Thursday, November 22, 2018
When a Show Starts to Really Work After Performances Begin
OnStage Blog: So we’re backstage at the conclusion of performance #10 in a 12-show run of Ken Ludwig’s Baskerville: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery, produced by Big Dawg Productions at the Cape Fear Playhouse down here in Wilmington, NC. We’re in the single, narrow dressing room that accommodates all five of us and our two-person backstage crew, changing back into street clothes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is an interesting article from the point of view of a performer. I agree that community theaters absolutely lack the total rehearsal time and that the quality of the production can improve as time goes by. Performers discover more about the characters and the environment, learn from the audience responses and just get more used to telling the story. But I’ve also seen the opposite. Small houses constantly affect the cast in negative way, and people lose their focus. I think it is due to the nature of the community theater and their low budget. People still have day job, work on many other productions and most of all mostly get paid nothing to almost nothing to do the production. Like the article points out, it is ‘a problem without solution’. I believe investing more in the production and raising the budget will most certainly improve the quality of the show in every aspect. It’s a clear solution but a difficult one to execute, I know.
I enjoyed this article because it reminded me of an experience that really cemented my love for theater in high school. In my high school senior year, I was a part of Berkeley Repertory Theater's youth initiative Teen Council, and as a part of this group, we would have the opportunity to see previews of Berkeley Rep shows for free. This is how I went to see the first preview "One Man, Two Guvnors", a play based on The Servant of Two Masters. The show was very self-aware, just like the show this author talks about in the article; the main character often directly addressed the audience, and there was even a "volunteer from the audience" moment. This type of comedy, however, is notoriously difficult to nail on the very first go, and this could definitely be noticed by someone who was looking for it at the first preview. Nothing blatant, but some mis-timings, some testing of the waters on edgy jokes. I had the opportunity to go see One Man Two Guvnors again about three weeks into the season because my parents have season tickets, and the difference was noticeable. The jokes were on point, and any hesitation that might have existed on the first go were completely eliminated. It just goes to show how valuable just a little time can be.
This is an interesting article and what makes it more interesting is the perspective that it is written from. I've always felt the same in my head and as a stage manager calling shows or running backstage, I have seen shows come alive once the players have an audience. I always expect the show to blossom during tech/dress rehearsal but just like clockwork, it only blossoms in front of an audience. The author of the article makes a good point when he talks about an audience providing answers to the mystery of the play and characters. I enjoy the process of developing characters in the rehearsal room and time frame but it comes to life on stage and it can feel very rewarding and fulfilling. It is amazing to watch actors become characters and see when the light comes on in their heads when they are on stage. I believe that no matter how much or little rehearsal time a production has, it is just preparation/development for what is going to happen on stage.
This article speaks to a truth felt not only by actors, but I would argue by every member of the production team. As a Stage Manager, I have definitely felt completely on edge for the first few performances of any show I've called, only becoming comfortable after I have physical proof that I won't send the show into flaming ruins if I call one cue wrong. It is also something I have been thinking about quite a bit in the academic setting, as our runs are, at the longest, over the span of two weekends. Directly before coming to grad school, I called a production of Macbeth that rehearsed for 4 weeks and ran 6 days a week for 5 weeks. In April I will be calling a show that will rehearses for 5 weeks and runs for two weekends. I think there are definitely advantages and drawbacks to each footprint. In Macbeth, I had plenty of time to get comfortable in my role and in calling that particular show. You start to see what works, what doesn't, how cues feel slightly more right if called a half of a second later. For me, things started making sense. I also grew complacent. In the course of two weekends, I have no doubt that I will probably be very anxious for most of the time. However, I anticipate that it will ultimately make me a better Stage Manager, as I will need to learn how to manage my anxiety and still call the best show I can. There's something to be said for hitting your stride, but there's also quite a lot you can learn from how you act in circumstances where you're less than assured of your success.
I like to think that even with the most fantastic direction, and the best preparation, a show will never truly come together until about 8 performances in. That’s part of the reason I don’t enjoy academic theater, because the performers just simply are not given the breadth of time they need to be able to truly reach the peak of their performance. Discounting technicians, and their own learning curve of figuring out cue timing and how to work together, performers really need time in a space to flesh out a character, and find the subtle nuances within. I spent several years working in a professional theater, so I worked through many preview periods. Each of those periods, I would watch the performers get better and better each night, discovering small things about how they interact with each other on stage, or little lines that they didn’t realize had the importance that they do. Having an audience and actually running a show cannot be replicated by anything, so it makes sense that the performance would need a few nights to truly come together.
The article talked about that during performances take place, a show will be eventually complete. To me, that is not only possible, but sometimes it has to be accounted for. There is a intimate relationship between actors, audience and productions. The dynamics within the group that involved in the production will be just like beers, mature when the environment meet what is best for a show. First, the reaction from the audience is a truly wild card in a show. There's no way to precisely predict it, and sometimes it may backfire if we don't prepare the otherwise we wish audience would think. Second, actors gain confidence as each performance takes place. They will know the set better, rephrase the lines better, they will even know themselves better about how to control the body. In sum, I feel that a company is just like a delicate piece of music box, each chain and each wheel needs to be lubricated with time and practice, so that the show can be handled smoothly.
Post a Comment