Interactivity In Theatre For work that reconsiders the audience-performer relationship // a place to discuss, argue, and interact…

The Immediate Future

A short essay on the place of interactivity in theatre by Tom Crawshaw

Despite the rise of television and film – so proficient in producing artistically complex drama and comedy and delivering it to people – predictions of the death of theatre appear currently to have been misjudged. The breadth of culture and the desire for new stories and experiences seems more than capable of supporting a wide range of art forms. It seems to me however that, in order to maintain a place as one of the main players in British culture, theatre still needs to develop an identity, distinct from television, radio and film. Furthermore, this identity is one which is yet to be fully embraced – and can give us the best indication of the future direction of theatre.

Although it has managed a successful co-existence, the need for theatre to justify its existence, in the face of television, radio and film, can be seen in the history of the previous century. Prior to the prevalence of recording and broadcasting technology, the last major development in theatre was naturalism. Television and film however are a much better, if not perfect, medium for realism. Since the first emergence of popular film in the early 1920s, theatre instantly retreated from the pursuit of realism, with such practitioners as Brecht, Artaud, Dario Fo and Grotowski at the helm.

To identify the identity of theatre, as distinct from film, television and radio, we can start by considering what the distinct feature of theatre is not. It is not, for instance, theatre’s ability to convey and discuss complex philosophical, moral or political ideas. Certainly, theatre has a tradition for being more wordy and thoughtful than its bright, action-packed brothers - film and television. Presumably this is a result of the classism of the arts – with the middle classes and intelligentsia more likely visit the theatre (and opera) than the working classes for whom television and film are more relevant. This picture can be seen to be blurring today, with film and television clearly up to the task of delivering thoughtful and intellectually complex works. Certainly however, we must admit that there is nothing essential to theatre that makes it any more suited to complex or intellectual writing than any other form; if this is currently the case, it is the result of circumstance and we can’t necessarily expect it to continue.

Although commonly cited, the essentially live nature of theatre cannot be seen to be its distinguishing feature either. Certainly, theatre performances have a somewhat special quality because you know they are being performed as you see them – and the experience is therefore unique (at least temporally). The event you are witnessing is linked, inextricably, to the evening you have chosen to witness it. But theatre by no means has the monopoly here. Many TV shows are recorded the same evening they are broadcast and many, such as morning shows and the news – go out live. Most radio stations obviously go out live as well, giving the same sense of excitement and enabling phone-ins. A recent episode of ‘Two Pints Of Larger And A Packet Of Crisps’ was even broadcast live on TV – the result being as dull as any of the other episodes, despite the novelty that things could go wrong at any point. Technological limitations in early television in fact meant that all dramas had to be performed and broadcast live – and yet there was no danger that this would render theatre unnecessary.

Being a medium for intellectual ideas and being live, then, cannot be seen to be the key to theatre’s distinct identity. Which feature then should we be concentrating on? The best offer to me seems to be immediacy. All theatre performance is fundamentally immediate: it happens right before you, in the same room or area of ground. Immediacy is not only necessary (being live is at least necessary) but it is also sufficient and unique. Any artistic performance which is immediate must be some form of theatre, and such immediacy cannot be recreated by film, radio or television.

A large amount of theatre about today, though highly impressive, enjoyable and successful, does not embrace, does not exploit this unique element - the immediacy of theatre. A typical play – by Alan Ayckbourne, David Hare, Arthur Miller or David Mamet – for instance, is obviously different from a filming or radio recording of the same events but does not capitalise on the fact the audience are right there in front of the actors. Good performers will live the performance anew each night and should be alive to the psychology of the audience on that night but, even in the best circumstances it is hard to see how this will have much effect on the actual events. The audience posses a very small number of acceptable audible reactions they can have, in order to communicate their feelings to the actors, who then have a very tight framework within which they can react to these signals. Although the audience are but feet away, the actors are much more directly affected by the script, the set, the director’s notes from the night before and their fellow performers on stage.

Even more experimental theatre – such as site-specific work – does not usually embrace this immediacy. Walking amongst the audience, and allowing them to move amongst the actors, merely changes the physical position between them and does not use this immediacy to any effect. In some site-specific pieces, the audience is so free that they can choose which characters - and which stories – to follow. Although such ‘interactivity’ gives a lot of power to the individual audience member and is an exciting development it still does not embrace the immediacy of theatre. Indeed, television, although completely removed from the person watching it, has this form of interaction in spade-fulls: one can now choose from potentially hundreds of different ‘stories’ and, in some cases, even what camera angle they are seen from.

This is not to say that any of the above are bad theatre and should not happen. Clearly, a wide range of people get a lot of enjoyment and are profoundly affected by such theatre and it is a means for communicating important issues of today. However, without in some way embracing immediacy, and clearly marking its territory as distinct from film, television and radio, theatre could easily become just “another form” of entertainment or storytelling. It is therefore important for at least some branches of theatre to explore and embrace the nature of theatre as immediate performance, immediate art, or immediate entertainment.

There are, then, a number of branches that do do exactly this. Comedy theatre capitalises on the immediacy of the audience. By laughing – or not – the audience at a comedy can drastically change a performance, making it a unique event, which the audience are a part of. In some comedy scenes, the audience literally plays another ‘character’ who interjects lines at certain points – saying them louder or for longer and in different places each night. Such a 'character' must be listened to carefully, and can affect the performance, almost as much as an actor in the piece itself.

Plays which include moments of ‘audience interaction’ also make some – limited – use of the immediate audience. Pantomime dialogue with the audience follows formulas but will change depending on what people shout out, and in some plays entire conversations are held with audience members. Just like the reaction of actors to a laughing audience, these moments could not happen in an art from which was not immediate.

Such types of immediacy are by no means a modern phenomenon – indeed they seem to be more common in British theatre's earlier stages. Soliloquies, it is thought, in Shakespeare’s day, were always spoken directly to members of the audience. Although there is no place in Shakespeare for them to respond – and tell Othello not to kill Desdemona – the effect on those individuals is important, noteworthy – and unique to theatre as an immediate art-form.

These features, although still present in many pieces of theatre, do seem to be comparatively rare in mainstream theatre today; they are often small aspects of plays and, more importantly, do not appear to be a part of the current movements of today’s theatre. Few modern practitioners appear to be concerned to create theatre which allows more opportunities for embracing the immediacy of theatre to its audience - and in more ways. Instead of merely talking to the audience at certain points or being receptive to their mood, theatre needs to include works that fully embrace the audience and all they can potentially do to an art-work. To embrace the unique feature that immediacy brings – that the work can affect the audience and the audience can affect the work.

As people increasingly turn to television and film for their dramatic stories and entertainment, it is precisely theatre which embraces its unique features that will remain relevant and necessary. Whist the full gamut of theatre genres is sure to remain, we should expect the newest developments to be in the area of developing and exploring immediacy. This might involve actors working to become more aware of their audience, it might involve a growth in live comedy – but it should also be expected to involve theatre performances (plays as well as less conventional performances) that make the most of the audiences presence, right there in the same place as the performance

About Tom (admin)

No description. Please complete your profile.