notes from marathon feedback 2nd Aug:

These are just a few thoughts I had noted down, hoping that they will be completed by dona and martins feedback notes and questions…

There is a notion of fake interactivity throughout all of the scenes, because we have set up the instructions too tightly. Some people felt they were doing us a service to complete the performance. This seemed to be only justified because we were engaged enough in the action to value this input. Others noted that when they had completed their tasks, they would have wanted to stay and watch or stay and play but didn’t have the chance to. Another key concern seemed entrance and exits for the spectators. This seems to stem from the fact that we drop everything we do when they enter and that most of the audience members felt we wanted them to leave at certain points. The moment just before the spectator takes of the blindfold is the most undefined and most uncomfortable place. This could be a good thing if worked with, but at the moment it just seems very unsatisfying at both ends.
Most spectators we spoke with expressed the wish to be more involved, given more freedom. This could happen through simpler, clearer instructions in an open time frame, so the spectator can choose if, when and how long they wish to be involved. This brings back logistic problems of timing and lengths of scenes but also encourages thinking again about the whole thing as one performance that people join in and drop out of rather than a series of scenes. One of the instructions that seemed to be clear and simple enough to channel the spectators awareness into detail, but also allow to give a good degree of freedom within the scene to them was the film a specific body part of a performer. This one seems to be giving and taking responsibility in a good balance.

A thought came up in the after-talks of the marathon was the idea of a third room that isn’t filmed, that gives the chance for people to disappear, things to happen unseen and hidden experiences to go back into the group. I’m not sure if or how this could be realised but would like to bring it up as an option to discuss next time we meet.

Another clear outcome of the feedback for me was the wish for a collective experience for the audience, something that brings their experiences and their questions together, some kind of conclusion or container. Including the watching/waiting room into this thought, and maybe for a second experiment the possibility to work with a closed, smaller group of spectators, I feel we have the possibility to connect their own actions and choices with those of others. I know we are far from completing a task like this, but working with a set up that allows the spectators to function as a group in the watching room (in terms of the choices they make about going in) and as individuals for both themselves and for that group in the performance room could be a next step. I think it is impossible to speak about real interactivity, intimacy and the idea of negotiating the story (dare I say it) with the audience if we don’t manage to find a way to allow, within our given framework, each performance to resolve in their own conclusion specific to the meeting of performers and audience of that specific evening.