Meaning

We've talked at some length on this blog about the dreaded talkback and the problem of getting feedback in general.  A friend of mine recently went to a screening of Theater of War that included a talkback with the director (John W. Walter).  Just to be clear, this friend was not Rob W-K, I just linked to his blog cause he's me old china.

Anyway...  There was a talkback with the director afterwards, and a friend of mine was pretty excited about it.  She grew up the child of two old-school lefties who, while not theatre people, loved Brecht, took classes on his work and took her to see Mother Courage twice. 

The talkback went something like this (according to my friend).  First audience member gets up and asks John W. Walter one of those questions that's actually a political rant with "wouldn't you agree" tacked on the end (The US is an imperialist country etc. etc. and so forth).  Walter agrees talks a bit about how the US' place in the world inspired him to make the movie etc. It goes around like this for awhile and then my friend raises her hand and asks her question, which was something along the lines of explaining that she'd seen MC a few times and grew up with parents who loved Brecht, but part of their love of Brecht and their understanding of his work came from their background in Marxism and marxist theory, that there was a time in the world when Marxism really was seen as a viable alternative to capitalism (even if the USSR was a rather disasterous example of that alternative) and that we live in a time now where there isn't really a viable alternative to global capitalism and Marx isn't viewed in the same way he used to so our context for approaching Brecht and MC has totally changed so what does he think people in say their mid twenties who really came of age after the fall of the Berlin Wall will get out of Brecht, his film, MC etc.

Now according to my friend, it wasn't the most gracefully phrased question in the world but either way John W. Walter responded that he hates this sort of question because once you answer what you think something's meaning is, that's the only meaning that people will ascribe to it and "besides, that's like going to a restaurant and asking the Chef to chew your food for you."

I think there was some mild misunderstanding going on here. My friend was asking him to reflect on the changing context with which we approach Brecht's work and how his movie fits into that.  He thought she was asking him to say what the meaning of the film was.  Either way, there's really no excuse for being rude to your audience  unprovoked.  

But this also got me thinking... What Walter was pretty clearly responding to (Even though this wasn't the question asked) was a question about what he thought the meaning of the work he'd created was.  He was clearly so primed to be asked such a question (which is frequently asked of artists in all fields in talk backs and conversations with audiences/viewers) that he had this whole response thing going on.  Which leads me to the real question of this post... Why are we so reluctant to discuss the meaning of our work?

I ask this because as a director, it's frequently part of my job to discuss the meaning of a work in the simplest way possible.  I recently filled out an application for a production regionally; the first sentence of it was "Play X is a play about themes Y and Z".  When Dan and I met to discuss the reading of People Like Us I said (half-jokingly) "okay, let me tell  you what I think your play's about so you can correct me if I'm wrong". We have conversations about the meanings of art all the time while making it and yet... we get reluctant to share these conversations with our audiences.

Some of this reluctance is understandable to me. You don't want to dominate someone's understanding of the work, and culturally we are trained to accept an artists' interpretation of their own work as paramount. Also, audiences/viewers can themselves chafe at the dominance of the artists' viewpoint.  I am particularly hostile to directors notes that tell me how to feel think and respond to what I'm about to see.  But surely there's a difference between telling someone before they see something how they should respond to it and discussing it with them, right?

Which gets me back to an old saw, one i deploy all the time and I see my fellow artists deploy: I want to make art that asks interesting/difficult/meaningful questions rather than giving answers. Which is something I do agree with, but at the same time as artists, certainly we come up with at least a few answers to the questions posed by the work we do, even if we don't put those answers into the work itself.  (Which is not to say we come up with "moral lessons" that we want to leave our audiences with, that's the rocky shores that most overtly topical/political art runs seriously aground on, or in other words, I agree with what Jason discusses here).

I think the sticky wicket is this: How do we discuss our own interpretation of a work in a way that invites others into the dialogue, to have their own interpretations of it, to approach it in their own way and derive meaning from it, even if we (strongly) disagree with their interpretations or the meaning they derive from it?  How do we lead those conversations? How do we use our expertise (we are experts in our own art, after all) without becoming dominant authorities?

Comments

[Paul Rekk]

My favorite quote regarding meaning and interpretation comes from Andre Gide:

"Before I explain my book to others, I expect them to explain it to me. To claim to explain it first is to immediately narrow down its reach; for if we know what we intended to say, we do not know whether we said only that. - One always says more than THAT. - And what interests me most is what I put in without knowing, - that unconscious share, which I would like to call God's share."

I think the problem is in the talkback setup, which does not encourage dialogue, but rather seems like more of a lecture model. If I can engage an audience member or two or three in a conversation about meaning, it's a whole different game, but the talkback encourages a handful of outspoken members to spur the artist into an explanation with utter disregard to the silent members, who certainly have entirely different approaches to the work.

And then again, there are times that I absolutely do not want to share meaning. I have a piece I wrote that has very specific personal symbolism for me that, outside of an very close to the chest inner circle of two or three friends, I have not and will not share with others, even if their interpretation hits that symbolism dead on (which it has on occasion). I will gladly discuss their interpretations and how they work within and affect the intricacies of the piece, but my meaning is my meaning. I know it's there and that's good enough for me. I encourage any one else (directors, actors, audience members) approaching the piece to embrace their reading and assume that it is correct. Because it is. Regardless.

So I see both sides, I guess? I respect any artist who doesn't want to discuss meaning, so long as they respect that the result of that decision is that there is no such thing as misinterpretation. Of course, I work on that assumption as an audience member anyway, so I suppose it's six of one, half dozen of the other anyway.

[malachy walsh]

I like Rekk's Gide quote and agree that the talkback setup is a "lecture" mode.

Reading Paul's response, I wondered if anyone's tried allowing the artists to ask the questions instead of the way it's currently done.

Another thought I had while thinking about the post relates to my experiences in a few organizations which have people speak and then invite "sharing" based on a subject of the speaker's choosing.

No questions are allowed. No direct commenting is allowed. You are asked to restrict your share to your direct experience of what the speaker said and/or their chosen topic.

Obviously, a system like that doesn't always work and can veer off "topic" - but it keeps people from looking for answers from the leader of the group, instead just using the kickoff speech as just that.

Here of course, the play is what is what the author is speaking and sets off the "conversation."

Does that make any sense?

[RVCBard]

I wondered if anyone's tried allowing the artists to ask the questions instead of the way it's currently done.

I have, and it's wonderful!

[Ken]

I wouldn't know where to begin if I was ever asked the meaning of my work. Anyone could state it better than I can. I can't see meaning from where I'm standing. I'm in the middle of things. I'm at the place where the sensations and thoughts and feelings flowed together--a malestrom, a confluence of rushing waters. Meaning can best be glimpsed by stepping back, getting a bit of distance. I can't do that, any more than I can see my own face (assuming there was never such a thing as a mirror or reflective surface). So if my work has any meaning (and I'm not saying it necessarily does), you're going to have to point it out to me.
The Gide quote actually says it all much better than I can.

[devilvet]

For me, since I am usually directing the pieces I write... I very often am forced by necessity to discuss meaning with the actors and technicians so that we can present something unified.

I find that by the time the show opens I am more than prepared to discuss its (intended) meaning. However, I try to bite my tongue as much as possible so as to see what the audience perceived before hearing any post show justifications.

I think a post show talk back would be a great opportunity to relish in the existence of the play/performance for those who enjoyed the experience. Or those who were captivated enough to invest more time in it that the required viewing time. Every show should have a post show discussion with or without the director/actor/what have you. I think it would be excellent at the end of every show, if the lights we raised and Phil Donohue came out and asked audience members what they thought without requiring confirmation or coy shrugging on the part of the playwright/director/artist

[DJ]

Fascinating discussion, Isaac. Sure, work has meaning, but rarely (if it's at all interesting) only a single meaning. In post-show Q&As, as in interviews, artists often seem reluctant to discuss their work, I guess for fear of being pinned-down, or of the work seeming reduced. Unfortunately, what can happen is that the work is trivialised, because they feel more comfortable discussing anecdotal or factual matters than meaning. And what's worse, the audience loses a sense that the work truly matters to the people who created it.

I'm a critic, so I would say this, but I equally don't believe that the artist is the guardian of a work's meaning - or than anyone is. Once it has been released into the culture, it's out there and it's up for discussion and debate. Again, I can imagine that an artist might feel defensive or plain appalled by the process - but if a work has real value it must be strong enough to live and jostle in the world.