Study of Projection in Theatre and Live Performance

[MORRG]

Hi,

 

As part of my final year of study at the Central School of Speech and Drama I am studying the role and use of projection in live performance. The title of my research is:

 

Should projection be a discipline which is allocated as an extra responsibility for an existing department such as lighting or set design or should it have its own entirely separate department with their own set of responsibilities?

 

Obviously the answer to this question depends on the constraints of each production but I would value any comments in response to the question.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Matt

[ampcats]

I think that is a no-brainer - but would like to see arguments against my views.

 

The number of DECENT set guys that know anything above where to put the mains plug in an R12 is probably only a little smaller than the number of DECENT powerpoint / lighting engineers that know that the pointy end of the screw goes into the wood. The argument that VT ops do DIY is equalled by the set guy wiring up his PC or Hi-Fi...

 

The fact that in the smaller companies people multi-task is not forgotten, but that is usually the engineers holding up panels for the set guy to screw together, or set guys coiling up cables / laying out mains or floor lights

 

while projection is the one task that relies on the others more than the other way round; set - hole for screen / installation of screen and LX - "please don't put those movers right next door to the projector!" and "can you run these 2 cables and a non-dim to the middle there while you are wiring up all your lamps, please!"; it is not a task that should be delegated entirely to one or the other.

 

also, projection is frequently split into 2 parts - the installation / line up / VT mixing / replay side and the powerpoint / director / content side - each handled by a separate person. on busy events / TV production this number can rocket into 10 or more plus cameramen

[thcousins]

I agree with ampcats,

 

I think some venues already have an AV/projection dept.

I guy I studied with a fair few years back is now working at the NT in their AV dept. (or so I am told!)

 

Tom

[mac.calder]

Whether you split AV into a separate department is largely dependant on a huge range of factors.

 

For example, let's look at small 'art house' type spaces. They seat between 60 and 350 or so people. Typical black box arrangement. Average cast size between 2 and 15. This is basically where I do a large portion of my paid gigs. Crew is usually 2 set construction/builders, 1 sound op, 1 LX op, 1 SM, 1 ASM. Designers: LX, Set, Sound, AV. Unlike ampcats, I usually split the whole process into 3 stages. Design, Setup, Show.

 

9/10 times, it happens something like this:

Stage 1: design. AV is self contained. AV designer develops everything, passing on the memo to set that they need a screen, LX that they need a projector in pos. X, sound that they will need two channels of audio

Stage 2: setup. Set put up screen (fly or static), LX install projector and run leads, AV designer set's up equiptment, and sound jacks them into the board.

Stage 3: show. LX often operates AV's equiptment, starting the video files (either through SMPTE, MIDI, DMX or the good old fashioned use of a finger), sound controls volume into the mix.

 

I rarely do anything pro outside of black box spaces and small pros. arch venues (which operate much the same), so I really cannot comment on how it works on larger shows.

 

It is my opinion that projection has not yet found it's niche inside the 'theatrical medium' - unlike lighting and sound, which are often quite 'subtle' effects (when designed properly), AV is almost always glaringly obvious - lights dim, sound stops, we focus on the projection (which is quite the opposite to the music industry which has really begun to use video in clever ways). When that niche is found, I think it will become so much more prevalent (as opposed to the lone av cue that is often seen) that AV will carve itself out a name as a separate department (like it has in the music industry) as opposed to it's current floating in no mans land.

[dbuckley]

It is my opinion that projection has not yet found it's niche inside the 'theatrical medium'...

I think you are absolutely correct.

 

Outside of multimedia specials, there is very little material for "stage with screens", by which I mean the script describes the the content, but you have to believe that in time it will come. Of course, there will be a higher bar to perform these works, as AV integrationis mandatory, no AV, cant do the show.

[thcousins]

AV is almost always glaringly obvious - lights dim, sound stops, we focus on the projection

If done badly then yes!

 

I have worked on and seen many shows where projection is intergated into the performance, not bolted on.

 

Most of this is in a modern dance environment, where LCD projectors are used as fixtures, to light walls, set elements and even the floor.

 

An example of this is a show called Rumble(see 1st video) which is touring at the moment, when the dancers 'interact' with the projection, and this projection forms an integral part of the set!

[MORRG]

This is great stuff keep it coming. It is my view and the position I am taking for writing up the report that projection needs its own group of people who are trained in the creation of the media and saying where the projector should be rigged, screen materials and size etc but these people for the time being will still be handing over the rigging and operation to existing departments(usually lx) until as someone already said projection finds its niche.

 

Thanks to everyone who is contributing its providing brilliant opinions to support my argument and making me think more about what is actually happening at the moment in the industry which will help me to write up my study.

 

Thanks, Matt

[ampcats]

thcousins - time for me to agree with you!

 

projection has been known to be a possible feature to shows as far back as starlight express (opened '84) with moving and folding projection screens.

 

The fact is that only in the last 5 years has projecting been within the budget of smaller shows due to both the lowered cost of the projectors themselves, and not needing to hire somebody who understands the dark art of the barco and selco CRT menu system (a blurry mist to a few, and an unknown joy to the remainder reading this).

 

a similar thing happened in lighting - the Vari*lite was for the few, then came the Clay Paky & MACs - and quite often the moving light tech only run movers while there was another tech who did the generics (I remember running the house celco 30 at Grosvenor house, while the VL op was twiddling his thimbs next to me) - and although less frequent, it still happens at times.

 

As far as controlling Video from MIDI / DMX / GPI etc is concerned, the playback devices concerned usually cost a fair bit more than a finger, and additional pre production is usually requiired to convert / edit the 'final' videotape to a format the playback device requires in addition to any signal processing / video mixing to live camera image etc.

 

2p in pot...

 

 

QUOTE

still be handing over the rigging and operation to existing departments(usually lx)

 

 

which brings up the 'riggers are not LX' argument - showing that riggers have not found their niche in small theatre yet.... In large events, and due to H&S, increasingly so in smaller venues, they are certainly a niche department - it is not always just LX that need points put in or things 'rigged'... flown roofs / set pieces and hung speaker arrays weighing in at up to several hundred kilos are keenly avoided by most LX crews not wanting anything to do with something that might pull the mains cable out of it's socket if it should jump off that bar it is hung on and clamped to and safety'd to like a 2 kilo parcan!

 

A.

[Tom]

Should projection be a discipline which is allocated as an extra responsibility for an existing department such as lighting or set design or should it have its own entirely separate department with their own set of responsibilities?

Speaking as a Production Manager, certainly projection (or other use of video in live performance) most definitely needs to be considered as a separate element of a production. Whether it requires it's own department is going to depend on what you're trying to do and the size (both physically and financially) of the production / production company.

 

What it does require though (if you're going to do it well) is:

I)somebody to decide on, design and/or create the content.

ii)somebody to spec the kit and it's positioning

iii)both of the above to be worked into the rest of the creative design process (set / lighting/ sound)

iv)Money - to pay for the above

v)Time - to create the content and set up the kit but most importantly to tech it's use.

 

All of the above can often be covered by existing departments with existing kit but not always. Many theatre directors and designers are now falling back on projection to solve problems for them but often without appreciating the time, money and resources it can take up.

 

Slightly :blink:

The best use I've seen recently of projection in a production was in Robert Lepage's Anderson Project at the Barbican earlier this year.

This included a curved screen in/onto which the actor (Mr Lepage himself) walked - hard to explain but have a look at image 11 on His Web Site. The stairway is projected and kept up with him as he "walked" up it.

[WillW]

I do mostly student productions, although (by student standards) relatively large scale ones, and in my experience every time the projection has been left the responsibility of lighting/sound/stage crew it has either been disticinctly under-par or has distracted those people from the roles they should have been doing. The most succesful AV involving show I've been involved in was a show at the Fringe last year. My job title was technically Technical Director, but everything else was delegated to good crew leaving me to focus on quite a complicated video rig (made doubly complicated by the fact that being the fringe most of it it had to come apart every day). So yes, except in the case where crew/budget restricts somebody independently running AV is a Good Thing .

 

WillW

 

ps. The most effective use of video I have seen was the Coast of Utopia at the National Theatre. Their entire backdrop was projected (including doors) and curved round the back of the stage in the Olivier. It was composed of 3D rendered landsapes that the camera 'flew' into as the lights came up, and did even more cunning things like having the view rotate in sync with the revolve turning the view from house to lake as we change which set of actors we are seeing.

[timperrett]

The title of my dissertation at Bruford last year was along similar lines to yours, except I was focusing more on the creative role that projection has in performance, but obviously the people who do it did come into it a fair amount. I have also had experience of working with projection in performance from operator, designer and content creator both amature and professionally.

 

When I worked with Jon Driscoll (who is also A lighting designer) he came up with much of the concept for the projection side of the production (what he terms as 'the treatment'), working as one of the members of the core creative team along side the lighting designer Paul Anderson (who is obviously used to working with projection from his Theatre de Complicite work with Chris Shutt). Jon then had along side him film editor specialist Richard Overall who assisted him in editing and treating the content; an additional cameraman for the shoot; an experienced Catalyst programmer (Spooky), who programmed the Hog500; and myself as the projectionist who than ran also the show and did some reprogramming on tour. Jon's style is very filmic, but even if it was graphics based, such as Bill Dudley's work on Woman in White, or a mixture such as much of the Mesmer style projection is by Sven Ortel and Dick Straker, the animators and graphic design team are still required to help produce the content, especially when you may need extra making up to plug unforseen holes during the technical rehearsals or that the director 'magically' dreams up and one has to 'magically' produce!!!

 

In short, I do think there is an increasing need for a separate projection department who have both the creative and technical skills. But if you are going to add in another department, the inevitable additional time is going to be required in technical rehearsal and preparation, on top of the very expensive technology which is required to make it happen properly and well.

 

This is obviously a model from fairly high end theatre production where the style of creation maybe different to that of a fringe production.

 

Due to the relative new-ness of modern video projection equipment, it can still be quite fragile and prone to failure (why do you think the Woman in White projectionists get in at 3.30pm for a 7.30pm show?!). I think that this technology needs to be backed up by skilled, knowledgeable staff.

 

Also note: it is the content creation which requires the bigger team, not necessarily the show operation, although Sinatra in the West End at the moment does have camera operators etc on it as well.

[Ken Coker]

Amongst people you might want to talk to about this are Kit Lane at Derby Playhouse and Mic Poole at WYP, both of whom have moved from "traditional" theatre posts to roles that encompass the new technologies within the same companies.

 

What I would say is that the technology is fairly irrelevant; when it comes to projection content is king. If the content is crap, then whether it's projected by a Bahco BigThrobber X8000 or a 250W OHP, (see previous Forbidden Planet posts), is of no interest to anyone. "Woman in White" is a horrible of example of projection, which comes over looking like a terrible travelogue from the Austrian Tourist Board. Compare and contrast with "The White Album" recently at Nottingham Playhouse; a really awful play, but a great integration between set, light and projection. (Liam Doonagh, Richard G. Jones and Arnehm Friese respectively). This particular show was just one projector on the front of the circle, with all the work done in the content creation/edit - there is an article in this month's Blue Pages about it.

 

I think there are also issues about context, the mediation of ideas by technologies/technologists and the paradigms we use in the entertainment world - however, maybe they are for another post.

 

I would concur about the Lepage show - a great example of a new paradigm.

 

Ken

[MORRG]

Hi,

 

I have now set up a brief (mainly multiple choice) survey on this subject, I would appreciate it if people that have already posted on this topic could fill it in so that I can collate everyones views in one place. I would also invite people who have not already posted but would like to share their views to do the same.

 

http://www.freesurveysonline.com/fso/AskSu...35&CheckID=7318

 

Thanks