Immersive EVITA — Page 3

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.

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?

Updated On: 7/11/15 at 10:49 AM

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

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

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?

Just like in Grease!

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

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

YES

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

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.

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