Friday, October 16, 2009
27 Visual Theatre Cliches
Props: "Though this is almost a month old, I’ve been wanting to get around to it. In Time Out London, Andrew Haydon has made a list of cliches of visual theatre that should be banned. He posits that these metaphorical objects and devices are so overused, that they’ve lost their impact. Here is the list with my commentary as it relates to props."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I found this article quite interesting, and rather funny. I agree that most if not all of these are overused, however there is a reason that cliches are there. they are used so often because they work! One has to keep in mind that yes, if you want to give an impact, and make something new and interesting that all of these would be inappropriate, but I don't think that they should be "out lawed".
I agree with Sylvianne. To add on to that, I think that the argument about it having less impact on younger generations is not necessarily true. I have never see a model T in use but I understand it when I see one. Because some of these images have become cliques they do hold a lot of the same impact simply from being seen so often. I also think that many of the things on the list are not only not cliques (Blackouts) but that many of them still have a lot of room for growth and impact in new theater. To write all of these images off would, I think, have a very negative effect on theater. We use these images to bring about certain times and feelings in an audience. They are an easy way to help an audience understand without having to spell something out. Although some of the items on the list are past their prime many of them are still useful.
I don't think these should be 'banned' I think that any prop or even just device (like the white noise during set changes) should be justified or not be in the show at all. However a lot of these cliches are cliches because they work. They create a world of being in the theater if nothing else and sometimes that is very useful.
Also, this list makes the writer sound like he's just disillusioned with theater in general. What would he like the director to do? Not every show needs to have movement pieces during set changes but when its right, its just right and he should appreciate that.
Where would "Death of a Salesman" be without a battered brown suitcase? I agree that most things on this list (with the exception of feathers) are commonly use devices in theatre that tend to occur frequently in plays and aren't necessarily cliches. There are reasons that specific props, lighting cues, sound effects, etc. are chosen for productions and usually it's because their underlying meanings resonate clearly with contemporary audiences. While I am personally more intrigued by designers and directors who try and create new meanings with symbols in plays, you sometimes can't avoid the overused prop. Some people claim that everything in theatre has been done before and there are no new ideas when it comes to symbols on stage, so maybe it's time these cliches took on new meanings.
I agree with Molly that the impact is not always lost. I really disagree with the statement made in the list about the microphones being used less now, and being less understandable. I feel that if something like an old fashioned microphone were important to the design to set a particular period, it shouldn't be compromised just because not everyone has happened to see one in their lifetime. As for a lot of the other things on the list, it really did seem more like a list of pet peeves than anything else, especially since a few of the things listed weren't visual.
I agree with Eric Hart. This list was very hastily put together. And I honestly disagree with many of the items put on the list. What I think Haydon made this list from is just items that personally bug him on stage. Things that he's sick of seeing over and over again. The thing is, there is a reason that they are there. If the time period and character's social status calls for a tattered brown briefcase, then they should most definitely have one. If the show calls for a snow storm, but the theater is not able to acquire the technology to have "fancy" fake snow, why not use shredded paper?
I understand that he doesn't want people to take the short way out, but sometimes you just do what you have to do to get the show up by opening.
I think so many things on this list are really... stupid to list. It started well with the battered brown suitcase... ok, i can see how that is overused. But they go on to say that blackouts and movement scene shifts without blackouts are both cliche's. What do they want us to do? And so many of these things listed are used often because they serve a good purpose in theatre and they are known by the audiences, but people are coming up with new ways of doing all these things and that is the beauty of it. I don't think these things shouldn't be used, I think they should be used more and in new and exciting ways.
There was only one point during reading this article where I found myself in agreement with what was being said. I do believe it is extremely important to do extensive research when it comes to props, often props are picked hastily and with little attention to detail and this can often lead to audience members noticing and being distracted by a simple object. However, I believe there is a reason why many of these things are used and while we may have to use them more carefully I think it is ridiculous to say we should not use them at all. Much of what we see in theatre, not only visual element, but in the acting and staging has been done before and can be deemed "overused"I think the challenge lies in combining many different elements and adding new things so that these familiar things do not become boring.
Before I read this article I had read the one that they were refering to first. At first glance of that aricle I thought that the writer might of had a point but that it seemed rather unprofessional; especially in reference to the fact that he metioned that he got some of his cliches from facebook friends. Then in this article, I thought it was ineresting to get the feedback on each of the separate points. I also found that I agreed wih his points more. Regardless I think it all has to do with your research for a show. I cant think that you can have decrees on what you can and cannot use, when you dont know what your show will call for
I think that when he said "banned" he didn't really mean banned. I think he was just saying that these props, or other items, are overused in shows. They appear in about every other show that you might as well put it on your initial budget before you even read the play. I do think that the list was pretty funny. It seemed like every other item was pushed on to other departments. I actually think that these props are used all the time just because they are the props that everyone has in there stock and I think that playwrights know this and use it to their advantage.
I think that when he said "banned" he didn't really mean banned. I think he was just saying that these props, or other items, are overused in shows. They appear in about every other show that you might as well put it on your initial budget before you even read the play. I do think that the list was pretty funny. It seemed like every other item was pushed on to other departments. I actually think that these props are used all the time just because they are the props that everyone has in there stock and I think that playwrights know this and use it to their advantage.
I read the prompt on the blog and had to read the article. I agree with Sylvianne that the article is very comical. Some of the things on this list shouldn't be used but other have to be because of the script. With some of the items time period must be looked at. It is really one of the most important things in any piece of theatre and should be paid more attention to. In my opinion some of these items would not be overused if productions considered time period all of the time. This is where a Dramaturge would come in use. A dramaturge would not necessarily be the answer because al of the departments can do their own research but it is just something to be considered.
Some of these I have to say I agree with. Umbrellas are a great effect, but is a Cliche that has become useless in its power. Some on the list I don't really understand, for example black outs? Blackouts are a necessary part of theater, maybe used to often and for the wrong reasons but as an audience being told a story, the blackout signifies the beginning and end of something. Without it the audience may become lost or confused as to wether the action has started or stopped. Now I am not talking about blackouts being used at the end of every scene, moment or emotion, but at the start and end of the show.
The effect becomes useless when every scene and moment starts and ends with a blackout. Creates nothing.
When something is used often it seems like it's not long before people are dismissing it as a cliche. What's often overlooked is that some things that are used often are used often not because the prop department (or scenery department, etc.) has a few favorite items but instead that they're items that often are called for in plays - why would a props department use a battered leather suitcase if the show didn't call for it? If the author has a character playing an accordion there's not a lot of choice in what to use to represent it. This annotated version of the list seems to better understand this than the original list, but it still seems to put a lot of the blame with the theaters themselves.
It does not seem like this list was very well thought-out. It seems a little odd to call black-outs "cliche." Sometimes they're misused, but that's an entirely different argument. The commenter's point that microphones as props won't make any sense to younger generations is silly. Based on that logic, are all period pieces ineffective because we don't use any of the props/costumes/scenic pieces in our own everyday life?
String... really?
While I do admit that many of these items are misused or overused, I would not really call them cliches.
For example, live video feed/projections are used way more often than they need to be. Sometimes, I feel, they are used for the sole purpose of using them (which never leads to good art). There should always be justification for what is put onstage, and that justification should always involve "how this fits in (and aids) the world of the play".
Another one I found ridiculous was blackouts. A blackout is a theatrical convention that is accepted by most (if apparently not all) theatre viewers. Again, while they might misuse or overuse them, to say that it is cliche is like saying a proscenium arch is cliche.
This article is brilliant. That is not to say that I agree with everything, but it was a good chuckle and I'm sure most theatre people "get" what the author is really meaning when reading it. There is no rule that says you can't use cliches--I just say make good use of them!
As for projections and live-video feeds, I'm in complete agreement. Projections and video may be really cool, but it hasn't really been used in theatre enough correctly for people to realize really how to use it to further the story-telling. Yes, it has been done a few times, but not a lot. Just because you've got the ability to zoom in and see things closer doesn't mean you should. I say, leave that to filmmakers.
Blackouts being cliche? Yeah, man... You tell 'em...
As for string, I'm a tad confused.
While there are a few things that do seem to make sense in terms of their overuse, video projection for instance, a lot of the things on the list are things that are just used a lot in theater, but are a necessary part, like the string, and blackouts, or are dependent on the play. It's hard to not use certain props when plays call for them, as many others have noted. The list seems hastily put together, and doesn't quite make complete sense since some of the so called cliches are just so broad that they really aren't cliches, and it just doesn't make sense not to use something just because it's cliched in someone's mind.
This is a really interesting and amusing list. Some of the things on the list I definitely don't agree with, but a lot of them I can understand. The overall thing that this made me think was that people need to get more creative. There are so many new things that can be used as props, and in all part of theatre design, and a lot of the old stuff is getting boring. I think that a lot of designers are getting less and less creative because they just submit to the way that props were used in past shows. "A battered brown suitcase means this...!" It isn't really exciting for the audience, and can definitely lead to audiences getting bored with theatre. I do think though that there are times when these things need to be used in order to get a point across.
I found that this list wasn't so much a list of theatre visual cliches as a list of someone's pet peives. I get that there are materials some like, and some don't, but not liking things like string? That's just ridiculous. It almost seemed like the person making the list also had no sense of departmental responsibilities. I'm not even entirely sure if more then 2/3 of the items listed were really even visual based as more things some designers do versus don't. I general I agreed with what the article's writer's commentary was on the list, but I did not agree with the list itself.
This list should be titled more accurately, somehwere along the lines of "last minute freak out design choices". Many of the items are on here are more like last resort options, paper snow, the infamous brown suitcase, inappropriate 'dramatic' blackouts, etc, and are tasteless when used improperly.
But like Molly says, theatre will always have some of these elements, and the important part is how you use this cliches and with what frequency.
For the purposes of time management, I am not going to read all 21 comments, but still post my own. So Kevin, or whoever reads these, I am sorry if I repeat someone else's comment, but there is no way I am going through all of them.
This might be the undereducated, ignorant self talking, but I found this article to be incredibly strange, pointless, and I am very skeptical. I would like to read the original article, as this was just commenting on it. I feel the original might have been more thorough and presented actual examples indicating WHY these items are being overused and when they have recently been put to use. Particularly because, (this might just be me) but I do not find these items to be repeated so often that I find them annoying. There are a few that are incredibly general...(the battered brown suitcase, etc.), but this article was completely pointless in terms of the information it gave. I say this because all I was thinking while reading it was, "well...what if the play calls for it?" Yes there are bad plays that use up their allowed number of cliches, and yes they do play into bad design, but that should have been the focus of this article, not the fact that certain things are misused because there is always an exception, and in the case of many items on this list, MANY exceptions. The battered brown suitcase usually looks aesthetically pleasing, but as mentioned in the article, not always accurate. In my opinion, that should have been the focus of this article: to emphasize that just because something looks nice/is a theatre cliche, it is okay to use. This is where dramaturges come in, so...yeah. yay
I agree that we may not suffer too much if a lot of these are banned but, there are several that can actually have an even greater impact because of the fact that they are cliches. This is a thin line to walk but, even still it's there. As we've learned a cliche can be even more powerful than originality if "placed on its head".
This was a funny article, and I enjoyed reading the commentary about the "banned" items from the stage. However I feel that if you are designing a show, you shouldn't limit yourself by thinking about visual cliches. I think that you should just design the show first without putting up any walls, and then address the cliche problem and figure out a way to accommodate for it.
This is a good rebuttal to the original article. Although I still agree with the spirit of the original, banning these things is seriously taking it too far.
...I'm kinda really insulted by insinuating bowler hats are overused. They probably are, but there's a reason for it. They connote something very specific, helped in no part by the Magritte painting. That's true with most things in this article; when used with reason, they're not terrible. When used just because it's the "in" thing to do, or it would be cool, one needs to reconsider.
I feel that it is important to understand the visual cliches in order to depart from them and use these items in an innovative new way that audiences are not used to seeing. But I really disagree in "banning" these items and there uses from the stage. In a farce, for example, one might want to exploit a cliche to further a plot point or make a strong statement.
Feather falling from the ceiling! Aha! I did a show this past spring that used this visual device, to great effect. But I was unaware that this has become a cliché... oh well. Is there anything a director can do these days that hasn't already been done? As they say--there are no new ideas. I totally believe it.
Post a Comment