Theatre supplies 'mental health first aiders' for audience members upset by harrowing play
Posted: 2/1/26 at 2:28pm
I’m not sure if the intention of the article is to rage-bait or not, but as a mental health professional, this doesn’t seem entirely beyond the pale. Am I more inclined to tell someone to avoid a show that, given the trigger warnings, may cause an issue? Yeah. But everyone has a different threshold for triggers and also someone who may think that they are in a good space to see the show may not be once the show starts.
To me, this is no different than when they have the sensory/autism-friendly performances sponsored by TDF - it allows consumption of theatre by greater masses while also removing barriers.
Posted: 2/1/26 at 3:30pm
Yeah, it's not quite the same, but I saw a production of Tuesdays With Morrie a year or so ago where tissues were passed out with programs in anticipation of people crying during the show.
Finding ways to accommodate audience members is part of doing a show. That's why shows have had warnings related to content, flashing lights, etc. for years. If a production is known to have particularly sensitive or potentially wrenching subject matter, it's totally appropriate to have people on-site to help aid audience members who could have an extreme reaction to it.
Posted: 2/1/26 at 9:53pm
Somewhere in heaven, this man is smiling.
Posted: 2/1/26 at 10:08pm
I really don't get trigger warnings in general. I'm always baffled by things that--whether we liked them or hated them--were such a matter of course we observed them with little to no difficulty now treated as dangerous to a given person's mental health. That said, if indeed the article was posted to inspried rage bait, it failed with me. I can't imagine being upset by it. It just speaks to a response or maybe even a world view far different than my own.
Updated On: 2/2/26 at 10:08 PM
Posted: 2/2/26 at 12:11am
I think, joevitus, most of us who like trigger warnings are fine with your response. You aren't telling us we can't have them. You accept that.
I do think sometimes we take trigger warnings to far, but for extreme issues with a lot of trauma, I think that it makes sense. I can't really sit thru shows about child sexual abuse because of trauma. The shows I stumbled into that triggered me have proven a very painful reoccurrence.
I think more folks just need to realize the warnings come from people who are grappling daily with real trauma. 🤷
Posted: 2/2/26 at 3:06am
joevitus said: "I really don't get trigger warnings in general. I'm always baffled by things that--whether we liked them or hated them--were such a matter of course we observed them with little to no difficulty now treated and dangerous to a given person's mental health. That said, if indeed the article was posted to inspried rage bait, it failed with me. I can't imagine being upset by it. It just speaks to a response or maybe even a world view far different than my own."
Perfectly reasonable reaction, I think!
For my part, I interpret the rise of trigger warnings to be a recognition that we probably should have always been more cognizant of mental health and people's responses to external stressors; the fact that our generation(s) had to deal with a world that didn't talk about or recognize trauma and stress disorders doesn't mean the world has to go on that way. Someone who knows more can correct me, but I think it's in the same vein as when shows started warning folks about sudden noises or gunshots onstage, which predates these kinds of warnings? Only now we know that people can have stress responses to many other kinds of stimuli.
My view on this particular case is if it means more people engaging with the legitimate theatre, I'm all for it. Anything that enables people to go out and enjoy a night of live theatre will help to keep the art form alive, and competitive with recorded media for a new generation.
Posted: 2/2/26 at 6:22am
Oftentimes, I usually just tell people that a trigger warning is no different than a movie rating. Movie ratings started adding/being more elaborate with description boxes around 1990 with regard to a film’s content, and there hasn’t been that much of a cultural hackle about it. In the case of trigger warnings, it just takes a mental health-forward framing.
Posted: 2/2/26 at 9:12am
quizking101 said: "Oftentimes, I usually just tell people that a trigger warning is no different than a movie rating. Movie ratings started adding/being more elaborate withdescription boxes around 1990 with regard to a film’s content, and there hasn’t been that much of a cultural hackle about it. In the case of trigger warnings, it just takes amental health-forward framing.
"
This isn't really about trigger warnings as we've been discussing it, but since you brought up more detailed ratings issues, do you find it a little weird when, say, the rating info on tv includes the information "smoking"? Like, is seeing people smoke a trigger? Is it so worrysome that kids will see people smoking? I can understand parents being cautious about foul language or sexual situations or violence, but...smoking? And yes I'm totally aware of the many health issues, and no, I would not encourage anyone to start smoking. But the idea that it's controverial or inappropriate for someone to view a character smoking seems excessive.
Posted: 2/2/26 at 9:26am
Movie ratings can be silly or arbitrary, but they’re also more generalized for a wide audience. There are smaller, independent movie rating groups that are even more focused and strict on content and tailored to specific audience groups (ie religious groups, people more sensitive to the wellbeing of animals, etc). Any information or accommodation for audiences is fine with me, as long as it does not impede either my viewing or the creation of art. It’s like providing ingredients and nutrition facts or having menu options that accommodate dietary restrictions.
Posted: 2/2/26 at 9:32am
joevitus said: "I really don't get trigger warnings in general. I'm always baffled by things that--whether we liked them or hated them--were such a matter of course we observed them with little to no difficulty now treated as dangerous to a given person's mental health."
I think that trigger warnings are a good thing, generally. I really like the comparison that was made to movie ratings. Perhaps, implementing a system similar to the ratings system for movies could/should be implemented.
What I’m not so crazy about is a notion that providing “mental health first-aiders” is a positive or responsible action.
That practice implies that the art, or the artists should (and agrees to) be held responsible if their work expresses controversial, or upsetting concepts. Isn’t that at least one of the purposes of artistic expression - to invoke an emotional response? In a way, providing any form of “mental health first-ad” is a form of apologizing for, or deliberately reversing the effects of what art is supposed to do.
A ratings system similar to what’s used in the movie industry would be (IMO) an acceptable compromise that places the responsibility of “triggering” where it belongs - on the audience member that knowingly accepts the responsibility for their own action in choosing to attend a production they were warned might be triggering.
Updated On: 2/2/26 at 09:32 AM
