Just a thought or two on convention speeches sans live audiences, and the idea of theater.

Veteran political journos naturally view this new setup through the lens of the old one, as in big rallies, cheers, etc. But rallies aren't the same thing as theater, really.

/1
/2

While live theater is defined in part by the presence of an audience and its reactions, some types of theater depend on the relative *silence* of the audience. Some journos are recognizing the power (or novelty, if you will) of that effect in this setting.
/3

Theater is also *rehearsed* and prepared, largely with no audience, save a director. It's performed in relative silence.

In comedy, or musical comedy, one of the great adjustments performers face is the discovery of audience reaction, especially in unexpected places.
/4

Sure, you know where you *think* the laughs will go, where the applause will come, and you try to plan for that. But audiences still surprise you.

Drama is a different matter. You rarely know what the reactions will be. You don't know where the laughs are, the gasps.
/5

Theatrical drama is the template for this convention. These speeches are closer to soliloquys. They're not rallying cries. The best of them are meditations, punctuated by silences.

This sort of thing has a power all its own, just as a Shakespearean monologue does.
/6

That effect, which can be spellbinding, is something to watch, something we might have forgotten a bit, something pols making the speeches have to figure out. Some are doing it better than others. It's working without a net, without the comfort of easy applause lines.

-30-
You can follow @seanrobinson1e4.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.