August 2, 2007

The tapas approach

Hugh Bridge       posted 30 Jul 2007, 09:29 AM / edited 30 Jul 2007, 09:59 AM

“Leaving at half time – the tapas approach to concerts and plays.” This trend was articulated in the ‘Going Up’ column of The Sunday Star Times Sunday magazine, July 29 2007, p. 10.

Please provide succinct examples of the effects of following such advice.

Moya Bannerman            posted 30 Jul 2007, 10:35 AM

Such ‘trend setters’ clearly have too much money, short concentration spans, drinking problems and/ or big egos, i.e. they get on the piss at interval, become enamoured of their own voices and are loathe to let go. More fools them. Their absence could only improve the quality of the audience that remains.

Brucke posted 30 Jul 2007, 10:54 AM

For some years I was a regular performer at the Melkweg in Amsterdam, which has a dozen or so performance rooms and where the accepted culture was that the audience could leave whenever they liked; get bored, move on. As a performer this was really great because it meant that you knew for certain that anyone who stayed watching really wanted to be there, no feeling quite like that. You learnt a lot also because if people tended to leave at a particular time in the show every night then you knew that was a dead bit that probably needed fixing, and and so on. It was also great for the audience who knew that they could escape, nothing worse than being trapped watching deadly theatre. If you’re bored and want to leave, just leave I say, be honest and stop all the pretending and hypocrisy.

Moya Bannerman            posted 30 Jul 2007, 08:55 PM / edited 30 Jul 2007, 08:57 PM

Fair enough. Obviously there is a difference between coming to and going from a concert or cabaret show, and a full length play that usually has a payoff at the end for things that have been set up earlier on.

Equally obviously if a production of any kind is clearly inept, why waste your time as well as the money you’ve already paid on trust? But if it seems to know what it is about and it’s pushing you past your comfort zone, or taking you places you haven’t been before, my advice is hang in there. You may get value from sticking it out.

Sure it’s important not to be complacent or compliant. I’m just pointing out the possibility that those who do the ‘walk out’ thing are not necessarily qualified arbiters of standards and taste taking a stand against mediocrity. They could just as easily be reactionaries, afraid of anything new or different. Or, as I said above, they may just be too enamoured of themselves to allow space for anything else.

Brucke posted 30 Jul 2007, 10:20 PM

To be clear I was talking about full length serious theatre, not cabarets. People leave a show for all sorts of reasons, we shouldn’t be judgemental, it’s not our business I don’ t think.

Hugh Bridge       posted 31 Jul 2007, 09:31 AM

The Boston Chefs ‘food words’ glossary online defines Tapas as: Appetizers in Spain; trendy nibbles in the U.S.A. I wonder which meaning Sunday magazine had in mind? Appetizers are fine, but where is it trendy to order a main course at a good restaurant with the intention of only eating half? At best it is profligate waste. At worst it is evidence of an eating disorder.

Thomas LaHood                posted 31 Jul 2007, 11:03 AM

People voting with their feet is one thing, and to a certain degree I wish we had the same bravado in New Zealand as Brucke describes in the Netherlands, but to promote leaving shows at half time as ‘trendy’ is different altogether.  It’s laughable to imagine planning on leaving a show at half-time in advance to gain some kind of social ‘cool’.  Style barometer columns are already a clear indication of cultural malnourishment, encouraging a shallow, ‘hot or not’ appraisal of creative work.

Still, who among us considers Sunday Magazine an arbiter of taste?

Grant Buist         posted 2 Aug 2007, 12:18 AM

People who leave during the interval as a fashion statement raise the average IQ of the remaining audience. And the theatre still gets to keep their money. Win-win.

Chesapeake       posted 2 Aug 2007, 01:17 PM

People who leave at interval (or earlier) because they are bored or enraged by the appalling quality of the show they’ve been enduring do theatre a service too, by giving moral support to other disappointed audience members who may be too timid to leave. (Indeed by giving moral support and hope to actors IN said show who KNOW it’s bad!). This is a far more likely reason for early departures than enslavement to some superficial fashion. After all, even the fashion conscious wouldn’t leave if the show was remotely interesting, would they?

Moya Bannerman            posted 2 Aug 2007, 02:58 PM

Perhaps you, Chesapeake, or someone else could offer specific examples of shows where “bored or enraged” audience members walked out, or didn’t return after interval. Anything more recent than The Holy Sinner at the 2006 Int. Arts Fest (where it seems that the longer some stayed, the more enraged they got, while others only became enraged at the very end when they felt their faith had been betrayed)?

I’m also fascinated at the proposition that actors perform in a show and “know it’s BAD” so welcome walkouts in support. That surely is a set-up for self-fulfilling prophecy, is it not? Again, examples would help our understanding.

Chesapeake       posted 2 Aug 2007, 03:28 PM

I’ve been in many awful productions, which nearly everyone around is nevertheless mindlessly raving about. I care about my job so this is deeply depressing. All it takes is one person you respect to either walk out, or speak their mind – and it’s a huge gift – they give you back your sanity. It’s such a relief. And no I’m not going to give examples. What’s the point of that? It will just start a huge petty back and forth about whether shows were good or not, and who I am, and misses the point anyway. The point of this debate is that we should support, respect, consider everybody’s opinions however they wish to express them. The default assumption if someone leaves a show before it’s finished should be that they didn’t like it, not that there’s something wrong with them – this is petty and childish.

Moya Bannerman            posted 2 Aug 2007, 05:09 PM

No-one’s disagreeing with your final point, Chesa, except where people leave because it’s a peer-pressured pseudo fashion statement. Let’s all agree that point has been made.

But what really fascinates me now is the idea that you are an actor, professional or otherwise, who has “been in many awful productions, which nearly everyone around is nevertheless mindlessly raving about.”

While telling us not to think ill of those who walk out of such shows, you are implicitly expressing contempt for those who remain and “rave”. You only respect those who hate your work. Hmm … Have you ever starred in Moliere’s The Misanthrope – it seems like your ideal role.

Although I suspect you have self-esteem issues, I hesitate to recommend counselling because it may well be that this very way of being is what makes you a brilliant actor. We theatregoers feed off your misery to make ourselves feel better … Or are you the sort of malcontent who poisons the backstage atmosphere and turns what should have been a good gig bad?

There’s the question: are you an asset or a liability to the performing arts – and (either way) at what cost to whom?

Chesapeake       posted 2 Aug 2007, 05:42 PM

There you go again, John, attacking the person instead of addressing the problem. It’s fear of this sort of petty bullying that prevents people from saying what they really think.

Hugh Bridge       posted 2 Aug 2007, 05:50 PM / edited 2 Aug 2007, 05:54 PM

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

To state the bleeding obvious:

It is the fear that saboteurs like Chesapeake will derail the dialogue that discourages people from starting or engaging with forum topics.

Moya made a valid point about motivation.

This site is for lovers of theatre.

Let’s not let the misanthropes rule!

John Smythe      posted 2 Aug 2007, 11:35 PM / edited 2 Aug 2007, 11:36 PM

Yes, I think this topic has probably been exhausted now. No-one should take personal offence at what’s been floated – especially when posting under a pseudonym, which somehow allows others to hypothesise about you without feeling they’re pointing at a real person.  Funny, that.