Page 31

#MelinaLaboucan-Massimo #MildredFlett #BonnieMJoseph

In Spirit Juan C Palacio
Sera-Lys McArthur in ARTICLE 11’s In Spirit by Juan Camilo Palacio

Andy Moro and I started working on In Spirit in 2007. The impetus sparked after seeing Andy’s work in dada kamera’s fond farewell at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in TO. I had long been musing on a work about a girl who’d been abducted and murdered. I felt it was all I could do to contribute to a solution to these recurring tragedies. Once I saw Moro’s work, I felt the play I could conceive of was possible.

Child safety visits from police officers were not uncommon to schools in 1980s in Lethbridge Alberta. We learned about child abduction when the trend of wearing one’s name emblazoned in tidy black velveteen letters on the back of a t-shirt hit its peak. There had been cases where strangers approached a lone child and called them by name, which struck the fear of Satan into my little half-breed catholic heart. How could one evade an abductor without being rude to a real acquaintance of her parent? “Tara? I’m your mom’s friend from work. She asked me to come pick you up.”

We spent summers where my maternal roots are, the lower Nicola Valley in B.C. There I learned I already knew people who had first hand experience with having a child plucked from the universe. This place I regarded as idyllic and friendliest toward children – a cluster of Indian Reserves in the interior – was the crime scape for that greatest of horrors. I felt the world shift beneath my feet, and an obsession planted.

Years later, as a practicing theatre artist in Toronto, I reconnected with friends and family directly affected by the inexplicable loss of a child. Some had been living with loss for several years, and some had had it scorch them more recently. I had reached certitude around my own decision not to have children, and ended a marriage. I was keenly aware this kind of crossroads was one that some parents only ever wished for, for their children. Surviving heartbreak was a privilege, for it meant I was alive. After several long conversations with a number of people, (whose identities I will keep close out of respect for their right to move forth in life, rather than in grief) I received what permissions were possible to attempt a fictionalized account of one girl’s experience at the end of a foreshortened life.

While writing, I was roomies with one of my favorite actors and regular muse, Michaela Washburn. It was she who brought me to see Moro’s work. There was a confluence of inspiration that night, and shortly thereafter I penned a first draft, with the knowledge of Washburn’s considerable gifts allowing the voice of the character to come through to the page. Within days, Moro, Washburn and I were in studio, working the script. We worked like a team of sculptors, shaping the piece together, plying our individual strengths and insights. Our first invited audience came to see our work-in-progress a few days later.

The response that day, in 2007, was extremely mixed, with the most alarming remarks at the time even more surprising today. The tiny inaugural audience consisted of Indigenous theatre students, arts worker colleagues and former schoolmates of mine from Red Deer College. The room felt safe. All present spoke relatively frankly considering how often I see the death of an early play by politeness. Three of a dozen people genuinely had the curiosity about who would care to hear the story of an Indigenous girl gone missing. These people were being honest, not cruel, and yes, they were all Caucasian. It was an important thing to hear, though the expression of it silenced the young Indigenous woman present whose best friend had gone missing while they were still in junior high.

The awareness around what is now a hashtag – #MMIWG – has increased exponentially in the general population. Every major party in Canada has stated its stance on the issue – an issue that is never just an “issue” for the families who have lost their beloved. Mulcair has promised an inquiry within 100 days of an NDP victory, while Harper maintains his belief in the futility of such a thing. Adding to the offense is the messaging the RCMP, on Harper’s watch, has resolved to propagate in the media.

“70 per cent of murdered aboriginal women killed by indigenous men: RCMP” declared a Globe and Mail headline of April 2015. Similar headlines blazed up on the CBC and in the National Post. More than demonstrating the danger in the reductive nature of statistics, it revealed the bare-naked values of a country that has systemically tried to eliminate Indigenous people since its inception.

While Stats Can doesn’t collect data about homicides by race, our nearest neighbors do. According to a 2012 report cited in The Economist, in America “less than 20% of murder victims are killed by someone of another race.” One can deduce that more than 80% of murder victims are killed by someone of the same race. Why does Canada not collect crime stats based on race? The old “we’re too polite” notion obviously doesn’t fly among most Indigenous people. Had we access to similar information, the headline might read “Aboriginal people 20% less likely to be killed by their own as compared to the general population.”

The commonly cited number of #MMIWG today bobs around 1,200 after a 2012 RCMP report more than doubled the long-held 500. This number accounts only for women and girls missing and/or murdered since 1980.

The conversation around missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls has changed a lot since In Spirit began its journey in 2007. At the time, few plays offered a human telling of these stories, though they were profoundly influential. Marie Clements’ Unnatural and Accidental Women had blown the walls off my artist brain when Native Earth staged it at Buddies in 2004. Following this, I read and then saw Yvette Nolan’s Annie Mae’s Movement. In recent years we have ever more works on the subject from Keith Barker (play The Hours That Remain), Sarain Carson-Fox (dance The Missing), IsKwé (song Nobody Knows) and the artists’ collective that headed the exhibit Walking With our Sisters, to name a few. This lends hope while doing its part to point to the ubiquity of the problem.

Last year, through Native Earth, In Spirit played at Full Circle’s Talking Stick Festival in Vancouver where, by the grace of Creator, a group of twenty people (who identified themselves) with direct connection to the missing and murdered attended a performance. Our team was embraced by these mighty people, and blessed in our work. Since this time, ARTICLE 11 has enjoyed full creative control of the work, and – finally fully housed in an Indigenous values system – the piece is more powerful than ever.

_________________________________

In Spirit plays August 5 & 6, 8pm at Harbourfront Studio Theatre and August 8 at 10pm, under the Gardiner in the Fort York south parking lot. All shows are free and followed by an audience/artist conversation.

About the Author: Tara Beagan is Ntlaka’pamux and Irish “Canadian.” She humbly asks that you take five minutes to look up the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and learn the story of one person. Learn her name and speak it. We change the system that kills when we know each other’s stories.

Where Art Meets Fuck You

IMG_20150727_221758
Donna Michelle St. Bernard performs @ #deadcoonto.

On Monday evening July 27th, hundreds of protestors for #BlackLivesMatter marched onto the Allen Expressway, one of the busiest highways in Toronto, and blocked rush-hour traffic for 2 hours.

Also on Monday evening July 27th, at the exact same time, a group of theatre artists gathered at the Storefront Theatre for the latest iteration of the political cabaret Wrecking Ball.

Which event did you hear about first?

Established in 2004 by Ross Manson and Jason Sherman, Wrecking Ball is a responsive evening of theatre, created in line with current headlines and rehearsed and presented within a short time frame. Although, the volunteer organization has gone through several teams of leadership, its mandate and style have remained the same. Theatre that is ripped from the headlines, to the page, and to the stage, in a guerrilla rough and ready way.

This particular evening of Wrecking Ball was curated around the theme (and hashtag) #DeadCoonTO. It was referencing the popularity of the tag #deadraccoonTO which went viral on July 9. This meme followed the discovery and subsequent ad-hoc memorial of a dead raccoon found on a busy Toronto street corner. Whether viewed as satirical or in earnest, people did respond to the sight of the raccoon, re-tweeting photos thousands of times, and even contributing to the memorial in person. The dead raccoon meme was highly criticized in light of the lack of internet response to the shooting of Andrew Loku by police, only a few days earlier on July 5.

Ironically, with the #BlackLivesMatter protest on the same evening as Wrecking Ball, #DeadCoonTO was looking to emulate the very thing it was criticizing. Gathered in the over-capacity Storefront, was our complicity in political performance merely mimicking a significant and useful response to injustice? As a community, does our ability to talk about and concern for real political issues only extend to the stage?

One of the newer elements of Wrecking Ball, is an open-mike feature called Time Bomb. Audiences are given one minute in which to rant about anything they want. Ringers are engaged by the organizers to bring some quality rants to the stage, but otherwise, it is open to any audience member who may speak on any subject. When their time is up, a joyful ‘bomb’ is projected and met with cheers. BOOM! It’s ragged but fun and democratic.

To create an atmosphere of encouragement for the Time Bombs, the organizers do a little call and response with the audience. It begins with the call, “Fuck you!” to which the audience responds with “Fuck YOU!”. And then it repeats, and so on until the audience is significantly riled up. Admittedly, I have been trying to watch my own swearing, so permission to do so in a different context is very freeing.

According to my seatmate, my calls of ‘Fuck you’ bordered on gleeful.

Fuck you!

Fuck YOU!

FUCK you!

FUCK YOU!

BOOM!

Intermission. People buy more drinks, schmooze, step out for a cigarette.

IMG_20150727_211820

Near the stage, I crouch on the floor with writer and spoken word artist Donna-Michelle St. Bernard. First, we laugh and joke before our tone turns serious. We have cried together and in opposition at times, so it’s easy to get to the truth quickly in our conversations. She performs later – the closing act in fact. She’s worried because the evening has at times been satirical and funny. She didn’t want to bring the room down with her piece, which she calls ‘angry’. We look each other in the eyes. We agree. If we aren’t fucking angry, why are we here?

I sit and wait for the next half of the performance and think about anger. What is beyond angry? Is it art? It’s so pretentious a conceit, I almost throw up the vegan gluten-free donut I just ate. I check twitter.

We’re back. Another Time Bomb.

Fuck you!

Fuck YOU!

BOOM!

Fuck you, we say in order to create a safe space.

Do you feel safe when you read ‘fuck you’?

I respect the people on stage, the organizers who volunteer their time, the artists putting forth their raw work, the audience who have made a choice to come.

Fuck you.

Fuck

You

f…..u……c……k

y….o…u…

I stop saying it.

I’m a writer. Words mean something.

It occurred to me much later, that I was reminded of an acting exercise from theatre school. Repeat until you really meant what you were saying. Repeat until you believe the words. Repeat until your scene partner believes you. Repeat until it is true.

Fuck you.

There is an inherent violence in the words. Does knowing we are saying it in order to create a safe space change the power of the words? As the evening continued, the number of people willing to rant dwindled. Did they feel safe? Or were they filled with other emotions? Despair. Helplessness. Futility. Inadequacy.

I check twitter. The #BlackLivesMatter blockade on Allen Road had ended. Our evening was coming to a close too, ending with Donna-Michelle. She was not wrong. She brought her anger. The lights fade. The evening is over. Everyone cheers.

I am uncharacteristically quiet. I want to be myself. I escape quickly.

What is the point of doing these quickly thrown together works? What actual good is placing our political questions onto a stage? What is the actual point when there are people who directly and actively work to address injustice? Maybe Wrecking Ball is not for anyone else but our community. Maybe it is simply our time, our space to say fuck you. Maybe, like a pressure valve, we have to say it. Maybe, we need this space for our rage, and not just us in theatre, but society too. Rage is chaotic and often destructive. But I would also argue that this makes it inherently creative at its core.

Wrecking Ball to me, is not a fuse, but a pilot light. Lit just a little. Just enough. Just enough to keep everything going. Just enough to remind and connect us with the rage within. Just enough light to keep going.

Because, because…

We all know what happens when there is too much and it become unmanageable – too much rage, too much fuel –

BOOM.

#CdnCult Times; Volume 5, Edition 8: WHITE PRIVILEGE

It is a complex exercise to curate the White Privilege Edition of something as a straight white male who comes from a lot of privilege. An issue that has come up repeatedly in discussions around ethnic diversity in Canadian theatre is that although diverse works are occasionally programmed, the person who chooses what and who is programmed is still usually a fairly privileged white guy. As is the case, again, with this edition of #cdncult.

I have sought to mitigate this tradition by working writers who had already been identified as leaders by their communities. Each of these writers has been or is Artistic Director of a significant theatre company. We have also commissioned these authors with the freedom to write on whatever topic or issue best addressed contemporary concerns about white privilege.

So hopefully this edition is an offer of a platform and solidarity as opposed to a curated perspective. Tweet at #cdncult if you have more thoughts on this.

During the recent Municipal election Toronto’s eventual mayor went on record saying he didn’t think white privilege exists. Reading from Tara Beagan’s piece on creating work about Missing and Murdered Women, Camyar Chai  on the bias every ethnicity faces, and Marjorie Chan’s article on the #DeadcoonTO Wrecking Ball, it’s hard not to feel the Mayor has some on-the-job reconsidering to do.

If nothing else, this edition of #cdncult definitely exists.

 

Criminal Genius

cg

Play: Criminal Genius || Playwright: George F. Walker
Shoot: NDG || Model: AJ Korkidakis

STEVIE: I gotta keep lookin’. It makes me nervous when I’m not lookin’.

ROLLY: Get away from the window.

STEVIE: I can’t.

ROLLY: But I’m so nervous I can’t think. I’m trying to think but I can’t.

STEVIE: What are you thinking about?

ROLLY: A lot of things.

STEVIE: Like what?

ROLLY: Like why won’t you get away from the window when I ask you.

STEVIE: Because I can’t.

 

Sky Sounds pt.3: Look Down

Ep9.ss3

In our final episode of the Sky Sounds series, we thought we’d try something a little different. Based on an interview with Boyd Nave – the resident ‘Butterfly Man’ at the Calgary Zoo – we bring you an original story called “Look Down” by local artist Ellen Close. In it, one species reaches out across the void to another seeking little more than a bit of understanding.

This is the final episode of Season One of the Deep Field Podcast. We look forward to returning with new stories in the fall of 2015! Huge thanks to Spiderwebshow​ for hosting Season One as a part of Spiderweb Sound.

Also, big thanks to Arts Commons​ for partnering with us to create Sky Sounds. You can still hear all three episodes playing daily the +15 System at the Arts Commons building in downtown Calgary.

Lastly, thanks to all the people we’ve interviewed this season for sharing their time and stories, as well as the musicians who leant their music to our show.

Frequent Fringer?

15842049048_e5e89ef62d_k
Image of Edmonton Fringe by Nanc Price Photography via Creative Commons

Edmonton is a wild place to make theatre. There isn’t a lot of money – though perhaps more than in some other places. There are a lot of actors trained up really, really well and not enough jobs for them and the ones that came before them. Harder still, audiences are hard to come by, particularly in the dead of winter. It sounds like a cliche but no one wants to put on 15 layers of clothes and a parka to go see a brand new company giving something new a shot, let alone the same old-same old at the austere, concrete regional theatre.

But wildness isn’t all bad. And it’s good to get the complaining out the way first. Wildness here in Edmonton means a true passion for experimentation, a deep commitment to DIY aesthetics and methods of creation. Edmonton artists are often on the forefront of national recognition for contribution to innovation. And much of this finds its history in the founding moments of the Edmonton International Fringe Festival.

Founded in 1982 by Chinook Theatre Founding Artistic Director Brian Paisley, the first Fringe Festival was inspired by the Edinburgh Fringe. That first festival saw 200 performances in five venues. Flash forward to 2014 and the Fringe welcomes nearly 600,000 guests, nearly 150 individual shows, and nearly $1,000,000 in ticket sales. The Edmonton Fringe is now arguably the second largest fringe festival in the world after Edinburgh.

Through this rather illustrious history the Fringe, as it is affectionately known, continues to hold true to the values outlined by the Canadian Association of Fringe Festivals (CAFF): participation is determined by a non-juried process; participants receive 100% of their ticket sales (save for a $2.50 add on per ticket); the Fringe has no authority over content of the performance; and Fringes should provide accessible opportunities for audiences and artists to participate.[1]

On July 5, 2015 it came to light the Fringe had altered its volunteer policy to exclude a number of persons with disabilities in favour of those whom, according to the Fringe, had more appropriate “skill sets”. The backlash was swift and forceful from both the theatre community and the disabled community. The Fringe reacted as swiftly and dug itself into a greater hole. Boycotts were called for and the media got involved. And this was all on a Sunday afternoon.

FB Image - Fringe
By midday Monday afternoon Marc Caron, the Chair of the Board of Fringe Theatre Adventures, had responded, with more grace and more fairness than previous responses. Boycotts were still shouted for, but with slightly less vigour, and people are hopeful that the promises contained in the apology on the Fringe’s Facebook page.

What happened to Daniel Hughes and a number of other volunteer applicants is offensive, at best, and possibly a human rights violation at worst. Worse still, the volunteer coordinator did not feel like she could communicate with Hughes directly and had to go through his aid worker, a further dehumanization.

Further disappointment came from the ongoing euphemistic use of the word ‘community’ in the rejection letter. That is not my community, and not the community of so many others. My community is a beautiful and inclusive one that promotes the participation and inclusion of all people. This situation is no different than rejecting a volunteer for being transgender or a person of colour or fat.

As a member of the theatre community and veteran fringe artist I was horrified and saddened by this new volunteer policy. One of my favourite parts of the festival has been walking up to the gates and seeing beautiful humans of all stripes sharing their love of a festival that has, since 1982, woven itself into the very fabric of our city and positioned Edmonton as a leader in the Canadian Theatre scene.

The beautiful collection of human faces reminds us that this is a festival for everyone and this all brings us back to the final tenant of the agreement that the Fringe makes with CAFF – and with us, their audience – “Fringes should provide accessible opportunities for audiences and artists to participate”.

Audiences don’t just come in the form of paid ticket holders; audiences aren’t just people who read an article in the newspaper; audiences aren’t only coming to see their favourite local “celebrity”. Audiences are those people too, of course, and we love them. But audiences are also the media, family and friends of artists, funders of all stripes, artists both past and present and, most importantly, volunteers.

A festival the size of the Edmonton International Fringe Festival does not run without a team of incredibly dedicated and passionate volunteers. And here’s a secret that many new fringe artists don’t know: volunteers are your biggest audience allies. They have big and passionate mouths that can shout to other volunteers, people in line ups, and people in the beer gardens. They chirp about shows they love and hate and are excited about. They see shows, 100s of shows, and their passion for shows is what leads them to volunteer. Without volunteers there is no festival, no real and joyful audience, and no money come in to the pockets of passionate (and often desperate) artists.

What remains to be seen is how this rather public, but necessary, shaming will affect ticket sales. It is impossible to predict what the shouts for boycotts will lead to, whether volunteers will walk away in solidarity or shame, whether artists will take up the cause, or if regular folk in Edmonton will have even heard the cries for inclusion and stay away.

[1] This information was obtained from The Edmonton International Fringe Festival.

#CdnCult Times; Volume 5, Edition 7: AUDIENCES

Critiquing the behaviour of audiences at live performance is de rigueur in North America at present. I am of the mind this behaviour is fairly natural:

But other people have strong opinions to the contrary:

As Sarah Garton Stanley points out, electricity changed the nature of the theatrical experience and the web is changing it again, a theme Alison Bowie also picks up on in this edition. Meanwhile, Michelle Kennedy reminds us volunteers are also a part of our audience connecting this discussion to the controversy surrounding how people of all abilities can participate in The Edmonton International Fringe Festival.

In all instances the hope was people would sit still and be quiet, but instead they are fired up and logging in.

Michael Wheeler
Editor-in-Chief: #CdnCult

Audiences are assholes

IMG_2980
Chaos in creation. Neworld Theatre’s “King Arthur and his Knights” created Niall McNeil, Marcus Youseff, Veda Hille & James Long

In the past couple of weeks, the interwebs, along with televised, radio and print journalism have all been on fire with stories about badly behaved audience members. It is really weird.

There was even a story in The New York Daily News about actors getting angrier with their audiences. Angrier? So this means they were already angry? Really? Well, yes. There seems to be a lot of rage at audiences these days.

First of all audiences don’t come to the theatre (what the hell is wrong with them?) and when they do they don’t stay (why the hell didn’t they just stay home?) and if they do come they let their phones ring (Is there no intelligence left in this world?) or worse, yet, they text! (I mean don’t they know they are not the centre of the universe?) What a bunch of jerks! Audiences are assholes! Like basically they don’t know how to do anything right anymore. What has happened to civilization?!

Cell phones are such a contentious issue: what bugs me will not bug you. Cell phones bug me sometimes, but they don’t bug me other times. And therein lies the problem:

Theatre – up til now – has been a place of gathering to share rules together. And thanks to the ingenuity of humankind it has also become a space that can control darkness and light. With the advent of electricity, a single hand of god entered our theatres and organized our shared suspension of disbelief. In the theatre it could be daylight outside but nighttime inside. In the theatre a total experience, offering lighting and climate control, largely conditioned by electricity, was created.

This make believe space was a feature of a single perspective that, if hit correctly, could work magic on a massive audience. The experience – therefore – was led by a single author and the followers were invited to ‘read’ their text. That was what one came to expect of the theatre. You went to a place and you received and you behaved.

Until you didn’t. Think about the revolution of electricity in the theatre. It removed the audiences opportunity to share in the unfolding of the story but it gave the author maximum control of how the story unfolded! Suddenly electricity was everywhere. In fact, if you get a chance to see Ann Washburn’s new play 10 out of 12 there is – I think – a really compelling argument about how electricity as it pertains to the well-made play, has systematically aided and abetted in stunting our capacity to communicate.

Huh? How is that possible? Well, elegantly told, we come to understand that the system of telling has beat out the subject it means to support. Formalism has silenced the capacity for content – or culture (as I like to think of it) to emerge. So something new must occur.

Cell phones in the theatre are not the new thing but… they are part of it.

Theatre actually made the news in significant ways in these past few weeks. One story was about young guy, who wanted to plug his phone into an outlet on the stage set for a Broadway production of Hand to God, so that he could keep in touch with his girlfriend(s). He was mocked by news people and weather people alike for a lack of intelligence and culture. Not my impression. In fact the guy had been to the theatre before, and he knowingly made a choice that he understood wasn’t necessarily a ‘right choice’ to make but determined that it wasn’t all that wrong either. He was not lacking in knowledge, he simply did not find the conventional knowledge all that relevant to his needs.

More recently there is story of a second row woman texting non-stop during a preview performance of a new play about the love of theatre at The Lincoln Center in New York. In what is now known as the Patti Lupone incident, this great star of the stage (she played Evita no less!) lost her concentration due to the audience member’s cell phone use… she then went into the audience and took the phone away from the audience member and walked off the stage with it. It brings the thinking around bad acting to a whole new place. Many in the press lauded Lupone for her bravery and brilliance but personally I was relieved when a thoughtful piece in The Clyde Fitch Report showed up to argue that maybe, just maybe, it is time to make some noise in the theatre.

The theatre has been a space to commune with one another on what it means to be human. And herein lies a great part of the tension. We don’t know what it means to be human anymore. Where do I end and where does my cell phone start? This is simplistic but it is not dismissible. Were it to be… we would not stand in wonder when we meet one of the last western holdouts to not own a cell phone. And we would not stand amazed and ask how oh great one who lives among us, how do you do it? How do you get by?

IMG_2978
Sign outside Monday Nights created by @6thmancollective in residency @TheatreCentre.

We are our data and we are becoming ever more so with each passing year. Our human condition is changing/has changed. It is not immutable as it was thought to be. And perhaps it never was immutable, but we collectively suspended our disbelief about this. Cell phones are the harbingers. They bring with them the news of change. And as theatre makers, I think the time is always right to respond to change. What can we do to mitigate and generate. How can we celebrate?

1.For conventional theatre lets create Phone Valets who will care for audience members’ phones and accept instructions for what constitutes an emergency that the audience member must be taken out of the theatre to attend to.

2. For alternative but still conventionally steeped theatre lets offer last row cell phone seats where audience members can watch a live stream of the performance (because they are in the last row and far from the stage – think opera glasses for today) and let them simultaneously commune with their interweb neighbours about the experience

3. Make theatre that invites cell phones in. A great example is onstage at The Theatre Centre in Toronto now. #Monday Nights not only encourages cell phone use it also dismantles the single author perch. And not only is it a play but my goodness me, you get to play!

4.Trust the audience. Assholes they are not.

Audience – What does that even mean anymore?

ZQ8A9889

An audience member at a performance of Hand to God climbed on stage to plug their cellphone into a fake outlet. During a performance of Shows for Days the seasoned Patti LuPone took a cell phone away from a texting audience member (without breaking character).

We’ve all read these stories. And we (probably) all find them troubling. The question is: why??

We are used to audiences sitting in the dark in a theatre space, expecting them to sit in silence and just watch. But it wasn’t always that way, was it? Audiences during Shakespeare’s time were certainly full of boisterous rabble-rousers. Today at Shakespearean productions we seem to want an audience full of “seen-and-not-heard” spectators.

So, what is it that is really bothering us? Is it that our audiences want to talk? They want to communicate with one another? Is it that they want to bring electronics into the theatre? No.

The real problem we are facing is not that our audiences want to bring technology into the theatrical space – it’s that by doing so, they are disengaging with the performance that is happening right in front of them. They are no longer a part of the show. And that’s not a problem with them – that’s a problem with us. That means we are not holding their attention; we are not keeping them engaged.

It is a shift in the way we as theatre artists need to relate to audiences by reassessing the power dynamics in this tenuous relationship. Today’s audiences want to have more control, affect change, and be a co-creator (or co-conspirator). And they want to be able to choose their level of engagement with what is being presented to them.

This may make us uncomfortable because it requires us to let go, just a little. But it is necessary.

I currently work for Repercussion Theatre, which produces Shakespeare-in-the-Park, a touring production (this year we are doing Twelfth Night: or What You Will) in parks across the island of Montréal and the surrounding towns. Since the initial design meetings I have been developing campaign to get the audience engaged and invested in the creation process from the beginning.

There are two major elements to our ongoing campaign.

First, three times a week I post a cast or crew bio and headshot on Facebook, with a link to the post on our website on Twitter. By the end of the summer, even the office staff will be featured.

The second initiative was to create a video series called Twelfth Night Tidbits. This began with a conversation with our new artistic director, Amanda Kellock, after she decided to film the meeting of three dramaturgs and a director talking about Twelfth Night. When the first video was to be released, I realized that this could be an opportunity to give the audience the “inside scoop”. You can see all of our Tidbits here.

Both of these elements were designed to create a personal relationship between the audience and the individuals working on our team and to get the audience invested in the production even before the actors stepped foot in the rehearsal studio. The featured cast/crew posts on average reach about 500 people on Facebook, are liked by a minimum of 200 and are shared several times each. The videos have been viewed by up to 900 people and shared up to a dozen times. These were low-stakes activities for the audience; the entry participation level was anonymous reading or viewing.

ZQ8A9866

These two initiatives were lead-ups to Twelfth Night Tweets, our first-ever live tweeting theatrical experience on Friday, July 17 in Cabot Square, Montréal. Over the course of the rehearsal period, actors created tweets as their characters. During the performance, Amanda and I posted the tweets following along with the script as the characters as if the characters were tweeting backstage. I also created on-the-fly tweets based on audience comments and also little slip-ups or technical difficulties that happened during the show.

This was a higher stakes event because we were directly asking the audience to participate. In her welcome speech, Amanda explained to the audience that they could follow along using #Reper12thNight (you can still take a look at all of our tweets!) and urged them to tweet back at the cast as the show progressed.

We didn’t know what to expect. We were hoping that people would jump on board, would start tweeting at the characters, and that they would create things like #teamMalvolio and #teamTobyBelch. Well, that didn’t happen. There were only a few people who actually tweeted back at us.

From looking around the audience during the performance, it was clear that there were a lot of people following along during the performance. Several people also favourited or retweeted what we posted. And even three days later, we are still having people following us at a much higher rate than we did before the event. We also received positive feedback from audience comments on our Twitter feed and in person.

Our first two activities didn’t push our audience to engage; they put the power in the hands of the audience by allowing them to engage with us in their own personal space. These activities allowed us to start earning the trust of our audience. Our live tweeting event already push the boundaries by asking them to participate in front of us and others, even if it was just following the twitter feed. Because we only wanted content-creating interaction, we lost sight of the fact that by participating in the event at the park, they were letting us know they trusted us, that they were willing to become more engaged and take that next step.

Our original expectations were unrealistic because we wanted more from our audiences than they were willing to give at that time. We should have seen this event as another stepping-stone towards a positive and meaningful relationship with our audience. For that reason, our measures of success should have been based on the number of followers we received and the number of people in the audience on the night of the event anonymously following our feed.

People are attached to their technological devices because they allow individuals a personal and unique experience with the world. They can choose their level of engagement with every post, every Like, every share, every tag – everything. People want that same personal experience in real life, too.

They also want to be able to choose how close they get to someone or something. We found ways to begin to build trust with our audiences through technology by letting them in, by letting them affect us. We tried not to push back; we tried not to demand a response. And when we did, they let us know they weren’t ready.

But it’s okay. We know that when they are ready, they will Like us.