Immersive EVITA- Page 3

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/10/15 at 10:14pm

Effie, you goin crazy. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/10/15 at 10:33pm

I was simply refuting your claim that the ONLY (your capitalization, not mine) thing an audience has to invest in is the story, which simply isn't true. Every time I go to commercial Broadway theater I invest in things other than the story; sometimes story fails lower on the list than performances and direction in all honesty.

The thrill of seeing Benanti live is not something that can be tangibly measured, and it's not just about being in the presence of a "famous" person I admire. How can I explain the excitement of her performing Model Behavior or the deafening applause she received before Little Lamb right after winning the Tony.

And sure, you can watch Ordet and say, "Wow, look at these remarkable long takes and isn't this lighting effect that Dreyer employed in the last scene phenomenal?" But when you experience a cool lighting effect in the theater, say the chokey laser beams in Matilda, it creates a different experience that no film can replicate.

Even the best films, and I love many, many a film, cannot offer the visceral thrill of live theater.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 7/10/15 at 10:34pm

If you think that the live theatre demographic is "old, white, rich" then you clearly haven't been over to Phantom or Wicked lately and seen the squealing teenagers.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 7/10/15 at 10:44pm

I think the reason people are so annoyed at your insistence is that you keep putting yourself on a pedestal, like we can't see what's right in front of us because we are addled by our love for theatre. We get what you are saying but we don't agree. I don't think making more theatre more immersive will draw in those who are stubbornly against it in the first place. So the crusade you pose is just not really viable.

My question to you: the person who says they'd rather watch something on Netflix, is he or she really going to want to be included in an immersive theatre event?

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 10:37am

Sleep No More was staggeringly successful and still running. I'm not putting myself on a pedestal, just as you're not by defending your side and what you believe theatre is and should be. I have no doubt you already know a lot of what I'm saying, but I'm trying to be thorough in mapping out my thoughts. Yes, I'm presenting a very bold opinion. But what I'm trying to put forth is that immersive theatre is far more than a gimmick, which seems to be a consensus here. In fact, I think it's the direction theatre is headed and I think that direction will open up doors and make theatre vital again (which, in the grand scheme of things, it kind of isn't.) And the person who'd rather watch Netflix isn't necessarily doing so because they are introverted... It could be exactly what I've said: Why go to the theatre?

 

Those tangible moments of connection that have been brought up here are what we crave. But realistically, how often do they happen? Something like Laura Benanti's Model Behaviour is RARE.

I don't just mean that theatre MUST directly interact with the audience. But it MUST capitalize on it's liveness, the possibility of tremendous failure, and must make the audience's involvement a crucial piece of the event,

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 10:37 AM

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 10:49am

If none of you think anything is wrong with theatre and nothing needs to change you don't need to do anything. My perspective is that there is plenty wrong, and I want to be an artist that contributes to that evolution and change,

And obviously not every head in the theatre is old, white, and rich. It's a generalization, but it's also true. There are exceptions to everything. Updated On: 7/11/15 at 10:49 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 10:59am

Theatre isn't going to go through a major change. If nothing is broken, then nothing can be fixed. That doesn't mean there can't be immersive productions, but they aren't going to be the new standard from what I'm seeing.


And, a person watches Netflix (or at least me and the people I know who also watch Netflix) due to hit shows like Orange Is the New Black, or catchup on a new movie....not because "Oh, the theatre! I don't want to go to the theatre! I don't like the theatre! So, instead if watching Orange Is the New Black: The Play, I shall watch the series...same thing anyway"

Because, honestly, I don't think ANYONE would believe that seeing something live is different than seeing something in person.


Also, what exactly is wrong with the state of theatre, in your mind?

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 10:59 AM

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 11:05am

Much of it is dead. And people aren't going. Broadway is a different beast. It is a commercial institution and a tourist attraction, so it has a built in audience. But I bet many of those Broadway theatre goers may never see another show in their life. Maybe theatre is 'fine'. But if it's current state is our definition of 'fine', I'm not really okay with it. Broadway will always be fine, I'm sure. But I don't work on broadway. I work in indie theatres where I have to pray to even get half a house full sometimes.

 

I also believe most theatre is terrified of risk. It plays it safe to maintain it's current audience. 

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 11:05 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 11:14am

If only a quarter of your houses get full...how can it be assumed that the entire theatre world will take a change to similar productions?

And people say "I'm not a theatre person" for the same reason I say "I'm not a sports person"--

But why would they go see a movie then?



1) Film and theatre are entirely different entities

2) A lot of times when people say they aren't a "theatre person" they may mean, "I'm not a musical theatre person", which is something that really can't be changed


There's another reason I'm getting to, but I have go figure out how to word it properly without coming across as...snobbish

[Showface]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 11:17am

"I also believe most theatre is terrified of risk. It plays it safe to maintain it's current audience."

I'm not understanding...

There have been plenty of revolutionary theatrical productions 

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 11:21am

That's why I didn't say ALL theatre is terrified of risk. But most is. Especially within commercial houses.

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 12:16pm

But Whizzer, you were right. There is more than just story to invest in. But I'm not sure a non-theatre goer considers that. They have no reason to invest in lighting, design, etc. because they perceive theatre to be old people on stage talking for two hours. Which isn't an unfair perception. I think to get those people into the theatre, we need to initially promise them something that, in their own perception, can't be replicated by watching a movie.

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 12:16 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 12:31pm

My hunch is that people who say "why go to the theatre?" would be even less inclined to visit one of your productions.

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 12:31 PM

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 2:42pm

But you maintain that the theatre today is somehow broken and "dead" and that it NEEDS fixing to bring in new audiences, which doesn't ring true. Yes commercial theatre is afraid of risk but so is most Television and Movies, and pop culture in general. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of risky indie films and oddball TV shows to defy the norm. Same with theatre, proscenium, in the round or immersive.

And I just staunchly believe that immersive theatre isn't going to bring in any new audiences, except maybe the tourists you keep putting down. It will primarily cater to the current theatre audience and anyone who hears of it as the "hot new thing" (whether its actually being used as a gimmick or not).

To paraphrase one of my favorite Netflix bingers: One CAN fix it. But SHOULD one?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 2:52pm

They perceive theatre to be old people on stage talking for two hours. Which isn't an unfair perception.

Actually, it is.

I think to get those people into the theatre, we need to initially promise them something that, in their own perception, can't be replicated by watching a movie.

I personally don't give a fig what these people do or don't do. Live and let live. I'm sure I could get plenty of boys to like me if only I changed everything about myself too.

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 02:52 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/11/15 at 3:29pm

Just like in Grease!

 

Maybe the OP should go see an improv show?  That seems to fit his requirements for theatre.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/12/15 at 5:18pm

And people aren't going.

You mean, they're not going to YOUR theatre.  There are hundreds of theatres all over the country that already prove your statement false.

But I bet many of those Broadway theatre goers may never see another show in their life.

Based on what?

I work in indie theatres where I have to pray to even get half a house full sometimes.

Maybe the issue isn't with the audiences or what other theatres are doing.

They have no reason to invest in lighting, design, etc. because they perceive theatre to be old people on stage talking for two hours

Again, based on what?  It just sounds like there is something you want to do, so you make up your own statistics to fit your personal agenda.  You haven't provided any evidence to prove your theory whatsoever.  If you want to do something different and that is important to you, fine.  But don't Munchausen a false tragedy so you can be seen as theatre's knight in shining armor.  Without any real facts or evidence, it just sounds completely self-serving.  Or like Corky St. Clair describing his staging for Backdraft.  Just because you have built a hammer, it doesn't mean everything in your house is now broken.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 7/12/15 at 6:38pm

" Just because you have built a hammer, it doesn't mean everything in your house is now broken."

YES

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/12/15 at 9:37pm

I'm as likely to present concrete statistics are you are.

Just because you're married to traditional theatre, does not mean work that strays from that is of less value or is 'gimmicky' as many have said here.

Usually, my shows sell out. But those audiences usually consist of, generally speaking, the same types of people. I want theatre to be for EVERYONE. I want theatre to be brought to the people. I consistently work for ways to open the door for others. I look for ways to capitalize on what makes theatre unique. If everyone is cool with theatre maintaining it's perceived status as an elitist form of high art, fine. When I look at what is at the forefront of theatre today in the public eye, I see big budget shows with sky high ticket prices that are designed for mass appeal by painting in broad strokes. (Again, I feel obligated to say that I'm generalizing, because you seem to want to nail me to my words as if you think I'm speaking conclusively. I'm really not trying to).


If you think I'm saying that I PERSONALLY am the 'saviour of theatre' I think that's completely ridiculous. None of these ideas are my own nor have I EVER said they were. I have beliefs. So do you. I'm actively working for the benefit of my beliefs. Are you for yours?

There is a book on this very subject: 'Theatre of the Unimpressed: In Search of Vital Drama'. I can't offer statistics, but if you really want to turn this into some kind of academic debate, which takes it away from us just laying out our own perceptions and views of our art, I can draw direct quotes from interviews in the book in which people talk about these very ideas and why they are not personally a 'theatre person'.

[Showface]

Posted: 7/12/15 at 11:51pm

"Usually, my shows sell out. "

I thought you said you can barely get houses half way full


It is my strong belief...no...I know that besides high prices of "commercialized theatre", theatre is open to everyone. If we disregard prices, the doors are open to everyone, it just may not appeal to everyone, which is something that just can't be changed.


And who exactly are "the people"? The same people who have always existed, who just aren't "theatre people" and never will be?


And the perception of theatre as "elitist", "pretentious", "snobbish", or whatever will always be there...but it's not just a theatre thing. Even films get those titles. And frankly, I hate it when people just throw those words around. I don't even know what it is that qualifies a play or a film to be "elitist", but honestly, anyone with that broad generalization of the theatre should just be left alone, instead of trying new ways to bring them in.
Let them think what they want, but the theatre has even alive for centuries, and it will be alive for many, many more...






Updated On: 7/12/15 at 11:51 PM

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/13/15 at 12:20am

What I'm saying is that I don't think we can disregard prices. That's part of what makes theatre unattainable to people of low incomes. And to make matters worse, the public is primarily exposed to big budget commercial shows (because those shows can afford that kind of publicity reach) and then the public is given the false but understandable idea that theatre in general is very expensive and perhaps unattainable. 

Fact is, there's plenty of theatre that can be seen cheaply, and it's excellent, in a totally different way from the commercial stuff often. 

There might even be something going on with comparison... If people think theatre costs hundreds of dollars, and they see my show listed for $10, are they going to prejudge my show and think it will be of poor quality?

I want to work toward a theatre culture that is known to be: 

- Accessible, financially and artistically

- Challenging

- Present 

- Unique... What does it offer that, on a surface level, nothing else does? What does the audience get out of it that they can't get similarly from watching a movie? And if they compare the difference between movies and live theatre, how do we convince them theatre stands up in it's own right and offers things a recorded medium can't touch?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/13/15 at 9:14am

I look for ways to capitalize on what makes theatre unique.

That's great and very admirable.  Just stop with all the BS assumptions you're making to support your cause or at least admit that they are assumptions not based in any fact whatsoever.

Just because you're married to traditional theatre, does not mean work that strays from that is of less value or is 'gimmicky' as many have said here.

Who said they were married to it?

I can't offer statistics, but if you really want to turn this into some kind of academic debate

You turned it into an academic debate as soon as you made the claims that theatre us dead or dying, all people feel this way, nobody does that, all commercial theatre does this, people think that way, etc. in order to serve your personal cause.  Obviously, you want to do something very specific and you read a book that inspires you, but nothing you have said adds up.  

What does it offer that, on a surface level, nothing else does? What does the audience get out of it that they can't get similarly from watching a movie? And if they compare the difference between movies and live theatre, how do we convince them theatre stands up in it's own right and offers things a recorded medium can't touch?

And similarly, how do we convince you that perhaps people are not as stupid as you think they are and the existence of live theatre all over the country is proof that people know theatre is live, can be accessible, and choose to attend for whatever reason they see fit?  Again, just do you thing without all the rhetoric.

Again, I feel obligated to say that I'm generalizing, because you seem to want to nail me to my words as if you think I'm speaking conclusively.

Because you state everything conclusively, including assumptions and generalizations.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/13/15 at 9:51am

This article about a new form of ticket pricing reminds of this discussion. Granted, it's about a British theatre company but you might want to read it... 

Here's what happened when we asked audiences to set their own ticket prices

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 7/13/15 at 9:53am

I fully admit that these are, generally, assumptions, but they are not just based on my own perception. It is how I've discussed theatre with others and is evident in my research.

i just come from a background of training that embodies this... The kind of work that is performed over and over the same way through time is referred to as "museum theatre" and that is what I mean when I say much theatre is dead. Because so many pieces are created and revived with little consideration of why they are of any important value today. And they are dead the second they hit the stage. 

I'm not at all saying people are stupid, please don't put words in my mouth. You can't deny that there is a public perception of theatre that is, in a lot of ways, stigmatized. And because theatre is broadly believed to be boring and lifeless, a single experience like that can turn someone off for good. And the problem is, so much theatre is a miss that audiences could very well see something that fits their perception. 

And I think a lot of commercial theatre is like this. They are crafted for mass appeal, and not always, sadly, for any artistically significant action. When theatre, to me, has as much power to change the world as any other profession, I'm not satisfied seeing a paint by numbers Phantom of the Opera for the billionth time. 

 

I do also want to apologize. I understand that I'm generalizing, but it's just because I'm passionate about this and I want to see theatre get better. I don't wanna ignore the fact that theatre can be stigmatized by the public, that far less people are being reached by it when theatre and art is meant to be for EVERYONE, and that people are seeing shows that confirm their fears about theatre and turn them off seeing another show ever again. There's no academic or statistical proof I could source, I don't think. But the proof is in the historical development of theatre and performance based media. We are fighting against technology and we are losing,

Updated On: 7/13/15 at 09:53 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/13/15 at 11:21am

I'm not at all saying people are stupid, please don't put words in my mouth.

You imply people cannot tell the difference between live and recorded media, and therefore, choose not to attend theatre.  I guess they don't go to pop concerts either, because why would they need to?

You can't deny that there is a public perception of theatre that is, in a lot of ways, stigmatized.

Anyone can deny an unsupported vague assumption.

And because theatre is broadly believed to be boring and lifeless

Oh, good Lord.  There you go again.  "broadly believed"?  I do hope you can escape whatever cult you joined one day.

And I think a lot of commercial theatre is like this. They are crafted for mass appeal, and not always, sadly, for any artistically significant action.

Theatre does not have to exist "always" for "artistically significant action".  That has never been true in the entire history of world theatre.  Theatre can exist for a wide variety of reasons, including purely for entertainment, which also fills a public need.  

When theatre, to me, has as much power to change the world as any other profession, I'm not satisfied seeing a paint by numbers Phantom of the Opera for the billionth time.

Okay.  Nobody is forcing that on you.  And there is NOTHING wrong with those who choose to do exactly that and enjoy it.  Do what you want and let others enjoy what they choose.  I realize you have this very narrow vision of what theatre "should" be, and that you're super sad that it's not exactly what you want all the time, but that has more to do with you and not with theatre and the rest of the society.  It's not unlike the religious fanatics frothing at the mouth over gay marriage because they believe the government and every citizen should follow their very specific interpretation of a particular flavor of a particular religion and generalizing it as all religion.

and that people are seeing shows that confirm their fears about theatre and turn them off seeing another show ever again.

See what I mean?  That's a Fox News statement right there.

But the proof is in the historical development of theatre and performance based media. We are fighting against technology and we are losing

No, I'm afraid an abstract opinion is not proof at all.  Neither is a histrionic statement.  There was more evidence to support the Y2K hysteria than this theory and we saw what happened there.