Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1991 - 53

Automated
Redundancy
(through
Redundant
Automation)
CHARLIE

RICHMOND

t was inevitable. In rhe rheaue, as
in many orher industries, technology is threatening ro put people
out of work. Those rhreatened are
the ones we work with and rely
upon: our colleagues and
friends-and ourselves. Why did I imagine
that live thearre and performance an
would always be inunune ro this rhreat?
Perhaps because I believed that we were
an industry remaining true ro some son of
ancienr precept-functioning for cenruries
fundamenrally unaltered within a world
experiencing enormous change. Even with
technological assistance, thearre has nor
unril now become more efficienr in its use
of labor; rarher, rhe added technology has
actually required more work-just ask
Broadway producers how rhe technological
anre has been upped!
Even with memory lighting systems,
computerized rigging conrrols and
programmable sound, rhe complemenr of
stagehands required ro run a typical show
has not radically altered. Most thearres
have one person for each of rhose systems,
just as they did for the manual systems
which preceded rhem.
True, the largest shows and thearre
companies may have at one time used
more than one operaror for lights, sound
or rigging/mechanics, but the additional
stagehands were often already on rhe crew
and had the time available. Large
Broadway and West End producrions seem
ro have assimilated technology not so
much ro reduce rhe size of rhe crew bur ro
increase rhe capabilities of a crew already as
large as rhe venue allows.
So it seems that new technology simply
allows rhe designers and technicians more
power, flexibility, accuracy and efficiency.
Little did we conceive that these systems
might eliminate rhe need for stagehands.
But, after all, is that not the direction in
which we are moving? For exanlple, what
is rhe basic difference between:
1. Having rhe stage manager call "Sound
Cue 56, GO" ro an electrician who:

a. confirms on a video moni ror that
cue 56 is "standing by," rhen
b. presses the GO button; and
2. Having the stage manager:
a. confirm on a video monitor that
sound cue 56 is "standing by," rhen
b. press the GO burron.
Just as rhe actions in the second exanlple
assume the same verb tense, so the
execution of the cue becomes rhe action of
a single person. The result? The show
benefits from fewer missed cues, less
redundanr communication between stage
manager and crew, less conversation and
confusion and tighter cuing.
Technology allowing this exists now but
it remains a rarity 1Il practice since systems
giving rhe stage manager direcr conrro I of
the light, sound and orher computerized
conrrol systems in the theatre must be
cusrom made. It will nor be long, though,
before industry standard systems, software
and commands will be available "off the
shelf"
Bu t let's go one step fanher than the
imminenr and look at technology not yet
considered by rraditional theatre.
Something which has always bothered me
as a designer as well as a theatre-goer has
been the frequenr lack of synchronization
between on-stage action and the
corresponding technical response. Typical
examples of rhis are:

I. Lag of rhe lighting cue behind turning a
practical light switch on or off; and
2. Lag of the sound cue behind lifting,
placing or scraping an on-stage
phonograph stylus.
I'm sure these are well known ro us allcertainly they're so well known to the
actors that, rypically, they never actually
make the light switch click and they
disguise the phono srylus business just so
the cuing delay is less obvious.
Why does this obvious defect occur so
often and why do we accept such a
shoncoming as necessary' The answer is
TD&T

1991

WINTER

51
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1991
