After connecting my living to a series of programs and devices, and while I was watching a particularly technically-troubled production last week (just missed cues which really embarrassed me; and I was only an audience member! The show itself really is something special and I will recommend it to all without mentioning it here) I began thinking about theatre’s place in the entertainment realm. My immediate response to the technical issues in the aforementioned show was: “Really? It’s opening night for God’s sake.” And then I looked around and realised, yes, it is opening night and the audience is full of theatre people (usually the norm, no?). As the play is of such a large scale that more people sitting in the audience probably have a hand in it than are on stage (or maybe about the same number, it does have an impressively large cast) obviously these little issues are more easily overlooked. I mean, it is one of the worst things to experience as an actor: when something completely out of your control goes awry. When we, the audience, see the characters flicker and the actor just standing there, powerless, trying not to let the red rush to their cheeks. After all, “We’ve all been there,” but how does this look to someone in the audience just trying to enjoy a show?
A few days ago while scouring my favourite theatre blogs and I came across this at 2AMt. Near the end of the post Gwydion states: “After all, we’re not making theater for each other… or if we are, we shouldn’t be.” I realise my embarrassment the other night came because I sat in the mostly-theatre-peopled-audience with someone just trying to enjoy a show. I was excited for her to experience the best of what local theatre has to offer. And those little technicalities were, as I said before, embarrassing. I mean, if the editors messed up the final cut of a movie and the credits started rolling over top the climax, or a blooper were accidentally kept in, audience members generally wouldn't be thinking, "Oh, don't you just hate when that happens? Better luck on your next film." In many cases they'd demand their money back and the film would be ridiculed.
So where does this bring me? Well, believe it or not, I'm not actually here to talk about my own standards for theatre (my seat-mate, by-the-way, loved the show and wasn't at all bothered by the technical miscues). This post is actually about something that really excites, and saddens me in theatre: the integration of new technology. If anyone has seen a Robert Lepage or an Electric Company production you'll automatically get my excitement.
My sadness however comes because so many theatre artists are of the mindset that less is more when considering the technical elements of a play. One main reason behind this is that of funding. Technology is expensive and takes time to do right. In such a rushed setting that most small, independent theatre finds itself having a show heavily depend on its technology will only tread rough water. And you're left with a choice: what should we do? Should we push through even if we know we will not have the necessary time to rehearse with it? Or would the show just be better without it?
Another big reason behind the less is more mindset is a lack of general experience with incorporating technology into live performance. And that’s understandable: a director’s main focus, especially of fledgling directors, is to the live, breathing actors in front of them. This is one of the reasons I, and so many others, fall head-over-heels for theatre: because it doesn’t rely on the “wow” factor the latest technology can offer; meaning you don’t need to shell out a couple extra dollars to rent a pair of silly-looking glasses to watch a play in 3D. Thank God (for more on theatre's "wow" factors read Howard Sherman’s article in American Theatre Wing).
Wouldn’t it be less stressing, though, if a director’s, or a theatre’s or an actor’s ability to utilise technology to their advantage came second nature? I have a feeling it would.
The accessibility of current technology (for integration into live performance) is extremely limited.
Now, I don’t mean to undermine the actor’s importance with the introduction of layers of technology; I mean to introduce another playing field, another plane of existence to interact with (and even this I don’t mean on, or with, all theatre. The diversity of performance styles is what makes this medium the most interesting on the planet). As technology evolves and becomes more commonplace in all aspects of existence theatre must grow to mirror it. If it doesn't how can it hope to stay relevant? The internet has created an amazing and inclusive interplay between artists of all walks in all corners of the world possible. This is 2011. This is the technological age. We need to embrace it if we want to expand and reach other audiences. Accessibility is key and the most accessible thing in the world, digitally speaking, is the internet. Let’s use it to our advantage to get new faces in our theatre's seats. Let's use it to create a truly unique performance style you can't experience anywhere else. Let's make this decade exciting.
---
To read more about the possibilities of all this there’s an exciting interview with Siminovitch Prize-Winning Director Kim Collier over at Praxis Theatre. I get weak in the knees just reading it.
---
UPDATE: Just found a symposium happening this Saturday, Jan. 15th @ York University on this very topic. It's an all day event and the best part is that registration is free! Click here for more information. Sadly enough I won't be able to attend but would love to hear about how it goes!
No comments:
Post a Comment