# Televisual Theatre

<figure><img src="https://1392408513-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FsLKf2N98DH5dTTLF8Ftx%2Fuploads%2FfjoHvMIvO4N1bGW1h4tG%2FGitBook%20category%20televisual1.JPG?alt=media&#x26;token=82e69532-288f-4372-8272-6418408f1036" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

I define *Televisual Theatre* as live performances that are livestreamed, or live broadcast, through a video-based medium online, typically with the option of some audience engagement (for example, in a [live chat section](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/televisual-theatre/sharing-is-caring/whats-up-chat), discussed later). Other names associated with this genre include [Zoom theatre](#user-content-fn-1)[^1], [online theatre](#user-content-fn-2)[^2], [livestreaming/live streaming/live-streaming theatre](#user-content-fn-3)[^3], and [hybrid theatre](#user-content-fn-4)[^4]. These shows are *temporally live* (synchronous, co-present), with performers and audiences sharing the same time, but not sharing the same physical space so they are *not* physically co-present. Plays are also not (typically) pre-recorded as with [Cinematic Theatre](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/cinematic-theatre), nor will the audience interact to the extent that they change the narrative, as with [Interactive & Gamified Theatre](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/interactive-and-gamified-theatre).&#x20;

The term *televisual* refers (obviously) to television: I chose this term as it relates to television’s early broadcasts, which were often broadcast live from studios. Although television has mostly relinquished its broadcast liveness, the feeling of collective experience remains integral to understanding the form's dramaturgy. When entertainment feels *televisual,* it creates intimacy between the performers and audience through a small or medium screen, shares a space with other domestic happenings, involves reduced visual attention (and, potentially, greater auditory attention), and a sense of togetherness usually due to sharing the same cultural experience with other audience members, i.e. ['watercooler conversations'](https://www.proquest.com/openview/cd73b2ccd3d4f36f574437940ef7ade3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar\&cbl=726357) \[See also: [Spotlight-Companion Screens](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/companion-screens)]. [Margaret Morse considers this cultural phenomenon](#user-content-fn-5)[^5] the widespread use of digital streaming tools: ‘The allure of television has deep roots in the need for human contact and the maintenance of identity and for a sense of belonging to a shared culture, the very aspects of life that socioeconomic processes \[in the mid-20th century] were undermining’. This undermining included families moving to the suburbs, longer commutes between home and work, and the destruction of centralised [*third places*](#user-content-fn-6)[^6] for community gathering; television filled in the gaps left by this cultural atomisation.

[Claudia Georgi describes the phenomenon](#user-content-fn-7)[^7]: ‘Whereas film and pre-recorded videos, for example, offer neither temporal nor spatial co-presence with the spectators, live video relays and television may provide instances of temporal co-presence in the sense of a simultaneity of production and reception, without involving spatial co-presence …’. This sense of temporal co-presence is a defining feature of online livestreaming content too, which evolved in the early- to mid-2000s, well after television shed its live ontology. Video platforms from [YouTube ](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/platforms/youtube)to [Twitch ](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/platforms/twitch)to Vimeo incorporated affordances for audience engagement into their [platforms ](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/platforms)specifically to support these types of content creators. Directly engaging [chat audiences](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/televisual-theatre/sharing-is-caring/whats-up-chat) created a greater sense of togethernes&#x73;*,* both amongst the audience and between the performer and their viewers; livestreaming entertainment picked up television’s live ontology when television preferred [higher production values](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/cinematic-theatre/the-production-value-arms-race) through recording and editing.

Audiences craved live community across physical distance in March and April 2020. As theatre makers moved online in 2020, taking up these already-live and audience-engaging platforms made sense as theatrical gathering sites, since theatre’s live ontology was first taken by television, then by livestreaming; theatre could easily transition into live, online spaces as stages. [Hans Vermy considers the televisual liveness](#user-content-fn-8)[^8] of this emerging form in an article on pandemic-era theatre but criticised the perceived lack of imagination when using livestreaming tools: ‘Theatre absorbs and reflects everything the world has to offer; yet, when theatre moved online during Covid-19 we mostly witnessed performances akin to film and TV instead of shows encouraging a merger of living participation online with the presence of a theatre audience’. Vermy here calls for an even greater sense of togetherness in the [online platform](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/platforms)*,* which online tools can provide like in-person theatre does and as television never could.&#x20;

Certainly, some theatre makers produced what [Nathan Leigh](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/appendices/research-participant-information/interviewees/nathan-leigh) called ‘sit down, shut up’ performances, remediating the in-person audience’s immersed silent attention into a one-way screen – a cultural trend that began in 19th century theatres, as [Kirsty Sedgman discusses in *The Reasonable Audience*](#user-content-fn-9)[^9], and which has ended in the evolution of the proscenium arch of screen-based media. However, the influence of livestreaming content and the affordances of different [online video platforms](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/platforms) demonstrate that we as an audience can now talk back to the performance, to the performers, [like audiences once did for theatre](#user-content-fn-10)[^10]; this has influenced online theatre makers to engage with chats, audience video and audio, or other forms of interaction in unique ways. Early live television attempted to communicate directly with their audience but, like traditional ‘sit down, shut up’ theatre, could not incorporate the direct audience response; Televisual Theatre now has the opportunity with livestreaming platforms to reincorporate the [‘unruly audience’](#user-content-fn-10)[^10] and even engage them with certain rules in the [UX design](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/spotlights/user-interface). The dramaturgy of audience incorporation into a televisual experience is discussed in the [Sharing is Caring section](https://secondwavedigitaltheatre.gitbook.io/flinders-phd-research-project/taxonomy-of-forms/televisual-theatre/sharing-is-caring).

[^1]: Madi. (2020, November 15). Zoom theater: How the arts went online. *Harvard College*. <https://college.harvard.edu/student-life/student-stories/zoom-theater-how-arts-went-online>.

[^2]: Creative Australia. (2023). “The Digital Front Row: Understanding online and digital theatre audiences.” <https://creative.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Understanding-Online-and-Digital-Theatre-Audiences-Report_FA_Tagged.pdf>

[^3]: Baía Reis, A., & Ashmore, M. (2022). “From video streaming to virtual reality worlds: An academic, reflective, and creative study on live theatre and performance in the metaverse.” *International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media*, 18(1), p. 7. <https://doi.org/10.1080/14794713.2021.2024398>.

[^4]: Hussin, A. A., & Bianus, A. B. (2022). HYBRID THEATRE: PERFORMING TECHNIQUES IN THE EFFORTS TO PRESERVE THE ART OF THEATRE PERFORMANCE POST COVID19. *International Journal of Heritage, Art and Multimedia (IJHAM)*, 5(16), 15.

[^5]: Morse, M. (1998). *Virtualities: Television, media art, and Cyberculture*. p. 1. Indiana University Press.

[^6]: Oldenburg, R. (1989). *The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community*. Hachette UK.

[^7]: Georgi, C. (2014). *Liveness on stage: Intermedial challenges in contemporary British theatre and performance*. p. 99. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

[^8]: Vermy, H. (2022). Theatrical Immersion within Alternate Reality Games. In W. W. Lewis & S. Bartley (Eds.), *Experiential theatres: Praxis-based approaches to training 21st century theatre artists* (1st ed., p. 171). Taylor & Francis.

[^9]: Sedgman, Kirsty. 2018. *The Reasonable Audience: Theatre Etiquette, Behaviour Policing, And The Live Performance Experience.* Location 387-394. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

[^10]: Kershaw, B. (2001). Oh for unruly audiences! Or, patterns of participation in twentieth-century theatre. *Modern Drama*, 44(2), 133-154. <https://doi.org/10.1353/mdr.2001.0029>.