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 2 comments

Kevin, well put man!
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