HowlRound: Responsibility is about action. It is about choice. So in the case of interactive forms of theatre, how can the range of choices we offer participants shed light on their choices in real life? How do we as theatre artists illuminate a spectator’s personal agency in an ethical way, without being didactic or self-righteous?
4 comments:
Hmmm...the idea and concept of agency is extremely interesting to me. I'm very much attracted to interactive theatre and I want to eventually engage in that realm down the road in some fashion. I've seen Sleep No More three separate times and I will never forget how I felt the first time walking through those different rooms. The idea that I as an audience member, was able to move freely and do anything I wanted to (within parameters, of course) was thrilling and scary. Never before had I experienced theatre where I was also integral to the process of what I took away from the piece. To be given such freedom in a world full of proscenium theatre is exhilarating and cathartic. What this article touches upon is an idea that I never really thought about or considered: "My aim is to use these moments of restriction to inspire participants to consider what their previous freedom meant to them." The delicate contrast that lives in between those lines of restriction and freedom fascinates me because I think theatre is really wonderful when it breaks the 4th wall. There's a small sense of equality that lives in interactive theatre; the knowing that while you're certainly not doing what the actors are doing, you're physically part of what makes the living, breathing performance a living, breathing performance. It wouldn't be the same without you there.
Every experience I have had with interactive theatre has been nothing short of cheesy and awkward in terms of how the audience is prompted and how the performers react. In a theatrical setting, of course, I’m speaking to when Tinkerbell dies in Peter Pan and Peter has to encourage the audience to cheer and say they believe in fairies. In every performance of this kind that I have experienced, this NEVER GOES WELL. However, I do believe audience participation is a valued part of the experience of magic shows and other circus-like types of performance. I remember being a little kid in Las Vegas and being called on stage by a magician to help make a bird disappear. And I still remember the exact smell and feeling of holding my hand against a real bird in a cage that inexplicably disappeared. A sense of wonder can be achieve with audience participation, but so can a sense of severe awkwardness.
I have had very little experience with interactive theater, except the kind that Kim is talking about. The Peter Pan and "I do believe in faeries" kind. But in that, the more children's show type of interaction, there is no genuine interaction. There is one thing that the audience is supposed to do. There is a right and a wrong answer. As an audience member, you have no agency, only a slight fear that you'll get the thing wrong, that's why I kind those types of interaction, at least for me, are always so awkward. However, the kind of theatrical experiences that this author is talking about I think are quite fascinating. I love the idea that you get to enter fully into the world of the play and (with just a few restrictions) move around in it freely and interact with it. I think people sometimes forget how completely necessary an audience is to live theater. But without them shows would just be one long dress rehearsal, and actors need and love the energy of a live audience to feed off of. But by completely breaking that fourth wall and creating an experience as immersive as Sleep No More the audience gets a visceral experience of how integral they are to our work.
I love reading about these new pushes for immersive, audience- participatory theater, because I think as the world of media entertainment and technology evolves, the general population needs “more” in order to stay engaged and focused, and their direct participation in a show is one way to intensify their viewing. I think what the author says about the concept of balancing a “Brechtian distance” with direct audience participation is a very thought- provoking idea; while you want your audience to feel connected to the piece, there should still be a bit of an underlying assumption about the theatricality and make-believe of the experience in order to keep it comfortable. I haven’t personally been to any shows that have been super-immersive like the ones that the author describes, but even having just been to shows where the audience is encouraged to speak with the actors and become involved in the outcome of the story (like “Shear Madness”), I can clearly see what the author described as audience members who were wary of the experience, and who weren’t comfortable with the breaking of the fourth wall. I hope that immersive theater continues to cross these boundaries in a safe and conducive way.
Post a Comment