Traditional theatre can largely be regarded as “passive”, in that the audience is generally expected to just sit and watch – or listen – any participation is supposed to be cerebral rather than physical. Although passive theatre still forms the bulk of all theatrical productions (and covers cinema and concerts as well as the straight theatre of plays, opera, musicals, etc.) there has been a growing interest in recent years in the development of more participative forms. These generally involve the audience in some kind of sustained and structured interaction with the performers (in addition to the usual applause, heckling or arm waving – according to the nature of the event).
The varieties of participative theatre that have emerged are endless: ranging from the interactive experience of productions such as Punchdrunk Theatre’s Masque of the Red Death, to the numerous and varied antics of the ‘flashmob’ genre. The reasons for this development away from passive entertainment are equally varied, ranging from the demand on the part of audiences to be more involved, to the demand from sponsors (such as Arts Councils) that performance companies have an ‘outreach’ programme to engage with ‘the community’ in ‘the artistic experience’.
The focus of the proposed paper, however, is on a much older example of participative theatre; namely, the masque entertainments of the early Stuart period. Although, as court entertainments, these were restricted as to who might be directly involved, the boundary between audience and performer was decidedly flexible and porous: amateur aristocratic dancers were an important element of the performance, while the whole event was framed by the entry (to a musical accompaniment) of the high nobility and the communal dancing of the ‘revels’ at its conclusion.
The question to be addressed here is to what extent this model of performance can be made relevant to a modern theatrical context? We can no longer depend upon royalty to play their part as the ‘presence’ nor on the aristocracy to spend the requisite amount of time and effort in learning their dances. Even the general public has only a limited knowledge of communal dances that might be suitable for the concluding ‘revels’. On the other hand, to seek to re-create the masques from existing material as pieces of ‘passive theatre’ is to lose the most essential element of this art form.
What will be described here is one recent attempt at the resurrection of masque as a genuine form of participative theatre, with amateur involvement alongside high-level professional performance. Its modest success leads to the suggestion that ‘masque’ can prove to be a viable theatrical form even on the modern stage.
Bill Tuck