|
The Collective Experience of the Audience
by June Abernathy
What is "collective experience"? In my definition, it is the "givens" that the
author, director, and the rest of the
creative staff of a show, are assuming the audience knows. These may be topical
or political issues, like
Watergate, or WWII, or trends such as the miniskirt or punk rock.
Sometimes an author is counting on the audience's familiarity with an earlier
theatrical production or movie. All
parodies, for instance, assume that we are somewhat familiar with the original
- otherwise, the parody has no
meaning. But, it could be argued, a well made parody will succeed on it's own,
and have an added dimension
for those who "get" the joke. Certainly the infamous Looney Tunes Opera
Parodies and celebrity characatures
succeed in this aim.
But, I believe that most authors are counting on at least most of the audience
having some common points of
reference. Shakespeare's audiences, for instance, (even the illiterate
groundlings) could be expected to have a
passing familiarity with the Bible and certain Church of England rituals, as
well as a working knowledge of at
least the high points of British history to that time, including which King
succeeded which, and the rules
governing succession. He wrote with this in mind. Part of learning to read and
dissect Shakespeare now means,
for most of us, having to learn all or some of this.
In the same way, Broadway authors (often unconciously) write with certain
"givens" in mind concerning the
common knowledge base of their audience. Sometimes this misfires - When Into the Woods
premeired, for instance,
Lapine and Sondheim were said to be amazed at the number of people who were NOT
familiar with the basic
fairy tales. They assumed that the basic plots
of Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood, et al, were
common knowledge. They wrote (at
least originally) with this thought in mind. Certainly, Sondheim and Weidman
were assuming that the audience
had some basic knowledge of American history when they wrote Assassins.
Certainly most works can be enriched by having certain knowledge. If you were
familiar with the "Seven
Deadly Sins", then you would have a certain advantage at Getting Away With
Murder. If you were
familiar with pontilist artwork, then Sunday In The Park With George would have
a deeper
meaning. But were the authors assuming that you had such knowledge?
The explosion of television, telecommunications, and computers, turning the
world into a "global gillage",
was supposed to homogenize the world - in effect, making everyone's "collective
experience" much more
similar to his neighbors. In reality, pretty much the opposite has happened.
The fact is, there are very few things (books, plays, songs, news events, etc.)
that can truly be said to be a
universal part of the knowledge and experience of the "average" theatre goer
any more. I
don't think this makes any one group smarter or more sophisticated than
another, unless you
define sophistication to mean a breadth of experience. Still, who is to say
that any one "sophisticated" person's
experience will neccessarily contain the touchstones neccessary for a truly
informed viewing of an author's
work?
The best crafted work, whether it be My Fair Lady or The Muppet Show,
will have elements that work at many different levels of comprehension. One may
be deeper than another, but
not neccessarily more valid.
|