Stage Directions: Cynthia von Buhler turns even casual artistic whims into bold new adventures. Throughout her career she has been an illustrator, children’s book author, painter, sculptor, band manager and performance artist. Her latest endeavor, Speakeasy Dollhouse, is an immersive theatre experience that takes attendees back to the 1920s and the mystery of her grandfather Frank Spano’s murder. While it emerged initially as a one-off show inspired by book research, the production has evolved into an elaborate, weekly, multi-room production that plays inside gangster Meyer Lansky’s former hangout in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. It’s a time-travel adventure for audiences that allows them to immerse themselves as deeply as they like and come back for more.
13 comments:
I sometimes have to wonder where people draw the line between theatre and performance art. It can't be the presence of a stage or the number of people involved, so I guess it must function as more of a continuum. i really like this idea of immersive theatre and how the audience gets involved. It feels like a LARP, or like those mystery parties that you can throw for people, only more professional.
To follow along with the previous post -- I'm not sure where the line is drawn between theater and performance art. It seems like it has become blurrier and blurrier and completely depends on your own definition. Isn't theater itself a performance art? Confusing! I looked up the definition of performance art just for kicks and it states: " an art form that combines visual art with dramatic performance." So there you go! I definitely agree that this sounds like a sort of professional murder mystery party -- which is awesome! I think it's a neat way to get people involved with theater and the arts and allows you to take an active role. I could see it also just bringing different people together in new and interesting ways. We so often just sit back and watch, but I like the idea of having to think and be a part of a whole. Super cool performance idea.
This sounds like a fun idea, although to me it doesn't exactly seem like art or theater. It involves those things, but to me it seems more like a haunted house. Which maybe some people consider theater, and I don't want to devalue the performance of the actors or the design of the mansion not having seen it. But there are things that involve sets and performers that aren't really theater. Like the live shows they have at amusement parks, like Universal Studios. Whatever we would call this, it does sound pretty cool and the creator seems to be good at achieving what she wants. In the interview she sounded very confident in her abilities, which seems to be an attitude that works for her.
I really like the idea of having an audience be apart of a show. I think that some of the most hard hitting stage productions are shows include audience interaction in the script. It gets them more emotionally involved with the action and raises the stakes in their eyes. I think that this production is taking that concept to a whole new level and it would be interesting to see how this sort of interpretation would affect a more emotional work.
This is a very interesting idea to immerse the audience in the show. However, I also agree that to a certain degree this seems to blur the line between theatre and performance art. I suppose its one thing to have some minimal audience involved/ interaction in the show, but to fully immerse them as a key element of the show seems a little different then theatre. To be honest I'm not sure what you would even call it. On the other hand though, who am I to be defining what theatre is and is not? If this woman sets out to make theatre and declares her work as a piece of theatre, then I guess society should really accept it as some form of theatre.
Much like the other comments, I'm not sure whether or not this is theater or performance art, but it is an intriguing concept. I have helped work murder mystery parties before (though not on the same level as this one) and while there is a distinct theatrical quality to it, it is far closer to improv then a theatrical performance. So much of what happens is changed in the moment because you never know how the audience will react. The lines each actor says aren't as important as conveying certain specific facts. I imagine that after a year and a half the show has vastly improved since part of what makes a murder mystery great is the depth of knowledge an actor has about his character and the actors have had plenty of time to get fully immersed.
I feel as if it is always a productions goal to immerse people into their theatre. The more immersed a person is the better experience they have and farther they are willing to go to believe the situation and environment around them. However I was a little skeptical when I began to read this article because it seem as if the artist was opening a show were the actors walk around and audience members can talk to them. I was not expecting that Cynthia van Buhler was giving out roles to the audience members and even a slight variation on that as well because see gives them an angle as well as a role. I think this allows for a greater flexibility of character. The audience members can chose what they say rather than read a script. Everything a person does will allow other audience members to add more to the story, so when an audience members does something out of character it will add to the mystery.
Another aspect I really enjoyed about this was Cynthia's performance act was based off a actual murder in her family. In Olivier's Nose we talked about how everyone needs to personalize what they create and I think Cynthia's ability to do this has really lifted this production off the ground and help create a following for the show.
This is a fascinating approach, but I've noticed that people are having trouble defining it as theatre. To address the possibility of immersion theatre, I think that the audience becoming characters in the story qualifies immersion, and as long as the audience feels safe (they know where to go, what to do, and they are in a safe, playing environment) then it is a great way to go. Performance art often happens among the audience whilst keeping up the proverbial fourth wall and it seems that later in the show, this is exactly what they would do. It is also quite like an installation in that certain scenes without actors are set up and used to tell a story. So maybe it's all of the above. But what troubles me is that because people cannot necessarily define it, they can't call it theatre. It has a personal connection with the creator, and tells a story that affects other people. What could be more theatrical. We're always striving to deviate from the lines of conventional theatre... so why is it that when someone does, it's a haunted house? In my book, if there's a story there, then it's theatre. Now, enjoying the theatre is a whole other ballgame.
In recent years there has been a great push for theatre to be more interactive and even more recently site-specific work has surged. After seeing "Measure Back" this past week, I can more easily imagine how impactful an experience such as the one discussed in this article would be. I also really find it fascinating how the piece began and has grown as well as the way it allows Cynthia to utilize many of her varied talents.
I think the trend in recent years to have interactive, immersive performance pieces is a great one, and I think it's able to introduce theatre and the performance arts to a new audience that may not have ever gone to see a play. I think that this article brings up a good point in how it talks about the need for interactive performing to be immersive. Everything has to be thought out, so that if something doesn't go according to plan, it can be accommodated. The problem with so many people trying to recreate the success of things like Sleep No More is that many don't realize (or don't have the resources to realize) just how much more work it is than a straightforward, proscenium piece. Everything needs to be planned and thought out, and a lot more eventualities planned for and rehearsed.
This idea of immersion in theatre is one that is a core part of my artistic philosophy about theatre and entertainment as a whole. I love immersive experiences for the audience where its like the audience isnt watching a show in front of them, instead the show is all around them. In my own experiences of this being done successfully, ive seen things like the sound effects for the show being mixed in surround sound, lights and atmospheric effects being focused at the audience, and sometimes most strikingly when the scene designer has brought the set out into the theatre transforming the architecture itself and making the audience feel like they are really in the world of the play as soon as they walk into the theatre.
The concept of immersive theater is really interesting. I love the way it blurs the line between performance and installation art. Right now I am on crew for Alice in Bed, which is a less extreme immersive theater experience, but it's really cool to see how design and directing choices have to adjust in order to fit the nature of the performance. Every inch of the room becomes an element of the play, there is no curtain or stage dividing the actors and audience. I also love the way the piece specifically mentioned in the article has an educational aspect to it. It seems like a really fun, interactive way to learn history.
This article really made me think of Artaud... And we all knows violent that guy can be. All I can say is that as an audience member I absolutely abhor being forced into participating in a show. I think that finding ways to incorporate an audience into an performance experience is interesting, but there's something being ignored. And that's the fact that the act of watching and observing is already huge facet of being apart of a performance art experience. With no one to watch, how does art exist? Particularly performance art.
Post a Comment