Subject: Great concept
Name: Jim Smith
E-mail address: stone.jws [at] verizon [dot] net
Location: Duffy
Homepage:

#13 Comment (Thu Jun 3, 12:18:29 EDT 2010):
This certainly was a though provoking experience. This is really interesting performance lab if you
will.

I tend to the think that the primary beneficiaries were the performers though, not the audience. The
performers (including the stagecrew) ultimately have control of the environment, they have the power
to separate themselves from the audience at need. Which to me actually indicates a very sublime lack
of trust between the performers towards the audience right from the start. So in that sense, the
fourth wall remains. True intimacy and mutual trust are not there. The power of the performer has is
also physical. Has anyone just opened the door and left because they didn't like what they saw
or did they feel constrained to stay by the fact that they are shut in a little room? With literally
thousands of people outside to witness your early departure. If the performer faces either a hostile
person or a "rough room" there is always a curtain/door to hide behind, where does the
audience member "hide"? In a crowded theatre, they hide "in the crowd" but when
they are exposed as in this experiment, where? As a performer you feel vulnerable because you are
exposing your "soul" and putting down your guard to perform honestly but you know that you
have a "curtain" to hide behind. You also have the added "peer pressure" from
the audience at large to keep the audience member's reactions in check...

hmm….putting this aside…..

Having been a performer in different mediums I have always been curious about the energy exchange
between audience and performer. The difference between the intimacy of jazz or "coffee
house" vs the impersonal boundaries of the "4th wall" in prescenium performance.

The other thing I appreciate though is something that might sound a little off the wall, since some
of the idea behind this event is from peep shows. What is it that people want from peep shows or
even racy pictures for that matter sex or intimacy? Because the image has always been sexual, it is
assumed that it is sex, but I think it is the latter.

With the lack of skill in verbal repartee on one hand and the invention of the telephone, the art of
"small talk" or intimacy is being destroyed and people just don't know how to do it
or are not aware that they are starving for it. It used to be that if you could strike up a
conversation and try to know someone, you could accomplish a level of intimacy, but now, even if you
have the proximity, the use of cellphones cuts of the opportunity before you can even say
"hi".

I wonder how much we damage ourselves with the lack of non verbal communication. It is said that
90% of communication is nonverbal so if you consider that we are becoming a society that is only
communicating 10% of our emotions and intentions verbally through electronic media, that is really
flawed.

I think the fact that the audience is in reaching distance, that there is no outside influence at
the time of the performance has the potential to create authentic intimacy. With this opportunity,
what more as performers can we communicate? Can we communicate the song, can we communicate the
author/composer's intention, can we communicate the emotions of the character, can we
communicate the joy we take in that piece we are performing, the joy of our having and sharing our
talent, but, how do we take on the challenge of infusing our performance with the nonverbal message
of "we are glad you are here to add your synergy to this"?

It's funny, I find it difficult to listen to studio jazz recordings because they don't
have the dionysian energy of "the room" in them, the sometimes raucous glass tinkling,
dish rattling, plate crashing, conversational roar inducing vibrancy. Neither can you appreciate the
apollonian intensity of a climax of a play just by reading it from the book. You have to have at
least that one audience member to even attempt to accomplish this. Otherwise, it is simply "the
sound of one hand clapping".

To the performer the nonverbal message is "if you can't reach out of yourself to
communicate to a single person and share, then why are you here? You might as well be in your
bathroom taking a "cold shower".

Interesting lab indeed….

Subject: An Extraordinary Theatrical Experience
Name: Mark Milstein
E-mail address: mmilstein [at] aol [dot] com
Location: NYC
Homepage:

#12 Comment (Sun May 16, 15:40:38 EDT 2010):
An extraordinary theatrical experience, lavishly produced, it ingeniously explores the nature of
intimacy; a rollicking Coney Island setting and a peepshow's sliding screen, questions which is
more personal, privates or a poem?

And thanks to Megan Marshall for the generous gift of her time chatting with us about the
production.

Mark 'n Margaret

Subject: Definitions
Name: Magge Gates
E-mail address: magfili [at] msn [dot] com
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Homepage:

#11 Comment (Fri May 14, 14:46:23 EDT 2010):
Do you think this one-to-one "theatre" community necessarily
brings a different understanding of the piece than would be
gotten if one experienced the same as member of a larger audience? Is it theatre if not a communal
experience?
Is this what you are investigating? I am hoping to write
plays to be experienced in museums, perhaps with an
audience of one at times.[raw][/raw]

Subject: Just wondering...
Name: Joe Seefus
E-mail address: j [at] a [dot] com
Location: Los Angeles
Homepage:

#10 Comment (Tue May 4, 18:31:37 EDT 2010):
Does this performance venue qualify as an AEA Equity Waiver theater or does this venue fall under
LOA-NYC? Just wondering.

Subject: One to One
Name: Wendy Braitman
E-mail address: info [at] firstpersonsingular [dot] org
Location: Los Angeles
Homepage: http://firstpersonsingular.org

#9 Comment (Mon May 3, 17:50:32 EDT 2010):
I've been learning about the value of one-to-one encounters for community organizing. It's
how we change the world. I only wish I was in NYC to experience Theatre for One.