But when you consider the way young adults (and really everybody) use smartphones and computers now as key parts of how they interact with others, it leads me to a question: Can theater possibly speak to a modern audience without a good way to depict phone and computer-based interactions?
12 comments:
When seeing shows I never really think about the fact that the characters do not have cellphones or laptops. It seems like an unimportant aspect to show but I guess it is true that it is not really reality without them. Now everyone has a phone on them ninety percent of the time and communicate through it almost as much as they talk face to face. With movies and t.v. it is a little easier to add in phones and show what people are texting back and forth on stage this would be significantly harder. I had heard of a show that a local theater back home put on that took down peoples cell phone numbers and at certain points texted the audience when a character in the show received a text. This is a good concept but not the best way to incorporate modern technology use.
The article brings up an important crux point we're facing in theatre as we are coming into a new hyper-technological age. It's certainly harder for live theatre than film or television to communicate texting or Skyping without droning on and becoming boring to the audience. But it's exciting to think that, as designers, directors, and actors, we have an entirely new form of modern life to communicate thoughtfully and clearly. In the clip below the article we see that film has already started its fledgling methods in dealing with texting. My favorites have to be Sherlock and House of Cards; their formatting and simple style conveys the exact message the show wants to sell without making the movie seem as if it hopped off a time machine from the IM-ing days of 2005. Theatre will certainly find a way to incorporate our daily technological lives into plays--we just haven't figured it out yet. And though I'm not usually a fan of having texts displayed on a screen, it's a good alternative to having everyone read aloud eight word texts for three straight minutes.
I absolutely HATE shows with screens unless it makes sense for the show (Bliss for example). I feel that it distracts from the show a lot of the time. Unless the screen is a necessity, like people are watching a movie, than it is just odd. I was in a production of Working: The Musical where in the middle of a song, a screen came down and it was extremely distracting, and took away from the acting. Unless it is needed, it should not be there. Screens are more often than not extremely detrimental to shows.
The video at the end of the article was really interesting- I never could figure out why I didn't mind the text message displays in "Sherlock" but I hated the text messages in "The Fault in Our Stars." I now realize it was the bubbles around the words in "The Fault in Our Stars"- they made the movie look dated even when it first came out. Sherlock is the only show I've seen that I didn't mind how they displayed texts with floating words- otherwise I much prefer showing the cellphone screen (or just avoiding it entirely).
This doesn't help much for theatre, though- it's not like you can magically float words next to actors, and using some kind of media or supertitles to get a similar effect seems like generally a terrible idea, unless the show is specifically centered around that as a concept. Maybe it's because we do so many shows set in the past, but I feel like I never see phones or computers in any play or musical- the only show I can immediately think of where a cellphone is used is "Dead Man's Cellphone"- and in that show the phone is more of a plot point than a practical prop. Regardless, as more and more shows are written set in the present, this is going to catch up with us and we're going to have to find a way to depict phones, texts, and computers on-stage without being distracting.
Looking back on it, I now have often realized that I do get caught up about the fact that people use phones from time to time on the screen. I don’t think it’s to do with talking on the phone, it’s the use of text. I’ve never been the biggest fan of texting, and I think it detracts from the audiences’ view of the movie. As stated in the article, doing that kind of thing back in the day was over the top, but nowadays when that technology is close to hand, it becomes monotonous. Take Iron Man for example, much of what he uses in the film is a hologram for his ideas. It helps us become more involved and intrigued when we can see and try to figure for ourselves as to what’s going to happen next, but to also get a better picture of the situation. I think they still do the view of the cellphone screen in horror movies, because I guess it adds to the suspense, you look at the phone, look back up, and all of a sudden Jason is standing right in front of you with a machete, makes perfect sense.
This is a super interesting topic, and its something that I've been reflecting upon myself when I watch a production thats set in the "modern day". I personally think that it is obviously a huge part of our daily lives, and should be reflected as such on the stage. It can take me right out of the moment if I fail to see moments that are displayed as the "workarounds" the article described.
Now, this is not to say that I think that screens are absolutely necessary on the stage, however, if you are going to have a play set in the modern day that contains moments that would realistically be filled with people sitting on their iphones, you should probably fulfill that realistically. If anything, I think this becomes just another writing/staging challenge for the director and playwright to deal with. I don't see this as any kind of large shift in the way that plays are approached.
I thought this was going to be an article about using heavy media onstage, but I think it turned out more interesting than that. It’s a very good point that now, a contemporary play written about everyday people should likely include some form of technology such as smart phones or laptops, if it fits with the characters’ stories and backgrounds. It will definitely be a challenge to come up with ways to portray heavy technology use, which is by definition something that people do on their own, in a way that is both clear and engaging onstage. I can definitely see projection design being a big support of this type of theater. When reading the article I definitely thought of “Sherlock”, which integrates technology such as texting very successfully and seamlessly in the show. This is much harder to achieve in theater but I’m sure that we will see successful attempts to integrate contemporary technology into theater soon.
Why does being relevant to contemporary audiences have to be limited and focused around the obsession with technology? Unless it's crucial to your piece, I don't see the connection. I think the article is really demeaning the contemporary audience as well as the audiences capacity to engage with art. For example eating is a huge part of life, as it sleeping, and shitting. Yet how often are those moments depicted in any kind of performance without some specific purpose or style? Yes technology is hugely integrated into our lifestyle, but that doesn't mean it should be what we focus on to connect to the modern audience. There are other "relevant" ideas to focus on: Racism, Sexism, Domestic Violence, Female Genital Mutilation, for crying out loud there is the potential for an Ebola outbreak in the USA. I find that we should rethink our priorities to be less about how to tap into the smartphone craze, and more about what issue demands our attention first.
The video in this article did a great job of showing how text messages can make or break a film. I completely agree with the fact that Sherlock does an amazing job of making the use of text messaging an elegant additive rather than an obstruction. There is a seamless connection between the texts and the rest of the action happening in the show. This reflects how we use media and messaging in our daily lives; it informs almost every aspect of the way that we live. The presence of digital messaging has completely changed the way that we communicate with people and it is important for TV, movies, and theatre to accurately depict this use of technology in their mediums. Theatre has a more complex problem in dealing with the space of the house and the set. This can make or break how media is seen throughout the show.
If we're really mirroring reality, we don't see anyone else's phone but our own, so we don't really know what anyone else is giggling about behind their screens. It's an interesting point, but I think there are always ways that theater doesn't match up exactly with the way our lives work. For instance, when staging Romeo and Juliet, we hardly ever have Romeo and Benvolio dodging the cascades of refuse that rained down from the chamber pots on the upper level homes of the area, and no one in plays ever seems to have to go to the bathroom ever. Those are pieces of our daily lives that are inescapable and yet audiences are somehow able to "get it", without a literal representation. Sure, people text more than they talk on the phone these days, but they still take phone calls, especially when the news is dramatic, which hopefully it would be in a play... Until we're communicating exclusively by hologram or teleportation is invented, I don't really foresee this being a problem.
Personally, I find modern technology in theatre and television to be off putting. The technology we use changes so much that using any specific means dates it instantly to the audience. I just saw a production of "Stop Kiss," which was reset to take place today, and the constant glowing screens and ubiquitous xylophone ringtone felt unbelievably forced. Whenever I have seen technology used in this way, it has felt forced in it's attempt to be relatable to a younger audience, even when the designers themselves are young. I agree that Sherlock is the master in the catagory, presenting texting without any identifiable frills, but how does that translate to the stage? Any type of reading aloud is incredibly dull on stage. I imagine with more advances in technology we'll find away to utilize the media, but it will be expensive, and might still fall flat.
I agree with Christina, this article does a real disservice to the intelligence of contemporary audiences. While modern theater goers do experience technology as an integral part of communicating with the world, what is more important is what those interactions boil down to emotionally. If a play can evoke the tone of modern human interaction with or without screens, then I think it will resonate with contemporary audiences.
Post a Comment