Live encounters

The trouble with being an Interactive Theatre practitioner is that the first question everyone asks is “What exactly does that mean?” It’s a valid question – there are many types of performance that could be described as both ‘interactive’ and ‘theatrical’. In some recent research, I tried to answer that question, and I’m now going to outline my key findings, together with the main challenges involved in making the work. 

In a recent survey of Independent Theatre Council companies, it became clear that, far from being an obscure artform, the majority of respondents were making interactive work – and, indeed, it was the primary output for almost half of them. Interactive Theatre happens in many different contexts – on the streets, at Murder Mystery events, in museums and even in working hospital wards.

In exploring performance that depends on interaction, I initially defined Interactive Theatre as being that in which characters had direct, meaningful conversations with their audience. This body of work has the strongest claim on the label ‘Interactive Theatre’ because the interaction is the theatre. It’s not an added extra, not banter over the footlights, or something that happens when actors stop acting to take suggestions. The final definition I reached was: Interactive Theatre is theatre in which the performance is the interaction between audience and characters, with the themes and narrative being made apparent through that interaction.

There are six key elements to this definition:

Interactive Theatre is a live encounter, in person. Good interactive work requires great subtlety in both awareness and performance, so, at its heart, must involve the meeting of human beings. Interactive Theatre has fully interactive characters.

This is an encounter with characters, not actors. Actors don’t drop character. Characters respond not only to audiences’ reactions to the scenario, but also to any issue that the audience wishes to raise. This allows audience members’ own stories to become part of the performance, altering it and enhancing it. One of many possible examples of such interaction is an ex-station master happening upon an interactive character sharing stories of steam trains and then joining in with his own (‘Sitelines’, State of Space).

Interactive Theatre has clear scenarios

Characters have a scenario to play out. It might be a full storyline; an objective (e.g. Ladder to the Moon’s ‘Procrastinating Pirates’ trying to find the lost treasure of Balham); a theme (e.g. Desperate Men’s ‘Rubbish Heads’ about the environment) – or a combination of all three. The key point is that these characters have a ‘reason to be’, and thus differ from mix-and-mingle characters or street clowns, who don’t have this.

Interactive Theatre has definable performance elements.

The work has structural elements, which parallel elements in more traditional stage-and-audience work. Briefly, these are:
• Pre-interaction – methods to ‘hook’ the audience in, spark their interest and give them easy ways to interact
• Opening interactions – techniques for easing into interaction and establishing the ‘rules of the game’
• Building interaction – diverse techniques (e.g. responding to the environment, linking audience members to the narrative and each other) to keep individuals as engaged and connected as they wish to be
• Ending the interaction – a range of exiting techniques dependent on the depth and nature of relationship developed.

The parallels with traditional theatre are:

• Pre-interaction parallels marketing received by the attender, the attender buying a ticket and entering the building, and the curtain going up.
• Opening interactions parallel the opening scene and exposition
• Building interaction parallels the playing out of the play
• Ending the interaction parallels the fall of the curtain and curtain calls.

In Interactive Theatre, however, all these elements are part of the narrative.
In Interactive Theatre, character and scenario are made manifest through interaction with the audience.

It is through interaction with the characters, on a variety of levels, that the audience comes to understand them, and the themes and narrative of the piece. While there are often ‘set piece’ elements (e.g. songs, dances, etc.), even these are usually initiated by actors using a particular interaction as a ‘springboard’ to them.

In general, the normal business of the performance site continues throughout the performance.

Unlike in other site-specific work, the everyday life of, for example, the hotel, shopping centre, or hospital, normally continues throughout the performance. The fact that the performance happens during everyday life is often what gives it its power.

Making it work

So, given that the above definition explain what the work entails, I believe there are three key areas of challenge when making it:

• Quality: Understanding of this work is not widespread, so those new to it tend to think it can be put on without a great deal of thought as to how the interaction will work. This has led to a lot of bad Interactive Theatre, perpetuating the idea that interactivity is, at best, difficult, and, at worst, embarrassing and annoying for audiences. Good interactive work is the opposite. It’s extremely important, therefore, to involve artists with considerable experience in the field, if you want to ensure quality and to avoid unintentionally alienating your audience.
• Rehearsal: Practitioners disagree over whether rehearsal is possible or, indeed, necessary. Undoubtedly some actors have a flair for this work and others find it difficult, for a variety of reasons. I believe the quality of work is greatly enhanced by actors having a chance to develop character and practise interaction in a rehearsal room. The challenge is to create meaningful ‘practice interactions’ for the work you’re making.
• Funding: Despite the buzz around interactivity, practitioners often struggle to find funding for two reasons. First, as in a lot of small-scale theatre, artists often subsidise their own work through taking on other unpaid roles in the company, doing other work or making lifestyle choices that allow them to live on next to nothing. This isn’t conducive to development, but it allows work to happen without major funding. Second, those who consider themselves ‘theatre literate’ tend to want to engage with this work in a traditional stage-and-audience way. Since the performance is in the interaction, this is equivalent to judging a traditional play by listening outside the theatre doors. So you end up with funders seeing work they don’t really ‘get’, happening without their support – not a great recipe for a successful funding bid. The challenge is to find ways to educate funders in both the nature of the work and its true costs.

Next steps

If you are thinking of making Interactive Theatre, then I hope this has gone some way to explaining what’s involved. It’s not easy work to make, and done badly it can be horrible. However, it is worth pursuing because it is an accessible theatrical form, tailored to the needs of those engaging with it, as they engage with it. For practitioners, that makes it rewarding work. Done well, Interactive Theatre creates a powerful experience – one that stays with people long after the characters have left.