Click here to download the full color original onesheet description.
The High Concept:
Audiences will have the power to create their own experience within a play by delving into a stream-of-conciouness narrative of one of the three characters on stage. This structure will create an experience with a high potential for repeat viewing (an area in which theatre currently falls short), and creates an individual journey for each audience member who participates.
The
Scriptwriting Process:
Download Final Draft: The Virgin Island [Copyright '02, H. Howe]
Now that we've got a blue-sky idea, how do we go about implementing it with current (ideally off-the-shelf) technology? In late September, we prepared a comparison of the various technologies we could use to bring our ideas to life. The two biggest areas of contention:
Video or Audio Transmissions? What kinds of devices can audience members use for focus-switching between actors?We created an "Exploration of the Technologies" in order to fully assess what was feasible and desirable within the constraints of an ETC project.Transmission:We want to transmit the "soliloquies" via audio. Video technologies just aren't at the price point yet to make them feasible for an entire audience.
Audio Options:Option: Cost: Quality: Difficulty: Extensibility: Streaming Audio Expensive
[1 computer/guest]Medium High High Infrared Listening Very Expensive
[$3500/4 channels]Highest Low Low FM Radio Transmitter Low
[$80/transmitter]Low-Medium Medium* Low After investigating all of the options (and taking some feedback and ideas from previous Open Houses), we decided that FM Radio transmissions would be the way to go. It has its drawbacks - namely, low audio quality and the need to build custom receivers on the audience handheld devices - but it gives us a cordless solution, and it's much less expensive than our other option.
For this purpose, we have purchased three FM transmitters [see below] (after attempting to build our own at a much lower cost).
It should be noted that shows with many actors and/or shows in a densely urban setting might have difficulty finding usable bandwidth for interference-free transmission. Changing venues will most likely require a re-scanning of the spectrum and resetting the stations we choose.
From left: Our transmitter as sold, and our ghetto "transmission tower"
Trade-offs for our radio solution:
Weak transmission ability requires small venue
30 ft maximum line-of-sight transmission distance to audience- Movement of people between transmitter and receiver causes frequency shifts
- May prevent or hinder reception by audience
- Requires us to prohibit "extra" audience members
- Certain electronic devices cause interference on all transmitted stations
- We must minimize the amount of extra equipment we use, and all audience devices such as cell phones must be turned off prior to performance
- Low sound fidelity (one or two guests complained about this during pilot tests) - can't get rid of white noise
Voice Recording Sessions In Purnell: November 7th & 8th![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Above: Actors Ethan Hova and Jenny Gamell record their "thoughts"Focus-Switching:
We want something that won't have a steep learning curve and that won't prove frustrating to an average guest while allowing them to swap their audio "focus" seamlessly between actors. We wanted to use an infrared system that combines a bit of "attention tracking" with a bit of a remote control metaphor.
However, after the Open House and some discussions with faculty member Jesse Schell, we realized that the myriad problems associated with tuning an infrared system might be insurmountable in the time we have. Rather than marry our experiment in non-linear theatrical storytelling to a fragile technology, we decided to keep things as simple as possible.
During performances of The Virgin Island, audience members will switch between actors by pressing buttons on their remote devices. The remote devices are simply small consumer radios [Sony model SRF-M35, see left] with their presets mapped to the frequencies we've chosen for the actor thought broadcasts.
In order to keep people concentrating on the story and not the device, we've created a themed container for each of the radios.
From left: Our custom themed container, and the setup on the chairs
Once all of the parts of the production came together, we began a quick and dirty pilot audience test to answer some of our most pressing research questions - and, of course, the meta-question: "Does the show work?"
Download a blank copy of the Pilot Audience Survey [.DOC]
First Pilot Audience: December 2nd, 8:00 PM
- Show Conditions:
- Radios, no themed containers
- Bare-bones set
- Some reception problems on Leslie's channel
- Pilot Audience Demographics:
- 6 guests - 5 male, 1 female
- All CMU students or recent grads
- No ETC students
- Some with a theater background. Varying disciplines. (CS, Writing, etc.)
Findings from first audience:
View a copy of the Pilot Audience Survey Summary in HTML
Download a copy of the Pilot Audience Survey Summer #1 [.DOC]
- Big Wins:
- Every participant was highly interested in seeing another production using the same technology.
- Audience felt the production could have been longer
- Didn't feel too overloaded or exhausted; they wanted more.
- High interest in a repeat viewing of the same production
- (money making!)
- Audience felt the technology was easy to learn and use
- No one said that they had a hard time keeping track of what was going on onstage.
- Interesting notes:
- Seemingly no direct correlation between "interesting onstage", "interesting thoughts", and "listened to the most". This seems to indicate a willingness to experiment with the technology on the part of the audience.
- Some people expressed a desire to hear *all* thoughts at once.
- Reactions to the "someone else is laughing" problem are much less problematic than originally thought
- Some said they ignored it
- Some specifically tried to stay on one channel
- A few changed channels
- Some said they felt left out, others specifically said they didn't feel left out.
- One audience member noted that they thought it might be better to have live actors doing the thoughts or convey the thoughts using cue cards
- Interesting quotes:
- "The listening in added to the sense of voyeurism that plays already possess - it's a complete picture."
- "The technology was a little frustrating because I couldn't hear everything at once."
- "Very interesting concept. I would definitely be interested in seeing more.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Set & Lighting![]()
![]()
Top row: Original set design
Bottom row: Final set and lighting design, 12/05/02
Character
Sketches
|
|||
Final Leslie #1
|
Final Leslie #2
|
Final Jesus
|
Final Mark #1
|
|
|
![]() |
|
PR Design
|
|
The Virgin Island: Logo >> Designed for use on programs, posters, and any publicity about the production. |
|
|
<<
TVI Teaser/Poster
Designed for use in
publicizing the show's existence and date to interested parties around
campus. |
Regarding the production:
- Shouldn't have left some things to the last minute (of course)
- CD/Minidisc/Computer playback question
- Performance of transmitters in the space
- Use everything that you have at your disposal
- Tinfoil, projection screen...
- We could have started guest testing earlier
- Was tremendously helpful and generated great enthusiasm, even for a theatrical production
Regarding the technology:
- Projects aren't like cookies!
- They're not always better when you make them from scratch (transmitter, receivers)
- Radio sound quality really is pretty awful
It's asking too much to get live actors completely timed
We need human playback operators
Regarding the experience:
This storytelling method seems to hold up under pressure
Audiences want more, and they want longer experiences Shouldn't be afraid of pauses in the action; it helps the audience explore
People are willing to forgive some technology problems if they like the concept
Make sure the concept is solid! Strong interest in repeat viewing among test audiences Seemed to be a gender difference in interpretation of the script Today's audiences may be ready for more ambitious interactive theater Audience dynamic:
While they're watching, audience members feel "like they're watching TV" After the experience, they feel more compelled to talk to each other & discuss their unique perspectives
| Milestone | Date(s) | Complete? |
| Concept Development | October 1st - 15th | Yes |
| First Draft of Script Due | October 15th | Yes |
| Casting Completed | October 18th | Yes |
| First Read-Through of Script | Monday, October 21st | Yes |
| Rehearsals Begin | Wednesday, October 23rd | Yes |
| Order Prototype Materials | Friday, November 1st | Yes |
| Final Draft of Script Completed | Tuesday, November 5th | Yes |
| Inner Monologue Vocal Recordings Due | Sunday, November 10th | Yes |
| Technology Prototypes Due | Wednesday, November 13th | Yes |
| Begin Pilot Audience Testing | Thursday, November 21st | Yes (late) |
| Final Technology Delivery | Wednesday, November 27th | Yes |
| Load-In (Set & Tech) | Sunday, December 1st | Yes |
| Tech Rehearsals / Pilot Audiences | December 2nd - 3rd | Yes |
| Dress Rehearsals | December 4th | Yes |
| Public Performances | December 5th - 7th | Yes |
| External Exhibitions | December 11th | Yes |