StoryForward Meetup: Lessons About Getting Interactive and Immersive
I attended the “Crash Course in Interactive and Immersive Performance” Meetup by the NYC chapter of StoryForward — a group that produces a podcast and a series of events to explore “the future of storytelling and entertainment, from ARGs (Alternate Reality Games) and Apps to the Wild West of the Web, and Beyond.” This was a panel discussion with artists they’ve identified as among the most innovative and pioneering minds in the field.
The speakers were Victor Carinha of Journey Lab, which he described as a “media brand focused on rediscovering how audiences experience storytelling;” Carlo D’Amore of Live In Theater, where he said he produces a more cutting-edge version of immersive murder mystery theatre; Erin B Mee, Artistic Director of This Is Not A Theatre Company; Peter Musante, who’s work is “at the nexus of immersive theater, dance, music and technology to invent unique performance-based experiences that transform space and create community;” Andrew Hoepfner of Houseworld, an immersive experience in which guests step into an old mansion and enter a dream world; Annie Arthur Kaup of Annie’s Shakespeare Shakedown, an interactive, immersive experience that evolves in real time and improvisation; aLyssa Kim, performer/writer/director/producer/ choreographer of the immersive and interactive dance party show, Rocking Dead: Bedlam; and Lauren Rayner, an independent producer of immersive performance projects including a show that takes place during the participants’ taxi ride.
First, a little clarification on the difference between “immersive” and “interactive.” An immersive play is one where the audience member is embedded in the show’s environment. Everywhere is the “stage” and you are both audience and actor by virtue of your presence. That doesn’t necessarily mean you are required to actively participate, but there is no guarantee that you won’t be engaged by another performer. For example, if the play takes place in a bar, you may be sipping your drink and simply watching what’s happening around you. Will someone approach you? Who knows? But the pay off in the experience is to be as “immersed” as possible, to really believe you are sitting at a bar during the Prohibition Era in New York City, and to interact (or not) accordingly. An interactive play can be many things, but the unifying element is that the performers invite the audience to participate in the action in some way.
Interestingly, I found that this art form shares some similarities with social journalism practice, and can serve as both a dramatic metaphor and source of inspiration. For one thing, they all require active LISTENING. Whether you are the “performer” and/or “the audience” the experience requires that you be present at all times, to be observant and attentive so that you can be responsive to what’s happening around you, and to your fellow participants. Sound familiar?
Another similarity is the fluid nature of the roles of actor and audience, performer and spectator. Are you one, or the other, or both? And, if you are both, is it simultaneous or do you switch back and forth between them? Similarly in Socialj, we talk about letting the community define the story, to drive the narrative — a role traditionally held by the journalist, with the community consuming the product when all the work has been done. Social J, like immersive/interactive theatre invites the community to be “both/and” — to actively take part in shaping the product being created, and to also decide how much or how little to participate.
What I found a little confusing, even disappointing, however, was when the artists complained that audience members sometimes ruin the outcome of the shows. If they are being invited to participate, isn’t a different outcome always a possibility? For example, one artist told a story about a production of Romeo and Juliet during which an audience member, just before Romeo was to take the poison, shouted, “She’s not dead!” and may have even grabbed the poison from Romeo’s hand. The artist talked about how great it was that this audience member/participant was so engaged and swept up in the drama of the moment, but that he also ruined the play. Ruined? Why? So what if, in his version, Romeo doesn’t die? It may have been interesting to see what interaction would follow the disruption. Is he a friend of Romeo’s who gets to him just in time? What would they say to each other? What would they do afterward? Haven’t we all wondered what the star-crossed lovers lives would have been? If Maria got to Tony before Chino did? What harm does it do to have the enthusiastic audience/participant live out that alternative moment with the other characters? It seems that would be part of the interactive experience, but another panelist complained of a similar thing. It strikes me as a missed opportunity and a contradiction of the aim of immersive and interactive art. What could be more engaging than creating, in the moment, a new story and a new possibility for this familiar scene? So what if he changed the ending? Romeo and Juliet aren’t real, you know.
Finally, the challenge of setting boundaries came up, also one faced by any social journalist when working with a community and its stakeholders. The artists spoke of physical danger, having safety and security concerns, and having EMT on the site of every production. There was also talk of blurred emotional boundaries. One artist said that an audience/participant said that she loved her. She described it as a beautiful moment, but it got me thinking about how possibly irresponsible and precarious, both physically and psychologically, these immersive/interactive spaces may be. To me, it’s a lesson and reminder to social journalists to maintain boundaries — in the interest of our reporting, our responsibility to our community to do no harm, and for our own well-being.
Will I be going to an immersive or interactive play any time soon? I doubt it, but I think this art can be a source of ideas, lessons and inspiration.
