Young Jean Lee taking notes at a talkback.
As you have readings of your musical, people will give you their opinions — whether you asked for those opinions or not. So, how do you make sure that you get useful feedback and avoid useless (or harmful) feedback? One popular model is Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process, a “method for giving and getting feedback on work in progress, designed to leave the maker eager and motivated to get back to work.” That’s the key of any conversation: to keep you “eager and motivated.” Feedback should spark your inspiration, not dampen your enthusiasm.
In Lerman’s process, there are three roles. First is the artist — that’s you, the maker of the work. It’s important that you be as active in the critique of your work as in the creation of it. As you did with your scenes, you should build the framework of the dialogue you want with your audience. If you’re not ready to receive feedback, politely defer the conversation with a thank you and an invitation to talk more when your work is ready for a closer look.
The second role is the responder — whether it’s an actor in rehearsal or an audience member in a talkback after an open reading. It’s important you get responders to focus on your intent and vision for your work — and not their own. The best feedback is usually a question about your work and not an answer for a perceived problem in it.
The third role is probably the most important: the facilitator. It isn’t possible to have a referee for every conversation, but when you have an open reading, ask a friend to moderate the discussion afterward so you can take notes. At most theaters, this role is filled by a dramaturg. The facilitator leads in the conversation, keeps it on track, and ensures a supportive dialogue by helping the artist and responders frame useful questions.
There are four key steps to ensure an informed conversation between artist and responder. First, the facilitator should ask the audience for general “statements of meaning” about your work. What did they find “meaningful, evocative, interesting, exciting, or striking”? This is to affirm what is good about the work.
Second, you should ask the audience about your work. As they respond, the facilitator should ensure they stay on topic and express opinions in direct response to your questions. Four questions should be enough. Nothing is too insignificant. Just be specific. This is about you learning if key events or motivations are clear. “Did you understand that Joe was impersonating his twin sister?” “Do you know why Nora hid the money?”
Third, the audience gets to ask you about your work. The facilitator should ensure the questions are neutral, that is, they don’t have an opinion or bias couched in them. This is probably the most challenging and important step of the Critical Response Process.
Fourth is an optional “opinion time” for feedback that can’t be phrased as a neutral question. If you don’t want to hear audience opinions, you don’t have to include this step. If you do want to hear their opinions, the facilitator should remind the audience to stay positive and focused on problem-solving.
Armed with useful feedback, you should be “eager and motivated” to tackle your next rewrite. The answers you heard in the second step of the conversation will be the most important. If the audience didn’t understand Joe was impersonating his sister or why Nora hid the money, start your rewrite by clarifying those vital points.
For more on Lerman’s process, visit her website, read her article in Contact Quarterly, or watch the video below in which she and CRP co-creator John Borstel describe their four-step process. For additional advice, try the The Playwright’s Corner blog.
For inspiration, take a song-by-song look at Soft Power, one of the most honored musicals from this past season, with its book writer and lyricist David Henry Hwang.
Next, workshops and production.
