There are some claiming this is a “violation of free speech” issue; I think that’s stretching it. But for my money, hearing from the public is always a good thing. And once you stop caring what they think, they have every right to stop caring about what you think.
26 comments :
"And once you stop caring what they think, they have every right to stop caring about what you think."
Bang on, for every walk of life.
Proctors Theatre in Schenectady, NY, which shows touring companies (this season Fun Home, Color Purple) has a talkback every Thursday matinee. I LOVE them. And the performers/director seem to as well.
It seems odd to try to prohibit in any way people talking about your work. I certainly understand it can be painful to have your supposed deficiencies pointed out, and I think audience members have a responsibility to try to make reasoned comments, something on a level above a Facebook rant, for instance.
I found several articles online that stated Mamet's politics have skewed conservative in recent years. I wonder if this is part of the reason behind his prohibition -- perhaps he's taking an authoritarian view that he wouldn't have years earlier, and he's trying to assert control.
But I also found a piece that interviewed several other playwrights about talk-backs. Few of them seemed to like them, most had negative experiences with them at some point, and about half never attended talk-backs when they went to the theater. I think some of that is based in the idea that the writer has spent all this time creating characters and a storyline, giving structure to reality, and the audience comes along afterwards and disrupts that structure and the author's interpretation of how the world works.
Thanks for touching on this, Ken. This has been buzzing around the theater community since it happened. I do disagree with you, however, about describing what you do as art being pretentious. Just as Shakespeare was both popular entertainment in his day and at the same time art, so is what you do. CHEERS, MASH, and THE SIMPSONS has every right to be considered art, just as classic films and plays are.
Mamet has the commercial heft to get away with this, whereas few other playwrights do.
While many TV series feature online post-episode chats with cast members (normally for season premieres or "very special episodes" -- no, not in the "Afterschool Special" sense), how often do writers et al participate in such events? Obviously, they don't wish to give away story arcs and under-wrap things, but it would be fun to discuss how characters were created and other particulars they feel free to talk about. I'm trying to imagine Ken doing this for "M*A*S*H," "Cheers" or "Frasier."
Wow, David Mamet being a ridiculous crank who's overly precious about his work? That's crazy. What's next, Aaron Sorkin writing a brilliant character who's always correct but can't get his (yes, his) life together?
Interesting post. Back in the day when I was in school and we talked about Shakespere, the teachers always tried to make him "hip" by saying that in his time going to one of Shakespere's plays was a rough and tumble thing.
They did this because they wanted us to know that Shakespere was popular entertainment. It had action and laughs and drama, just like Indiana Jones. Kids like Indiana Jones, don't they?
My point being, if Shakespere had to worry about pleasing the rubes and therefore put in jokes and fights, then Mamet can get over himeself.
Heaven forbid that people actually have a good time going to a "legitimate" theater production (at a cost of what? $40 or $50 a ticket) and the author actually have to interact with hoi poloi.
Forgot to ask my Friday question.
Man, the Dodgers are on fire. How does that affect your daily life? How badly do you wish you were covering them on radio?
I love your baseball stories and the Dodgers streak (they actually lost two in a row this month, you must be getting nervous) gives you the chance to cover via your blog one of the truly amazing runs in recent baseball history as it happens.
I recently did a run of the play "Bill W. & Dr. Bob", about the two guys who founded Alcoholics Anonymous. The authors came to see it (and led a standing ovation at the end). But their talk back afterwards quickly turned into a massive AA meeting. I suppose this comes with the territory when you're doing a show with heavy themes like drunks and fighting for sobriety, but there was no discussion at all about the show, characters, writing process etc. The authors themselves looked uncomfortable for most of it, but they probably didn't want to seem like jerks by cutting off the guy crying about how drinking ruined his marriage.
We'd be in reeeeeal trouble if we had a President like that.
Oh wait.
Very interesting post, and I promise I didn't miss the point of it. But there's something else I just can't get past -- shouldn't the correct spelling of the word be "playwrite?" It seems to me that to spell it "playwright" makes no sense. What am I missing?
I've been talking back to your shitty blog for years, but you always pretend to ignore it.
VP81955 - TV writers occasionally do that too - Graham Yost would do an interview with EW after every episode of Justified explaining the writing process of the episode, which was really interesting. The Americans' showrunners Joe Wiseberg and Joel Fields sometimes give these as well (on Sepinwall's blog, I think). And there was a time when Buffy and Lost writers would hang out on the shows' posting boards. Those were the days...
To Tammy and Ken: Has it ever been done much with sitcoms?
Just curious, Ken, but how do you think Mamet would do on the writing staff of a sitcom?
Gary: English is funny, isn't it? I think the underlying point is that plays are constructed like wheels (wheelwright) or carts (cartwright). But play writer works just as well for me.
Ken: As a produced playwright, can you tell us what rights the author has, contractually speaking? I always assumed the author controlled things like casting and choice of director, but apparently Mamet's contracts are a little more involved.
If one of Mamet's plays is adopted for study on a curriculum - like those of Harold Pinter, Arthur Miller and Ed O'Neil - will Mamet insist on being the only examiner?
"Kids, you've just not understood the play at all."
Personally, I'd be far more interested in a talk-back from the plumber installing my new toilet, or from the bus driver taking me to work.
"Yeah, it was frantic last week. Someone put a bomb on the bottom of the bus so I couldn't slow down. Of course, Mrs Rubenstein needed to use the facilities, so we unscrewed a metal plate leaving a hole in the bottom of the bus. I told her: "Whatever you do, don't get any on the bomb, in case it shorts the electrics"".
VP81955 -Can't recall ever seeing that, now that you mention it.
Friday Question: how is the order actors are credited on television shows and movies determined? I'm guessing it's based on who the biggest star is and it's negotiated as part of his or her contract but two instances surprised me lately. The new show Friends from College is an ensemble show with three men and three women. All of the men are billed first then the women. I'd say Cobie Smulders (billed 6th) is the best known performer. The movie Beguiled is based on a novel (from which another movies was made in the '70s) and this latest version is told from the women's perspective (and directed by a woman). Colin Farrell got top billing before Nicole Kidman and Kirsten Dunst who I think are equal or greater stars. Please explain!
The owners of rights to some theatrical properties won't permit productions that may not maintain the artistic competence the owners find acceptable, but trying to prevent free speech in theaters after the curtain falls is going a bit far.
Good to see David Mamet has mellowed late in his career.
To be perfectly honest I stopped caring about David Mamet a long time ago.
Gary -
English is an interesting language. The -wright suffix means maker or builder. So the Cartwrights made carts; playwrights make plays, although no one ever refers to a skilled quarterback or a point guard as a playwright.
Xwordz
Susan, check if the Friends from College cast is listed alphabetically. That's fairly common on shows with no one real star, like Friends. Before Friends, David Schwimmer might have been the best known of the six cast members, but he was listed last (and not in an "and featuring" way) because of his name.
@VP81955: It's not a sitcom, producers of Breakinf Bad and a Better Call Saul have produced an audio podcast for every episode of those two series. They're often over an hour long, and touch on the writing, acting, and technical aspects of making each show. It's really fascinating if you have the time to listen. It's like getting an oral history of a show without the inevitable 10-20 year wait.
Maybe it's me, but with most of the talkbacks I've attended, the majority of the questions asked are about the production itself: acting choices, staging, set design, music cues, and so on. Very seldom is the text itself under discussion. And let's face it: With a show that's been revived as often as, say, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, is there truly anything left to ask about the play itself?
Post a Comment