Bringing Art And Culture to The Masses

KATE LEVIN: Good afternoon to everyone. Performing arts and technology have had a profound influence on one another at least since the deus ex machina expanded from being a plot device to a piece of stage equipment back in ancient Greece. And certainly in the Italian Renaissance, Leonardo Da Vinci was not only an outstanding painter but a scientist and engineer who apparently designed a helicopter and a calculator as well. And my understanding is that we got the first moving pictures courtesy of the Lumiere brothers, who were also practicing physicists. So today we get to discuss the most recent iteration of this dance between technology and the performing arts by way of discussing taking the live arts beyond the four walls of a theater and what that means for creators, artists, and audiences alike. And typically the tension between technological progress and the rest of us is framed as one of convenience versus value. And I think you can see that in so many of the kind of household products we now deal with. In the case of the microwave, you can make Thanksgiving dinner in a microwave. But it limits the choice of size of turkey and the number of guests that you can invite. And the case of cellphones, it's certainly very easy to text 10 people simultaneously. But I'm not sure that we would agree that that's really having a conversation with people. So regarding today's topic, I think that some of us who were around for the introduction of the microphone in the 1960s in the performing arts, which is probably exactly no-one in this room, might remember a similar kind of conversation. There was a great amount of tension between people who thought that we were going to lose something fundamental in the transmission of the human voice if it was amplified, and people who thought that amplifying the human voice would simply make it easier to hear people. And in looking back over some of the press coverage from 1965, I was struck by an article quoting George Szell, who I believe was at the Metropolitan Opera at the time, who was extremely upset by this development. And one of the things he said is this is a very complicated matter. If a theater is acoustically such a complete failure that singers can be heard only if their voices are amplified, there seems to be very little choice in the matter short of tearing down and rebuilding the whole place. We have an interesting appeal for the primacy of art over technology or at least architecture. And then he went on to say its inevitable consequence will be wrong perspective, adulteration, and falsification. And I think those ideas of mediation are really at the heart of what people seem to be concerned about. It's certainly the case with use of microphones that that's now become an accepted part of practice. And I think in 2008, the Tony awards started recognizing sound design alongside the age-old practices of directing and acting. So I guess part of the question for us to consider today is, is taking performance beyond the theater to film and video part of a natural progression we can trace back to the Greeks? For the audiences out there, do they perceive a meaningful difference between a performance on a screen when the real thing is taking place somewhere else? Or is that not going to be a valuable distinction? Perhaps the fundamental issue for us here is the question of authenticity. Is the production of a real or live performance going to be of enduring value? And if so, how are we going to define it? Or has technology already mediated live performance via microphones and lighting so that the screen is just another evolution? Or again, is this is a genuine revolution in the way we understand and receive performances? So today we're going to hear from three extraordinary innovators and thinkers in the area of arts and technology, Peter Gelb, the general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, which since 2006 has brought opera to audiences around the world through the MET Live in HD program, Jordan Roth, who is president of Jujamcyn Theaters, who has a long history of mixing mediums. You can see Bring It On, the musical, which started as a film, and shortly The Heiress, which started out, I believe, as a short story in two of his theaters. And at 35, he's been called the future of Broadway. And Joanne Fillion, who's the director of creation, images, events, and lifestyle for Cirque du Soleil, who will share some of the ways that her organization, drawing on some of the oldest performance traditions in the world, is pushing the boundaries of life circus using technology. So I'm going to ask each of the panelists to speak briefly, to share some information about the successes and the challenges that they are facing in the innovative projects that they have been working on. And then we're going to have a discussion that will open out to include all of you. So, Peter. PETER GELB: Thank you, Kate. I'm a staunch defender of the ideals of the hierarchy of grand opera. But as a populist, I also strongly believe in making opera as successful as possible in order to keep the art form alive into the 21st century. When I was 17, my first boss was the famous Russian immigrant impresario Sol Hurok, who was fond of saying, if the people don't want to come, you can't make them. And what we're attempting to do with our digital distribution platform is to make people want to come to the opera. In 2006, when I became the company's 16th general manager since its founding in 1883, we launched immediately upon my arrival a 24 hour digital radio channel on Sirius XM, featuring live performance content and archival content, which is still running today. And we also began our widely acclaimed live high definition transmissions into movies theaters. The live high definition concept was simple, as far as I was concerned. It was to strengthen the bonds between the MET and its audience by providing as much live content to opera fans as possible. Just as sports teams, which was really our model, excite their fans with a constant flow of coverage of their games over the internet, on the radio, and onto television large screens in sports bars, we were following a similar course. So we recognize the fact that opera fans are as equally passionate about opera as sports fans are. And now hundreds of thousands of opera fans are united 12 times during our season, which runs from September into May. We pick 12 of our performances, and Saturday matinees at 1 o'clock, and beam them live into movie theaters and performing arts centers from the west coast of North America to as far east as Jerusalem and Moscow, spanning 12 different time zones. And further east in Asia and New Zealand, Australia they're seen on a delayed basis because the time difference is too great. These shows are seen live and distributed on a delayed basis in every continent except Antarctica. This season, we have 1900 theaters participating in our distribution and 60 countries. The HD programs have reinforced good acting on our stage as well, since the singers who perform in these operas know that even when they're not singing, the cameras are watching their every move, which has resulted in raising the level of theatricality of opera, which is one of my goals in the opera house. I thought I'd show you-- and I'm certainly prepared to talk much more about this-- but I wanted to show you a brief excerpt of near the end of the opera, Carmen, in which Roberto Alagna, the tenor, and Alina Garanca, the mezzo-soprano who plays Carmen, are engaged in their final fateful struggle. And this was seen by almost 400,000 people live, our excerpt, which is unedited and we'll see right now. [SINGING OPERA: CARMEN] PETER GELB: It works better in the movie theaters. I don't know what happened. He was about to kill her. But you have to wait for the next time we show it live. Technology does have its pitfalls. But that was seen, as I said, live in probably an audience of almost 400,000 people. And to date, more than 10 million people have seen these shows-- not quite as many Big Macs that have been sold. But it's a substantial sum. For opera today, there is an extraordinary resurgence of interest I think in it led by these high definition programs that have also influenced other opera houses around the world to try to follow suit. And I'm happy to discuss it further. But I don't want to take away from my fellow panelists and their introductions. KATE LEVIN: Jordan. JORDAN ROTH: Thank you. Hi, everybody. So on Broadway, there's really two different ways in which film can take our performances beyond the walls of our theaters. The first is sort of similar to what Peter's talking about, filming the live stage show. Most recently, Memphis, the musical, was broadcast in movie theaters across the country. Legally Blonde, the musical, was broadcast live on MTV. Spike Lee made a film to be a live Broadway production of Passing Strange. But this really has been happening, with shows for many, many years. In the early '80s, I never got to see the original production of Pippin. But I fell in love with it by watching it. You're nodding. You watched it too. By watching its filmed version of the live stage show. The other way is feature films that are based on stage shows as their source material. So most recently the movie musicals of Chicago or Phantom of the Opera, or this summer, Rock of Ages. And I think we would all agree that those feature films are different creative outputs than their source material. I would argue though that so too are the first versions, those filmed versions of the live stage show. To me, theater is theater because it is live. It matters that you are there. It matters that you are in the same room with the actors and musicians and feeding each other's energy. It matters also that you are in the same space as your fellow audience members and creating, ultimately, a community of witness. And it matters also for the fundamental project of theater. A performance without an audience is a rehearsal of the show. It is not the show itself. Different for a film. You can screen a film in an empty auditorium, and it's still the film. You can have a painting in a closet, and it's still the painting. Not so for me for theater or really any of the live performing arts. So you can have the same elements, the exact same elements, the same actors in the same costumes saying the same lines and the same set. But if you remove the live, it becomes something different. And this is importantly not a judgment. It's a challenge, the challenge to our artists to make that something different, uniquely worthwhile, to take the elements that make film film and make something that you couldn't experience in the same way in the theater. Truthfully though, whether that challenges MET or not, the fact that it is different for me means that it is complementary to the live experience and not competitive both economically or artistically. If you love the filmed experience, it will make you want to see the live experience more, not less. And for me, that's actually true not just of filmed stage shows, but really of film storytelling in general. As storytelling becomes more and more digital as we watch more and more screens that are getting bigger and bigger and also smaller and smaller, the live experience becomes more and more unique, and therefore more and more valued and valuable in our lives. We want to be a part of that community of witness. We want to be a part of that energy exchange. We want to experience it live. KATE LEVIN: Thank you. Joanne. JOANNE FILLION: People are often asking us if we at Cirque are afraid of technology. And I'm glad to say I'm not. And we're not. Actually we embrace it. This thing is, technology is a tool like any other tool. And it all depends on what you do with it. And if it's there to serve a creative purpose, a creative vision, if it's there to amplify emotions, if it's there transport people into another world, or just to make people live an experience that is different than what they've experienced before, then it's great actually. And technology for technology has no place in art. But when well used, and we think that adding tools or adding brushes to our palette, or adding colors to our palette is something amazing if you know what to do with it. And I think that this is something important. It expands our creative playground. And for us, this is fun. I think there's something. But it's true that this balance between what we'll never replace, a live artist on stage, is something that is true. But at the same time, to actually give access to people who cannot go to the MET and see the opera the way it is is also something that is different. But it's still something that adds a value too. So I do agree with that. So today I wanted to share two projects. One is a 3D movie that we just did with James Cameron and his team. And the way he used the 3D, the new camera technology, is just amazing. And his sensitivity to the artist, to what was going on on stage, was absolutely amazing. And so this movie will be launched this fall. But we thought when we did that, not everybody-- even though there's close to 40 million people who go to Vegas every year, it's still not a lot of people. And to actually give access to those Cirque shows to the world in the seat of their local movie theater, we think is something that is important and interesting. But at the same time, we felt the desire not just to film it, not just to capture it, but to give it a creative spin, to do something different with it, and to bring people an experience that, even if they've seen the show live, they will actually see something new. And for us it did work when we saw the final cut. And when we start the guy on the Wheel of Death from above, we could feel even more the danger that these guys are having every night just by the way it was shot. And this point of view isn't possible to get in a room. So this is also something else that we thought was interesting. So I thought that I would share-- we don't have the 3D glasses. But I thought that I would share the trailer of the movie just to give you a sense of what it will be. And your imagination to see what it could be in 3D and on a giant street. Go trailer, please. MALE SPEAKER: Everyday life can sometimes seem ordinary. So it's natural to crave something more, to hunger for something that you can't describe. As it turns out, all you have to do is step inside. [MUSIC PLAYING] JOANNE FILLION: The other thing I wanted to talk about that is the project that we will launch this afternoon or later today. In this case, it's a completely new experience that the web technology allowed us to do. And I don't want to say too much about it, because I want you to stay and to come this afternoon to see it. But in this case, I think that it gave us the opportunity to present Cirque in a completely different way for us and also to our audience or our patrons or even for people who have never experienced any of our shows. So I encourage you to stay. And I hope I'll get to see you around 6:30 tonight. And finally, like just before, our founder, Guy Laiberte, had this dream. He once said that he wanted to see everybody on the planet wear a clown nose in celebration of the wonder and the beauty that there is in this world. So I thought that we could participate in his dream today. So let's share the dream with him now. So here's yours. Here's yours. JORDAN ROTH: Good. JOANNE FILLION: Yeah. Just I need to find the two others. JORDAN ROTH: I feel we should talk like this. PETER GELB: I think we should. JOANNE FILLION: Here's yours. And here's mine. PETER GELB: Can I wear it on my thumb. JORDAN ROTH: Oh no, [? better go. ?] Like JFK putting on a hat. JOANNE FILLION: And of course, I want to immortalize this with a picture. So thank you so much. PETER GELB: All right. JOANNE FILLION: It's beautiful. JORDAN ROTH: Not so easy to breathe. KATE LEVIN: Well I think we've made the point about there being something very special and spontaneous about [INAUDIBLE] live. JOANNE FILLION: That is very low-tech. KATE LEVIN: Constricts the sinuses. But important to live the dream. So I just want to follow up with a couple of questions. Because what most of you, I heard to be saying was very much in defense of technology as a tool that is under the control of artists. Going back though to Maestro Szell-- one of the other things he said in his cree du occur was amplification may mean the beginning and the end of opera as we know and as it is intended by the composers. And what that suggests to me is the whole area in which artists conceptualized their work, anticipating an audience, anticipating the technologies available to them, anticipating how that work will be received. And I'd love to hear each of you talk a little bit about what changes you are seeing, if any, in the world of artistic practice in which you function with regard to technology. Peter has said a little bit that it seems to be focusing the attention perhaps of performers who might otherwise not have been as into their characters before there was an understanding that they might be on camera. But I'd love to hear what each of you think. Is this part of the equation as fully under control of artists? Or is it perhaps a form of manipulation that might lead them to places they wouldn't otherwise think of going? PETER GELB: I think that Maestro Szell was referring specifically to the acoustics of the opera house. And what we're trying to do-- and I agree with him, what he said, that these wonderful opera houses were designed to have a natural acoustical experience take place within them. But I don't think that he meant necessarily that new technology shouldn't be used to enhance the theatrical aspects of a performance. For example, Joanne and I share directors like Robert Le Page, who works in Cirque du Soleil and also at the MET. He's the man who created our new ring cycle in which he harnessed the most remarkable technology of motion control and all kinds of other aspects of cutting edge technology in the service of a production that was meant to be theatrically thrilling but at the same time honored all the same concerns that Maestro Szell-- you quoted him in saying. Because acoustically, the singers were still performing in the natural acoustical environment. By our having microphones inside the opera house-- and the point I just want to make sure people understand is what we're doing is somewhat of a hybrid, is different, than when it comes to transmitting our performances into movie theaters. Because on the one hand, we're not making a film about a show. And what we're doing is actually taking these live performances and shooting them like a football game, basically. It's sports coverage. We have cameras that move around the house, giving moving action shots, close ups of the performance. It's like being on the scrimmage line at a football game. And also by bringing the cameras backstage, we have-- and the world of opera is such a gregarious and wild kind of assemblage of super-sized egos of singers and stagehands. At the MET on any given day, there are 1,600 people working-- an orchestra, a chorus, and 200 stagehands moving scenery around. And we have cameras backstage seeing all of this in one giant live reality show, which the audiences in the movie theaters get to experience. It's like a giant operatic fishbowl. So this is something that has never really been done before. And the audiences experiencing it are experiencing it vicariously but also genuinely together with a group of other audience members. Because they're in communal groups of 100 or 200 or 300. In Mexico City, there's one theater that has 5,000 seats. In Tromso in the Arctic Circle, there's a theater with 200 seats. And in each one of these environments, there are a group of people who come together and who cheer and applaud even though they know the opera singers can't hear them, but for each other. Because it's a social experience that is really quite different than anything that's ever happened before. I mean the individual elements are not unique. But the way they're combined together, I think, is. So it's somewhat of a different experience. And if not for technology, if not for the digital age in which we live, none of this would be possible. So I think all of us agree that harnessing technology for good artistic purposes is the right way to go. KATE LEVIN: Jordan, are you seeing any of your artistic team starting to make work differently in anticipation of the fact that it may get taken out of the four walls of a theater? JORDAN ROTH: I don't know. I think our artists continue to make work differently because the world continues to be different. And our artists that are most relevant and most exciting are in conversation with the culture. So that fact, the fact that technology may be bringing the work outside of the walls of the theater, is influencing the work. But it's influencing the work because it's a fact in the culture, not necessarily because what this performance is going to be filmed, and so we have to do it differently. That, I would say, probably not. Because the primary audience that we're creating for is here. There may certainly be adjustments on the days that it's going to be filmed. But I think it's more about a more macro cultural conversation. You'll see a lot more representations of technology, technology as character, in our shows. American Idiot is a great example of a show that we did two seasons ago. And when the curtain rose, the entire presidium was filled with television screens, all creating this cacophony of sound and visual and image. And the show is a response to that canvas, that kaleidoscope of technological images that are affecting these characters. So that's how these artists were responding to technology. But they respond to it in the narrative and in the work. KATE LEVIN: Joanne, any sense that your performers are dressing differently, thinking differently, learning their craft differently? JOANNE FILLION: No. Like I said before, I think that for us technology will give us possibilities to even break the fourth wall even more within the theater. And I think this is the thing that we like to do. It gives us the possibility now to project something over there and to immerse people even more into the world that we're creating. I think that when we select the creative team, we do try to understand what's the purpose? What are they trying to say? And someone who comes with big wows for nothing, with no meaning-- it's not really interesting. But like you're saying, when we do live, we create for the audience. We never think about, OK, but this is going to be filmed. Or this will be transmitted. We do it because there are 2,500 people in front of the artist. And they're there to see and appreciate the amazing things that they can do and the beauty that they bring to the world. So no. So no. But the technology helps bring that to life. And this is what is interesting, I think. KATE LEVIN: Jordan, in particular, I heard from you a great deal of confidence that audiences would always be able to appreciate the difference between live and something else. And Joanne and Peter, I've also heard you both say with great confidence that you feel the film video products that you're creating have value but are distinct from the live experience. Any concern that audience members will start to expect one versus the other? Or should we just have faith in our fellow human beings that they will always continue to be discriminating consumers? Because it does seem to me in terms of live performance we have moved, in some cases, from, for example, music being performed live to music being recorded. In other words, there have been places where live has been replaced by technology. So is it that there is a core of liveness that just won't be breached because audiences will understand and appreciate it and want to protect it? Or at some point, do you have that problem of the person who's only ever seen baseball on TV shows up and sits 20 rows up and says I don't like this, I don't get it, I can't see the sweat on pitcher's face? PETER GELB: Well I think certainly sports fans, sports teams, have experienced this, that attendance in sporting events has gone up not down because of the coverage through the media. And I think that certainly in our case, we have seen trends in both directions. For older audiences, who it's more convenient now to go to their local suburban mall and see the MET in a movie theater, perhaps they're not coming to the opera house. For people who live in New York in the city and who are real opera fans, it enhances their participation. It makes them go even more often. KATE LEVIN: Interesting. Sorry. Go ahead. JOANNE FILLION: Well for us too, I think one thing that film will never be able to replace is when you see an artist putting its life in danger in front of you, there will never be a movie, a film, that will be able to capture it the same way. When you have someone who is walking on a tight wire, and they can fall, and when someone's flying on a trapeze from one place to the other, the experience will never be exactly the same. And the feeling you have, the fear that you have that they're going to miss, is something that is irreplaceable I think. So in the art form that we do have, this is something that is not replaceable. PETER GELB: Your shows should be live. JOANNE FILLION: Yeah. We have 22. PETER GELB: Seriously. If you transmitted a Cirque du Soleil show live into movie theaters, and the audience was aware that those risks were possible, they would respond in a way that they would not in a 3D film, where the end result is presumably known. JOANNE FILLION: But I think we do tour. We will have 23 shows running now at the same time. So I think that yes. But even then, there's something that you feel when they're there in front of you, when you hear them breathing, when you do feel it. And this is something that, yeah, it is irreplaceable. At the same time, giving the opportunity-- we did TV programs where people saw actually what we did in South America, for example. We were on TV for many years before we actually went there. And it was a tremendous success just because people were able to see it. And they decided to come and see the live shows just because of that. So I think it's that balance. It is important to keep that balance. But to get to your point, for us we're very, very [? minitious ?] and particular about not faking anything. When we're alive, we're live. Everything is as authentic as possible. And I think that this is what will make people continue to come back. JORDAN ROTH: I think as you were saying, it is a faith in our audiences and in the wisdom of the audience. But it's also a faith in our artists that they will continue to mine the riches of the live experience and continue to mine the riches of the filmed experience and continue to create, continue to use the technology and the liveness to their respective advantages. KATE LEVIN: So art really is religion. Because it's all about faith. JORDAN ROTH: Amen. KATE LEVIN: All right. Any questions from the audience for this extraordinary group? I think I see someone over there. I don't know if we have a microphone for you or if you just want to speak loud. FEMALE SPEAKER: OK. I'll start again. You're bringing your work into the movie theaters. And some people call it the alternative content for the cinemas. But when I have spoken with some of the executives who have the companies that bring it into those theater, they say that number one, for the cinemas, the digital build-up for them is very expensive. Who is going to pay for the promotional costs? Typically for movies, it's been the movie studios and not the cinemas. And also, they say that you have very specialized work. But for example, in music and some other potential alternative content, that those companies need to have an ownership interest, need to have a series, need to have a big chunk of the revenue in order to make it feasible for them. So I've got two questions. One is do you see this being able to expand beyond such specialized work, from what you have to others, and still make it worthwhile for the creators from a financial standpoint? And the other is you're still talking about a big screen and a movie theater. If it then goes to the internet-- and you talk about technology as a distribution channel-- do you say no to the internet because it's on a small screen, and perhaps it could saturate the market so people wouldn't come to live? KATE LEVIN: So any quick thoughts from our panel about-- essentially what I take you to be asking is is this a business model that we think is going to expand? Or is it really just a niche adventure? PETER GELB: If I may just quickly-- just because we've been doing this now for seven years. It's a very successful business model for us, and presumably successful for the theaters who participate, because we don't force them to carry our shows. They do they do it willingly. But basically the model works through a sharing of the box office. Because our audience that goes to see our shows-- it's not a movie audience. It's opera fans. So the opera fans know about our programs through our promotional means, through the internet, through specialized advertising for them. And it works. Because we're actually the leading provider-- and it's kind of ironic that an opera company would be the leading provider of alternative content. But we are. And it's a successful operation. We have about 70 or 80 different licensees in different countries. And we distribute. We have six satellites. We distribute everything directly to the cinemas that have satellite dishes on their roofs. And it's a win-win situation. Because for the cinema theaters, they have found with alternative content a way of widening their audience base beyond what the movie studios are providing. KATE LEVIN: So I think this is interesting place to wrap up for now. Although hopefully the conversation will continue among all of us going forward. Because what you seem to be saying, Peter, is this is a way that audiences are actually manipulating technology by finding their way to a particular kind of place and adapting a technology that was maybe set up for a different kind of content feed, and using that to create a whole new kind of audience and experience. And it seems to me that's what all three of you are doing so brilliantly. So many thanks to you all. And I think now we are going to get to hear from Google executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, who's here. So thank you very much.