To Re-Stage or not to Re-Stage?

"Theatre is a sort of thing where you really have to be there" -My Dad

I'm sure I could have found a more succinct quote that says the same thing through Google, but this is the one that got me thinking. It seems obvious that you have to be at a play to get the effect of it, but it is so so true. And that brings me to the play we recently performed as the culmination of our Theatre of the Oppressed 11th grade showcase: Boiling Point. We had a really successful run the night of the show, and most of the audience members seemed to take a lot from the show. The relative success we had that night is exactly the thing that makes me afraid for us to re-stage it without the set, the lights, and without Jennifer. Not that I'm against it; I'd definitely be willing to do it all over again, especially if the rest of the ensemble is on board, but it scares me to think that we may be diluting our show so that more people (who should have bought tickets in the first place-we were definitely not sold out) can see it. The pluses are obvious: more people get the message, we get more experience, our theatre class makes a mark on the student body, etc... But the risks are undeniable. What if our second performance is so bad that it takes away from our first?

Part of me feels like if they are demanding it, we have to supply it. And I think we are all flattered. It would probably be foolish NOT to re-stage it, shooting ourselves in the figurative feet. And since it is Theatre of the Oppressed, and we're trying to create some sort of statement or social dialogue, it makes me wonder: Are we failing to follow the spirit of Theatre of the Oppressed if we choose not to perform the show again? Maybe it's our duty to spread the messages in our show, especially if people want to hear them.

Then again, maybe they should have been there the first time around...