In Support Of Conversations Between Theatres and Audiences

Should audiences for performances be more vocal about how they feel about their experiences? Or should they keep their thoughts to themselves or the people with whom they attended the show?

I ask these questions in response to a conversation I had just a couple of hours ago with a few theatregoers following a trip to see a production of a new rock opera in Berkeley. I attended the theatre tonight with three articulate, brilliant people who see a lot of live performance and have strong opinions about what they experience on stage. One member of my party, a theatre producer with an eye for detail, mentioned that some of the lighting cues had distracted her from what was otherwise a terrific evening's entertainment. "Some of the actors were standing there doing things in the dark," she said. "I would have liked to see what they were doing."

The point she raised was a good one. And it was the sort of thing that few people without practical experience in making theatre are able to articulate. But when I asked if she -- or indeed any of the other people in my party -- had ever taken it upon themselves to write to a director or producer to let them know their feelings about a show, I was met with a chorus of decisive no's.

They explained to me that they don't see it as their place to offer such feedback. Out of respect for the director's vision and the production team's hard work, they keep their thoughts to themselves. "I see it as my role to go to a play, pay attention, clap and leave," my producer friend said.

Somehow, this seems all wrong to me. What is theatre if it isn't a conversation between the stage and the stalls? I don't think audiences should shy away from offering their thoughts, especially if those thoughts are well-thought-out, succinctly articulated and come from the heart. Audiences shouldn't feel that the only place to give an opinion or ask a question about a production is during sanctioned forums like post-show talkback sessions with playwrights, directors and casts. These sessions are generally a waste of time in my opinion as they tend to breed nothing but sychophantic praise. Very few people are willing to stick their necks out and offer constructive criticism in public.

I'm not suggesting that a director should change his or her vision in response to what one audience member's misgivings about the lighting design. And I think that theatre makers always have a right to ignore audience comments if they wish.

But the channels of communication should be open to the extent that members of the public should feel empowered to air their views. And under the best circumtances, artists should take the time to respond to the comments, if possible on an individual basis. Unlike fixed artforms such as movies, music recordings and oil paintings, live performances are mutable things. If enough audience members are bothered by the fact that they can't see the actors in particular scenes and these shadowy moments can't be justified by the overall aesthetic or theme of the production, then maybe, just maybe, there's a case to be made for incorporating the feedback to make a better show before the end of the run.

The theatre never used to be a polite artform. Audiences in Shakespeare's day threw rotten vegetables at actors if they didn't like what was happening on stage, after all. Down with politess, I say, and up with vocal audiences.