November 14, 2007

Settling – the headphones

John Smythe      posted 24 Oct 2007, 11:16 PM

The question is: do the headphones in Settling (the BATS/STAB show) intensify the state in which we engage with live theatre, add a whole new dimension or rob it of an essential component?

In my experience the business of learning how to use them creates a sense of community in direct to the alienation from the other members of the audience that wearing the headphones goes on to create. Then again, having to watch the red light and remember to take the headphones off when it goes off has a touch of Brecht’s alienation effect about it too.

It’s tempting to say the headphones are an unnecessary intrusion – or is that just a reactionary response that is resistant to the benefits they bring?

stephen gallagher            posted 25 Oct 2007, 07:41 AM / edited 26 Oct 2007, 04:40 PM

Greetings John,

Thank you for attending Settling.

I think you have raised an important question here.

In your opinion, what is the essential element of the theatrical experience that the headphones possibly rob you of?

John Smythe      posted 25 Oct 2007, 10:21 AM / edited 26 Oct 2007, 04:41 PM

Fair question, Stephen.  By interval – after putting up with quite a bit of static on my headphones – I was feeling the technology intruded rather than enhanced. I also felt the communal experience live theatre offers, which we easily take for granted, was diminished when we withdrew so far into our own head-spaces.

But in the second half, with a properly adjusted headset and therefore no preoccupation with it, the extra intimacy of the engagement became a plus. And the contrast between the ‘cans on’ (usually when all we have to look at is the backs of actors sitting at microphone to ‘broadcast’ live) and the ‘cans off’ sequences (when interaction occurs in a more standard theatrical manner) accentuated the value of both.

So, does this mean all live theatre should consider using this technology?  I think not because audience empathy and imagination remain the strongest means of engagement, and our active participation in drawing ourselves into the ‘make believe’ is instrumental in giving us satisfaction when we feel rewarded for making the effort.  A good sound system with well-placed speakers can probably do as much as the headphones technology does – and it’s more in the control of professional technicians.

If, however, different audience members were getting different sound experiences at times … now that would justify the use of headphones ….

These are my thoughts so far.  Time for others to have their says.

Melody Nixon    posted 26 Oct 2007, 12:44 PM / edited 26 Oct 2007, 04:41 PM

I agree that the headphones have the potential to alienate, because of the reasons you have outlined here and because too of the effect of a sort of cinematic realism they created which, together with the lighting produced a more focused, narrow world.

But I think if any alienation occured it was an alienation from the rest of the audience, rather than from the performance on stage. Personally I found that – counter-intuitively – the headphones allowed me to better project myself into the space, and enhanced the realism of the piece – a bit like being projected into a very personal, sensory dream, which by being less naturalistic (in a traditional theatrical sense) actually felt more ‘real’. It seemed to me too that the dialogue between cast and audience became more personal and 1 on 1, particularly through the radio-style sequences which created a cosy, intimate feeling reminiscient of late nights beside the wireless in one’s own kitchen, for example, and this too enhanced my engagement with the production.

On the issue of audience community – In a way the technology is perhaps honing in on our habituation to being cinematic audience members, highly individualised and ‘alone in our own worlds’ – but I don’t think this is to the detriment of the ‘community’ experience. This is  probably quite a contestable issue, but as an audience member I find my experience is usually a rather personal and highly individualised one anyway, in most ‘black box’ theatre I attend – unless the production goes to special lengths to engage with the audience through direct address, alienation effect or physical movement, etc. Hence the need to ask my companion afterwards: so how did you find it?

It is a kind of a paradox in a way – that through more technology and cables and effects, we would reach something closer to the ‘real’ – but hey, whatever gets you there. I think there’s room for it in theatre as in other mediums, provided strong theatrical elements are retained – as was the case in this production, with the humour, physical movement and use of props.

steve dean          posted 26 Oct 2007, 11:02 PM

I think they had a potential, especially if each audience members received a different soundtrack.

At first I thought that was maybe the point of the headphones constantly going off signal onto random

nearby radio stations but it sounds as if John got a properly adjusted pair for the second half and that

was not the case. They worked well to alienate us. Sadly the loud buzzing and feedback from the

headsets rendered us headachey and we (mypartner had the same problem) couldn’t face the second

half despite being interested in the characters  and story.  I might go back for just the 2nd half.

Steve

Hannah Clarke   posted 29 Oct 2007, 09:48 AM

Thanks for the feedback, when you do come back for the second half Steve, you shouldn’t get any through your headphones!

This weekend we installed a different transmitter that means a stronger and clearer signal to the headphones – so its easier to tune in and doesn’t roam as much – meaning you can move your head and not worry about losing the sound and really focus in on the show. It also means less static in-between broadcasts during the performances.

The joys of experiment and innovation! Thanks to STAB we’ve been able to hone and refine our intentions.

Having seen Settling with and without the headphones, personally, I love the intimacy the headphones allow. I really feel like I’m getting inside the lives of the characters and just as I’ve settled into scenes like Malcolm and Sarah in bed, gotten caught up in it and forgotten I’m surrounded by 70 other people, I’m pulled out and reminded that I’m watching a story, almost Brechtian you might say. For me the play stands alone and the headphones serve to take you further into the stories, therefore adding not detracting from the show. (But I suppose I might be biased..)

I look forward to hearing what this weeks audience think with our clearer signal.

stephen gallagher            posted 29 Oct 2007, 10:03 AM

…if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be research…

Michael Wray    posted 4 Nov 2007, 01:29 PM

After I while, I dispensed with my headphones completely. As someone who wears glasses I find headphones uncomfortable after periods of time as the headphones press against the arms of the glass frames. I would put up with this if I thought the headphones added something that I would otherwise miss, but I didn’t find them necessary. I put them back on was for the whispered bed-scenes, as they were useful for hearing the dialogue clearly in those instances. With the soundtrack in the headphones being the same as what was either being said live or broadcast over the auditorium speaker, I didn’t think the headphones a requirement for my enjoyment of the show.

Gil Eva Craig       posted 14 Nov 2007, 01:04 PM / edited 15 Nov 2007, 09:15 AM

it might be a bit late, but anyway…. I was involved with Patrick Davies show ‘the dumb waiter’ , which by coincidence also required the audience to wear headphones. I was contracted to mentor the sound designer and I sourced and installed the audio system. I didn’t get to see ‘settling’, so can’t comment obviously in the context of that production.

With ‘the dumb waiter’ the reasons for using the headphones were different. The play was staged in the Great Hall at Massey, which is so hugely reverberant a sneeze sounds like an explosion, and Patrick used the loading pit as the stage so the audience were seated above, looking down into the pit. The actors were miked. Patricks reason for headphones were twofold: he wanted to pull the audience in to the drama in a way that suggested survelience and voyeurism, and secondly, as a way of working around the horrendous acoustic issues of the great hall. I felt the headphones did intensify the engagement: as the sighing breathing, and mutterings from the actors were so close and immediate, and because the microphones picked up movement sounds made by the actors (paper rustling etc) there was automatic foley. It was weirdly intimate as you don’t usually hear that much ‘body detail’ in your day to day dealings with people.

As a practical measure, it was possible to hear the dialogue without the phones, but a real strain. Having the audience strain to listen can be used as a way of pulling them in, but after a short time it becomes tiring, and in those situations I personally get grumpy and resentful then switch off. Then usually leave. The headphones provided much needed vocal intelliigibility which to me is the number one priority in spoken drama, both in sound design and in sound reproduction. The headphones didnt completely isolate the listener from the environment tho, you could still hear the reverb spill from the environment so there was still this connection to the room. Anyway, thought I would throw this into the discussion: another approach to the audience headphone thing….

Gil Craig