I should preface this by saying I have never found Oscar Wilde amusing onstage.
I have loved his plays since high school, the wit, the satire, but never a staged performance...ever.
Now, back to the show:
We were at the theatre, we showed up, got student rush, 15 euro for front row seats.
I walk all the way to the front of the theatre in my Captain America t-shirt and Chucks, sat in my seat, and looked up to see this:
I was literally breathless.
We have Oscar Wilde, an Irish playwright, writing about the English, performed by the Irish in front of the Irish and exactly three Americans.
The play opens, two women walk out fanning themselves, stand next to a chaise and slump as if to say, "Woe is me."
The audience roared.
Without a single word being uttered, we got it, the hypocrisy, the satire, the irony:
These people are so god damn wealthy they can't possibly have issues; they simply have to make their own.
I fell completely and utterly with this man:
Yeah, that's right, I said it.
For the first act, I whooped and hollered, laughing with everyone, some of the verbal quips so brutal they elicit an actual, "Jesus Christ!" from me.
The lights go down, the actors exit, we bask in the enormity of what we are a part of.
And then the house manager asks us politely to step outside.
We were being too loud; he understood we were enjoying the show, but we were being so boisterous it was interfering with the rest of the audience and actors.
Now let it be said, this man handled it with grace and aplomb, but I was livid.
For the second act (which was fabulous by the way) we were unable to laugh.
We figured we could, but now it was "How loud is too loud? What is appropriate?"
I will never forget how remarkable a show it was, nor how badly I wanted to laugh.
Now I won't say we were blameless.
I talk during shows and my friend has a laugh that wouldn't be surprising on a buxom Viking strumpet in the throes of passion.
Loud, certainly. But enjoying the show? Without a doubt.
So what is the point of an audience member?
What is our function in the artistic event?
I used to think it was to passively receive a story, process it, and dissect it later.
But performing in front of an audience consistently for years now, I don't think that is enough.
The audience is a central part of live performance.
What are we there for if not to share in the joys, triumphs, and failures of not only the characters, but the actors as well: I saw you drop that line! It's okay. We can laugh about it.
I think now that the audience is there to share with the performers in the theatrical event.
It is a collaborative effort that both work towards in order to mutually enjoy.
Performers have to be proficient so that the audience can willingly believe.
On the same trip, we saw Antony & Cleopatra at the Globe.
Antony had a fever the previous day and had missed a show.
We stood in the pouring rain for three hours until his Act V speech.
He forgot his lines.
He called, "Line"
And the audience was breathless.
Every single person in the audience (to my mind) was shouting with their whole selves "You can do it".
This was an actor at the top of his game struggling with a bit of memory at the end of one of the hardest roles ever.
We were there for him.
The reason that I bring all this up is an open letter written in the Metro Times to the jerk who sat behind him.
I found it to be quite horrible.
If only because it was wildly one sided and allowed for no other experience.
The hatred and contempt for these audience members from a fellow audience member is palpable:
I’ll tell you what’s awkward you [sic]: A trio of art-hating pseudo-hipster malcontents going to an opera, putting their feet up on the seats, and talking at a high volume throughout the entire performance.
My dear trust fund hipster container of men’s effluent, you are the one who drives people away from this city. It isn‘t the crime. It isn’t the lack of opportunity. It isn’t the segregation. It is you.Now, I would never deny the writer's experience of the event or how they feel.
It was strong and clearly quite personal.
However, these ideas may be shared by other members of the audience, even by the cast.
That is what disturbs me:
I am left wondering who tells us how to act?
Whose to say their experience isn't valid, that that isn't a valid way in which to engage with art?
I move for a more collaborative theatre.
One where audience and performer commune for a time in the theatrical experience together.
Where sharing occurs in both directions:
The performers, their performance and skill, the audience, their joy and appreciation.
This post is becoming a bear.
I think I'll continue this post later...
I was looking over my Anne Bogart "And then you act" and found the following paragraph which I think is an important idea. I actually wrote a whole section of my comps on the idea of audience as witness:
ReplyDelete"The theater makes witnesses of the audience. A witness is not a bystander, but rather a perceiver whose presence makes a difference. A witness has a role to play and can verify and testify that something indeed did happen. A witness at the scene of a crime or at an accident can report back and redescribed the event for evaluation. Being a witness makes you responsible. Once an observer, you have become a participant."
This idea that audience is also a participant is critical I think. Though, re-reading this paragraph I find the idea that the vocal part of this witnessing seems to be after the fact, in a courtroom kind of setting... you know metaphors can fall apart. But participation in some form is a key element to seeing the performance.
She goes on to describe how the audience's Attention is significant because "To observe is to disturb" a la quantum physics. When the audience sees a show the show is fundamentally remade. When there is not audience in the house, no interaction it's an awful lot like throwing stuff into a void, which is how Stanislavsky described the black hole of the house beyond the footlights in An Actor Prepares.
I think there's something that has to be active about an audience, but I don't know that loud or boistrous is necessarily a part of it--meaning that it is neither a requisite nor anathema. Though I do think there needs to be the freedom to respond to what's happening. I think I have to come back to the I/Thou... if the audience treats the performance as an object, whether boisterous or silent... it can be negative... If the performance treats the audience as an object... whether boisterous or silent... i can be negative.
I wonder about Robert Wilson in this case, who is happy for his audience to fall asleep, go for take out and come back, etc during his shows...