Undermain Theatre is presenting 10 out of 12, the regional premiere of Anne Washburn's 2015 off-Broadway homage to these all-too-rarely lauded souls Nov. 12-Dec. 3. The play, directed by Blake Hackler, conjures a tech rehearsal, with a 14-person ensemble playing actors, designers and directors, hammering out the sound and lighting cues and blocking.
5 comments:
The meta level is through the roof on this one. There definitely is a lack of understanding from an audience standpoint about one of the most critical processes in creating theatre (the tech rehearsal), and it doesn't take long for me to see how someone who understood that decided that they would simply show the audience that process by turning it into a show itself. While it seems that many of the invited technicians that got to watch the tech rehearsal of a show about a tech rehearsal were more entertained by the novelty of it than the show itself (which I don't blame them for, a tech rehearsal isn't the most entertaining thing I can think of), I have hope that "10 out of 12" is educating audiences on tech rehearsals. I don't know that I would necessarily be running to the theatre to purchase a ticket for this production, but I know a lot of confused family members that would love to see exactly what they are paying tuition for.
HA! I love this! I can really certainly see how this show can be incredibly frustrating to work on, especially during a *real* tech of the show. But like Brennan mentioned above me, I feel like what is really attractive about this play is the novelty of it. I can see how the audience could possible be mainly made out of technicians or those of us who do other work backstage, out of the sight of the audience. It would be quite the hoot to watch this as an audience member (and as someone who works in the backstage half of theatre), but it would be really annoying on the other hand because I feel like I would be constantly questioning if something happening on stage was intentional or not. That could get confusing rather quickly, so I am intrigued to see how the play handles situations like that. I think that it's nice to have a show about "the techies" for once, but I wonder if it would alienate the audience from an experience so foreign to them if they have no idea what happens backstage. I'm saying foreign ideas in terms of possible jargon that would be thrown around. Regardless, I feel like this would be a fun show to see!
This is a dream I've had and one that was cultivated by sitting in Rover tech, since I found those discussions to be fascinating and the things that the actors would do when they weren't in character or thought they weren't being watched were often more fascinating than the stage business. Meta-commentary on theatre is nothing new, but making the specific people watch this specific show is what catapults this to the next level. I would love to see it just for the novelty, but part of me also feels like by virtue of it being an actual production, it automatically undermines what the commentary is. By putting an audience in the room that is cognizant it is an audience, actors will immediately don a mask and change their behavior to whatever they think will get a reaction, as opposed to a real tech where they act out of exhaustion or boredom. I also agree with Michelle that I would be questioning whether things were intentional the entire time, which can be an interesting way to watch theatre, but one that often makes it hard to actually focus on the truth of the work. Now, the truth of this work is dubious to begin with, but it is something to consider.
I really want to see this play. It sounds hilarious. I love meta theatre shows, especially ones that capture what it’s really like to work on a production but not be an actor. And it sounds like this production was spot on. Ir’s always a little sad to see what is trying to be an accurate portrayal of theatre fall short because it’s trying to hard to make it completely understandable by it’s audience. So what some of the jargon doesn’t make sense if you hadn’t heard it before? That’s what the play will help you understand.
I can not image what it would have been like to sit through tech of a tech. It would be so confusing. Are we really starting over at the top of the scene or are we starting at the top of the scene within the script? Was the light cue actually off or was it scripted to be off so we could go back and run it again? How does a play like this actually function? It sounds absolutely fascinating and also like it would be more interesting to watch it within a tech rather than as a full show.
I read this article purely because of the title, and it is just as absurd but awesome as I had hoped. It is an absurd idea for a play--one based off of the process of a play, yet for someone interested in theatre it is a concept that if done well could be really cool. My one question on the show is whether or not the show would be enticing for someone who knows nothing about the theatrical process-the average joe who goes to see a show. I wonder if the show is directed in order for it to make sense to those who know nothing about a 10 out of 12 or the process to mount a show onstage--if it would be funny or it would fall flat. Nevertheless, it is a show that is definitely enticing to me and I would be interested to see how it would turn out or read onstage. It definitely seems like a cool concept.
Post a Comment