Trigger Warnings - Ralph Feinnes wades in...

Yes, trigger warnings never cover the things I have a problem with. I always look up plots before booking anything to try to avoid things but sometimes productions add things that aren't in the plot. It feels as though theatres have decided that audience members are only important enough to be given warnings if they have issues with certain things & those of us who have other issues aren't important enough to be considered.

Doh!

It's a tricky one, because you cannot predict every single reaction to every possible situation within a production.

At Blood Brothers, many theatres have a warning that it contains gun shots. If you haven't seen the show before and go in completely blank, combined with how it starts, it doesn't take a genius to work out the how (just the why and who remains).

A warning such as 'has loud noises, smoke and flashing lights' I find understandable.

But taking Blood Brothers as an example again

He specifically said he thought it was right to have warnings for strobe effects and (I paraphrase) stuff like that, and not just because it's a legal requirement. I saw criticism of him for defending those warnings, saying he was treating physical health more seriously than mental health, and not appreciating the challenges of those who have panic attacks. 

From a very personal point of view, I don't like trigger warnings, and too often they act as spoilers. I like being surprised and shocked. HOWEVER, I understand that comes from a point of privilege and that they are important to some other people. Finding a way to let those who need to protect themselves do so, whilst not ruining the entertainment for others, is key. I'm sure lots of places get it right and we don't even think about those times, whereas the times where they didn't get that balance right are the ones that stick in our minds.

I don't agree with the view that trigger warnings are not in any way 'harmful' for those who don't want to see them. It might depend on how your brain works, and presumably some people can read a trigger warning and immediately forget them, but I'm not one of them. It's like being told to 'watch out for the twist at the end' of a film. I spend the whole time wondering what the twist will be and cursing the person who told me about it.

Apart from anything else, if people are paying money and travelling to see a show, they shouldn't be waiting until the last minute to find out if it's for them. I'd put production based warnings, such as lighting effects, smoke and general noise, into a separate category worth prominence, as they might not have been present the last time you saw that play and are not plot related.

Having the recommended minimum age more prominent may help, along with general warnings about nudity, swearing or violence, while ensuring it's easy for those who do want to know more to get that information. 

I’ve been thinking about this and there is no easy answer. Even myself I kind of want it both ways.
I watched a tv show a while back that had a trigger warning for suicide flash up on screen. There was only one character at risk of that so quite the spoiler and meant I was waiting for it.
I’ve lost a young and an old relative in the last year and need to prepare myself for that being a topic. A trailer came on before the last film I watched where a little boy fell to his death. Shook me. Even if I’d have researched the film I wouldn’t have known that was coming!

My preference would be easy to access trigger warnings. Click here to load in a new page on a website for example, not forced on people who don’t want to know. But as I said, no easy answers or catch alls

I think that implies it's non-sexual nudity. Probably with an element of embarrassment.

Nah... that's been done.