Those dictums, so often and so disastrously ignored by campaigning politicians and banquet speakers, would appear to be words to live by for many of this season’s more tantalizing shows. Perhaps heeding the advice of Michelle Obama, the New York theater has gone on a diet for autumn, shedding the bloat of “Hamlet”-length dramas and overdecorated musicals.
3 comments:
The most interesting part of this article, to me, is the attempt at inviting the audience and cast members to participate in the concept of synesthesia during the production. At first my reaction to this is that a very small population of the humans on the planet experience synesthesia, so it doesn't make sense to present a production that is geared towards the use of a skill most people do not posses. However, I believe it is something that would vastly affect my life as a person, and being immersed in an experience that encourages the practice of this might set the precedent that you can try and develop this within yourself. Whether this is right or wrong, it is something that would change the way I view everything, and maybe bring another tool to understand an emotion or experience. There is a lot of trust in this concept that both the audience will participate and that it will work. What happens if it doesn't? How do you plan for entertainment when its basis is a feeling that you cannot ensure will occur within your audience? Hopefully the show lends itself well to this experience and also the possibility that it will fall through.
Although I see the point of doing smaller shows, there is something to be said about full length 2.5-3 hour musicals. It allows more time to get into the show and the characters before the climax happens. 80 minutes would only give the bare minimum of time to accomplish this. Plus less events can happen. Imagine if Les Miserables had to be done in 80 minutes. That would be a rough plot line to follow. I guess it could happen if you cut all the singing; that would be kinda hard though since the show is an opera. I guess there can be successful shows for a shorter time, but I don't know if that will be efficient.
I think its interesting to consider the possibility of shorter shows. I'm actually a strong believer in the idea that brevity emphasizes a point. I think its more powerful to watch a shorter moving piece rather than a longer moving piece, because it further credits the meaning, as it was accomplished with less effort and more simply. However I really don't think that long works should be drastically cut to produce short shows. For example "Long Day's Journey Into Night" that they mentioned in the article, should not be cut from a two and a half hour show to a 50 minute piece. We should trust a playwright enough to realize that every word in the play is put their for a specific reason, and that cutting out specific moments will inevitably harm the authenticity and magic that the playwright intended.
Post a Comment