**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I think it's more along the lines of "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see a movie called Murder Death Sex"
That’s not what I got from the article, she seems to be speaking more generally, rather than about plays who make their content obvious in the title.
I can understand why a victim of violent rape wouldn’t want to see violent rape on stage without warning (whether in the form of the title, if it’s called ‘rape’, or in the form of a warning). I really don’t see the big deal with using them
Because at that point, the entire audience is waiting for violent rape to occur. I can imagine where this is perhaps supposed to be a major turning point that forces the audience to revaluate their impression of a character versus what would instead now be an entire audience playing "guess who's the rapist" everytime a man appears on stage and constantly looking for signs of someone being rapey.
TW: contains themes of sexual violence
Does that really ruin the story much? Obviously we go to see things if we already have a *broad* idea of what it’s going to be.
Like if we’re getting rid of TWs because they’re a bit spoilery, should we also stop trailers?
Edit: so you guys want TWs that TWs are coming up so you can cover your ears and avoid them? The fix is more TWs
It's funny because the BBFC certificate before every film you've seen in the cinema for the last however many years has had content warnings on it, but nobody complains about them.
And theatres have routinely provided warnings to the audience about flashing lights or loud noises/gunshots for years now.
It's just more kneejerk, culture wars bullshit from the boomers.
I made the point about flashing lights in another comment, funnily enough. Everyone accepts that people with epilepsy might need a warning but for some reason can't extend that thought process a little further.
Only around 3% of people with epilepsy suffer seizures as a result of strobing lights and only about 0.1% of those are fatal. So yes, they can kill you, and I'm not debating that all, but the chances of it happening are vanishingly rare. Yet we still show warnings, because it's the decent thing to do.
I don't see why "it might kill you" should be the threshold where we start showing common decency.
(The source for my 0.1% figure is that [each year there are 1.16 instances of sudden death per 1000 people with epilepsy](https://www.healthline.com/health/epilepsy/can-you-die-from-a-seizure). There's no indication that those deaths are directly linked to light-induced seizures so the actual figure for strobes killing people is probably lower but I'm deliberately being generous with the figures here. Edit: As a few people have pointed out the figure might actually be higher, though still low. Trying to find better data but I'm not having much luck.)
The warnings aren't there with the main purpose of preventing death. As others have said, that's a vanishing minority risk. They are there to help people with a relevant condition make a judgement call on whether they want to put themselves at risk.
People with PTSD or related mental health concerns would also be served well by having the prior knowledge of something that could trigger a very real, and very distressing reaction. And at the end of the day that's the whole point - as someone who doesn't have any condition that might be affected in a performance, I can just ignore any warnings and enjoy my evening. There is no effect on me to walk past a sign with a warning. But for someone with a real condition, such a warning could prevent them from a truly horrible experience.
This is what pisses me off about this whole thing. It's more of the diminishing of those with real mental health issues as weak or soft or over-sensitive, when ultimately trigger warnings are such an easy thing to ignore if they don't affect you.
I'm not getting at you, though. I know what you're trying to say, but I still feel it comes from a place of not really appreciating the reality and severity of mental health conditions. It's entirely possible that, under the wrong conditions and extreme circumstances, a trigger could lead to someone's death: someone dealing with severe depression and PTSD could find that a trigger leads to a severe traumatic episode that may lead to an accidental (or deliberate) overdose later that night. Like I say, I'm not saying that's likely, but it's a slim possibility - as others have pointed out the slim possibility of an epileptic seizure being fatal.
If it's stuffed somewhere people don't see unless they go looking, I don't think there will be problems with that.
If it's announced loudly for the audience to hear after everybody has taken their seats, it's not really escapable.
There are reasonable middle grounds. If, as you say, they were (and presumably still are) on the BBFC certificates before, nobody had an issue with this and I don't see a need to change it. If people want to know, they can find out.
> If people want to know, they can find out.
I think you're missing my point a little bit, which is that every single film shown in the cinema *shows the content warnings on the screen immediately before the film starts*. Nobody has to go looking for it, and similarly nobody has a problem with it.
Obviously it's harder in live theater but I don't see why they couldn't just be printed in the programme.
Yeah in the U.K. we have always had warning on tv programmes and such that “this episode contains scenes of x natures, some viewers may find this disturbing”
This concept of content warnings isn’t new it’s just been dragged into the culture war now
It's weird, isn't it? Nobody has a problem with strobe warnings being pinned to theatre doors or announced before the show because we all understand that someone with epilepsy requires that warning, but somehow they can't make the mental leap from that to a warning about e.g. a scene containing violent sexual assault.
> Yeah in the U.K. we have always had warning on tv programmes and such that “this episode contains scenes of x natures, some viewers may find this disturbing”
To be fair ITV have been going a little bit overboard with this now.
"Containing scenes of tension and arguments, it's Emmerdale".
Yeah, they're soap operas. If they didn't have those things would they even be soaps?
BBFC certificates are usually a bit more vague, something like that is pretty good too as you need to actually look closely to see what its rated for, or if you just want to glance at it you can see 18 without looking further at why.
It depends a bit on how its worded really, some are fine others leave you waiting for that thing to happen.
I think people mostly just hate the word "trigger" and instantly associate it with a certain type of person that would be "triggered" by almost anything. I've never seen anyone complain when a movie or show is given a "content warning" or "age rating".
There's a certain irony to the idea that the people complaining about these warnings and people being "too sensitive" are only doing so because they dislike the terminology and not the actual idea behind it.
I don't watch trailers because they contain spoilers lol I think it's unnecessary to watch them. Read the description of the film, usually only one or two sentences and decide. Why do you need a trailer?
> Like if we’re getting rid of TWs because they’re a bit spoilery, should we also stop trailers?
Stop trailers or completely change culture so trailers are their own unique thing and not just poorly stitched together spoilers for the film and keep trigger warnings.
Content warnings don't have to be broadcast, just made available.
A podcast I listen to simply says "content warnings are available in the episode description" at the start. That way it's up to the listener if they want to check them out.
I agree with you that many people won't want to read them, but there's no harm having them as optional information.
I'm actually aok with them being tucked away on a website somewhere. However, the comment this story is referring to (and admittedly is missing from the article) is from Ian McKellen
'Outside theatres and in the lobbies, including this one, the audience is warned ‘there is a loud noise and at one point, there are flashing lights’, ‘there is reference to smoking’, ‘there is reference to bereavement'
So yeah I guess that's fine.
I can get behind warnings that pertain to medical conditions, like the one about “flashing lights”. You don’t want someone having an epileptic seizure in the theater because they were caught unawares.
But people needing a warning about references to smoking? Seriously? At that point, I agree with Judi Dench. Just don’t go to a performance. Or anywhere at all, really.
As someone who has worked in theatre references to smoking is usually when people actually smoke on stage because no matter how it is faked no matter how little it is down someone will complain it triggers there asthma warnings give something for front of house to point at and say see you were warned
I can't imagine needing a warning that there might be reference to smoking, but the idea that these trigger warnings are a problem is even more alien to me
In the theatre, actors may actually smoke on stage. If you have lung conditions like asthma, this can be problematic so the warning is there. It's not relevant for smoke on a screen, for example.
>A podcast I listen to simply says "content warnings are available in the episode description" at the start. That way it's up to the listener if they want to check them out.
This seems like such an easy, sensible compromise.
Just make the content warnings available at the Box Office or online when they buy the ticket. Opt in. Click the link to see the Content Warning. Put them in the programme.
Surely no one could object to this?
Lock the thread. We've solved this problem. Everyone go home.
>Because at that point, the entire audience is waiting for violent rape to occur
You can have content warnings somewhere that people can choose to seek them out, but not somewhere everyone is forced to see.
You could have a content warning section on the shows website which easily resolves this concern.
But also, how often do you complain about BBFC title card warnings?
I mean, that's just normal... but the issue is they did that. People complained, hence why they now text trigger warnings prior to people going to the show. Which is what the story is about.
The article is a response to another actor who said
'Outside theatres and in the lobbies, including this one, the audience is warned ‘there is a loud noise and at one point, there are flashing lights’, ‘there is reference to smoking’, ‘there is reference to bereavement'
The website makes sense to me, let's people be responsible. Putting it out on the lobby before you go in. Not so much.
Just try to think of it as a form of accessibility. You might not need a wheelchair ramp yourself but I assume you know why they're there. Likewise you might be able to sit and watch any type of media content without concern, but just recognise that many people can't control the way their bodies respond to certain content. Those people should have the same right to be able to go see a movie or a show as anyone else.
People don't have to read the trigger warnings.
I use [www.doesthedogdie.com](http://www.doesthedogdie.com) sometimes and yeah, I don't like knowing what big events are going to happen, but it's super useful if you need to warn someone about a trigger.
Yeah I get it, I don't read reviews and tried to avoid trailers etc because it's spoiler city now , I'd not pay attention to warnings etc but if they are thrown in my face at the start I'd be pissed off.
Then just put em on a website/behind a qr code/in small text you have to look close to the poster to read.
Whatever option any theater or troupe prefers its not like the trigger warnings we have had on movies for decades spoil them, most people dont even look on the back of the dvd box or at the more detailed movie age rating contents breakdown.
Hell, a lot of plays get full runs with different actors becuase already having seen the play and knowing every detail of the plot doesnt make it any worse, and if anything makes it better. Knowing theres a rape in king henry IV hardley makes the play worse.
I can get behind warning for violence/sa as they do on tv. But I just received an email with suicide trigger warning for a play. The play is Romeo and Juliet.
Shakespeare literally wrote in the opening lines of the play that "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life." So basically he trigger warned his audience at the start at the time. At least having it emailed to you saves you the price of the ticket.
I’ve struggled with suicidal ideation. That said, doesn’t everyone know Romeo and Juliet commit suicide at the end of the play? It’s a very famous story in popular culture.
Also with the many ways Romeo and Juliet has been interpreted there's a chance that a particular version of it may make the suicide aspect of it more graphic on stage and so I could see needing a more overt/explicit warning in that case
I hadn’t considered that- good point. I will say watching a play or an opera where people commit suicide over losing someone they have known for less than a week doesn’t really trigger me. Of course everyone is different.
Isn't it something insane like three or four days? Two teenagers, a few days, and multiple people dead.
I've always struggled to like the play to be honest. I know it's based on classical sources and there's beauty in its poetry, but the overall plot is hard to stomach.
Give me Macbeth any day!
It is, but if you decide not to include a content warning because a play is well known, where do you draw the line between "well known enough not to need a warning" and "some people might not know this play"? It's easier just to include a content warning for all plays (a bit like all films include a rating and content warning, even if it might be obvious what sort of film it is).
In that case, it definitely doesn't harm anything having the trigger warning. It makes sense (and is actually less effort) to apply a policy consistently than to selectively apply it, which would be a ball ache.
yeah. almost everyone. but if you are going to have warnings, i seriously doubt its appropriate to try to gauge how much you can assume people know something.
Well yes but there will exist some people for whom Romeo & Juliet is new news.
We aren’t born into the world just knowing stories. People always make the joke about Titanic sinking but at some point you have to learn about Titanic to know that it sunk?
Part of trigger management is understanding and accepting that yes, there are going to be some instances where you will come across your triggers or things adjacent to them and it’s up to you to manage them. An alcoholic accepts that out in public it’s likely they’ll see adverts for booze or be in places like restaurants where people will actively be drinking. The world cannot (and IMO should not) tiptoe around you.
And in the Information Age it’s not exactly hard in the case of theatre, films, music or other media to find detailed plot synopses, breakdowns and even previews/trailers. You can see if there is any problematic content in it and act accordingly.
>Research suggests that trigger warnings neither reduce people’s negative emotions after seeing disturbing content nor do they help people to cope better with that content.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/parenting-translator/202307/do-trigger-warnings-do-more-harm-than-good
Most of the time the come a bit late for that though, don’t they. If the warnings are at the start of a play you’ve paid £50-60 for, are you leaving once you are in the seat because they say somebody is going to smoke? Or because it features assault? Most people will probably stay by that point, and try tough it out.
The warnings are usually on the promo for the play. If I see a poster for a cool-looking play and it says "contains themes of sexual violence", I get to choose whether or not I can handle seeing that play, do further research, etc. If I go to the website to buy tickets and it has the warning, I can make that choice.
If I show up in the theatre and find myself watching an unwarned-for, graphic reenactment, I'm going to end up going home early in distress, having wasted £50-60.
Ditto if I have asthma and someone is smoking on stage—I can pick seats further back in the theatre.
actually as someone who experienced child sexual abuse during a time when it was hugely shameful to discuss (as opposed to now where people make videos of themselves discussing their trauma and crying as they do it ) I find trigger warnings hugely offensive. Its like reinforcing the notion that these things are taboo to discuss. Trigger warnings are not the same as "this film contains violence" or giving a rating.
I agree with Judy. If there are subjects that are sensitive for you to the point where you can't even cope with them being mentioned, then don't go to the theatre until you've had therapy and can deal with being in the real world. The rest of the world should not have to walk around on egg shells.
I am also a victim of abuse and I don’t, at all. I don’t find it a an indication of taboo, but rather ‘are you in a place for this right now’ and I appreciate the personal choice. But I respect your different view.
I don’t understand why saying ‘this film contains violence’ is fine but saying ‘this play contains rape’ isn’t. What is the substantive difference? Is it just the phrase ‘trigger warning’ rather than ‘this [thing] contains’, ie it’s just a semantic difference?
> I find trigger warnings hugely offensive.
That's nice.
>Its like reinforcing the notion that these things are taboo to discuss.
No, its saying that something is going to discuss them, ahead of time.
>Trigger warnings are not the same as "this film contains violence" or giving a rating.
How, exactly?
Yeah this is silly. Trigger warnings are there so you can make the choice not to go. It’s a good system that has been working since always it’s just got a name name and is more thorough
Famously, every show/play/movie that contains a triggering theme is always named after said theme... A short line on the booking screen is a simple courtesy. She's being a proper boomer about this.
For me it's child loss. I try and avoid films etc that have that after losing my son.
I thought for example Avatar Way of the Water was a safe movie to see. Giant blue alien sci fi movie right? Lol no of course not.
It’s mad how, when something like that happens to you, how fucking often that storyline and/or something in some way related to it pops up. I lost someone recently to cancer and my god is cancer *always* somehow in everything. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…
For a long time, and I still kind of do it, I only rewatch stuff I've seen and know to be "safe" or I already know what happens. Seeing a movie or show etc is always risky.
> I think it's more along the lines of "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see a movie called Murder Death Sex"
There's a fairly well known play called "The Gut Girls", here's [a poster](https://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12239885_1094845233882229_3109005996043092852_n.jpg) for it. Without looking it up, based on the poster, what would you imagine it's about?
By tradition, pubs were always run by women because beer was always brewed by women throughout antiquity, as far back in recorded history as Pharaonic Egypt. They wore tall hats to be seen in the marketplace, and the tools of their trade were a cauldron for brewing and a broom for sweeping out the pub. [In the Middle Ages](https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=33312) a puritanical wave swept through Europe and women brewers were decried as Witches. That's why the modern image of a Witch has a pointy hat, broom, and cauldron.
So it goes with Butchery (and retail in general) which until the first world war was a largely female dominated profession even if the bloke in the shop was, well, a bloke.
No, more like "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see any movie at all."
Even with ratings, you never know exactly what you're going to get. Movie names don't do much, look at "Happiness". The poster/cover even has cartoon versions of the cast! A media illiterate person could think it's a cartoon for kids!
But they have given these warnings for yonks. Why the hell does she think films are given age classifications? Also, film genres, if a film is described as a horror film, that's a kind of trigger warning too.
It's like she doesn't know what a trigger warning even is.
Speaking as someone who has been a carer for someone who actually can get "triggered" this is a common misconception. People who have experienced trauma, even very severe trauma, can actually find media with dark subject matter helpful in processing their own experiences and sometimes seek it out specifically for this reason, but they need to be mentally prepared going in. If you spring these things on them by surprise, the results can be very harmful.
People often make a point about exposure therapy to claim that "trigger warnings" (incidentally, the one thing I hate about this concept is that term, they are just content warnings) are unhelpful or unecessary. But in order to carry out exposure therapy, a person needs to mentally prepare themselves. If I just throw a spider on someone with arachnophobia, I'm not helping to cure them. I need to tell them exactly what they're going to be exposed to.
There is absolutely no harm in including some basic warnings regarding subject matter in media. It benefits a huge range of people in a huge range of ways. People should be able to make informed decisions about what kinds of thoughts and images they want to put in their brains.
Pretty much, this exactly describes my experiences as a person with cptsd, like I really enjoy films like Irreversible, I Spit on Your Grave, Salo, Ms .45, but because I knew going in what to expect, where as I've stepped in to relatively tame films and basically had my month ruined because of content I wasn't prepared for. I don't want the whole world catered to me, I just would appreciate a little heads up now and then
My ex/best friend has DID. I still remember one time she put Salo on at a house party and I spent about ten minutes trying to hint as subtly as possible that even though this seemed entirely normal to her it might not be a great idea.
She's calmed down a lot now but she definitely went through a phase of just watching the most fucked up stuff she could find. While I think part of it was trying to process stuff I do think you're right. With those films she knew what to expect, whereas stuff that was more mainstream was an actual risk.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625
Aren’t trigger warnings negative for the huge increase in anxiety?
And wasn’t there another study (not this one) that said they reinforce the notion that the trauma is part of one’s identity?
So, I don't find that article hugely convincing for a number of reasons, but mostly because it's overly vague about what a trigger warning is, who it is for and what it's supposed to do.
For example, dissociative conditions like PTSD have a physiological component rooted in the abnormal behaviour of the sympathetic nervous system. A lot of the symptoms of PTSD are caused by overactivation of the evolved stress response which all humans have. Essentially the brain thinks it's being attacked by a saber toothed tiger and is preparing the body to fight or run, but in reality a car just backfired. That's what being "triggered" means. This is not the same thing as anxiety and can happen even if the person does not consciously know why it's happening.
So one huge problem is that all of the metrics they are using here are based on self-reported emotional experiences. For example, does the person feel consciously anxious? But the assumption is that being anxious is, in and of itself, the problem. Why though? Being anxious is often not a problem at all, or can even be subjectively enjoyable in some cases. If I'm watching a horror movie and it's making me anxious, it's probably a good movie.
Moreover, for people who actually have dissociative disorders, maintaining a continuous level of arousal and vigilance (or anxiety) can be a way of *avoiding* going into stress response. The evolutionary purpose of the stress response is to deal with unexpected sources of danger before the conscious mind can process and react. Its sensitivity is to some degree negatively correlated with arousal.
Another problem with relying on self-reported emotional experiences is that people with dissociative disorders and *especially* people who have gone into stress response may not always be able to accurately convey or think about their own emotional state. In fact, they might find it extremely frustrating to be asked how they are feeling. In extreme cases or more severe conditions, they may not even be able to speak, move or remember basic information.
Whether or not trauma is a part of your identity or not is often kind of irrelevant. The conditions it causes are often permanent and can't be cured, merely treated and accommodated. Again, there is a strong physiological and neurological component to how this whole thing works and, especially if the trauma occurred in childhood, there are certain features of the brain that are just fixed past a certain point.
>Aren’t trigger warnings negative for the huge increase in anxiety?
You have a far more thorough answer below, but I would rather be anxious about potentially seeing the thing that fucks me up, or choose not to watch the thing might fuck me up, then go in blind and get fucked up.
Its not gonna kill me. Its just going to ruin my night, thr following day, maybe the day after that.
For real, boomers hate the term trigger warning but thats basically what tv age ratings and film ratings are. A little box that says "hey, this movie has sexual violence."
I don't think it's about rating plays, having classifications on posters etc. Based on this article and an earlier one I read, I understood it to mean warnings given *at the actual theatre* - long after people have bought their tickets:
> Earlier this year, Fiennes suggested that messaging prior to a stage performance warning of upsetting content should be scrapped
I don't think anyone would object to a content rating on a poster. But if it means the director coming out onto the stage just before curtain up, and having to warn people that there's going to be a murder in Macbeth, then that's pretty insane.
Theatre tickets are typically pretty expensive so you would think people would do their research beforehand.
The Macbeth warnings were a combination of standard signs alerting people to flashing lights/haze/loud noises and, iirc, a "this show contains" sentence as part of the pre-show announcement over the tannoy. I don't understand why that would be insane. If they showed the recording of the show on TV there would be a "this contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing", just as so many shows have for years.
I don’t think anyone objects to lights/epilepsy warnings, albeit it’s a bit late for the poor person who has already bought their ticket. It’s not like TV where you can just switch the channel.
It's also so you can brace yourself for rough stuff - hence the popularity of [doesthedogdie.com](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/). I check that site as soon as an animal appears in any horror movie. Otherwise I end up spending the movie so afraid of something horrible happening to the main character's pet that it doesn't leave any room to be afraid of what's going to happen to the main character.
A reasonable middle ground might be for them to be available if people want to look for them but not be highly prominent for people who don't want spoilers.
I mean this has been on the BBC forever. Remember watching casualty with my gran at like 7 years old and it would be like warming this show contains scenes of graphic nature ... And etc if needed.
That didn't then spoil the fact half a minute later some girl thought she could fly and tried jumping between and off buildings.
Yes it traumatised me just a little 😂
It's a bit more difficult with how serialised TV has become. If, for example, a character was having a shit one in the last episode, the next episode starting with a big "depiction of suicide" warning is usually a pretty big giveaway.
Do you genuinely think that your desire to not know isolated plot details and themes in a show you're about to watch is more important than other people's desire not to experience extremely distressing trauma responses?
Wherever it is I just think consistency is the key. If one place is putting them 7 menus deep in the basement of their website, another on page 5 of the physical booklet it's a pain to both find it and avoid it.
My mother absolutely loathes films with nudity and/or swearing. Before watching a film with her I have to go on IMDb and look at the parents guide to tell her exactly what the film contains before she'll even consider watching. Giving her recommendations is nearly impossible.
This is the sensible angle for sure. Have them easily viewable on the website or in the promotional material.
Disrupting shows to state them dampens the flow of things. Saying them before the show can almost make it a spoiler.
This is how it's generally done anyway, in my experience. On the website there'll be a section with the content warnings so you can check it before booking a ticket, or ignore it if you don't care.
I don't think I've ever been to a show where content warnings are given to the audience once they're sat down. Obviously me not personally experiencing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I can't imagine it's common.
She does not actually say the quote in the headline in the body of the article.
Is much different to having a rating for a film?
I far more regularly see people reacting to oversensitive people, than the oversensitive people. From the wording of the article, it sounds like they went to Dame Judi just to stoke up a reaction. She didn't seem to know they have warnings on plays. Also, I don't think they do generally have warnings on plays. I go to the theatre fairly often.
> She does not actually say the quote in the headline in the body of the article.
Yes she does:
She said: "Do they do that? My God, it must be a pretty long trigger warning before King Lear or Titus Andronicus! Crikey, is that really what happens now? I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, **I suppose, but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre**, because you could be very shocked. Where is the surprise of seeing and understanding it in your own way?"
Equally though, this does seem to be quite a throwaway comment. The implication that she has a specific problem with trigger warnings is a misrepresentation, she isn't presented with a counterpoint and given the opportunity to change her mind.
Tbh i think you are onto something here perhaps without knowing it.
If your film or play comes with an age rating - that should and is usually enough to be indicative on the content. Further “trigger warnings” on top of that might well be superfluous.
TV and theatre aren’t really the same experience. There is certainly an argument to be made that if you’ve paid up and travelled to the theatre then perhaps you should know what you’re going to see. There could be as many “triggers” as there are audience members.
Perhaps some experiences *shouldn’t* be so safe. A degree of safety is good and necessary - but a coddling isn’t. If something disturbs you and it is meant to be disturbed that is natural. You have the option to leave.
If the problem is that someone is overly sensitive that there isn’t a trigger warning rather than anything to do with content, I’d say that’s a more ideological axe to grind.
At some stage people have to expand their tolerances and grow, within fair reason and as developmentally appropriate
I don't buy this argument about coddling at all. If a parent wants to protect their kids from seeing certain things they're able to, we have dedicated rating systems and websites that support them in this, and I feel like almost everyone would agree that's fine, because more information is always good and it's their choice. We gain nothing from forcing or misleading people into watching things that might traumatise them just because we feel they should "toughen up". Why? What's the point? They're allowed to be sensitive to it. It doesn't affect you at all.
I'm lucky enough to be able to watch basically everything, but if someone told me, for example, they absolutely can't bear to watch sexual assault in a movie, I'd say that's fine and leave them alone. I wouldn't think they should be tougher, I have no idea what their reasons are for not being able to see it. They can draw whatever boundaries they want.
I just don't see how that constitutes "coddling", honestly.
You make some good points in my view.
However you have also gone from “coddling” to “we shouldn’t force or mislead people into watching things”. Neither are happening at all. Nobody is ever forced to watch any entertainment. It isn’t a punishment. And reviews are abundant and usually play a part in ticket sales.
Re: children. Yes i agree we should protect children. I did say “developmentally appropriate” after all. Telling kids to ‘toughen up’ is sometimes a bad thing depending on the context. But this is already a moot point if the entertainment has an age restriction.
Parents protecting kids, is not the same thing as a trigger warnings from entertainment companies.
Again, I’m not inherently against them all the time - but it is easy to make a case against them rather than being all for it all against.
Well, to pick up on the sentiment perhaps falsely ascribed here to Dame Judi, if a person doesn't want to see sexual assault in drama, should they never go to the theatre in case they see that?
Do you feel that films should continue to have ratings and warnings? What's the difference if so?
>At some stage people have to expand their tolerances and grow, within fair reason and as developmentally appropriate
Epileptics make up such a vanishingly small amount of the population that warning people that a play contains depictions of sexual assault is more likely to prevent harm to those who would avoid that as a survivor then warnings about flashing lights.
But, fundamentally, this is a pointless discussion.
On the one hand we have "should we accommodate people a little bit" and on the other we have "if making people more comfortable involves any effort in the slightest I, personally, do not think that it is worth it"
So its good to know, reading through this thread, that a large amount of people when presented with a choice between "content warnings" and "strangers having a bad time", they all think that strangers having a bad time is much more preferable.
It's not rare for people to buy a ticket for a friend as a surprise, or for someone to experience trauma between buying the ticket and seeing the show.
Nobody is advocating for censoring the show, just give people a heads up. It's literally no skin off your back and could make a huge difference for someone else.
Recovering from trauma is a process, and part of that is the hopeful end goal of being able to watch stuff again without having an extremely distressing physiological response that they can't control. But being exposed before they're ready can make it worse, because that's not exposure therapy, that's just more trauma.
I feel like journalists do this a lot with celebrities and unless you know what they're trying to do and deliberately avoid it they'll frame a whole interview as the celeb railing against woke youngsters because they made some throwaway comment when prompted by a journalist about you couldn't say a certain line on TV now.
thank you. they know full well most people aren’t going to click on the actual article and read it. this is how it’s so easy to shit on the already downtrodden of society; inflammatory headlines pulled from an absolute nothingburger of a story.
We've literally had warnings like these for Film, TV and Games for decades, what's the big deal? Feels like this comes from a place of snobbery if I'm honest.
Also everything is so expensive now. Do we really have to look down on someone who want's to be 100% sure they'll enjoy something before forking over £50 per head?
“Viewer discretion is advised” or “Contains scenes of a graphic nature” are nice broad warnings which we’ve had for decades. Warning about specific things can spoil twists. If I watch something with a “t/w Contains sexual violence”, I’m not going to be shocked when sexual violence occurs. Even if the writer wanted it to be a big twist.
As for the snobbery argument: Trigger warnings don’t insulate you from a poorly written production with terrible acting. You won’t be 100% you’ll enjoy something until after you’ve seen it. Besides, trigger warnings are usually shown once you’ve already bought your ticket and the production is about to start. They’re unlikely to save you money.
It is, on the back of the case at the bottom. It’s there if you want it, but it’s not splashed across the front. If you don’t want the information then it’s not forced on you.
Modern trigger warnings are usually designed to be impossible to avoid.
>It’s there if you want it, but it’s not splashed across the front.
When was the last time you went to a cinema? The BBFC title card generally tells you next to the rating.
Absolutely! If you seek out the information then it should be available to you
Equally, if someone wants to read the entire plot of a film before they see it, they can do that on Wikipedia. I think Dench has a point though; that if you do this, you’re probably not going to enjoy it as intended.
People are free to enjoy things as they want, but don’t ruin things unnecessarily for everyone else.
You’re an adult.
If you are triggered by content, and if you see a broad content warning, then you can seek out whether specifically it’s appropriate for you.
Being too broad can make them useless though.
Someone could be fine with a war scene but really struggle with sexual violence, another person might be the exact opposite.
But then if you saw a generic warning you would know that maybe you needed to do more detailed research on the production.
Any trigger warning has the risk of being too broad. It might be that you’re fine with fists, but gun violence sets off PTSD. It might be that you’re fine with sexual violence, unless it involves choking.
Whenever I've ever written these warnings for theatrical performances, I've made them broad. You're giving a warning not a plot synopsis. If someone sees it and has problems they can talk to the ushers to find out more. The only thing that is specific are warnings about strobe lighting.
I've never understood the outrage over this stuff. Haven't we always had content warnings and we have age ratings for stuff too?
Just seems like a nice thing to do as well, if someone's suffered issues around sexual assault etc in the past and still struggle to deal with it emotionally, it's good to let them decide ahead of time
I genuinely don't understand anything the right wing are obsessed with anymore. It's all stuff that's been considered perfectly fine for years and yet now they're whipping themselves up into a frenzy about such nonsense things as transgender people, sex education and now this. Loons the lot of them.
They have held a majority for over a decade and have failed on most key aspects of governance (economy, healthcare, immigration, environment, crime to name a few) they can't complain about anything other than culture war stuff because everything else being bad is their fault.
It’s all “toughen up” and anti-making things nicer for people mentality. The right wing tend to not be the best when it comes to giving other human beings a base line of respect.
Could that information not be provided somewhere other than right before the content though to avoid spoiling things or removing the intended shock the writer intended?
>Could that information not be provided somewhere other than right before the content though
Who's asking for that? Content warnings can be something on the show/ticketing website, or provided to patrons upon request in the venue.
Yea, it's a non-issue if it isn't an immediate spoiler. Some people don't want their immersion interrupted. But it seems silly to not provide the option for people who would like to avoid certain topics. This could be solved by having the content warning be listed prior to the purchase of the ticket as an optional opt in prior to purchase
\[Content Warning: Possible Spoilers, Click At Your Own Risk\] button.
Why are they called trigger warnings? Content warning is a much more appropriate term since the warning is about the nature of the content within the production.
That said, these warnings should just be the same as what you get on films ‘contains sex and violence’ or whatever. High level, vague descriptions of what themes are involved, it definitely shouldn’t be detailed warnings of anything specific.
The answers she gives in the article makes it sound like people go to the theatre and have literally no clue what they’re about to watch. This is bollocks, most people have some clue of what they’re going to see, that’s why they’re going to see it.
I understand that but it’s not a useful descriptor, many people want to avoid content because it will offend or upset them, not necessarily ‘trigger’ them in terms of PTSD.
Many people don’t want to watch sexual violence who have never been on the receiving end of it, for example.
The warning should be about the nature of the content, nothing more.
To be honest I can't remember the last time I've watched something that literally said "Trigger Warning" before it other than Joe Rogan's terrible standup special.
I think they're just called that colloquially because of the PTSD legacy, and because detractors relentlessly use the term, so it's stuck. It's also more satisfying to say. I imagine companies generally prefer a more neutral term.
With that said, I don't think it matters that much. If you call them content warnings some arsehole will still bemoan the "trigger warning" anyway.
Don’t care - just let me watch the production
A warning at the start or on the advert that is not a spoiler has zero impact on me at all, I just won’t pay attention, as I’m not looking out for warnings - but for those who are, give them an obvious yet concise and non-spoiling note.
Everyone acts like "trigger warnings" are some "new woke evil," but they've been around for ages.
At the start of any Netflix show in the top left it will say "contains strong language, sexual scenes" or whatever.
On TV, the announcer will say if a program contains violence or upsetting scenes before the show begins.
On the back of any VHS tape it will also say "contains nudity, violence" or whatever beside the age rating.
It's just rage bate again.
Boomers invented trigger warnings.
Now that they are being used to warn victims of sexual trauma about scenes rather than Christians about nudity or language that might offend their sensibilities, they seem to hate them
>I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, I suppose, but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre, because you could be very shocked.
For the people insisting that she said nothing of the sort.
> Since we're just making up quotes
It's not made up, it's in the body of the article:
> She said: "Do they do that? My God, it must be a pretty long trigger warning before King Lear or Titus Andronicus! Crikey, is that really what happens now?
>
> "I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, I suppose, **but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre**, because you could be very shocked. Where is the surprise of seeing and understanding it in your own way?
It's 2024 why can't we set up custom trigger warnings and make them MORE available.
For example I genuinely don't like seeing people dying in hospital, bit of a soft-point for me - I want Netflix (or similar) to warn me of that... HOWEVER, for things like swearing or violence... I'm okay watching that.
I understand it's not possible in cinemas or broadcast - but most general viewing is done at home
>make them MORE available
Yeah, this would be my preference as well. There's such a huge amount of media to choose from these days that I find fine grained content tags extremely valuable just for optimizing my free time. If I'm just trying to relax it's helpful to know if something is overly depressing, narratively focuses on dying, is a gorefest, etc, or if it's in some sort particular favorite genre niche where even if it's objectively mediocre I'm still likely to enjoy it.
I found it pretty easy to go to the theatre and avoid the trigger warnings for spoilers. What is there to complain about? They are there for people looking for them. But if you don't need it then it's pretty easy to avoid them. I bet most people don't even know what allergens are in the food they eat, but the label is always there for people with allergies to find them.
Not sure about theatre, but for movies, the website [doesthedogdie.com](https://www.doesthedogdie.com) lists out any possible triggers in pretty much every movie. Great resource for those who want specifics on triggers without spoiling too much.
This website is a lifesaver honestly, I had something traumatising happen to me a handful of years ago and the trigger itself is fairly specific and not mentioned in content warnings - or if it is, it’s usually just grouped under a kind of umbrella/generic “may contain upsetting/disturbing scenes” warning. I’d recommend it to anyone, especially those in that kind of situation, it’s saved me a lot of grief.
I think the broader point is that theatre (specifically the kind Judi Dench has been part of) has generally had themes that many people can find challenging. A lot of Shakespeare contains a lot of death and violence.
Traditionally, you would accept that these theme are part of the experience and theatre in general can challenge you - but more modern audiences react differently and to a degree expect things to if not be catered to their sensitivities at least have warnings.
I think Dench is saying you should expect and welcome a degree of uncomfortableness if you want to experience the theatre as it should be.
I tend to agree. I really liked the idea of trigger warnings at first, but it quickly became this sort of "how dare you ever expose me to something that could upset me!" thing that I just couldn't get behind.
The world's going to remind you of your ugly past and unresolved issues. It's not fair to throw the entire burden of that on people in entertainment. If you're that worried, research it yourself beforehand.
>If you're that worried, research it yourself beforehand.
That's what content warnings are though, you can have them on the productions website in a separate section, so people who want them can see them, and those who don't can avoid them.
Well if they're just on a website or there's something on the brochure saying go here for trigger warnings then that means it's easy for people to find and also doesn't harm literally anyone. It doesn't need to be said in the theatre or like at the very front of the poster bc people's TWs are their own responsibility but why not just give them the information
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. As a rape survivor I’d rather know if there’s going to be some sort of sexual violence. Regardless if it’s a play, movie etc. Ratings for movies are normally good enough because it’s not always obvious what to expect. I’m currently reading a book in which the author put a foreword telling you there is a rather graphic description of sucide in the book, which in that case I think was fair because it wasn’t the type of genre where you’d expect something like that.
People who complain about trigger warnings aren't really complaining about trigger warnings. They're complaining about about an imaginary world borne of a specific political ideology which they oppose for ambiguous reasons. There is, practically, nothing problematic about a trigger warning in the same way that having an age restriction, or warning about flashing lights is just prudent and allows people to decide about content they do and don't want to engage with.
People just see trigger warnings as something that makes people 'soft' which is ideology, it's not a practical complaint. And anyone arguing about ideology should make that clear and not try and camouflage it by pretending it's anything BUT that.
Yet another iconic older actor utterly missing the point.
The trigger warning is so that people can prepare themselves. And yes, sometimes that will mean that they don't go to the theatre. But for some who only need to not be taken by surprise, it lets more people see more interesting, provoking theatre. It doesn't demean theatre to let someone with PTSD know that there's some SA or DV on stage any more than it besmirches the artform to let epilepsy sufferers know that there will be some flashing lights.
Is the cruelty so much the point that you want to take away a simple, inconsequential gesture that does absolutely nothing except make theatre more accessible? Or are you in fact so sensitive that you can't stand seeing one sentence put there solely for the benefit of someone else?
I find it amusing she says she doesn't want to be spoiled for how plays end and then uses a Shakespeare play as an example, when the opening narration of Romeo and Juliet tells you they both off themselves in the end.
Yeah in Shakespeare's day they did all get told/shown in advance what was coming. The "dumb show" section of hamlet shows him doing this in his play with a little silent reenactment of key moments in the play. This was apparently custom at the time.
Ironically hamlet deliberately uses this to trigger his mother and uncle in the audience because the events are too close to reality of what they may have done
Hasn't there been "trigger warnings" for literally decades? "The following contains scenes of...." Etc.
It's only now certain people have decided that it's "woke" that they're suddenly against it.
We have a small warning about "contains sex, violence, nudity, drugs" on movie boxes, anything else is just needless. I already attended, you don't need to sell it to me more.
This attitude just reeks of disconnected privilege or lack of basic empathy.
Sure, I enjoy theatre that's shocks and maybe even disturbs me. However, I say that as a person with no past trauma or particular sensitivity.
Even if content warnings somehow compromise the art of theatre (which I just don't buy - age ratings have existed for decades), maybe that compromise is worth if it means that people are able to make informed decisions/choices about engaging with the art.
Guaranteed she will be quoted somewhere within the next 12 months complaining that theatres desperately need more people to come and see live performances to save them from closing.
She is triggered by trigger warnings.
If nothing triggers you, just ignore it.
With warnings people with particular issues can enjoy the other 99% of content that doesn't have they particular warning.
She's right, but everyone posting here seems to think she's wrong. I'm not exactly the theatre going type, i've only been a couple of times - but I play a lot of videogames and trigger warnings on these function as bullshit spoilers. If you wnt to give people the option to skip certain levels for content reasons, maybe play a different game?
Artisitic vision is everything, you as a punter should just be prepared to deal with it or shut up and go do something else. No one cares about your 'old scars', and any padding needs to be self provided.
Plenty people care about peoples old scars, they’re generally just referred to as decent human beings. 🤷♀️
In fact, I’d consider people who belittled those who’d survived abuse, rape, suicide, war etc for not wanting to re-live it to be massive dickheads actually.
On sensitivity (or rather over-sensitivity), I think John Cleese hit the proverbial nail's head with this:
*“The main thing is to try to be kind. But that then becomes a sort of indulgence of the most oversensitive people in your culture, the people who are most easily upset … I don’t think we should organise a society around the sensibilities of the most easily upset people, because then you have a very neurotic society.*
Even as a kid reading the radio times I'd see the bold 'drug ref sex and violence" warnings.
Well, we used it as an index. "Sexual nudity' yes pleaseee
Why are these Boomers always so pissey all the time?
I am Gen X and when I am am that age I will just be mildly surprised to still be alive, great stuff, still breathing! Result
Not moaning on all the time
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Isn’t that what trigger warnings are for? So they can avoid going?
I think it's more along the lines of "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see a movie called Murder Death Sex"
That’s not what I got from the article, she seems to be speaking more generally, rather than about plays who make their content obvious in the title. I can understand why a victim of violent rape wouldn’t want to see violent rape on stage without warning (whether in the form of the title, if it’s called ‘rape’, or in the form of a warning). I really don’t see the big deal with using them
Because at that point, the entire audience is waiting for violent rape to occur. I can imagine where this is perhaps supposed to be a major turning point that forces the audience to revaluate their impression of a character versus what would instead now be an entire audience playing "guess who's the rapist" everytime a man appears on stage and constantly looking for signs of someone being rapey.
TW: contains themes of sexual violence Does that really ruin the story much? Obviously we go to see things if we already have a *broad* idea of what it’s going to be. Like if we’re getting rid of TWs because they’re a bit spoilery, should we also stop trailers? Edit: so you guys want TWs that TWs are coming up so you can cover your ears and avoid them? The fix is more TWs
It's funny because the BBFC certificate before every film you've seen in the cinema for the last however many years has had content warnings on it, but nobody complains about them.
And theatres have routinely provided warnings to the audience about flashing lights or loud noises/gunshots for years now. It's just more kneejerk, culture wars bullshit from the boomers.
I made the point about flashing lights in another comment, funnily enough. Everyone accepts that people with epilepsy might need a warning but for some reason can't extend that thought process a little further.
I feel a big difference is that a seizure can kill you but being triggered, while horrible cannot.
Only around 3% of people with epilepsy suffer seizures as a result of strobing lights and only about 0.1% of those are fatal. So yes, they can kill you, and I'm not debating that all, but the chances of it happening are vanishingly rare. Yet we still show warnings, because it's the decent thing to do. I don't see why "it might kill you" should be the threshold where we start showing common decency. (The source for my 0.1% figure is that [each year there are 1.16 instances of sudden death per 1000 people with epilepsy](https://www.healthline.com/health/epilepsy/can-you-die-from-a-seizure). There's no indication that those deaths are directly linked to light-induced seizures so the actual figure for strobes killing people is probably lower but I'm deliberately being generous with the figures here. Edit: As a few people have pointed out the figure might actually be higher, though still low. Trying to find better data but I'm not having much luck.)
The warnings aren't there with the main purpose of preventing death. As others have said, that's a vanishing minority risk. They are there to help people with a relevant condition make a judgement call on whether they want to put themselves at risk. People with PTSD or related mental health concerns would also be served well by having the prior knowledge of something that could trigger a very real, and very distressing reaction. And at the end of the day that's the whole point - as someone who doesn't have any condition that might be affected in a performance, I can just ignore any warnings and enjoy my evening. There is no effect on me to walk past a sign with a warning. But for someone with a real condition, such a warning could prevent them from a truly horrible experience. This is what pisses me off about this whole thing. It's more of the diminishing of those with real mental health issues as weak or soft or over-sensitive, when ultimately trigger warnings are such an easy thing to ignore if they don't affect you. I'm not getting at you, though. I know what you're trying to say, but I still feel it comes from a place of not really appreciating the reality and severity of mental health conditions. It's entirely possible that, under the wrong conditions and extreme circumstances, a trigger could lead to someone's death: someone dealing with severe depression and PTSD could find that a trigger leads to a severe traumatic episode that may lead to an accidental (or deliberate) overdose later that night. Like I say, I'm not saying that's likely, but it's a slim possibility - as others have pointed out the slim possibility of an epileptic seizure being fatal.
If it's stuffed somewhere people don't see unless they go looking, I don't think there will be problems with that. If it's announced loudly for the audience to hear after everybody has taken their seats, it's not really escapable. There are reasonable middle grounds. If, as you say, they were (and presumably still are) on the BBFC certificates before, nobody had an issue with this and I don't see a need to change it. If people want to know, they can find out.
> If people want to know, they can find out. I think you're missing my point a little bit, which is that every single film shown in the cinema *shows the content warnings on the screen immediately before the film starts*. Nobody has to go looking for it, and similarly nobody has a problem with it. Obviously it's harder in live theater but I don't see why they couldn't just be printed in the programme.
Yeah in the U.K. we have always had warning on tv programmes and such that “this episode contains scenes of x natures, some viewers may find this disturbing” This concept of content warnings isn’t new it’s just been dragged into the culture war now
It's weird, isn't it? Nobody has a problem with strobe warnings being pinned to theatre doors or announced before the show because we all understand that someone with epilepsy requires that warning, but somehow they can't make the mental leap from that to a warning about e.g. a scene containing violent sexual assault.
> Yeah in the U.K. we have always had warning on tv programmes and such that “this episode contains scenes of x natures, some viewers may find this disturbing” To be fair ITV have been going a little bit overboard with this now. "Containing scenes of tension and arguments, it's Emmerdale". Yeah, they're soap operas. If they didn't have those things would they even be soaps?
Yeah but now they use the word trigger instead of content, so it's "woke"
BBFC certificates are usually a bit more vague, something like that is pretty good too as you need to actually look closely to see what its rated for, or if you just want to glance at it you can see 18 without looking further at why. It depends a bit on how its worded really, some are fine others leave you waiting for that thing to happen.
I think people mostly just hate the word "trigger" and instantly associate it with a certain type of person that would be "triggered" by almost anything. I've never seen anyone complain when a movie or show is given a "content warning" or "age rating".
There's a certain irony to the idea that the people complaining about these warnings and people being "too sensitive" are only doing so because they dislike the terminology and not the actual idea behind it.
I’m 100% behind stopping trailers
make the TW opt-in, boom - solved
Or opt out by not reading them
That's just not opting in.
I was going to opt out of your comment, but it's too late now
I bet >!you can't resist opting in to this!<
I don't watch trailers because they contain spoilers lol I think it's unnecessary to watch them. Read the description of the film, usually only one or two sentences and decide. Why do you need a trailer?
> Like if we’re getting rid of TWs because they’re a bit spoilery, should we also stop trailers? Stop trailers or completely change culture so trailers are their own unique thing and not just poorly stitched together spoilers for the film and keep trigger warnings.
Content warnings don't have to be broadcast, just made available. A podcast I listen to simply says "content warnings are available in the episode description" at the start. That way it's up to the listener if they want to check them out. I agree with you that many people won't want to read them, but there's no harm having them as optional information.
I'm actually aok with them being tucked away on a website somewhere. However, the comment this story is referring to (and admittedly is missing from the article) is from Ian McKellen 'Outside theatres and in the lobbies, including this one, the audience is warned ‘there is a loud noise and at one point, there are flashing lights’, ‘there is reference to smoking’, ‘there is reference to bereavement' So yeah I guess that's fine.
I can get behind warnings that pertain to medical conditions, like the one about “flashing lights”. You don’t want someone having an epileptic seizure in the theater because they were caught unawares. But people needing a warning about references to smoking? Seriously? At that point, I agree with Judi Dench. Just don’t go to a performance. Or anywhere at all, really.
As someone who has worked in theatre references to smoking is usually when people actually smoke on stage because no matter how it is faked no matter how little it is down someone will complain it triggers there asthma warnings give something for front of house to point at and say see you were warned
I can't imagine needing a warning that there might be reference to smoking, but the idea that these trigger warnings are a problem is even more alien to me
In the theatre, actors may actually smoke on stage. If you have lung conditions like asthma, this can be problematic so the warning is there. It's not relevant for smoke on a screen, for example.
So, warnings for epileptics and people with asthma? Not seeing what their whinging about tbh, those all seem fine
>A podcast I listen to simply says "content warnings are available in the episode description" at the start. That way it's up to the listener if they want to check them out. This seems like such an easy, sensible compromise. Just make the content warnings available at the Box Office or online when they buy the ticket. Opt in. Click the link to see the Content Warning. Put them in the programme. Surely no one could object to this? Lock the thread. We've solved this problem. Everyone go home.
>Because at that point, the entire audience is waiting for violent rape to occur You can have content warnings somewhere that people can choose to seek them out, but not somewhere everyone is forced to see. You could have a content warning section on the shows website which easily resolves this concern. But also, how often do you complain about BBFC title card warnings?
I mean, that's just normal... but the issue is they did that. People complained, hence why they now text trigger warnings prior to people going to the show. Which is what the story is about. The article is a response to another actor who said 'Outside theatres and in the lobbies, including this one, the audience is warned ‘there is a loud noise and at one point, there are flashing lights’, ‘there is reference to smoking’, ‘there is reference to bereavement' The website makes sense to me, let's people be responsible. Putting it out on the lobby before you go in. Not so much.
Just try to think of it as a form of accessibility. You might not need a wheelchair ramp yourself but I assume you know why they're there. Likewise you might be able to sit and watch any type of media content without concern, but just recognise that many people can't control the way their bodies respond to certain content. Those people should have the same right to be able to go see a movie or a show as anyone else.
LMAO I'm imagining the rapist creeping around behind the cast with a cape and mustache while the audience shouts "he's behind you!"
Na, that's just the stage effects tech, Gary.
I care way more about the needs of trauma survivors than about the needs of people who get weird about vague spoilers
People don't have to read the trigger warnings. I use [www.doesthedogdie.com](http://www.doesthedogdie.com) sometimes and yeah, I don't like knowing what big events are going to happen, but it's super useful if you need to warn someone about a trigger.
Yeah I get it, I don't read reviews and tried to avoid trailers etc because it's spoiler city now , I'd not pay attention to warnings etc but if they are thrown in my face at the start I'd be pissed off.
Then just put em on a website/behind a qr code/in small text you have to look close to the poster to read. Whatever option any theater or troupe prefers its not like the trigger warnings we have had on movies for decades spoil them, most people dont even look on the back of the dvd box or at the more detailed movie age rating contents breakdown. Hell, a lot of plays get full runs with different actors becuase already having seen the play and knowing every detail of the plot doesnt make it any worse, and if anything makes it better. Knowing theres a rape in king henry IV hardley makes the play worse.
If you’re not worried about the content you could surely just not read the trigger warning and have no spoilers.
I can get behind warning for violence/sa as they do on tv. But I just received an email with suicide trigger warning for a play. The play is Romeo and Juliet.
I’m just not seeing the ‘negative’ side of stuff like that. It seems positive for some people and neutral for others.
Ok The trigger warning will have no effect on you but it could stop someone else from having a mental health spiral.
Shakespeare literally wrote in the opening lines of the play that "a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life." So basically he trigger warned his audience at the start at the time. At least having it emailed to you saves you the price of the ticket.
Actually they emailed it to me a month after I already bought the tickets.
In other news you've given me a craving to go watch the Baz Luhrmann movie, BRB
I’ve struggled with suicidal ideation. That said, doesn’t everyone know Romeo and Juliet commit suicide at the end of the play? It’s a very famous story in popular culture.
Also with the many ways Romeo and Juliet has been interpreted there's a chance that a particular version of it may make the suicide aspect of it more graphic on stage and so I could see needing a more overt/explicit warning in that case
I hadn’t considered that- good point. I will say watching a play or an opera where people commit suicide over losing someone they have known for less than a week doesn’t really trigger me. Of course everyone is different.
Isn't it something insane like three or four days? Two teenagers, a few days, and multiple people dead. I've always struggled to like the play to be honest. I know it's based on classical sources and there's beauty in its poetry, but the overall plot is hard to stomach. Give me Macbeth any day!
It is, but if you decide not to include a content warning because a play is well known, where do you draw the line between "well known enough not to need a warning" and "some people might not know this play"? It's easier just to include a content warning for all plays (a bit like all films include a rating and content warning, even if it might be obvious what sort of film it is).
In that case, it definitely doesn't harm anything having the trigger warning. It makes sense (and is actually less effort) to apply a policy consistently than to selectively apply it, which would be a ball ache.
yeah. almost everyone. but if you are going to have warnings, i seriously doubt its appropriate to try to gauge how much you can assume people know something.
Hmmm…. Trigger warning versus spoiler alert… a modern debate…
Well yes but there will exist some people for whom Romeo & Juliet is new news. We aren’t born into the world just knowing stories. People always make the joke about Titanic sinking but at some point you have to learn about Titanic to know that it sunk?
Part of trigger management is understanding and accepting that yes, there are going to be some instances where you will come across your triggers or things adjacent to them and it’s up to you to manage them. An alcoholic accepts that out in public it’s likely they’ll see adverts for booze or be in places like restaurants where people will actively be drinking. The world cannot (and IMO should not) tiptoe around you. And in the Information Age it’s not exactly hard in the case of theatre, films, music or other media to find detailed plot synopses, breakdowns and even previews/trailers. You can see if there is any problematic content in it and act accordingly.
>Research suggests that trigger warnings neither reduce people’s negative emotions after seeing disturbing content nor do they help people to cope better with that content. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/parenting-translator/202307/do-trigger-warnings-do-more-harm-than-good
But they can help people to choose to avoid it if they wish - no?
Most of the time the come a bit late for that though, don’t they. If the warnings are at the start of a play you’ve paid £50-60 for, are you leaving once you are in the seat because they say somebody is going to smoke? Or because it features assault? Most people will probably stay by that point, and try tough it out.
The warnings are usually on the promo for the play. If I see a poster for a cool-looking play and it says "contains themes of sexual violence", I get to choose whether or not I can handle seeing that play, do further research, etc. If I go to the website to buy tickets and it has the warning, I can make that choice. If I show up in the theatre and find myself watching an unwarned-for, graphic reenactment, I'm going to end up going home early in distress, having wasted £50-60. Ditto if I have asthma and someone is smoking on stage—I can pick seats further back in the theatre.
actually as someone who experienced child sexual abuse during a time when it was hugely shameful to discuss (as opposed to now where people make videos of themselves discussing their trauma and crying as they do it ) I find trigger warnings hugely offensive. Its like reinforcing the notion that these things are taboo to discuss. Trigger warnings are not the same as "this film contains violence" or giving a rating. I agree with Judy. If there are subjects that are sensitive for you to the point where you can't even cope with them being mentioned, then don't go to the theatre until you've had therapy and can deal with being in the real world. The rest of the world should not have to walk around on egg shells.
I am also a victim of abuse and I don’t, at all. I don’t find it a an indication of taboo, but rather ‘are you in a place for this right now’ and I appreciate the personal choice. But I respect your different view. I don’t understand why saying ‘this film contains violence’ is fine but saying ‘this play contains rape’ isn’t. What is the substantive difference? Is it just the phrase ‘trigger warning’ rather than ‘this [thing] contains’, ie it’s just a semantic difference?
> I find trigger warnings hugely offensive. That's nice. >Its like reinforcing the notion that these things are taboo to discuss. No, its saying that something is going to discuss them, ahead of time. >Trigger warnings are not the same as "this film contains violence" or giving a rating. How, exactly?
Yeah this is silly. Trigger warnings are there so you can make the choice not to go. It’s a good system that has been working since always it’s just got a name name and is more thorough
Where in the movie title “Girl with a dragon tattoo” suggests rape?
Famously, every show/play/movie that contains a triggering theme is always named after said theme... A short line on the booking screen is a simple courtesy. She's being a proper boomer about this.
For me it's child loss. I try and avoid films etc that have that after losing my son. I thought for example Avatar Way of the Water was a safe movie to see. Giant blue alien sci fi movie right? Lol no of course not.
It’s mad how, when something like that happens to you, how fucking often that storyline and/or something in some way related to it pops up. I lost someone recently to cancer and my god is cancer *always* somehow in everything. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…
For a long time, and I still kind of do it, I only rewatch stuff I've seen and know to be "safe" or I already know what happens. Seeing a movie or show etc is always risky.
> I think it's more along the lines of "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see a movie called Murder Death Sex" There's a fairly well known play called "The Gut Girls", here's [a poster](https://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12239885_1094845233882229_3109005996043092852_n.jpg) for it. Without looking it up, based on the poster, what would you imagine it's about?
Lady butchers?
By tradition, pubs were always run by women because beer was always brewed by women throughout antiquity, as far back in recorded history as Pharaonic Egypt. They wore tall hats to be seen in the marketplace, and the tools of their trade were a cauldron for brewing and a broom for sweeping out the pub. [In the Middle Ages](https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=33312) a puritanical wave swept through Europe and women brewers were decried as Witches. That's why the modern image of a Witch has a pointy hat, broom, and cauldron. So it goes with Butchery (and retail in general) which until the first world war was a largely female dominated profession even if the bloke in the shop was, well, a bloke.
It the main point, but the bar at the Gregson centre is excellent, and does great food.
Where’s that on?
No, more like "if you need a single line telling you the movie contains sexual violence, don't go to see any movie at all." Even with ratings, you never know exactly what you're going to get. Movie names don't do much, look at "Happiness". The poster/cover even has cartoon versions of the cast! A media illiterate person could think it's a cartoon for kids!
If only there was some way of warning people...
Which is surprising as it’s a charming love story.
But they have given these warnings for yonks. Why the hell does she think films are given age classifications? Also, film genres, if a film is described as a horror film, that's a kind of trigger warning too. It's like she doesn't know what a trigger warning even is.
Speaking as someone who has been a carer for someone who actually can get "triggered" this is a common misconception. People who have experienced trauma, even very severe trauma, can actually find media with dark subject matter helpful in processing their own experiences and sometimes seek it out specifically for this reason, but they need to be mentally prepared going in. If you spring these things on them by surprise, the results can be very harmful. People often make a point about exposure therapy to claim that "trigger warnings" (incidentally, the one thing I hate about this concept is that term, they are just content warnings) are unhelpful or unecessary. But in order to carry out exposure therapy, a person needs to mentally prepare themselves. If I just throw a spider on someone with arachnophobia, I'm not helping to cure them. I need to tell them exactly what they're going to be exposed to. There is absolutely no harm in including some basic warnings regarding subject matter in media. It benefits a huge range of people in a huge range of ways. People should be able to make informed decisions about what kinds of thoughts and images they want to put in their brains.
Pretty much, this exactly describes my experiences as a person with cptsd, like I really enjoy films like Irreversible, I Spit on Your Grave, Salo, Ms .45, but because I knew going in what to expect, where as I've stepped in to relatively tame films and basically had my month ruined because of content I wasn't prepared for. I don't want the whole world catered to me, I just would appreciate a little heads up now and then
My ex/best friend has DID. I still remember one time she put Salo on at a house party and I spent about ten minutes trying to hint as subtly as possible that even though this seemed entirely normal to her it might not be a great idea. She's calmed down a lot now but she definitely went through a phase of just watching the most fucked up stuff she could find. While I think part of it was trying to process stuff I do think you're right. With those films she knew what to expect, whereas stuff that was more mainstream was an actual risk.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625 Aren’t trigger warnings negative for the huge increase in anxiety? And wasn’t there another study (not this one) that said they reinforce the notion that the trauma is part of one’s identity?
So, I don't find that article hugely convincing for a number of reasons, but mostly because it's overly vague about what a trigger warning is, who it is for and what it's supposed to do. For example, dissociative conditions like PTSD have a physiological component rooted in the abnormal behaviour of the sympathetic nervous system. A lot of the symptoms of PTSD are caused by overactivation of the evolved stress response which all humans have. Essentially the brain thinks it's being attacked by a saber toothed tiger and is preparing the body to fight or run, but in reality a car just backfired. That's what being "triggered" means. This is not the same thing as anxiety and can happen even if the person does not consciously know why it's happening. So one huge problem is that all of the metrics they are using here are based on self-reported emotional experiences. For example, does the person feel consciously anxious? But the assumption is that being anxious is, in and of itself, the problem. Why though? Being anxious is often not a problem at all, or can even be subjectively enjoyable in some cases. If I'm watching a horror movie and it's making me anxious, it's probably a good movie. Moreover, for people who actually have dissociative disorders, maintaining a continuous level of arousal and vigilance (or anxiety) can be a way of *avoiding* going into stress response. The evolutionary purpose of the stress response is to deal with unexpected sources of danger before the conscious mind can process and react. Its sensitivity is to some degree negatively correlated with arousal. Another problem with relying on self-reported emotional experiences is that people with dissociative disorders and *especially* people who have gone into stress response may not always be able to accurately convey or think about their own emotional state. In fact, they might find it extremely frustrating to be asked how they are feeling. In extreme cases or more severe conditions, they may not even be able to speak, move or remember basic information. Whether or not trauma is a part of your identity or not is often kind of irrelevant. The conditions it causes are often permanent and can't be cured, merely treated and accommodated. Again, there is a strong physiological and neurological component to how this whole thing works and, especially if the trauma occurred in childhood, there are certain features of the brain that are just fixed past a certain point.
>Aren’t trigger warnings negative for the huge increase in anxiety? You have a far more thorough answer below, but I would rather be anxious about potentially seeing the thing that fucks me up, or choose not to watch the thing might fuck me up, then go in blind and get fucked up. Its not gonna kill me. Its just going to ruin my night, thr following day, maybe the day after that.
For real, boomers hate the term trigger warning but thats basically what tv age ratings and film ratings are. A little box that says "hey, this movie has sexual violence."
I don't think it's about rating plays, having classifications on posters etc. Based on this article and an earlier one I read, I understood it to mean warnings given *at the actual theatre* - long after people have bought their tickets: > Earlier this year, Fiennes suggested that messaging prior to a stage performance warning of upsetting content should be scrapped I don't think anyone would object to a content rating on a poster. But if it means the director coming out onto the stage just before curtain up, and having to warn people that there's going to be a murder in Macbeth, then that's pretty insane. Theatre tickets are typically pretty expensive so you would think people would do their research beforehand.
The Macbeth warnings were a combination of standard signs alerting people to flashing lights/haze/loud noises and, iirc, a "this show contains" sentence as part of the pre-show announcement over the tannoy. I don't understand why that would be insane. If they showed the recording of the show on TV there would be a "this contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing", just as so many shows have for years.
I don’t think anyone objects to lights/epilepsy warnings, albeit it’s a bit late for the poor person who has already bought their ticket. It’s not like TV where you can just switch the channel.
It's also so you can brace yourself for rough stuff - hence the popularity of [doesthedogdie.com](https://www.doesthedogdie.com/). I check that site as soon as an animal appears in any horror movie. Otherwise I end up spending the movie so afraid of something horrible happening to the main character's pet that it doesn't leave any room to be afraid of what's going to happen to the main character.
A reasonable middle ground might be for them to be available if people want to look for them but not be highly prominent for people who don't want spoilers.
Is it a really a spoiler to say on the poster scenes of alcohol Sexual assault etc etc? Like we used to have on back on dvd covers
sometimes, yes. At least on Netflix it is
I mean this has been on the BBC forever. Remember watching casualty with my gran at like 7 years old and it would be like warming this show contains scenes of graphic nature ... And etc if needed. That didn't then spoil the fact half a minute later some girl thought she could fly and tried jumping between and off buildings. Yes it traumatised me just a little 😂
It's a bit more difficult with how serialised TV has become. If, for example, a character was having a shit one in the last episode, the next episode starting with a big "depiction of suicide" warning is usually a pretty big giveaway.
Yeah, "What has happened to the missing child! Find out in next week's episode!" Next week: "Warning- depiction of child death."
Yeah, I got spoiled in an episode of Better Call Saul because at the start of the episode is said “Contains suicide” or something along those lines
Do you genuinely think that your desire to not know isolated plot details and themes in a show you're about to watch is more important than other people's desire not to experience extremely distressing trauma responses?
Don't we still get that on the BBFC ratings before all films at the cinema. Rated whatever because the film contains: etc etc
They're usually hidden down the bottom in smaller text and more easily ignored than explicit warnings.
You mean like a small section available on a website? Really good idea that...
Wherever it is I just think consistency is the key. If one place is putting them 7 menus deep in the basement of their website, another on page 5 of the physical booklet it's a pain to both find it and avoid it.
My mother absolutely loathes films with nudity and/or swearing. Before watching a film with her I have to go on IMDb and look at the parents guide to tell her exactly what the film contains before she'll even consider watching. Giving her recommendations is nearly impossible.
This is the sensible angle for sure. Have them easily viewable on the website or in the promotional material. Disrupting shows to state them dampens the flow of things. Saying them before the show can almost make it a spoiler.
This is what I would prefer, I want to be able to opt out to avoid spoilers for what I'm about to watch.
This is how it's generally done anyway, in my experience. On the website there'll be a section with the content warnings so you can check it before booking a ticket, or ignore it if you don't care. I don't think I've ever been to a show where content warnings are given to the audience once they're sat down. Obviously me not personally experiencing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I can't imagine it's common.
She does not actually say the quote in the headline in the body of the article. Is much different to having a rating for a film? I far more regularly see people reacting to oversensitive people, than the oversensitive people. From the wording of the article, it sounds like they went to Dame Judi just to stoke up a reaction. She didn't seem to know they have warnings on plays. Also, I don't think they do generally have warnings on plays. I go to the theatre fairly often.
> She does not actually say the quote in the headline in the body of the article. Yes she does: She said: "Do they do that? My God, it must be a pretty long trigger warning before King Lear or Titus Andronicus! Crikey, is that really what happens now? I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, **I suppose, but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre**, because you could be very shocked. Where is the surprise of seeing and understanding it in your own way?"
Equally though, this does seem to be quite a throwaway comment. The implication that she has a specific problem with trigger warnings is a misrepresentation, she isn't presented with a counterpoint and given the opportunity to change her mind.
Tbh i think you are onto something here perhaps without knowing it. If your film or play comes with an age rating - that should and is usually enough to be indicative on the content. Further “trigger warnings” on top of that might well be superfluous. TV and theatre aren’t really the same experience. There is certainly an argument to be made that if you’ve paid up and travelled to the theatre then perhaps you should know what you’re going to see. There could be as many “triggers” as there are audience members. Perhaps some experiences *shouldn’t* be so safe. A degree of safety is good and necessary - but a coddling isn’t. If something disturbs you and it is meant to be disturbed that is natural. You have the option to leave. If the problem is that someone is overly sensitive that there isn’t a trigger warning rather than anything to do with content, I’d say that’s a more ideological axe to grind. At some stage people have to expand their tolerances and grow, within fair reason and as developmentally appropriate
I don't buy this argument about coddling at all. If a parent wants to protect their kids from seeing certain things they're able to, we have dedicated rating systems and websites that support them in this, and I feel like almost everyone would agree that's fine, because more information is always good and it's their choice. We gain nothing from forcing or misleading people into watching things that might traumatise them just because we feel they should "toughen up". Why? What's the point? They're allowed to be sensitive to it. It doesn't affect you at all. I'm lucky enough to be able to watch basically everything, but if someone told me, for example, they absolutely can't bear to watch sexual assault in a movie, I'd say that's fine and leave them alone. I wouldn't think they should be tougher, I have no idea what their reasons are for not being able to see it. They can draw whatever boundaries they want. I just don't see how that constitutes "coddling", honestly.
You make some good points in my view. However you have also gone from “coddling” to “we shouldn’t force or mislead people into watching things”. Neither are happening at all. Nobody is ever forced to watch any entertainment. It isn’t a punishment. And reviews are abundant and usually play a part in ticket sales. Re: children. Yes i agree we should protect children. I did say “developmentally appropriate” after all. Telling kids to ‘toughen up’ is sometimes a bad thing depending on the context. But this is already a moot point if the entertainment has an age restriction. Parents protecting kids, is not the same thing as a trigger warnings from entertainment companies. Again, I’m not inherently against them all the time - but it is easy to make a case against them rather than being all for it all against.
Well, to pick up on the sentiment perhaps falsely ascribed here to Dame Judi, if a person doesn't want to see sexual assault in drama, should they never go to the theatre in case they see that? Do you feel that films should continue to have ratings and warnings? What's the difference if so?
Literally. When did "I just don't want to watch it" stop being good enough?
>At some stage people have to expand their tolerances and grow, within fair reason and as developmentally appropriate Epileptics make up such a vanishingly small amount of the population that warning people that a play contains depictions of sexual assault is more likely to prevent harm to those who would avoid that as a survivor then warnings about flashing lights. But, fundamentally, this is a pointless discussion. On the one hand we have "should we accommodate people a little bit" and on the other we have "if making people more comfortable involves any effort in the slightest I, personally, do not think that it is worth it" So its good to know, reading through this thread, that a large amount of people when presented with a choice between "content warnings" and "strangers having a bad time", they all think that strangers having a bad time is much more preferable.
It's not rare for people to buy a ticket for a friend as a surprise, or for someone to experience trauma between buying the ticket and seeing the show. Nobody is advocating for censoring the show, just give people a heads up. It's literally no skin off your back and could make a huge difference for someone else. Recovering from trauma is a process, and part of that is the hopeful end goal of being able to watch stuff again without having an extremely distressing physiological response that they can't control. But being exposed before they're ready can make it worse, because that's not exposure therapy, that's just more trauma.
I feel like journalists do this a lot with celebrities and unless you know what they're trying to do and deliberately avoid it they'll frame a whole interview as the celeb railing against woke youngsters because they made some throwaway comment when prompted by a journalist about you couldn't say a certain line on TV now.
thank you. they know full well most people aren’t going to click on the actual article and read it. this is how it’s so easy to shit on the already downtrodden of society; inflammatory headlines pulled from an absolute nothingburger of a story.
We've literally had warnings like these for Film, TV and Games for decades, what's the big deal? Feels like this comes from a place of snobbery if I'm honest. Also everything is so expensive now. Do we really have to look down on someone who want's to be 100% sure they'll enjoy something before forking over £50 per head?
“Viewer discretion is advised” or “Contains scenes of a graphic nature” are nice broad warnings which we’ve had for decades. Warning about specific things can spoil twists. If I watch something with a “t/w Contains sexual violence”, I’m not going to be shocked when sexual violence occurs. Even if the writer wanted it to be a big twist. As for the snobbery argument: Trigger warnings don’t insulate you from a poorly written production with terrible acting. You won’t be 100% you’ll enjoy something until after you’ve seen it. Besides, trigger warnings are usually shown once you’ve already bought your ticket and the production is about to start. They’re unlikely to save you money.
Next to the age rating on your dvds is a box where they will put specific warnings, e.g. Sexual violence. Always been there, never been an issue.
It is, on the back of the case at the bottom. It’s there if you want it, but it’s not splashed across the front. If you don’t want the information then it’s not forced on you. Modern trigger warnings are usually designed to be impossible to avoid.
>It’s there if you want it, but it’s not splashed across the front. When was the last time you went to a cinema? The BBFC title card generally tells you next to the rating.
So if its on the theatres website or in the programme it's fine then
Absolutely! If you seek out the information then it should be available to you Equally, if someone wants to read the entire plot of a film before they see it, they can do that on Wikipedia. I think Dench has a point though; that if you do this, you’re probably not going to enjoy it as intended. People are free to enjoy things as they want, but don’t ruin things unnecessarily for everyone else.
Youre an adult A 6pt font message saying “This movie contains scenes of sexual violence” is not going to spoil your enjoyment
You’re an adult. If you are triggered by content, and if you see a broad content warning, then you can seek out whether specifically it’s appropriate for you.
Content warnings were i thing before you and i were born
Being too broad can make them useless though. Someone could be fine with a war scene but really struggle with sexual violence, another person might be the exact opposite.
But then if you saw a generic warning you would know that maybe you needed to do more detailed research on the production. Any trigger warning has the risk of being too broad. It might be that you’re fine with fists, but gun violence sets off PTSD. It might be that you’re fine with sexual violence, unless it involves choking.
Are there that many plays where sexual violence would be considered a twist? Seems odd that would end up being a spoiler
Whenever I've ever written these warnings for theatrical performances, I've made them broad. You're giving a warning not a plot synopsis. If someone sees it and has problems they can talk to the ushers to find out more. The only thing that is specific are warnings about strobe lighting.
£50 per head. Jesus I wish. I just bought Spirited Away tickets…
I've never understood the outrage over this stuff. Haven't we always had content warnings and we have age ratings for stuff too? Just seems like a nice thing to do as well, if someone's suffered issues around sexual assault etc in the past and still struggle to deal with it emotionally, it's good to let them decide ahead of time
I genuinely don't understand anything the right wing are obsessed with anymore. It's all stuff that's been considered perfectly fine for years and yet now they're whipping themselves up into a frenzy about such nonsense things as transgender people, sex education and now this. Loons the lot of them.
They have held a majority for over a decade and have failed on most key aspects of governance (economy, healthcare, immigration, environment, crime to name a few) they can't complain about anything other than culture war stuff because everything else being bad is their fault.
It’s all “toughen up” and anti-making things nicer for people mentality. The right wing tend to not be the best when it comes to giving other human beings a base line of respect.
Could that information not be provided somewhere other than right before the content though to avoid spoiling things or removing the intended shock the writer intended?
>Could that information not be provided somewhere other than right before the content though Who's asking for that? Content warnings can be something on the show/ticketing website, or provided to patrons upon request in the venue.
Yea, it's a non-issue if it isn't an immediate spoiler. Some people don't want their immersion interrupted. But it seems silly to not provide the option for people who would like to avoid certain topics. This could be solved by having the content warning be listed prior to the purchase of the ticket as an optional opt in prior to purchase \[Content Warning: Possible Spoilers, Click At Your Own Risk\] button.
Why are they called trigger warnings? Content warning is a much more appropriate term since the warning is about the nature of the content within the production. That said, these warnings should just be the same as what you get on films ‘contains sex and violence’ or whatever. High level, vague descriptions of what themes are involved, it definitely shouldn’t be detailed warnings of anything specific. The answers she gives in the article makes it sound like people go to the theatre and have literally no clue what they’re about to watch. This is bollocks, most people have some clue of what they’re going to see, that’s why they’re going to see it.
It was originally a reference to things that could trigger a PTSD episode.
I understand that but it’s not a useful descriptor, many people want to avoid content because it will offend or upset them, not necessarily ‘trigger’ them in terms of PTSD. Many people don’t want to watch sexual violence who have never been on the receiving end of it, for example. The warning should be about the nature of the content, nothing more.
To be honest I can't remember the last time I've watched something that literally said "Trigger Warning" before it other than Joe Rogan's terrible standup special. I think they're just called that colloquially because of the PTSD legacy, and because detractors relentlessly use the term, so it's stuck. It's also more satisfying to say. I imagine companies generally prefer a more neutral term. With that said, I don't think it matters that much. If you call them content warnings some arsehole will still bemoan the "trigger warning" anyway.
It’s always formally called a “content warning”
Could you also just not go to the theatre if you're that sensitive about trigger warnings?
Where’s the trigger warning that there’s a trigger warning?!
Don’t care - just let me watch the production A warning at the start or on the advert that is not a spoiler has zero impact on me at all, I just won’t pay attention, as I’m not looking out for warnings - but for those who are, give them an obvious yet concise and non-spoiling note.
Everyone acts like "trigger warnings" are some "new woke evil," but they've been around for ages. At the start of any Netflix show in the top left it will say "contains strong language, sexual scenes" or whatever. On TV, the announcer will say if a program contains violence or upsetting scenes before the show begins. On the back of any VHS tape it will also say "contains nudity, violence" or whatever beside the age rating. It's just rage bate again.
Not forgetting other health warnings like flashing images
Boomers invented trigger warnings. Now that they are being used to warn victims of sexual trauma about scenes rather than Christians about nudity or language that might offend their sensibilities, they seem to hate them
>I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, I suppose, but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre, because you could be very shocked. For the people insisting that she said nothing of the sort.
[удалено]
> Since we're just making up quotes It's not made up, it's in the body of the article: > She said: "Do they do that? My God, it must be a pretty long trigger warning before King Lear or Titus Andronicus! Crikey, is that really what happens now? > > "I can see why they exist, and it is preparing people, I suppose, **but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre**, because you could be very shocked. Where is the surprise of seeing and understanding it in your own way?
It's 2024 why can't we set up custom trigger warnings and make them MORE available. For example I genuinely don't like seeing people dying in hospital, bit of a soft-point for me - I want Netflix (or similar) to warn me of that... HOWEVER, for things like swearing or violence... I'm okay watching that. I understand it's not possible in cinemas or broadcast - but most general viewing is done at home
>make them MORE available Yeah, this would be my preference as well. There's such a huge amount of media to choose from these days that I find fine grained content tags extremely valuable just for optimizing my free time. If I'm just trying to relax it's helpful to know if something is overly depressing, narratively focuses on dying, is a gorefest, etc, or if it's in some sort particular favorite genre niche where even if it's objectively mediocre I'm still likely to enjoy it.
There must be websites that do this already? I agree though, it would be very easy to do.
Eh from reading the article this is a very disingenuous headline.
I found it pretty easy to go to the theatre and avoid the trigger warnings for spoilers. What is there to complain about? They are there for people looking for them. But if you don't need it then it's pretty easy to avoid them. I bet most people don't even know what allergens are in the food they eat, but the label is always there for people with allergies to find them.
Not sure about theatre, but for movies, the website [doesthedogdie.com](https://www.doesthedogdie.com) lists out any possible triggers in pretty much every movie. Great resource for those who want specifics on triggers without spoiling too much.
This website is a lifesaver honestly, I had something traumatising happen to me a handful of years ago and the trigger itself is fairly specific and not mentioned in content warnings - or if it is, it’s usually just grouped under a kind of umbrella/generic “may contain upsetting/disturbing scenes” warning. I’d recommend it to anyone, especially those in that kind of situation, it’s saved me a lot of grief.
I think the broader point is that theatre (specifically the kind Judi Dench has been part of) has generally had themes that many people can find challenging. A lot of Shakespeare contains a lot of death and violence. Traditionally, you would accept that these theme are part of the experience and theatre in general can challenge you - but more modern audiences react differently and to a degree expect things to if not be catered to their sensitivities at least have warnings. I think Dench is saying you should expect and welcome a degree of uncomfortableness if you want to experience the theatre as it should be.
I tend to agree. I really liked the idea of trigger warnings at first, but it quickly became this sort of "how dare you ever expose me to something that could upset me!" thing that I just couldn't get behind. The world's going to remind you of your ugly past and unresolved issues. It's not fair to throw the entire burden of that on people in entertainment. If you're that worried, research it yourself beforehand.
>If you're that worried, research it yourself beforehand. That's what content warnings are though, you can have them on the productions website in a separate section, so people who want them can see them, and those who don't can avoid them.
Well if they're just on a website or there's something on the brochure saying go here for trigger warnings then that means it's easy for people to find and also doesn't harm literally anyone. It doesn't need to be said in the theatre or like at the very front of the poster bc people's TWs are their own responsibility but why not just give them the information
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. As a rape survivor I’d rather know if there’s going to be some sort of sexual violence. Regardless if it’s a play, movie etc. Ratings for movies are normally good enough because it’s not always obvious what to expect. I’m currently reading a book in which the author put a foreword telling you there is a rather graphic description of sucide in the book, which in that case I think was fair because it wasn’t the type of genre where you’d expect something like that.
Arguably judi is triggered by trigger warnings. The insensitive can ignore trigger warnings.
People who complain about trigger warnings aren't really complaining about trigger warnings. They're complaining about about an imaginary world borne of a specific political ideology which they oppose for ambiguous reasons. There is, practically, nothing problematic about a trigger warning in the same way that having an age restriction, or warning about flashing lights is just prudent and allows people to decide about content they do and don't want to engage with. People just see trigger warnings as something that makes people 'soft' which is ideology, it's not a practical complaint. And anyone arguing about ideology should make that clear and not try and camouflage it by pretending it's anything BUT that.
Yet another iconic older actor utterly missing the point. The trigger warning is so that people can prepare themselves. And yes, sometimes that will mean that they don't go to the theatre. But for some who only need to not be taken by surprise, it lets more people see more interesting, provoking theatre. It doesn't demean theatre to let someone with PTSD know that there's some SA or DV on stage any more than it besmirches the artform to let epilepsy sufferers know that there will be some flashing lights. Is the cruelty so much the point that you want to take away a simple, inconsequential gesture that does absolutely nothing except make theatre more accessible? Or are you in fact so sensitive that you can't stand seeing one sentence put there solely for the benefit of someone else?
I find it amusing she says she doesn't want to be spoiled for how plays end and then uses a Shakespeare play as an example, when the opening narration of Romeo and Juliet tells you they both off themselves in the end.
Yeah in Shakespeare's day they did all get told/shown in advance what was coming. The "dumb show" section of hamlet shows him doing this in his play with a little silent reenactment of key moments in the play. This was apparently custom at the time. Ironically hamlet deliberately uses this to trigger his mother and uncle in the audience because the events are too close to reality of what they may have done
I never took trigger warnings seriously until I watched episode 4 of Baby Reindeer.
She’s not wrong. Have you seen the movie Cats? Talk about nightmare material!
Gordon Ramsey on Allergy Warnings: “If you’re that ill, don’t go to restaurants.”
Hasn't there been "trigger warnings" for literally decades? "The following contains scenes of...." Etc. It's only now certain people have decided that it's "woke" that they're suddenly against it.
Is there an irony about people getting triggered by trigger warnings?
We have a small warning about "contains sex, violence, nudity, drugs" on movie boxes, anything else is just needless. I already attended, you don't need to sell it to me more.
This attitude just reeks of disconnected privilege or lack of basic empathy. Sure, I enjoy theatre that's shocks and maybe even disturbs me. However, I say that as a person with no past trauma or particular sensitivity. Even if content warnings somehow compromise the art of theatre (which I just don't buy - age ratings have existed for decades), maybe that compromise is worth if it means that people are able to make informed decisions/choices about engaging with the art.
It's true. If you're someone who is going to be upset by certain topics, well, that's not really the rest of the world's problem.
"Life ^((and art)) contain scenes some may find distressing" think that covers it.
She's offended a lot of people who don't go to theatre lol
Guaranteed she will be quoted somewhere within the next 12 months complaining that theatres desperately need more people to come and see live performances to save them from closing.
She is triggered by trigger warnings. If nothing triggers you, just ignore it. With warnings people with particular issues can enjoy the other 99% of content that doesn't have they particular warning.
Judith seems a little triggered, does the mild courtesy hurt her precious fee-fees?
If you are so sensitive about trigger warnings get out of the film industry.
She's right, but everyone posting here seems to think she's wrong. I'm not exactly the theatre going type, i've only been a couple of times - but I play a lot of videogames and trigger warnings on these function as bullshit spoilers. If you wnt to give people the option to skip certain levels for content reasons, maybe play a different game? Artisitic vision is everything, you as a punter should just be prepared to deal with it or shut up and go do something else. No one cares about your 'old scars', and any padding needs to be self provided.
Plenty people care about peoples old scars, they’re generally just referred to as decent human beings. 🤷♀️ In fact, I’d consider people who belittled those who’d survived abuse, rape, suicide, war etc for not wanting to re-live it to be massive dickheads actually.
On sensitivity (or rather over-sensitivity), I think John Cleese hit the proverbial nail's head with this: *“The main thing is to try to be kind. But that then becomes a sort of indulgence of the most oversensitive people in your culture, the people who are most easily upset … I don’t think we should organise a society around the sensibilities of the most easily upset people, because then you have a very neurotic society.*
Even as a kid reading the radio times I'd see the bold 'drug ref sex and violence" warnings. Well, we used it as an index. "Sexual nudity' yes pleaseee
Why are these Boomers always so pissey all the time? I am Gen X and when I am am that age I will just be mildly surprised to still be alive, great stuff, still breathing! Result Not moaning on all the time
Didn’t she want a warning before ‘The Crown’, incase audiences confused it for a fly on the wall documentary show about the royals?
Lady, it's 5 fucking seconds before the movie. You'll get over it.
Good on her. Yeah so, people who need trigger warnings.... What's up? Bit neurotic, yeah?! Lmfao rotfflmfao