Backstage: Born out of a desire to take on ambitious plays that require large casts—and, typically, ample rehearsal time and some serious cash—a group of classically trained actors has devised a Shakespeare-on-a-shoestring approach.
A show is chosen and a cast is recruited. They have about six weeks to learn their lines, which they're allowed to practice with each other as long as no blocking is worked out in advance. They come up with their own costumes. In the case of "Titus," perhaps the Bard's most extravagantly violent play, they get together once or twice to work out basic fight-scene staging, so that no one loses an eye.
Not until the day of the performance do they all gather for the first time, to work out entrances and exits only.
14 comments:
This is a wild concept - it's a stage manager's nightmare, but it really supports the desire to strip the play of distraction and focus into the text (and by result, the message of the play). Somehow, though, I think the show loses some center without a director to at least provide help with character development and facilitate some communication between the actors. One of the real benefits of rehearsal time is the time to experiment with a text, not only physically and verbally, but also with character motivation and moments. In my opinion, the show probably cannot succeed totally in its goal to get at the heart of the play without at least some playtime for the actors to get to know their characters.
Wow, this seems like a ridiculous idea. Like Brian mentions, this really would help get the focus to the text and the story of the play, but it seems like such a crazy thing to do. It must be very exciting for the audience, having a different show every night as actors forget certain lines one night and changing blocking all the time. I wonder how a production staff is incorporated into this for things such as lights. I'm sure this is quite the adventure for everyone involved.
This is a really crazy idea. I like how it's almost a throwback to the time when Shakespeare's plays were first produced. I disagree with the article as saying this gives more focus on actors. While yes, it is up to the actors to create their character all on their own, including costumes, it isn't giving them what they really need. Giving the actors the main focus would probably also mean giving them time to truly rehearse, and execute their craft well, instead of inevitable issues.
I actually think that in this scenario you would see the truly talented actors. The ones who are fully engaged in the action of their fellow characters and not in just regurgitating their lines. Like Gould mentions, it requires them to really LISTEN.
This also seems like something that could only really be pulled off with seasoned actors. Everything has to hold an equal load in this, with even a single weak link, you lose the footing to achieve this.
I agree with Candace, with really well trained and talented actors this could be a really exciting experience to watch. With untalented, unprepared actors that couldn't improvise this could be a complete bomb.
Especially with plays like Shakespeares, lines can often sound so contrived and read off. I think shows often suffer from over rehearsing- sometimes the show just needs some growth to occur on its own during the performance. Obviously i don't want every play to be like this (as I'd be out of work), but I really think this would be an exciting experience to see. You'd probably end up seeing some truly magical, wonderful theatre and some pretty terrible screw ups as well.
I agree with Candace, with very talented actors this could be a really exciting show to see. Many plays, especially Shakespeare, can come across easily as actors just reading off well rehearsed lines. With such a short production and rehearsal time, it would be almost impossible for the lines to contrived. It is possible to think to hard about a character's actions or decisions, and sometimes it's best to just do the play and not over analyze everything.
Though i wouldn't want to see every production this way, as 1) i would have no job and 2) without good actors this show could easily be a bomb, It would definitely be a very exciting viewing experience.
What a concept. Like many of the posts here say, this really brings theater back to its roots. Just the actors and the audience. Like an earlier article said, theater audiences are become less and less passive receptors and more and more about active participation and involvement. This is a giant step in that direction. It is as if the entire group is creating the production together on stage in the moment. As many directors, actors and theater professionals know, many great ideas can come from improv or a mistake in the moment. Something that wasn't planned, but actually turns out much better than the original. In addition to being artistically innovating, this model appears to be a good idea financially as well. It is a low cost option that is actually moving the art form forward rather than running to the classics for help.
This seems like an absolutely wonderful concept- sure it sounds wild and out of control, and like a stage managers nightmare, but its not supposed to fit any sort of mold that we hold for theater productions. I have to echo Candace and others thoughts that this production would serve to highlight the actors' strengths. However, as a production, I doubt how engaging it would be. For example, Richard was so engaging in part because of the tight, heavily rehearsed scenes. The text may speak for itself, but you will not end up with anything near as powerful without significant rehearsal and design. The argument that this rough style of performing, as described in the article, is what Shakespearean theater was actually like, is very valid though. This just points to the directions that we as a theatrical community have taken interpretations of his work, but demonstrates through this example that we will still allow experimentation with the work.
This sounds like a crazy idea. Having actors knowing their lines and simply throwing them into playing a scene. As both Candace and Mary noted, I think the really talented actors would shine through in this sort of venue as they tried to work on the spot through scenes. I think working a production doing lights, or sound on something like this would be a little crazy since you don't have any tech time with the actors and you have no idea what they're going to do. While might be a little difficult to do, and have some crazy moments, I think this would be really interesting to see a play being put together on the spot as compared to the usual production where the actors usually have everything down cold.
At first, this concept seemed a little gimmicky to me, and kind of unappealing. How can the performers put together a cohesive story if they have barely talked to each other beforehand and individually designed their own costumes? However, I felt better when I saw that they don't charge admission and only perform once--it turns the whole process into more of a social/artistic experiment than a storytelling exercise. Plus, it's pretty cool that they're trying to create the production the way actors did in Shakespeare's day.
Well I have a few responses to this. First off, I LOVE theatre that works towards embracing the craft, and likes to have fun and keep things interesting. I'm not sure who has the time or money to devote to this project, but it must be so fulfilling. I think it's brilliant.
I would also like to say that I think the writing could have been phrased differently when the article discussed bringing the focus back to the actors. This sentence in particular sort of grabbed my attention:
"By its very nature, it puts the primary focus back where Gould thinks it always should be—on the actors"
I know I'm being petty, but I really didn't care for this sentence. I'm the first to say that design and pm come second to the performance, and that we work to help the actors do their jobs. Like seriously, I actually think that, and I completely agree that actors are necessary, designers are not, I mean, when you really get down to the raw thing, but I couldn't help but feel a bit turned off. I don't like being told by someone else that my job comes second, even though I actually sometimes agree with it, because it all depends on what you're talking about. I think it's a bit tasteless because I live through my work, and I get the same rush and the same joy out of creating just like any actor does. Therefore, I thought it was a bit tacky to talk about how actors are not paid enough when companies spend millions on production elements. That really only happens on Broadway and Vegas, and the people that are working to create these amazing elements aren't usually getting paid very much either. I know that wasn't the point, and that wasn't what it was trying to do, but it just put me off a bit.
This sounds like a great, inspiring new idea. Instead of one cohesive vision, you get everyone's individual story--more like real life, actually. I'd imagine it gives some of the energy and spark that seeing a real like conflict would have. People don't move artfully around each other every day, we all move independently, and that adds to the tension. I think it would be interesting, sometime, if we had a design exercise that was similar. ie, none of the designers talk to each other before coming up with their designs. It's less about vision, and more about a sense of theatrical realism. My clothes don't always contrast my surrounding environment, or those of everyone around me, so why should a character's costume do that?
I do have to say though, I wouldn't want to do a show that way. It would be a fun exercise and a way to break out of how we think, but on stage it might be a train wreck. The idea of this show is great, but the fact that they have to call for lines lessens the impact greatly.
I would love to see this production. It sounds like a fantastic idea for Playground, especially if you have some intricacies or surprises in the set. I keep imagining what it would have been like to do this on Richard. Have the entire crew movements and scene changes and technical elements worked out, then put the actors in costume and put it onstage. It would be a very, very different show. While I do think this is something of a novelty, I think there is something to be said for keeping to 'tradition'. While the actors would be able to get to the real 'meat' of the text, some things need to come out of blocking and repetitive rehearsal.
Post a Comment