Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992 - 48

rroJ, however. But when Mr. Buchman
describes an entire touring ice show as
"well-lit" with 50 Vari*Lites and then
claims three assumptions which I never
stated are the basis of my thesis, it may be
cause for concern ...
Even if those assumptions were
implied in my original article-and I do
not believe they were-the examples provided by Mr. Buchman do not adequately
substantiate them and I will show why.
But first, rather than rejecting the
assumptions ourright, I'll stick my neck
out and rephrase them to more accurately
conform to my original theme-not to
make them the basis of an entire philosophy, but definitely an integral part of it.
Here they are:
1. Most problems can be solved with the
application of appropriate technology.
2. An important part of a stage manager's job consists of following a script
and calling cues at the appropriate
time.
3. Theatre technicians should not be
given tasks and responsibilities which
are better done by machines or computers.
I'm not trying to be coy with this last
item-the show will simply be better if
everyone's job requires thought. If someone is doing some mindless task, they will
feel less involved, be more distracted and
seem more like they are not needed. We
must find that person a job which elevates
their posi tion above the mediocre and
provides them with a feeling of capability.
I enjoy telling what happened all too
often when I ran sound for The Importance ofBeing Earnest. Because there were
only 12 cues in the entire show, I sometimes forgot to preset the levels correctly
or to cue the tape. Ir wasn't because I
wasn't interested in what I was doing; on
the contrary, the production was excellent
and I enjoyed every single performance. If
anything, it was because I enjoyed the
show so much that I forgot I had things
to do between cues that were not immediately related to it. I always did the right
thing when the cues were called because
they were a necessary and integral part of
the show. What was forgotten were the
rote mechanical procedures required as
preparation for each cue and which could
have just as easily been done e1ecrronicalIy. If you're thinking I must nor have been
a very good operator, you're right-and it
was this experience that made me stick to
designing sound and eventually turn to
manufacturing thearre sound equipment.
ow, on the subject of empowering: I
am not saying the actor always has to con46

1992 SPRING

TD&T

trol technical cues. If stage managers
would rather do things the "old fashioned" way, they still may do so using
even more varied methods of execurion.
For example, they may call the cue directly through the show control system so the
delay incurred by the light op need not be
anticipated or they may even include that
person in the loop.
Filament lag is a known phenomenon, however, and if I'm going to be
accused of being academic, let's proceed
hypothetically. Theatrical spaces are often
larger than the spaces they porrray and
sometimes this can help. If an actor clicks
a switch which is on the average 50 feet or
more from most of the audience, they will
hear the click approximately 50 milliseconds or more after the filament begins to
react. This compensates for filament lag
since the aural perception of the click
more closely coincides wi th the visual
perception of the light going on or off.
Finally, it is not usually the response of
the stage lighting, where most instruments with filament lag are used, which is
the most disturbing when not synchronized-it is the practicals, since rhey
respond quickly and are part of the character's microcosm of reality. It is quite
possible to have the practicals conrrolled
by the actors and the stage lighting called
by the SM-both through the same show
control system.
If an actor wishes not to be responsible for flying pieces, there is no need to
be. "Authorized" commands are a serious
matter and hardly "nonsense" created just
for liability's sake-the idea that a show
control system should fly in a set piece
purely as a result of a video scanned gesture is the height of irresponsibility. The
difference between doing something simply because it is technically possible and
providing a complex but safe performance environment is basic professionalism. In fact, our lawyers hope that one of
the first jobs HAL 9000 will do when
he/she comes to work in the theatre is to
warn actors when they get too close to
open elevator pits. Joking aside, such safety functions are the highest priorities of
most show control system designs.
I'm not sure how the assistance of a
show control system will, as Mr. Buchman implies, impair the stage manager's
ability to maintain the production-it
seems just the reverse should occur. I also
fail to follow the logic which says that a
stage manager who reads music should
have an assistant conductor call some of
the cues, although they both can easily be
tied into the same show control system.
Nor am I saying that there should not be
a live body responsible for the production

of Sound Cue 56 when required. If Mr.
Buchman reviews my previous writings,
he will see that, rather than advocating
operators' jobs be cut, I am trying to
make those jobs less mechanical.
Overworked certainly, underpaid perhaps, but I'm definitely not a member of
any faculty-except perhaps that proverbial school of Hard Knox. I have no delusions of over staffing in these tough times,
and am most sympathetic to the needs of
overworked stage managers, technicians
and stagehands. In fact, isn't the alleviation of this overwork a large part of my
thesis? If this was misunderstood, then I
rruly failed to make a basic point! The
point is, when all hands are full on a regular basis, where is the margin for error? It
sounds as though crews are being downsized simply because of mechanization
and not because of the added security
which show conrrol systems could provide. Can this be a safe move? Let's hope
the regional thearre winch articles of the
future will explain how to use a show control system to make them safe!
To be the devil's advocate for a
moment, perhaps Mr. Buchman has a
solution for saving the "invalid." If so, I'm
sure it would be of interest to us allmaybe it would even create a larger market for theatre sound equipment and
make me especially happy. He may be
right that the inrrusion of technology is a
problem, but I maintain it is only because
some technology has been poorly implemented, drawing attention to itself and
away from the performance it is intended
to enhance. Indeed, theme parks are
developing a desire for live thearre and are
creating thearrical productions very successfully. These venues change quickly,
and if Mr. Buchman has not been to
Florida within the last few years, he's in
for a big surprise. While lip-syncing is still
common, live vocals are often considered
more appropriate.
Like Mr. Buchman, I also fear the live
event may become indistinguishable from
the one on video or film, and for the same
reasons. The response to this-and the
real chaLlenge of our careers-is to make
the live event more immediate, more
complete, more moving, more vital, more
creative and more significant than video
or film-in short, more of everything
that drives us to stay in this crazy business. Mr. Buchman's opinions, so passionately expressed, convince me we are
indeed kindred spirits who believe a great
live performance is well worth the trip
and expense. But more than anything
else, we need to make our audience feel
IE
the same.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1992