Immersive EVITA- Page 5

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 11:30am

I do A LOT of indie theater here in NYC with several different companies, and most of our crowds are made up of 20-somethings to 40-somethings.  Last year, one of the companies I work with cast me in a show that played 59E59 and it was the first time in a long time that our houses were made up of a mostly older, subscription crowd.  They were deeply appreciative of the work, but you could tell they knew this piece of theater was pitched to and influenced by a younger audience.  The thing is, indie theater will never be mass market theater.  It will always play to insiders and people who seek out that kind of thing.  And that's fine.  The entire world does not have to attend the show playing in a 60 seat house for three to four weeks in order to make theater viable.  

Some people will always choose to make theater on a smaller scale that doesn't have the reach of popular commercial theater.  Some people will choose only to work in the commercial world, and others will straddle both worlds because each one satisfies something different in them.  But to come to the conclusion that theater is dying because my indie production of a sci-fi spy drama is not reaching the youth audience the way WICKED and HAMILTON are is...myopic at best.  

Updated On: 8/12/15 at 11:30 AM

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 12:42pm

Hamilton, Wicked, and Spring Awakening would disagree with me. They are also just three shows. 

We just had a meeting about all of this a couple of days ago.... A bunch of theatre professionals at a nationally organized event talking about why theatre is dying. Do you think we are all idiots? That our diagnosis is not founded on something? 

Whoever said that inviting new audiences in is 'futile' is exactly where I seem to be butting heads a lot with a lot of you. There's this sense that theatre is working as it is and that nothing needs to change. But there is, in my eyes, still SO much wrong with it, especially as the world evolves. For every one show like Hamilton that breaks box office records, there are 1000 other shows running concurrently that struggle for their voice to be heard. We need to reevaluate how we attract people to the theatre. Broadway has a built in attraction. Most other theatres do not. Why the hell should ANYONE care about going to the theatre when there are so many other ways to be stimulated that are cheaper, more accessible, and less hassle? That is a question I believe hasn't been satisfyingly answered. 

[Showface]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 12:44pm

^Again, I say, maybe Canada is having some issues, but America most certainly is not--theatre is very much alive

 

"Why the hell should ANYONE care about going to the theatre when there are so many other ways to be stimulated that are cheaper, more accessible, and less hassle?"

People know the difference between theatre and Netflix

Updated On: 8/12/15 at 12:44 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 12:48pm

You haven't gotten a satisfying answer because people here do not agree with your premise.  You're not the only theater professional in this thread.  You're not the only one working in smaller, more risk-taking venues.  No one is discounting your experience.  But your singular experience does not mean you can extrapolate to the entirety of world theater.  

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 1:06pm

Difference? Yes. Do they care about the difference, and is this different big enough for them to see the value? No.

[Showface]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 1:08pm

Why does there need to be this entirely new approach to something that isn't even broken?

Theatre's not dead. It's not dying. 

Just because there is a new approach does not mean that everything else, which has been working absolutely wonderfully for centuries, is all of a sudden dead.

[newintown]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 1:26pm

"Whoever said that inviting new audiences in is 'futile' is exactly where I seem to be butting heads a lot with a lot of you. There's this sense that theatre is working as it is and that nothing needs to change. But there is, in my eyes, still SO much wrong with it, especially as the world evolves."

 

So, go ahead and change it, if you think you can. But you're in for nothing but maddening heartache if you expect everyone to just go along and say, "Yes! You're brilliant! You know exactly how to make everything better!" because, you know, that doesn't happen - not even to Joe Papp, who had a lot of now-extinct public money on his side 45 years ago.

 

And the things you write here lead me to suspect that you think you might just be another Joe Papp. But even Joe Papp wasn't really what we think he was.

Updated On: 8/12/15 at 01:26 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 3:54pm

I think the "broken" part they keep trying to fix is the audience.

 

Immersive is great for people who can't otherwise immerse themselves in anything. People with ADD or attention spans that match a kitten's. They suffer from ideas no longer than 140-character tweets and either watch the same movie or TV show over and over again, or channel-surf their ways through 2-minute chunks of entertainment until they pass out.

 

Besides, they'll just be staring at their phones ... or wishing they were staring at their phones.

 

They are the ones who "immersive" benefits the most. Hit them over the head with it (literally) so they stay focused!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/12/15 at 4:38pm

I am not a commercial artist, I work in independent theatre.

 

Yes.  I remember the conversation from last month.

 

None of this is to say I prefer a certain type of theatre, unless you mean that the certain type is theatre with liveness, immediacy, fallibility, and a universality that is inviting and inclusive of EVERYONE. 

 

In other words, a very specific certain type of theatre.

 

We just had a meeting about all of this a couple of days ago.... A bunch of theatre professionals at a nationally organized event talking about why theatre is dying. Do you think we are all idiots? That our diagnosis is not founded on something? 

 

I certainly never used the word "idiots".  Scientologists get together for national meetings, too.  They discuss their beliefs based on a book they read.  So, I'm not sure what a meeting of like-minded individuals means to you, but to me, it means only that.  It's not "proof" of anything other than perhaps there was a meeting where the theory was discussed.

 

For every one show like Hamilton that breaks box office records, there are 1000 other shows running concurrently that struggle for their voice to be heard.

 

Well, if that is a concern of yours, then theatre has been dead in the US for over a century.  I don't think Netflix has been around that long, but I'm not sure because I use Hulu and refuse to set foot in another theatre since I saw Hamilton.   There was nothing but darkness and silence because the stage was full of corpses.  At least, I think so but I couldn't tell if it was a show or a Netflix broadcast, despite the fact that I flew to NYC, bought tickets, and entered a theatre.  It looked EXACTLY like my TV and my living room, with the exception of all the dead bodies and smell of rotting flesh and decay.  Because the general public is all that STOOPID.  

 

Ugh.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to attend "independent" theatre in every city I live in and visit as I always have surrounded by an audience, despite your "belief" that it doesn't happen, watching shows you may or may not deem to be "live" enough for you to be called "theatuh".  Good Lord.

Updated On: 8/13/15 at 04:38 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 8/13/15 at 2:42am

These boards need a "like" button, because MisterMatt's comments here have been just spot on. And enjoyable.

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/13/15 at 10:34pm

Spot on in your opinion, brother.

 

Mister Matt: If you're going to microanalyze and psychoanalyze me continually, at least read my words more carefully so I don't have to exhaustingly clarify things... Such as the fact that I never said you called us idiots. I just can't wrap my head around how you can continually try to completely discredit me because you're happy with what I think is a currently lame state of theatre (beyond Broadway of course, the tourist attraction itself). 

 

You don't have to do a single thing, that's the beauty of your opinion. Leave it to artists who perceive the troubling issues with the state of theatre to take action. If you don't see what we see, you don't have to do a single thing. 

 

And quite frankly, your interpretation of the theory I'm presenting is increasingly insulting. The fact that you think I'm implying an audience can't discern the difference between sitting in the theatre and watching Netflix is just ridiculous, and you know it. I'm just sick of watching shows that have been worked into the actor's marrow until there is no vitality, no life. It might as well be on a TV screen. If a show isn't the best or worst thing ever, maaaan it feels like such a waste of my time, money, and energy. Think about the best shows you've ever seen... The ones that made it impossible for you to not jump to your feet. Now think about why that feeling is so incredibly rare. What's absent: that liveness. That spectre of human failure. That shared experience. These are the ONLY things that make theatre in any way worthwhile. 

 

I'm not going to spend $200 on a Broadway ticket to watch actors ignore me for two hours and play the play with their muscle memory. Every step is in place, every note unchanging, so many shows are basically museum pieces. 

 

Let me put it this way: if you had the option to download a video of, say, Hamilton, and it'd cost you $20 in comparison to the $200+ it costs for good seats, what would you do? The video offers you the same experience, because the show itself is unchanging. It offers you nothing it doesn't offer just as easily on a good TV with a good sound system. Most shows are so meticulously calculated that they look virtually the exact same every time they are performed. And the audience can feel that. They're not naive as you seem to think they are. They can tell when a show hasn't found new inspiration in 100+ performances. It hangs in the air. And it makes many theatre experiences super blah. 

 

But hey, if you don't think that's a problem, don't worry about a thing.

Updated On: 8/14/15 at 10:34 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 2:43am

Wow. For someone who seems to hate all things Broadway, I find it amusing that you're surprised to find a majority here supporting that "tourist trap" you hate so much. Or that you even came to BROADWAYWorld. Is there not an IndieImmersiveLivingArtPrententiousTheaterWorld website? 

And I think that the many creative types who develop and put up shows across the commercial stages would find your comments highly offensive. Tell me, are Hal Prince, Bob Fosse, Michael Grief, etc, etc, etc all less talented than you, because the works they've staged are commercial and set post-opening? Because that's basically you're argument. 

 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 7:32am

How can you say watching a video of a show offers the same experience as watching it live? Trust me, people can feel and know that there is a big difference- they're not as naive as you think they are!

I've watched many video recordings of shows (often brilliant shows) at the Lincoln Center library and although I enjoyed the experience and am overjoyed that we have a vault of historical videotape it in no one comes close to watching a live performance. Do you think the Passing Strange DVD even remotely compares to the live experience? That even had the benefit of being professionally filmed and it's still something of a dud. There is no replacement for communally experiencing Amsterdam and you won't convince me otherwise. 

I have guests in town this week and took them to Hand to God and Fun Home, both of which have casts that largely have been performing in their respective show for years. Yet each show was in excellent shape and received a loving response from the audience. I've seen Boyer several times now and he delivered the lines in a similar fashion each time (why fix what isn't broken?), but the thrill hasn't diminished one bit with each viewing. And I'd like you to ask the woman sobbing next to me at the end of Fun Home if she thinks she would have had the same reaction if she had watched the show on DVD in her apartment. 

Do you personally see a lot of these Broadway shows that you think are so detrimental to the theater or are you just making assumptions about their quality and the responses of audience members?

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 8:53am

And quite frankly, your interpretation of the theory I'm presenting is increasingly insulting.

 

That's probably because your theory is highly insulting and offensive.

 

If a show isn't the best or worst thing ever, maaaan it feels like such a waste of my time, money, and energy.

 

If those are the only two options you deem acceptable, then you should probably stay out of theatre.

 

Think about the best shows you've ever seen... The ones that made it impossible for you to not jump to your feet. Now think about why that feeling is so incredibly rare. What's absent: that liveness.

 

The shows I saw that made me feel precisely that way are the types of shows you declare as "dead" and you have devalued and discredited.  Fortunately, you weren't with me to ruin the experience with your conjecture when I saw them.

 

Let me put it this way: if you had the option to download a video of, say, Hamilton, and it'd cost you $20 in comparison to the $200+ it costs for good seats, what would you do?

 

I did have the option. I saw it the first week in previews on Broadway.  It was thrilling.

 

The video offers you the same experience, because the show itself is unchanging. It offers you nothing it doesn't offer just as easily on a good TV with a good sound system.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way and do not understand the difference between live and Memorex.  

 

The fact that you think I'm implying an audience can't discern the difference between sitting in the theatre and watching Netflix is just ridiculous, and you know it.

 

My obvious sarcasm aside, you do imply it:  

 

But think of it from a layperson's perspective.  They know theatre to be an experience that offers them nothing different from what they can get on their TV screen.

 

You continually imply it when you say that because YOU feel that certain shows look like something from Netflix (are they your corporate sponsor?), then you can define what the "layperson" will know and experience.

 

Leave it to artists who perceive the troubling issues with the state of theatre to take action.

 

Why would I leave it to "artists" if I don't want you to "take action"?  From what you have described, if we left theatre up to your group of Theatuhologists, then 99% of the theatre that 99% of audiences choose to see and enjoy would no longer exist.  And I will most definitely voice my opinion if someone tries to tell me what theatre "is" and "should be" and attempts to nullify my experiences as well as the experiences of others because it doesn't fit his very limited and narrow definition.

 

I'm sorry if you have only seen sh*tty shows.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Just try and get out more.

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 9:52am

I see about 100 pieces of theatre a year. I have left many shows that had me practically jumping around in excitement.... That's because they embraced that liveness. I saw a show that brilliantly cast 16 year old untrained actors in a professional show, and everyone in the audience was on the the edge of their seat as a result. The house of cards could fall at any second. It was gripping and a unique circumstance that only theatre could replicate. 

 

Whizzer, of course we are moved by stories. I cried listening to the preserved cast album of Fun Home. It's a moving story. Don't think that I'm trying to say that precision in theatre robs it of any power at all. 

A cast album is a perfect example, actually. How many times can you listen to one before it loses it's magic? Before it gets stale? And don't you wish you could experience that magic every single time you put it on? That's what I want out of theatre but so seldom see. You see a show late in a run and the actors have settled. They've locked into their hip sockets. The inspiration has faded. And the whole audience can feel it. And they may leave in nothing beyond appreciation, which I far too often do. Leaving and saying "Meh, it's a show" is far too commonplace and I want to fight that. 

I'm sorry if I've attempted to nullify any of your theatregoing experience... I do not for one second want to imply that anyone here is foolish for having loved, been moved by a piece of theatre that doesn't fit into the ideas I'm putting forth. 

What I maybe haven't put forth yet is that this idea of liveness isn't necessarily as blatant as I seem to have made you believe. It doesn't mean the show has to be interactive or avant garde. It just means staging it in a way that conjures the visceral response that failure is very much alive and present and ready to strike. That we are all humans in the room together and this is not a movie, where nothing can go wrong. Because honestly, if I wanted to watch actors pull off the same thing the same way, I might as well watch a movie. And don't give me that stuff about 'oh the lighting' because people genuinely don't care. They'll appreciate expert lighting if they see it, sometimes, but no one goes to the theatre for a light show. So many arguments about why theatre is different from other media are so flimsy here. Yes, obviously you're in a room presently with actors by nature, that aspect is unavoidable for it for be theatre. But so often I feel like "I might as well not be here".  There is a personal excitement with attending the theatre, but that is self imposed and has nothing to do with the product. 

And MisterMatt, whether you like it or not you can't stop that evolution. Theatre will evolve with or without you. Being insulted because something challenges your comfort is fair. But refusing to acknowledge that making theatre unique is going to help it won't stop it from changing.

 

 

 

Updated On: 8/14/15 at 09:52 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 11:41am

^Well, I'm sorry YOU feel theatre is dead.

I'm sorry that because the style of theatre you want isn't being mass produced, your feelings for the theatre has been fuzzied and muddled to the point where you think it's all dead.

I genuinely am sorry.

But STOP trying to put YOUR feelings, and placing them as feelings everyone else has. 

This is a shorter version of a post I was going to make (but I lost the post), but I pretty much explained why the theatre is so magical. 

I'm sorry you can't see why it is magical. 

 

 

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 11:43am

And Mister Matt was spot on in everything he said!

Especially THIS part:

"Why would I leave it to "artists" if I don't want you to "take action"?  From what you have described, if we left theatre up to your group of Theatuhologists, then 99% of the theatre that 99% of audiences choose to see and enjoy would no longer exist.  And I will most definitely voice my opinion if someone tries to tell me what theatre "is" and "should be" and attempts to nullify my experiences as well as the experiences of others because it doesn't fit his very limited and narrow definition."

I agree that this board REALLY needs a like button! :)

 

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 11:46am

But refusing to acknowledge that making theatre unique is going to help it won't stop it from changing.

 

Theatre is already unique. So sad that it is no longer unique for you because you saw such a riveting production starring 16 year old amateurs.

The rest of us, and I mean the rest of us will always find theatre unique...

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 12:56pm

And MisterMatt, whether you like it or not you can't stop that evolution. Theatre will evolve with or without you. Being insulted because something challenges your comfort is fair. But refusing to acknowledge that making theatre unique is going to help it won't stop it from changing.

This cracks me up! Yes, theater will change and there will always be experimental theater, etc., but we're basically doing the same thing the Greeks did a few centuries (millenniums) ago. Not much has changed and a lot of people are still going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 12:56pm

Not dead, but dying. Yes, theatre is unique in substantial ways. But are those ways always things that would make an non theatregoer care? I am not so sure. How do we make non theatregoers see theatre? That's what doesn't really happen unless you're a big commercial hit on Broadway. I want non theatregoers, because I think theatre should be for EVERYONE, not just the elite. 

 

Its ts no secret that people feel excluded from the theatre. Theatre is magical. I love it so much. I want to see it do better. If you don't, that's your thing. But I really do believe that there are ways to engage a far bigger demographic that just ARE NOT happening right now. People aren't seeing their stories on stage. The shared experience of theatre is fizzling. It's become comparable to watching a screen or reading a book, it offers a comparable visceral experience. It's a story that I may invest in but, in a human way, am detached from. IWnen theatre has the unique ability to engage in a present, tangible, human way, then why the f*** does most of it not do that? It's very sad that artists are encouraged to take massive risk but that risk is absent on an institutional level. Keep seeing theatre. It needs people badly. But also recognize that you are part of something so small. This is a plea. Let's not let our work settle. For the love of god.

 

 

Updated On: 8/14/15 at 12:56 PM

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 1:00pm

It seems like you're arguing a total different thing now, and I am so confused.

Why don't you just say you want lower ticket prices? That's something to be agreed on.

 

Take out to high prices, I would say the theatre is accessible on an artistic level.

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 1:00pm

It seems like you're arguing a total different thing now, and I am so confused.

Why don't you just say you want lower ticket prices? That's something to be agreed on.

 

Take out to high prices, I would say the theatre is accessible on an artistic level.

[Showface]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 1:00pm

"IWnen theatre has the unique ability to engage in a present, tangible, human way, then why the f*** does most of it not do that?"

 

The thing is, most theatre does do that.

Again, I think that because you love this very specific style, you refuse to see that...

Updated On: 8/14/15 at 01:00 PM

[Michael Kras]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 1:53pm

I feel it doesn't. But hey, it's subjective.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 8/14/15 at 3:34pm

Michael, Since you seem to painting commercial theater, and Broadway in particular, as the problem, I meant specifically how many Broadway productions and not theater in general do you see a season? Which shows from say the last five seasons do you think are examples of the slow "death" of theater/Broadway?

Have you seen Hamilton on Broadway? You claimed that watching a video of Hamilton and seeing the show live basically have the same effect. Are you speaking from experience or just making a supposition?

I'm moved by much more than the story of Fun Home. Seeing last night (again) was so thrilling. During "Changing My Major" the audience was particularly breathing and laughing in perfect sync with each other. The lighting effect for Bruce's final moments sent gasps through the audience- and we all felt it together. I wouldn't have experienced any of these communal things if I was watching it on video in my apartment, even with a group of friends.