Time Out London: "Queuing for some show or other recently, I happened to overhear the following from a young director who’d spent the previous ten minutes talking about how talented he was: 'Oh, by the way, if you’ve got any stories or anything, it’d be wicked if you could write it. I know exactly how I want the show to look, but haven’t got any narrative yet.'
I restrained my urge to turn around and throttle him on the spot. But only just."
9 comments:
I have to agree with a lot of the comments left on the Time Out London article, a lot of these are conventions for a reason and are not always dictated by the director or the designers. This is especially true in "visual theatre" where icons are often utilized in an ironic fashion, or maybe even to bridge the gap to the layman. Other items on the list may not be conventions, but are quickly becoming common useful tools that many young directors need to experiment with in order to better develop their artistic selves.
I think it's also important to point out that this guy suggests a rating system, and not an automatic write off of any production that uses these. I think that 5 stars might not be enough for any advancement. Especially if blackouts and "movement sequences instead of blackouts" both exist on the list. I would actually be really interested in seeing what are perceived as cliches by a statistical analysis of a series of productions. Mind you the PC title would have to be "common practices" but even that would be interesting to see, especially with more youthful and technology oriented directors around.
In my opinion this list makes a few good points, but seems largely to be a haphazard, poorly thought out collection of personal peeves. As the author pointed out many of the "visual cliches" are not "visual' at all. All said however the Time Out London article brings up a point I agree with. Certain articles, bowler hats, battered brief cases, and accordions are specifically mentioned, show up more frequently in shows than history really merits. Research is always beneficial to the designer, even when we feel we can assume an object's appropriateness.
I just realized this article was posted after posting a long rant on the other article commenting on this article...so...yeah...I don't want to be redundant but I am slightly more satisfied by this measure.
I recently read one of the response articles to this list, and now that I've read the original, I have a bit of a different view. It seems that rather then having these things removed from theater all together, there just needs to be more control of how commonly they're used. I understand that lots of visual design choices have become iconic because they carry an idea incredibly well, but there is such a thing as over use. After reading the response, I found myself thinking about how many plays I'd seen that contained battered brown briefcases or suitcases, and I was a little bit surprised when given the fairly limited number of shows I have seen, I was fairly sure that the "iconic" prop piece had made an appearance in all.
The idea that the author is originally talking about, the idea that people now have designs done before even finding a play, is what really changed my mind about this list. We have been taught here that your design should reflect your director's vision and your interpretation of the play and that vision. Starting off with a design, and then choosing a play to fit that design just seems like dangerous backward thinking to me.
I mean...he has a point. There are a lot of things we end up doing as theater artists just because they look cool. This is part of the problem our class had with Salt Peanuts. Our presentations were great, but they really did nothing to enhance the story. Often times, the presentations themselves were just to hide the lack of story.
His point is good - whether or not these things should be banned is a little strong. At least, think seriously about using any of these devises. Sometimes cliches are cliches because they work and are easy to communicate. Sometimes they're cliches because of laziness. True originality is supremely difficult, but relying on convention is just as bad. Just because you consider something avant garde doesn't mean it hasn't been done before.
I agree that most of the items on this list are over used and used wrongly but i dont think most if not any of them should be "banned." I really didn't understand the bullet point about projections. They are new, relatively so, and people are just no experimenting with them as a tool - just because a lot of people get it wrong doesnt mean it shouldnt exist. I agree that at the heart of it this really felt like a long list of pet peeves.
Morgan makes a good point that people need to do research before just including one of these items in the show. The author of the article mentions that these "cliches" can be used if they are truly merited, and they are only merited when the show needs that item specifically (or is actually valid in the context of the show, which is determined through research).
The real point that is being made here is that one shouldn't use one of these items simply because it is the easiest, or because it is a good cop-out. It is fine to use one of these if research truly suggests it. These items ended up as cliches because they have been used so much in the past, not necessarily because they are atrocious things to use on stage.
For half of this list, I was sitting there going "oh man, that's so true." For the other half, i was sitting there going "I thought I was so original when I did that!"
Jed Harris told us something about cliches in directing once. He said "Cliches are cliches for a reason-- because they work." While I totally understand that we should avoid the unoriginal, some of these things made this list simply because they are powerful ways to evoke a mood.
I find a little bit funny that some of the things on the list were used in grapes of rath. One thing I really do hate are blackouts that have no music or anything going on. I feel like that interupts the flow of a show and thus detracts from it.
Post a Comment