my bio and some audience thoughts.
(i could change the pronoun to 'I' but, as insiders, you all already know i wrote my own bio)
Darren O’Donnell is a writer, director, social acupuncturist, designer and artistic director of Mammalian Diving Reflex. His shows include A Suicide-Site Guide to the City, Diplomatic Immunities, pppeeeaaaccceee, [boxhead], White Mice, Over, Who Shot Jacques Lacan?, Radio Rooster Says That’s Bad and Mercy!. He has organized The Toronto Strategy Meetings, a durational project focusing on self-responsibility as a social act, The Talking Creature, a continuing experiment in public discourse, You Wish, a public intervention concerning cocaine and the upcoming Haircuts by Children, an event offering free haircuts to the public by children aged 8-12 years. He was the 2000 winner of the Pauline McGibbon Award for directing, the 2000 Gabriel Award for broadcasting and has been nominated for a number of Dora Awards for his writing, directing, and acting, winning for his design of White Mice. His first novel, Your Secrets Sleep with Me was published on May 6, 2004 and has been called by The Chicago Reader "a bible for the dispossessed, a prophecy so full of hope it's crushing".
it's great that you're doing this adrienne, i've been complaining for the last two weeks that there are no online forums discussing theater with any rigor. what a coinkydink. the flying monkey is a health food store in toronto, fyi.
THE AUDIENCE - recently i decided to stop being an audience member. i haven't had a memorable moment in a theater for as long as i can remember. was having a talk with franco boni, the artistic director of the theater center this morning and we were talking about performance art vs. theater and he said that people want to be entertained. and, while that may mostly be true, the obvious problem is that there is no competing with film, video, video games, tv etc on that front. they just do entertainment better - just like airplanes do transportation better than horse drawn buggies. the horse drawn buggy can provide a sublime experience that can not be rivalled by the airplane, but when you've got a conference to attend in nyc nothing beats a one hour flight from t.o. but what theater does better than the other media is bring people together and that, it seems to me, leaves audience participation as the way through this current nobody-gives-a-shit-about-theater impass. problem with audience participation is that it generally lacks rigor and is usually only seen as a way to have a little fun: suggestions for improv topics and what have you. but i do think there are ways to create work that involves the audience and still has chops. the typical way of dealing with this has been to invoke notions of getting rid of the spectacle, getting rid of the audience and making everyone performers but, paradoxically, i actually think the way into a rigorous participatory theater is to get rid of the performer and make everyone the audience. in fact, if i was in the mood to make slogans and banners i would say: death to performers! death to pretending! death to performance!
here's a project i'm doing in february at Buddies in Bad Times to give you an idea of what i'm talking about:
Diplomatic Immunities
social acupuncture coordinated by Mammalian Diving Reflex
Fifteen members *of* the audience are randomly selected *by* the audience and forced to answer *to* the audience. Potential participation is mandatory: either you're in or you're out.
this is how it works: when entering the theater all audience members are asked for their name. anyone not willing to participate is not allowed in. then random audience members pull the names one-at-a-time from a hat. the selected person gets up onstage and answers whatever questions the audience wants to ask for a duration of 5 minutes. all questions are permitted, all can be refused. it would be ideal to have a live video projection of the subject directly behind. whole thing lasts 1 hr 15 minutes and 15 people are interview.
i've already done this as part of a 5 day workshop focusing on the interview as a form and it works really well. some schmoe off the street talking about what he had for breakfast is, in my experience, 100 times more interesting than a couple of idiots with memorized lines hanging around waiting for godot or whatever. i mean there is that immutable law of theater than reminds us that a cat onstage will always be more interesting than sean penn at his most brilliant.
that's it for now. can i invite some people? jennifer tarver and franco boni from the theater center might be interested. as would jacob zimmer and naomi campbell, i think.
posted by Darren O'Donnell @ 6:00 PM
12 Comments:
actually what i want to do is conflate the role of audience and performer bringing those two poles together. i don't want to see audiences performing and i don't want to see performers sitting and staring. if both could be collapsed into simply participants. that's why, at very least, all theater should have a QandA section.
- darren
"can i invite some people? jennifer tarver and franco boni from the theater center might be interested. as would jacob zimmer and naomi campbell, i think. "
Let me think about that, Darren. Part of the goal for creating this discussion is to publish bits of the conversation in The Flying Monkey, pointing back to the blog as an ongoing thread. However, I don't mind the idea of a free for all.
I will check with Diane Brown, who has commissioned me...
I guess I just want to keep it clear that portions of the discussion may be reprinted... I think I'll post that on the profile right now.
I like Darren's idea of the Q&A because it breaks down the power dynamic of other kinds of "audience participation." what I find most intimidating about being asked to get up and interact as an audience member is that nagging feeling that the people on stage know more about what's going on than me. That somehow I may be used as the butt of some joke. I think this is why people enjoy improvisation games where the audience shouts out suggestions: the power dynamic is reversed so that the audience knows more about what's going on than the performers do. And the audience gets to watch as the performers stuggle to integrate disparate and irrelevant ideas. I appreciate the Q&A because aside from the person who's created the container, there is no expert. No one knows more about what's going to happen than anyone else.
But then I wonder: what about story? I would guess that the form will evoke a series of small stories and anecdotes. Darren, do you have an objective for the audience's experience or journey in terms of a longer arc? Or is that not part of the deal?
With The Secret Project we separated the audience into two groups which each followed a different character. This was a deliberate choice that, I hoped, would lead individual members of the audience to approach others to find out what happened for the other group. Looking back now, I realize that since that was a major goal I needed to set up a structure for that dialogue, not simply trust that it would happen in the lobby after the performance...
for this project, i'm not interested in story. stories are way too over-rated in theater - they're killing us. they're really not necessary. there can be snippets, antecdotes whatever - but the thing operating in an event like this that transcends story is reality. things are actually happening in the room so you don't need the contrivance of story to keep things interesting. in this case, your life is the story and you're living it.
another interesting thing with the diplomatic immunities and QandA in general is the sort of hidden fact that if anyone could be considered the "performer" in the dynamic, it's the audience - the ones upon whom the onus rests to ask questions and keep the ball rolling. who hasn't felt that onus when sitting in a QandA? as the subject of the interviews, like the traditional notion of an audience member, you simply have to react. that your reaction involves language and ideas etc is secondary to the fact that the onus is completely not on you. if you answer with one word, or refuse the question the ball is back in the audience's court. i really like this reversal because it is not self-evident. when we recently studied interviewing all participants reported feeling more pressure as interviewers than they did as interviewees - though, off the top, everybody was nervous to subject themselves to questions. eventually that nervousness dissipated and it just became fun.
Comments on the Q&A
I agree that with the Secret Project perhaps more information would have been gleened from a Q & A, and also with the comment that a Q & A puts the idea of performance in the audiences hands. Perhaps this is aethetic, but I feel that a Q & A, while is a direction away from the theatre rule of 'sit in your seat and shut the hell up', it isn't necassarily interesting as performance.
I suppose the form in which the Q & A takes place is essential. I took part in a performance where the artist was not present and was replaced by a guide. The guide would walk us through the installation that the artist had created and ask us questions regarding the artist's intent. At first we were nervous about guessing what the artist wanted or was thinking during the piece, but eventually we were making decisions and the guide invited us to manipulate and alter the piece itself based on our decisions about the motives of the artist.
I found that piece interesting because all of a sudden everyone was engaging in the making of a piece of art, and postulating about the intentions and motivations of the artist, when really they were being tricked into talking about they're own artistic intentions.
Although, afterwards we met the artist and hearing him explain his intentions and motivations for having us be guided through his artwork was far more interesting. I could hear an impassioned person talk about his work and not 7 confused patrons wishing they could be at the VAG. The idea was well worth exploring, but the execution left something to be desired.
When Q & A or artists talks are planned, most people leave except your friends and some of your peers. Also, when given the opportunity alot of folks take there place on the soapbox and start talking about themselves.
I think that might be an argument for Darren's piece with the regular people and the 12 questions from the other audience memebers. If you know the supposed reactions of the audience and then build a structure around those notions than, yes, something else would occur....but would it end up being a Gong show? Maybe that's what people want is a Gong show...I don't know for sure...
Vito Acconci once did this piece where he would invite one of his friends, (close or otherwise) to come out for a drink. When his friend came, he would confide a deep secret in the friend, walk the friend down to the water and make him swear to never tell the secret to anyone else. Sometimes he would make up the secret and sometimes he would be very candid about it.
I really love that because there is something about the sharing of a secret between people that is personal, something they can only share between one another, and I want performance to be like this. I also like how Acconci made it a performance for one, very individual, and how he set it in a setting where a secrets usually get told, namely in a bar and by the ocean.
For me, its not simply the Q & A that would make the theatre more interactive, its something about the entire structure of the theatre. I often feel as if a theatre is just a haunted house. Its dead. Its like all the rules have to transform. I feel like I'm calling for a fucking theatrical revolution or something.
Hakim Bey writes in his book Poetic Terrorism and Onological Anarcy that performance needs to be felt through a kind of terrorism, and no, not the blowing up buildings kind. He would give examples like "kidnap a person and make them happy, or "take a shit in the middle of the bank" or "send someone anonomous love letters" things like that. Its seeing the inherant structures around you and twisting the paradigm alittle so people can see that there realities are like movie sets. And I think theatre needs to be ready for that, and yes, re-education of creators is definetly part of it, but also a re-definition of theatre, or a hybid form that has yet to be defined.
Does this make any sense?
hey tanya,
you say: "but I feel that a Q & A, while is a direction away from the theatre rule of 'sit in your seat and shut the hell up', it isn't necassarily interesting as performance."
i'm not suggesting replacing bits that have been rehearsed with a QandA but supplementing. i suspect that the way through theater's current impasse is by capitalizing on the fact that the artists and the audience are in the same room at the same time. this is what distingishes the performing arts from all others. and the way to max that is through participation. but how to make participation not embarrassing, dorky or coercive. i think the QandA has lots of potential. as i've mentioned elsewhere in this blog i studied interviews recently and a bunch of us would just and ask questions to people who had randomly walked into the gallery. it was more interesting than most theater i've seen and it went on without a break for 3 hrs without losing the group's attention. i can't sit for 15 minutes watching people playing pretend and not start to get figidity.
you: When Q & A or artists talks are planned, most people leave except your friends and some of your peers. Also, when given the opportunity alot of folks take there place on the soapbox and start talking about themselves.
that's not my experience of artist talks at all. in toronto, anyway, the talks at the power plant, mercer union, the school of architecture and the ones put on by the toronto women's bookstore are all widely and well attended (they even charge money for the power plant ones and they're often packed). the artists certainly talk about themselves but in relation to their work and it's always really interesting. the power plant has a great event called hubbub where they get three or so artists with related practices and they each give a small artist talk, followed by a panel discussion and a QandA. it happens at a nightclub (the back room at the rivoli), it's always packed and the discussion is usually interesting.
you say: Maybe that's what people want is a Gong show...I don't know for sure...
as i've suggested elsewhere: who cares what people "want"? i'm living my life trying to find interesing experiences, working with them and sharing them in a conversation with the world. all this QandA thing is strictly for me, to delight myself and then to see how it affects my conversation with others. to try to craft something with the wants of others in mind is an artistic deadend.
you say: For me, its not simply the Q & A that would make the theatre more interactive, its something about the entire structure of the theatre. I often feel as if a theatre is just a haunted house. Its dead. Its like all the rules have to transform. I feel like I'm calling for a fucking theatrical revolution or something.
please do call for a revolution. theater fucking sux. with the QandA i'm looking for fissures in the edifice, places i can apply pressure to crack the thing apart. doing an entire show where the audiences asks each other questions is intended to prove that the rules are transformable, that representation is not necessary and that chaotic reality can be harnessed and still remain rigorous.
you: re-education of creators is definetly part of it, but also a re-definition of theatre, or a hybid form that has yet to be defined
me: there are a number of people working on the redefinition of theater and lots of inroads have been made. as mentioned elsewhere: wooster group, foreman, pme, sto union, forced entertainment, goat island, elevator repair service. and there are plenty of performance artists who have taken performance to new places. you should really look at nicolas bourriaud's book relational aesthetics. if it's a definition you're looking for and a way through the impasse i'm totally convinced that this is the way. relational art has taken the visual art world by storm and is slowly making it's way into theater.
but if it's widespread system revolution you're looking for it's not going to happen without a couple things in place:
1. the various training institutions have to stop teaching acting and start teaching creation. which would include a thorough discussion of what has happened in the visual arts, critical theory, and all that shit, since the 50s. when you mention acconci i think you should keep in mind that his work would never be taught at nts, uofa or most other conservatory programs. that kind of work is just never mentioned. but go to nascad or ocad and they study him. it's that kind of change that needs to happen.
2. the venues will need to be controlled by a different generation than is now the case. in toronto, the only venues run by people in their 30s are Buddies in Bad Times and The Theater Center. Factory, Passe Muraille and Tarragon are all controlled by the old-guard 70s and 80s people. it's crazy that there are all this people in their 30s, at their most energetic and passionate and they can't make any programming decisions. so the means of production remain trapped in producing models and aesthetics that were formulated 30 years ago.
without those two things changed, there will be small changes but there will be no revolution. and, personally, i don't think those changes will be happening anytime soon even if the programming responsibilities get delegated to a younger bunch because they will have been educated at the usual places with the usual paradigm.
those of us who are sick of how bad theater have to, for all intents and purposes, abandon it. stop going to see shows and, instead, start investigating other forms, start collaborating with people who don't work in theater and start making stuff that doesn't look anything like theater. i think we have to let our interest in theater die and get lost in other media in order to fully understand what's up elsewhere so, eventually, we can bring our insights back and revitilize the form. the revolution must start in our own practice and that will likely mean abandoning our old ways and comfort zones with courage. and know, that, in small ways, it's happening. there are people doing it.
if you're interested in a very comprehensive listing of what's happening in vancouver's visual art scene you can send a message with the word "subscribe" to:
ic-vancouver@lists.instantcoffee.org
Darren,
"i've mentioned elsewhere in this blog i studied interviews recently and a bunch of us would just and ask questions to people who had randomly walked into the gallery..."
What kind of Questions? How did they react? Did you structure the questions or were they improvised? Was there a theme? Did you have a starting question and then just ask people questions based on they're response? Why a gallery? Have you ever done it randomly, without planning a specifc time or date for the interviews? What was the response then?
I'm curious because, (and perhaps this is geographical or just personal preference) a Q & A has never been interesting to me. However, it sounds as if you are defining it differently than I might be and so I'd love to know exactly the context for your random Q & A sessions and your goals. Your right, there is nothing as facinating as watching people play pretend.
It reminds me of a game I would play as a child where I would come up with a person / character in my head and then go to a coffee shop or somewhere where I could pretend to be this person and interact with other people, ask them questions about they're lives, and respond to they're questions with my character. In alot of ways I had more intreiging conversations with people using this personae than if I was myself. I think it was because I was adknowleging a persona or something like that...anyway I am curious about the form you are taking for these Q & A's...
"that's not my experience of artist talks at all. in toronto, anyway, the talks at the power plant, mercer union, the school of architecture and the ones put on by the toronto women's bookstore are all widely and well attended (they even charge money for the power plant ones and they're often packed)."
Again, I think my opinion of artist talks are perhaps aesthetic and personal preference. Maybe its geographical, and maybe I am not using the form in a way that will ignite conversation. I sure would love to be at the artist talks you are speaking of though, because they sound facinating. I have never been to one here though...
"i'm living my life trying to find interesing experiences, working with them and sharing them in a conversation with the world. all this QandA thing is strictly for me, to delight myself and then to see how it affects my conversation with others. to try to craft something with the wants of others in mind is an artistic deadend."
I agree and the gong show comment was more of a rumination that assuming I knew anything about your goals and artisty. I hope you didn't take offense.
please do call for a revolution. theater fucking sux. with the QandA i'm looking for fissures in the edifice, places i can apply pressure to crack the thing apart."
I strongly agree with your desire to seek out fissures in the edifice. In many ways I think that's what artists like Hakim Bey are talking about. Its finding the pockets of air within the structure and expanding against what seems like insurmountable pressure. I love the image of a edifice too, because I get an image of those old Stalin statues in Russia. Its dead and we keep talking about it as if it were alive and it traps us. Foucault talks about this concept in The Discourse of Language, very facinating.
"you should really look at nicolas bourriaud's book relational aesthetics. if it's a definition you're looking for and a way through the impasse i'm totally convinced that this is the way. relational art has taken the visual art world by storm and is slowly making it's way into theater."
Thanks for the tip, will do. I agree on your two points towards revolt too.
"those of us who are sick of how bad theater have to, for all intents and purposes, abandon it."
I agree that we need to start exploring other collaborations, and other forms, but I'm not sure about a complete abandonment, need to think on that more..."
tanya,
you:What kind of Questions? How did they react? Did you structure the questions or were they improvised? Was there a theme? Did you have a starting question and then just ask people questions based on they're response? Why a gallery? Have you ever done it randomly, without planning a specifc time or date for the interviews? What was the response then?
me: any kind of question. whatever, from where were you born to do you think frogs dream. they reacted by answering the question. what would often happen would be the interviewees would ask a few random questions and then we would hit on something that interested us. for ex: one person talked about her schizophrenic mother and so we all starting asking about that. another guy talked about the concept of being "on time" in peru vs. canada so the group ran with that. the themes would suggest themselves according to the interest of the entire group. the starting question was always random and anyone could jump in. we did it in a gallery for a few reasons, the most relevant for this discussion was because we could sit there for 4 hours and have the audience wander in and out. much different than the expectations that a theater audiece would bring, though i will be doing it at buddies in toronto in february. i have done it randomly, both times with youth. one time with the youth council of the art gallery of ontario and two times with the students of parkdale collegiate. it was great. we wandered around the neighborhood and approached strangers and asked them a bunch of questions. it was great. people are infitely willing to talk about themselves.
you:Your right, there is nothing as facinating as watching people play pretend.
me: actually i said i hate watching people play pretend. i love watching people be themselves.
you: I sure would love to be at the artist talks you are speaking of though, because they sound facinating. I have never been to one here though...
me: check out the vag, vancouver art gallery. i think they would probalby have interesting artist talks.
you: but I'm not sure about a complete abandonment, need to think on that more...
me: i don't mean stop doing it. i mean stop going to see it and, instead, spend your time dealing with other media. this policy of mine causes some consternation among my friends in theater but i'm very strict about it. my time is limited, i work all day creating theater, i'm not about to waste my nights with the stuff. we have to give up on it before it will be revitalized. this is a basic magick principle - things have to die before they are reborn. we have to let it go and admit that it's pretty much dead right now. and if we want to be of service to theater we have to head out and encounter other forms, ignoring theater, with the intention to bring our insights back. theater has been bumped out of the fold because it doesn't commodifiy, it been left out of the various circuits of communication and creation, it's really is an old fashioned form. to make it viable we have to say goodbye to it in many ways and accept that the next phase of creation is going to be very confusing, that we'll have to abandon our current standards, that good may look like bad and bad may be good. if you happen to have the time to both check out other forms and keep abreast of the theater then great but my time is limited. i'll check something out if it sounds like it's examining whole new realms but that's extremely rare. kiss it goodbye for awhile, give yourself over to other forms - that's the most generous thing you can do for theater.
i think.
Darren,
I hate to push my questions, but now I'm really facinated with your Q & A thing. One last question. How did you come up with the Q & A idea in the first place? (the form you took in the gallery and on the street). Was it influenced by someone else, or did you have an experience that gave you the idea?
It seems like your formalizing conversation in the search of having a meaningful interaction, or no, not meaningful, but truthful and present. Facinating.
A magick question: Yes, one of the basic rules of magick is the endless and constant cyles of life, death and rebirth. So, in excepting the past life and death of theatre what do you see as the rebirth? I know you've given some suggestions as to the path of that birth (collaboration with artists of other forms, re-education and power structures) but what creatively will this rebirthed theatre look like and what do you hope will be its effect?
I have no specific answers to the above as yet....
tanya,
you: How did you come up with the Q & A idea in the first place? (the form you took in the gallery and on the street). Was it influenced by someone else, or did you have an experience that gave you the idea?
me: the interview thing was a continuation of some other projects. over the last year and a half i've been doing these events called The Talking Creature where i invite participants - via various list-serves- to meet at a specific spot. spots have included: the park in kensington market, the power plant art gallery, gazebo park in edmonton, and a public monument in edinburgh. we then disperse and spend a half an hour walking through the surrounding neighborhood, approaching strangers and asking them to come back to the meeting spot for an unstructured, unagendaed conversation about whatever people feel like talking about in whatever configuration they feel like taking, ie - we don't sit in a circle we just hang out and chat. all this standing around and chatting fed into my solo show, a suicide-site guide to the city, where i hang out in the lobby and do my best to introduce myself to and have a small chat with every single member of the audience. (i've written about all this in the issue of canadian theater review that came out in the summer - it was an issue about dramaturgy). the show also included a QandA at the end of every performance - which was just a way to formalize a discussion about the show. i think when i do it in toronto in march i'll be introducing a specific topic to talk about after the show. the QandA was good but it tended to focus on process rather than the show's content.
from there i started to work with youth and had to come up with a form of the Talking Creature that high school students could do so walking alone through the surrounding neighborhood and approaching strangers was a no-go. instead we travelled as a group and approached and interviewed people en masse. at the same time my show pppeeeaaaccceee (starring maiko babe yamamoto) was playing and i began to do unscheduled QandAs whenever there was a student group. i had a great time doing this and, as a performer/writer/director, felt that it was a much more interesting approach to communicating the themes of the show than simply leaving the show to do it. that has led to this suggestion that all shows should have a built-in QandA (the interesting problem with that is that with many shows the actors don't necessarily feel qualified to answer the questions, pointing to a huge problem with the division of roles in theater.) anyway, it was through working with the kids at parkdale collegiate that i saw how powerful the interview form could be. parkdale is one of toronto's sketchier neighborhoods - so people say - lots of poverty, people with mental health issues and immigrants. not as messed up as hastings and main cause there are tons of families and lots of healthy businesses. but, still, a neighborhood that's considered dangerous. taking the high school students out to interview people in the neighborhood reaffirmed that the social sphere is much more generous than reported and that the minutae of people's lives is much more interesting than some scripted pile of dialogue.
while i was doing this stuff i was also working on another thing that has informed this - it was called, diplomatic immunity and it involved calling for participants via a list-serve (dispensing with traditional approaches to casting and, instead, working with whoever showed up: a group of people who, for the most part, did not know each other). we would gather for a rehearsal and show each other photos of ourselves in particular situations (ie no resume shots), and tell the story of the photo. a week later we would perform it by having each person stand up while the rest of the group retold the story having only heard it once. this resulted in spontaneos discussions as the group worked together to recall the story, corrected each other, embellished or whatever. the person whose story was being told would just stand there in silence and was not allowed to say anything. after the stories the photos would then be projected and shown to the audience. followed by a QandA where the audience had a chance to clarify the stories and the subject had a chance to offer their perspective. this involved the same sort of listening to people's everyday stories and featured, as the dramatic thrust, real people recalling real things in real time.
anyway, all this activity, in one way or another led to the interview thing i just did and will continue on in a couple of phases of what i'm now calling diplomatic immunities happening during the buddies festival and as part of the playrites festival at ATP in calgary in february.
YOU: what creatively will this rebirthed theatre look like and what do you hope will be its effect?
me: as i've mentioned a few other places, i think the next exploration and next phase of indie/experimental/whatever theater is well underway and can be best described as relational. another book to check out that is just focusing on visual and performance art is Les Commensaux published by Skol, a gallery in montreal.
but people are trying to figure out how to induce and frame real encounters between people. there was an interesting (and problematic) piece in scotland last summer. it was a playwright/actor and it was called, i think, sex addict. each night he and the audience would surf a local gay hook-up site (via a laptop onstage and video projection) and, with the help of the audience, he would select who he was going to have sex with that night. he would on-line chat with the person (without the person knowing there were hundreds of audience members listening in), and eventually boil it down to a couple of guys, the audience would vote and he would take off on his bike to have sex. the following night's performance would start with a recounting of his previous night's encounter, he would display something he had taken from the guy's apartment and then he would start surfing the internet all over again. eventually the website took out an injuction against him and he had to stop - i think he figured out something else to do. but, obviously, it was nasty what he was doing because he didn't have the guy's consent, he displayed their addresses and phone numbers to the audience; one guy, apparently, asked him to keep it a secret cause he had a boyfriend, etc. anyway, you can see the potential in this - how the theater as a venue for real people encountering each other has a lot of potential. we just have to discover how to do this with rigor, without slipping into dorkiness, awkwardness or coersion, that can, so often, be the hallmark of participation. it can be done, i think.
Was thinking the other day about the corrolation between your q&a sessions and reality TV show. However, there seems to be a few differences:
a. you actually care about your audience and aren't trying to manipulate they're feelings for the purposes of entertainment (although it sounds like that piece in Scotland was.)
b. even though reality tv professes to be documenting reality, they are still working within the tv structure, which is usually three acts.
c. The themes are changing and shifting according to the person you speak about or too.
The reason I bring up this corrolation is because that story in Scotland is really troublesome. It makes other people's real lives and feelings up for manipulation and pain. Not cool. Also they didn't know, definetly not cool.
Also wondering about the corrolation between Reality TV and Roman colliseums. The more we see people's pain and suffering onstage or on tv the less we empathize with it. The more we see it as entertainment.
Do you think this is a possibility in your structure (not saying you would actually cause harm, but the q&a movement in general)?
hey tanya,
you: even though reality tv professes to be documenting reality, they are still working within the tv structure, which is usually three acts.
me: i don't think documentation and tv form are mutually exclusive. i expect many documentaries are structured according to that formula. more relevant is that - according to a friend who recently directed an episode of reality tv show - the subjects are often coached on what to say to make the whole thing more dramatic.
in any case, with the interview stuff, it's not like reality tv cause it's not on television - there's been no editing so the path to rigor must be through other means.
you: The themes are changing and shifting according to the person you speak about or too.
me: yes, in the projects i've outlined but i do have plans to see how much focus we can/should bring. dealing with topics or themes might be interesting, i don't know yet.
you: (the show in scotland) makes other people's real lives and feelings up for manipulation and pain. Not cool. Also they didn't know, definetly not cool.
me: i think the only part about it that was not cool was that the people didn't consent. if they had known and consented then i would not have had a problem. we're free to do whatever stupid shit we want with our lives and our feelings.
you: Also wondering about the corrolation between Reality TV and Roman colliseums.
me: i think there's a pretty big difference between the stupid shit on reality tv and feeding someone to the lions. reality tv is usually stupid and sometimes hurtful but people are consenting and are largely to blame for whatever idiotic way they get themselves depicted. anybody who doesn't know that reality tv can make you look like a fool deserves the learning experience.
you:The more we see people's pain and suffering onstage or on tv the less we empathize with it. The more we see it as entertainment.
me: i don't know if this is the case. it can work both ways. i watch the women on the swan and my heart breaks, my understanding of how twisted this stupid culture is with respect to the myth of happiness and beauty has become much more complex and nuanced. i feel for the fools on blind date and experience their pain and humiliation - almost always self-inflicted. i haven't felt my empathy decline like you've described. i've also felt rage at the bounty hunter, a horribly white supremacist imperialist wet dream where this fucking christian bastard and his putrid family literally hunt the natives of hawaii (who are not consenting at all, btw). it works both ways - some may see this and get off while others will be disgusted. but revealling the horrors of reality doesn't necessarily numb people to them. people are assholes irrespective of the stuff they watch on tv or, rather, assholes will choose the tv they choose and enjoy it without any feelings of empathy while more compassionate people will feel for the subjects.
you:Do you think this is a possibility in your structure (not saying you would actually cause harm, but the q&a movement in general)?
me: (btw, i don't think there's a q&a "movement", just some experiments i've been doing) of course there's a possibility to cause harm but that possibility exists in conventional theater. i mean, it exists in every encounter we have. but people have to take responsibility for themselves; if they're not happy with the situation, while it may be a nightmare for lighting designers, thankfully the exit sign is always well illuminated.
Post a Comment
<< Home