(by Yaz)

I think for January we can (and should) aim for something simpler than the final (Summer) product. So I think it’s important to be consciously aware of which elements or concepts we want to explore, and which we’re specifically leaving behind.

With reference to your concerns Tom, one specific element we could drop is the idea of ‘teams’ or opposing groups of people. I’m thinking we’d be better setting up a network of characters with different underlying intentions, aims, and feelings towards each other. An almost-farcical set-up - I’ll return to why later.

I’m also thinking the question of ‘why’ time is repeating could be left unanswered (though not neccesarily un-addressed). The whole story of tongue-in-cheek sci-fi time-space conundrums is something that I think will be perfect for the large, final, summer project, with mad scientists and neglected mansions and scientific conferences. But I think the point you made about making the most of the theatrical spaces we’ll actually be using, and setting it in that world makes a lot of sense.

So, with those two points in mind, I’m starting to like to following scenario:

• Piece starts fifteen minutes before a show is due to begin, possibly ‘Waiting for Godot’ (because it never happens. Aha.). This fifteen minutes is what repeats.
• During this repeating fifteen minutes, audience can wonder freely around the theatre (I’ll return to why later), and meet/overhear assorted characters, who might include, for example:
  • Understudy, who’s considering locking the lead actor in a cupboard because there’s someone important in the audience (a crush, or an agent, etc)
  • Lead actress, trying to hide their baby that they’ve brought along, whilst rejecting the advances of the director
  • Someone important in audience, that turns out to be imposter.
  • Stage manager, secretly in love with director, blackmailing imposter
  • etc etc etc
• As audience have personal experiences with characters, they are enlisted to try and help one or the other, and plots change etc in accordance

Now, even something that basic would enable us to fulfil the aim of the January project, which is to gain experience of creating something that’s both interactive and site-specific.

Regarding the farcical nature of the plot: I think it’s helpful for several reasons. 
Firstly, it’s something we’re most well versed in, and as we’re going so far outside our experience with the project it’d be good to have some areas we can be confident in.
Second, I think a comic tone allows a little more suspension of disbelief, and easier interaction, and we’ll need all the help we can get on our first outing.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I’m still uncertain of how audiences will react to certain elements of this interactivity. I’d feel more confident to ask an audience to tell a story that is about petty squabbling than one about crime, violence and danger, simply because we don’t know enough about regulating audience reactions. If it’s a story about lower stakes (people trying not to look like fools in front of each other) then I think a slightly comic approach acknowledges the ridiculousness of the situations.

That’s not to say I think the piece should be light and frothy. I also don’t think we should be aiming for laugh-out-loud funny, just a piece that embraces its absurdity, rather than striving for realism

Onto practical issues. Tom you were concerned about theatre’s ‘rules’ and audience reluctance to break them. Firstly, I don’t think we’ll ask anyone to go backstage by crossing the stage, so it won’t always be obvious to them that that’s where they are.
But why are they ‘allowed’ to be there, within the world of the play, and how do we make them feel comfortable heading there? I’ve written some notes, which I’ll share eventually, about ‘guiding’ characters, the equivalent of ‘NPCs’ in computer games (see this or this). Stooges if you like: characters that are ‘peers’ of the audience members, rather than major players in the story, that encourage interaction and movement, or ‘train’ the audience in how to ‘play’. (Sonic and MC in Auditorium could be considered a version of this, arguably).
But also, I quite like the idea that the director character has opted to allow the audience to wander around backstage, for his own (maybe misguided) artistic reasons. Let’s assume the audience don’t take him up on his offer on the first repeat, but as they realise that it’s the only way forward, I think they’ll start to.

On another point, how do we ‘reset’ time? In terms of characters, whatever our justification, I have a fairly clear idea of what happens to them. Essentially we watch their memory slow slip away and their confusion build, over the course of a minute or two. In some cases, they’ll be struggling to hold onto the memory of the last fifteen minutes, but they never succeed, and always end up confused as to why they’re exactly where they are, then making excuses and hurrying back to the place they think they should be - ie their starting position.

Perhaps that doesn’t explain it very clearly, but we can mess around with this in a practical session and you’ll see what I mean.

One final thought. Perhaps the ‘justification’ for the repeating time is in fact part of the plot, after all. Maybe it’s eventually discovered that some character or other has, for whatever motive, slipped some sort of fabled drug into everyone’s food/drink, that messes with everyone’s memory and body clocks.

And maybe that character has subsequently forgotten. That could be the underlying ‘mission’ of the piece, to figure out who it was?