On 7 February, Mari Thynne came to the Studio to give us an insight into her recent study of immersive theatre and pervasive media. She began the talk by mentioning that the word ‘Immersive’ has been seen as a contentious one, especially among some of the theatre makers she spoke to as part of the study. The talk, which included a discussion between three theatre makers, gave us an inkling of why this might be and discussed whether or not the challenges facing them in their field had changed due to the use of new technologies.

Before inviting Sharon Clark, Rik Lander and Rosie Poebright up for a discussion, Mari outlined her main findings from the study. She said that the more interviews she conducted with people, the more it became apparent to her that innovation is often found developing out of tensions. When people from different backgrounds approach one project, a convergence of two sets of ideas can lead to innovative methods of working. She also found that there are a growing number of hybrid identities emerging, as people undertake second jobs in small theatre companies, for example design, marketing or sound production. Mari also said she felt that due to the increase in digital innovation in theatre, the costs of theatre making is rising because experimentation with new technologies can be expensive.

Studio resident Duncan Speakman, who was sitting in the audience, then asked posed a question: ‘Are the tensions mentioned here in light of digital innovation any different from traditional tensions between a writer and performer, or a composer and player?’ This served as a catalyst to a lively debate, and the three theatre makers, Sharon, Writer and Creative Director of Raucous collective, Rik from U-Soap Media and Rosie, Head Architect of Splash and Ripple came up to the front to discuss the question.

Sharon felt that for her, the process of theatre making is more difficult than it had been years ago, given the emphasis on new technologies. Sharon found it challenging at first working in partnership with a creative technologist as the process of developing work was quite distinct from her usual practices. When making theatre Sharon ordinarily likes to get actors on stage very early on to workshop ideas, whereas for Director of Technology, Tom, the design process involves mapping things out on paper, prototyping and extensive testing. Sharon and Tom had to teach each other about their respective disciplines to find a common language with which to develop new work together. Rik said that he agreed with both Sharon and Duncan. He said that the tensions can be there, but that there is a difference in the collision between humans and software/hardware and clashes of character. Working with technology can often present solid limitations, or platforms. We are innovating around these limitations. There is a tension around language between different disciplines, and he has seen many hybrid identities emerge out of this. Rosie, who is not from a theatre background, but a real-world gaming one, agreed that for her, it is important to be master of many different trades. She said that the reason she feels so comfortable with this multi-faceted identity may be because she is from the hybrid next generation of theatre makers. She also feels that technology is not something to be feared; for her, emerging technologies are just another material to draw upon when making work.

Mandy Rose then asked whether these theatre makers had built, or were in the process of building a methodology considering audience participation. Rosie said that the experiences that she creates are interactive, not immersive, and she dislikes the latter term. Her experience of ‘immersive theatre’, where the participant is passively moving around a space has left her feeling uncomfortable, lost and useless. She said that the most natural way to draw people into a story is to make them the central protagonist, giving them a purpose. Rik then spoke about his experience of making The Memory Dealer. What he surmised from the audience feedback was that people enjoy theatrical experiences that are 'on rails' to a certain extent and you are guided through a story, but that also include a sense of discovery and agency. In The Memory Dealer some people voraciously scoured his sets for clues, others took a more voyeuristic, observational role in the narrative. He enjoys creating the conditions for both but this sort of variation in behaviour creates a challenge for theatre makers as the choreographer of a piece has to be extremely tightly planned to avoid people 'falling off' the rails and dropping out of the story world. Waiting at a scene for the previous participant to finish is a great example of this. Sharon spoke about a piece she had done, where they had projected a film of a game of poker onto a tabletop. Not given an indication of whether the experience was a passive or an active one, people started inspecting the table to find out how they could start playing the poker themselves. It is important to make sure that the audience know what their role is, and to give them a collective character in order for them to feel a part of the narrative.

Rik made the point that there has been resistance to the concept of using new technologies in every cultural branch. Publishing, for example, was resistant to e-books, now the field and the technology co-exist. Ending on an encouraging note, Rosie added that you don’t need a to have money or to go on a course to learn how to create interesting experiences for people, you just need to start making. You don’t need support or resources from larger institutions, there are so many ways to get stuck in using cheap and available technology. You can make interactive theatre with no budget using a mobile; a technology that the majority of your audience will have already.