Saturday, September 20, 2014
The World Wide Theater at Our Fingertips
HowlRound: Theater practitioners have a conflicted relationship with internet technology as it relates to performance. Sure, it’s great for conducting ticket sales, but most people in the industry have taken a stance against internet-using in a theatrical space. Whether it’s “tweet seats,” streaming performances, or social media management, the internet has been stigmatized in the theater industry as a necessary nuisance. However, this is in reaction to a clunky attempt to integrate the internet into the theater. What if we rethink the very nature of the web’s potential to shape theater?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
At the beginning of this article I was very turned off at the idea of webcasting parts of the rehearsal process and was even more repulsed at the idea of airing an entire run through online before the show would be released. I still don't think that it would be a good idea to air an entire run through, but the idea of using the internet and social media to make an art form more accessible actually has some merit. I think theatre has been limited to a very specific group of upper middle class people, so using the internet to promote shows might actually be a smart idea to expand the art of theatre to a wider group of people. When testing this idea of internet based theatre, there needs to be a close observance that this immersion does not distill or diminish the message that the performance is trying to promote. I think that as the century is ever more defined by technology and computer devices, theatre artists need to find a way to incorporate and use the internet to their advantage.
I think the internet is a very valuable source for spreading information, but I do not think it is the best for broadcasting theatre. Theatre should be an intimate art between performers and an audience in front of them. Watching a live performance on the internet separates you from the overall atmosphere of sitting in the audience. Putting videos of rehearsals online to show progress, can be a good marketing technique because it will get people interested and want to come see the final product. If people are using their phones to interact with a show, there is a big chance that they will be distracted by other things on their phone and not pay attention to the performance in front of them.
I am a very big fan of the idea of making theatre free and accessible. It irritates me so much that if there is an incredible production of King Lear in New York, someone in Hong Kong won't be able to see it. With the advent of the world wide web, there is almost no reason that productions shouldn't at least start to be put online. The National Theatre took a step in the right direction by starting to allow some access in the form of limited screenings in select theaters, but it's not far enough. I really think that adding streaming to theatre can only be a good thing. I am not, however, a fan of the idea of allowing "tweet seats," or anything of that nature. Some would see a conflict in that distinction, but I absolutely do not. You have to consider the way in which a technology changes a theatre's space. Streaming shares an insulated space with the world, whereas "tweet seats," and the like disrupt a theatre space in a crude attempt to bring in a younger audience, which I find tactless. Anyway, I loved what the bloggers (Alex and DCW3) mentioned about the "universal theatre," a theater that exists outside of the bounds of geography. It's a beautiful way of using social media to actually connect in a real way. Theater, and really all art, is a way of sharing a truth ("mirror up to nature" and all that). Wouldn't it be incredible if we could share that truth even further than the confines of a blackbox or a proscenium? the truth is we can. The one thing that disheartened me about this article was that it left the idea as just that - an idea, an abstraction, rather than showing steps that have been taken towards some sort of universal theater. Sure, they half-heartedly attempted a project with "Leaving Dynamite," but the fact that they couldn't sustain that project speaks to the ADD nature of our generation, the generation raised on the internet. That said, there always be failure before success, unless success is accidental, and since no one has ever accidentally streamed a production before, I doubt this will be the case. THere's a lot to do, and a lot of ways to do it. I honestly think some amazing things are about to happen in the world of theatre.
There is something very off putting about recording theatre. Even the very best filming and editing will feel canned and flat, lacking in the dimension of the stage. HOWEVER, the article made some really interesting points. We exist in an internet generation, so it's foolish to try and ignore the medium completely. I particularly liked the point about how when a show is on the internet, everyone has the same ticket and point of view. Theatre can really be an alienating medium because it requires a viewer to go to a location where they might feel awkward and uncomfortable, and risk seeing a show they don't know if they will like. If a person isn't familiar with theatre, this may feel like too big of a risk. To make theatre truly by the people for the people I can't think of a better way to help integrate newcomers to a theatrical environment. its a low risk endeavor that could reap big rewards for the theatre industry.
I think this is the right direction. With technology increasing so quickly its getting harder and harder to keep up. 5-6 years ago I was completely on top of keeping up but now middle and high school kids can adjust to new things way faster. Every generation is more integrated into technology and every industry is trying to adjust to keep up. Theater has been slow to change, Ballet and Opera even slower. I have never had the money to see even half the shows I'm interested that come through Pittsburgh and the prices in New York are significantly worse. If I was given the chance to watch (good) recordings or streams of theater online I would. There are currently recordings of Broadway shows out there but they suck. They are like trying to watch a bootleg filmed in a movie theater. It's hard to imagine but if effort and permission were added to filming shows I'm sure it could be done in a way worth watching. Die-hards will never admit this (and maybe for them it would not be the same no matter how good the recording). But I would even be willing to pay a small amount to watch good streams of Broadway shows, and I bet thousands of others would too. How much money do you think a Broadway show could make very night with thousands of people watching every night from all over the world? Not only would it be well welcomed by our tech savvy younger generations but it would make a lot of money too.
PS: It will never not be annoying when someone pulls out a phone in a movie theater or a theater, that is entirely different.
I believe that this is one of the strongest differences between theatre and film. The fact that theatre cannot be streamed by a legal site like Netflix or a movie pirate site makes it stand out in entertainment. Theatre is an experience, going to the theatre, meeting with people, sharing the energy of a performance, and seeing a story live.No matter how great a television screen becomes or how great the show is, the audience will never feel the real energy in the space without going to a live performance. It is nice to see that we try to integrate connectivity into everything we do but will internet theatre replace live talent? I don't think so.
I don't exactly agree with theatre being broadcasted on the internet. I believe that half of the experience of watching live theatre being performed is having it be right in front of you and actually going to the theatre. There is something magical in going to a theatre and seeing people interact with one another during pre-show, intermission, and post-show. From an actors perspective, the live audience can play an extreme role. You can be driven by the energy of a great audience. Internet based theatre will not get the reaction that people might think that it will because it will not have reactions from either side of the spectrum.
Like Albert, I hated the idea of a webcasted, live-streamed, social media focused theater production for people to watch on the Internet. Even after reading this article, persuasive it might have been, I am not fully convinced. However, I did enjoy the few example theatre companies the article listed and their ingenious methods of using the internet to their advantage. Though I'm not a fan of complete Internet/theatre combination, I have to admit I've used the Digital Theatre website a few times to watch productions of shows and musicals in countries and places I wasn't able to go to. If theaters can tastefully utilize the internet without destroying the sanctity of the plays their put on, I think I would feel much better about the article's proposition. In simpler terms, as long as the lifestreams don't ask for viewers to tweet their favorite line, or hashtag their favorite character's name on Facebook I would be all right watching them. That being said, it's always much more preferable to actually go to the theatre and watch a play than to watch a recording of a play through the "proscenium arc of [your] computer screen", to quote the article.
The internet could be a very useful tool for performance. However, the key is to consider what makes theater different from Facebook, film, and YouTube. If theatre is to use the internet as its platform, it must do so in a way that does not replicate another service already out there. Many possible solutions are hit upon by the article. Simply making a video of a performance and posting it online, as an example, would not fulfill this higher order. Streaming a love performance that changes based on the numbers of viewers or votes, etc would be a step in the right direction, although in time we would want to move towards something more intellectual. I wonder if interaction design or something similar will crop up in the future or if this will fall under media.
Personally I think there is a big physical aspect of theater, knowing that you are in the same space as the actor breathing the same air and feeling their presence in the space. Theater has that three dimensional live aspect quality that makes it great pieces so captivating, so to say a lifestream is theater just because it's live is not exactly true in my mind. behind a screen you lack the intimacy, connection, and immersive atmosphere of a piece where one is physically present. Despite this I think the globalization and accessibility of live performance through the internet is a worthwhile and interesting endeavor.
While not quite theater nor television, but something really intriguing in-between I think streamable live performances are part of the future we're moving towards in the entertainment industry. While watching behind a screen we loose inherent connection and intimacy, live performance via TV or computer is still something quite remarkable, knowing that any single run of a performance will be slightly different and that it contains some of that authenticity and honest value that can be manipulated and edited out of prerecorded shows. Although I wouldn't call it theater in the same sense of a live performance I physically go to see, I still think it's a step in the right direction for a new branch of entertainment.
I think that the idea of using the internet to redefine theater is a very good idea. However, I feel that it may change the way that theater is viewed from a live event to something to be seen at home.
This article and idea has loads of potential. Some aspects of theatre and the internet I don't agree with, such as streaming parts of the performance or rehearsal process, but advocating art, theatre, and the community that supports both of those things, that is invaluable. For so long theatre has only been a target or has only been received by a certain group, or class, of people and I think that making more people aware about theatre and the educational and entertainment value that it holds could be incredibly useful. Theatre and the internet, much like most other things that are now turned towards the internet, is something that will inevitable come to pass as we become more and more reliant on the internet to provide us with answers, questions, entertainment, and substance. Theatre will have to make the crossover, and in the end I believe it will ultimately help.
I am very conflicted with this idea. I strongly support the idea that it would be remarkable to have the opportunity to share theater with audiences world wide. Furthermore, I love that this would augment the power and message of theater as it would double the reach of people who would come in contact with the work. However I'm not sure how I feel about airing work that is not completed, or airing unfinished rehearsals. There is something very unique about the dynamic between the performers and the audience, and the authenticity of feeding off of a live crowd. This is why there is an ongoing distinction between theater and film. I'm a little hesitant that filming and airing rehearsals and even finished shows, might rupture that priceless energy created by the theater. That being said, the article touched on a point of putting out the rehearsal process for the public to be seen, as making a statement that art does not have to be a refined "final product" and can just be a "living and continuously ongoing work". This point really spoke to me as I am a strong supporter of the connection between life and art, and this reference to art as "living" and "ongoing" is, I think, so powerful.
Post a Comment