Chicago Tribune: If you dislike the threat of audience participation — and I am not sure I have ever met any adult who feels otherwise, when sober — then what I am about to describe might well sound like a voluntary descent into the seventh circle of hell, even before your sins deliver you there.
2 comments:
I have never been a huge fan of interactive theatre, as it always feels more like my fellow audience members and I are being put on the spot instead of being able to comfortably volunteer. Granted, most interactive theatre that I have participated in have been high school seniors' final projects for their theatre-oriented independent study, but it seems like if I was able to participate in a group in which all members were participating instead of having individual audience members picked to volunteer in particular parts of a production, I would be more willing to participate. As the writer says in the article, it would feel more like a study of other people that I was participating in too, making the show as a whole a more meaningful experience.
As with all experimental theater, it challenges the relationship between the audience and fellow actor because it is a non-traditional setting but from this review, it seemed that the audience interaction was part of the plot. This means that the relationship was part of a story line. This differs from other interactive theatres I've heard about because those interactions seem more about the audience fully experiencing the story and not about an audience's relationships telling a story. The most interesting thing that I read was how this show started at the Public with a complete script. I wonder why the playwrights thought that the script could be altered so much that it could become a fully immersive experience. It makes me question is the show more successful how it is now and I want to see both the fully scripted version and the immersive experience to see what changed concretely.
Post a Comment