Pittsburgh City Paper: Director Anthony McKay has given Shakespeare a swinging makeover in this update of the hilarious Much Ado About Nothing. Nineteen-sixties Italy provides a visually pleasing aesthetic and a strong vehicle for the action. With live music, dance, visual effects and electric dialogue, this is a lavish production. Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Drama has clearly done its research in culturally reinterpreting this play, and there are times when viewers have to remind themselves that it’s a university production they’re watching.
14 comments:
For the past two weeks I've been on run crew for Much Ado About Nothing, and I'm so happy to read that reviewers love the show. Although I've only been working on the production for a short amount of time, I can already see how much heart and soul everyone has put in the show. The actors, design team, and management all work together seamlessly to create a great piece of art. My personal favorite aspect of the show is the costume design. The way that Jenny has used time period to influence her aesthetic is really cool to see. At the end of the show the entire cast comes out in costumes that are inspired by the vibrant aspects of the '60s, and those costumes are bright and gorgeous. Personally I don't understand why the author of the article wanted the cast to update the language, because I think that helps to remind the audience that they're watching Shakespeare. If you haven't come to see Much Ado yet make sure you do, you don't want to miss it.
I think that the sub-headline of this article ("There are times when viewers have to remind themselves that it’s a university production they’re watching") is one of the best compliments that the university can get, but at the same time I think it raises an interesting question of what exactly is our target audience and why are making the theatre that we choose to make? Personally, I like the array of shows that we present here, and I think it is important to have that diversity. Also, I think the fact that we are educational institution drives the shows that we choose to do because the actors, designers, directors, managers, and directors need to learn different styles of theatre and genres. The quality of our productions is high as well as the diversity of the productions, but it is important for reviewers and audience remembers that there is a reason we choose each show.
Much Ado about Nothing got the best compliment I’ve ever seen in a newspaper article: “There are times when viewers have to remind themselves that it’s a university production they’re watching.” I love when college productions are professional level! It gives me hope and confidence that my million dollar education is actually worth something.
I honestly was slightly disappointed with the use of the set, though. I was really hoping that the play space of the scaffolding was used more than twice. There is such a huge play space there, but it’s just completely unused! And the rest of the set just swallows up all the people and is completely untouched. What is the damn point of the foot? None of these things are addressed in the show itself, and that’s all I want.
Also, what is with the nipple gobo? Why is that a thing? I just want a damn explaination.
I just saw this show recently and although I was moderately skeptical of the choice of setting, I think when it came down to it, it did seem to be effective. I previously got the opportunity to work on Much Ado About Nothing at my high school. The director chose to set it in Appalachia which is was also thoroughly skeptical about. It ended up being successful, or as successful as a high school production can be. I am usually very ambivalent about taking a Shakespeare play and setting it somewhere else. Theaters do this all the time and for the most part I find that it adds nothing to the actual story. But for some reason, the sixties and Appalachia seem to be effective. I speculate that the reason for this is that Much Ado as well as some other of Shakespeare's comedies lend themselves to a comforting setting. The lively and bustling streets of Italy in the sixties and the comforting and homely nature of the Appalachian Mountains both make for very joyful and comforting locations so the play can feel more like it was meant to be written.
I was so excited to see this article pop up on facebook! I keep having to remind myself of the prestige this drama school has, and it’s relation to the outside world of Pittsburgh theater. I’m on the run crew for this show, and had a very small part in set build/ load in through Stagecraft, so it’s cool to see such a positive review from a real news source. Even though I’m only able to watch a sliver of the show from backstage right, I can tell from the amount of talented people onstage and on the design/ production team (and from the sound of applause and laughs) that it’s a special show. I was glad this article mentioned the opening scene because it’s one of my favorites to watch/ listen to every night. I can understand a bit of what the author was saying in regards to the reliance on aesthetic and the lack of updating of the language. After talking to people who have come to see the show, those are the two things I’ve heard the most criticism on. Nonetheless, the feedback is almost completely positive, and it continues to strike me every night how much of a privilege it is to have a small part in a production of this caliber.
I am actually one of the very few people here in the School of Drama that hasn't seen this show yet. I can’t wait to see it however and will do so in just a few hours. It’s an interesting experience to read a review about your school’s production. I have been on a few crew calls relating to Much Ado About Nothing and so I’ve been able to see the set which looks nothing if not professionally crafted. The reviewer spoke very highly of the production in general which reflects what I have heard from my fellow students who have already seen the production. His one piece of criticism on the absence of any updating to the language is an interesting dichotomy of a problem. While undoubtedly his command of plot was superior Shakespeare was also a master of the English language. I have often seen a Shakespeare piece lose so many little details of the text by trying too hard to update it.
Much Ado was done splendidly. As the article states, the comedic elements read fantastically with the audience (I particularly loved the bit with the weight of the toe). It was fun, updated, and extremely understandable. Jenni's costumes are beautiful and, in my honest opinion, steal the show. I'm actually going to do see the show again tonight. I admit I was, like Sasha M., a tad confused by the set and media. I felt like the "billboards" were hard to see while watching the action onstage and were too easily overlooked by the audience. The scaffolding is beautiful. It contrasts the rest of the set. The "construction", although it was a last minute addition, reflects upon the time period of the play (Italy was still reconstructing after WW2). The foot and torso are extremely well crafted and, once again, add to the depth of the setting. I just wish that the actors used more of the space. Why don't they use the space? (I also kind of wish that the scaffolding had more detailing. It only has a base coat and the lack of detail is rather obvious, to me, and pull it out of the beautiful paint job of the set. Maybe the designer wanted to pull the scaffolding outside of the classical art framing either side of the stage and use the scaffolding to display the contrast in the level of detail in history versus the level in modern "manufactured" age. I'll ask about it in conservatory hour).
As many of the other comments have said I think this article’s best compliment is in its first lines. Saying “There are times when viewers have to remind themselves that it’s a university production they’re watching” is a compliment of the highest order and I think the cast and crew of the show are very deserving of it. The part of the article I don’t agree with is when the writer talks about how he would have liked to see the language updated to match the rest of the show. I didn’t find the lack of updating to the language to be particularly noticeable, and while it certainly would have been interesting to see what the show was like that way I feel that the potential cost would be too high. Shakespeare was a master of language and when you try to update that into more modern language you run the risk of loosing the nuance of the show.
Being on the run crew for this production, I have had the pleasure to watch it grow in the past two weeks. Being the sound board Op, I have been able to watch the show every night. As the article states, I kept forgetting that these were students on stage.
That I pass all of these people in the halls on my way to class. It fills me with so much joy to see how the community outside Carnegie Mellon gets updated on the success of the school of drama. Much Ado About Nothing is such a marvel to watch. The 1960's setting makes the play much more relatable for the audience... as it is Shakespeare and some lines can get lost in translation, but the actors do such an amazing job in translating Shakespeare's words to be equally understood by the audience.
All other mediums of the show are as exceptional as the performers, the set, the costumes, the lighting, and sound adds so much to the whole of the play.
I’m thrilled to see such a positive review of this production. There were a lot of different elements incorporated into the show, and hearing the explanation in conservatory hour as well as being able to see the show every night has allowed me to see how just what each design decision added to the show. It is good to here that this translates to someone without all of that foreknowledge too. In regards to one of the only negative comments, maintaining the original text is imperative, namely because it’s a challenge and we are a university, but also because they chose Shakespeare to perform Shakespeare. His themes are seen in many more modern scripts, and had that been the goal, that’s what would have been used. Besides I feel like a lot more people would have been angry had this show been marketed as a Shakespeare show, only to have the language modernized, which is evidenced by the outrage at the Oregon Theatre Festival for their project to “translate” Shakespeare’s works.
As a freshman, it is so cool to see actual reviews for a production put on by my school. Having done a little bit of work on some of the show's scenic elements, it was really exciting to see everything finally onstage. Things that I had watched develop in most every stage (the CAMPARI sign) was incredible to see assembled. I saw the show twice, both times with people from outside the School of Drama, and both were especially impressed by the huge set and its intricate details. The show itself was, as the review said, very enjoyable and extremely well done in every aspect. I was a little surprised that the reviewer critiqued the use of Shakespeare's original words, as I thought that was one of the most interesting aspects of the production. The design of the show, specifically with costumes and media, was so decidedly modern that the contrast with Shakespearean English was a really cool dynamic that made for a very unique show.
Working on the run crew for this show was a fantastic experience and a great introduction to the level of theater being produced at CMU. I had seen Much Ado twice before at different theaters, and it was interesting to see what elements were emphasized in the different productions. I felt that CMU's production definitely emphasized the Italian setting much more than other productions I've seen and the post-WWII reconstruction elements of the set really helped to set the time period as well. I disagree with the reviewer's comment about not updating the language because I think that if the production team had tried to do so it would have made the show feel too much like a modern retelling, rather than a true Shakespeare production with a modern setting. Overall, it was a great experience and I am glad to have been able to be a part of this production.
Although I’ve only been at CMU for a month and a half, I have been nothing but impressed with the work I’ve seen. Although I was not directly involved with Much Ado About Nothing, I did do a lot of grunt work related to the performance, like painting the set and focusing lights. I can honestly say I’ve ever painted so much red. It’s easy to see all the hard work that went into the production paid off. I was very fortunate to see this adaptation of Shakespeare timeless piece on opening night. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and can not remember a point where I wasn’t laughing. There was so much time and effort that went into the show so I’m happy to see that people liked it. I look forward to the upcoming performances and hope they all get review like Much Ado did.
It is so exciting to see a show I’ve had a hand in come to life on stage, and especially exciting when one can see how other appreciate the show for different or exactly the same reasons. The new context of the swinging sixties was something I greatly responded to and how it mirrored so well the discussion of gender roles and the expectations of both sexes in society. I’m so glad the reviewer was able to take in each detail of this production, as all the elements, both technically and visually, add so much to the theme and tone of the production. Until you work on the show, you never really know how much time was taken for the consideration of each element.
Post a Comment