Since you’re reading No Proscenium, chances are good your answers are emphatically yes, yes, and… sometimes. But beyond our bubble of immersive design enthusiasts, if we reach out to the billions of people who haven’t even heard of “immersive” entertainment, how many of the masses would answer the same way?
8 comments:
This is an article that should get circulated to the graduate directing program. So many of the smaller, graduate director shows I have seen since I have been here at CMU have been hell-bent and rather dependent on getting the audience to interact with aspects of the show. My run crew assignment freshman year had a good portion of the show dependent on audience members answering questions through their phones, and had a couple places where audience members had to come down from their seats. The design for this show was catered towards Those Who Play, without accounting for the 50% of the audience that would Those Who Reject Play. The flaw with the interactive theatre produced here is that the director and designers assume that 50% of the audience will want to interact, but there often is not prior disclosure that the show will be interactive. This author talks about the reasons why someone might not want to interact, but I think that not knowing there would be scenario to interact in is another reason to add to that list.
There is a lot of thoughts going on this this article about audience participation and designing things in such a way that a show works with and without as well as still reaches all audiences. They are on the right track with the ideas that are being circulated but it feels like they need to go back to the core. I think Katie makes a good point in her comment: We are designing stories that rely on people interacting and then come up with a contingency plan for when it doesn’t happen. We need to go back to the core of theatre. Where is the play taking its audience and what is it trying to achieve with them? How are we providing the catharsis the audience members need? This is where we will get to the root of why we want the audience to interact and what will make them want to interact. Make the story first and then incorporate the interaction, don’t make the interaction part of the story. By doing this you follow that set of rules that makes up theatre with spectacle being the least important and thus the last thing that should be worried about.
Admittedly, I fall into this camp more often than I would like. Surprises and audience interactions- and especially surprise audience interactions- make me more uncomfortable and were a big source of my anxiety around theatre. Some people are energized when they are kept on their toes, on the edge of their seat in a performance, but I shut down when that happens and I cease to enjoy what I am watching. Audience interaction need not be the sole focus of the show- unless done with a high degree of thought and intention, shows that rely on audience participation for the story and allure itself can disintegrate into a caricature of what the creatives intended it to be. Echoing the point that other people have made before me, shows should be designed first, and then audience participation built in if it actually benefits and adds to the show, and is not just used for a gimmick.
Yes! Yes! And even more, YES! I love to play. I love to watch. And sometimes, I love to just be in a really cool space, drinking a cocktail and socializing with my friends in a themed environment that allows me to immerse if I’d like, and allows me to just not be “on” if I’d rather. I think adding a fourth class to the “watch-play-make” structure is absolutely necessary and designing for every class is non-negotiable. I do want to propose changing the “reject play” to something else, though I wouldn’t know what, as I do think those who just come to be in a really cool themed bar are still playing in their own subtle way. However, I think Disney’s Star Wars example is an excellent example of the makers over stepping in a way that is not sustainable. The best kind of immersive experience is the kind that allows the guest to find their own path, their own adventure, and their own level of play, and lets them switch between the classes as they are able.
This is very fascinating as someone who is interested in immersive theatre. There is something about being an audience member and feeling as if you are part of a story and are integral in creating it. I know for that I would probably would fall into the ‘Those Who Watch’ category. Like the article says, it depends on mood and how into the story I am. A friend of mine, for his graduate thesis, created an immersive theatre piece. I unfortunately did not get to participate in it, but what he told me about was fascinating. One thing he did that I think was a good call was having different tickets for the small audience he brought in. some tickets were for the ‘Those Who Play’ group, and others were ‘Those Who Watch.’ I think that creates an expectation as soon as you come in and should create for a smoother event.
Every time I watched a touring version of the Broadway musicals performed in Japan, I felt regretful about how high the percentage of Those Who Reject to Play is. Although, I am proud of Japanese manners in theatres, I have had doubts about whether sitting quietly during the shows like Sister Act, Memphis or Kinky Boots is right or wrong. That awkward silence when the actor suggests to sing along… Ugh! However, this article reminds me that it is not about right or wrong. Each audience has the right to behave in a way one wants. They are the customers, who paid for their own personal experiences. On the other hand, it must be very difficult to manage the show to be fitting the needs of every audience. However, I like how the article admits it does not have to be perfect, in spite of the fact that it is the producer’s job to make the show not awkward for the audience, considering the national characteristics.
This is a very interesting breakdown of the audience in immersive experiences. I probably fall into the category of “Those Who Watch,” because I absolutely do not want to be talked to or engaged with directly by an actor. By the headline of this article, I was expecting it to get into a more isolated experience, for those who don’t want to play in the way that I do not want to play. I would probably enjoy engaging in an experience on my own terms without having to negotiate the expectations and desires of strangers. It never occurred to me that there is a whole subset of audience that has no interest in the event at all but is present nonetheless. I wonder if the space that the author advocates creating for that subset could double as a space for people who have access needs or just need a break from the experience.
Having often been one of Those Who Reject Play I can say that immersive entertainment can get a bit overbearing when all you want is to take in the sights and enjoy the atmosphere. The nagging to be part of the experience and not get left behind can get unenjoyable quickly. The discussion of serving Those Who Reject Play is something that I appreciate greatly. Oftentimes the worlds created are fantastical and innovative and the option to take that route C into light and free immersion is enticing and very welcomed. On a typical day, I would fall into the category of Those Who Watch but on those occasions that I can't connect with the story or I just want to see the created world with the projections of MY imagination it's nice to know that there are Those Who Make with us in mind. Recognizing and rectifying a slight on a potential audience is all that we as playgoers can hope for. We want to engage, enjoy, and be excited. But some days maybe not all three at the same time.
Post a Comment