HowlRound: So, after a quiet cry in my studio, I realized that my artistic faith demanded that I question why it is that mainstream American theater has such a strong tendency to limit the audience’s role, to feed them a performance without demanding (or even leaving an opening for) any vision on their part, to create work that is only marginally different from what that audience might see at the movies. And, eventually, I began to wonder if the linear nature of traditional American theater-making is partially at fault and if my way of working as an artist isn’t contributing to this problem.
8 comments:
It is interesting to hear the different interpretations and expressions of what is known by all to be, “Theatre.” We tend to try and fill in all of the what if’s and why’s throughout the course of a show. We want the audience to understand what our specific meaning is behind our choices, which according to Robert Kaplowitz, is the complete opposite across the world. What if we were to leave some imagination up to the viewer, so that they could make their own assumptions, would that be so bad? The audience watches a show and feels what we have made them to feel. We create environments for the audience to feel a certain emotion or interpretation from the performance. We don’t allow anything for interpretation, which in my mind is kind of upsetting. Theatre is an art form of it’s own caliber and can be made into whatever you want. Theatres need to take more risks to involve their audience and make it a more interactive environment. We need to engage our audience and leave them using their minds rather than giving them a straight forward answer.
The audience's role in the theater we create and their level of interaction with the actors is one of the most important qualities of a production. I often argue with my dad, a business consultant, about who theater is for. He argues that theater exists to please it's audience. Without them what is the point? He also argues that the determination of a play's success should be in how many people came to see it (and thus how much money it made).
To a certain extent, he is right. Theater is made for the audience. Without them, we are simply sitting in a room indulging ourselves, constantly reminding ourselves that we are important. With the audience, we as theater artists have a story to share and thoughts and opinions to communicate. I believe that at CMU we try very hard to vary the audience/performer interaction and relationship and are very rarely successful. The format in which we do theater has developed in such a way that creating free form, interactive pieces has become increasingly difficult. I believe that, while a piece does not have to be physically interactive, it does have to engage its audience and pose questions and make them think. What a theater piece is not obligated to do is answer those questions. More and more, that is what the American theater-going public is asking of us.
Maybe as a theatre-maker we think we are limiting the audience because we focus so much on the message we are trying to communicate or the emotion we are trying to evoke, but maybe we should have more faith in the audience that they are walking away with more than what we fed them. As long as the audience is walking away in a discussion I'd say we can't have fenced them in too much. And many people don't have the patience for open-ended works that ask and ask and open and open and then end. We try to provide not only answers but NEW answers to age-old questions or new questions in general.
We need an audience to feel our art. I promise you they are not all taking the same thing out of what we present them with. But I personally believe people are good at coming up with questions, what people need is new perspective, new ideas, new feelings. If we think the audience is responding predictably to our theatre, then its a different issue than the plays we do or the audience's role in them.
I wold like to address Mr. Kaplowitz thoughts from the view point of a technical director. We TD spend a great deal of time thinking of how to make something fly, or spin or disappear or seem to catch on fire and mostly for my sake, I do this because it is going to look freaking cool. Very little do think how is the element going to interact wit the audience? We spend most of our time make things run smoothly so the audience does is not even aware of our presence. Very little do I think, "How can this turn-table interact with the audience to give them a more enriching experience." It seems a bit absurd but IF I consider myself a theater artist then I should encourage this type of conversation in PTM.
Here we are, it's around 10 o'clock and the show has just let out a mass of people that have just served their part as an audience for the last two hours. It isn't surprising when the first thing that people have to say, post performance, is, "what did you think?" or "did you enjoy the show?". The answers will very, maybe a short quip or a comment on the acting quality. After the initial reaction however, there are those that really started to think about the show and what it did for them. I completely agree with Kaplowitz when he says that sometimes the show begins to feed the audience the answers and merely becomes a form of entertainment. That in turn can occasionally make the show loose a little substance or significance. I think that there is something to be said for those shows that keep people guessing and talking. It is unfortunate but there are moments where the audience rejects a show or begins to criticize a performance when that show becomes unclear. The fact that some plays are inexplicable means that there is so much room for interpretation. That is giving the audience a creative license of their own, which can be uncomfortable to some but liberating for others. I wish people questioned a performance and thought about it rather than disclaim a performance. There is often more to a show than what it first appears to be. Again, Kaplowitz is right about the entertainment factor and about how people don't want to think after a hectic work day. Yet, it is also refreshing to let people think a little more, even at the risk of losing a couple of fans.
People can ask questions but sometimes I feel Kaplowitz is right, a lot of new plays are part of a traditional format people come into the theater with certain expectations. Plays and shows that step out of that comfort zone and push the boundaries of traditional theater impress theater buffs and artists but don't sell as well because people aren't prepared to ask questions or to think that way about Broadway. However, I think this is a separate issue from audience involvement. I think the audience can be involved no matter the content of the show. That any play can be done for an audience or in front of an audience as Kaplowitz says. That depends on the people involved, the design team, the performers and even the audience themselves. It can vary from night to night, and an audience can tell the difference. I think it has do do with the difference between theater and film. In theater, as an audience member everything is right in front of you. Every show is an opportunity to make a connection with the audience if everyone involved in the show doesn't take advantage of that then I my opinion one of the things that makes theater worthwhile is lost, and I mourn it as fervently as Kaplowitz does. I do fell we need to slowly introduce theater audiences to new things, to teach them to ask questions, to be engaged and active, and that not all theater is meant to be passive entertainment like Television.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/theater/s_754798.html
Wicked is the reason why most theater practioners ignore the audience and dismiss different, perhaps avant-garde, attitudes towards theater making.
America celebrates the blockbusters and classics of the theater. A lot of these are created using the linear style of development and are centered around a particular performance style: traditional American realism with a bit of expressionistic set design thrown in for flavor. In these styles the audience has their place, safely seated on the other side of the 4th wall.
This rings true for regional and non-commericial venues as well. A show like Wicked introduces an idea of "what theater is" and "what theater should be" into the public's collective consciousness. This is not to say that the people who want to see Wicked don't want to subscribe to their regional theatre or are oblivious or are ignorant of difference modes of performance. But rather Wicked raises the bar, establishes itself as the competition. How can regional theater compete with the Broadway machine? Well mostly, it can't. It's driven by a different economic model. But to artistically compete doesn't mean filling your season with performance art, environmental stageing, or avant-garde performance. Stick to what sells, what people know.
But I'm optimistic. I performed with the article-mentioned Applied Mechanics in Philadelphia and I want to see Wicked this weekend when it comes to Pittsburgh. There's room for both. Don't be afraid to change what theater is, and it will change.
This article raises a lot of questions that I've been thinking about recently regarding theatre and why, when all is said and done, theatre is really just another form of communication. I think there's something fascinating in the idea that this communication doesn't need to be interpreted in the same way and maybe shouldn't be. I think the difference is similar to the difference between a lecture (when someone tells you something and you write it down and remember it) and a conversation. I think that a lot of American theatre, especially commercial theatre on Broadway, does too much lecturing and not enough conversing. In my mind, it's a little bit sad that going to the theatre, when people do go, is considered a form of relaxation, like going to see a movie. However, theatre should never be a passive spectator activity. The audience should be required to think and interpret and adapt their ideas to what they are seeing on stage. If making theatre more about conversing means getting rid of some of the polished, "finished package" production aspect, I don't think that's a bad thing. The excitement of theatre should be about the engagement of it.
Post a Comment