Community, Leadership, Experimentation, Diversity, & Education Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions, New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs... Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.
Given the fact that there were two mishaps very close together with the same effect, I think it was a good decision to remove the effect from the show. As with anything in theater, if it can't be done safely, then it probably shouldn't be done. It seems that the proper safety precautions were taken: getting the effect approved by the local fire department and having someone standing by on fire watch. It seems that the injury was taken care of promptly, which is another good sign as to the effect having been completely thought through. It's a good lesson for anyone considering doing a similar dangerous fire effect. I also think it's interesting that because of an incident on stage, after which the performance was able to continue, the performance was unable to finish due to a union rule. Should the stage manager have been considering that the orchestra would have to go on a union break before the show would have time to finish? Should the show have been condensed in order for the audience to get to see the ending? Should the show have just been cancelled after the injury and the audience given comps to another performance? I don't envy this production team the difficult decision they had to make quickly and under extreme pressure.
Smart choices. After having similar problems twice is a great indicator of taking out the stunt. I'm glad this company wasn't stupid enough to keep in the stunt. It sucks that the performers have to deal with injuries, but it's good to know that they will be fine and that they know no one else will get injured because of the removal of the trick. I also like the fact that the theater got permission from the fire department to do this stunt even if these problems happened. It could've been worse for them if they did this without permission and then had to deal with those legal issues. This theatre company seems to be pretty smart but sadly having to deal with these issues as the show is getting ready to open.
I think they made a right decision before there is another disastrous mishap happened. Second degree burns still sounds serious injury. I am glad that they did not hesitate about their decision. It is also sad to see how they had to stop the special effect that might have changed the impression of the production. I believe that they could proof test more times, so that they did not have to come this result. I feel bad for the actors and producers who had put great amount of time and effort and then had to face this kind of difficulties in which they can not do anything, but to stop it. I hope that next time whenever a production puts a special effect with fire or sparks, they can be more careful, so that it can be safe and impressive as well.
Post a Comment
3 comments:
Given the fact that there were two mishaps very close together with the same effect, I think it was a good decision to remove the effect from the show. As with anything in theater, if it can't be done safely, then it probably shouldn't be done. It seems that the proper safety precautions were taken: getting the effect approved by the local fire department and having someone standing by on fire watch. It seems that the injury was taken care of promptly, which is another good sign as to the effect having been completely thought through. It's a good lesson for anyone considering doing a similar dangerous fire effect. I also think it's interesting that because of an incident on stage, after which the performance was able to continue, the performance was unable to finish due to a union rule. Should the stage manager have been considering that the orchestra would have to go on a union break before the show would have time to finish? Should the show have been condensed in order for the audience to get to see the ending? Should the show have just been cancelled after the injury and the audience given comps to another performance? I don't envy this production team the difficult decision they had to make quickly and under extreme pressure.
Smart choices. After having similar problems twice is a great indicator of taking out the stunt. I'm glad this company wasn't stupid enough to keep in the stunt. It sucks that the performers have to deal with injuries, but it's good to know that they will be fine and that they know no one else will get injured because of the removal of the trick. I also like the fact that the theater got permission from the fire department to do this stunt even if these problems happened. It could've been worse for them if they did this without permission and then had to deal with those legal issues. This theatre company seems to be pretty smart but sadly having to deal with these issues as the show is getting ready to open.
I think they made a right decision before there is another disastrous mishap happened. Second degree burns still sounds serious injury. I am glad that they did not hesitate about their decision. It is also sad to see how they had to stop the special effect that might have changed the impression of the production. I believe that they could proof test more times, so that they did not have to come this result. I feel bad for the actors and producers who had put great amount of time and effort and then had to face this kind of difficulties in which they can not do anything, but to stop it. I hope that next time whenever a production puts a special effect with fire or sparks, they can be more careful, so that it can be safe and impressive as well.
Post a Comment