Saturday, July 23, 2016
Local Theatre Costumers are Criminally Underappreciated
OnStage: We all know the most central creative roles in any theatrical production. There is the playwright, who is the prime artist responsible for creating a show to produce. There is the director, who – after reading the script and interpreting it – creates his or her own unique vision for the show, and then is responsible for executing it. Finally, there are the actors, who bring the show to life through the characters – some of which may be vastly different from their real life personas – that they each portray during the performance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Of course this article is primarily about costume designers, but I see it as an appreciation of the whole tech/design crew of a show. The author says “If the actors involved did not have costumes to wear during a show, they would not be going onstage as their character. They would be going on as themselves.” I see this quote having meaning to every part of the design/tech crews. You could substitute any department of tech/design into the costumes part of the quote, and the meaning would remain the same. The actors need lights, sound, sets, props, stage/production/technical directors to make a show work. If they don’t have these things, they don’t have a show. So thank you. I know techies are underappreciated, and it makes my day when someone shows appreciation towards or thanks me for the work that I do. Costumes in particular, though are what make a character a character. And if one doesn’t have a costume, they aren’t the character, simple as that.
While I'm thankful for the appreciation as a costumer, I find the columnist's perspective difficult to understand. I have definitely felt the stigma among theatre technicians of costumes being "not real tech." But from the perspective of actors and audiences, as this actor writes from, aren't costumers the first technicians and designers to be recognized? I do agree that costumes are integral to the creation of a character, but not that an actor cannot be the character without a costume. That's a small dispute, though. Mostly, I just wish that actors would take the time to appreciate the work that they don't often notice, like lighting and sound. Costumes are easy to see and understand how you interact with them as an actor, so to me this piece just feels shallow.
Costumes are a huge part of a show and create a show and so does all the other tech aspects. But in this article i have to disagree with the writer. Costumes are greatly appreciated by the audience. If i take a non techie friend to a show the firs tech thing they will mention is look at that huge one the top detailed costume. They never once have said i love how they use that source 4 ellipsoidal with that gobo and gel to create......some effect. While i understand that my last sentence may be over the top my friend have never said look a the lights or even look at the sound. Most of the audience notice the set and the costumes which is great they should costumers but in a lot of work to make it look the way it does. But the other technical aspects are greatly unappreciated. In the article it was mentioned that costumers are treated as to not be considered a techie. While i agree that in there theater it may be that way its not always that way and costumers still techie. But i also feel like this article was more a pity party for costumers when in reality we respect them and never once have i though man that costume can't possibility be part of tech. Yes there are some people who won't respect them but its just not costumers its everyone in technical work.
Post a Comment