Theater Reviews + Features | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper: If there is a shibboleth for American actors — at least since Brando debuted on Broadway in the late 1940s — it’s been their ability to convey accents, as well as non-native language, in a convincing manner. Just listen to the desultory attempts to speak like a South Bostoner in the 2006 film The Departed.
20 comments:
I really appreciate this article. “Playboy of the Western World” was the first CMU School of Drama production that I have seen, and I could not have asked for a more superb starting point. Though I did not fully follow the lines due to the accents at times, the acting was more than impressive and so was the live music, played by my fellow classmate Harry Thornton. The thing about this article that I particularly like is the research and the respect that the author has put in. Sheppard carefully acknowledged so many pieces that went into the play and praised more than just the acting (he mentions the lighting director, the cellist, the scenic designer, and the costume designer), thereby giving credit to those who added a holistic level of nuance and impressiveness to the play. His mention of the use of no intermission to allow for a smooth transition from night into day actually makes me want to jump into my seat again to pay attention to how Andrew DG Hunt, the lighting designer, accomplished this feat. Overall, I appreciate the respect that Sheppard is giving to the actors and I fully agree with his praise-filled review.
I already knew I was going to love my first six weeks of crew just getting to work in the costume shop - I had no idea how much I would love spending all that time working for Carolyn on Playboy! What I came to love about these costumes was the authenticity that went into their construction, whether that meant hand-stitching Pampooties for three days straight, making mock-ups for and fraying shawls to get them just right, or watching as my classmates painted and scratched and smeared to get the distressing just right. After last year's fun but somewhat disorienting main stage venture into the fantastical and the ultra-modern (with some albeit not far off exceptions) it was wonderful to watch the costume shop fill with wools and linens and leathers as Playboy came into full swing. Part of what made that so lovely was getting to be a small part of the careful labor that went into capturing the rugged beauty of this distinct, specific world. I liked watching Playboy - but I loved getting to help bring it to life even more. Now I can't wait to declare so I can do this all the time!
I’m proud of this cast for winning someone over THIS much, but I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a bit skeptical of this review. I’m not trying to promote negativity by any means, but I have to say that as a theatre critic if you are unable to provide any points of critique, or even anything other than compliments did you really even WATCH the show? Like did you TRY? Because, all respect to the creative team, but this was not a flawless show. How could anything done in the name of education ever be flawless?
And on that note how are you helping these students grow if you can’t give them any response to what they did besides praise and admiration? I think it is very telling that he didn’t mention any actions of what actually happened to make him love the show. Other than the comments on the lighting and scenic design, this review could have been on summary of the play.
I think the best part about the playboy scenic design is the details. I mean obviously the best part is the hard work the sophomores on props crew the first few weeks did distressing all the props, they are gorgeous and elegant beyond belief and all of those sophomores should get compensated for their hard work but other than that the best part was the details. Particularly the use of real dirt and beer kegs all over the set. It takes it from conveying the idea of a location to becoming that location and reinforcing the tone and mood of the play. The little touches like grass in the dirt and beat up pieces of a beer keg lying covered in actual mud in a hard to see corner are the best parts of a beautiful set. I only wish we could have built the flagstones and fireplace out of real rock as well.
The show Playboy of The Western World was an articulate and amazingly beautiful show that made me so proud to be a member of the Carnegie Mellon community. I would like to focus my comment on the scenic element of the show because it was one of the most captivating parts of the show for me personally. The scenic design for The Playboy of The Western World was a shock to me as I first entered the theatre. As this was the first CMU drama show I have seen (and worked on) I was sincerely blown away at the quality, detail and execution of such a beautifully designed set. The design thoroughly supplied all the scenic needs of the scripts while still maintaining the individuality of the designer. Personally, my favorite part of the design was the dirt loaded in at the base of the thrust. I have wanted to load in dirt for a show for years and I love the grounded and natural aesthetic of real earth in a set. I believe that it was the addition of this dirt that connected the actors back to the natural beauty of Ireland and more importantly what Ireland truly is. The characters looked as if they belonged in the environment and it was so flowing and natural for them to be there. Overall I think the scenic elements as well as the overall performance of the Playboy of The Western World was successful and captivating to watch as my first CMU Drama show!
I recently saw Playboy, and I went in with absolutely no prior knowledge or recolection of the play. This being said, I was able to follow the storyline clearly and precisely. The lighting design painted such a beautiful realistic sky, and I could look at those rolling hills for hours (actually, I probably have since I spent most of my evenings working on them as a crew assignment). I agree with the article, the show itself was wonderful inside and out, but when giving such widespread page to every actor and designer, I was rather shocked that he left out the stage manager,dramaturg, and two of the actors. I could only imagine how disapointing and hurtful that would be to them, to have their cast members talking about their praise and be the only ones left out. If Sheppard wanted to only praise a few, maybe he should have just mentioned the leads, not all but 3 of the people that made it happen.
Funny he should say that you can hear the difference between the real dirt under the actors feet vs a hollow plywood deck, considering that there is hollow plywood deck underneath those actors feet. Isnt sound dampening for theater difficult? Scenic note: can we make the set quieter? No, not really but we will try. I have many questions about the ideal way to do sound dampening for platforms. What causes the hollow thumping noise? Is it the diaphragm of air that we have created underneath the set that reverberates and makes the dumb beat sound? Or is it that the plywood membrane deflects just enough to vibrate in the right way? How do I stop it? I have heard that really the best way to make platforms quieter is just to make them denser, but that is expensive. Is there a good solution? I don’t know of one.
It is interesting to me that this article opens with praise of the accents. When I was watching this play, the only thing about this play that seemed inauthentic to me was the accents. I do not have an ear for accents, and I don't particularly pride myself on understanding something said in an accent, but to me, many characters fell in and out of their accents and each character seemed to be coming from a different region. I could, however, separate this from the acting which was in one word, exceptional. I loved seeing this author engage with the tech during the show. They were intently listening to and watching every element that the students here perfected. The designers were very careful to pay attention to every single detail from the light transitions to the texture of the stage, and I'm glad that doesn't go unnoticed.
Playboy of the Western World was a smack in the face. An amazing smack in the face. Coming from high school theater to university level theater was such a shocker. The skill level of the people working on the show from the cast to the designers is amazing and showcases their years of dedication and hard work. The show was especially seen from an interesting angle by me because I was fortunate enough to work on it as my production assignment! Getting to see the actors up close was awesome. Their costumes were weathered extremely well and one aspect that was especially great was when they smile and you see all the grime in their teeth. You also got to touch and set all of the props, some of which were amazing antique and tools you wouldn't even need today. I think this attention to detail is what really made the show. Even though I was a bit bummed there were no scene changes, no crazy effects, nothing flying in, because there was one scene, each designer could look into it EXTREMELY carefully. The designers knew exactly what they were doing when they carefully arranged each object and programmed each lighting cue. Finally, I think the work with the sound was extremely unique. By combining the thunder & lighting with the music from the cello, an beautiful mood was created.
#dirtboys
Being on Playboy Crew means seeing every show, which in itself is a blessing and a curse. A blessing in the sense I understand the 'average' show, in which everything things went correct. A curse in the sense that after that many shows every error is glaringly obvious. As much as I love playboy and it was a beautiful performance I come away from the critique feeling uneasy. Mostly because there are no critiques, so it is all praise. Which is flattering but in my opinion a little unrealistic. Also the spoiler in the review with no spoiler warning is not cool. It was nice to read each designer mentioned by name,as I do get tired of reading about articles just speaking to the acting and no the performance as a whole. Something that confused me was the dirt comment. The dirt was praised because it wasnt wood, but the other entirety of the stage was wood so Im confused if the criticte assumed everything was dirt or just failed to notice the set was wood (in which case woooo to the designers/builders).
#wannabedirtboi
Being the production assistant on Playboy gave me a good insight not only into the show, but into how it ran. It was really cool seeing a show go through the the tech process, and it was great to see everyone put their hearts into the process. I wish that the article had mentioned Thomas' sound design, as his work combined with Andrew's lighting created some of my favorite moments. Specifically, the storm at the start was extremely effective due to these elements. Like some of the other people that read this article I do think that it's being a little overly positive. In an educational setting there in value in praise, but there is even more value in having your work criticized. It's great to know that our work is being perceived by the community in a positive way, but without knowing what to work on it's hard to grow. Every productions has it's flaws, and acknowledging them lets you learn what to do in the future.
I think most of this article was spot on. I am no judge for acting, but I thoroughly enjoyed the show, and I thought the cast did a fantastic job with each of their roles. I especially liked what the author of this article said in terms of the scenery and lighting. I thought both the scenic and lighting designers did a fantastic job interpreting the setting of the play. I especially thought that the lighting designer did a great job including a rich color palette into his design and using these rich colors to portray both the mood of each sequence and also the setting and time of day, as the play spans several different days. Overall, I think that the designers and actors did a tremendous job interpreting the script and making it a beautiful show.
As a few commenters have mentioned this review feels like it lacks a lot of substance because it is all praise with no critiques. Having a respectful but critical response to one’s work is important for artists, especially in an educational setting because the point is that students are able to take the mistakes they made in the production and learn from them. It really is just a summary peppered with compliments. However, given the nature of the review there is one thing that surprised me. The reviewer made sure to give a nod to everyone and even some people have commented that they are glad he took time to acknowledge all the designers, but he didn't. He forgot a whole department. Perhaps it was because I was looking for my roommate's name that this omission was so noticeable to me. But Thomas Ford, the show's sound designer, was never mentioned. It is not overly surprising given that people tend to overlook/ignore the sound department. But it is unfortunate in my opinion that theatre goers time and time again undervalue the contribution of sound design to what they are experiencing.
Wow, what a great (if entirely nonconstructive) review! Well deserved, of course, but still. It's always nice to see our friends specifically praised for their work.
I love the way he talks about Joe Essig's comfort in the role of Christy. I've always found that the greatest shows for me as an audience member are when I forget I am not witnessing real life. There were a few moments during this play (and the realistic set I think helped a great deal) when I did feel so pulled in that I did not remember where I was. There certainly is an easy air about the way these actors carried themselves that made everything seem very natural. That said, the story wasn't very compelling to me. I really enjoyed watching the play, but afterward, I wasn't sure what to take away. People ask, "How was it?" "Did you like it?" and I could usually muster a "Yeah it was really nice," but the actual storyline didn't quite hit home with me.
I am so glad that this show got the review it deserved. I was given the opportunity to work behind the light board, and I never got tired of looking at the lighting design. The changes were beautiful and amazing in the sense that the audience did not realize the time of day change until they were finally in it. This set design was also absolutely gorgeous. When I heard the scenic designer talking about what he wanted to convey onstage I was fascinated, and then to actually see it onstage was astounding. There could not have been a better set for this show in my opinion. I also never got tired of watching Timiki and Will at the beginning of Act 3. Their performance was full of so much energy and I wish the critique had given them more credit. I was so happy to get the chance to work on this show and see it every night, because the actors, designers and technicians did an amazing job with this production.
This is the first time that I have seen a review of a Carnegie Drama show that is not very constructive. It praises the work that went into it, especially the actors and the dialect coaching, but that is common to highlight. I was mostly on costumes crew for this show and the main idea for when we were pulling or distressing anything was poor Irish potato famine. I think the show as a whole was very well put together and all the visual items on stage were cohesive as well as amplified through the sound and lighting. For most of my crew calls I was distressing items, and we would always have a scale on how far to beat up an item, the most poor characters went very far with a lot of rips and stains, and then the more upper of the poor were less so beaten up.
I am glad that Playboy got this well deserved review, It was exciting and interesting to work on. As it was the first CMU show i have worked on, i was excited and curious to see how the set would turn out. The best part about it in my opinion is how detailed the set is, from the moss on the hillock, down to the shrubs sprouting out of the actual dirt on the stage floor. while i thought i had worked on detailed sets before, they were nothing compared to the effort, and thought that went into this one. I was also given the opportunity to film the show, and being able to see the performance multiple times only increased my appreciation for the actors, and crew members working on the show. In all, my first CMU show was incredibly awe inspiring, and im eager to work on more in the coming years.
It is really great to read such a nice review on a show that you helped build. Apart from the actors that were mentioned and their performances, the technical aspects seemed to also have an impact. I can't help but allude to a previous comment which mentions how there was nothing "bad" to say about the production. I personally was not able to watch the show, but I did speak to may people that did. From those conversations I got very mixed reviews from both students, professors, and parents. Some really liked it, while some couldn't find any appreciation for it. It is true, if you only have nice things to say as a critic and have no actual critique, did you even watch the show. Now, I am very happy for the cast and creative team for receiving this review, but personally, I would look for reviews that don't sugar coat and say what needs to be said.
It's funny, but I think that the closer one is to a production, the more critical one becomes of its shortcomings. Being on the run crew of Playboy, I saw an initial run-through and already I did not think it was a perfect play, as this reviewer seems to think. I have had constructive discussions with my peers, already critiquing several elements of not only the design, but the material itself as well. I think this is absolutely necessary for every single production to improve, and doubly important for a school of drama production. I do not want to diminish the the spectacular work accomplished by the designers, actors and crew, to make it happen, but as someone who helped build the set, run cable, and had to listen to it backstage for 2 weeks, there are definitely flaws to be had. Then again, perhaps it is I who should be less critical, because I certainly am not an objective observer.
Playboy of the Western World has so much to unpack. Though performed as a comedy, the play is packed full of social commentary on gender, class systems, age, and the way we perceive cultures other than our own. I am glad to have read such a positive review of a Carnegie Mellon SOD production. I think it is important that we receive highly praised reviews. After all, it's what keeps our name at the top. However, I like many others had a few issues with the production. My main question of the production was "Why this play now?" Though I think that the text offers a lot of meaty topics to unpack I did not feel that our production here at CMU did that at all. I commend the actor's for picking up such a heavy dialect and making it seem easy. Though I more often than not missed a lot of what was said, and had to rely on the stage picture and lighting to understand the plot. Many of the elements, for me, did not add up. The costumes and scenery worked in tandem, however, I found that the lighting moved all to quickly for the actual progression of the play. Instead of a gentle sunset, I found myself questioning the bright colors used on the cyc and moon projection that did not fit with the authenticity of the rest of the design elements. Overall the performance was entertaining, but I was not fully immersed into the world being presented.
Post a Comment