Third Symposium – 23rd January
Hello and welcome to Three's Company's third Interactivity Symposium. I will once again be live blogging and tweeting throughout.
Enjoy.
Today's panelists are: Ajakumar (Goldsmiths University), Tom Crawshaw (Writer, Three's Company), Roger Foss (Critic), John Hunter (Non Zero One), Steve Marmion (Director), Stuart Nolan (Interactivity Scholar), Ian Shuttleworth (FT), Esther Smith (Actor), Richard Stamp (Critic), Alex Turner (Non Zero One).
13.35
Yaz greets a great crowd and the panel. Apologies for The absence of Karl, he is unfortunatley ill. Yaz says we should start talking about the responsibilties of the makers to provide a story. Non Zero One, what are you promising and audience.
Non Zero One say you can't promise to much, you can't promise an experience, must leave as much space for people to experince. We've done alot of thinking about how much you can assume about how much the audience will interact. We offer a very individual experince, we don't make too many assumption about the aud experince. It should offer a range of things to a range of people. We have to think about this as a marketing tool. There is alot of focus on the site-specifity. What can interaction with a space offer.
Yaz says, what would you say if someone says you are relinquishing responsibilty to the audience.
Non Zero One, say we have to, audience interact with each other (wearing head phones being given instructions), given moments of choice, there is resposiblity there, it's not us making the piece work, unless you give the audience a good reason to do it the audinence will only do it because it would be a the only way to keep the piece going.
Richard Stamp says is it
Ian Shuttleworth says it is a constant play with the audience and the parts. I';m here because of a story, two edinburgh ago there was a show about the holocaust, the audinec cast as the victims, an actor would come to each audience member screaming at them (demonstation with Ian and Roger). They assumed the compliance of the audience, there had just been a speech from a prisoner actor saying we should do something. I decided I would I didn't follow the instruction move, they didn't know how to cope with that. The maker must understand
DUE TO A COMPUTER FAILIURE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS MISSING
Roger Foss talks about his article in the Stage reacting to the BACs Interactive season. There are so many bad interactive works. Whether you do you show in covent garden here or a tank outside somewhere it's the work that is important. I'm confused if this thing is interactive... I go back to seeing stuff at Stratford and get a hsow with loads of feeling, interactive theatre I've had fun, but never been touched by it.
Non Zero One, That's about style over content. We didn't wnat to create a headphone piece, but a piece of theatre about something. How do we reach out and touch our audience? We wanted to give an audience that experinec, we can become close to the audience through the headphones. You must use the interecativity in order to help the picece, not make the peice for the interactive elemnts.
Roger says one of the things that intrigue me, I don't know if I'm watching great acting or a comedien, I don't know what it is.
Steve says if you goal is to move your audienec, there are two barrers in interactive, renegotiation of contract and will you ever get more than a feeling of embarrasment from the audiemnce?
Yaz wants to talk about the responsibilty of the maker to tell the story. Asks roger if at having seen Coney (after having written about it) gave you a story.
Roger says he thought it was a complete shambles. Somebod has come up with a great idea, the reality didn't work, I now we all like to regress but kids do that. I didn't feel I was given a piece of theatre. I ask where the skills are.
(Stuart Nolan has arrived) He gives his apologys.
Richard responds I perhaps have a higher tolerance level because I work most at the fringe. As long as the audince knows what they are getting you can experince it.
Roger says the reason he wrote the article was because they said it was the future.
Tom surley if the theory is good, but the practise is weak, it does have a huge future.
Non Zero One say I don't think there is anything wrong with getting people in a room togethre and ket them play, but they must know what they are getting.
Roger says he does think it's great that it does have massive energy behind it. We are so controlled, do play around and try to make something amazing with interactive theatre.
Steve says you must just be good at it.
Non Zero say as long as you can make the peice rewarding, people don't express anger at their "real" choices taken away. Paying for a ticket means you don't just want to do what you want, I do that everyday. The audience are willing to follow instructions. In the holocoust piece there was no reward for staying in your role.
Ian asks what makes you want to create this piece and no other piece.
Steve says you must create theatre that is vital in this moment.
Yaz, should the audience behave as they behave in real life. Coney said the first week that you are putting the audience in a playground state. What do you think Staurat.
Stuart, says can you get someone to do something they couldn't do in real life, if they think it's a real gun, no, if they think they are in a james bond movie yes. Is that ethical? People will do amazing things if you alow them to enter play. Games are important. Game elements are being entered into theatre. As a magician I'm worried about Games, the audience may want to win. I want to get away from competition/conflict.
Non Zero say you must make your audience confident in the actions. that's a huge amount of responsibility.
Stuart, the idea that people have to know whats going on means you loose them.
Non Zero react by saying that they have to play by the rules.
Stuart, you lay out the rules, but you can't create confrontation.
Ian you have to find the medium to use.
Non Zero you must give your audience the rules through your story.
Stuart, there is a debate the video game world. Academics used the same tools to study games as used in books and theatre. They treat it as a text, but you can't use these because it is a game. There is a danger that people look through the story to see the gaming mechanizum.
Richard, I try to see past the mechanics to the story rather than the other way round.
Roger asks if Interactive Theatre as control lead as everything else?
Non Zero say that the theatre maker must be aware of the possibilities that can happen from what you present. It's controlled in that you must geuss everytyhing.
Roger I saw Adventure Time it was massivley controlled. there seems to be alot to do.
Non Zero as long as it is rewarding that can be a good thing.
Tom sasy to Roger that the pieces he has seen Perhaps there isn't enough control to make a good piece of art.
Esther suggests it alows the audience to trust you if you show you are in control.
The panel discuss choose your own adventure books, Steve says he created a piece in which in the end the player actually did choose there ending rather than the reader always ending up at pg 74.
Stuart asks if a game has to end, Richard says it does else it will just fizzle out. Steve says people do get over taken by game so it can become your life.
Richard says he feels a new elitism coming through, do you have to emerse yourself?
Yaz says we will take a break and come back for a more open discussion see you in ten minutes
15:29
We are back and the discussion is moving into an open space debate. I won't be able to blog this... sorry. We will write a report soon.
Second Discussion – Symposuim – 16th January
Now that the formal discussion has been concluded, we are going to move on to a more open debate/discussion.
15:45
Tom: Does anybody have a topic we would like to talk about?
Neil: Q To what end does interactivity happen? What can it acheive?
David: Q How do you create an interactive piece?
Yaz: Q How you write some of that down? How you record/document?
Annette: Q Training Actors.
Natalie: Q Cost.
David: Q How can the venues help the work?
Pip (aud): Q How do you sell it?
Aud2: Q Talk about Communal.
Annette: Q Which...
16:09
Ooops! The computer just went down. Bekki wrote it all down on paper, it'll be put up soon. I'll pick up from now.
Tom: When someone sells a show to you as interactive how do you respond?
Neil: Is there something else on.
Annette: It's got to be sold as what it's about, instead of interactive. I want to know what I will experience.
Natalie: I need to go in prepared, I don't think the word is a negative word. It depends how you use it in your marketing.
Yaz: I'm selling an interactive show, it's just got the word in the description what would you do.
Aud3: I'd run away.
Tom: But you've come to an interactivity symposium.
Aud3: That's because I've known Bekki for 20 years.
Aud2: It's about story.
Annette: I don't think I'd use the word. You should be able to describe your work better.
Pip: What words do you use then?
Aud: Why don't you say Audience Participation.
Tom: We seem to be saying Interactive has more bad conatations than good.
(general murmering of agreement)
Yaz: I think it is a usefull word.
Annette: Really it's just marketing, who are you aiming at?
Tom: Has anyone gone out looking for interactive theatre?
yes: Tom, Yaz, Annette
David: I don't go out in search of a particular type of theatre. If there is a show I want to see I will see it.
Tom: Are the theatre's doing enough to shape Interactive theatre?
Yaz: No one is stopping it.
David: I meant can the theatre's help companies? What was usefull?
Annette: What was most important was to get the entire building involved. More people can help create the work, doing things the company could never do.
16:31
Tom: Other than the BAC are there other theatres we think of that do that sort of thing.
Annette: There are a few but lots more outside London.
Holly: Soho
Tom: Here (Tristan Bates Theatre)
Annette: The best are National Theatre of Wales.
David: Bristol Old Vic will turn out good.
Tom: Lets look at Training. Not for a specific show, just in general.
Yaz: Consider actors as story tellers. keth Johnstons Impro for Storytellers.
Aud: Impro is important.
Mike: I want to feel comfortable that I can look after the audience.
Aud2: All the normal techniques are there more than we think.
Yaz: I just want practise.
Annette: You just need a good tool kit.
Tom: The discussion will continue online. Thanks to the panel.
Liveblog: Interactivity Symposium – 16th January
The time is 13:45 and the Second Interactivity Symposium will begin in a few minutes. My name is Bekki Coward and I will be attempting my very first live blog especially for this event.
I will be updating this blog throughout the hour and a half long discussion.
This discussion is being hosted by Tom Crawshaw from Three's Company and today he is being joined by
- Holly Gramazio, from Hide&Seek
- Annette Mees, from Coney
- David Byrne, from PIT Theatre
- Neil Keating, dramaturg and theorist
- Michael Grady-Hall, from Three’s Company
- Yaz Al-Shaater, from Three’s Company
(What follows is a summary of what was said, not a verbatim transcript. If I've mis-represented anything, let me know. An audio recording will also be avilable to download shortly - I also apologise for spelling mistakes)
We have begun!
We are starting by attempting to define the parameters for the discussion. What is Interactive Theatre? How does it fit with Pervasive/Live gaming?
Holly explained Hide&Seeks combination of art and gaming. Games + Art, Games + Theatre, Games + Music. For example Check Point by Andy Field - 'Stuff' on one side which has to be disassembled and transported across a space one piece at a time past guards (agents of the game) to be re-assembled on the other side. More game, less story.
Thought Crime - Players walk around with radios hearing actors monologues which they have to match to the actor to win.
Pervasive gaming/the Sandpit can incorporate a range of things. There may not be a list of elements of game 'rules' that can be imported into interactive theatre but there is a cross over.
Yaz interjects to discuss the term 'Agents of the Game'. The combination of these ideas can bring interesting things.
Annette discusses the leap from interavtive theatre to pervasive gaming. Rules for player behaviour can inform howplayers play which is similar to interactive theatre in how you can structure a narative or dramaturgy.
Annette suggests Interactive theatre as added artistic vision on top of games?
Holly suggests Games have a way to win but how does an audience win in Interactive theatre?
Michael suggests objective as opposed to beating someone to win.
Annette suggests that winning can become such a focus that people get distracted from the journey.
David asks how do you start to build it? From a story or objective?
Holly suggests that either is possible.
Tom asks Why is it art and not just fun?
Annette suggests that it is about creators intention. She is interested in seeing how behaviour during games can be used to create art. Games can be used in a similar way to a rehearsal day.
Holly suggests that games can make you look at the way the world works in a similar way to the way in which art does.
Tom asks Yaz what parts of gaming he is interested/excited to put into interactive theatre.
Yaz likes the new way of looking at people and story unfolding
the part of the spectator in the 'work
Yaz believes that opening up to interactivity means opening up to the characters, the space and the 'world' of the piece.'
Michael asserts that the point of theatre is that you are in the room with it and so there is inherently some involvement from the audience.
Neil suggests that audience expectation can affect their view of the piece. If the don't expect interaction they might be upset by it. Audiences are changing. Technology, like the internet, is becoming more interactive which is changing how audiences view theatre and the 4th wall. Most theatre recognises the audience but the intention can change. WIth interactivity the audience is there to be actively involved with the piece. When an audience enters a space they enter a 'new reality' which has to be recognised.
David is looking at interactivity from the point of view of a theatre programmer. Does there need to be more to life than fun? Theatre should help people to enjoy life more/differently. Interactive theatre allows new and different fun. We can use our skills as artists to create something which is both entertainment and art. Theatre is now more open than it was. The public want participatory work. Quality is becoming paramount.
Neil says that in London there was a tuening point in Interactivity with the Royal De Lux (giant elephant puppet) which changed expectation of interactive theatre.
Tom - Is interactive theatre for everybody?
Annette suggests that it is a matter of taste. Interactive theatre is a form not content which suggests that it can be for almost everybody. Some people will always prefer to watch rather than interact.
Michael says that what is interesting is the 4th wall barrier is not what makes people dislike theatre/dance but fear is a contributor to a dislike of interactive theatre.
Tom - Are we missing an audience due to fear?
Neil suggests that if fear is a factor honesty can counteract it. Physically and metaphorically addressing this can help to involve the audience and get them to engage. Pretence needs to be left behind to help to convince everyone who can be convinced.
Annette agrees that truth is important. A misunderstanding in intention can be scary. Makers need to create something WITH their audeince, not AT them.
Holly suggests that being scared is sometimes the right reaction. If you don't enjoy it it is more uncomfortable than just being bored.
Tom - How do you prepare the performers for interactive performance?
Annette says that acting technique needs to be very strong to deal with interactive performance.
Breaking the question down
-Rehearsing the piece
-How does one deal with unwanted situations
Annette begins with rehearsing/making the piece. Actors need to act adramaturgical structure. Character work needs to be very strong. They need to be completely immersed so that they can respond to anything in character. They must work with instinct and knowing the differences and similarities between the actor and character can hepl that.
Michael agrees that character is very important. Creating a character which has to be 3d. Teh character needs to be strong enough to have the facility to change and be affected by their history and surroundings.
Neil suggests that the range of change for characters in traditional theatre can be wider than we usually think.
Yaz suggests that creating a character with confines allows change and potential.
Reasons for interactivity should be bound in with the artistic vision of the piece. If choices for the character are directly made by the audience then this should be addressed.
Annette suggests that creating a character is actually very similar to the preparation for traditional theatre. Technique is important to avoid boredom. Interactive theatre need good acting beyond strong characterisation.
Circles of attention
1 the person you are talking to- what are they seeing?
2 the audience immediately around - what does the scene look like?
3 the audience who can't quite see everything - how is it beautiful for them?
For interactive theatre to mature as a genre it is important that makers are aware that it needs to be good as well as exciting.
Tom - Can you still tell a story?
Holly disagrees with Tom that interactivity necessarily changes the story. She asserts that the experience of the piece could be what is interactive not necessarily the plot.
Annette says that if you want everyone to see the same story you need a play but interactivity allows the audience to experience a story in their own way. The audience need to be considered as a character in the piece.
Neil suggests that PunchDrunk which allows the audience to enter the world where you can change a lot or a little. A quote from Felix Barret of PunchDrunk suggests that their approach always allows the actors to win.
Annette says that in something like punchDrunk the audience cannot change anything and so it not interactive. The performer wins because they know what is going ot happen - it is very scripted.
Tom - Can we still tell a story if the audience can change it?
Yaz believes that this depends a lot on the way that you want the audience to interact.
For Annette the form needs to come from the content. What is the story I want to tell? Is it experiential or should the audience listen to it? Some storys are not suited to being interactive.
David suggests that many storys can lead to gimickry. There needs to be a reason for the interactivity.
Yaz believes that stories about tragic inevitability lend themselves well to interactive theatre.
David disagrees and says that the audience need to believe their involvement.
Annette says that conflict is still necessary to make a good story.
Yaz would like to experiment with interactive theatre where a group of characters are locked in to an ending and look at all the different ways that they could go to getting there.
David mentions 'A Matter of Life and Death' at the National where the audience changed the ending but why do that if the ending is inevitable.
Annette says that the audience needs to know that they are affecting the audience.
Tom - Has anyone seen a successful piece of interactivie theatre in a traditional theatre space?
David has! A piece where the boundaries between the performers and the audience are bluerd to the piont where they could not be identified. It was slowly revealed who the actors were and the audience changed the progression of the piece.
From the audience - an interactive version of Alice in Wonderland. Half the audience were made to join in whilst half watched and the audience ended up in a situation where they had to protect 'Alice' but it was scary.
Annette suggests that Tim Crouch's The Author acknowledged the audience but chatted at rather than with the audience. Coming back to content governing form, interaction in the theatre must be about being in a theatre. Site specificity means that you can create a world andso have more scope for your story.
Neil suggests that Adventure Time by Three's Company works well because it is very honest with it's intentions.
Yaz suggests that the theatre space is designed to hide the audience which works counter to interactivity.
Michael suggests that sharing the light and changing the space to involve the audienc can help.
Annette considers the audience as a character where ever they are. Wit the Roman Tragedies the audience could chose where they viewed the piece from which created 'extras' for the piece and involved the audience, casting them as something other that audience.
Neil says that whilst not interactive it would not have been the same without them
Annette says that interactivity needs the audience to be able to interact with the characters and the story. If the audience are in the auditorium they will be have as they are cast.
Tom opens the discussion out to the audience
One member says that she was nervous to speak today until the option was created but sometimes the audience put themselves in a position where they want to be scared. Audience agreement is important.
Holly responds that there is a difference in types of scared which needs to be considered by creators.
Neil says that having a choice creates freedom in participants. 'There is no wrong way of acting' empowers the audience to make the choice to interact
Annette - 'Agenct of Interaction' the piece needs to look good for peopl who interact and for people who don't. Work should satify along this scale.
Tom asks what would help to stop the audience being scared?
The fear of the unknown inhibits audience interaction.
Annette mentions care of audience. Creating a place where the audeince can do somethin out of the ordinary without danger or recrimination. The audience need to feel safe enough to take action.
Audience - Is there a certain age range for interactive theatre? Is it a bid to introduce the young to theatre?
Annette believes that young people go to theatre for different reasons.
David mentions that inteaactive theatre for the very yourn is very sensory/tactile.
To aleviate boredom? Specifically for teenagers
Annette says that it can entertain teenagers. Being given ownership allows them to engage with the piece.
Tom asks the same question to Yaz
Yaz mentions that with Auditorium young/non theatre goers created a more electirc audience. They are less passive, more ready to play, less fixed to theatrical restraints.
Holly has not found any specific age group who fail to engage with interactive theatre. Framing the experience can change people's interaction. Young people don't have as many preconceptions and so can join in in a different way.
Annette suggests that with young people they often see it as boring, static, filled with grumpy old people. Interactive theatre can be a joyful surprise.
Yaz does not think that young people necessarily enjoyed it more but were more willing to interact and create a different atmosphere.
Audience - How, as practitioners, do you resolve inaction?
Annette says that inaction is action and needs to have a consequence. Refusal to interact can give something to an actor. Peopl who wont join in don't often stay. Inaction within a group piece allows room for inaction.
Holly thinks that it is important that a piece holds together is the audience don't want to interact. Sometimes the audience are obliged to join in even if they don't want to- which should be avoided.
Annette says that you can check in with the audience and allow them the opportunity to opt out.
Holly - Chase them, they will run.
Audience - The choice not to react forces a reflexivity.
Annette suggests part of the rehearsal process is training to actors to read the other performers whcih can involve reading the participants. Participants should not be forced to do anything but the creators objective is to get them to the next point.
Audience - The actions of the audience can shift the actors experience of the piece.
We are ending this session for a coffee and a break.
Well done if you have reached the end of this live blog - I'm not sure that I have.
