Pittsburgh City Paper: Bertolt Brecht's plays inevitably remain challenges to theater companies and to audiences. But then, Brecht wanted to challenge everyone. Although he aimed for satire, he called upon directors and performers to produce and interpret his material freely. Deliberately breaking down the fourth wall, he sought to provoke the public to self-reflect, to be critical of what's seen and heard. Step back and ponder: He meanwhile protected himself, claiming everyone on and off stage shares responsibility for any production.
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Good Person of Setzuan - REVIEW
Pittsburgh City Paper: Bertolt Brecht's plays inevitably remain challenges to theater companies and to audiences. But then, Brecht wanted to challenge everyone. Although he aimed for satire, he called upon directors and performers to produce and interpret his material freely. Deliberately breaking down the fourth wall, he sought to provoke the public to self-reflect, to be critical of what's seen and heard. Step back and ponder: He meanwhile protected himself, claiming everyone on and off stage shares responsibility for any production.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I felt that the production of "The Good Person of Setzuan" that Carnegie Mellon School of Drama put on was really good and one of the best that has been done for a long time. The improve that the reviewer said was too long I felt was just long enough it get the audience in the mindset that this is not there regular type of show that CMU puts on. When I saw it a lot of the older audience did not like it because this is not what people are used to. I think the show was just not well received by the older audience but defiantly the younger audience liked the show and that is what the theater needs to start to do so it stays alive for the coming generations.
"Less successfully, some actors exaggerate their characters while, inconsistently, others play theirs straight."
Glad to see that someone else has noticed this. I saw it Saturday night and you could tell the cast was very comfortable on stage and was having a blast. Unfortunately it seemed that some actors were in different plays: some performances were grotesque and overly melodramatic while some were smooth and naturalistic. The City Paper writes this off, perhaps it's another Brechtian device but I don't think it is. Every stylized performance piece I've seen here has the same weakness. Some actors are better at other styles than others. I'm not sure if this is a casting problem or a directing problem or both. But it certainly weakens the performances.
I agree with all comments previously said. that being stated, I find nothing wrong with some characters being exaggerated while others were played realistically. those that were exaggerated were the ones that could afford to be and that added to the overall view of the show. We must remember this is Brecht! I saw the production, once on the Thursday preview, the other being the final Saturday matinee. I was shocked by how different both shows were (and not just because they were two different casts). My second viewing sat much more comfortably with me, but perhaps this is because I was over the overwhelming everything of it all. I feel this production was truly a great one and I congratulate all involved!
Having read this review and also having been in rehearsal I understand these choices in a different way. I would say that in my opinion Peter wanted the actors to make very strong characters. This sometimes resulted in what seems like inconsistency on the parts of the actors. I would also say that he liked the differences in intensity of the actors and encouraged many diverse ways to represent people from The United States. He loved the mis-mash of cultures and in fact encouraged it. I agree with the statement about Corey. I think that he often took too long working with the audience and this resulted in a feeling of disconnect with getting into the world of the play. I think with some work his performance would have become more specific.
I honestly felt that I could not take this review seriously, because it was just so poorly written. While some good points were brought up, the disjointed way he presented his views, combined with his juvenile and vague style made it impossible to see beyond the words he writes to the ideas he wants to impart.
In addition, I felt that nothing he said was particularly insightful, and that as a whole his review was a contradictory and as inconsistent as he thought the show itself was.
The elements discuses din this review are in many ways, minor nit-picks for a production as large as good person was. over all the review seems fairly positive which is great for the program but the constructive criticism isnt all that constructive rather more heavily relied on a basis of opinion. whether i agree with that opinion or not is inconsequential i am just stating the fact and that ids a review with more than one or two small variables is typically a good review as it is obvious that there were not major strokes of the show that were necessarily wrong.
"Certainly Kleinert has called for cast improvisation, although it may not have always been obvious Friday night, except when Corey Cott, as the Water Seller, Wang, spent too much time playing freely to the house."
There were definitely some successes and some failures when it came to the improvisation. It was clear not all the actors understood the best way to ACT themselves. There IS a degree of acting consistent with the Bretchian epic theater even when the actors have paused there characters to "come back to reality".
The way the cut scenes and script changes were addressed... was satisfactory, but more often then not felt like a drag to the show and the momentum it was kept trying to regain.
I'm glad to hear that the show was well received. As much as the process was a bit unusual for us, it seems that we ended up with a pretty cool product. I think that in the end we adjusted a fair amount on the fly, in a way that hopefully helped improve the show as a whole. I agree with the reviewer that the use of media was appropriate and interesting. It succeeded in contributing to storytelling without drawing too much attention to itself technologically.
For a production that seemed to turn the School of Drama into a tizzy, they ended with, in my opinion, a successful product. For being such a lengthy production, the show maintained my attention and interest. Some moments were stronger than others, such as the plastic falling at the end of the production however I wish that it had more of a moment causing that drop. Perhaps the snapping of the God's fingers, or a *bump* in the music. Also, some moments of the media were excellent, but for many I did not understand the motivation behind many of the cues.
I found it interesting that the reviewer mentioned their inability to immediately follow the plot line in regards to Ava's two characters. This is of interest to me as we just discussed this topic in one of our Sophomore classes... if for whatever reason an audience member doesn't pick up on a critical detail, then you've lost them. It doesn't even have to be your fault, perhaps the audience member didn't have enough coffee that day. Knowing nothing about the show, other than "Brecht" and "Media" before entering the theatre, I had no trouble giving it my attention, and following the plot.
The majority of this article is just wordy restatement of facts and extremely generalized compliments. It contains very few pieces of constructive criticism for the show. I will agree that the characters were fairly inconsistent, but that interpretation may have stemmed from the fact that they were shifting in and out of character so much. In also just added to the calculated disjointedness of Brecht. I really enjoyed the show because the way that it combined a simple yet intriguing story with the breaking of the fourth wall made me think about theatre and the way that we employ it both as an art form and means of communication.
Post a Comment