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.
Faryal presents a strong argument about the harmonization of media and live performance in “A House Divided,” but I found myself lost in the over-presentation of technology in the play. It is clear that the writers meant to connect the financial crisis of today to the Great Depression, but I felt that the use of live backdrops and background music took away from the performance itself. However, I think this really only applies to the segments dealing with scenes from “The Grapes of Wrath,” because media was necessary to accurately depict the world of today.
I have to side with the Phelan camp in saying that live performances have a power, essence, and effectiveness that mediatized performances lack. The many different screens and effects overshadowed the actual performers and it was difficult for me to focus all of my attention on the actors/actresses with everything else going on. Something that helped the performance, however, is the simultaneous presentation of a recorded version of some of the dialogues and monologues. At first, I couldn’t tell if there was a live camera connected to the screen, but after a while, I realized that the actors and actresses were timing their performance with the video above. That made it easier to connect with the emotion of the performers and it actually helped me focus on the actor/actress instead of distracting me.
In short, I would much rather see a traditional, painted backdrop, regular props and manual set changes sort of play than one as mediatized as “A House Divided.”