It’s taken me a long time to ruminate over my week at the Buran Summit. I’m by no means finished. I wanted to write a response, but I got myself so bogged down in commenting on every aspect of it that it just felt impossible. So I decided to just focus on one subject!
Throughout the summit there was a lot of talk about the spectator and their role in Buran’s work. Not a surprising subject to be breached as Adam has written on it in Bringing Back the Spectator and Sustained Applause. But during one day of the week we had quite an in depth discussion on the topic. I contributed by sharing some experiences I had just had while touring with a children’s theatre company in New England.
While on tour we had many different kinds of audiences. Two “types” stick out in my mind. We went to many schools where the children were experiencing theatre or live performance for the first time. They were excited and curious, and they had no concept of what was “appropriate audience behavior”. On many occasions students would scream or cry. Some would shout from their seats attempting to warn a character of impending doom. Others would vocalize their approval or disapproval of the performance. Occasionally one would try to wander on stage. It was quite the experience for actors who are accustomed to seasoned theatergoers who know how to “behave”. But to be honest, it was SO invigorating at times. They were incredibly involved. They truly became a part of the story. And there was no questioning how they felt about the production. I mean, that’s supposed to be part of the beauty of live theatre-you get instant and firsthand reactions!
On the other hand, there were shows where we performed to complete silence. There were many schools where the students were threatened with countless forms of discipline if they didn’t sit as still as stone and keep their mouths shut. It was a sour experience. The air was just filled with oppression. We had no idea if they were enjoying it at all. We certainly weren’t enjoying ourselves. It really felt like there was no connection or shared experience. I was frustrated that the teachers didn’t understand that theatre isn’t one sided. “The audience and the actors feed off of each other. It’s a give and take!” I wanted to tell them.
These two very different audiences really got me questioning the spectator’s role? Does the responsibility stop at buying the ticket and showing up? I think, and many at the summit expressed the same opinion, that it goes beyond that. I know I like seeing a spectator that is engaged, responsive, and questioning what is in front of them. But just how active should they be? We came to no definitive answer, but everyone seemed genuinely excited by the possibilities and how we could implement them in future Buran productions. What if we made it okay for the spectator to walk on stage if they feel so compelled? What if we said it was okay for her/him to start commenting aloud or questioning the actors? What would happen if the rules of theatergoing got thrown out the window? Would the experience be enhanced? Would the story still get told? How would it affect audience turnout? Perhaps we should find out.
-Hilary
"Does the responsibility stop at buying the ticket and showing up?"
ReplyDeleteThis question is the answer-question I think. It's the asking of the question that answers. And this is a sort of call as I see it.
What happens when you reposition an audience's experience with a piece of theatre? When they are participating in it in a myriad of ways - ways that they may not be fully aware of or not.
I think it's interesting, this idea of "behaving" at the theatre. I'm can sometimes be a restless audience member. I'm tend to shift around in my chair, crossing and recrossing my legs in trying to find comfort, never getting quite comfortable, having to move in and out of lines of sight. Rarely am I so transfixed that I stay in my seat - stuck. I definitely always feel I am playing the role of Shifty Audience Member because I am not "behaving" correctly.
There might be an opportunity for a piece of theatre to engage, to tell a story, one that draws empathy from the audience, and catharsis, and involvement, and community - and also let's them "misbehave" within that structure. Not ineptly with, "Hey, come on guys, get invooolved! Goooo nuts!" Rather, one that pushes against and with the space.
Like Ben's jazz piece, you have to be lost at first to find where you really are. I think a lot of folks come into the theatre equipped with this template of what It Should Do. How It Should Work. Not that they aren't willing to go along for the ride, but most every spectator will come in with some sort of Expectation of How It Will Work. With theatre this becomes even more loaded because, ironically, it seems to me, that it is those in theatre community who have the most severe criticism on What It Should Do.
I wonder: Does this have anything to with Doctors Only Seeing Doctors? Artists watching over artists and never really having an audience from Outside? Or is that an insult to fellow artists?
I think it might be.
Thoughts? Comments? Insults?
-Adam