Booing the Applause?

I've never seen he Hobbit films. Nor have I seen the Martin Freeman production of Richard III discussed in this article. I do think I'm qualified to discuss applause, however, both appropriate and inappropriate.

Assuming of course there is any truly inappropriate applause, and there's the rub.

In the case of Freeman, many Hobbit fans have come to see his Richard III just for the chance to see him live and, it would appear, express their appreciation for said Hobbit movies by giving him enthusiastic applause. Every single time he enters. It would seem that this is ruining the play for Shakespeare fans who have come to the production to actually watch a Shakespeare play. The applause, they say, takes them out of the story, and should be reserved only for the curtain call.

I don't agree that applause should only happen at the end of a production, even of Shakespeare. Applauding the first entrance of an actor of renown has been a part of the theatre for quite some time. An appreciation of their stature in the theatre world, and an acknowledgement of their previous body of work, though not required is nevertheless acceptable as well as understandable.  Each actor has only one initial entrance, after all.

Nor do I mind, and in fact as an actor I welcome applause at the end of a scene well done. If the drama or comedy of a scene has particularly moved an audience member, we do the theatre a disservice if we discourage applause between scenes. The theatre can't continue to beg for active audiences and then proceed to silence them at every turn.

There is of course a limit to the acceptability of applauding, though, beyond which it becomes meaningless. I'm right on the border when it comes to applauding at the end of every scene in a production, a growing trend among casual theater-goers, especially of children's plays. On one hand, a well written and well performed play will build tension after each scene, and applause may be a way to relieve that tension and express gratitude for a job well done. On the other hand, not every scene warrants applause, and as I said, it becomes cheap after a while.

Applauding for a specific actor every time he enters the stage? Infantile. By giving standing ovations complete with hooting and whistling every time a certain actor merely walks on stage, and again whenever he walks off, a patron is broadcasting to the world that they have come not to consume theatre, but merely to be in the same building with someone who contributed to a movie with which they are currently obsessed. It's fandom, not appreciation. Such behavior commandeers a production and converts it into an impromptu comic convention. Only a pathological egotist, even by theatre standards, would take any joy from it.

It would detract from my enjoyment of such a production as well.

That being said, I doubt anything can be done about it. The Hobbit-fanatics have paid for their tickets like anyone else. They're the audience at that point, and so long as they aren't preventing the play from moving forward, one can't charge them with heckling, or true disruption. Even if one could, how does one go about ejecting a few hundred people from an audience in the middle of a performance? The logistics would be a nightmare, and the inevitable fallout would be a nightmare within a nightmare.

Theatre companies might just have to get cute if they hope to stop such displays. They may have to limit their shows to smaller, more intimate settings, where such screaming would feel less socially appropriate. One thing a teenager doesn't want to feel is awkward, and a smaller space may play on that fear. But then the show makes far less money.

A theatre could put an age limit on the show, but that only caters to the suspicions that Shakespeare isn't for young people. Further, plenty of full grown adults who are too old for such behavior willingly resort to brainless fangirl status when faced with their obsession. The much talked about extended-adolescence of young adults today may have many causes, none of which I'll discuss here. I mention it only to point out that an age limit would not be a limit on such behavior.

The most effective potential remedy for such screaming would probably be a cultural immersion in theatre etiquette. But etiquette of any kind has taken a backseat in recent years to constant and unbridled self-expression and digital distraction. Combine that with a population that is already seeing less theatre, and etiquette education seems silly. The arts as a whole allowed etiquette to fall by the way side for too long, and it may be too late to bring it back. Even if it were brought back, it's not likely to mean much to people who come to the theatre once in their lives not to enjoy acting or appreciate nuance, but to inhabit the same general space as Martin Freeman, or Daniel Radcliffe, or any number of other actors who dare to star in fantasy-oriented material with a slant toward children and teens.

I'm out of ideas myself. I agree, as I said, that such activity is obnoxious. But as it represents a stark social shift in what is acceptable at the theatre, I suspect that only a stark social shift on the part of theatres in how they deal with such distractions has any hope of stemming the tide of rabid fandom leaking into arts culture.

"Do control yourself, and show some respect, for this is the theatre," may be the dignified, classic arts way of addressing the issue, but when a few hundred people are still screaming and clapping and whistling their love for Martin Freeman an hour and a half into a show, something tells me such admonitions will not be enough.

Throw the (Phone) Bums Out

I came across this article the other day. One like many in our digital age, discussing the problem of distracting cell phone usage by audience members of theatrical productions. It certainly is one of the most common, and most annoying problems in theatre today. Or for that matter in any function that requires some kind of quiet decorum. Cell phones and tablets are now everywhere, even where they should not be. As indicated in the article, there is much hand wringing about what to do about this.

Some theaters, such as this one, have experimented with "Tweet Seats". Special seating for those who agree to tweet about the performance with specific hashtags. Though I think that's a bit silly in some ways, I can see the value in it in others. Promotion is promotion after all, so long as it's not interfering with the performance. But "Tweet Seats" only work for those who respect their boundaries. If boundaries were respected in the digital age, the entire cell phone/tablet flap would not exist. People would, as asked numerous times before the start of a show, shut off their cell phones, so as not to interrupt performances.

Yet a percentage of people in each audience these days refuse to do so. Not only that, they get belligerent when it is pointed out to them. Then other patrons who are playing by the rules cower, and huff as their theatrical experience is lessened.

My question is, why are theaters not throwing such people out?

Be indignant if you must, worshipers of instant communication. Pontificate once again on the supposed need your life has to be reached instantly and to reach everyone else instantly. Bloviate a little more about "personal freedom." You'll not sway me on this issue. So I say again, as an actor and a patron of theatre; If you are a repeat offender with your cell phone or tablet, and degrade the experience of the performance through use of your devices, you should be thrown out. No refund either.

Look, I know that in some ways theatre seems archaic. In some ways, perhaps it is, and I am in favor of modernizing it to a certain extent. But there is a far cry between modernizing an institution, and letting it be subsumed into the mores of an emerging digital culture that sometimes seems to bend over backwards to leave it behind or destroy it. I'd honestly rather have smaller audiences that are respectful of the performance, than larger audiences filled with people who can only bothered to attend theater because someone dragged them to it, or because they see it as a chance to catch up on texts, tweets, or whatever the latest app-based smart phone game happens to be. At least the smaller crowd is there because it wants to be. The larger crowd, in my scenario, is there because they can be, and speaking as an actor, I don't feel excited or honored by such a presence.

It's quite simple, really. What I'm advocating is not without precedent, even within the theatre. If someone is heckling a show, they can be asked to leave, and forced to do so, should it come to that. Plenty of theatres do not allow the personal freedom of eating or drinking in the house, and none of them in the United States allow the personal freedom of smoking in the seats anymore. (As far as I understand.) These rules have caused grumblings in the past and continue to do so. And a certain portion of the would-be audience vowed never to return to the theatre, given these restrictions. So they did. Theater survived, and a little bit better off, in my opinion.

We have commuter trains, such as Maryland's own MARC system, that provide "Quiet Cars" for the morning commute. No loud talking on cellphones, no shouting, no music without headphones. From what I've been given to understand, the quiet on such cars is enforced on a regular basis, both by train staff, and by the culture that has grown up within such cars. People go to them because they expect quiet, and those that cannot comply are quasi-shamed out of selecting the car in the future. That's what we need in theaters regarding cell phones: more shame.

If proprietors of theaters were to adopt a low or even zero tolerance policy for such behavior, eventually so would patrons. The theater would be seen as a place once again where a quiet respect both for what is happening on stage and for those who paid to enjoy what is happening on stage would take root. People with cell phones glued to their heads at all times would him and haw, give a few speeches and write a few letters about their personal freedoms. Then they would just stop coming to the theatre altogether, not being that worried about it in the first place, I dare say. Or they would leave their cell phones in the car, if theatre truly did mean that much to them. In either case, no big loss for the theatre.

Theater attendance, especially at the regional and community level, is down. Some studies indicate that participation of and appreciation for the arts in general in the United States is falling. If so, it is a tragedy for several reasons, not the least of which being that arts organizations are closing due to lack of income. But even in the current fragile state of affairs within the arts community, we mustn't allow ourselves to cater to every possible element that might attend a show. I implore theaters and other arts institutions not to be so desperate for the money a ticket brings as to allow buffoons who barely care about what they've come to see to dilute the experience. We can adjust without surrendering, adapt without capitulating. We owe it to actors, directors, patrons and donors, indeed to the thousands year tradition of Western Theater itself to maintain decorum and etiquette within our walls. We must stem the tide of digital encroachment for the sake of encroachment. If we don't demand it, nobody else will do so on our behalf.

The 5 Cardinals Rules For Backstage/Offstage

Here is my latest column for ShowBizRadio.net. In it I share five things I would require of all actors in all green rooms and backstage areas across the country, if I were so empowered to law down such law. If you are an actor of any kind, I think you can sympathize.