A discussion group for theatre professionals and interested parties with Toronto writer/director Darren O'Donnell. Moderated by Vancouver Theatre Artist Heidi Taylor. This Discussion Group is Running December 27, 2006 through to January 17, 2007 and all are welcome and encouraged to participate.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Calgary Q & A
Darren, you're doing Q&A in Calgary this weekend. Any developments of that piece/process given your experiences of the form in Pakistan?
It went really well. It was happening as part of the PCC so there were a lot of great people who participated nicely. But we also had a good number of nonartsters get onstage to be interviewed. The conference was a nice forum for it - probably the best circumstance so far.
Have you ever had to silence an audience member? One person I spoke to loved Diplomatic Immunities but found Q & A banal. I found it very revealing. About myself and how I intervene. Really interesting moments where everyone was questionning themselves. What a relief compared with the average theatre event. Also some boring moments where the absence of obvious skill in the 'performance' was...obvious and boring. A bit like a bad faculty meeting or PCC panel 'discussion'.
Is there often a feeling in a Q&A where the audience tries to poke the people in the armchair into revealing their soft underbellies of perversity or racism (the one person's question asking a white guy why there was so much prevelance of AIDS among Aboriginal peoples seemed pointed and mean)?
It's the most curious thing about the work – like the audience is desperate to see people become unmasked, and somehow more 'authentic' then the person is currently presenting themselves. And I kind of loved it (like when the 14 year old tried to poke through the intellectual defenses of that guy who moves art in Westmount) and sometimes I felt like I was in the shark tank and the person in the arm chair was the blood.
to neil: no never had to silence an audience member. everybody is always so well-behaved.
and i'd say, yeah, of course Diplomatic Immunities is more interesting that Q&A. Q&A is one small component of DI, but one that stands well on it's own as a viable experience but not so much as solid entertainment.
to kris: as i recall, that aids question seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't seem attached to anything the guy was saying and, as such, i thought it was as fair a question as any, if a little bizarre.
no people don't poke around people's underbellies, it's usually painfully polite. i don't think that people are desperate to unmask people at all, for the most part what i think people are looking for is an interesting and respectful conversation. i feel like we experienced two very different events. i really didn't see it as a shark tank at all. the 14 year old just asked David a good question but it didn't seem to me she was doing anything as aggressive as break through his intellectual defenses. To me it was actually a lovely time with lots of respect, laughter and fun. I can't account for what you experienced except to suspect that one of us is projecting. me, perhaps, projecting my desire for it to be sweet or you projecting your view of shark tank. interesting!!!!
i'd love to hear from anybody else who was at that event.... Sherry Yoon? Naomi Campbell? Vanessa Porteous? Vicki Stroich? Claude Schryer? Neil Cadger? Did it seem like a shark tank to you? or a respectful conversation? or bits of both? or what?
And usually it feels very similar to me. The one in Calgary, in fact, was one of the most fun.
so i just had a chat with Naomi and it's probably me who is projecting. It's a regular problem in my life. My level of comfort around difficult questions and combatitive exchanges is quite high and I'm very fond of people who aggressively call me on my shit, feeling everything but cruelty is acceptable. I think this Q&A dynamic and aggressive questioning are important. I've been trying to read Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Leclau's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy where (i'm told) they talk about the importance of antagonism for democracy. From what I understand I may be of the same mind: antagonistic exchanges are key when exploring our assumptions, shortingcomings and blind spots. And they should be welcome. That said, however, to compare the antagonistic vibe to sharks circling for blood is a little hyper, no?
I guess, perhaps, the artistic intent is to share my high tolerance for these kinds of exchanges and to show that, if kept respectful, they can be healthy and entertaining and nothing to fear. Whereas on the other hand, if you see a shark: swim.
PS: But, like I said, in the first post, I don't see it as desperation to unmask people. The girl who asked if David felt superior was, at worst wanting to explore the limits of his tolerance, judgment and honesty. But, no more aggressively or desperately than one of David's friends might. It was a friendly, if precocious, question.
And, as Naomi said to me this morning, the interesting thing about the show is that everybody is onstage whether they're onstage or not so the girl's questions - in the end - may have actually revealed as much about her and her feelings of superiority as they revealed of David.
But I have to stress, it's all in good fun. If you check my post Response to Heidi's Post Expanding the Imagination there's a list of ways to evaluate beauty in these kinds of encounters and one of hte criteria is:
8. Fruitful Antagonisms: triggering friction, tension, and examining the ensuing dynamic in a performative arena where all is easily forgiven.
So Q&A is this performative arena where it's cool to do that. It's easily forgiven. And that tacit understanding undercuts the possibility for any mob mentality. That's not to say that if someone got up and spewed something stupid, people wouldn't challenge them but, even then, it still a forum that allows things to slide. Which may not be such a good thing. If you're feelings of prejudices, racism etc don't have lasting social consequences then you'll never change.
But, ultimately, Q&A is much more about proving the value of being over performing to create viable entertainment. For the end of the world.
Q&A in Calgary has continued with me via this blog. Which is great. A positive extension of the social consequences you mention. I sent another message way back and it got lost.
I felt I could ask any question I wanted but I would have to deal with the social consequences: I knew people in the room, as did most spectators; I struggled with the desire to get something authentic from the person on stage but also from myself - it seemed like a relational event in which hypocrisy is pointless; I was fairly dazzled by the opportunity to participate which may have led to clumsiness in the audience - trying out a new situation. Not a shark fest but a demonstration of hunger for the authentic. Sharks are out there no doubt and maybe we all have an inner shark but the event was very affirming without being pedantic. A true sense of forum.
You said somewhere that you thought it was conceptually perfect. Maybe the only weakness is that we don't get to do it more often and so it passes into the archives like another consumed product beside other theatre experiences, rock concerts, circus... It seems to be on another level. I'd like to see it being done more. Could someone else lead their version of this? I'm not actually asking for permission here but what is your sense of ownership with the Q&A?
7 comments:
It went really well. It was happening as part of the PCC so there were a lot of great people who participated nicely. But we also had a good number of nonartsters get onstage to be interviewed. The conference was a nice forum for it - probably the best circumstance so far.
Have you ever had to silence an audience member? One person I spoke to loved Diplomatic Immunities but found Q & A banal. I found it very revealing. About myself and how I intervene. Really interesting moments where everyone was questionning themselves. What a relief compared with the average theatre event. Also some boring moments where the absence of obvious skill in the 'performance' was...obvious and boring. A bit like a bad faculty meeting or PCC panel 'discussion'.
Hey Darren,
Is there often a feeling in a Q&A where the audience tries to poke the people in the armchair into revealing their soft underbellies of perversity or racism (the one person's question asking a white guy why there was so much prevelance of AIDS among Aboriginal peoples seemed pointed and mean)?
It's the most curious thing about the work – like the audience is desperate to see people become unmasked, and somehow more 'authentic' then the person is currently presenting themselves. And I kind of loved it (like when the 14 year old tried to poke through the intellectual defenses of that guy who moves art in Westmount) and sometimes I felt like I was in the shark tank and the person in the arm chair was the blood.
Par for the course?
Kris with a K.
to neil: no never had to silence an audience member. everybody is always so well-behaved.
and i'd say, yeah, of course Diplomatic Immunities is more interesting that Q&A. Q&A is one small component of DI, but one that stands well on it's own as a viable experience but not so much as solid entertainment.
to kris:
as i recall, that aids question seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't seem attached to anything the guy was saying and, as such, i thought it was as fair a question as any, if a little bizarre.
no people don't poke around people's underbellies, it's usually painfully polite. i don't think that people are desperate to unmask people at all, for the most part what i think people are looking for is an interesting and respectful conversation. i feel like we experienced two very different events. i really didn't see it as a shark tank at all. the 14 year old just asked David a good question but it didn't seem to me she was doing anything as aggressive as break through his intellectual defenses. To me it was actually a lovely time with lots of respect, laughter and fun. I can't account for what you experienced except to suspect that one of us is projecting. me, perhaps, projecting my desire for it to be sweet or you projecting your view of shark tank. interesting!!!!
i'd love to hear from anybody else who was at that event.... Sherry Yoon? Naomi Campbell? Vanessa Porteous? Vicki Stroich? Claude Schryer? Neil Cadger? Did it seem like a shark tank to you? or a respectful conversation? or bits of both? or what?
And usually it feels very similar to me. The one in Calgary, in fact, was one of the most fun.
hey Kris,
so i just had a chat with Naomi and it's probably me who is projecting. It's a regular problem in my life. My level of comfort around difficult questions and combatitive exchanges is quite high and I'm very fond of people who aggressively call me on my shit, feeling everything but cruelty is acceptable. I think this Q&A dynamic and aggressive questioning are important. I've been trying to read Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Leclau's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy where (i'm told) they talk about the importance of antagonism for democracy. From what I understand I may be of the same mind: antagonistic exchanges are key when exploring our assumptions, shortingcomings and blind spots. And they should be welcome. That said, however, to compare the antagonistic vibe to sharks circling for blood is a little hyper, no?
I guess, perhaps, the artistic intent is to share my high tolerance for these kinds of exchanges and to show that, if kept respectful, they can be healthy and entertaining and nothing to fear. Whereas on the other hand, if you see a shark: swim.
PS: But, like I said, in the first post, I don't see it as desperation to unmask people. The girl who asked if David felt superior was, at worst wanting to explore the limits of his tolerance, judgment and honesty. But, no more aggressively or desperately than one of David's friends might. It was a friendly, if precocious, question.
And, as Naomi said to me this morning, the interesting thing about the show is that everybody is onstage whether they're onstage or not so the girl's questions - in the end - may have actually revealed as much about her and her feelings of superiority as they revealed of David.
But I have to stress, it's all in good fun. If you check my post Response to Heidi's Post Expanding the Imagination there's a list of ways to evaluate beauty in these kinds of encounters and one of hte criteria is:
8. Fruitful Antagonisms: triggering friction, tension, and examining the ensuing dynamic in a performative arena where all is easily forgiven.
So Q&A is this performative arena where it's cool to do that. It's easily forgiven. And that tacit understanding undercuts the possibility for any mob mentality. That's not to say that if someone got up and spewed something stupid, people wouldn't challenge them but, even then, it still a forum that allows things to slide. Which may not be such a good thing. If you're feelings of prejudices, racism etc don't have lasting social consequences then you'll never change.
But, ultimately, Q&A is much more about proving the value of being over performing to create viable entertainment. For the end of the world.
Q&A in Calgary has continued with me via this blog. Which is great. A positive extension of the social consequences you mention. I sent another message way back and it got lost.
I felt I could ask any question I wanted but I would have to deal with the social consequences: I knew people in the room, as did most spectators; I struggled with the desire to get something authentic from the person on stage but also from myself - it seemed like a relational event in which hypocrisy is pointless; I was fairly dazzled by the opportunity to participate which may have led to clumsiness in the audience - trying out a new situation. Not a shark fest but a demonstration of hunger for the authentic. Sharks are out there no doubt and maybe we all have an inner shark but the event was very affirming without being pedantic. A true sense of forum.
You said somewhere that you thought it was conceptually perfect. Maybe the only weakness is that we don't get to do it more often and so it passes into the archives like another consumed product beside other theatre experiences, rock concerts, circus... It seems to be on another level. I'd like to see it being done more. Could someone else lead their version of this? I'm not actually asking for permission here but what is your sense of ownership with the Q&A?
Post a Comment