Monday, October 16, 2017
They Don't Make Theatre Sets Like they Used To
www.messynessychic.com: Just take a look at that stage from the Broadway debut of George Gershwin’s groundbreaking opera “Porgy and Bess” in 1935. On the rare occasion that I take myself to the theatre these days, what I look forward to seeing the most is always the set. I find myself willing the show to keeping moving on to the next act just so I can start inspecting the new set change. And you can imagine my disappointment when the curtains open and the production has decided to go with an abstract, minimalist, “modern interpretation” of the set.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It is interesting to see the extravagantly detailed and furnished sets from earlier periods of theater, especially considering the author's critique of the more conceptual and "minimalist" sets found in modern productions. There is definitely something immediately romantic and immersive about the grand scale and realism of the sets in the article, and they certainly transport the audience member into an immediately believable world. However, I think that there is also merit in more conceptual approaches, as the distortion of reality is a key component of theatrics. Personally, I would love to see more productions like the ones pictured in the article, but I think in the wide world of theater, there's room for anything and everything to be explored and showcased. The freedom of design should be celebrated, and I believe that the more different approaches being displayed at once, the better.
I think the author of this article is pretty naïve to theatrical scenery (and theatrical design in general). Modern scenic artists are exploring non-literal interpretations of the location of the play or musical or what have you that they’re working on in order to heighten other aspects of the show. For example, the set design that was discussed during Medea/Shulie’s Intent’s and Insights session was extremely conceptual, because the show calls for it. Showing locations does nothing to enhance the plot of the show, so the designer decided to focus on the actual theme of the play: female rage. By using carpeting and intense orange colors, the set evokes an actual emotion besides awe at the “prettiness” of the show. Comparatively, though, in The Humans on Broadway, a functioning 2 story house was reconstructed on stage because that is what the show needed. It needed a hyper real, somewhat boring, melancholy, lifelike interpretation on life. If every set had cute little wagons and pretty colors, what is the point of design anymore? Pushing the boundaries on the norm is what makes a good artist, not staying stuck in the 1930’s.
The images in this article were incredible. I’ve never seen images of scenery from before the 1950s and even the ones from 1930 were really amazing. The detail and the massive quality of the sets is mind boggling. I really like the “Present Laughter” at Plymouth Theatre. The railing detail is so beautiful and the walls are really tall and I love the paintings details. The title of this article, “”They don’t make theatre sets like they used to,” is really true. I think the evolution of minimalism and the different requirements people need to feel “immersed” in the story of a play/musical has changed scenery over the years. “Peter and the Starcatcher” and “Hamilton” both use similar techniques of creating entrances and exits with ropes without having huge set changes. While I do appreciate the minimalistic tactics of newer shows, but I love the images of these older sets.
First off, I agree with Beck's point about how all sets today aren't just minimalistic pieces of work and how they look at what the show needs. Also, I have to disagree with the article's narrow look at modern sets. This article leaves why modern sets aren't always extravagant. Many shows have tight budgets and can't escape having a minimalistic set. In order to produce more theatre and more diverse theatre, not all shows are allotted the same budget or level of expertise of people working on them. I think article takes a close-minded outlook in sawing let's look at the good old days where sets were amazingly extravagant. There are tons of professional shows with extravagant sets that have even more detailed than the 1920s through 1950s when these sets were built such as Wicked, Sunset Boulevard, Aladdin, The Lion King, etc. … I think the author makes a strong claim that “they don’t make sets like they used to” and doesn’t fully back it up. Instead of just bashing modern day sets as the tone suggests, the author should appreciate past sets and possibly acknowledge the beauty of present sets.
The sets that are shown in this article are stunning. While I certainly agree that for the most part sets are not as detail oriented to the same scale as they used to be. However some shows are. When I saw “Something Rotten” it definitely evoked the feeling of realism while still being in a fun, playful, musical atmosphere. I remember one particular scenic element was a small wooden cabin, covered in lights, with a door, and intense attention to the every detail, that was on stage for maybe a total of twenty seconds while it was rolled across the stage once in one song. I really would like to bring back more of this variety of performances where everything that should be in the scene is there and accounted for, however that also creates longer scene changes, which in the current entertainment atmosphere is not as desirable or defensible as it was in the past. It truly are the small details that bring the set from fiction into reality for the audience.
The sets shown here, were stellar, you can definitely see the roots of modern scenery growing from sets like Porgy and Bess and Present Laughter, which set the tone for a bigger than life experience within sets. When it shows the progression of sets throughout time, it also shows the progression and use of technology and design, such as the immense use of rigging in Wonderful Town, or the huge scale surprise in Europa. Nowadays, most sets purpose usually amplifies an aspect of a character, the world of the show, the time duration of a show, the storytelling method, etc. I don't think this article is necessarily bashing modern sets in any way, I think its rather highlighting the expansion and growth of stylistic elements that have been fostered and reinvented to fit the needs of modern shows, audiences, and modern theaters. To the authors credit, I agree that often times minimalistic sets are underwhelming, but that doesn't mean I would write it off, when a director or designer pulls back on one thing, its usually because they want you to focus on something else. This makes me think of the revival of A View From the Bridge directed by Ivo van Hove and set and lighting designed by Jan Versweyveld, this show had a form of maximal minimalism, and when I saw it, it only works, it highlighted the characters, it took you inside their minds rather then in the world of the play. Overall, this article was eye opening and a greatly opinionated article on the exploration of scenic design and its origins.
Hmm, I agree with the author of this article in that all of the sets featured in this article are beautiful. I really do enjoy when a curtain opens and a whole other world with the tiniest of details is displayed for the audience to get lost in. Yes, theater certainly has changed. It is easy to say that this change is for the worse. Sure, sets are not usually this minutely detailed or realistic anymore, but that doesn't mean that not as much thought or money was put into the design. Like the world changes, the people in it change, and what the people in this world reacts to changes. This is why you see so many shows using media now and forcing the audience to do more work to create the world themselves. The real world now, is a place full of technology. It is a world where people are trying to be unique and different and I think the sets nowadays are reacting to this.
I see this article as being the equivalent of the grumpy old man on the porch yelling “back in my day…” at some young whippersnappers. I agree that the sets pictured are beautiful. They are detailed and extravagant. But times have changed, as have style and design. Dresses from the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s are beautiful. They are detailed and extravagant, but they are also limiting and not suited for modern day. The same goes for sets. When you confine yourself to such a realistic world, you close many doors to abstract thought and expression of a deeper meaning. It seems to me that the focus of scenic design over the years has shifted from recreating the real world on the stage to implying the existence of the world and suggesting a greater truth found in the play. It seems as if the plays themselves have also made this shift. More modern plays tend themselves to be abstract and about an aspect of life, rather than an entertaining scenario or story from real life.
Seeing all of the theatrical scenery from a time when it was built with overwhelming grandeur is fascinating. We often talk about how we have moved into a more “minimal” and “conceptual” brand of theatre, but, as has been mentioned my may of my classmates, I don’t think that it is true that we have lost a love for the beautifully detailed sets of the past. I think it is true that we have more sets that have an intention beyond setting the world as it were, and more into amplifying a theme or the behavior of a character, but that does not mean we have lost our attention to detail. Perhaps people are simply exploring the different details they can choose to chase through a script and develop in scenery. I also must acknowledge the challenges that come with physically developing a set as incredible as the ones of the past. In terms of available resources, we must see the limitations that smaller theatres will face in developing sets of this style. A place like Broadway is designed to allow productions to push the boundaries set in the past, as well as to celebrate them in all of their grandeur.
Post a Comment