taking the play at face value, before the director gets a hold of it, this is a fantastic piece of work. it's no wonder it won the Pulitzer in 2003. the language is beautiful, the characters are well crafted and the plot, while not the most shocking, or original plot is still very good.
the production at U.S.U. unfortunantly, is a mixed bag: there are some great things, and there are some sad sad mistakes.
Tech:
well, first i'll start with the good: the set, in the past, particularly shows done by this director (Lynda Linford) the set has ate (damn near literally) the action on stage. this is not one of those sets. it's very functional, there is no overbearing elements. the cigar rolling desks are well placed giving an obstacle for some of the action to take place around, but not preventing the actors from being able to move.
the lighting: oh dear, for some reason that probably only the director and the lighting designer know, only stage left ever seemed effectively lit, which is disapointing, because alot of action takes place on stage right. this isn't for every scene obviously, but for a vast majority of the more intimate scenes (which there are several) the action moves in and out of darkness. i would love to be able to see the actors faces as they actually emote. some of the blame lay squarely in the arms of the director.
sound: as with many shows, my big complaint with this one is music going over the actor's dialogue. music certainly has it's place, but not when the actors are talking, especcially when what their saying is relavent to the plot.
costumes: and props: of the tech, costumes and props are oft times the two technical elements that i oft times overlook, or notice. it's unfortunant, but true. both served thier functions well, but didn't scream amazing to me.
direction: here is where much of the problem lay in this production. i hate to bag on the director of any production because a) i know almost nothing about direction, and b) i usually can't tell what was actor choice and what was direction for the director. this production, while the first still applies, the second does not. i noticed the direction in this show: character moving for no reason, not moving when it was obvious the actors wanted too (sometimes desperately needed too). the direction in this play was so glaring at times, it's amazing that the actors pulled it off as remarkably well as they did.
acting: the one problem (aside from the direction) with the show was the dialect. now i know this wasn't an actor decision (it was the directors), but i wasn't sure the need was there, and one could tell that the actors weren't all completely comfortable with it. that being said: the actors did one hell of a good job. the play could have been a disastor, but instead turned out to be a good show, and that lay squarely on the actors shoulders. dialect aside, there are some very good and satisfying performances in the this play. in fact there wasn't one that i was disappointed with.
over all a good show, and a good performance. if you can check it out, it continues Wednesday-Saturday this week, curtains at 7:30 p.m.
posted by F.G. Shaw @ 6:14 PM
2 Comments:
I'm going to see it this week. Sounds like you nailed it, Frank.
Might I just add; the buck stops with the director. Acting direction and actors to fill the roles, tech, design, dialect are all elements the director makes a choice on, or has the capability to make a choice on. If it didn't 'pop' in any givin area it all leads back to direction.
D'
Post a Comment
<< Home