NYTimes.com: Theatergoers, especially the kind who regard Broadway as Mecca, expect their seats to come with a breathtaking view. I mean of scenic scenery that gives its own spectacular performance, regardless of what’s happening in front of it. Not for nothing is the longest-running musical ever on Broadway, “The Phantom of the Opera,” a major eye-filler, replete with fat Belle Époque designs, the occasional falling chandelier and a stage-crossing gondola.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Theater Talkback: When a Bare Stage Fills The Theater
NYTimes.com: Theatergoers, especially the kind who regard Broadway as Mecca, expect their seats to come with a breathtaking view. I mean of scenic scenery that gives its own spectacular performance, regardless of what’s happening in front of it. Not for nothing is the longest-running musical ever on Broadway, “The Phantom of the Opera,” a major eye-filler, replete with fat Belle Époque designs, the occasional falling chandelier and a stage-crossing gondola.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I believe there is a time and a place for shows like Cymbaline, which have little to no scenic elements throughout. I am a hugely strong believer that Scenic designs should enhance a production, bringing the audience that much further into the realm in which the show takes place. To use an example from the article, would The Phantom of the Opera be as appealing and entertaining to an audience member were it not to include a giant chandelier and a gondola seemingly floating across the stage? I think not. While some productions do very well highlighting the raw talent of their performers I tend to believe that scenic elements will always add more. Why not go the extra mile?
I don't agree with this article. Most of the time an interesting set enhances a show. Obviously, there are exceptions where a production can benefit from a completely blank stage. But that doesn't mean that all attempts at blank stages are inherently good. In this time period, (disregarding the traditional style implied by the Greeks, etc.) a blank stage is often used because it is so unconventional. Paradoxically, this has made the blank stage almost a convention.
There are many shades of set design between blank stages and productions as complex as Phantom. Some shows need elaborate sets and stage magic to make them so fantastic. Does this make them lesser than plays that can survive on raw acting alone? I would argue not, because they serve different purposes. Each production calls for a different approach.
I think that a bare or very minimal stage can be a good thing. But I also think that a very elaborate, intricate, and complicated set on stage is not necessarily a bad thing. Different shows with different directors, different actors, different concepts, and different venues will call for different things. This production of Cymbeline, for example, works so well on a blank stage because of the director's vision and concept for the show. Another director could have a concept that requires a crowded, chaotic, and intricate set, and it's impossible to say which one is objectively "better." While, personally, I like the use of a relatively blank stage and multi-purpose props, that doesn't make that concept the right one. However, this article was interesting because it brought up a lot of issues about the very divergent direction theatre seems to be taking: the high-budget, big set Broadway productions and the lower-budget, smaller set Off-Broadway and regional productions.
Grand sets can be very nice for their own sake, but if they're not what the show needs then they are more of a distraction than a help. The action on the stage is centered with the actors, and unless there's something very specific about the set that they interact with it's all open to the designer and director to envision in their own way. Phantom may be known for the chandelier, and it shows up in enough of the action to be important, but there's a lot of other parts of that set that could have been completely different than what we've seen, perhaps even absent, and the show would still be good.
I think there is no better or worse in terms of a more minimalistic stage or a more elaborate one, as long as each is done well. Sometimes in life and in art, the simplest idea proves to be strongest. Something direct and to the point, causes the viewer or audience to really focus in on just that. I think more minimalistic sets focus the audience's attention on what is there, and gives more meaning to the subtleties of the performance, which can be good or bad depending on how the performance in handled.
More complex sets, on the other hand, open up the stage to further exploration outward. An entire world can be presented in the scenery that reveals more and more as the audience notices some small item or another, almost like small secrets put there just for those who are paying attention.
I think the choice of which method to use depends entirely on how you want the audience to explore your world.
I come from a film background so my knowledge of theater is quite spotty in some place so I can only comment on what I see on my own. For instance, I think part of the reason you don't see as many minimalistic sets for larger production on larger stages is that it can leave the audience with nothing to focus on at times when there isn't just one thing to focus on. For instance I don't think a minimalistic set would work as well with most musicals, because there are many moments in musicals where the larger chorus numbers are about creating an atmosphere and giving the audience a chance to look around. If you have a large opening number with 30 people and an amazing set, the audience will never run out of things to notice throughout the course of the song. But if you have only 5 people on stage, all performing a similar dance with very few sets and props between, them, unless you do something inventive to make the opening more dynamic, people are going to start getting restless waiting for something to happen to get the plot started.
On the other hand when you have a play dealing with deeper and more philosophical themes, a minimalistic set can help to focus the audience on the words and ideas being discussed. A great example I know of is actually a 2007 sci-fi movie called The Man from Earth . It has 8 main actors, the entire thing is shot in a small cabin -almost entirely in one room - and the entire plot revolves around a discussion between these people. The entire movie was created for $200,000 which is tiny compared to most movies today - and the whole 90 minutes is essentially these main characters having a long discussion about history, philosophy, and religion -but it managed to keep your attention the whole way through without becoming boring. I find it to be a great example of what you can do with a simple idea and simple sets.
Having a completely bare stage for a show can be great and be theatrical. It can complement what the show is trying to say and is a great tool that has a time and a place. Sometime simpler is better. Some shows dont need that much spectacle and sometimes over do it like Spider-man...
That being said spectacle can make a show magical (the chandelier dropping in phantom. I've never seen it but it must be amazing to see).
I think the most important thing to remember is that design elements whether they are costumes or sets are meant to help to build a world, enhance the message of play and help the actors performance. I believe the only problem is when the design outshines the rest of the production. I do not believe a show which is praised for its designs to the detriment of everything else is a success. Although it might be gratifying to hear as a designer. Elaborate sets and costumes are great as long as the story and the actors are able to meet the standard of the design. When it comes down to it we go to the theater or the movies to see a show, that is people and a story. If we have designs so elaborate we lose sight of that human element, as I think several commercial shows do, then I see why a bare stage can be refreshing. When the author says "a Bare Stage Fills The Theater" I think it is praise for the actors of those performances mentioned that they were able to fill the theater without any help from a set to create the scene. The design should help not hinder them; add not detract. After-all if the entertainment is just about the design why have a show at all and not just an art installation.
Post a Comment