Right now I'm struggling with how much of my project should be pre-determined (written script) vs. ad hoc (improvised)
I like the idea of improvising scenes and using computer technology to flesh them out. But I have the writer's impulse to want more control over the finished project.
Perhaps it's possible to have some of the scenes be written ahead of time and then have actors spin something off of that. Or have the computer operator add a location, sound etc. to take the pre-produced scene in a new direction.
I'm having some kind of writer's block where I just keep going around in circles.
I can't resolve the issue of improv vs. pre-written scenes.
I also do not know how much audience participation there should be. And how to make it happen? Would there be some kind of consoles that people can type in? That seems difficult (and expensive).
I've decided to go with the idea of improvised scenes. At least for now.
I've also decided to use text messaging by cell phone as the means of audience participation
That will allow people to participation without interrupting the action.
I'm not sure how to make that happen, though.
I've been doing some research on the use of video in theater. I couldn't really find any books on the subject, but I have some articles I'm trying to chase down. I did find some books on improvisation which I can use as references for the improv section of the project.
I continued to do some research on the Internet on the subject of video in theater and video in improv.
I came across the improv group Neutrino, which I had actually seen once before. Neutrino uses DV cameras to go out and shoot improvised scenes and then quickly edit the scenes together.
Neutrino is doing something that is probably the closest to what I want to accomplish in my thesis. However, instead of doing fast editing I want the experience to be live. Also, their end product has a film feel whereas I am looking to do something that is neither theater nor film but something inbetween.
I've been doing some research into how to create alternative theater and I haven't found much on the subject so far.
I did find a book called "Devising Theatre - A practical and theoretical handbook."
The book talks about the "devised" theater, meaning theater that results from a different creative process than traditional theater. So for example in traditional theater a theater company might mount a production of Hamelet, and everyone knows the source for the production will be a play by Shakespeare and the rehearsal process will be a known entity. Wheareas in devised theater the source of the production may be an idea, a poem, a picture, etc. And the rehearsal process may be undefined.
The type of theater I am interested in definitely does not come from a script, or not soley from a script. And the "rehearsal" process has more to do with opening up the actors to possibilities and learning to make bold choices rather than anything else.
I did my presentation today, which I think went pretty well.
It's hard to tell what people think because not that many people make comments.
It looks like mounting the whole production as planned will be too difficult and I will have to scale back to make a demo version
It's hard to think of what that demo version would be like. I guess it would involve fewer actors, maybe a small rehearsal space instead of a theater. One version of this project used a single actor interacting with a video. I guess I could go that route.
I'm working on fleshing out some of the details of my thesis project.
There are a lot of technical problems, such as how to composite the video, what kind of database I'll be using for the video clips and how to get the text messages to show up on the screen.
I feel that I have at least defined the problems a bit more clearly.
I also need to do a lot more research to gain more perspective on how the project fits into the overall realm of performing arts in general.
So much to do.
And so little time.
I have been doing library research in order to build up context for my thesis.
So far I'm seeing some journals that describe projects that are somewhat similar to what I am trying to do, but are not exactly the same.
I'm also trying to delve into some of the history of theater and performance art in order to delineate what my project is and is not.
In addition, I've contacted Liz Dreyer of the Gertrude Stein Theater in order to find out how they are using video and interactive media in their current production of The Making of Americans.
I've been doing a lot of research into the history of technology in theater
There are a lot of interesting experiments conducted by artists in the Futurist, Expressionist and Dada movements in the early part of the 20th Century. Many of these people believed technological development was a positive thing and should be applied both to stagecraft and to the content of theater.
There also are a lot of interesting avant garde film and video experiments that took place in the 1960s and 70s. I'm particularly interested in the "Happenings" of the 1960s because of their improvisational nature.
I'm a little overwhelmed with the technological requirments of my project
I'd like to focus on the content and the interaction with the actors, but I don't think I can do that without a firm grasp at how the thing works.
I'm planning to build a small scale mockup that literally reduces the size of the presentation. For example, I'll use a computer to composite video, but instead of using actors I'll use a puppet or my hand. Then if it works I'll bring in the actors.
I felt the "presentation on presentations" went well. It generated a lot of questions.
The questions and comments for my project are as follows:
Most of the points were valid. I think some of the comments reflected a lack of knowledge about improv. Usually in improvisation, a bunch of suggestions are shouted out. The actors pick the one or ones they want and ignore the rest. Sometimes the suggestion is adopted literally, other times it is merely a jumping off point for a scene. I'm planning to have most of the suggestions carried out literally, but it's really up to the actor.
The point about the text message lag is a good one. I had a new idea whereby I place a computer in the audience and people are selected to type suggestions into it. If we had a wireless internet connection, people could send suggestions by their laptops also.
I'm also working on an audio/visual diagram to plan out my setup:
Right now I'm using two computers, one to handle the database of scenes and one to handle the "chat." There are also two mixers, one which composites the video of the actors and the backgrounds and one which splits up the screen into two parts, one with the composited video of the actors against the backdrops and one with the chat.
I might be able to simplify things a bit, but this is what I have so far.
Right now the technology is "canned" meaning the components are prebuilt and I'm just bolting them together. But I think I'll have to actually develop the system that handles the suggestions and displays them onscreen.
I've started doing some research into SMS technology in order to implement the text messaging part of the process.
I'm learning a little, but I still don't know enough about how to receive text messages using a server.
I've decided that I'm probably not going to use text messaging as the primary means of communication between the audience and the actors.
I took some of the suggestions from the class and I feel like the problem of time lag would make the audience suggestions difficult.
I also think that cell phones are kind of an awkward interface.
Right now I'm thinking of using a web interface for the audience suggestions.
By using wireless Internet access, audience members can go to a web site and type in their suggestions. There will also be a computer set up in front of the audience for those without lap tops.
In order to make this work, I have to have some kind of script that can take the typed-in suggestions, put them in a database and then display them in a page that can be projected on a screen.
I think I would have to use either Java or Perl/MySQL to make this work.
I know only a little bit about both, but I might be able to pull it off.
This live multimedia performance features actors who are composited with various video backgrounds and scenes. These scenes are called up by means of software (Grid Pro) that keeps the video clips in memory and allows the computer operator to punch them up on screen.
The live video of the actors and the video backgrounds are composited by means of a video mixer that performs a chroma key such as the Korg KrossFour.
The audience is able to make suggestions to the actors by typing in messages using a chat application. The application I'm planning to use will be based on ARSC, an open source chat application written in PHP. The chat messages placed in a database and displayed on the bottom of a split screen containing the video of the actors and the projected backgrounds. This split screen is also created using a video mixer.
There is wireless Internet access which allows audience members with laptop computers to send their suggestions. There is also a computer set up in front of the audience for those audience members who don't have laptops.
One of the questions that I get when I try to discuss this project is why?
Why have live actors in a theater if you're just going to project their images on a video screen? And why use video at all if you have live actors?
In doing some reading on the experience of watching media, I can across an interesting notion about the "liveness" of the video experience. In his article "The Screen Test of the Double: The Uncanny Performer in the Space of Technology," Matthew Causey writes about the use of large video screens in rock concerts. The screen is a mediated representation of the performer that audience members use to gauge the aliveness of the performance. The screen is a place that contains our projected fantasies, which are more immediate to us than people that we perceive in the outside world. As Causey says, "Does that mean that it is the split video image sourcing from a live feed that re-establishes the status of the real? Yes, the video image is more real than the live actor."
It is this type of phenomenon that I am trying to capture by combining live actors with video. Somehow the screen transports us to a place inside ourselves and opens a window to a new world, both strange and familiar. It creates a sense of deja vu, a doubling of experience that heightens our perceptions.
Or something like that.
I've been working on the timeline of my project to get a better feel for what tasks are dependant on each other and how early I can get a basic demo together. I'm using a software program called Gantt Project that allows me to set up tasks and draw charts.
Here is the timeline as it now stands.
I'm going to start work on the initial demo in early March and aim to finish the first version of the project by early April so I will have time to work with it and modify it.
I'm not sure how realistic my schedule is but It's my best guess.
We discussed the midterm presentation in class and I'm a little concerned about my progress.
Although I feel like my planning so far has been pretty good, I don't have anything "working" as of yet.
I'm worried that when it comes down to actually building the thing that it won't work.
I'm trying to get a simple demo working within the next week.
I'm planning on buying some new equipment for the project. While I might be able to rent it, I want to be able to have it available to test when I need it.
The budget is going to be tight, even for a demo.
Right now I'm trying to work out how to get the video effect that I want: 1) having the video of the actors keyed in with the background video and 2) having the resulting video appear with a split screen at the bottom for the chat.
From what I've learned so far, video mixers that can do both parts are very expensive. My solution may be to use two mixers each to do one part of the process.
I'm also trying to figure out how to display the videos without the computer interface showing up. It seems like I'll need a computer that can handle dual monitors. Not sure I have that.
I found out my laptop can output to a second monitor using Grid Pro.
This software works pretty well, but it crashes sometimes with full resolution (DV format) files
I should be able to go down to a lower resolution (say 320x240) and have the video quality look decent.
Another problem with this software is that it uses thumbnails to display the video clips and its hard to tell exactly which clip you're looking at if the content is similar.
I need to research other software that may make it easier to choose individual video clips quickly.
After a lot of searching on the Internet, I found other video software that may be useful for the project.
One is called Livid Union.
It emulates a video mixer in software.
Like Grid Pro, it also uses thumbnails to represent the video files. But it also allows you to mix video clips, which may be useful for transitions, for example fading a clip to black.
I set up a wiki where I can store research for the project.
Some of it is context, in the form of notes about readings I have done.
Some of it is Internet searches on topics like video compositing.
At the moment I am researching "augmented reality" a system for live compositing of images without using a chromakey or "blue screen."
An example of this is applying lines on a football field to mark the line of scrimmage. Another example is projecting virtual ads onto the walls of a baseball park.
So far I haven't been able to find out how this works. I know there are patents in this area, so it may be a closely guarded secret.
Today I worked on trying to get actors.
I have a couple of people who are interested in the project. I need three to make it work properly.
It's difficult to plan this project, because I need to have actors committed. I can't schedule a performance or even a test without knowing when I can get actors, but it's hard to get the actors without some kind of firm date.
Frustrating.
I did some more research on equipment I need for the project, namely audio systems and rear projection screens
I'm trying to rent them, as this type of equipment is extremely expensive.
Today I purchased equipment for my project, including two video mixers, two scan converters and three wireless mics.
I'm hoping the video mixers will give me the output I'm looking for--composited video of the actors against video backgrounds and chat text underneath.
I'm testing my equipment--trying to mix video from a camera with video background files from my laptop.
So far I can't get any output from the mixer. I may need to get tech support in order to troubleshoot.
As far as a performance goes, I'm not trying to set up an initial "beta" performance in mid April and a more polished performance during Thesis week.
Since the project is about performance using technology, I think it would be a shame not to come out with some kind of show.
Augmented Reality
I'm doing some research into augmented reality, which seeks to represent reality, but with additional information in the form of computer generated graphics that are overlaid.
Here is an example of augmented reality in action: Clock Tower
I'm not sure if I can include this type of technology in my project in any extensive way, but I'm trying to see if I can include some type of example similar to the one above.
Today I met with Liz Dreyer of The Getrude Stein Repertory Theatre to discuss the work they are doing in integrating video and interactive media in theater.
They originally started using computers as a way to previsualize productions, so that they could design sets virtually without going to the expense or trouble of creating models.
They then experimented with using video conferencing as a way of teaching theater production, but soon realized they could also use videoconferencing as a way to have performers, directors and technicians in different countries create works together over distance. The benefit was saving on travel as well as enriching the theater experience with theater styles from many cultures.
Dreyer feels that experimenting with technology in theater is important to them because Gertrude Stein was an innovator in theater form and her work calls out for new ways of storytelling.
While they have made use of video, they have been making an effort to bring action "out of the screen." As a result, they have been using a combination of projections and live actors in a process they call "Digital Puppetry" or "DramaToons."
The use of technology has changed the way they approach the work, and while there is still a linear narrative in much of their work, computer technology allows for a way to more easily jump in time, to create a series of spirallying stories.
They are currently working on a restaging of Stein's The Making of Americans, and they are leaning towards an approach that leans more towards animation than to traditional theater.
Today I shot some monologues that I'm planning to use with the project.
The aim is to use these prerecorded scenes as a conterpoint to the improvised scenes.
Just another element to move the action along.
I have been trying to get a first version of my video setup to work.
Not even a beta, really just an alpha test.
What it consists of is a scaled-down set with two actors (actually just two stuffed animals) shot against a blue screen and composited using a video mixer.
The video is then fed through a second mixer which layers on top chat text from the audience.
At this point I don't have any easy way of transfering the chat text into the second mixer so I am faking it by presenting pre-typed suggestions.
But the idea is to mock up as much of the project ahead of time so I know where the problems are.
I want to post this on the website but for some reason I can't seem to get my alpha test out to tape.
I'm planning on a rehearsal/trial run with actors this weekend.
The chat still doesn't work, but I'm going to test to see how the actors react to working with the video technology.
I'm anticipating that there will be aspects that they will like and many that they won't.
Their feedback will help me to finetune the project.
I'm continuing to shoot background videos for the actors to perform in front of.
I got a hold of a new video camera and I was able to tape the alpha test and put it on the website.
Today I tried to run a beta test of my project. Here are the results:
I used a classroom at ITP for the test
The goal was to use equipment I already had and tie into the room's audio/video setup
Equipment included:
Laptop computer
2 DV camcorders - one for shooting the actors, one for documentation
Sima SFX-9 video mixer
TView Micro scan converter
Lights
Chromakey (bluescreen) paper
I enlisted the help of three ITP students, Klara, Katy and James
I also recruited three actors, Ben, John and Lisa.
And of course, the ever-helpfull folks in the equipment room.
Unfortunately, we ran into many technical problems.
At first I couldn't get any output from the mixer to the projector.
After I got that working, There was no sound coming out of the mixer. We tried many alternate ways of patching into the audio mixer in the room with no results. We even tried to solicit help from some people on the floor who we knew were very A/V savvy
Also, the lighting was very tricky, as I thought it might be. In order to combine the video files on the laptop with the video of the actors, it's necessary to have a very well lit, solid backdrop that is a specific shade of blue. We were not able to achieve this completely with the lighting kit in the ER. So the result is somewhat fuzzy and does not fill the screen.
After spending hours trying to resolve all these problems, I was running out of time and had to go with what we had.
We ended up with a couple of scenes with video backdrops. The first scene was initiated with an "Activity scene" of a man sipping coffee.
The second scene was initiated by a change in the video background from a store to a church. I shouted out a few suggestions to simulate audience interaction.
I didn't try to implement the audience/chat component, but instead shouted out some suggestions to the actors to simulate the kind of suggestions that might come from the audience members.
Obviously technical problems were the main source of error.
Much time was spent trying to figure out how to tie into the existing audio/visual setup of the classroom.
I needed technical help but none of the Technical Services staff was in on the weekend.
I think I'm going to need several more tests, perhaps scaled down. One problem with this is that the amount of equipment needed is more than one person can handle. And even to test the setup the minimum number is somewhere around three.
I vastly underestimated the setup time required for this project. It really needs most of a day in order to setup all the equipment, test and tweak.
The people component actually went better than I thought it might. My "crewmembers" were very capable and made many good suggestions. The actors were extremely patient with a long wait for the setup to happen.
Although the beta test didn't do as well as I had hoped, We were able to come away with a couple scenes that at least suggested the kind of thing I am aiming at.
The project has promise, but still has a long way to go.
Perhaps instead of looking at it as one beta test, it might be necessary to plan for a series of small tests with incremental changes.
What I have now is simply a sketch of what the final project will look like.
I've been working on a solution to the chat portion of the project.
Here is the problem: I need to have the contents of the audience's online chat overlaid on the video of the performance.
The chat application that I'm using (called ARSC) is written in PHP/MySQL.
I don't know PHP well, but I do know some Perl, which can talk to MySQL.
Today I did another beta of my project.
The objective here was to try to solve the problems that came up in the first beta.
I got some help from Marlon in Technical Services. He took a look at my setup and walked me through the correct signal flow.
Once he showed me it was pretty easy. That's the problem with not having the right knowledge. Just a few key corrections and my beta would have been more successful.
My Aunt died this evening. Kind of knocked the wind out of my progress.
I'm trying to write a small program that will take the chat text from the database and present it on a web page that can then be combined with the performance video.
So far I have a page that returns the last text message in the database.
The only way I know to have this refreshed in a reasonable time frame (~3 seconds) is to run a cron job. I'm really not sure what to do and I think I need to talk to Nancy. I'm concerned that I won't be able to run a cron job that frequently because it would put too much of a load on the server. Maybe it's possible to use some kind of AJAX-PERL library. Or Java? I'm really out of my depth here. I sent out emails to Dan O'Sullivan and Shawn Van Every. Maybe they can help me.
I have a solution to part of the chat problem. Using the Opera browser I can run a web page in kiosk mode. That means it will display the page full screen and without any toolbars. I can isolate the main frame of the chat application. The end result is only the user names and chat text. Modifying chat code to display chat in a window at the bottom - the next thing I need to do is to modify the code for the HTML layout so that the text will be confined to the bottom of the page so it will not clutter up the screen.
It's not a very elegant solution, but it should work.
I ran a second beta today with actors. Unfortunately we ran into a lot of audio problems and the sound is basically unusable. I think the problem is in the audio inputs of the video mixer. I've got to work it out for the final runthrough.
We did get in some good scenework.
There are several problems with trying to integrate video and text with improvisation. First, improvisation should flow, and the video scenes and comments interrupt that flow. Second, video is a very literal medium. A moving image is the electronic manifestation of something physical. Although altered, it carries the same weight and mass as the original object. Improvisational theater is a suggestive medium. Scenes are built only by playing with the suggestiveness of words and the perception that the actors and the audience derive from them. Third, the reduction of the actors into a two-dimensional video image may strip some of the energy of the live performance, leaving it without the power of film or the intimacy of theater.
These are all things that have occured to me in this process.
I sometimes have my doubts about whether this project is worthwhile.
Still, I'm looking for even a glimmer of the "Living Movie" that I am after.
I'm trying to see how I can put this project into context with other projects or ideas that have come before. I was reading about the notion of text as a character onstage in Sparacino Davenport and Pentland's Improvisational TheaterSpace.
In contrast to their text revealing the inner thoughts of the character, I would like for the audience's chat to reveal the inner thoughts of the audience. The words provoke pictures and the pictures provoke words. In this way a feedback loop is created. In the feedback is noise, but also pleasant sound. Tangents are created that provide an interesting perspective into the minds of the audience and performers.
I'm also thinking about David Savran's "The Death of the Avantgarde", trying to see where this project fits on the scale from lowbrow to middlebrow to highbrow.
In a way it's pretty lowbrow. There are some actors projected on a screen, making up some simple scenes. It isn't necessarily art. It may be more what Aristotle would call spectacle than drama.
But there may be a way that it works like that. Yes we're looking at a video screen when we could just be seeing live actors. Yes the videos don't have much to do with the action. Maybe it doesn't seem that coherent.
I guess I'm looking for that moment when the subjective mind finds a small spark of meaning in something mundane. A pseudo-Brechtian moment.
I don't have any great theory that I'm working from. I really just have impulses that I feel I must justify.
I finally have a solution to the problem of projecting the chat text onto the video.
It's not a very elegant solution, but it should work. It involves:
I originally planned to use Java as a solution but I couldn't figure out how to do it.
Yesterday was my final project "beta."
I was hoping to avoid some of the technical problems that plagued the earlier tests. No one part of this process is that difficult, but there are enough little things that can go wrong that it can drive you crazy.
I've been especially focusing on: lighting - trying to get the right amount of light so that the background keys out correctly while also lighting the actors - audio - trying to mix the sound so that the actors can be heard along with music/sound effects - chat - integrate chat suggestions with the acting.
The actual results were mixed, but I did actually accomplish a good part of what I set out to do.
I had the Japanese room reserved from 8:00PM to 10:30PM. I planned to setup for about an hour, have the actors come in and warm up for about a half an hour and then perform for about a half hour. In experience, setup can take up to two hours or more, but I did the best with what I had.
I loaded up my car with pretty much all the electronic and computer gear that I own and headed over to NYU. It reminded me of a sketch comedy group I was in called It's Not My Child. We decided early on that we would do minimal staging, but then when it came time to write and mount the sketchs we had full costumes, furniture, prop groceries and fake weapons in every scene. At this point I wished I was working on a solo video project that involved only myself and a video camera.
Peter Kirlin graciously offered to help, as he did when this was a project I worked on for Shawn Van Every's Producing Participatory Media class.
The setup went a bit smoother since I was more familiar with the equipment. But I had never worked with the chat component in a live performance.
The actors showed up and started goofing around in front of the camera. This is the "animal in the mirror" phenomenon that I have noticed in the past. Everyone likes to see their own reflection (or is at least intrigued by it). Some of the things they did at this stage were better than any of the scenes we tried to do later.
Finally we got to the point where the setup was most of the way there. We had the actors in front of the blue screen, pretty well lit. We had composited video coming out of my laptop. We had chat text coming out of the classroom G4 Mac and we had the G5 Mac setup as a chat client.
At this point, we didn't really have an audience, but Kesu came by to be a chatter, and Peter managed to to rustle up a few more people who were sitting in the lounge.
So we got in a few good scenes. I put up a video of the outside of a church and Joy went into a scene about buying a baby from John.
Kesu was typing in a few comments about it being a church.
Later we had a scene in front of MacDonald's with Joy and Topping. Just to be provocative I typed in "She's got a gun. They're planning a bank robbery." So they went with that suggestion and started talking about which bank they would rob. John came in with a shotgun.
In a later scene, Joy came on screen playing air guitar. I punched up Green Day's "American Idiot" and Joy and Topping started rocking out.
I felt like this was the most successful scene of the evening.
There is something satisfying about seeing the actors commit to the music, to being in a rock band. It's just a simple statement, like putting two words together to form a phrase. They say the human mind is wired for storytelling. We like to find meaning, coherence, rhythm in everything. This is something we enjoy from childhood, and being able to endulge in this kind of childish logic connects us with something basic and powerful.
At the end of the night I got some good feedback from people. Some of the audience members said they enjoyed it and Kesu said it was "Awesome." The actors said it was interesting, although they had a hard time reading the chat text on the screen.
I was glad that I at least got every aspect of the project up and running at least some of the time.
This process has been very frustrating and disappointing. But I'm at times pleasantly surprised at the end result. It's like the drawing class I'm taking. I don't really have any technical drawing skills--I can't draw perspective, my proportions are totally off--but people seem to like what I draw anyway. And when you seek to do improv, you have to live with a lot of unpredictablility
I've been working on my final project for Video for New Media.
It's based on the monologue videos I shot for my thesis.
I have two characters talking: a monsignor talking in a church and a woman talking in her apartment.
When you click on a picture of one of the characters a monologue is selected at random. The monologue plays and at the end is a script that selects a series of transistion shots, for example going from the church to the apartment. Another monologue plays and so on.
The idea is to give the impression of a montage that has been edited together. Although the scenes are always the same, the order they are in creates a different mood each time.
I've been told that there will be no videos in the show.
I had been planning to show a DVD. Since my setup is kind of complex and invovles a lot of equipment and space as well as live actors, I was planning to show videos and talk about the project.
I can be in the end of semester video screening, but I wish somebody had told me sooner. Now I have to scramble to put something together.
I wrote the script for my thesis presentation. Here it is:
I created Living Movies as an experimental combination of video and improvisational theater that empowers the actor using technology and allows the audience to interact more effectively.
[Mashup video - me reading statement
Short sparks coming together
to form something coherent]
As I very small child I was completely absorbed with Television. My mother says I would "go into" the TV set and when she called my name I wouldn't respond. It frightened her.
When I was about 5 years old, my mother took my brother and I to the house of a family friend. He had a video camera and monitor set up and we delighted in seeing ourselves on TV. We had conquered the medium.
I also remember seeing a Little
Rascals episode that had an effect on me.
The gang goes to see a movie premiere, but are chased away by the cops
when they get too close to the action.
They decide to create their own premiere with the use of Waldo's movie
camera. In order to solve the
ever-present problem of synchronized sound in film, they stand behind the
screen and speak the character's lines.
Somehow the combination of the power and authority of pre-produced
footage with the immediacy and danger of live performers
A little later on I became intrigued by video games. But I'm not really a gamer. I don't really care if I win or not, or how many illusionary points I can score. My interest in video games, like my later interest in Interactive Telecommunications, comes not from any interest in computation, but rather from a desire to be a part of an all-powerful medium rather than a passive observer.
I set out to recreate these experiences.
Back in the misty mists of time early man gathered around the communal fire.
As they told stories, men and women used the highest technology of the time, fire, as an aid in their storytelling. Perhaps they used fire to illuminate and give life to the images of animals they drew on the cave walls.
The Ancient Greeks used various forms of stagecraft in their dramas, most notably the Deus ex Machina or "god from the machine" in which an actor portraying a god would be lowered to the stage by means of a crane in order to resolve a conflict in the plot.
In Medeival Mystery plays, gunpowder was used to represent the devil, even to the point of rigging an actor's costume so that fire would shoot out of his bodily orifices.
By the 16th Century, Italian set designers had developed the use of flat scenery to depict various backgrounds. Within the next century, the Dutch used painted perspective to create the illusion of long hallways.
In the 18th Century, it became possible to have a sky moving across the ceiling of a theater. Mirror effects were used, for example to project the image of a ghost onstage.
By the end of the 19th Century, around the same time the motion picture arrived, the limits of representational reality in theater had been reached and the concept of Naturalism began to appear. Sets became simpler. Actors stopped directly addressing the audience. The plane that the audience viewed was seen as a "fourth wall" that could be ignored by the actors.
In the 1920s, Constructivists such as Meyerhold sought a non-representational arrangement of playing space that celebrated technology and the worker. Expressionist theater attempted to use abstraction as a means of conveying an emotion or idea. Karel Capek's 1921 play RUR, which coined the phrase "robot", was also the first play to use a motion picture projection as a scenic element.
By the time Television appeared, theater had become somewhat conservative in its use of technology. At the same time, innovative art movements such as "Happenings" and Fluxus attempted to use video technology to express their ideas. The theater stopped being the only place that dramatic theater could take place.
Recently with the widespread use of technology, theater has adopted computer technology. At first used as a method of handling stagecraft, computer media is now used as part of the performance process.
Recently, the concept of "Digital Theater" has arisen,
defined by Wikipedia as "the coexistence of
"live" performers and digital media in the same unbroken space with a
co-present audience." Digital
Theater is generally seen as having narrative content to differentiate it from
performance art, which seeks to provoke the user into exploring an artistic
statement. Digital Theater is also
defined as taking place in a single location as opposed to "Desktop Theater"
which includes web-based role-playing, games and collaborative storytelling.
The Gertrude Stein Repertory Theatre is one theater company
that has endeavored to use computer technology as an integral part of their
productions. Initially, the
company used computers as a way to visualize productions before building costly
sets. Now The Gertrude Stein
Repertory Theatre has been experimenting with what it calls "digital puppetry,"
which involves the combining of computer generated images with a live performer
to create a new dramatic entity.
They have also done a great deal of work with performing via
teleconference. By partnering with
technology companies such as Lucent, they have been able to take a technology
primarily used for business communication and create a forum for dramatic
collaboration over long distances.
The Builder's Association uses video and computer graphics
alongside live actors in order to bring out the complex relationship between
humans and computers. In their
recent production of SUPER VISION, The Builder's Association presents a series
of vignettes on the theme of privacy in the digital age. Digital information in the form of
numbers, words and graphs are projected onto the stage. Live actors communicate with virtual
ones existing as digital video.
Blast Theory, a UK based art and performance group, uses a
range of media such as video, computer graphics and the web to tell a
story. They have used video
projections as a way to create sets that transform the context of the theater
experience. Their work has been
described as closer to cartoon than theater.
The Wooster Group is known for using video and digital media
in their plays. Their aim seems to
be to set up a kind of interaction with the dramatic text of the live
performance. Sometimes the
projected video reinforces the action onstage and other times it is in direct
conflict.
Improvisational theater troupe Neutrino uses digital video
in order to construct a completely improvised movie while the audience watches. In order to do this, a group of actors
solicits a suggestion from the audience and then disperses. The actors leave the theater
accompanied by a technical crew who use digital video cameras to tape them
performing scenes. The technical
team then races back to the theater where they quickly edit the scenes together
and present it to the audience.
The theatrical duo of Kraft & Purver has experimented
with using video in different ways.
At times they project video as a backdrop. Other times they project images directly onto the actors to
make a statement or set a mood. Ed
Purver is currently developing an interactive video system which enables an
actor to control a video projection in real time.
These groups differ in their methodologies, but they all seek to use technology to enhance and alter the theater experience. It's too early to tell how much technology will infiltrate the somewhat conservative medium that is dramatic theater. But it's unlikely that the use of video and digital media will be just a fad. More likely is that these tools will take their place alongside stagecraft such as recorded sound and computer controlled lighting as methods of enhancing the theater experience and augmenting the powers of the actor.
I would also like to say that I am not claiming that Living Movies is not attempting to be video art. This project differs from performance art, which attempts to provoke a reaction in a viewer in order to communicate a personal artistic vision. This is a form of theater that attempts to use technology. If it is art, it is only in the sense of being part of the performing arts.
Project
Living Movies is based in
improvisational theater. What is
improvisational theater? It's a
performance style that seeks to create characters and situations based solely
on words spoken by the actors or the audience. Instead of a script, the action is determined by connections
that the actors make with each other.
Central to improvisational
theater is the concept of offer and acceptance, often signified by the phrase
"Yes, and." The idea is that
one actor makes an offer: a statement, a physical action or a character, and
another act responds in a way that accepts the reality put forth by the first actor
and then adds to it.
For example, I might make a
suggestion by saying "What a beautiful day for a cruise!" My scene partner might accept my offer
by saying "Yes but it's my first voyage." And then add to it by saying "I think
I'm going to be sick.
Improvisational theater typically involves the audience in
the action in the form of suggestions that are solicited. Usually these suggestions come before
the beginning of a scene or a performance. Sometimes the suggestions can come in the middle of the
scene, especially in theater games or "short form" improv.
I based Living Movies on an improvisational theater style called the Harold, in which a series of two person scenes are presented in sequence, with followup scenes that jump in location or time. Seinfeld has been cited as the perfect Harold, in which several plotlines intertwine and are eventually resolved.
The action takes place on a video screen as opposed to a stage. The actors are composited with video backgrounds using a blue screen technique. By using a particular shade of blue, the color can be removed or "keyed out." The background can then be replaced with another video source or graphic.
a key
The video of the actors is fed into a video mixer. There it is mixed with video coming out of a computer that replaces the blue background with video of various exterior scenes. There is a computer operator who selects the backgrounds as well as sounds and music.
The audience communicates by means of online chat. Instead of calling out suggestions as in traditional improv, the audience types in their comments. The chat text is sent into a second video mixer, where it is mixed with the video of the actors and the video backgrounds. The result is then sent out to a video projector. The video of the actors appear against a video background. The chat text appears over the video on the top of the screen.
The software used to select
the video backgrounds is a program used by video jockeys or VJs called Grid
Pro. This software uses a
graphical interface that allows you to select video files and play them by
clicking on an icon.
The chat application is built on PHP/MySQL and is called
ARSC (A Really Simple Chat).
The video mixers are basic consumer grade video mixers, the SIMA SFX-9.
This project originally started
out as an assignment in Shawn Van Every's Producing Participatory Media Class.
A group of four students worked together to come up with a concept to
test.
Although the group seemed to
like the idea, there was some concern about how interesting the end result
would be. For one thing, if the
performers weren't very good the scenes wouldn't come off well. It also wasn't clear how extensive of a
database of backgrounds would be necessary.
In the end, the group went with
a different concept.
When
it came time to test the concept for my thesis, I wasn't sure how to
proceed. Since the idea required
both the participation of a number of actors and technicians and the use of a
large amount of computer and electronic equipment, it was very hard to test the
concept.
Originally, I had thought that
I wanted one person to be able to carry and set up all the equipment for the
project. I was not able to achieve
this, and in practice it took two people to handle everything.
I
decided for my "Alpha" test to use puppets as a way to reduce the scale of the
production. I set up a video
camera, shooting the puppets against a blue piece of paper. I then sent video of street scenes out
of my laptop and mixed the two sources together.
At
this point I didn't have a way of getting the chat text onto the video so I
faked this part by using a video of simulated chat text.
I
tried to create something that might look like the kind of interaction I was
aiming at.
[video of puppets]
In NYU's Interactive
Telecommunications Program, it's very important to document your process. Although I found it very hard to do, I
still made an effort to document everything.
[Documentation of
documentation of documentation]
For my first Beta, I enlisted
the help of some improv actors who had expressed an interest in the
project. The Beta test took place
in a classroom at ITP.
I prepared three types of
videos for the test. The first
kind is a backdrop video. These
were videos I had shot of street scenes, mostly storefronts.
[video of backdrop] x
The second kind is an activity scene. An example is a video of myself
drinking coffee.
[video of drinking coffee] x
The third kind of video is a
character scene. I shot several
monologues of different characters
[video of Msgr.] x
When it came time to do the
test, we ran into a few technical problems. Lighting the blue screen was
trickier than I thought which resulted in poor video quality. We also ran into some audio problems.
By the time I got everything working, it was about an hour and a half longer
than I had anticipated.
I was only able to get through
a few scenes with the actors.
I initiated the first scene by
showing a video of myself drinking coffee. This caused Ben to start off a scene about coffee.
[Coffee
scene] x
After the coffee scene, I change
the backdrop to a church. The
actors responded to this change. Since the chat component was not working yet,
I just shouted out some suggestions to simulate what the audience participation
would be like.
[Church
scene] x
Before the start of the second
Beta, I ran through the audio visual setup with Marlon in Technical Services so
that things would go a bit more smoothly.
I also finally had a solution
to the problem of getting the chat text on the video screen. This consisted of:
Not a very elegant solution, but it did work. Actually, when it came time for the
second Beta test, I couldn't get
the Kiosk mode to work and the toolbar showed up after all.
For the second Beta I had three
actors. I also invited people to
come watch the performance and make suggestions. I had a computer set up for chat and I actually did have a
chatter. I invited people to bring
their laptops to chat on the wireless network but nobody did.
I set up the theater so the actors are shot against a bluescreen on one end with a projection screen on the other with the audience in between the two. On the side I was the computer operator and a Kesu was the lone chatter.
The actors took cues from the chat text, as in this example where the actor uses the phrase "Thursday is the New Saturday" and the chatter replies with "four o'clock is the new midnight."
[Thursday
video] x
The actors also cued or "pimped" the computer operator as in this scene where an actor plays air guitar and the operator responds with Green Day's "American Idiot"
[Rock
out video] x
Afterwards I got a few comments about the project.
[Comments video] x
Conclusion
In
high school science class we were required to put down "possible sources of
error." So I thought I would do
the same for this project.
One
source of error: I may have overestimated the power of the video image to make
things interesting. Maybe Living
Movies are no more interesting than live improv theater. Or worse, maybe they are less
interesting because they are farther removed from the live theater experience.
I
also may have underestimated the difficulty of having interaction between the
people chatting and the actors.
Chatting is useful when communicating to other people online but maybe
something is lost when jumping to another medium entirely. And it's very hard for the actors to
take themselves out of a scene to check out what's happening in the chat.
I
know that there were many technical mistakes. I learned that it's impossible to plan too much. In fact, most of the time I spent on
this project was in planning, estimating and scheduling.
I
never realized the promise of creating an improvised movie, let alone a
Harold. There were a few good
scenes, though.
Some improvements to the project: I'd like to have a better
interface for the computer operator.
I'd also definitely try to make the chat text more legible. Some additional capabilities: it would
be nice if the actors could draw things onscreen. I've also thought about having some kind of augmented
reality application that would pop up video props when the actor picked up something
that the computer could recognize, like a 2D bar code.
But the present reality is that
I was barely able to accomplish the minimum of what I set out to do. I've been thinking of the whole
thing as one big beta test, so it's not that surprising if it's not yet ready
for prime time.
At this point I am planning a
theater performance for this summer where I'm hoping to have all the bugs
worked out and actually be able to have a full performances with a number of
scenes if not an improvised play.
At the end of the project,
despite many technical glitches and poor computer operation on my part, I felt
there were a few shining moments when the actors, video and chat came together
to create a kind of goofy transcendence.