Across the many different kinds of theatrical work, the presence of a live audience is one of the few elements that remains constant. Historically, the positioning of the audience inside a performance has taken many forms. In Victorian-era melodrama, audiences determined the outcomes of plays by yelling and throwing food at the stage; in the less violent Commedia dell’arte, audiences gathered in their community spaces to watch groups of traveling players. When it comes to contemporary theatre, many artists—working with historical precedents like these in mind—craft unique and engaged performer-spectator relationships in order to tell their stories.
There is another trend in theatre, though, that does not place the same conceptual emphasis on the relationship between the audience and the play. The majority of contemporary American theatre prioritizes, by and large, plausible narratives, true-to-life performances, and representations of topical discourses. This is an extension of a historical shift away from presentational, archetype-driven storytelling and toward detailed psychological portraits. The now-mainstream goal of creating sealed environments onstage—pressure cookers for interpersonal drama—places the audience outside the play in the role of analytical watchers. This theatrical paradigm, a self-sustaining onstage world opposing an audience in silent contemplation, is a hallmark of American realism. This audience positioning has become increasingly expected in contemporary theatre, so much so that it is viewed as an integral aspect of the genre.
The effect of this commonplaceness is that the decision to specify, curate, or attend to the audience’s experience has become an indicator of a play’s experimental, even genre-defying, nature. Unusual scenic, literary, or spatial choices might be met with praise or resistance; regardless, they are set apart as something different. This distinction between typical plays and work that engages audience is a disservice to the theatre. Regardless of genre, theatre artists must contemplate and make choices about the audience inside their work. This goes beyond pedagogy or preference: theatremakers have a political obligation to engage and focus the audience’s gaze. If spectatorship is not considered, if this artificial binary is left unchallenged, audiences are allowed to remain passive, both during and after the play.
Comments
The article is just the start of the conversation—we want to know what you think about this subject, too! HowlRound is a space for knowledge-sharing, and we welcome spirited, thoughtful, and on-topic dialogue. Find our full comments policy here
Great article. Important clarity about social character of capitalist audiences as consumers and accumulators. Key in devising ways to undo those ways of being within the theatre experience. You open important doors for further exchange. How might that happen beyond these comment chats?
Thank you Bob! My hope is that this will inspire artists to challenge their production teams to consider the theatricality of their work more intentionally. I would encourage anyone to engage their collaborators directly on this question, and figure out how this is applicable for their work, whatever it may be.
This was a fantastic article and gave me a lot to think about--thank you for this thoughtful and thorough exploration!
Thank you so much Roxanna! I'm so glad you found it useful.