HowlRound: Immersive theatre has become so popular over the last several years that many theatrical companies claim the title for their shows, making it difficult for some theatregoers to identify what genuinely belongs in the genre. I have no such problem. Immersive theatre is theatre that makes me sneeze. This is not meant as a put-down; I’m simply stating a fact
8 comments:
Immersive theatre is wildly captivating to me, and makes me excited to get out into the field and participate in these kinds of experiences that challenge audiences to not sit and watch, but to engage with fellow humans to participate and see something they've never seen before. I think each of the tenets the article describes are important in their own way. Stimulating the five senses will go a long way to opening up the minds of audiences to a larger world in ways that sitting and listening and watching never could. The idea that these pieces are art installations is also cool, since you are watching something that anyone can walk in and see, as if it were a museum. There's also something to be said for each audience member having a unique experience, and I think these types of pieces are best suited to isolating certain audience members, because they see what they want to see. Small groups going through the theatre together and chatting about their discoveries is part of what makes these experiences what they are. Story to me is as prime as the author makes it sound, as if the show meanders and just has you seeing cool stuff, then it won't have actually fulfilled it's purpose as a full experience.
First of all, I relate to the inexplicable context dependent sneezing. I used to frequently have these really bad sneezing fits in physics and math class (but for the most part only those two classes) for a reason I have never figured out. I wonder if there is something to context dependent sneezing. Up until now I assumed it was just me.
I feel like, though I agree with the rules of what makes immersive theater that Mandell proposed, to me, it is simpler. In immersive theater, the audience member(s) are characters in the story. The physically interact with the world, and the actors interact with them. They are not observers, they are required to take action, though there is a wide range of what that can mean. Though putting the audience in a complete world does often lead to providing information through as many senses as possible, I don’t think it is necessary for something to be immersive theater. As for the rest of the criteria in this article, I think those elements will fall into place as soon as the audience becomes part of the story, not just witness to it.
I think immersive theatre is a very interesting art form. I have not been to an immersive theatre experience so I do not know how it exactly feels like to be in one. I like the idea of including your audience in the story telling and giving each person a totally unique and personal experience. Allowing your audience to explore the space and go into rooms in any order they want takes away the power of telling a linear story with a plot, but that does not always have to be the goal of theatre. Each theatregoer is able to create their own story by looking at different things and going in different rooms. It must be very difficult to direct and act in a show like this because it is very different than normal theatre. I hope that I get to go to an immersive theatre experience some time soon.
I really like the idea of immersive theater. I’ve gotten the chance to work on a show in that style once and would love the chance to do some thing like that again. Although possibly without the endless references to sleep no more that only our director and TD understood. I hadn’t actually realized how many shows in this style there are until I read this article. I’d always thought that it was only Sleep No More. Although in hindsight I’m not sure why I didn’t think Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812 fell into this category, especially given how the American Repertory Theater chose to do the show (what they did was quite similar to the image in the article, so much so that I’m curios to know if they got any of their scenery from the Ars Nova show). I’m not sure how a show like that will work on Broadway but I really hope they don’t change it too much.
I have never really been able to put my finger on what immersive theatre really is and I'm grateful this article exists. The more I read about it the more I want to go to some immersive theatre shows. The quality of the audience being able to think they get to control the flow of the play by going to whatever rooms they want is really interesting. I would love to be able to rifle through the locked cabinets in Then She Fell. Especially as a theatre person who understands how props are usually not to be touched unless you are the actor, gives immersive theatre extra stakes and intrigue because you know you normally should never touch the props. I also love the idea of all the detail that has to go into creating an immersive theatre set. Even if you are just repurposing a room and not building a set, per-say, you can no longer have the 50’ rule that the audience wont be able to see your mess-up from the audience because now your audience is right on the set with the actors.
So I respect what this author attempted to do, however I think that the one of the best parts of the industry we work in, is that, at least in terms of artistic and creative direction, there are “rules” and “guidelines” set in place however they can be broken. I think that this article comes out of something in our society in that the public is uncomfortable with concepts and things without labels. How do we know what something is if we do not give it a name? And I think that situation applies directly to immersive theatre. I think that these “trends” that the writer points out are valid and fair, however I think that just as easy as all the listed shows follow this 5 things, there are probably lots of other environmental shows out there that do not follow some of these, yet many people would probably consider immersive theatre.
The only experience I've had with immersive theater is the "4D" kind at places such as Universal Studios when I was a kid. I was so amazed to feel the crawling of bugs up my legs (also terrified) and to almost feel snow falling on my face. While these were created by concentrated bursts of wind, I didn't believe that as a 7 year old. It's one of the things that made me fascinated with theater.
These effects were done on huge budgets of the theme parks, but smaller immersive theaters still can create amazing effects. In the article, it says the first rule of immersive theater is: "Immersive theatre tends to stimulate all five senses—sight and sound, as with conventional theatre pieces, but also touch, and frequently taste and even smell." My question is, where does immersive theater differ from things such as haunted houses? Dinner theater? Audience involved improv? This article does not help to differentiate between the difference between these types of performance and immersive theater.
As someone with a super short attention span and falls asleep easily, immersive theatre is definitely very intriguing to me. Although I've never really been to any immersive theatre, I really want to go to one some time. The whole concept of making individual audience members feel as if they have a uniquely personal experience is something I really want to experience, then talk to others about what they experienced after the show. The utilization of all five senses as well as social interactions makes the audience a part of the show and actually engage to it instead of being just bystanders watching from afar where it's easier to disengage oneself. Something valuable this article brought up that I hadn't thought about is that immersive theatre has to have a story to tell, and has to have respect for that story. Regardless of what form/type of theatre a show is, story is the most important - if there is no story or the story is crappy, then no matter how much fancy food they give the audience, it still wouldn't be a good theatre experience. Even roller coaster rides (especially 3d/4d rides in theme parks) today now involve some sort of storyline based journey for the riders to go through. Everything in an immersive theatre should be there to serve the story; if the immersive elements start to take over or even cover up the story, then I don't think it served its purpose.
Post a Comment