Playback fail

Yesterday was a Saturday, I had a very playful day hence the late posting.

Anyhow, I experienced Playback theatre for the first time ever.  In my opinion it was a fail because, initially, none of the audience wanted to participate at all.

I was not the hero to volunteer to be the first one to provide a story in my life for the actors/actress to play with.

Why did they fail?  (1) Every sample they gave, and they gave five, felt heavy.  Some were negative.  (2) The host don't know how to handle a cricket crowd.

A major annoyance about the host is that she interrupts.  She interrupted me as I was giving them the material, which was personal and important to me.  I could've say what I wanted to say better, if I was not interrupted.

Anyways, it felt like school again when the teacher asks students to read outloud for the whole class and no one wants to read.  Well, someone had to read.

The host should've known when to stop asking for another person to participate.

I went twice as a result.  Both experiences were important to me and I really disliked the host's interruptions.  I disliked it so much that I almost said the host was probing, she wasn't but she was asking questions that were not important.  I was clear and concise. I did not care who played me in my scene.  Whoever wanted to play me could have told me before the improv. 

Going back to the five (5) horrific samples, the demonstrators were all very vague with what they are saying and the host never interrupted the demonstrators.  Why is it that when a participant is participating, you are interrupting?  The host interrupted someone who was speaking loudly and clearly but not someone who was unclear and rambling.  I might have been more free with my experience if the host didn't interrupt me. I wanted to see what the actors/actress heard from what I was saying and how they would play it.  It would have been perfectly fine without a host holding two microphones.

Another critial fail was not explaining what playback theatre is before demonstrating it or stating what it is again after demonstrating it.  I might have missed the first explanation but if I was confused after the demonstrations, I would have paid attention to the  explanation immediately following the demonstration.  They  demonstrated it five times and I was confused.  Or maybe I got it. I don't know. It was that bad!

Anyhow, luckily they had a few nice audiences.  Imagine if no one helped them at all and someone starts playing the cricket sound on their mobile device everytime the host asks for participation.

If I was the host and had an audience they had today.  I would have asked if anyone had questions or required clarifications.  I know I would have asked questions for clarification if no one else asked.  I just couldn't jump in to participate after like five (5) vague but heavy subjects.

After the questions and clarifications I would have given people time to think about a time they want to share.  After that, I would ask them to shorten it in their mind.  Finally, I will ask if anyone wants to volunteer and see their playback!

I honestly did not want to see that group playing a playback for me from their five (5) demonstrations alone.  It was really bad.

Anyhow, valient effort by that group which I am not naming or promoting at all.