After watching the Builder’s Association’s production of “House/Divided,” I feel like I have a new prospective on media in performance. The performance was filled with media, using it as the set, but also as a featured character. The presence of media in the mortgage crisis was a pivotal difference from the Depression era, to which this financial era was compared. The Depression era was brought into the story using the classic novel “Grapes of Wrath,” by John Steinbeck. While in that time the story of financial wo was spread by this novel, something everyone in that time period read and felt deep in their core to ring true with themselves and their surroundings, this era uses media to explain their troubles. All over the news, media announces the very personal struggles of the millions. Whether on the televised news, the papers, blogs (another revolution that is only used very lately), or radio, the pain is everywhere in the media, while in the Depression era there was less ability to spread news, as there were fewer media through which the news could travel.

The play compared this financial crisis to the Depression, which is not a far leap. But an additional difference that was made is the presence of corporations. These are businesses which often employ thousands of workers – workers who rarely have any choice to do anything but their job. There is no opportunity for kindness. As mentioned in the after-show discussion, the scene in which the cruel man from the Depression times lends the poor mother a nickel for sugar would be impossible in this era. The workers at big corporations could not offer assistance unless there are commands from higher up. It is much like soldiers often have no idea what they are doing when they work in an operation, they merely listen to their commander for orders, hoping that those above them know what they are doing. 

This play reinforced my support of Auslander, that is, media can enhance performance. I think that the idea this play was using, bringing in media to show the difference between the individual story and the massive companies, was brilliant and stark. On the other hand, much like the woman who fervently argued against the play’s ability to reach the audience, I think that the production could have been pared down quite a bit to emotionally connect with the audience. This follows the Phelan view, and though the play utilized media well, I think there needs to be a balance so that the audience is not over-stimulated.

Meira

It is clear that the Builder’s Association attempted to create a play where media have a pivotal role in the storytelling. They sought to present the plights of Americans during the Dust Bowl in the context of the modern economic slump. The presence of media was very evident in “House/Divided”. Images and live video feed of the performer was often projected onto the stage throughout the performance. Media was used in other interesting ways as well. In the performance, narration of The Grapes of Wrath was provided in the form of prerecorded voice audio. The actors also had to actively spin the reel for the narration to play. Although these dynamic forms of media were put alongside the live acting in order to enhance the performance, the play did not completely succeed in this respect.

As Auslander suggests, media can be used to improve the experience of live performance if used correctly. However, in the case of “House/Divided”, media only served to distort the already confusing plot of the play. Although media was used in surprising and interesting ways, it still took away from the performance. I do not necessarily agree with Phelan’s view that media should be kept separate from performances, but in this case, he is right. The premise of the play was seemingly nonintuitive and hard to follow as it jumped back and forth from the past to the present. The addition of media only added to this confusion, and as a result, I was lost. I would have understood “House/Divided” better if it had been presented in a more traditional fashion, free of media.

House/Divided was definitely a unique experience, but, honestly, I was too drawn into the content of the performance to note any differences mediatization may have brought about.  The fact that this mediatized performance was happening live seemed, to me, just like any other ordinary live play, dance or theatrical performance.  My take on the issue of live vs. virtual coincides with the mesmerizing effect any present event can have on an audience. In that sense, I agree with Phelan’s argument that a “performance’s life is in the present”, but that the essence of visualizing the event in the present place and time isn’t adulterated with the addition of media; it is rather enhanced.

Builder’s Association’s House/ Divided was really an amalgam of film and play.  As the actors played out their parts, some of them were projected on the screen for dramatization.  This kind of projection on screen is comparable to live concerts that make visible the important parts of the stage to the audiences sitting farther away. I think that the Association brought the book, Grapes of Wrath, alive in that they added a narrative voice and chronicled the journey of the Joad family to California in the wagon by providing images of the fields and sky on the screen. Had this been done without the projection of images, we would have only seen and heard the actors’ dialogue. So, mediatization actually captured the crucial voice of the narrator that dominates most of the book. Auslander does make an important point about the use of modern technology being inevitably incorporated into the performances. The present economic crisis wouldn’t have been depicted properly if media weren’t used. For example, the news anchors reporting the status of stock markets and the green screen with numbers associated with the market couldn’t have been accomplished without the use of technology. We even saw in Pina Baush’s performance the projection of waves on the screen in one of the segments. Builder’s Association was just displaying “behind-the-scenes” actions by having on stage the people in charge of making sound effects and the projections.  Even though I think Phelan rightfully points out the essence and effectiveness of live performances, I also agree with Auslander’s argument of performances reflecting the contemporary world that is, today, dominated by technology of the media.

“House/Divided” focused on the parallels between the modern housing and financial crisis and the 1930’s Dust Bowl, crops crisis, and Great Depression. It alternated between the Joad family from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath who, forced off their land by the bank, were forced to travel westward, facing death, poverty, and starvation; and the everyday families who now face foreclosure at the hands of irresponsible banking institutions. Each portion was heavy with personal as well as national tragedy.

Though both portions of the performance were heavy with multimedia, it was also mixed in with live, human performers. Live actors portrayed the Joad family, the bankers, and the families facing foreclosure. There was a huge, transformable house as a prop in the center of the stage. However, the media elements were prominent. Interview videos, booming music, and projections on top of the house of everything from a dilapidated modern house to the fields of the Midwest gave the blank canvas of the house a character and a story. Stock market tickers and telephone calls, as well as video conferences and large projections of the actors’ faces were also used.

I am strongly in the Phelan camp when it comes to the debate over media and “live” performance. I believe that media, while creative and sometimes beneficial to a performance, can ruin the live aspect of the work. Live performance is a privilege; it is sacred and unfiltered, unlike mediatized performance. The audience gets more of an experience with live than with mediatized performance. However, the directors took an Auslander view in this performance. Auslander believes that mediatized performance is just as “real” and “live” as truly live performance.

In this performance specifically, I felt that the media often overpowered the actors. While some of the media added to the emotional resonance of the piece, such as the compelling music and the telephone calls, other elements such as the voiceovers, the interviews, and the projections of the actors’ faces seemed to overshadow the human element of the work and made the characters mere digital images. The piece lacked the visceral connection to the human tragedy that truly occurred in both eras.

Nevertheless, though I was less than enamored with the mediatized section of the performance, I felt that there were some very strong elements to the piece that truly made me appreciate my home and my family. By placing the Joads in comparison with the modern housing crisis, it really hit home the idea that these types of tragedies still occur and are still affecting America. The post-performance discussion gave us a good look into the writers’ and directors’ minds and I gained a lot of insight into the theory behind this type of performance, which borders more on conceptual performance art than a play. The performance was a good experience in terms of my views on the “liveness” of medaitized performance. Though I am still strongly for Phelan’s view that live performance is more “true” than mediatized performance, I can see that some elements of media often help to enhance the performance.

Dixon writes of Auslander’s conviction that when an audience sees media and live performance combined, the mix does not create a dichotomous viewing experience, but that rather the two (media and live performance) blend and mesh. However, Auslander elaborates, it is true that one overpowers the other; as he says, “Dance + Virtual = Virtual.” I agree that media sucks in all other forms of performance and mediatizes them (acting also, not just dance, which Auslander focused on), as happened in “House/Divided.” In “House/Divided,” which employs live performance, recorded footage, digital ticker tape, and real-time live electronic projections of the performers, it really did feel as if the media overwhelmed the live performance and performers. Ausler makes an interesting conclusion (actually using an original thought of Phelan’s as the basis for his argument–he reversed her statement logically) that recording live performance metaphorically transforms it into television. This is a very accurate portrayal of how I felt watching “House/Divided,” especially when there were both performers and media present onstage; I felt that even though I saw the actors right there in front of me, they were but cogs in the media performance.

This play made me agree even more strongly with Phelan that there is nothing quite like a pure live performance. Even when I saw an actor moving and speaking, if that actor was recorded and projected onto one of the screens on stage, he or she felt less real, was less powerful. “House/Divided” proved to me that, indeed, recordings are not comparable o live performance, and that, as Pelan says, “Performance’s independence from . . . reproduction . . . is its greatest strength.” Though I very much enjoyed “House/Divided” and hope to see more performances like it in terms of media incorporation, I have gained a new appreciation for purely live, technology-free performances.

“House/Divided” compared the story of the Joad family from The Grapes of Wrath with the modern day financial and foreclosure crisis through the use of live performance and media.  The Joads were a family who was forced to leave their home and land in Ohio and travel to California to find work and a new life.  Their task is not very simple because they must also deal with death as well as little pay.  The modern day portion of the play consisted of someone being kicked out of their home and the financial workers and others involved in the crisis.  It also showed documentary-type interviews with people who lost their homes or were involved in the foreclosure process in some way.

The play involved aspects of live performance and media.  There were actors present portraying the Joad family as well as actors depicting a modern day man suffering from foreclosure and the people working in the financial and police departments.  There were also some physical props involved.  On the other hand, media was involved heavily in this performance.  The house was taken into the two different time periods with projections of houses in various conditions.  In addition to the videos of interviews shown, a loop of stock market numbers and images of the dustbowl were projected.  At other times, projections of the actors’ faces were shown larger on screen.

I tend to take a more Phelan approach to this situation because I do believe the live performance is livelier, more realistic, and overall a different experience than media.  Phelan says that a performances life is in the present and that media in any form makes the performance something different.  In my experience, I believe that live performances evoke more emotion from the audience.  Still, in some circumstances, I think it is possible to use media to support the live performance while not taking away from it.  In “House/Divided,” however, media was so much of a component that its creators had taken a more Austlander approach.  Austlander believed that media was just as “real” and important as live performance.  He used the analogy, Dance + Virtual = Virtual, and he supported this equation.

Ultimately, “House/Divided,” was a unique experience even though it was not the same as a completely live play would have been.  I think the use of media in some aspects was very original, for example the initial entrance of the house’s projection was great.  Although I do prefer a performance with more live aspects, I do not completely agree with the first woman who spoke in the discussion session.  Although the audience was not completely invested in a fleshed out storyline, I left with a feeling of appreciation my family and the house we are fortunate enough to have.

If we tried to harmoniously blend the trials and tribulations of the families who experienced the Dust Bowl with the current mortgage crisis that has been inflicting the entire nation as of late, we would probably get something close to the Builders Association’s “House/Divided”. Directed by Mirianne Weemes, “House/Divided” seeks to juxtapose the famous Joad family from John Steinbeck’s highly renowned The Grapes of Wrath with today’s financial mortgage crisis. Weemes and her colleagues produced this piece by incorporating media straight into the performance itself. This means that during the performance, scenes from real video clips were used as well as live videos of the actors and actresses speaking. These types of media were intermingled into the live-action play itself, and in all honesty, I’d have to say that it created too much tension and confusion for me to keep up with.

In saying that I did not like the media intermixing with the live performance, I am siding with the Phelan perspective from Dixon’s Liveness. Phelan’s perspective says that the media should be kept separate from live performance because it detracts from the piece as a whole. On the other hand, there is also the Auslander perspective which basically says that media and live performance can work fine together. In fact, Auslander states that “Dance + Virtual = Virtual”. This shows that Auslanders considerably favor media in live performances. However, in “House/Divided”, I believe that the media side only made me more confused. I didn’t even know the performers at the end of the play! By using media heavily in the piece, Weemes did layout a lot of information that could have otherwise been unknown, but with too media, the play became more diluted, and I felt like it was more a television documentary with some living people performing on the side.

I am not aiming to bash “House/Divided” because I am probably too uninformed about both the Dust Bowl and the current financial crisis to even have a say. However, from an outsider’s perspective who doesn’t know anything at all, I must say that I did not truly grasp the concept of “wrath” or anything of the sort. I wouldn’t go so far as to completely side with the older woman who first commented during the after-show talk; however, I would say that the older woman’s point was valid. I mean, the play as a whole was enjoyable– the props were nice, the see-through house was cool, and the use of media was very modern– but I cannot say that the play as a whole was successful.