Sunday, January 31, 2010
On New, Spare Broadway, Less Scenery to Chew
NYTimes.com: "You don’t hear many audible gasps these days when the curtain rises, or when scenery transforms to reveal a theatrical vision."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I do prefer the lavish sets, full of detail that really give the audience something to feast their eyes on. But with how the arts are shaping these days, with a little help from the economy, I can see why we are starting to downsize. Scenic elements can be some of the most expensive elements in a show, and although they do help tell a story, they are not always critical to the plot. When downsizing a show, the team needs to consider what is going to help tell the story, and with what new technology they want to explore that story telling. I hypothesize that as we see projections come into the picture more, we will lean away from these fantastical scenic elements, and more towards scenic elements that will assist projections in a combination of the two that will help tell the story in a completely new way.
I am glad that broadway is leaning towards minimalism in their sets. I feel that the recent trend in broadway, especially before this current economic depression, has been towards spectacle. Shock the audience with such amazing technical aspects, and the story can be terrible. I think that the greater financial risk of producing will force producers to take a little more time to look that the show rather than getting a show up and going as big and fast as they can.
I'm wondering if Producers ever "bid out" there designs before signing to one designer. I know this happens in the museum, entertainment, theme park world. If this did happen, maybe that would broaden the options for designs within a certain budget, and enable you to find designers that can give you quality within a budget as appose to looking cheap.
I feel that the lavishness of the set is dependent upon the theme and motifs the director is attempting to convey. Many times the lavishness of the set accents the morals of the show, and other times the lack of set has the same effect. Within the recession and the lack of money in the theater industry, the use of sparse sets and minimal dressing helps cut back on the price of tickets and leads to better sales and opens the world of theater to more and more people.
One of the features of Broadway Musical as an attraction is indeed, its "spectacular" with gorgeous costumes and unbelievably-constructed enormous sets. However, a musical can be a musical with the minimum of theses element enough to establish the scenes.
I think the musical is for us to enjoy how the drama is developed with the songs and music, along which the environment of scene is described and the subtle emotions of characters are expressed. Therefore, only listening heart-warming/wrenching songs with beautifully orchestrated music at its live performance can move us and fill our hearts.
If the sets are designed enough to evoke peoples' imagination, that helps a lot to drive the story in the audiences' perception. Rather, I personally feel detached from the stories with recent technologies, such as direct presentations of environment by series of showy projections.
I hope, at least, producers keep the music live and they never think of reducing the scale of music simply by changing the orchestration to a couple of keyboards by ignoring original composer's intention.
While its sad that we can't financially support the lavish sets of days before, I don't necessarily think its a bad thing for producers and directors find more creative and innovative ways of pulling off "the broadway musical" on a budget. Is it "Gone with The Era of Extravagance" now? I for one would be interested in seeing producers and directors move towards more sustainable methods of production, which often lends itself to less costly productions.
I also like the bigger, more extravagant sets. The characters and stories in musicals always seem huge, and the sets and costumes should be able to reflect that, not shrink in comparison. It feels like even though the designers are saying how working with a smaller budget just increases creativity, the sets still suffer. It would be nice if they could still find that extravagant feel on a budget, instead of feeling so spare. I know that bigger isn't always better, but that should be up to the designer and the TD in terms of what is possible, not up to the accountant. If they can't do the enormous show, instead of just cutting out everything interesting (and expensive) if they redesigned the sets to be just as exciting, but less expensive, it would be a nice change. So far this year, my favorite set is for Inspector General. In Basic PTM, we learned that all the other main stage shows were over budget and had to cut back a lot, and IG was actually pretty close. The set is still beautiful and intriguing, without the high price tag. It would be nice if Broadway could try this instead of cutting everything out.
From the article you can see that for some shows such as Wicked, a lavish set works but the new revivals of Hair and Billy Elliot went for less is more. To me it really depends on the situation and a overly extravagant set is obviously not always needed. On another note, the depression sucks. I wish that scenic and costume designers did not have to sacrifice so much of their original concept to the point where the whole thing just looks poorly done. The article was very interesting and eye opening. The financial risks of broadway are interesting. As for an example of this, the Phantom of the Opera sequel sounds like a huge risk and it could be awful, even the title is awful. My point is that it is a huge risk but it will be one of those musicals that investors go for.
I think many people are used to the large intricate sets that Broadway often produces and for them to be missing seems somewhat strange. However, often constraints on creative people in these situations can often lead to fantastic results. In some ways, it's very interesting to see scenic designers to adapt to these constraints put upon as they react in different ways in order to save money, while still conveying their overall artistic vision.
I think that if a designer is being limited by the financial situation of a production, that is somewhat sad if the lack of money forces a designer to give up a fantastic idea for a show. However, I always think that it's a good thing to be creative and problem solve during the design process. Ultimately, I wish that financial problems wouldn't hinder a designer's ability to achieve whatever effect they were hoping to create as long as it fits best with the show. Some shows should be bigger and more detailed, while some should be much more minimal, it depends on the script and the collective vision of the director and designers. While financial limitations can be good in the sense that they force designers to be creative, I hope that they don't destroy the artistic visions of the production team.
While spectacle is a staple of Broadway, I feel sometimes the other five of Aristotle’s elements of theatre are given up for spectacle. While, yes, I am a sucker for big and flashy, I think that the most impactful theatre finds ways to communicate the important facets of a work, without all of the flash.
While it might be thought that a restrictive budget will lead to a less effective production, I think that an over abundance of funds lead to that undesired effect. If you never have to question what elements are important, that fact might not show through. When forced to examine your decisions, you are more likely to be able to focus on what is most important to the storytelling.
Post a Comment