https://praxistheatre.com/2010/04/section-98-%E2%80%93-open-source-entry-11-%E2%80%93-hatch-feedback/

Praxis- the problem really is the trolls. There are, as you know from my comments, aspects that worked more and that worked less for me. I do think in various workshop phases that looking deeply into one tactic rather than trying to get everything in can be useful, and it felt like a large part of last night was about the texting – and honestly I’d rather figure out how to get an audience to shout out loud. Anonymous snide commenting isn’t worth the time to read. Getting us to a point where we will stand up, in person – visible, for our beliefs is much more interesting and much more about the live event to me. The Globe and Mail comment boards are already filled with instant feedback. Let trolls live under that bridge – we don’t need them.

also – (and this may not be surprising from me) I like the combination of reading and learned text – i think it’s a clear way of dealing with the difference between new material and set parts of show going forward. It’s also a way of discerning between verbatim and playwrighten .
and the moment of worry from the actress (sorry, program not in hand) about questions of appropriation, are at the heart of interest for me in the FLQ section – that material seems so treacherous that it’s important to acknowledge that from the inside. Much of what interests me is why you all, as a group, are drawn to that material (that being said, I can do with less “I found out this neat thing while researching…” – just cut those lines, I’ve been guilty of them myself, and things are just better when they’re gone.)

but all of this we can talk about over beer.
Part of the truth of Open Source is that “code” is kind of meritocracy that is hard in theatre. The Linux kernel change either works, or it crashes. And there is a critical mass of people very good at (basically) math who look over everything and so can check for quality in a pretty clear way. In theatre of course this is harder, since there is little way in a short comment to establish whether or not I’m someone you think has something to say that you want to consider. If I start commenting on Linux, no one is going to listen, for very good reasons (I don’t know much about code.) So, how, in this world of aesthetic and political difference, can you tell, in annonymous or unknown comments, who to listen too – who shares any values.

It’s funny that I feel like the old guy defending curation and quality, but I think it’s the only site of resistance left to us. (wherein quality does not equal line learned and transitions smoothed)

anyways, wine is good

sleep is good and I’ve got a zombie movie to watch

jz

Hi Anonymous,

I’d like to say first of all that the fact that you were compelled to leave that kind of honest, if brutal, feedback here the day after seeing our work-in-progress presentation makes the workshop a kind of success already in my mind. We are quite focused on curating a relationship with our audience that extends beyond opening night and extends into the entire, often three year, process of creating a piece of theatre. So hearing your thoughts is welcomed and may, in some small way, influence our process.

The answer to many of your questions is this:

We wanted to try a number of things and see how they would work with an audience. I had considered that many of them may be boring at times or unfocused in their intent, but the only way to really know how something works is to try it.

That’s what workshops are for.

We have some pretty clear ideas about what worked and what didn’t and some of your feedback reinforces those conclusions, but not all of it. That makes sense though as you divided your feedback into “constructive” and what I can only assume you would characterize as, unconstructive, feedback.

Where I agree with you most is my dislike of the parts where I ended up being a character in the show. This was a result of me wanting to A: Not edit the text I used from the comments on this website in any way, and B: the need for a director to interview the actors. So somehow, unintentionally, I ended up in the presentation. It should be easy enough to fix.

Where I disagree with you most are your criticisms that don’t consider what is possible in a 6-day residency in a theatre: “Memorize lines even though it’s a workshop” is really close to “find a way to freeze the space-time continuum”. Likewise, your comments about dialect work don’t resonate. It’s not what we were working on in this time around in this exceptionally short period of time. Ditto for transitions and entrances. If that shit is sloppy on opening night, slaughter us for it sure, but that’s not where we are or what we are working on.

Anyways, in our workshop post-mortem post I’ll go more into detail about what signposts I used as a director to gauge success or failure. Thanks for taking the time to send your thoughts.

Michael

Wow. I think the largest number of comments I have ever replied to at one time before was four….

Sincere thanks to everyone who came and participated in our experiment/presentation yesterday. It created a lot of valuable feedback and the audience was very generous in going along with our instructions and participating with open and honest minds.

Continue to feel free to leave your thoughts here and Aislinn and I will respond with some conclusions in a new post once we figure out what they are!

Thanks again to Harbourfront Centre and everyone who attended.