Interpretations of Facts

After I posted on the topic of GCTC‘s production of Facts, and how I was worried about controversy the play might generate, someone posted a comment asking me to let everyone know “how it went”.  The production is closing this weekend, and I wanted to share some of the reactions with you.

The published reviews of the play have been, almost universally, mixed-to-negative.  Nonetheless, audience attendance numbers (to my anecdotal eye) have been good-to-excellent.  The subject matter of the piece has, it seems, attracted as many people as it has repelled.  The audience that has decided not to come and see the play — we’ve heard anecdotal evidence of some people who pledged to stay away, based solely on the fact that the play discusses Isreal and Palestine — will likely never provide us feedback, but the audience that has been coming, has been staying to talk and debate.

The Great Canadian Theatre Company is working pretty hard on audience engagement, and one of the simplest and most enjoyable tools they’re using is a large pillar in the theatre lobby.  They’ve painted a section of this pillar black, and labeled it “What’s your viewpoint?”  Audience members get an insert in their program asking for their thoughts on the show, and each insert has a simple post-it note attached.  People jot down their thoughts during or after the performance, and then leave their completed post-it notes on the pillar.

As a performer, I can’t tell you how awesome it has been to see a growing number of notes building up on the pillar during the run of the play.  John, Sam and I have often stopped by to take a look at what people are saying, and I thought I’d pull a few examples to share with you here.  There are many notes that compliment us on the show, which is very kind but not worth crowing about in this space.  There are several notes that comment on the ending, and I won’t share those because they’ll spoil it for people who don’t want to know (the value of leaving these “spoilers” on the pillar in the lobby is a whole other question, I suppose, but the theatre staff seem quite adamant about NOT censoring what’s posted).  And then there are provocative comments like the following:

The acting was excellent. Very clever dialogue.  I did not like the ending.  Also, as a believer, I was uncomfortable with some comments that bordered on irreverence.  I am tired of people who feel free to disrespect my faith.

Sheer propaganda & insulting to Jewish reality.

Too one-sided.  Palestinian cop portrayed as voice of reason.

I’m not presenting these comments because they amuse me, but because I think that the pillar gives audience members a safe and respectful opportunity to express thoughts that they might not otherwise share in a talkback or other environment.  The comments stay up without censorship, and other audience members can agree, disagree, or respond as their own tastes dictate.  Here’s a multiple-note exchange:

The top note reads:

Good play BUT… I think it makes far too much of an issue out of national myths.  All nations have their myths.  The Jews, Israel, the Arabs, so what?  Do we all believe in the historical accuracy of our myths?  Of course not!!  Nor do most Israelis.

And the response:

National myths are the problem and the play did an excellent job with this aspect.

Dialogue!  Based on our play!  On a PILLAR!  I love it!

Post-show talkbacks are typically held after Friday night performances at GCTC, but we added several more for this run.  The playwright, Arthur Milner, has been present for all of them and this has been a terrific boon to the cast, since audience members seem keen on grilling the guy who wrote the beast.  For reasons I can easily rationalize, most of the feedback at these sessions has been positive.  I had almost hoped we’d get to some juicy tabloid-style debate, but the angry audience members, it seems, either don’t stay OR choose to leave a comment on the pillar instead (which is another reason the pillar is a fantastic outlet).  The talkback crowds have been large — I haven’t seen this many people consistently stick around since the talkbacks for the production of Doubt I did last year (and let’s be honest: most people who attended talkbacks for that show had one basic question on their minds).

Our final talkback for Facts was held after this evening’s performance, and was my favorite because we had a number of Israeli citizens in the group, including a woman who converted to Judaism and who is married to a former settler.  Arthur was very touched to hear several of these people say that they felt the play showed accurate snapshots of the current attitudes in the region; this has been important to all of us.

I’ll leave you with one more impression.  One sign of a play that is doing its job is a play that compels audience members to interact.  The highlight of every evening of this run, for me, has been walking through the lobby on my way out of the theatre at the end of the night.  Without fail, the lobby has been full of people, long after the show has ended.  They stand in small groups and talk about the play.  They may have loved the show, or hated it, but they’re talking about it.  Tonight, our talkback went on for a long time, because it was generating a great discussion; and even after a long talkback, the lobby was still full of people and noise.  I feel extremely fulfilled as a theatre artist when I walk into the lobby after a performance, and see what I saw tonight:

So.  Here’s the final fact:  Facts is good theatre because it generates communion.  Perhaps nothing else matters.

Be Sociable, Share!

•