Theatre and Technology

I believe that technology has reached a dangerous point with theatre.  It has certainly reached a point where it is significantly affecting it.  This happens in a multitude of ways.  The first that comes to mind is the use of projections and videos as part of the set design.  There is a good bit of excitement over this new innovation in the design world of theatre, but for the most part I’m not on board with it.  Every time that I’ve seen projections or videos used, I found it to be mostly distracting from the show.  It took me out of the space that I was in, away from the performers, and into a world of media.  One of my favorite shows that I’ve gotten to see is Newsies.  In this show, they used projections a number of times.  One of the times, it was used for Jack Kelly to write the word “STRIKE” across a large chalkboard.  He pantomimed writing as the words appeared on the screen.  My question is, why couldn’t they use a real chalkboard with real chalk?  I believe it would have been much more effective than it was.  I found myself pulled between two worlds: one that was wrapped up in the story and another that was very aware of a screen pretending to be a chalkboard.  This is only one example out of many, but I really feel that it detracts from the quality of the performance.  I realize that theatre is trying to keep up with what is happening in the world, and—while this is important—I think that it is losing some of its integrity.  I don’t know what the answer is to this issue, but, with the growth of the film industry, social media, and other types of technology, theatre seems less accessible to people.  Of course, it isn’t any less accessible than it was before, but there are options that are much easier to gain access to.  If theatre molds itself into these more accessible forms of art, then what is the point of going to see a theatrical performance?  Theatre must keep the things that make it unique.  Things happening right there in front of the audience is what makes theatre, well, theatre. 

When I think of when media has presented something to me that I didn’t experience first person, I (along with most of America, probably) think of 9/11.  I was quite young when it happened and I had never been to New York City, so I really didn’t have any personal connection to the event.  It was mostly because I didn’t completely understand what was happening.  Several years later, in high school, I visited NYC for the first time.  We visited ground zero and, even though I understood the seriousness of it, it still seemed so distant and removed from me.  However, several years after that, my sophomore year of college, I lived in NYC for a year.  While I was there I made friends with people who had lived there for their entire lives.  One day, my friend Cindy happened to mention something about 9/11.  As we were walking down the streets of Manhattan, she told me her story.  Suddenly, the event wasn’t this far away thing that had happened to a bunch of strangers.  I felt the weight of it as this real life human person spoke her story to me.  Now, this wasn’t a performance, but it was a shared moment between humans with no other distracting influences.  Just a girl telling her story.  And that was powerful.

Comment!

I commented on Sara's blog!!

 http://sas4130.blogspot.com/2014/09/blog-3.html?showComment=1411142690126#c2661263987430557287

Reality vs. Enjoyment

Well, the vast majority of the shows that I have seen performed have been musicals.  Also, my favorite shows that I’ve seen performed were musicals.  On that same note, my favorite shows that I have performed in are musicals.  If there is anything more opposite to realism and documentary theatre, I think it would be musicals.  There is nothing about them that tries to convince people that what is happening is real life.  Even musicals that serve as a biography for a real person’s life still include elements that make it quite unrealistic.  People just don’t break out in song or a fully choreographed dance number in real life.  And everyone knows that.  My absolute favorite show that I’ve ever been in was Oklahoma!  I played Ado Annie and enjoyed my role as well as watching the others in their roles.  But that’s all it was.  It was just enjoyable and entertaining and fun.  

On the other hand, I think about Stick Fly that I saw last year.  That show seemed much more like peeking through the window of a real family’s home.  It also was much more thought provoking.  After leaving the show, I was challenged to think about some things.  It presented some unfair and unhappy situations that really happen in our world.  While Oklahoma! is funny and entertaining, I don’t think that it ever once made me think about anything past that moment.  I didn’t think about any of the issues in the world or anything like that.  But Stick Fly had me thinking about class and race and all sorts of things.  Neither of those shows are documentary or verbatim theatre, but I don’t believe I’ve had the opportunity to watch any documentary theatre yet.  I would definitely love to.  The clips that I’ve seen of it online are very captivating.  I believe that in spite of biases and stories just being spun in a different way, they do capture reality in a very effective way.  It’s very different from musicals or even shows like Stick Fly that have very real elements to them.  Obviously, there is an extremely different intent with docudrama than there is with a musical.  And even though documentary theatre only gives us a new story from a different perspective, whether it’s the people being or portrayed or the playwright, I do think it gives us somebody’s very real story.

Comment!

I commented on Megan's blog!!
http://muffinsthtr4130.blogspot.com/2014/09/performative-utterance.html?showComment=1410541025359#c7337926984194102749

Infelicitous Performative Utterance

This concept is sort of a tricky one and it took me awhile to come up with an idea.  But I was thinking about when people say the phrase, “Oh my God!”  Now, that phrase—if it is taken literally—is saying/doing several things.  It is mainly a proclamation of someone’s trust in God.  It says “I believe in God and I am acting on my faith by turning to Him for help.”  It’s also often used as a cry of joy or excitement toward the Lord that reinforces who they are and where their joy comes from.  Mostly, it’s a way for Christians to be Christians.  It’s a phrase that tells other people who they are and also communicates to God the relationship that they have with Him.  However, what if someone who doesn’t believe in God says that phrase?  Many Christians will refer to that as “taking the Lord’s name in vain.”  And that is the exact phrase that made me think that this phrase might fall into this category of an infelicitous performative utterance.  Obviously, to do something “in vain” means that to do it would be pointless or useless.  If there is a way to “take the Lord’s name in vain” then that implies that there is a way to use His name not in vain.  So, back to the example of a non-Christian saying “Oh my God!”  What are they actually saying/doing when they use that phrase?  Honestly, most of the time I believe it’s just a careless exclamation that nobody really thinks about.  But I think it can also be an intentional choice to use that phrase rather than another.  I think that (whether consciously or subconsciously) if the person exclaiming it doesn’t mean to speak to God, then they are throwing around that name very lightly.  It’s almost as if they are saying that the phrase is vain or useless.  It can be rather offensive to people who are Christians to hear it used that way.  And I think that it also declares something about who they are.

"What is Performance?”

As I was reading the article, every time Carlson mentioned another one of the definitions of performance, I would think, "Oh! That's it! That one is definitely right!"  However, the one that stood out to me the most was when he said that "these [performing] arts require the physical presence of trained or skilled human beings whose demonstration of their skills is the performance."  I really appreciated the wording of this part.  As I think over all the different types of performances that I can come up with, I still believe that this accurately describes it.  Although, I do think that it then raises the question of what a "skill" is.  I think most people can agree that a pianist playing the piano for others is a performance of their skills, but would stopping and freezing in a busy train station require any type of skill?  Would that then answer the question of whether or not that sort of display is actually a performance?  I'm really not sure.

When I consider a type of performance that sort of challenges the idea of performance, I think of a teacher.  On one hand, they are just a person doing their job, speaking in front of students, and sharing their knowledge.  But on the other hand, I believe their is a "demonstration of skills" as well as a sort of "consciousness of doubleness" that the teacher is aware of.  They are still themselves, but there is a sense of portraying themselves in a distinct manner.  The teacher chooses whether to perform as a kind and caring teacher, a fun teacher, or a stern or strict teacher.  They choose whether to use only speaking as their script or whether to include music or other media to help convey their points.  There is also usually a vast difference between the teacher of a kindergarten class and one who teaches high school biology.  I also can see an argument on the other side that teaching is not a performance at all.  However, I believe that it is a type of performance.  In fact, my love for performance has pushed me toward considering teaching at different times in my life.  I believe it requires a similar set of skills as an actor speaking lines in a play, which seems to be one of the things that almost all people will agree is a type of performance.