Reality: can it be recreated effectively?

Photograph: Thomas Hoepker/Magnum, 11th September 2001

On reading The meaning of 9/11's most controversial photo by Jonathan Jones (guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011), I realised how many different ways body language can be read in just a small snapshot of reality. First impressions of the photograph make you think that the group of young adults are just enjoying the sun, casually chatting away and not giving a care in the world as the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Centre lingers in the background; this is what caused such controversy for photographer Thomas Hoepker. My first thoughts on this photo were naïve. Because we are drip-fed stereotypes over the years, my initial thoughts were that these Americans are arrogant and callous, not taking any notice to the horrible scene that is behind them. Then I thought well maybe that's a bit harsh...

Nowadays, with the ever-growing number of photoshopped pictures and photographs, it is hard to find a raw, original copy of a snapshot, which is why my next thought was maybe this photograph is a fake. Was the snapshot of the 'relaxed' group of adults taken before the incident? Was the smouldering skyline added into the picture after to create drama and controversy? Apparently not. Reading through the article by Jones, it states that the people in the picture were "in a profound state of shock and disbelief" (Walter Sipser, 2006). Now, this statement alone puts a whole new meaning to the photograph. It shows us that the apparent casualness of the picture is actually shock. How can we misinterpret that? Is the body language of these two emotions so similar it’s hard to differentiate between the two? Or is it in fact a trick of the eye; seeing a picturesque foreground rudely interrupted by a major international disaster?

"Well, you can't photograph a feeling." - Jonathan Jones, 2011

Now, if I put this into the context of my field of study, we can see a huge problem with displaying true reality on stage, and the re-staging of true events. If we are misinterpreting real life photographs in their original form, how is it even possible to effectively recreate this piece without conforming to naturalism or falling into the trap of over-acting the emotions needed to copy this scene?

If we were to think about re-staging this scene, and the events before and after this snapshot, we would have to consider the underlying emotions: anxiety, shock, disbelief, fear, etc. But how do we convey these emotions to an audience? There are lots of little gestures and behavioural codes to suggest we are shocked, like covering your mouth with your hand and your eyes wide, but as you can see in this photograph no one is doing this! This is because the codes we have learned to identify are drilled into us from day one. We see the staging of a pub brawl on Eastenders or a death on Holby City, but all these programmes are just littered with the conventions of portraying emotions, but in reality, when you are in a true state of shock and disbelief, for example, you go numb and have no idea what to do with yourself.

Would it be sensible to try and mimic real life? If it is so hard to interpret the real emotions behind the people in this photograph, would it be just as hard to transpose it into a live performance and interpret the emotions of the people then?  

Now here is the thing I’m battling in my head… Could we create an effective piece of theatre that mimics the behaviour of the people in this photo as we see them? I’m not sure it would. Obviously, we would understand the scene’s atmosphere straight away if we picked out the essential emotions and emphasized them into a performance, but this would be edging towards naturalism and not a copy of real life. If we copied this scene by every single detail, it might leave audiences feeling confused by the situation, not sure whether the people are shocked, confused or indifferent about the devastation that is happening behind them. We expect, in a theatre frame, to be challenged or entertained in a performance, not to experience daily life, theatre is an escape from that, but still many producers/directors are interested in making theatre as real as it is physically possible.

On the other hand, we encounter similar situations of shock and horror in everyday life (obviously not to the scale of 9/11 but we do), so maybe we would be able to understand this scene, but when you’re in the theatre frame, you interpret things a lot differently to a scene in a site specific performance. Site specific performances can be spontaneous and immersive, therefore you wouldn’t know whether you were watching a performance unless you bought tickets or recognized the conventions of a performance. We could move away from the conventions of a performance (or at least make them subtle) and recreate the scene in question and see what the audiences’ reactions would be. Then, and only then, would it be possible to make a performance look as real as physically possible – avoiding causing an international disaster for the sake of a drama piece – and see if people can tell the difference between real life and performance.

I feel like I’m confusing you now but you understand how complicated it is to try and copy real life situations and put them into a performance. I would love to get a group together and test all this out! (I may do so and update you with my findings!)

Basically, it would be a miracle for a scene like this to be performed and confused for a real life situation. You could take away the scene of the burning skyline, replace it with the new reports from that day and make people think you have just heard the news and are acting accordingly to the behaviour codes of the photograph, but still, could it be good enough to confuse with a true scene?

I want to hear your ideas on this! Can you create an effective piece of theatre in this way? Or is it just physically impossible? Give me your feedback! (Even if it’s several pages long I want to hear it!)

:D