Faces

Since remote theatre is so new, we're having to invent some of the terminology to talk about it. And already in the writing of these posts we've encountered a problem. We've been referring to traditional theatre as 'face-to-face theatre' (to distinguish it from theatre mediated through a screen) and yet, paradoxically faces are actually something which may be somewhat lacking from the traditional way of working.

We all know that acting is so much about what happens in the eyes and mouths of the actors but, because of the distance between the stage and the audience, in face-to-face theatre it's often really difficult to see the faces of the actors in detail, or for that matter the detail of anything. Unless it's a very small theatre, the only way for this to happen is if the actors get down from the stage and go and sit next to someone in the audience, (or, as sometimes happens in comedy, on their lap!) thereby only providing one audience member with a close up view. Another way in which face-to-face theatre gets round this problem is by the actors using exaggerated movements and expressions and projecting their voices artificially.  

In remote theatre (like in film) none of these things are necessary. A single face could fill the whole screen and could be seen in more detail than if that person was sitting on your lap. Similarly voices, even whispered ones, can be heard without projection, providing the actor is close enough to the microphone and the equipment is of sufficient quality.

The image below is a screenshot from an early piece of remote theatre called ‘The screen’ - performed by young people in Gaza. If you watch the full recording (available here) you’ll see how dependent on close ups of facial acting it is. In fact, the more I do remote theatre, the more I feel that faces are an essential component of the art form. What do you think?