Peter Zazzali, Ph.D.
University of Kansas Department of Theatre
ASTR Working Session 2014: “Technology Performs: New Media Onstage and Off”
“Now Playing ‘New Media’: Examining the Tangled Relationship Between Digital
Technology and Stage Actors Through the Lens of the Spectacle”
Throughout theatre history new technologies have shaped an audience’s experience
through scenography. From Giacomo Torelli’s use of a chariot and pulley system
facilitating fluid scene changes to the iconic landing of a helicopter in Dustin J.
Cardwell’s design for Miss Saigon, theatrical productions have been using state of the art
technology to appeal to spectators for centuries. Today, every sector of the US theatre
uses some form of new media, with Broadway being emulated and/or the digital muse for
works at not-for-profit, university, and community theatres. The independent work of
upstarts also demonstrates the scope of new media through do-it-yourself web platforms
and applications ranging from Spotify and i-movie to GarageBand and Facebook.
Technological innovations and ever-evolving systems of communication continue to
shape and change the ways in which theatre is produced, distributed, and consumed.
At the vanguard of multimedia performance are troupes such as the Builder’s
Association, the Wooster Group, and 3-Legged Dog, all of whom have made their mark
through the experimental deployment of video, sound, and technology. For example, 3Legged Dog has experimented with high definition cameras and three-dimensional video
projections to create “provocative” performance installations like Paris Orgy (2011), Fire
Island (2007), and Pluton (2007). In the latter they used composer Mark Coniglio’s
interactive software, Isadora, to allow “both the audience and performers to intervene
1
directly in the [production’s] images and sound sequences.”1 Another innovative
technology they have been developing is Eyeliner, a video installation system that
presents “spectacular” images to “appear alongside and interact” with “live or virtual
stage presenters.”2 3-Legged Dog’s use of such cutting edge technology demonstrates
untapped potential for theatrical experimentation in the digital age, a point underscored
by the company’s artistic director, Kevin Cunningham: “the technology is changing the
methodology in a very tense and deep way and the genres that we used to look at are
dissolving.”3
For all of 3-Legged Dog’s achievements, Cunningham’s comment gives cause for
some concern. If, as he suggests, traditional approaches to making theatre are in a
process of dissolution, then perhaps we might remind ourselves of the essence of live
performance: the actor/audience relationship. To borrow from Jerzy Grotowski, this
relationship can be described as a “holy encounter,” with the actor using his skill as
facilitated by his instrument (e.g., body, voice, imagination, etc.) to create a transcendent
experience for the audience. A practice as old as theatre itself, the actor/spectator
connection can indeed be described as spiritual and the playing space as an alter of sorts,
upon which the performer’s “imaginary forces work” to transcend the ordinary in favor
of the sublime.4 Dramatic characters—after all—are agents of action telling a given
story, and by extension, the actors are the conduits of said action. While scenography can
most certainly support and inform the shaping of a story, it does not cause what occurs—
See 3-Legged Dog’s website at http://www.3leggeddog.org/mt/index_pluton.html (accessed 12 October
2014).
2
3-Legged Dog’s website description of Eyeliner stage technology at http://www.3ldnyc.org/eyeliner.shtml
(accessed 14 October 2014).
3
Quoted from interview with Kevin Cunningham, Prague Quadrennial: About 3LD,
http://3ldnyc.org/index.shtml (accessed 12 October 2014).
4
William Shakespeare, Henry the Fifth (New York: Folger, 1998), 1.1.18. References are to act, scene,
and line.
1
2
the dramatic action—only actors do. To the extent that technology distracts from the
actor/audience connection it compromises the very essence of live performance. To be
sure, technologies such as Eyeliner are indeed exciting and have great potential for
envisioning new modes of theatrical expression. Yet these same media can dwarf the
actor’s work, and by extension, his connection with other performers and the audience.
3-Legged Dog’ depiction of Eyeliner as sheer “spectacle” constituted by “virtual images”
that “interact” with other virtual images and/or human actors suggests as much.5 Would
a human actor really want a virtual image for a scene partner? What is gained and lost in
such an exchange, and ultimately, how does it affect an audience?
For all its potential, advances in new media and theatre technology can regressively
impact the human element of live performance, an unfortunate occurrence perhaps best
exemplified by the US commercial stage. With all due respect to multimedia companies
such as 3-Legged Dog, Broadway generally sets the standard for scenic technology in the
American theatre, as evidenced by multimillion-dollar sensations like Spiderman: Turn
Off the Dark, Wicked, and the remake of Rogers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella, which
boasts “audiences can expect to see instantaneous costume changes” as part of an evening
of “onstage magic.”6 Indeed, Cinderella lives up to its promise, with the title character
shunning her peasant rags for an illustrious ball gown before the audience’s eyes without
the slightest suggestion of a conventional “costume change.” Using a reversible dress
and keenly timed lighting and sound affects, Mark Brokaw—the production’s director—
has instructed his leading actress to merely spin in place as her garb is magically
See 3-Legged Dog’s website description of Eyeliner stage technology at
http://www.3ldnyc.org/eyeliner.shtml (accessed 14 October 2014).
6
Quoted from Cinderella promotional page on Broadway.com
http://www.broadway.com/shows/cinderella/story/ (accessed 12 October 2014).
5
3
transformed with the complements of William Ivey Long’s stealthily spectacular costume
design.7 Simultaneously, a glistening horse-drawn carriage is generated from the wings
with icy blue smoke providing just enough of a haze to mask the machinery of its
computer-generated entrance. Two minions bedecked in costumes fashioned according
to the carriage’s motif serve as drivers who whisk the heroine away to Prince Charming’s
gala to complete this timeless rags-to-riches story. Ironically, one of the musical’s
signature numbers, “Impossible,” is somehow unfolding between Cinderella and her
Fairy Godmother throughout this spectacular commotion, thereby begging the question:
At what point does digital technology and scenic spectacle compromise the work of
actors, and by extension, the telling of a story? As Ben Brantley of the New York Times
proclaims in his review of the production, “the showstoppers in this version are not the
songs as much as those instant costume changes,” a feat that he claims is a “distraction”
serving to “makeover” Rogers and Hammerstein’s 1957 classic, which, ironically, was
originally created for television.8 Whatever the case, this “remake” of Cinderella is
typical of the spectacular eye candy that Broadway serves its audience of adoring fans,
most of whom “ooh and ah” over the inanimate elements of the scenography, whereas the
production’s storytellers—its actors—are merely byproducts of a process that is
becoming increasingly dominated by digital technology.
Digital technology can therefore be understood as the grist that gives rise to the
spectacular. What is gained and lost in this machination? Guy Debord identifies
“spectacle” as “an autonomous movement of the nonliving.”9 While attempting to
7
Long garnered the Tony Award for his design of Cinderella, an accomplishment unquestionably abetted
by the title character’s memorable costume change.
8
Ben Brantley, “Gowns from the House of Sincere and Snark,” New York Times, 3 March 2013.
9
Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (Detroit: Black and Red Books, 1977), sec. 2.
4
explain spectacle can be a sketchy task, especially when considering its social
conjurations and ramifications, I aim to define it in the context of theatre technology and
the so-called new media. Thus, I argue that scenic spectacle—such as that described
above—dominates human actors through a pervasive display of technology that negates
the audience/performer connection. An array of dazzling lighting and sound affects,
computer-generated scenery, virtual images, and social media determine the spectator’s
experience of a given performance. The element of the human actor is at best
compromised—and often outright lost—through this mediation. Indeed, the performer
becomes a mere abstraction, a passive bystander, and a submissive prop as part of a
process that privileges and valorizes his inanimate counterpart: new media/technology, a
non-human actor of sorts taking center stage!
To be sure, many artists and scholars are proponents of the dominant impact these
media have on live theatre. While Broadway sets the standard for staging spectacles, the
development and deployment of these technologies are evident in theatres and training
programs nationwide. Indeed, the January 2014 issue of American Theatre was dedicated
to technical theatre training with a laudatory emphasis on emergent technologies and the
companies using them. Aptly entitled, “The Technical Answer,” once such article
alarmingly champions these technologies as “pervasive [in contributing] to each and
every area that is considered new and emerging.” At no point does this article—or the
overall issue—qualify said “contribution” and its overarching impact on US theatre.10 If
storytelling remains the basis for theatrical productions, as it has been since the ancient
Greeks, then it would seem logical that these technologies function as a resource for
illuminating the source for a given narrative, which exists in the form of a text. Though
10
Mike Lawler, “The Technical Answer,” American Theatre, January 2014.
5
theatre texts are most often associated with dramas—or librettos in the case of musicals
and operas—they can of course pertain to other forms of scripted action, such as a score
of action for a devised work or the choreography for a piece of dance theatre. While
theatre texts come in various forms, throughout history they have been the basis for
stories that are facilitated by living beings, actors, on behalf of a community of living
beings: their audience.
With new technologies and media increasingly dominating live performance, something
of sociocultural significance is lost. As people respond to technologically generated
images—spectacle—instead of a live and shared experience with others, they become
increasingly divorced from one another, and “the commodity attains the total occupation
of social life.”11 Ever the Marxist, Debord’s quote reveals his belief that spectacle is a
pervasive instrument generated by the capitalist system to uphold a hegemonic social
order. It dominates the ways in which we perceive ourselves socio-culturally by lulling
us into submissive acceptance of the status quo. The negation of the human element of a
theatrical performance plays right into this paradigm, insofar as an audience is willfully
overwhelmed by the technological pizazz and mediatized noise both within and around a
production. To return to the Cinderella case, for example, the show’s producers deploy
digital technology and new media in ways that transcend the production’s scenography to
wield a carefully crafted advertising campaign that targets families, tourists, and most
especially, young girls. With respect to the latter, at any given performance the audience
is filled with preteens donning diminutive ball gowns and tiaras as they nestle into their
seats with mom and dad in tow. Intermission strategically serves as a chance to for the
show’s producers to peddle Cinderella merchandise, as mugs, tee-shirts, magnets—all of
11
Ibid., sec. 42.
6
which display the title character’s iconic glass slipper—are sold as a complement to the
usual Broadway memorabilia for sale: cast recording; DVD; souvenir program. Of
course all these items have the double function of providing additional advertising for the
production, yet another deft attribute of spectacle—one would not expect to see such
glossy souvenir merchandise accompanying a weightier work such as Edward Albee’s
The Goat, for example. Not surprisingly, the show’s advertising campaign includes new
media ranging from multiple websites touting the show to its own Facebook page, where
interested fans can peruse sparkling production photos, informal snapshots of the cast
backstage, and postings from the show’s adoring fans.12
Cinderella’s spectacular reach has recently manifested in a national tour for 2014/15,
during which time its Broadway incarnation is scheduled to close (January).
Nonetheless, other offerings on the Great White Way will surely continue this proven
model of using new media and state of the art technology to fadge spectacular sensations
in quest of a popular audience. Indeed, Cinderella is hardly exceptional in using
spectacle as the basis for a strictly capitalist enterprise. Broadway is currently rife with
splashy productions that deploy the very latest in stage and digital technology to achieve
a “social relation among people, mediated by images,”13 which from the standpoint of a
given show’s producers means the accumulation of capital, most often of the economic
variety.14 Indeed, a quick pass of the current crop of Broadway musicals that can be best
See Cinderella’s Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CinderellaTheMusical (accessed 15
October 2014).
13
Debord, Society of the Spectacle, sec. 4.
14
I am borrowing from Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of capital to make this claim. Bourdieu argues that
various forms of capital (e.g., social, symbolic, cultural) exist in a given socio-cultural environment
(habitas), all of which are accumulated to distinguish and increase one’s stature. See Pierre Bourdieu and
Randall Johnson. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, European Perspectives.
Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.
12
7
identified as spectacle offers no less than a dozen in number, including a pair of
mainstays from Broadway’s maestro of the spectacle, Cameron Mackintosh (Les
Miserables and The Phantom of the Opera), as well as offerings from Disney (The Lion
King and Aladdin). In each of these productions state of the art computer technology
orchestrates everything from moving scenery and light shows to mechanized puppets and
crashing chandeliers. Somewhere in their midst a cast of actors is attempting to reach its
audience.
To be sure, advances in new media and digital technology have had some positive
effect on theatre and performance. In addition to the exciting and innovative work of the
likes 3-Legged Dog, access to low cost technologies and media from one’s laptop has
democratized the creative process in ways that allow artists and audience members
unprecedented freedom. Platforms such as YouTube and YouStream, for example, have
utilized the Web as an emerging mode of performance.15 Experiments with virtual
reality, computer generated scenery, and the sorts of digital modalities presented earlier
all demonstrate remarkable potential for the theatre in the new millennium. As we
embrace these exciting developments, however, we should do so with a degree of
caution. For all their spectacular attributes, new media and state of the art technology
cannot—ever—replace the sublimely simple interconnection between the actor and his
audience.
For an informative case study of web theatre, see Jordan Tannahill, “The New Intimacy: rihannaboi95
and Web Theatre,” Canadian Theatre Review 159 (Summer 2014): 9-12.
15
8