Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
TribLIVE: Christopher McElroen thinks it's time we had a conversation about war.
He's not interested discussing who's the aggressor or who's winning. He wants to explore how war is made, how it's marketed and sold to us and what our response should be.
Although the article is rather vague on how exactly this conversation with the audience takes place, it seems very interesting to me. I think that a lot of more experimental theater seeks to create a conversation about issues or concepts that it calls attention to, but there often is no support for said conversation. It's something that the audience is supposed to carry on on their own, once they've left the theater, which means it doesn't always happen. In this show, it seems like the conversation about the issue (war) happens DURING the performance, making it an inclusive part of the show's form and message. The interactive part of this experience not only creates the need for a conversation, but structures it in a way that would help the show's artists share their message and make the audience react and think.
I had the pleasure of seeing the show and let me tell you, it was fantastic. I came into the performance with absolutely no expectations or prior knowledge and ready to let myself experience the show for what it was. It started with the seating. I sat on a cinderblock for 2 hours, and although it was uncomfortable, when else would I have that opportunity? The show made me think about why war exists and how much I appreciate living in a war-free environment. I'm not going to lie, this show made me uncomfortable. I was part of the audience participation at some points, but once I let myself be immersed, everything came together. At the finale, I was extremely moved. I had to digest this show for a while afterwards, and came to the conclusion that THIS was why I got into theater. Bravo.
I am not sure what to think about this after reading it. The article could not have been more vague. I honestly have no idea what to think about the show. More than that, I have no idea what the show is. It keeps mentioning audience interaction but it doesn't exactly say what it is other than the fact it is not your normal audience interaction. I for one can say that after reading this article I'm not particularly interested in seeing the show. Then again, there are people that go for that vague unknown theater experience who want to be surprised by what they see. It's like how in Mud last year the play bill was blank. That drove me nuts, but for many that made it all the more intriguing.
I saw Measure Back, and I can say I agree with the article. Although it was definitely a performance piece, its goal was to inform us, not to entertain us. We were supposed to be actively involved and participating in the piece rather than passively letting the meaning wash over us. I thought the piece did this very effectively and i left the space with a new idea not only of war, but of how theater's messages can be portrayed.
I was lucky enough to hear the director speak about his intentions of Measure Back before seeing the piece. Unfortunately, I do not believe he succeeded in creating a piece where the audience is part of a conversation on war, instead the audience participation is used as a pawn in large 3 monologue piece. A major issue I had with the project was how it dealt with audience participation; I believe that the creative team must establish a safe and supportive environment where audience members will be able to want to participate in the piece. At times I was extremely off put by how one actor interacted with the audience, (He would command someone to "stand up, sit down!" then remark "I just saved your life." I think this project needs to be condensed (it ran at around 2 hours) and revised.
5 comments:
Although the article is rather vague on how exactly this conversation with the audience takes place, it seems very interesting to me. I think that a lot of more experimental theater seeks to create a conversation about issues or concepts that it calls attention to, but there often is no support for said conversation. It's something that the audience is supposed to carry on on their own, once they've left the theater, which means it doesn't always happen.
In this show, it seems like the conversation about the issue (war) happens DURING the performance, making it an inclusive part of the show's form and message. The interactive part of this experience not only creates the need for a conversation, but structures it in a way that would help the show's artists share their message and make the audience react and think.
I had the pleasure of seeing the show and let me tell you, it was fantastic. I came into the performance with absolutely no expectations or prior knowledge and ready to let myself experience the show for what it was. It started with the seating. I sat on a cinderblock for 2 hours, and although it was uncomfortable, when else would I have that opportunity? The show made me think about why war exists and how much I appreciate living in a war-free environment. I'm not going to lie, this show made me uncomfortable. I was part of the audience participation at some points, but once I let myself be immersed, everything came together. At the finale, I was extremely moved. I had to digest this show for a while afterwards, and came to the conclusion that THIS was why I got into theater. Bravo.
I am not sure what to think about this after reading it. The article could not have been more vague. I honestly have no idea what to think about the show. More than that, I have no idea what the show is. It keeps mentioning audience interaction but it doesn't exactly say what it is other than the fact it is not your normal audience interaction. I for one can say that after reading this article I'm not particularly interested in seeing the show. Then again, there are people that go for that vague unknown theater experience who want to be surprised by what they see. It's like how in Mud last year the play bill was blank. That drove me nuts, but for many that made it all the more intriguing.
I saw Measure Back, and I can say I agree with the article. Although it was definitely a performance piece, its goal was to inform us, not to entertain us. We were supposed to be actively involved and participating in the piece rather than passively letting the meaning wash over us. I thought the piece did this very effectively and i left the space with a new idea not only of war, but of how theater's messages can be portrayed.
I was lucky enough to hear the director speak about his intentions of Measure Back before seeing the piece. Unfortunately, I do not believe he succeeded in creating a piece where the audience is part of a conversation on war, instead the audience participation is used as a pawn in large 3 monologue piece. A major issue I had with the project was how it dealt with audience participation; I believe that the creative team must establish a safe and supportive environment where audience members will be able to want to participate in the piece. At times I was extremely off put by how one actor interacted with the audience, (He would command someone to "stand up, sit down!" then remark "I just saved your life." I think this project needs to be condensed (it ran at around 2 hours) and revised.
Post a Comment