Stage plays have some 'research' into this area. People want some separation between the 'action' and where they are sitting so they don't have to move their necks much. This is one of the reasons why the orchestra pit is where it is, acoustics also plays a significant role.

Interesting. My experience is hardly a representative sample, but almost all theater I've seen recently has tried to 'break down the 4th wall' (i.e., the invisible one between the actors and audience on a traditional stage). Some examples:

* The play is set in a fancy nightclub, with half the audience sitting on the stage and the actors also moving around the rest of the audience.

* The play is set in a restaurant, and the servers are actors (unknown to the audience until the play starts and your waiter starts participating).

* The play is staged in a large room; the audience moves to different parts of the room, among the set.

* The stage is essentially a long, wide hallway between two long rows of the audience.

On a related note, I've seen many plays where the actors engage the audience members directly, asking questions, having them participate; in one we were the class for a pair of teachers. What I've seen has worked very well; it's not corny or hackneyed, but smoothly integrates with and enhances the performance.

I've seen it so much recently that it can't be coincidence; it must be a trend in the theater.

There still tends to be a focal point, in my experience. Yeah they'll force you to look somewhere other than the "stage" (which may, in some venues, be a pretty amorphous thing but is still probably in one general area) to create or break tension, but it's not a constant gawk-fest where you're looking all over the place all the time.

Good theater doing this sort of thing uses it for emphasis. To force attention to shift or change or to make it clear to you that "something has changed".

Likewise, audience participation is there to give the audience the sense of being active participants, but still without demanding too much of them (unless it's really active improv or something). It has particular power, I think, in plays that are somewhat confessional in nature. Drawing the audience in to the conspiracy/shame/excitement is powerful there. But if it's a standard narrative I think it bogs things down a bit.

> There still tends to be a focal point, in my experience

Agreed. This one and the others are all excellent points.

In the past I found these endeavors to be gimmicky, but recently it seems like someone has found the winning formula. Despite being completely comfortable in the theater, I still find that the recent attempts have eliminated a last bit of reserve and distance in my mind.

I'd love to know what the new theory is; what is the model or idea that all these productions are embracing? It can't be coincidence.

One of the most interesting 360 VR experiences I had recently was watching an SNL skit. The point wasn't to watch the skit itself, it was experience SNL as an audience member with the best possible seat. You could see the cue-card guy, the audience, the cameras, the stage hands, the other parts of the stage. It was pretty interesting.

In the same day I watched a short animated film in 360 and the experience was just annoying; it wasn't always clear where to look and at some times 50% of the action or character expression was happening behind you. It did not enhance the experience at all.