 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
River of Many Sides As a medium, theatre has achieved some of the most significant and long-lasting changes due to the spirited commitment of experimental artists working in non-traditional presentational formats. Theatre, though, has not always openly embraced innovation, and, on occasion, has actively resisted new forms. As a whole, though, the discipline has exhibited a somewhat indifferent attitude towards new media integration, in which theatre has lagged far behind other performing arts (music and dance, especially). It is this emerging area of practice-the use of computerized tools and techniques in live performance- that theatre has the most to gain and the greatest to learn. In the case of new media integration, experimentation has taken on important interdisciplinary and collaborative dimensions, allowing theatre practices to shaped by multiple sources and inspirations, including diverse intellectual, aesthetic, methodological and pedagogical forces. The value of stirring together such a mixed brew of referents was evident last weekend at River of Many Sides, a multidisciplinary performance project which sought to capture the experiences of arts practitioners who traveled throughout Vietnam and the United St The action of the play centered on the dramatization of various episodes from Vietnamese and U.S. histories, in addition to the depiction of day-to-day life in both countries. Events were presented in multimedia format-via live actors, projected imagery and computer-controlled sound and light. Equipment was cleverly set up on stage to maximize the flexibility of the performance space. For example, projections screens were mounted towards the back of the stage and in the center high above the actors. This placement enabled the performers to be integrated into the space and to move unencumbered throughout the playing area. For the audience the stage appeared sizeable, yet surprisingly intimate-a setting which matched the expansiveness of the themes presented, and the personal and introspective tone of the piece. While the screens were large and numerous, they were never very obtrusive-quite a feat for such a media-intense stage environment. In the performance, the actors (both Vietnamese) found some very clever ways to use physical objects to uncover complex emotions truths. The parachute, for example which dominated most scenes, was a very striking metaphor for the horrors of war, and, at the same time a glowing reminder of safety, rescue and peace. Such objects pointed to the strengths of the production: its ability to delve into the grey areas of culture-the spaces which cannot be easily named or identified and are often fleeting, ephemeral and contradictory. I would call this space “lived human experience” and it served as the guiding force of this play. The most dramatically Beyond its engaging interactive elements, the most stunning feature of the work was the projected imagery. Images on the four screens seemed to move in harmony throughout the work. Instead of merely illustrating the actors’ actions, the visual texts often complicated and deepened their meaning. The imagery was also immersive, enveloping the entire stage space and drawing the audience visually into the work. The movement of the imagery, as well as its dense and rich texture, effectively depicted the passage of time, the overlapping nature of memory, and the fluidity of historical processes, even the most disturbing and violent. During some moments, though, I felt as though there was a disconnect between the visual and spoken/sung and recorded texts. For example, Vietnamese cultural references were often lost on me, even though the poems were translated into English on one screen. I would have liked to know more about the verse’s context and composition-where they came from and what they meant to various classes of Vietnamese citizens. Also, although I appreciated the actors’ ability to physicalize abstract emotions, their relationship to each other on stage was not always clear- a factor which further alienated me from the texts presented. Moments in which actors hysterically flailed their limbs while articulating high-strung emotions (in the war segment especially) were too sharp and distancing to absorb. Were these culturally specific references? I was never sure. Fortunately, these moments did not happen often in the play and could be easily helped with a more precise style of direction. The collaborative team framed the work around issues of politics and power, as well as artistic resistance. This framing device insured each audience member felt they were contributing personally to global peace-making efforts. In fact, the team invited the audience to participate in the creation of a monument symbolizing cultural harmony in the piece’s final moments. But, while helping to forge a sense of community and purpose, in doing this, the show’s creators may have inadvertently staved off critiques of their own production. To criticize the play (or attempt to evaluate how effectively their complicated ideas were presented theatrically) would be akin to admitting you were on the wrong side of justice. I did believe, though, that their motives concerning activism were genuine and admirable. On the level of unity and multiculturalism, perhaps the most valuable lessons the production offered occurred after the performance. The creative team invited us to mingle in the space, walk around the stage and share refreshments. This provided ample opportunity for individual audience members us to get to know each other, and to speak with the artists about their ideas and goals. In other words, we actively dispensed with the audience/performer hierarchy to relate on equal footing. The stage (literally) served as the forum of our shared lived experiences and cultural interconnections. What River of Many Sides has to offer theatre is a model of cross-cultural, technologically-infused live performance. In this production media effectively engaged the audience’s senses, presented diverse perspectives, circumvented language barriers and, most important, helped to tell a complex story more imaginatively on stage. If theatre’s base is to be broadened in the near future, it will be due in no small part to experiments such as this which attempt to integrate computerized technologies and everyday life experiences into innovative performance. Participants: |
|||||||
ates to come into contact with each other’s cultures.
striking moments in the production depicted the U.S. raids on Vietnam. Having the ability to respond to the action on stage with actual objects (sticks that were placed near my seat at the beginning of the play) permitted me the ability to directly contribute to the frenzy and mayhem of war. However, realizing I was an American doing so, I immediately felt shame, guilt and remorse at my own country’s behavior. I was making music and waging battle simultaneously-again existing in the space in between positive and negative, familiar and foreign, here and there. I found the participatory features of this section to be viscerally and intellectually stimulating.