after working through this show, after one frustrating rehearsal after another, and railing against the set (and the directing) and nearly shanking the set designer for his idiocy, i want to direct this show. i fully intend to take both directing classes now (next year) just so i can learn what i need to direct this awesome play.
i can see the biggest problem is that the designers and the director, simply didn't want the characters and the words to speak for themselves. the show became about masturbating thier egos more than anything else, which is fully evident in the set. we the actors came as an after thought almost at least that is how i felt, and others felt at times. i could rail against the set all day, to no offense to the actual work that went into building it, there was some handi-work that is amazing and interesting, though i can't give much credit to the designer for that.
i can imagine how incredible this play would be done on a nearly bare stage, with out the dialect (which was asked of us by the director i might add, we have actually pulled back the amount we were doing it, if you can believe that) and without the pomp and circumstance of 60 people.
i fully and freely admit: i know nothing about design, directing, or acting for that matter, i just get up and do it. but i do know when it's wrong, and i can fully recognize the beauty in the simplistic, especially after this experience.
but i wonder, at what point does a designer get so out of touch with the medium he's working in that he loses focus of the point of the production? shouldn't everything in a show be made to compliment each other? when you get right down to it, it seems to me what makes a play, what is essential to a play is two things, actors, and a script. it doesn't even have to be a solid script just an idea of one, or an outline can work. everything else should be made to compliment these two things. not take focus.
i've come away from this show having learned something at least. the most important thing i've learned is, simplicity over complexity. this is a lesson i've actually known and learned in the past, but it's good to have it re-affirmed. i've also learned that if you want to approach a play, any play but especcially shakespeare, try to at least focus on what's important. the characters, the language, the conection between the actors and the audience. not something to masturbate your ego.
but anyway, i digress.
so once again Kevin, well put! a good and fair critique of the show!
posted by F.G. Shaw @ 1:32 PM
2 Comments:
Thanks, Frank. It wasn't fun to write but it also needs to be said in a training program. There's plenty of room for artistic choice but that choice has to be within the range of what was intended by the playwright. There are tons of choices right there, if you free yourself up to look for them.
And now to Nick's blog to say essentially the same thing.
thanks, Frank.
(I'll try this again. I think I was kicked out. If this is a repeat, I apologize).
That was a hard critique to write but I think it's important to discuss these things in an academic environment. I think most of the best lessons I got while I was in school, and what keeps me thinking, is good, hard discussions of art. It makes me search for why something works or doesn't and I learn from others' perspectives. There's plenty of room for choices - millions of them - but the reality is you have to stay true to the intentions of the playwright. Anything else is arrogance and masturbation. Everyone can see that for what it is.
Theatre is a very distinct and exact art, no matter how free-form it may appear to amateurs. It is as exact as any other form of art. It's tougher because it's one of the few forms of collaborative art. When it breaks down, it often breaks down with that collaboration, mostly because the communication between collaborators stinks. I sensed that with Macbeth. Nobody can be out of the loop in theater.
Now to Nick's blog so I can say basically the same stuff over there...
Post a Comment
<< Home