HowlRound: You spend years in the theatre business, feel at the top of your game, and life throws you an unexpected wind of change. This is exactly what David Butler, a production designer based out of Buffalo, went through two years ago when the tax credits for film production companies began trickling into his town. Through recommendations from the theatre community, Butler got a call that changed the direction and focus of his career after three decades working as a designer. He notes, “There was a level of terror involved in the transition. I always thought that film would be fun to do, but I didn’t know the language.”
9 comments:
I can imagine how working in film could feel like tech week all day, every day! In theatre, there are half the people and usually, half the need to attention (just because there's distance between the audience and the stage). In film, everything has to be replicated to a T. Especially since nearly all film or television is filmed in high definition, any mistake or "prop swap" will be noticed and seen. I remember reading another PTM article way back talking about how with film, if the props aren't noticed than you've done a spectacular job. If you notice something about the props which take you outside the world of the scene, then it's an issue. I have thought about one day working in film or television because I feel like there's a certain excitement and thrill attached to the production value that you don't necessarily get or need in theatre. For example, the article speaks about how for film you must build all the walls of a room. If you need a living room, you're building an entire living room and not just 3 flats. Because of that, you get a full immersion in the art form. I think for me, that connects me back to my love for immersive/interactive theatre-- the whole aspect of being completely engulfed and enveloped within that universe.
This was very eye-opening for me because I often wonder how theater work compares to film work, and this article broke it down in a concise and thorough way. The film life sounds extremely high-energy and fast-paced, which I think would be fun to work in for a while but would probably get very exhausting after time. I wonder whether more people transition from film to theater, or theater to film? It would be interesting to hear the alternate side of the story and talk to someone who switched from film to theater. The idea of having to pay intense attention to detail and flesh out the entire set sounds like it would be the most difficult to adjust to, and would probably take a lot of trial and error to be able to transition completely into the film mindset. On one hand, I would love to make a complete space that a person could actually live in, with detailed props and accurate set dressing. On the other hand, it would require so much more attention and energy to create each area than on a theater set.
What’s interesting about this article is that it talks about the “fear” of transitioning from theatre to film, when I’ve heard that the transition can be fairly smooth. I know that a lot of my friends are also considering a career not solely in theatre, but also in television and film, which I think says a lot of how our generation wants define their work. They do not want to be held down to one title, which I think is awesome. What is also interesting about this article is that I can see a lot of similarities between Pittsburgh and Buffalo right now. I’m sure that a lot of local shops in town are experiencing what the prop shop described in the article is going through right now, and I don’t think that it is necessarily a bad thing. Pittsburgh has a booming industry and pretty established theatre community so it will be interesting to see how professionals respond to the future changes.
From my uninformed, biased opinion, I thought that this article doesn’t really give enough credit to working in the theatre. I am sure that working on a film set requires a huge amount of stamina and dedication, but the article went about this by seeming like the theatre doesn’t. Sure, sets aren’t always four walls, but the author seems to only take into consideration traditional, proscenium theatre. Just the other day, I saw 4:48 Psychosis, which had a very detailed set that was viewed from two different directions. Though not necessarily the same as a film set, the close proximity to the audience called for extremely detailed props with consideration being taken into with every book, picture and note. Another thing, many other professional and commercial shows make their props extraordinarily detailed to look just as real as if they would be in real life, like on a film set. I am sure the author did not intend to put down the theatre in these ways, but the theatre the author talks about is not necessarily what actually goes on.
Although I understand many of the sentiments presented, I have to agree with Alex on this one: theatre designers are just as commited to detail and realistic construction as anyone whose work happens to appear in high definition. Just because we are often confined to three walls and Styrofoam doesn't mean we don't make the best out of it. More so, as someone who wants to work in the film world specifically because I live for the elevated workload, I didn't appreciate the negative connotations which the article placed on its comparison of film production to a continuous "tech week." What's so wrong with a continuous tech week? That hectic, stamina-testing, keeps-you-on-your-toes part of the process is the time in which I feel the most purposeful and capable, and the reason I want to go into a business which will require that type of effort from me all the time. There is such stigma surrounding tech week which makes it only something dreaded or something to be survived. This idea that tech is the thing that breaks us has to stop. We as designers all know what we are capable of and what we have been through, and we know that as tough as it may be, tech will always remain. So why not love it? As a matter of fact, why not live for it? And why not venture excitedly into an industry which requires that willingness to bend? The whirlwind of the film industry should not be something to be dreaded, at least not by any designer who knows what they are capable of.
Film production design is what I really want to do and I'm so glad this article was posted. no one ever talks about the transition between theater and film despite the fact that most schools offer design for stage as opposed to design for film. but this was helpful to know that there is hope in the transition in between! I am glad that you need the design and technical skills from theater but some more life skills. and he's right. I just read the entire book of production design and costume design adapting Harry Potter to the screen, and as opposed to theater where you have a few scenes but mostly one base area, in a film like that you need to create a whole world with incredible detail on everything. it seems intense but it also gives me hope because I love detail and designing things like that. I hope I can do that!
It sounds like the author is saying that theatre artists will have a hard time transitioning into the film industry because film is "theatre on steroids", but if people working in film were to transition to theatre, I think they would have an equally hard time. In theatre, everything is happening right in front of the audience. Once the show starts, there is no chance for "cut"s or "take two"s. Any mistake that happens on stage is inevitably seen by everyone. I believe that film and theatre both have their advantages and challenging disadvantages, but with the recent growth in technology and its involvement with film/tv, a lot of film/tv are just shot in front of a green screen - which cannot be done in front of a live audience. That being said, although I have experience in both film and theatre, I haven't had much professional experience in film so I think this article definitely offers some good advice to prepare those who are considering going into tv/film.
This was an interesting article to read and its focus on the need for detail in film was particularly interesting. For me the biggest difference between the theatre and film world seems to be budget. Theatre often doesn’t afford designers off Broadway to really get every detail they want onstage in the detail that they wanted. Particularly in smaller spaces such as the Rauh theatre where you are often faced with a challenge of having an audience look closely at a set for over an hour, something that almost never happens in film. These sets are often limited to a budget of a few hundred dollars and what you can find lying around in the shop. In film however any location with that kind of screen time might have a budget of thousands or much more. I don’t mean to criticize the author’s point that attention to detail is required in film but rather to say that it is often required in theatre too even if our budget doesn’t always allow it.
I have to oppose some of the comments that are being made on this article. A lot of people are getting annoyed with the author for saying that transitioning into film is difficult, when transitioning into theatre is just as difficult. Others are saying that the transition should be easy because their friends plan on doing it.
Changing careers is hard. Changing the way you think and work and speak is hard. The similar skillsets are a huge advantage, but there is still much translating to be done. No one ever said that transitioning into theatre would be easy. Theatre is not "easier," it is different, and difficult in different ways. I've found this in working non-theatre jobs with theatre management skills. You have to use all of the things you have learned over however many years you've been working in theatre, and simultaneously forget every single thing you have learned over however many years you've been working in theatre. It is a huge adjustment, and I find the author extremely brave for having both done it and written about it.
Post a Comment