The After-Play Interactive Forum: A New Model for Talkbacks

by Laurie Brooks

Do you recognize these clichéd queries from typical theatre talkback sessions? Sure, you do. We’ve all heard them. Audiences enjoy contact with actors (after all, they are the stars), and it can be instructive for them to know why a play was chosen for the theatre’s season or how the director approached the production, but if a theatre has presented thought-provoking or even ground-breaking work, are we underestimating our audiences’ need to explore something other than the surface life of the production? Is this common talkback model a hidden agenda to further promote and aggrandize our own work? Why is this tired model the only form of post-performance engagement offered in theatres around the country?

These questions led me on a journey to develop a new model for after-play engagement, one that would avoid the banality of typical talkbacks. My initial goals were to extend the life of the performance, build and transform community and create a space where diverse opinions can be exchanged and explored, but as the model developed and was tested with audiences, we discovered that a post performance event could accomplish even more. It can build bridges between the performance and the audience, making the theatre a more vibrant destination and offer an alternative form of entertainment that values theatergoers beyond the role of spectator.

Work at New York University and Graffiti Theatre Company in Cork, Ireland, taught me the power of pre- and post-performance work, using drama techniques to excavate characters and thematic questions raised in the play. Since my primary interest is theatre for young adults, the other challenge was the responsibility of presenting challenging subject material for young people (typically 14 to 21) and their families that avoided “drive-by theatre,” performances that ask difficult questions then neglect to allow for responsible processing. Since the model was developed as an integral part of The Lies and Deceptions Quartet, four plays I wrote for young adults, I have used them as examples for this article.

When The Wrestling Season premiered in 1999 at The Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, MO, each performance was followed by a post-performance interactive forum, named with a grateful nod to Augusto Boal. This forum design built on the work of two practitioners, each of whom shared ground-breaking ideologies that forever changed the way we approach theatre: Boal, the Brazilian theatre director and innovator, and Dorothy Heathcote, British Drama in Education specialist. Boal took his “Theatre of the Oppressed” into the streets of Brazil, asking spectators to engage in the drama, through stepping into role and replaying alternative solutions to the conflicts. Heathcote used drama techniques in educational settings not for performance but to explore ideas, character and conflict. A third and perhaps most important element of the design is the values clarification movement of the seventies, that focused on discovering and layering personal values. From these three disparate, yet connected concepts, a hybrid template emerged that would employ all three.

In developing this model, these goals were paramount:

*To create another model for post-performance discussion that can be used with any theatre experience of content.

*To extend the life of the play and the audience’s experience with it.

*To create community through encouraging and accepting the expression of disparate and diverse ideas and opinions without making judgments or seeking specific answers.

*To give audiences access to open dialogue about plays - their characters, action and thematic material in a safe environment.

*To send a message to audiences that theatres celebrate their participation beyond the role of spectator.

In order to achieve an interactive experience, drama techniques were carefully designed for maximum participation with large groups who remain in their seats. Like a dance performance, the forum would feel as free as an improvisation, but would, in fact, be tightly structured to provide a safety net for the facilitator, the actors, and the audience, and, more importantly, to build the framework for a design that would be as theatrical as the play that preceded it. Rather than appearing as themselves, the actors would remain in role throughout the forum, reacting verbally and non-verbally. The forum needed to be between 20-30 minutes in length, incorporating activities that involved whole audience as well as individual participation.

In the first experiences with the forum, it was immediately clear that a subtle but guiding structure was a crucial element, as we had predicted. What we couldn’t have known was how eager audiences were to participate. We had a certain expectation that young people would welcome the chance to offer their opinions (after all, their opinions are so seldom sought) but the real surprise was how adults took over the forum in mixed audiences of young people and adults. The adults were eager to participate, their opinions equally if not more passionately expressed than their young counterparts. Even in audiences that were entirely adult, the forum engendered enthusiastic participation.

THE MODEL

The forum design consists of three parts: Statements, Exploration and Reflection. These three sections can be tailored to fit the particular challenges presented in the play.

Statements

After the performance, the actors remain in role, postponing their curtain call until the end of the forum. Instead, the facilitator greets the audience and invites them to participate in the forum. Then the facilitator reads a series of eight to ten statements related to the characters and their conflicts in the play. As each statement is read, the audience decides: Do they agree or disagree? The Facilitator directs audience members to stand in support if they agree or if they disagree, remain seated. The statements offer participants non-threatening whole-group engagement, asking for their opinions without singling out individuals. The resulting image of audience members standing and sitting gives an immediate picture of response regarding the characters, their conflicts and the consequences they face in the play. This simple act of choosing to stand in agreement or sit in protest creates a powerful image of community opinions.

The key ingredient for success in this section is the devising of the statements, which must accomplish one or more goals: to ask the audience to take a stand on a challenging issue, to plant the seeds for further exploration in the next section, to allow for discovery and/or to create a visual image of the values and ethics of the audience. The challenge is to design both statements about which the audience is likely to be divided and statements where an entire audience will stand in support of an idea that no one could have predicted. For example, ” It is okay to lie to protect a family member.” or “ Rumors can be hurtful but they usually don’t cause any lasting damage.”

As audiences create these opinion images, the seeds of community are being sown. Strangers smile at one another, even if they have different points of view. Audience members nudge each other over to their side of the issue and friends and family members discover with surprise that they either agree on an idea or have taken a differing stand on the issue. There is much laughter and camaraderie. In the first five to eight minutes, the ice is broken.

Exploration

The Exploration section can be specifically designed to fit the style and content of the play, allowing for creativity of form. Here, the audience participates, along with the actors, in a journey of discovery on the characters’ actions and choices in the play. Audience members are asked to participate individually, called on by the Facilitator to offer their thoughts and opinions. When the actors are asked to participate with the audience, they remain in character, sharing their visual and verbal responses, improvised or partially scripted.

Examples:

The Wrestling Season : The eight characters are ranked as to who demonstrated the most objectionable and least objectionable behavior in the play, moving into place along a designated line as audience members suggest. The characters are rearranged along the line according to audience members’ opinions, reacting to their placement. After several rounds, the characters are then given the opportunity to respond to their ranking.

Deadly Weapons : After a representative from the local District Attorney’s Office reads a statement on how the characters might be charged for their crimes, the audience is put into role as counselors and asked to offer thoughts on other “crimes” they have committed against their friends and themselves. One character, who has been killed in the play, speaks to the other characters about their culpability in his death.

The Tangled Web : The characters are placed in an area of the space labeled the “box of participation.” The facilitator states a particular choice made by one of the characters in the play. But others may have been complicit in that choice. Audience members are then asked to argue other characters out of the “box of participation” if they did not contribute to that particular choice. The characters move in and out of the box according to the opinions of audience members.

Everyday Heroes : Two characters are invited to join the Facilitator as the audience is asked to identify lies, half-truths and denials experienced in the play. After the audience has responded to the lie they believe the characters would most want to take back if they could, the two boys respond with their own choices.

The key component to this section is garnering brief responses from as many audience members as possible. This is their opportunity to express their opinions about the dilemmas the characters face in the play. Instead of asking the actors about their experiences playing the various roles, the dialogue is focused on the experiences of the characters, further revealed by the actors in role. During this section, waves of diverse opinions wash over the gathering. As audience members express their ideas and listen to the thoughts of others, new insights and understanding among individuals is created.

Reflection

Now that the audience has agreed and disagreed, and offered their individual opinions on the characters and themes in the play, a keen dialogue has been formed. With the expression of differing points of view, heartfelt thoughts and amusing anecdotes, the audience is forming a common bond. A sense of solidarity flows through those gathered. Their opinions have been challenged without judgment about who is right or wrong, their thoughts have been affirmed by others, and unexpected points of view have allowed for some rethinking of initial opinions. Since it is the forum’s first goal to explore ideas and create dialogue, it is a mistake to steer audiences toward conclusions.

Instead, a different kind of closure is needed. Just as in a play, the forum offers the audience a sense of theatrical satisfaction. Audience members are asked to stand and offer their thoughts and feelings in brief sentences or phrases about a particular character or situation in the play. They might share hopes for the future, or words of comfort. The focus could be on words of advice and counsel, or final thoughts on a theme embedded in the play. The audience might be put into role, as in the forum for Everyday Heroes, where they become mentors for young people everywhere. During this section, the facilitator steps back and charges the audience to negotiate this final phase by themselves, taking turns, without being called on. The result is a litany of thoughts, offered one by one, layer after layer, the audience’s individual and collective commentary.

THE FACILITATOR

Much of the success of the forum is dependent on the facilitator’s energy and attitude. The facilitator can be any gender or possibly one of the actors. For example, in The Wrestling Season the Referee was a natural choice to facilitate the forum.

The facilitator’s role includes the following key ingredients:

*To welcome the audience into the Forum.

The facilitator has been termed the “velvet fist.” Using few words, the facilitator establishes benevolent leadership, explaining each step with simple, clear directions. The facilitator never asks the audience’s permission by saying, “Okay?” at the end of sentences. Clarity of purpose and firm leadership will establish the audience’s comfort level and encourage their participation. Through a warm but firm attitude, the facilitator makes a human connection with the audience, welcoming them into the experience.

*To set the tone for a space where opinions can be exchanged without fear of judgment or giving a “wrong” answer.

The facilitator explains that the forum is a space where we can agree to disagree, that many disparate opinions will be offered; all will be given equal validity. The facilitator accepts each audience response with neutral comments, such as “thank you,” never using status to skew the nature of a free exchange of ideas by offering an opinion. If an audience member offers a problematic response that demonstrates blatant prejudice or name-calling, the facilitator need only ask, “Does everyone agree with that?” then step back and allow the audience to respond. It is never the task of the Facilitator to teach. Because the dialogue is focused on the audience, the facilitator’s job is to assist and promote their safe participation.

*To keep the dialogue clear and moving forward.

In the Exploration phase of the forum, the facilitator encourages participants to stand and face the audience, repeating each comment, paraphrasing the general idea. This repetition is necessary to define and clarify, but often it is merely to help the audience hear a soft-spoken or hesitant offering. It may be necessary to condense a long-winded participant, by politely interrupting and consolidating the response. In the same manner, the facilitator may be called upon to encourage a struggling audience member to think through an idea by saying, “I think I understand. Are you trying to say…?” Often this encouragement can jump-start the participant to finish a comment. For this part of the forum, the facilitator’s biggest challenge is to listen carefully.

*To encourage further discussion.

Now that the audience has both offered their own opinions and listened to others’ points of view, the facilitator allows for a sense of closure. Facilitators are silent during this portion of the forum, allowing the audience to negotiate the closure. “If you have something to say,” The facilitator charges the audience. “Stand and take your turn.” The facilitator need only step in if an audience member decides to make a speech. Experience has proved that audiences are amazingly respectful and generous during this phase of the forum if the facilitator gives concise directions and trusts their ability to take turns. When responses have begun to diminish, the facilitator ends the forum, thanking the audience for their participation and encouraging them to continue the dialogue. The actors de-role and take their curtain call.

DEVISING THE FORUM

The forum can be devised by an individual or a team and must be rehearsed with the actors and the facilitator prior to the presence of an audience. The devising is dictated by the content and mood of the play; remaining true to the playwright’s intent is crucial. It is not the purpose of the forum to reveal plot points the playwright has chosen not to explore or answer questions about an unresolved conflict in the drama. The forum excavates the audience’s response the play. It remains to those devising the forum to find the moments of controversy, driven by character and circumstances, to explore in the forum.

In creating the Statements, it is important that they be worded to allow for differing opinions. Often the statements work best when they present the opposite point of view from what the majority opinion might be. Brainstorming is helpful during this creative phase to find the wording that allows for the greatest range of opinion. It is also wise to include statements that address different characters and themes embedded in the play.

The Explorations section of the forum asks the audience to engage with the characters in the play. The structure will differ according to each play, its mood and thematic material. The director and the forum creator(s) work together to discover the staging of this section. How can the actors be used physically to create images suggested by the audience? How can the actors engage with the audience to explore their behavior, in the play? Various techniques can be used, including hot-seating, where the audience engages in a dialogue with one or more actors who remain in character; the participation box, where those who are not culpable are argued out of the box; or the line of most objectionable to least objectionable behavior. These are only a few of the possibilities for exploration. It remains to be seen how many ways this section of the forum can be tailored to fit specific performances.

Actors can be fearful or resistive to the idea of the forum, but once they have experienced the engagement it creates with the audience they feel an even deeper ownership of the performance. If the actors are asked to respond to the audience’s comments, encourage them not to answer according to their own sensibilities, but to stay true to their characters’ intent in the play, even if the audience has vilified them. The actors, in character, can reveal their feelings and reactions to comments during the forum through body language and facial expression. Resist the impulse to tack on reversals or sudden character realizations in the forum. The forum is not about writing an addendum to the play, but rather an extension of what is already in the performance.

Since the last section of the forum is about closure, it is designed to create final thoughts. This does not mean reaching answers or drawing conclusions, but summing up the collective thoughts of the group. One of the characters may be asked to offer final thoughts that have been written and rehearsed prior to the forum, or the closure can be structured as words or phrases from the audience that focus on a particular phase of the preceding dialogue.

CONCLUSION

It might be argued that audiences have little interest in exploring the concepts and ideas embedded in a play; they want to be entertained. It is true that audiences have shown us that they are often more comfortable with what they know than the unknown. But comfort in the theatre is a relatively new concept. Think back to the days when going to the theatre might end in a riot. Certainly a riot is not our goal, but creating a free exchange of ideas in a space that was designed to explore what makes us human is a refreshing change from, “Why did you decide to become an actor?”

We often ask ourselves: How can theatre be a more vibrant and necessary part of our culture? This question deserves ongoing deliberation, but creating a dialogue between the performance and the audience adds greater depth and power to the theatre experience. What I hope will follow a production of a play is a buzz of opinion and critical thinking about the performance, the surest indicator that the audience has been affected by what they have seen. We must take advantage of that buzz, allowing it to expand and develop in the space where it was given life.

The forum is in constant flux and because I gave birth to this model, with the help of many others, I am still revising it and trying new forms. I recently devised a comedy forum for Arden Theatre Company’s production of, Franklin’s Apprentice, a play for families. Although there are many challenging issues and ideas in this play that might have been explored with the original forum model, I wanted to try something different. I encourage others to do the same. Although the examples used in this article are from my plays, the forum can be designed to fit a multitude of plays and performances. This model is a jumping off point, a method to empower and transform community, make our theatres a more vibrant destination, value our audiences beyond the role of spectator, and welcome a free exchange of ideas into the holy space we call theatre.

I offer you this interactive model. I hope that you will try it and discover that the possibilities are limited only by your imagination. In those critical moments immediately following the play when audiences are most engaged, send a message that you value their intelligence and opinions. Invite them to become more than spectators. I dare you, take a risk. Move talkbacks beyond banality to deep engagement.