But for about two minutes during each show, she has found herself upstaged by a performer who doesn’t have any lines and, in fact, doesn’t seem to be acting at all.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Using Infants in ‘A Doll’s House’
But for about two minutes during each show, she has found herself upstaged by a performer who doesn’t have any lines and, in fact, doesn’t seem to be acting at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is something that I'm not so sure about. One one hand having a real baby onstage is cool because, as the article mentions, it really heightens the stakes because of how realistic it is. On the other hand, a baby onstage is problematic in many ways. Obviously you need to make sure that it won't do anything unwanted onstage, but it's also very distracting. As a director I would be worried about a baby distracting audience members from the real actors. It seems that you can expect enough suspension of disbelief from the audience to simply have a doll.
cryI think the reason that this was so breathtaking is that there's an air of mystery and theater. We're supposed to suspend our belief and belief that the bundle of blankets is a human infant. But when there's an actual living, breathing child on stage, it surprises us.I'm really interested in how they got the child to stay quiet on stage. Were there any sort of specific tactics that the actors had to learn? Were there auditions for this baby, or was it just someone's child? This captivates me.
This is an oddly surprising concept. I guess we're all so used to never having a baby on stage that having a real infant is shocking. I'd be worried about distracting the audience, but the article is right in that it adds a new dimension to Nora's performance. Real babies have actual effects on people's emotions- it's a biological response. Seeing one would bring the audience that much deeper into the play, especially in an intimate theater. There are concerns, of course, but as long as the baby isn't on stage for more than a few minutes and is well taken care of, I don't see any real reason why not to other than the annoyance of dealing with a baby.
This is a funny interpretation of "why use something fake if you have the real thing." I can definitely see the pros and cons of this especially when you start thinking of them being in longer and more brutal productions. However, I can also see where caring for an actual child would affect an actor's movement and reaction as well as the audiences reaction. Today, when most audiences are looking for the most realistic representation, it makes sense that the young catholic school girls in the article can't imagine the play without a real baby. In pointing that out though, another audience member of an older age mentioned how it was "unnecessary." So, what demographic are theaters trying to capture if it appears that the younger and older audience do not agree?
This is kind of a strange concept. If anything it makes me think of some creepy nightmare where the dolls actually come to life. I guess this is the magic behind live theatre though you never really know what you are going to get.
I like this for its risk factor. It really does make the play more realistic and because it's a real baby the audience grows a stronger attachment and gets a bigger reaction to the fact that Nora leaves in the end. I really like it though for some people, it might be a bit too risky. I think real or not, it works for some plays and not for others (just like the examples they gave in the article). If the baby was getting hurt, I think it might cause too much of a reaction from the audience if the baby was real (and then switched out, of course). The concept of a baby being stoned to death is awful enough, you don't need to make it more real to heighten the affect! But in this case, kudos to the baby for being such a great actor and playing his part! (He's a smart cookie!) I think I might look up how long the run is because BAM is right near my house, maybe I'll go see it!
I don't really think it was necessary or helpful to have a live child onstage. I think that since it is so novel it brings the theatergoers out of the show. In the scene, the baby isn't really important or lively so the infant in the play shouldn't be particularly attention grabbing either.
I think that its a great idea. Of course on some nights you won't be able to use an infant if they are in distress, but when you can it really does add to the experience. Dolls tend to take people out of the world of the play, and I have to think it does the same for the actors as well. When a real baby is involved the reactions can be more realistic and help with character development.In this case I think the pros outweigh the cons.
This is absolutely brilliant. If a play calls for a baby, then use a real damn baby. Sarah is absolutely right, it evokes an emotion that is natural when a baby is present, something that can only be called when the real thing is there, not some doll or prop. If the baby is managed well and only on for a short time, there is absolutely no reason as to why it shouldn't be used because a baby will act like a baby should without even trying, and thats what they want it to do.
Post a Comment