Immersive EVITA — Page 2

Why watch a traditionally staged play when I can get the same kind of experience on Netflix for less hassle and way less money?

For the same reason people have been going to theatre subsequent to the invention of moving pictures and television. Because it's not the same kind of experience and never has been. Have you ever been to a show staged in a proscenium theatre? Why did you go? That's your answer.

---

^
LOL

---

This is like the worst freshman theatre seminar ever.

"This is like the worst freshman theatre seminar ever. "

LOL.

Not at all have I negated centuries of theatre. I'm merely talking about theatre in the technological age.

You said, "Any Broadway show is immaculately choreographed and planned so it goes exactly the same way every time. It is dead theatre before it even hits the stage." That's the problem with trying to sound like an academic. You need to be precise and you need facts.

Oh, this creaky theory has been around longer than you've been alive. Firstly, all Broadway shows are commercial with the exception of Lincoln Center and Roundabout because they are not-for-profit. Second, all Broadway shows, commercial or not, close frequently and many don't recoup. This has always been the case. In fact, it has only been in the past few decades we see more and more shows running for over ten years, which is the OPPOSITE of what you're positing. Third, commercial shows fail for the exact same reason now that they have always failed: bad productions, bad reviews, bad word-of-mouth, bad marketing. Fourth, people who don't like theatre and prefer to stay at home have always existed as well. Nothing you have said is unique to the here and now.

This type of theatre is dead because it's unchanging, like a museum piece. There is no life in it. Every single beat is preplanned and there is a contingency for everything.

Scripted and staged theatre that is rehearsed is not dead in the least. It is 99% of theatre that is being performed in this country every day and has been forever. If you want to say it's dead because you want to pretend you have some new idea that sounds academic or bohemian, then just say so. But you've said nothing that supports it. If there was some sort of evidence to prove that this sort of theatre is in danger due to attendance figures or grosses, then by all means, use it. Regurgitating the moans of old Golden Agers or Theatre Major fringe idealists doesn't actually support anything.

Can you imagine the palpable human tension between audience and performer when there is REAL stuff at risk? When the house of cards could LITERALLY fall at any second? If I want to watch a story that's unchanging, I'll put on a movie. Why pay 20x more to go to a theatre for the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE? Theatre is unique in that it is bodies presently in the space together. Why wouldn't you want to capitalize on that?

If you take a good theatre history class (or read on the subject), you'd find out this has all been said and done before. If you're that passionate for improvisation and spontaneity, then be all means, don't go to any shows except those that interest your very specific needs. Nobody is forcing you. But just don't ascribe those needs to anyone else falsely. I'm sorry you don't like any post-internet Broadway shows whatsoever. The rest of us and Broadway are quite okay.

---

You're very aggressive. It feels like I'm talking to a theatre bigot who is resistant of progress.

All Broadway theatre is, by nature, commercial theatre. It is produced with the intent of a sustained run and capitalized financial return. Broadway is inherently commercial... Even with shows that try to transcend the deadly commercial qualities that are born of the artistry, the institution itself is commercial. That's what I mean.

I still do mean ANY Broadway show. Just because most existed before this heightened technological age, doesn't mean they're not the exact same. We look back in time at those shows from our current cultural perspective, the SAME THING APPLIES. They are just as guilty of offering nothing beyond what recorded media offers.

Clearly our definitions of dead theatre differ. I do not mean that the show itself is deenergized. I mean 'dead' in the sense that it is unchanging. It goes pretty much exactly the same way every night, eight times a week. That sounds pretty dead to me. The ONLY thing that audiences can then invest in is STORY, which you can get many other places for waaaaay less money and hassle. Dead theatre technically doesn't need an audience to exist. That's SO sad.

If you're happy with the state of theatre and it's attendance levels, I'm very sad about that too. I'm personally not content with the fact that the art I've devoted myself to is barely scraping by.

You just seem to be putting down regular theatre as "below" your immersive theatre and that's pretentious and riles people up.

Also your argument about it being dead because it doesn't change isn't sound. Yes they perform the same script every night but that's because they don't perform for the same audience every night. And that doesn't take away from the LIVE aspect of it. That's the appeal for me, going and seeing real people just get away act out a story.

---

"theatre bigot"

Is this dude Philly's understudy?

All I will say is this: musical theatre took about sixty years to be taken seriously and eighty to become the dominant cultural force in live performance. Vaudeville folk thirty years to really take off but had fizzled out by seventy years.

Give inmersive theatre some time to see if it's the way of the future or a passing fad. It could surprise us- or it could not surprise us at all.

I think many people who go to see a Broadway show realize that they're not going to be seeing the same thing as they would in, say, a movie or TV show, because there is a certain novelty that you can get in seeing a show live versus watching a movie version of the same musical, such as the performers, the sets, the orchestra, the live atmosphere of the whole piece. Just because the show isn't interacting with the audience 24/7 doesn't mean that the audience isn't being immersed in the story in a way that they don't get while sitting at home watching Netflix; theatre is already offering something different.


The fact is that theatre is evolving. Maybe not in the direction that you would like, but evolving all the same. Just compare musicals of this decade to the ones from the Golden Age; vocal styles are different, the stories are changing with the times, musical styles are keeping up with whatever tends to be more popular at the moment. To imply that theatre today is "stale" and "unchanging" is strange.


EDIT: I am in no way bashing immersive theatre, though. The concept itself is something really neat.

---

Updated On: 7/10/15 at 04:51 PM

Especially because I flat-out hate commercial theatre.

Fine. But what you prefer and what is fact are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you hate the fact that literally millions of people prefer a different form of theatre than the one you abhor. You want the art form itself to evolve into something more interactive than in one popular form. Okay, but that has nothing to do with what others wish to see, prefer to see, or how they feel about what they see.

I think it's possible that this new direction could in it's in a whole new and expanded demographic of people. I want to make theatre more accessible, in other words.

Again, it's not a new direction. It's a style that's been around at least half a century and probably more, but I'd have to break out some research (which I would heavily advise) and I don't have time. Despite what you'd like to achieve, your style preference has always been more experimental and not hugely popular among the general public. And despite what you think, it is no more valid than the traditional form. Maybe what you want is for your style to be the dominant form of theatre, but as with any form of theatre, audiences will determine what they prefer to see which is why the "dead" form of theatre is still so very much "alive". If it's not "alive" enough for you, then keep producing that stuff you like and good luck. Just stop trying to push your minority view as a completely unsupported truth. If all you want is to push boundaries and create more innovative theatre so you can be arty and be in the history books, this ain't it. It's a tired old argument that pre-dates today's technology and the style has been there and done that.

If you're happy with the state of theatre and it's attendance levels, I'm very sad about that too.

Then you choose to be sad all the time and that has nothing to do with any of us or the theatre. Don't cry for us or for the theatre simply because it's not what you want it to become.

but it's still the same structure to me: the actors still ignore the audience while they stand elevated and the audience sits in the dark and just watches.

Well, if that's what it is to you, then I suppose that basest of descriptions is at it can be to anyone, right? Ugh. If you can't discern the subtleties of traditional theatre, then I suppose it makes sense you can only enjoy alternative theatre. Good luck with that and I hope you have a great therapist.

---

You say that the only thing people can invest in is story, but that's just not true. What about in the technique of the writing, the skill of the direction and the atmosphere created from that direction, and most importantly the performances given by the actors. How can you say audience members don't/can't invest in the craft just because it's commercial theater?

I've seen Laura Benanti on film/TV many times and none of it even comes close to comparing to the thrill of seeing her perform live. Same goes for many, many other actors.

Commercial theater had A LOT to offer. (And btw not all Broadway theater is commercial.)

---

That same investment comes from film and TV, though.

A question: the 'thrill' of seeing Laura Benanti live... Was that a product of your personal excitement to be in the same room as an actor you admire? Or was there something more viscerally affecting somehow about her live presence?

Theatre has an audience, but it is NOTHING compared to the audience for, say, the movies. What if we could get non-theatregoers to engage with theatre?

The primary reasons people don't go to the theatre are: "It's too expensive" "I'm not a 'theatre guy', "I'd rather watch a movie"

What if theatre offered something film cannot, in a more tangible and obvious way. Yes, we as avid theatregoers can discern a difference between live theatre and recorded media, but that is contributed to by our own subjective excitement.

Thing is, unless you're a tourist attraction like a show in a big commercial house on Broadway, you'll be hard pressed to engage many or any that aren't already theatre enthusiasts.

To get new audiences into the theatre. We need to do this:

- Establish that most theatre is actually quite affordable
- It offers something you CAN'T get on Netflix
- It is a live, once-in-a-lifetime experience

The audience must feel their participation is crucial to the event happening. Look at Drood, for instance: every night, the audience is in control of how the show ends. What exciting, immense power that holds. In my current show, the story can only end if an audience member's real cell phone is borrowed by an actor and used to make a real, live phone call. You can't possibly replicate that in unchanging prerecorded media.

It's LIVE THEATRE for a reason. So why are we only doing things that don't actually need to be done live? What's the point? And why should we expect anyone to give a sh*t?

Updated On: 7/10/15 at 09:14 PM