The format of the talk show was, I thought, a great way to reference power struggles through language and across discourses. The language of the media, its format, seeks and requires resolution, answers in recognizable codes, and Fluency is precisely about opacity and the incommensurability of experience, of rendering experience through language in its entirety. The interaction between Billy (the talk-show host) and Peter is one of the parts in which I think the concept and some of the discussions we had throughout the creation process about the limits of language were presented the most profoundly. It is an unfolding conversation, but the languages don’t meet. However, this failure to meet is not related to language in its materiality but to its politics, to specific investments and ideological structures clashing. There may be many ways of understanding Peter’s dance-response to Billy, but one I can see is the difficulty of articulating verbally the experience of cultural contact as an embodied experience, the difficulty of capturing it in language. And also the inability of a specific “structure”—in this case, the media structure, representing common sense, normative and logocentric discourse, dominant narratives of culture and nation—to listen. But is Billy himself ultimately “listening”? Is he, or is any part of his self, able to listen? Does he “end up” listening or is this attempt at dialogue doomed to failure? These are the kinds of questions Fluency raises. It touches on ethics as well.