The New York Times: During the first few months of the pandemic pause, between Zoom readings and Instagram monologues, I often found myself pondering the question of genre: What’s a play and what isn’t? Usually my answer was that if it’s made by theater people and I like it, it’s a play. But if I’m watching an actor on a small screen instead of a big stage, isn’t it actually television?
13 comments:
Theatre has a distinct relationship between the performer and audience. It is an interactive event. This means that lived music, stand-up, poetry jams, are all theatre. Without that interaction we are creating consumable entertainment. Some of these new interpretations of theatre seem to me to be nothing more than fancier choose-your-own-adventure books. If there is no way for audience to influence the performers then it’s not theatre (to me).
I’m sure this is the same debate that was had when radio, film, and television first came out. As wonderful as these forms of entertainment are, and how similar their execution may be to theatre, it is not the same thing as theatre.
It seems to be very clear that Jesse Green was very disappointed with how these theatre-by-mail pieces turned out. I kind of like this idea of a mailed-in experience. From a designer perspective, the creative team needs to both create an experience that leads the user/audience member down the intended path and somehow make the experience fulfilling and enjoyable. Based on this review, however, it seems that those challenges were not appropriately tackled by these two pieces. I also like how it brings physical components back to the theatrical experience. This is probably influenced by my enjoyment as a props artisan, but the challenge of creating large batch sets of props that can handle being shipped and need to be user friendly seems wonderful. I also love the idea of being able to interact with the “play” without the added pressure of having to interact with the play in front of other people. In the end though, I think Greene makes a very good point: the theatre is about human connection, and while I think these mail home experiences are an avenue we should continue to venture down, it cannot really be compared to or expected to replace the experience of sitting in a theatre with other patrons to watch a story. Live theatre is about the audience in the room as much as it is the story on the stage.
The Play is only a part of Theatre. Theatre to me is the realm in which a play, musical, or performance piece exists. I would not have found this experience described by the author as a world altering experience and frankly, I would have been bored quickly and frankly, I can choose my own adventure for less than $100. I love going to live theatre because it takes me out of the current world and places me into the world of the play which can be an English Manor House, back in the 1700’s, or into the middle of the Vietnam war. I don’t get that same thrill or satisfaction by watching a televised performance of a show. Yes, I have watched Hamilton 9 times now since it’s release on Disney +, but its never the same thrill as being able to see it in person, which I have also done. There is something life changing to see theatre in person. Feeling the emotions with other audience members and connecting to the characters on stage. That can never be replaced.
This is an interesting idea and I am confused as to why I have not heard about it yet. I like the idea of easy to assemble art for in home viewing. It seems so simple but provides such a unique experience. It is not like art hung on walls or sculptures you can interact with; and I definitely would not say that it is theatre or film/television. It has a new kind of experience and participation involved and it likely stems from the interactivity of it in creating it through assembly. This is quite the perfect method of art creation and viewing that we should all receive while being stuck completely at home. However, this piece argues that it is somewhat theatre oriented and I disagree. Theatre has components to it that something like this, simply cannot provide to the audience. Theatre is visual stimulation that provokes emotion in the viewer through use of fully conceived stories that are clear narratives. A piece like this, is Art, but that is where I would pin it at. It can provide a story but not the way theatre does. And the same goes for emotion, etc. A great idea, but only Art.
Look like the article states, this isn't a play per say. What is happening here is just a new way of producing and creating art and theater. I think that we make the mistake of trying to pin point and really define the semantics when the reality of the situation is that what is happening here is still (5 months into it) unprecedented and theaters still need more time to figure out what company they want to be during the pandemic. I know a lot of companies that went towards the re-run/teaser route where they air older shows and get audiences excited about the potential of the future and getting back to live shows. Other companies are opting to live in the pandemic and produce in the pandemic- I can't say its working all around. The truth is, we aren't looking at an established art form yet/anymore, right now the best thing for critics and audiences to do is to find other things to do, give theaters time to figure out what they're going to do, but not give up hope.
This is pretty cool, I think. It is definitely an experience I would be interested in trying, for sure. We all have different ideas of what “theatre” is, and I, personally, do not think any one idea is wrong. It is like arguing what “art” is. It is circular and I think detracts from the point of what we are experiencing. It also, I believe, is limiting to us as an industry if we force ourselves to accept theatre as ONLY being one way. The theatre should be adaptable. We should be willing to push the boundaries of expectation and performance. I think what the author of this article talks about is an idea that can be explored and tried. Obviously when something is first tried it will not be a full-on success. To dismiss it I think is detrimental to our industry and we should play some “yes, and” with new ideas.
Many theatrical (and artistic, in general) experiences as of late have sought to broaden the meaning of the genre that they occupy in order to deliver a meaningful piece of art that doesn't have to be experienced in person. The experimental stage that we're in now, and that is described by Jesse Green in this article, is the sort of interim between what we know and what comes next. Although we'll have to wait and see whether projects such as "Portaleza" remain after we're given the ability to return to theatres, the fact that it was born in the first place is already a step in some new direction. Additionally, though Jesse expressed some disinterest in this form of "new theatre", I'd be very interested to hear the perspective of someone who enjoyed this sort of play-by-mail experience and would actually prefer it to be the "new normal".
It’s interesting to read that in the age of Zoom, some companies are looking at more old-fashioned ways to get “theater” into the homes of audience members while we are still not allowed to convene in person. These two examples of theater-by-mail seem to have an identity crisis about the essence of theater. That’s a very pretentious way of saying, no one seems to know what makes theater theater. A series of knick-knacks or a kaleidoscope seem like they would be more at home in a modern art museum than in a playhouse. It’s a level of abstraction that removes the live connection, but also the storytelling, and that seems like a major failure on their part. For me, a good play has more in common with a good book, or even a web series, which the Zoom shows are resembling more and more. This pivot in a very different direction doesn’t seem to be the right move.
Wow, what a surprise--another critic hates another pair of the ongoing and developing stream of ideas that may or may not save theaters. This critic seems to be operating under the assumption that these experiences are supposed to be acting as a substitute for theatre: a new genre that expands the definition of what theatre is. They are totally ignoring the fact that theater companies must find ways to make money; they must try to keep their subscribers engaged and sending them money; they must continue to create products that help them court donors. Furthermore, each of these innovative, custom experiences is most likely costly to develop and produce. Look, I get that it doesn’t do the same things that theatre does. We’re all just trying to keep the industry alive, keep work happening, and keep (or start) getting paid. The conclusion of the article is anything but encouraging: it comes off as though they’re saying, “well, I suppose they tried, but this sucks.”
I am surprised that I haven't heard about these experiences until now. I find them intriguing. Theatre is always dynamic between performance and audience, which can be lost in translation when it comes to Zoom performances. I like this idea of a sort of make your own, choose your own adventure, theatre experience. It seems deeply personal, and like a direct connection between the creative team and the viewer. As a designer, I would find it interesting to adapt what I know to fit in to such small constraints. How do you play with lighting and set design when it is delivered in an envelope? It seems like a challenge, and a great practice for any designer. As a viewer, I would find the experience gratifying. It is a great way to merge creation and spectating.
I also see this as a very safe way to consume theatre during a pandemic. You can be by yourself, or with family, and enjoy the experience without putting yourself at risk in a large venue. In addition, this is a great way to raise a little extra money for theatre companies, without worrying about Zoom disengagement, or paying for an arranging a limited seating venue.
During the pandemic, we experienced the loss of classic theater experiences. This led people to dream of new ways to ‘redefine theater’ in wake of that loss. In some ways, this new experimentation has led to developments and mindsets that may be useful in the future, but in others, we ‘redefine’ theater too far from its original form, that it turns into a completely new form of art. Although spawned from the idea of theater, I personally do not think a piece of art in the mail completely counts as theater. Although an interactive video accompanies it, it is still up for debate whether this can be defined as a theatrical production. This whole article seems like a little bit of a stretch, and almost like a form of coping with that loss of theater we are all experiencing right now. Instead, I think people should not feel restricted by the label of theater, and not be afraid to step out of the boundaries of that art form. Instead, more plausible art forms that can take place in this time, like this mail-in interactive experience, should be embraced without feeling guilt, loss, or disconnect from the theater world.
I would say overall I am slightly confused as to how these examples constitutes as theater, as opposed to a escape room like event. To me, theater at its' core is an event between two groups: actors and attendee, and if what the author of this article described is labeled as theater, I worry that this might be a case of missing the mark and being falsely advertised. I think that there are other ways to send "theater" in the mail, and that these two pieces might not be the best representation of pandemic theater. While these may be interesting or good experiences to those who take apart of them, I don't think that this is a viable replacement for the theater that people expect when they go to a show, and I worry about more negative feedback and backlash these might get. It was very obvious from the tone of this article that this person wasn't super excited or happy with the experience they received, and if that's the general consensus, I don't see this type of theater lasting long.
I find this so interesting. Mostly, I’m excited that the lines between theater and all other kinds of art are being blurred. Like I’ve said in comments before, I’m not sure if this is theater, but I don't think I care either way. I cannot wait to see the exploration that is soon to come when (or if) the pandemic ends. Creators are finding new and distinctive ways to create. This is so incredibly exciting. Working within the constraints of a pandemic are pushing the limits.
Personally, I have always been fascinated by the possibility of creating theater without actors. And these mail in experiences seem like they are maybe the first iteration of this. A part of me agrees with Jesse Green that these plays were disappointing (even though I have not experienced them myself). But I am not ready to give up on this medium yet. These mail in art pieces might just be the first draft in a stunning series of theater-esque pieces. And I cannot wait to see what comes next.
Post a Comment