chicagotribune.com: "This just in: Theater shows change from night to night.
I was reminded of this obvious but oft-underappreciated fact in New York last week. In that town, critics see shows on three or four press nights. I saw the new 'Brighton Beach Memoirs' on the same night as the little group of New York critics I trust. When I read all the reviews a couple of days later, I found different emphases and varieties of tone, of course, but I had almost exactly the same view of the strengths and weaknesses of the show. I saw another Broadway show, 'Memphis,' on a different night and didn't feel that way at all."
11 comments:
I find this article to be intriguing in light of the foundations class theatre review project for the sophomores. It is difficult to accurately review the strengths and weaknesses of a production when you only experience a single night in a long run. Perhaps an actor is having a bad night or a few cues are off. It reminds me not to comment on a specific experience watching a play but rather speak on the success of the artistic production team's creative intentions.
Part of what I think makes theater the art form that it is, is the fact that it's capable of rapid evolution. The same play can run for a month and never be the same night to night, which I think is what makes theater so entertaining. If a part of a play just is not working, it can be tweaked and adjusted in the hope of improvement. I have always thought that the reason that some people see the same staging of a play multiple times is to see how it changes depending on how it was received. I think to ignore this is to not really understand part of the art of theater.
I think that the slight variations are what make live performances really shine, and imperfections can sometimes make for a more entertaining experience. If the experience were meant to be exactly the same every night, a recorded version might as well be shown instead. I find it interesting that the author points out that reviews often do have an effect on what happens to productions. It's a look at feedback, that can be appropriately dealt with, and if the flaws are seen by many, fixing them might improve the production overall.
I'm glad that someone who reviews plays can remind people that his opinion only really counts for that one performance he sees. I hope that it drastically affects how his regular readers interpret his articles.
I think it's strange that theatre generally doesn't take advantage of its unique live night-to-night abilities. Usually, we strive for consistency but is it the written script that demands this or the directing of a show?
It's interesting seeing this after working on a longer run of a show over the summer. Almost every night, the actors were changing how they delivered lines and were doing things on the stage, and the show was different almost every night. Sometimes things help, other times they don't work as well, but it's this constant change helps to make theater what it is. As performances occur in front of audiences, both cast and crew make adjustments in order to figure out what works best during a show, and it's only after we are able to work on a show for a while that we start to learn and figure out what these adjustments need to be. It's the nature of the theater
Live theater, no matter how hard the performers and crew try to avoid it, is something that will be different every night. The differences can be minimized but they'll always be there. If you want to see something that's exactly the same from one run to another then you're looking for a movie, not a play. When you're doing something that depends on people to make it happen then the tiny changes, perhaps beyond any one person's control, will add up into possibly significant differences when they're all taken together.
I believe that there is not need to minimize the differences and variations in performances from night to night. This is what makes theatre what is it. If someone wanted to see something that is the same every night, they could spend 1/10 the price and go see a movie.
Every night, the actors work at inhabiting the world of the play (which has been set forth by the designers and directors in conjunction with the actors). Then it is the HUMAN interactions within this world that make performances interesting. Np human relation is the same every time.
This is what makes the live performance so different and exciting from all other forms of art. It changes every night, you never get the same experience. It's also so interesting because everyone reacts to it differently, and sees something more or less than another person who experiences the same performance.
Personally, this characteristic is what draws me to theater. The spontaneity in a scripted show is so exciting, and really keeps the whole production team on their toes. This shouldn't be interpreted as something negative, but a creative element that is always changing. Although we try and keep the artistic integrity of the show throughout the run, it will always be changing, slightly, but it won't be 100% consistent.
This is what makes theatre great. I've seen a few productions that I honestly believe have had a "perfect show." But I've never seen a perfect show. I think what draws me to theatre is that it has to work not just once, but every time, and needs to somehow be successful with subtle variations. This is also why cellphones are evil. Small things like that can greatly impact the performance that night. The actors of course have a great hand in ensuring the show is the same and well done each night, but the tech side also has a great responsibility too. Designing something that is extremely fussy and fragile. For example the giant hat in Wicked was just to unpredictable that for the tour they changed it to a projection thingy. Anyway the point is the crew has to create something that can viability work every night.
Anyway I like the fact that things change and that should be used as inspiration and motivation to try to achieve the perfect show.
I'm glad this theater critic decided to make this point, because reviews of plays are not at all the same as reviews of movies or books that are the same with every viewing, and they should not be taken at the same level of severity. I think most would agree that the fact that shows in the theater are always changing is a part of their appeal. I love when I am able to see a show on opening night and again when it closes, because in most cases you can really tell how much that show has grown throughout its production.
I think that one of the great things about theatre is that a show is never exactly the same each night, but I also think that it is important for the actors and crew to do their best to make it as close as possible to the same each night. There are so many things that can affect the pace of a show which weren't mentioned in this article, and I think that all of these things need to be taken into consideration. I don't think that any one performance is necessarily better than any other performance, I just think that all are different. It can be interesting seeing a show more than once, because you can see so many different things depending on how it was performed that night.
Post a Comment