Leading a Conversation
Posted by Martha Lavey on 7/22/2006
I’ve had the pleasure of conducting a number of the post-show conversations for The Unmentionables and I must say, I find it a very rich experience. I am impressed (once again) by how smart the Steppenwolf audience is. The play is challenging—it requires interpretation in the sense that it offers a kind of allegory: the playwright is asking that the circumstances of the play be read in a wider context. Our audience makes the leap into that interpretive space with real vigor and insight. It’s always interesting to feel the shifts in emphasis that happen in any given audience.
Last Saturday, one member of the audience seized on the character of Dave, the young man who identifies himself as a Christian. This audience member was candid to say that he, himself, is a Christian and he didn’t find Dave to be conducting himself in a Christian manner. He said, “Why are people with religious identity made the targets of a lampooning?” Several other members of the audience pointed out that the critique was not exclusive to Dave—that the behavior of all of the characters is put under review—that each of them is operating out of a form of hypocrisy or a lack of honest self-reflection.
The following day, this gentleman sent me an e-mail, elaborating his point of view. His remarks to me were very thoughtful and he is clearly a person who has thought deeply about social issues and has dedicated himself to acting on his values and beliefs. One of the things that his e-mail to me noted was his discomfort with a remark I made during the discussion. At one point, I asked the audience if they saw the events of the play as applicable to anything that is happening in the United States currently. He felt that my remark was leading, that it revealed my own political bias—that I was implying a criticism of the American conduct in international politics and relations. It was my intent, in the conversation, to express the playwright’s point of view, to encourage an awareness of the play’s implied allegorical force.
But this man’s comments made me think. They made me think about the whole issue of conversation, of what any particular conversation permits and constrains. Certainly I will answer this gentleman’s e-mail directly but it made me regretful that he did not share his reservations about the turn of the conversation at the moment, within the group. Perhaps his feelings had not consolidated at that point. Fair enough, we all have had the experience of not being able to articulate our discomfort in the moment we are experiencing it—we need that walk-away time to figure out what was bothering us. But maybe he didn’t feel comfortable expressing his resistance to the general tide of the conversation while it was happening. Maybe he felt that a consensus was forming that would have been uncomfortable to resist. If the latter is true—if he did not feel that the conversation admitted to a dissenting voice—then I failed as a facilitator of the discussion.
It’s a tricky business. On the one hand, I feel an obligation to the playwright—I feel an obligation to tease out an awareness of the playwright’s point of view which is being expressed, in the play, in coded terms. So I feel like the first step in the interpretive enterprise is locating what that point of view is. The second stage of the discussion is for an audience member to position him/herself in relation to the playwright’s point of view: to say, “I get it. I agree or disagree and here’s why.” It would be at that point that the discussion could move into the question of effectiveness: the playwright was more or less successful in expressing his/her point of view and here’s why I think that.”
The big thing for me is to learn how to conduct a discussion that is rigorous and clear in teasing out how the plays works—what is it that the playwright has laid out and through what terms. And then to open the space up for engagement with that point of view.
What about it? Do you feel that in the dynamics that are established in our post-show conversations that you are given an opportunity to speak your mind? Do you have ideas or suggestion for how to make the discussions more permitting of a full range of opinion (while still doing the work of interpretation and clarification)?
I’m always interested in what you have to say about our plays and about how we support your engagement with them. Any suggestions that you can make about how to enhance your experience at Steppenwolf are most welcome. Thank you, always, for your loyalty to the theater and for the great intelligence you bring to our work.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I think you think too much. It is neither possible nor desirable to try to make a discussion about art be neutral in politics or religion or anything else. His comment that “he didn’t find Dave to be conducting himself in a Christian manner” reveals that there was little you could do anyway, unless you wanted the discussion to become what is the proper conduct for a Christian.
But maybe that would have been okay. Why do we keep thinking of the theatre like it’s a schoolroom? Why should you see your role in such a narrow view, like a teacher? If the audience can support a freewheeling discussion, let it. If the discussion reaches a consensus quickly, then that is natural and right. “A discussion that is rigorous and clear in teasing out how the plays works” is great for high school, but is it what we want for paying customers in a theatre?
And while I’m at it, why is the play’s point of view expressed in “coded terms”? Is “Stuff Happens” coded? But that’s a different discussion…..
July 26th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Dear Mr. Peterson,
Thanks so much for responding to “Leading a Conversation.” I appreciate your appetite for the free-wheeling conversation. I certainly hope I did not imply that the only valuable conversation is some super-politically-correct, balanced, schoolroom-type discourse. First, because I don’t think it’s possible (much less desirable), to speak without a point of view (although, clearly it is possible to speak without REALIZING that what one is doing is propagating a particular point of view.) My responsibility, in leading a conversation about the show is, as I see it, to provide whatever assistance I can in making the playwright’s point of view lucid and to create a conversational space in which people can amplify that point of view, dissent from it, use it to engage the questions of the play.
Maybe I was overwrought in describing the playwright’s language as “coded.” I guess I just meant that the situations in the play are intended to be suggestive of a larger social and political reality.
Thanks for writing.
Martha
July 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Ms Lavey & Mr Peterson,
Reading Ms. Lavey’s e mail and following her advice to check the blog, this will be my first ever attempt at commenting via blog. That is the second first for me, as I have never read a blog.
As a matter of fact, to Ms. Lavey, you made a good assumption. Correct, I had not really consolidated my feelings, and I try to be carefull about dominating a conversation. There were many other topics flying about, and I knew our time was limited.
To Mr. Peterson’s comments. I attend the theatre to be challenged. I do not believe one can ‘think too much”. True, Dave was not conducting himself in a Christian manner. I did not wish or intend for a discussion toward a solution on what would be proper conduct. If someone wished to engaged me on that from the audiance or in the theatre on the way out, I would have enjoyed that, however! I probably am not capable of a solution, but am capable of discussing the subject.
It may be ‘natural’ for a audiance to reach a quick consensus…I hardly agree that that would make it ‘right’.
During the theatre experience, we have the option to stay or not for the discussion. I seldom perceive discussion leaders as taking the role of teacher. Facilitating a discussion and hearing other views, and YES, perhaps learning a bit more about how the play works, is important to me, and something I look forward to.
Kind regards, and thank you.
Edw Korleski
July 28th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Since Ed agrees with your assessment that he had not consolidated his feelings about the work, that would seem to resolve his specific situation. The moderator can hardly be responsible for things like that so you are off the hook there Martha.
Now lets move into a more nuanced view of the moderator’s role. I am still bothered by the statement that you “feel an obligation to tease out an awareness of the playwright’s point of view which is being expressed”. As an insider, you have a greater awareness of the playwright’s intent. But what the playwright intended and what he/she actually accomplished can be very different - and the same applies to the production of that play. If you try to subtly steer the discussion towards what was intended but there is a disconnect between intent and accomplishment, you may only confuse the audience because their experience was not what you expected it to be. So I would rather have you “tease out” what the audience believed to be the author’s point of view to see if it is consistent with your understanding of the intent of the author. In fact, you could even tell the audience explicitly what the play was meant to be about in order to see if they think it accomplished its purpose. I think this would serve the playwright quite well. (I have a whole long rant about playwrights blaming audiences for their failures, but that’s for another day)
Beyond that, your role is like any moderator’s. A good discussion should be people expressing their opinions and backing them up with reasons, without resorting to ad hominem arguments or arguing specific agendas not germane to the play. Ideally the discussion group would go in that direction by themselves, but I can see where a moderator is often required to nudge it in a particular direction. Your statement “he felt that a consensus was forming that would have been uncomfortable to resist …. if he did not feel that the conversation admitted to a dissenting voice—then I failed as a facilitator of the discussion” is valid if his points were valid. If he was arguing a point that simply had little relevance to the play or playwright’s intention, then in fact you would fail as a moderator if you allowed the discussion to be sidetracked. This is the sort of decision that can only be made on a case by case basis at the moment it is happening.
Finally, can you think too much? Of course. Look at Hamlet. Look at the French!
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I haven’t had the opportunity to be present for a post-show discussion at Steppenwolf, but I’ve led many with Eclipse Theatre Company, and I’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking about my role as facilitator and the role of the post-show discussion in general.
I do feel an obligation to “tease out an awareness of the playwright’s point of view” - although maybe “tease” isn’t the right word to describe the dynamics. I feel like my job as the moderator isn’t only to objectively moderate an open conversation, but to guide an audience through a discussion that explores the play they’ve just seen - the issues it raises, the process of creating it, the historical or political context, whatever direction that discussion wants to move in.
I think Larry nails it at the end of that last comment - an effective moderator needs to be aware of a discussion that’s ranging away from the context of the play and find a way to guide it back. That can be a really fine line to walk, but unless you have an unlimited amount of time to talk, it’s a line that has to be walked.
August 13th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Although I am late to this discussion I hope you are still interested in the topic.I love post show discussions for many reasons, including that other people in the audience frequently have a different reaction/realization than I, so I learn greatly from them, not just from the facilitator. I was very sorry that the show when I saw The Unmentionables did not have a discussion- I wanted one. Also, you should know that I try not to read reviews of plays that I subcribe to or that I am ushering for, before I see the show - I want to come fresh, not know the plot…I cut them out of all the papers I can and save them until I come home. In general, I agree that it takes a while for a good play to gel in your head, so it helps to have someone like you who leads and asks open questions…not someone who reads or talks down to us like a lecturer you sometimes have(!) If the audience is not getting what the playwright meant I think that is useful for us to know - and, I am sure, for you to know as well. I agree it is hard when someone in the audience either totally misses the point or tries to hog the conversation, but you handle those situations well. I think you are an excellent discussion leader - one of the best in town, actually, so keep up the good work.