Demos, Traverse Theatre, Review
There is a routine that follows me around on nights such as tonight and, if you'd be so gracious as to allow me to elaborate briefly, I'll explain what what I mean.
I generally arrive at the theatre, or whatever particular venue is providing the attraction that day/night, around thirty minutes before the fun (?) is due to begin. Glide over to, hopefully, a silent bar, order a large glass (though more likely a plastic cup) of the house red and spend the remainder of this time picking and scanning over the program for the forthcoming event.
Tonight, however, was another night entirely and two words hypnotically shone out, as if written from Lucifer's pen, that brought my entire evening into disarry. Those words were, of course, "Audience Participation".
Now this, you would think, would be optional, especially given the potential numbers attending. There is no way that everybody could, should or would be directly involved and so the option would be available to just kick back and enjoy the unfolding drama. Right?
Afraid not. Not only is it mandatory that you participate, but we will also give you each your own lines that you have to say, whether you believe them or not.
Oh... did I mention that this show is all about democracy?
The whole experience, which lasts for approximately two hours, is basically a reading of proceedings of an Occupy General Assembly at St Pauls Cathedral in London on 13th December, 2011, and a Q&A session with the Prime Minister in the House of Commons a day later. A kind of compare and contrast exercise, if you like. What is the best kind of democracy?
After a brief warm up consisting of tongue twisting limericks and a bit of "shakey, shakey", we were greeted with a rousing cheer of approval from the professionals, followed by our scripts (though strangely, after carefully going through my bundle of papers two or three times, it became apparent that I didn’t, in fact, have any lines. When I, perhaps foolishly, enquired about this, it turned out that they had made a slight error in judgement and that I would not be able to take part after all. I must say, I found it quite difficult to battle a wry smile at the apparent irony).
The readings were fine as far as readings go, if seemingly effortless in their predictability. It was quietly understood that we were all in for something quite different on this night and it was hard to ignore the buzz of anticipation that tickled our faces beforehand. But it all fell morosely flat. Same old nothing.
The most entertaining part of the evening was the Prime Minister's Questions session. We got divided into Labour and Conservative (Sorry…ConDems) and sat opposite each other shouting and grunting through the entire proceedings (Incidently, there was no choice as to what side you wanted to be on or if you wanted to be on either at all. Of course, this would have been practically challenging to say the least, but would have added a little something to this so called experiment).
Everybody was very agreeable and seemed to know what should and shouldn’t be done and, with that the show did, in fact, manage to find some common ground with mainstream Party Politics in this country. It was boring, unintelligent, unimaginative and uninspiring.
We’re always attacking politicians. "Politicians suck!". It’s something you almost have to say. "They’re corrupt liars! They suck!" Where do you think they come from? They don’t fall from some divine, all knowing place in the sky. They don’t walk through some mystical dimension from the planet Zork. No. They come from British parents, British families, from British homes, they go to British schools, British Universities, British businesses and are voted into office by the British public.
Maybe something else sucks around here.
Maybe the public sucks.



I thought you realised there was some audience participation! Anyway... sounds like an interesting concept that didnt translate as well as it might have.
I can understand why the audience was told which party they must belong to (can't imagine there'd be many Tories in the theatre). But maybe, in spite of your misgivings about participation, the audience should have been allowed to improvise more?
Or maybe they could have used a script based on the Occupy Edinburgh General Assembly at St Andrew Square to bring it home, along with a transcript of the City Council minutes that led to Occupy Edinburgh being recognised by the Council, a landmark decision.
Hi there. Just wanted to point out that I never said that I wasn't aware of the audience participation. My main point was that I thought it was funny that you were being made to do it in a play that was all about democracy. I have no problem, never have and never will, with participating. The point was that this was supposed to be an experiment (as we were frequently reminded at the beginning of the piece), but they missed every opportunity to make it just that. The result was very little and I took nothing from it. Anybody who reads the papers, even badly, surley grasps what they were going on about?....Don't get me wrong. I know it's meant well. But interesting concept it was not
I too can understand why they were told which party to go into (as I said in the review). But in at least approaching such an idea, even something faintly like it, they could have perhaps, maybe, began to justify calling this an experiment.
I don't think that having the Occupy Edinburgh would make the slightest difference. They could have had an Occupy Sao Paulo and it could have hit the nail on the head. Or, probably more fitting, Burma.
It just seemed like a lot of talking, as usual, and failed to fill in the gaps that were so apparent (and available) that could made us feel the true warmth of democracy.
Rant over :-)
Rant away! That's what the interweb's for isn't it?
I'm just trying to see how this experiment could have been worked to more effect. You said they "missed every opportunity", but I'm not sure what you meant by that.
Sounds like you were looking for some friction?
Maybe if they used professional politicians as well as professional actors? Maybe some feisty Scottish Conservatives - they might be game (unusual PR opportunity and all that).
Re Burma. True it's a blatant example, but isn't it a bit of an apples and oranges comparison? Burma had a totalatarian regime. Occupy UK seems more focussed on unfettered corporate power. So would have been a very different play.
On a side note see documentary Inside Job for a good explanation of how the global economy went pear-shaped.
And Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine's words from a previous revolutionary era are worth (re)visiting.
Burma was indeed an extreme example and, as you rightly pointed out, it would have been a completely different play. I'll refer you to the star grading at the top of the page :-) (A joke. I know exactly what you mean :-) )
I have seen the documentary Inside Job and Thomas Paine is always worth revisiting :-)