The New York Times: In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” creation is a work of breathless horror. In a rehearsal room here on a recent Saturday, creation was also breathless and very cold. (A fan had broken; the heating had quit.) Scarf-clad actors shivered as they raced around the stage, dodging extension cords, manipulating four overhead projectors. On a small table at the center, a monster slouched, waiting to be born.
3 comments:
It's cool to hear about how the story and how the materials/ methods used to illustrate it work together to make a unique and riveting experience. The article does a good job of trying to explain what is going on in the piece, but honestly I don't fully understand what is happening. I don't mind that really because I understand that the best way to get the story of this piece is to see it. I like the idea that the article mentions about how the technology in the book is scarily advanced in a way that the piece is trying to counteract with it's use of overhead projectors and small scale puppets made to look larger. Overall, I enjoyed getting to learn about the process that develops with the use of this type of method and materials. It sounds like the room is a true space of creation and exploration. I would like to hear from a patron about what they think about the experience.
This piece called Frankenstein is not a classic scary tale. It a completely different spin on storytelling that I have personally seen or heard of before. The creator of this piece, Mary Shelley, has created novel that is told visually with projectors, technology, and puppetry. I think this is what theater and storytelling is all about. I think Mary choosing to perform this the way she did was perfect for the era in which we are currently in where technology dictates everything and in this piece, technology seems to be a key element. I feel like with this form of storytelling, there is a completely different experience. In way I feel like this piece especially could have a transformative effect. I also think that the fact that Mary created this after her child and mother had passed was a very admirable thing because it's very hard to produce something creative when grieving. I think this is also taking puppetry outside its own comfort zone which will open up so many new ideas.
I dislike Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, it just bored me and I didn’t find the monster scary I found him obsessive and boring like a bad sitcom boyfriend. My favorite retelling will always be the original James Whale 1931 film and of course the Mel Brooks classic Young Frankenstein. This is directly inverse to my opinions of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, I love the novel much more than any of the film adaptations. That being said however I very much like the fact that this show uses effects and technology that Mary Shelley herself could have been familiar with. It adds an entirely different historical accuracy to a show, a different dimension that could only be achieved in certain ways. My favorite part about this is that the monster is not fully rendered, it leaves the hideousness and horror to the audience’s mind which is more terrifying than any completely rendered creature could be. As I have said before anytime puppets can be used onstage the better because puppetry is as old as theatre itself, thus they are integral to each other and I hope we see more of in the future.
Post a Comment