Theatre, social media and spectatorship : translating commentary, critique and controversy across media

The occasional ArtsHub article asking spectators to show respect for stage by switching all devices off notwithstanding, in the last few years we have witnessed an clear push to make more use of social media as a means by which spectators might respond to a performance across most theatre companies. Mainstage companies, as well as contemporary companies are asking us to turn on, tune in and tweet our impressions of a show to them, to each other, and to the masses – sometimes during the show, sometimes after the show, and sometimes without having seen the show. In this paper, I investigate the relationship between theatre, spectatorship and social media, tracing the transition from print platforms in which expert critics were responsible for determining audience response to today’s online platforms in which everybody is responsible for debating responses. Is the tendency to invite spectators to comment via social media before, during, or after a show the advance in audience engagement, entertainment and empowerment many hail it to be? Is it a return to a more democratised past in which theatres were active, interactive and at times downright rowdy, and the word of the published critic had yet to take over from the word of the average punter? Is it delivering distinctive shifts in theatre and theatrical meaning making? Or is it simply a good way to get spectators to write about a work they are no longer watching? An advance in the marketing of the work rather than an advance in the active, interactive aesthetic of the work? In this paper, I consider what the performance of spectatorship on social media tells us about theatre, spectatorship and meaning-making. I use initial findings about the distinctive dramaturgies, conflicts and powerplays that characterise debates about performance and performance culture on social media to reflect on the potentially productive relationship between theatre, social media, spectatorship, and meaning making. I suggest that the distinctive patterns of engagement displayed on social media platforms – including, in many cases, remediation rather than translation, adaptation or transformation of prior engagement practices – have a lot to tell us about how spectators and spectator groups negotiate for the power to provide the dominant interpretation of a work.

Requiem for a beast : a case study in controversy

In 2008, Matt Ottley’s Requiem for a Beast: A Work for Image, Word and Music was awarded the Book of the Year: Picture Book by the Children’s Book Council of Australia (CBCA). Ottley’s book is challenging in its form and content: it uses words, illustrations, and music to tell a sustained, multi-layered narrative about one young man’s attempts to reconcile his family’s and his nation’s shameful history of violence against Aboriginal Australians, while also coming to terms with his own attempts to commit suicide. Given the ways in which the CBCA’s annual book awards are used by teachers, librarians, and parents to select the “best” books for young readers, it is unsurprising that the prizing of Requiem for a Beast stirred up controversy. Responses to the book proliferated across professional and popular outlets—it even received coverage on an Australian tabloid television program—and initiated a variety of conversations about what constitutes appropriate reading for young people. Perhaps more significantly, the controversy over Requiem winning picture book of the year forced the CBCA, teacher librarians, and caregivers to examine (and, often, defend) their roles and responsibilities in the circulation and promotion of children’s literature. This paper reads the Requiem controversies as a case study for understanding the complementary and contradictory roles of institutions and individuals in the ethical circulation of children’s literature in contemporary Australia and beyond.

Sports anti-siphoning laws and the controversy of sports broadcasting: A case study of Pakistan

Controversies between private and public broadcasters over the broadcasting of live sports, especially cricket, during important sports events have emerged as a serious legal issue in Pakistan. Controversy between Geo Super and Pakistan Television over live telecast of the ICC Cricket World Cup is a typical example of such controversies. An aggressive legal battle, during a most important cricketing event, not only hampered the enjoyment of cricket viewers across the country but also gave Pakistan a bad name across the globe. This article discusses in detail this controversy and highlights lacunas in the existing sports broadcasting regime of Pakistan. There are no clear and well defined sports broadcasting laws in Pakistan. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) rules are of general nature. Secondly, PEMRA rules are not comprehensive and explicit enough to provide clear guidelines about sports broadcasting. This may be a possible reason why sports broadcasting controversies reach the highest court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Despite these ugly battles between broadcasters, the government of Pakistan has never given due importance to this issue and no efforts have been made at any level to come up with legislation on sports broadcasting to avoid such controversies or to resolve them amicably in the light of well-defined laws on this subject. The purpose of this article is to draw the attention of the concerned authorities towards this important issue because in future more such controversies may be expected in the absence of a sports broadcasting regime in the country.