Immersive EVITA — Page 4

I've always thought that this fad that some call "immersive" theatre is little more than Theatre for People Who Can't Bear For Others To Be the Center of Attention.

So perhaps it is the best way to go in an Age of Narcissism.

Updated On: 7/13/15 at 02:03 PM

How would one even DO an "immersive" production of Virginia Woolf? Would the audience be other people George and Martha invited over (but who are ignored by them the rest of the night)?

Or is the audience the furniture in George and Martha's house?

How was this production not accessible, challenging, present and unique?

Because it wasn't the way he wanted it performed. Only old rich white people like yourself attend dead theatre.

Here's what people are taking issue with, generally speaking.

You: Commercial Theatre and Broadway (which is, shockingly, theatre... whether you admit it or not) are bad. Shows that are rehearsed (which is funny because even the tiniest of storefront indie theatres usually rehearse their shows with the goal of having some semblance of similarity throughout the run, whether you like it or not) are inferior to in the moment pieces, or however you'd like to call them (improv, whatever).

The reality is, there's room for both. You praised SLEEP NO MORE shortly after deriding commercial theatre. You are aware, aren't you, that SNM is very, very, very much a COMMERCIAL production?

If you want to only see, or do indie improv theatre. That's great. More power to you. But to chastise commercial theatre as less-than-worthy is just silly, and immature. It reads as a theatre snob, and elitist, and because of that your comments aren't just inaccessible to most... they're downright offensive.

The same argument happens all the time in Chicago and to a growing extent that I've seen (sadly), Toronto. People complain that commercial companies/producers/presenters do have a broader reach and higher marketing capabilities than indie houses (because they've got a bigger budget obviously, complaining about this is like a little clothing boutique in an area like Toronto's Annex complaining because GAP ads are everywhere. It's silly.). What's lost is that people who may see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, or WICKED, etc may decide that they love theatre... and then decide to explore deeper. I've produced commercially and indie in a rather divided market (Chicago) and when polling new audience members actually found that this WAS the case. So before you chastise the commercial demons, give that a thought.

And for the record, even a "cookie cutter" PHANTOM began its life from scratch in rehearsal studios with many ARTISTS putting it together. You may not like a show, but any commercial show is still a creation of art. Good? Bad? Art itself is subjective.

And I think the various actors who continue to work and come into some of these long runs, whether on broadway, on tour, or in sit downs who DO put their own spin to the role would have a bone to pick with your statement that it's always the same.

I saw the show on August 1st. This was my third time seeing Evita, I saw Judy McLane do it years ago at Pittsburgh CLO, and the most recent 1st National tour. Serenbe is a really unique theater that builds the stage depending on what show they are doing. This was very remote in the woods, they even give you bug spray lol. I thought the show worked very well in the round with a minimalistic feel. Randi sounded great when I saw it. I'm pretty sure they changed the order of where You must love Me came in which I thought was a little odd. Overall it was a good evening of local theater.

Updated On: 8/11/15 at 09:29 PM

I haven't seen this production of "Evita," but I used to live in Atlanta, and Serenbe Playhouse shows are almost always fantastic. Brian Clowdus has done amazing work building that company into an exciting place to see unique theatre in ways that you almost never do anywhere else. For example, they just did a "Streetcar" starring Matt Davis (from "Vampire Diaries" and Warner in the "Legally Blonde" movie) that made its set out of shipping containers: Photos

I also have to say that Randi Garza has stolen the show in everything that I have seen her in: "Godspell ('Learn Your Lessons Well'," "The Rocky Horror Show (Janet)," and in the ensemble of "Bull Durham: The Musical." I wish I still lived close enough to Atlanta to make the trip to see this.

tourboi, of course there's room for both. But I know that, at least in Canada, theatre as a whole is 'dying' as many artists put it (and I wholeheartedly agree). In our Netflix age we need to figure out how to engage that new generation tat is instrumental in revitalizing theatre as an artform and giving it new life. To do that, we need to find ways to make theatre that doesn't make people say "I could have just as easily watched that on my TV screen."

This does not necessarily mean improvisation, but just ways of capitalizing on the liveness and immediacy of theatre... This human event occurring in the present. With this unique feature, why the hell are most productions afraid of embracing that? And further, why are artists encouraged to take deeper risk and yet that same risk is absent on an institutional level? There's so much wrong it makes my head spin. And I don't have answers yet... Just lots of questions.

Wouldn't an immersive Evita just be Here Lies Love?

The problem with Evita as a whole is that it's all exposition. It takes a brilliant director (Hal Prince) and phenomenal actors (LuPone, Patinkin) to draw us into the story and care about the characters. The reaso the revival was so lukewarm is that it was very literal-minded, unlike the brilliant Brecht-esque staging in which politics is really just a three-ring circus. Evita is very much a "concept" musical and without a concept it just doesn't work.

Mister Matt, millions are attending commercial shows in commercials houses. I am not a commercial artist, I work in independent theatre. I recently conducted a survey called Why We Don't Go to the Theatre and targeted specifically to non theatre people. And the reasons people had were quite varied, but a lot of them came down to this false perception that a low budget indie production is going to be of lesser overall quality than a commercial Broadway touring show. There's also the perception that theatre is too expensive... In fact, that was the number one reason given in the survey. People don't know that there is quality, entertaining, provocative theatre that's as cheap as a movie ticket.

Why I think theatre is dying is that its chief audience is of a much older generation. Seniors with lots of money and time. But when they're gone, who's next? And why are we not making more of an effort to engage an emerging generation of audiences?

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.

"Why I think theatre is dying is that its chief audience is of a much older generation. Seniors with lots of money and time. But when they're gone, who's next? And why are we not making more of an effort to engage an emerging generation of audiences? "

I'm pretty sure that "Hamilton", "Spring Awakening", "Wicked", etc. would disagree with that statement.

Tbh, I don't know about theatre in Canada...I'm an American, for all we know, maybe the theatre scene is a little bit different, but I know for sure that the theatre scene here is most definitely not dead.

I LOVE this part of turboi's post:

"People complain that commercial companies/producers/presenters do have a broader reach and higher marketing capabilities than indie houses (because they've got a bigger budget obviously, complaining about this is like a little clothing boutique in an area like Toronto's Annex complaining because GAP ads are everywhere. It's silly.). What's lost is that people who may see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, or WICKED, etc may decide that they love theatre... and then decide to explore deeper."

Updated On: 8/12/15 at 11:14 AM