
Most theatre companies in New York City that wish to be taken seriously these days offer some form of a reading series of new plays. By doing this, they assert that they are relevant and playing some role in the development of the American Theatre. We could debate and debate and debate as to whether readings in and of themselves (as opposed to actual productions) constitute real support of new work, but that's perhaps a subject for another post.
These days virtually 90% of such readings are not followed by any group or public conversation about the play that has just been heard. In olden days, the "talk-back" as it is called, was a fixture at such events. Not so today. In fact, in New York City, the "talk-back" has come to be viewed with mild derision, and a general consensus seems to have taken hold among Artistic Directors, Dramaturgs and Playwrights alike that the "talk-back" does more harm than good.
That may be true if we're only considering the needs of the playwright. (Although, personally, I would not agree, though I understand the arguments against them) But aren't we forgetting one vital part of this New American Theatre equation? What about the audience?
When I ran an experimental opera company in the 1990s, we had them after everything... readings, workshops, even our fully-staged performances. And you know what? Our audience came to feel a sense of ownership in our process. I've had plays of mine read twice at the same theatre and watched in amazement as not one but several people stood up to comment or pose a question on my play, prefacing their remarks with: "The last time I heard this play read..."
Isn't this what we want from our audience? Don't we want audiences to invest in specific scripts and their authors to the point where having offered feedback at a reading (or 2), they are curious to see the full production to find out how the piece has developed over time?
I think the "talk-back" has been jettisoned by most companies lately because many playwrights and directors have had to suffer through comments that were not helpful. I am sure this is true. I've experienced this first-hand. However, the elimination of the public forum for feedback has not stopped those with an ax to grind and with less-useful suggestions at all because those are precisely the people LEAST shy about making a B-line for a playwright after a reading and offering their thoughts one-on-one.
Personally, I learn a lot from intrusive feedback on my work. When someone tells me something like "Does this character really have to die?" I think it's my job to read between the lines. When I hear these kinds of "rewriting the play" comments, I ask myself: What is this comment coming out of? What is it in my play that is inspiring this person to rewrite it in this way? Sometimes the answer may be that I've succeeded in making someone very uncomfortable. Or another time it may be that there is something missing in my work. I try to approach all such comments on a case-by-case basis and never reject them out of hand. Even the most outrageous comment on a play can be useful as a means of opening one's eyes to "another way of seeing" what one has created.
Furthermore, I think that there is a magic that is lost when we deprive the audience of the group endeavor of expressing themselves and listening to one another's ideas about the play. Of course, I would certainly agree that I learn the most from watching and listening to an audience DURING the play (not afterward) but that doesn't mean that observing an audience discussing and dissecting the work doesn't hold its own value.
I say, let's give "talk-backs" a second look. What do you think? Now, please don't all talk at once!