Jump to content

Autism Friendly Performances


paulears

Recommended Posts

I've been reading quite a bit about autism friendly productions, and I just read the piece in the ALD's Focus magazine that fell through the front door.

 

To be honest, I'm a bit confused. There are lots of figures in it, and I'm not quite certain what it's saying.

 

I'm quite aware of the very different spectrum of severity that autism has, but I hadn't really thought about how we deal with the range of conditions people are now tagged with - and especially not really sure how entertainment as a genre should really approach it.

 

In terms of the audience makeup - there are some well established ones I guess most of us understand, and to a degree, consider.

 

I really cannot convert my normal language into current politically correct versions, so please forgive me for using the words I've used for a very long time. No offence is meant to anyone who doesn't like my language, but keeping up with sensitivities is pretty tricky nowadays.

 

The categories I'm fairly comfortable with seem to be:

Deaf

Blind

Wheelchairs

Epilepsy

Mentally handicapped

 

For a long time, all my people with some kind of special requirement for performance fell into one or more of these.

 

So I'd be wary of the shows with strobes, or access requirements, or the need for signing, or audio description. I'd watch out for kids shows where getting a person in a wheelchair up onto stage might be tricky, or making sure that people with a child like awareness of potential danger don't get exposed to real or potentially damaging experiences.

 

I'm aware of content likely to cause problems, keeping in mind the 'vulnerable people' definitions.

 

Despite having good friends with kids who have autism, and other conditions that have recognised letters as their title - I really don't know much about this. The idea that we now have productions being designed to replace blackouts with low colour states, remove snaps, that apparently cause issues, and keep lighting effects that flash to pulsing?

 

While for the percentage of the audience who have adverse reactions, this is good - I'm left wondering to what degree the remainder of the audience get a worse deal.

 

Sure, it's nice to create a performance environment for these people, I have to wonder if we change our designs and practices for the benefit of small audience groups, if we're not spoiling it for the rest. If we work on percentages, then with such a range of disabilities (is that even the right word?) then these percentages don't really work.

 

As I really don't quite understand the % of % which seems often quoted, Imagine an audience of 1000 people.

 

Maybe

6 % don't like red. 60 people

4% hate green. 40 people

20% do not like pink. 200 people

The 3% who make videos object to blue. 30 people

 

For just 4 colours, a third of the audience are not happy. So removing those colours from the lighting palette means 100% of the audience will be happy, and especially the 330 people who would have hated the colour choice, for the time those colours were used.

 

Logically, we should, for the benefit of everyone, just not use those colours - and everyone will be happy, apart from Lee of course who see sales of those colours drop.

 

This is plainly ridiculous, but my point is that should we be trying to constantly keep minority groups happy, even though they are very worthy groups of people?

 

Inclusiveness is the buzz word nowadays. Of course people who have autism should have a right to go to the theatre. Is it perhaps a case that we have most shows with flashing lights, strobes, no houselights on and proper blackouts, and then, as we do with blind and deaf folk, have a number of shows with the tweaks.

 

Would an autism friendly We Will Rock You have been as good? Look at the TV - all those programmes with flashing lights warnings, even the news. Is it realistic to have an autism friendly news?

 

In the Focus article, Paule Constable says that she had requests to reduce dynamic lighting changes, so removed the blackouts and left the houselights glowing. In the past, she's not been that happy with criticism of her lighting designs, from fellow lighting people, but ok with the general public's opinion. The kinds of changes being talked about appear minor, but for a long time we've used blackouts and auditorium darkness as standard features. Will autism friendly changes not impact on perception of the design? I don't know. 'Ordinary people' often have uninformed opinion - so will they realise their enjoyment has been slightly tempered by the desire to be autism friendly.

 

Me personally? I'd prefer the special performance option - like we do with captioning, description and signing. I find the presence of the signers and caption equipment quite distracting, and would hate it if every performance had it.

 

 

How far should we go to make every single audience member happy? I really hate bad language in a show. It makes me cringe and feel very uncomfortable. Should my feelings mean changes to the script? Of course not. I'm starting to get this feeling when productions start the sanitisation process to be 'minority friendly'.

 

I suspect I'm alone on this - but it's starting to annoy me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not alone on this. But as with many things it is becoming unwise to speak of it, or you will be labelled an intolerant bigot.

 

My own view is that the vast majority of the people who we are trying to "include" would not want this either. They just recognise and accept that there are some things they cannot do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would an autism friendly We Will Rock You have been as good?

 

Couldn't have been much worse. ;)

 

Me personally? I'd prefer the special performance option - like we do with captioning, description and signing.

 

Judgement call innit. Obviously anything that can be done without compromising the performance, well, why not? But that is pretty limiting - blackouts, strobes, etc.. do serve a purpose and chances are a show designed to be "inclusive" in an unobtrusive way (so not really noticeable for most of the punters) probably won't be accessible enough for many of the folk who'd prefer a special performance anyway. And besides, I imagine a part of the appeal of an 'autism friendly' performance is that it'll be attended by an autism friendly audience - much less stressful for carers to know that the folk around them, let alone the cast, will be less disturbed by the odd vocal outburst or whatever.

 

Audio description doesn't really belong in the "special performance" category as far is I can see. It's totally unobtrusive, so the only reason not to audio-describe every performance is limited supply of volunteers (or the cost of paid describers) to provide a live commentary. Maybe in the future captioning and/or signing could be done in a similar way with a small heads-up display "Google Glass" style. (Though it'd be a shame for the signer not to get to take a bow, I've seen plenty of shows where the signer gave the best performance of the night by far.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it is labeled it creates problems which is why autism or disabled friendly shows are rare and called "relaxed performances". It does not mean that all shows must or even should be "relaxed" but that certain showings could be. We already do this with Rocky Horror and inter-active Sound of Music so I see no massive deal with it. Neither do ATG

That could be because I was one of those at the early showings of Woodstock at Leicester Square and, boy, were we "relaxed." They did draw the line at dogs on string but the rest was a festy.

 

I have never spent too much time worrying about the "differently abled" either as performers or as audience, they don't appreciate it. I have tried to treat them as exactly the same as any other individual because every individual has their needs. As long as the audience buys into "relaxed" and don't get upset by an autism sufferer "going off on one" I see no huge changes to be made.

 

I reckon the only reason that ATG and ALD are talking about it at all is the success of the "relaxed" showings of Dog in the Nighttime and Lion King. There is quite a significant audience out there to be tapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah - so it's actually an opportunity to increase the audiences and generate revenue? Or is this just me with my cynical hat on.

 

I think I am pro-disability, but very anti PC, and that's why I have trouble with this kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Paul. I think its more about giving people a choice.

 

Talking to people at the Wolsey in Ipswich where they introduced 'relaxed' performances of the panto, the cast apparently quite enjoyed doing a couple of 'different' shows in the otherwise long run.

 

I went to a pro concert on the continent a couple of weeks back, and had I have been given a choice, I would have opted not to be blinded every third song by the damn movers thrashing the audience. I know its the current fad amongst the lighting boys, but I went to see the artist, not to look down the lens of a umpteen million lumen mover for a fraction of a second every 2 - 3 seconds. We all talk hear about damaging the ears, I dread to think what these do to people retina's. Rant over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea quite a lot, there was that issue a few years back at wicked if you recall I can't remember the exact things but it was arguably a bit blown out of proportion.

 

I am not sure on an Autism Friendly show, it is a bit too labeled, a "soft" show is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a very good question Paul, and one that has been on my mind since I think 1992 or thereabouts. Anyway I was teaching and we took a group to a schools matinée performance of the Gingerbread Man at the CFT. You couldn't get much more relaxed but there were several groups of autistic spectrum youngsters in the audience and several, well more than that, exhibited some extremely bizarre behaviour. Now my worry centered not on the question what were they getting from it - since I could not answer that. Neither could I see what the 'triggers' might be. But the reaction of my group ranged from those who found it hilarious or reckoned they did - the usual suspects - to those who found it frightening/distressing or in some cases both. Those who exhibited neither extreme in reactions were, in the main, simply fed up with having their enjoyment spoiled. For me this makes it rather different to the example of signing and language that you mention since attendance, at least in the audience, is a matter of choice. After that I took the very non-PC view that, at least in the case of young people, the interests of those with some special needs might be best served by special performances - even in more intimate spaces and a different version than otherwise perhaps - where the pace and the material could be used in a targeted and perhaps even therapeutic way. I suppose I'm with Robin D on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am pro-disability, but very anti PC, and that's why I have trouble with this kind of thing.

Vicarious emotions such as outrage on behalf of others is a mental illness that I have no time for. You are not alone!

 

If "relaxed" performance means toning down a few visual and auditory shocks it would be just another challenge in how to optimise audience appreciation through my skills. Bring it on!

 

As for increased revenue, isn't that what we all need? The inclusion and equality of opportunity arguments are valid enough but add in a possible revenue increase and it becomes a no-brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually realised that many people who work in the theatre/entertainment industry are actually autistic? They were attracted to the industry by it weirdness in the first place, so dumbing down shows could be destroying the magic that is supposed to happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister is autistic, she can these days sit through a regular performance without allowances needing to be made, but when she was younger, in her teens, that would not, and in fact, was not possible, and caused much upset for us as a family, let alone disturbance for other patrons.

My partner worked on one of the shows mentioned above having successful relaxed performances, and yes, they do work, for everyone involved. And not just autistic people can benefit. There are many other areas of disability that can benefit from not having to worry about the foh staff possibly asking you to leave, the stares you get from those around you, the tuts as you make your way out with who knows what to get them out of the way.

 

Don't call them autism friendly, in my opinion. Relaxed Peformances is a far better option.

 

My sister has grown and adapted to the point she can live alone very successfully, to the point the rest of us live overseas or in London and visit occasionally. She gets little or no support from outside the family, and, although it's taken many years to get there, she does mostly ok. We are perhaps lucky, others will struggle like she did as a younger person for their whole lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of styles of (dis)ability and every person should have the possibility of entertainment. BUT if I'd paid telephone numbers for a big ticket I certainly wouldn't want to be in a bear pit. It's what you CALL it that makes a "relaxed" performance good or bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually realised that many people who work in the theatre/entertainment industry are actually autistic? They were attracted to the industry by it weirdness in the first place, so dumbing down shows could be destroying the magic that is supposed to happen.

I agree Clive, although weirdness is not the word I would have used, it fits rather nicely. Anyone on the autistic spectrum sees the world very differently. Having brought up several children with the problem, I can say that surprises, changes and especially shocks to the senses can trigger what to the observer is a most bizarre response, especially in a child. As it would appear Mikienorth has seen over the years with his sister, with more and more exposure, the tolerance becomes much better. Its often about managing expectations before the event, but you have to go over it time and time again ..... and then some more.

 

We also have had a lot of contact with a number of such children in Stagecoach, and have seen them blossom. Not sure quite why, but I suspect that when they are acting, they are not 'themselves', but are able to become the part they are acting. The problems for teachers and chaperones alike arise mainly when the child is not actively involved, during breaks, waiting in the changing rooms, waiting to go on etc.

 

And yes, I've heard theatre described as a collection of oddballs who together create magic! ;)

 

Edit to add. Please note, by seeing things differently, I don't mean wrongly. You might see a goldfish in a bowl, they might see a ball with a pleasing moving pattern. Who is to say who is right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah - so it's actually an opportunity to increase the audiences and generate revenue? Or is this just me with my cynical hat on.

 

Of course it's an exercise to increase ticket sales. If it didn't then it wouldn't increase inclusivity and there'd be no point doing it. This is actually the best kind of inclusivity - the venue/producer doing it because they see a real benefit from doing it (so will be doing the best job possible), rather than doing it because they've been told they have to (where they're unlikely to care)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.