Snippitts of Illusions

in response to nick.

"When do you know if you have (messed with a show too much), or added too much?"

that is the question right there, and it can be applied to all forms of art: Music composition, theater, writing, painting and sculpture, and i believe it is the question every artist has to ask him or herself.
as far as theater goes, you have to ask yourself, as kevin pointed out, what was the playwright's original intention with the play?
then you need to stay true to those intentions (if you figure it out), it's easy enough when the playwright is around and you can ask, but it becomes slightly more difficult when the writer is dead and buried.
i can see how there would be a conundrum with doing shakespeare and restoration in this modern time, as opposed to a contemporary play: how to comunicate the meaning of the flowery language in such a way that the audience "get's it"?
here, i think, there's a tendency to underestimate the contemporary audience's intelligence.
just because we live in an mtv world, doesn't mean that those coming to see a show written during shakespeare's era are necessarily stupid.
but there seems to be a tendency to try and placate them and try to make things more mtvish for the audience.
and up here at least that tendency rears it's head in the form of bussi-ness with design and concept.
it makes no sense to me, especially when it detracts.
why make something more complicated when the language itself can, at times, be unwieldy?
that isn't to say there shouldn't be design or concept to the show, but it all comes back to the question nick posted on his blog, and that is stated at the top.

some of the ideas with macbeth, design wise, aren't terrible ideas in general, but they were very poorly executed with this show: either too much, or not clear in thier execution.
some of the designs were flawed from the begining and should have been axed, when recognized.
but ahhh, that's where egos come in.
and that's the problem with artists in general: egos.

being able to recognize when too much as been added to a work (shows, musical scores, paintings), or when an idea is not working is, i believe, the sign of a trully great artist.
the ability to create art is only as good as the ability to recognize when the art is finished, and needs to be created no more.
that being said, it is often thought that an artist is never satisfied with thier own work.
but one (artist or spectator) should never mistake disatisfaction for the need to keep adding to a piece, instead it is an indication for the desire to improve the abilities for the next piece.
that's also a sign of a good artist, the ability to take something away from the work.
even if that something is along the lines of "i won't ever do that again".
i think all artists should strive to be good in thier art, and not stagnate.
bring something away from every experience.
so i have to ask myself as an actor, sit down long and hard and think about it: what did i do that made this show good, or made this show bad?
in composition i have to ask a similar question: what works with this piece, and what doesn't?
if i can't answer those types of questions, for myself, then what is the point of continuing on in the business of creating art?

as for macbeth when i sit down and ask myself that question, the first answer i come up with is my initial attitude.
initially my attitude was somewhat negative, sadly a majority of peoplse were negative, and remained that way through out.
it's easy to carry that attitude when certain designers and directors have a reputation for being difficult to work with, but it shouldn't be an attitude that one carries from the start.
my attitude changed to some degree, but too little, too late to have a genuine effect with this production.
that is the thing i did that made this production bad, what did i do to make it good?
well i can't put my finger on it.
i may be guilty of not bringing anything to the table to make this show good, and if so, then the fact it was a bad production falls onto my shoulders to some degree.
i'm neither blameless, nor can i take full blame.
but being a weak link in a chain of weak links does not bode well for my creativity, or acting ability, though being able to recognize it is something.
now i just have to do something about it.

posted by F.G. Shaw @ 10:53 AM