Monday
Jan252010
Theatre (sans theatre) Part Three
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 3:56AM
by Jamie Dunsdon
Do you ever look at production stills? I do. Back when I was an undergrad at the UofL, I was hired as the department of drama's archivist. One of the many perks of the position was complete access to the archive files of all of the department's previous productions, and I was, on several occasions, called upon to sort through the production photos and slides to provide visually engaging shots for media or promo. What a blast! And though I didn't appreciate the value at the time, it was also truly educational. A lesson in stage pictures. Even now, I really enjoy spending time on 2x2ltd., which is Morris Panych and Ken MacDonald's website. Check out the Gallery. Awesome.
I'll get back to this later. This post is actually going to be about promoting theatre. Eventually.
For now, I'd like to return to the discussion we've been having about filming plays in our Theatre (sans theatre) posts. For those of you following along, we left off discussing the potential benefits and risks of filming theatre. In particular, we were examining the British site, Digital Theatre, which provides access to filmed productions for a fee. In my post, I mentioned how interested I was in the Young Vic production of Kafka's Monkey, one of the few productions available for download on the site.
And now I have a confession. I caved. I downloaded.
Here is what I posted on Vancouver's The Next Stage, where our post inspired some discussion about the Digital Theatre experience:
So (why) should anyone take advantage of Digital Theatre? Since posting this, I've thought a lot about how theatre artists watch plays, and I've come to conclude that I frequently attend theatre for the educational value. That is, I go in with an artist's eye. I've tried to turn it off, but often with little success. The great thing about Digital Theatre, then, is it still provides an education for theatre makers. It keeps us appraised of what's going on in the world, allows us to communicate to each other more precisely about the art we're creating. As an AD, it gives me a taste of a play I might consider producing one day. Yes, I'm missing a key component in the conversion from theatre to film, but it's a lot like (as I said above) reading a script or listening to it on the radio...or looking at production stills.
The problem is that filmed theatre ISN'T marketed to theatre practitioners only. In fact, the Stratford theatre/film mentioned in Col's post is targeted to the general movie-going, Cineplex-loving population. Or let's look even simply at the ways we use film and photo to promote our stage plays. We've all taken part in those media calls where the local TV station films a scene from our production, or posted a filmed scene on Facebook as part of the media blitz. But there seems to be a consensus that something vital is lost in translation. Could these attempts to reach out to an audience actually being damaging the public perception of theatre?
How about poorly chosen production stills? I can't tell you how many university brochures I've seen that pick the most "theatrical" stills to promote their season. Young kids with big wigs and rosy cheeks, wearing outrageous costumes. In the production, these choices were perfect. Out of context, they look ridiculous and often poorly executed. They look like theatre I don't care to see.
Or radio? It seems that this medium is a little more successful at capturing the real experience. I've twice been impressed by the quality of the CBC Radio One presentations of Buzz Job, but just today I heard a clip from last season's NiX on CBC...and cringed.. The sound bite didn't sell the production well at all. But then again, NiX was a very visual production. The vocal choices matched the visual and design choices. Too bad the radio audience doesn't know that.
So, how do we pick which un-theatrical medium we should use to promote our theatrical shows? How do we capture the experience of theatre in a way that won't turn off potential audience members?
Seriously, any ideas? I'm taking notes.
Do you ever look at production stills? I do. Back when I was an undergrad at the UofL, I was hired as the department of drama's archivist. One of the many perks of the position was complete access to the archive files of all of the department's previous productions, and I was, on several occasions, called upon to sort through the production photos and slides to provide visually engaging shots for media or promo. What a blast! And though I didn't appreciate the value at the time, it was also truly educational. A lesson in stage pictures. Even now, I really enjoy spending time on 2x2ltd., which is Morris Panych and Ken MacDonald's website. Check out the Gallery. Awesome.
 |
I'll get back to this later. This post is actually going to be about promoting theatre. Eventually.
For now, I'd like to return to the discussion we've been having about filming plays in our Theatre (sans theatre) posts. For those of you following along, we left off discussing the potential benefits and risks of filming theatre. In particular, we were examining the British site, Digital Theatre, which provides access to filmed productions for a fee. In my post, I mentioned how interested I was in the Young Vic production of Kafka's Monkey, one of the few productions available for download on the site.
And now I have a confession. I caved. I downloaded.
Here is what I posted on Vancouver's The Next Stage, where our post inspired some discussion about the Digital Theatre experience:
Once I went through the payment process, it took a while to download. Probably close to an hour. No instant gratification here. Once downloaded, I dimmed the lights in my house (standby light cue 1…go) and hit play.
My first impressions of the medium were high. The variety of camera angles made the experience a lot like watching a film. It was dynamic and fun! I really enjoyed the play! At the end of the production, as the credits rolled (no program in my lap, I’m afraid), I sat for a moment trying to gauge my reaction. I had enjoyed it…but something was missing.
The thing that was missing (I think) was the magic. We often talk about the magic of theatre, with little thought as to what that actually is. But the magic of theatre IS theatre. Yes, it’s live, and yes I truly missed the audience camaraderie and the ability to reach out and touch a performer (in the show, she reaches out and touches us!), but there is more. Simply put, the show was not complete. It felt a lot like reading a playscript or listening to piece of a play on the radio: you’re only getting PART of it.
So (why) should anyone take advantage of Digital Theatre? Since posting this, I've thought a lot about how theatre artists watch plays, and I've come to conclude that I frequently attend theatre for the educational value. That is, I go in with an artist's eye. I've tried to turn it off, but often with little success. The great thing about Digital Theatre, then, is it still provides an education for theatre makers. It keeps us appraised of what's going on in the world, allows us to communicate to each other more precisely about the art we're creating. As an AD, it gives me a taste of a play I might consider producing one day. Yes, I'm missing a key component in the conversion from theatre to film, but it's a lot like (as I said above) reading a script or listening to it on the radio...or looking at production stills.
The problem is that filmed theatre ISN'T marketed to theatre practitioners only. In fact, the Stratford theatre/film mentioned in Col's post is targeted to the general movie-going, Cineplex-loving population. Or let's look even simply at the ways we use film and photo to promote our stage plays. We've all taken part in those media calls where the local TV station films a scene from our production, or posted a filmed scene on Facebook as part of the media blitz. But there seems to be a consensus that something vital is lost in translation. Could these attempts to reach out to an audience actually being damaging the public perception of theatre?
How about poorly chosen production stills? I can't tell you how many university brochures I've seen that pick the most "theatrical" stills to promote their season. Young kids with big wigs and rosy cheeks, wearing outrageous costumes. In the production, these choices were perfect. Out of context, they look ridiculous and often poorly executed. They look like theatre I don't care to see.
Or radio? It seems that this medium is a little more successful at capturing the real experience. I've twice been impressed by the quality of the CBC Radio One presentations of Buzz Job, but just today I heard a clip from last season's NiX on CBC...and cringed.. The sound bite didn't sell the production well at all. But then again, NiX was a very visual production. The vocal choices matched the visual and design choices. Too bad the radio audience doesn't know that.
So, how do we pick which un-theatrical medium we should use to promote our theatrical shows? How do we capture the experience of theatre in a way that won't turn off potential audience members?
Seriously, any ideas? I'm taking notes.
tagged The Next Stage in Theatre (sans theatre)
The Next Stage in Theatre (sans theatre)
Reader Comments (2)
Buzz Job worked on the radio because the show was in some way designed to favour audio--a theatrical event set as a music gig, played in a bar, deliberately done on mic so you wouldn't miss much of the show if you had to lean over to a waitress and order another beer.
In that sense, I think Buzz Job is an exception.
The main reason I think recordings of performance don't work so well is because the lens (or even the microphone) makes dictatorial choices about where the audience member is supposed to look (or listen). Live performance is much more democratic--we can only 'suggest' where the audience's attention should lie. If the performance doesn't grab my attention, I'm free to tip my head back and count the lights...
hi there and thanks for the information : I have surely found something new from your site. I however ran into some techie problems using this blog. I have been thinking about if your hosting is fine? Not I am filing a complaint, however slow loading times could probably influence your placement in the search engines and can ruin your excellent articles on this blog. Well I'm putting this Feed to my reader and can look forward to more of your fascinating articles..