Friday, December 07, 2018
Less Is More Or Less Is Less: The Balancing Act Of Designing Big Musicals In Small Spaces
The Theatre Times: When you think of the ways that musicals have traditionally been produced you conjure up images of these large-scale, traditional, “wing and drop” shows. When I was a young designer just starting out, I soon discovered that many of the theaters that were hiring me to work on these musicals were unable to recreate them at that level. They either didn’t have the fly loft or didn’t have the wing space and they seldom had the budget. So naturally, the show had to be reimagined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Less versus distilled is an interesting wording that I believe I have always through about but never really knew how to put properly into words. Having only worked on design incredibly amateurishly for Scotch’n’Soda, we are always trying to get an idea down to fit not only our small space but our incredibly tight budget. I’m often thought of as being stubborn for resisting the urge to just simply cut things without extended conversation. I push because I know we cannot just cut things because they are large or complicated units, we can modify sure but we must first evaluate what is important and what does what for the show. If we take things away we will just have less, if we take things away that might be superfluous we may end up with making more elements more powerful by distilling the scenic elements to those solely necessary for the core of the story.
This is a great article that offers some good pieces of advice on how to approach a production from a design standpoint. It’s very easy to get sucked into what the article refers to as the ‘moss and layers’ of a show and its past productions. Especially if you’ve seen a production of the show before, it’s hard to take inspiration from that without copying it. We’ve all heard the addages about finding themes and building from there, but many designers still have trouble doing proper script analysis, especially on a time limit. The idea of distilling a show is a great way to think about the design process. Don’t do less, do it more concentratedly. One of my favorite shows is Next to Normal, and I’ve seen it twice. The first time, the set was a simple set of platforms with a couple small pieces that came on and off (a piano, chairs, etc). I had a nearly religious experience. The second time I saw it, the set was an ornately decorated box set with an enormous amount of set dressing that realistically created the interior of an average but distraught American family’s home. It was somewhat underwhelming, and although it set the scene, it didn’t allow enough flexibility for the shows dramatic moments. On one hand, it seems this is an accurate distillation: what is more representative of family relationships than their home? But really, the show isn’t just about family, it’s about the individuals within the family, and the isolation that each feels. That’s where the somewhat minimalist, bare bones set shined.
I find this fascinating and love every second of it. The ability for a musical to fit into a small space force an intimacy that can be lost in the big flashy productions. The simple fact of the audience being 30 feet away from the closest performer versis 10 feet doesn't feel like a lot, but it allows for a much deeper connection throughout the journey that the carictors go through during the show. This can even help more in shows where the actors break the fourth wall and interact with the viewers, which can be common in musicals of a comedic nature. I am really fascinated by the idea of taking a show that can be huge such as The Hunchback and putting it into a smaller space. It would also be nice if they did more shows and thus were able to keep similar large budgets allowing for a tremendous amount of detail to be incorporated into the design and build.
I think there’s an interesting line between trying to force the set of a big musical to fit in a small space, versus actually finding what’s important in a big musical and creating a minimalist design that actually works for that space. Some classic big musicals are just not really capable of being done well in a small space. Imagine Anything Goes in the Wells. I’d love to see something like that, but just for the “oh boy” factor of it rather than actually expecting to enjoy it. There’s also the level of intimacy that goes hand in hand with having a small space, which also can be challenging for somewhat shallow, bigger musicals, but could be a great benefit for shows that are more adaptable. I think while some shows work really well only in large spaces, there are also a lot of shows that work really well only in small spaces. I remember reading something several years ago about how Peter and the Starcatcher almost didn’t go to Broadway, despite its success, because people didn’t think it would work in a big theatre. I see that with a lot of our shows here as well. There’s going to be an MFA in the Chosky next year, and it’ll be interesting to see how they make these traditionally small, more intimate and personal shows fit on a larger stage.
This article does a good job of approaching a production from a design standpoint especially for small spaces. Having worked on many musicals, I have come to appreciate working on them in small spaces. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. I think the what makes it the most fun for me is the process of figuring things out and seeing the end result be a success. The experience of watching a musical on a big and on a small stage are very different. Even most musicals require the small space so it becomes intimate. When a production like that is put on a big stage, the effect is lost and the message gets lost in translation. Aside from the audience experience, the production team’s experience also matters in the general scheme of things.
I really enjoyed reading this article. They discuss the different ways a scenic designer has to bend their brain in order to really create a show, and not just vomit out another not-quite-broadway production of something. Often I see shows, but I have no interest or investment in them. I know what will happen, I know the big scenic element they will probably draw on, and so does much of the audience. Creating a story, as opposed to recreating another seen version of it, takes a lot of trying to think outside the box your brain puts you in. Some of these tips, of “finding the envelope” of the story, are helpful in that sense. However it takes a true designer to see something that isn’t directly diriven from the script. I have more respect for the designers who roughly make their minds eye, as opposed to those who successfully regurgitate the same show over and over.
I thought this article was pretty fascinating and definitely applicable to many theatres I've been to and worked at. I appreciate that the article offers the idea that you don't need to just recreate Broadway even when you do a big musical. Adapting a show to your smaller space can bring in opportunity for even more innovation and creativity. I think a great example of this was Xanadu and the Pittsburgh CLO. They brought a pretty big show and converted it to their 3/4 thrust cabaret configuration. I think as the article points out , it can be difficult to see something beyond what the script says or what has been done before. Especially if it's a well known musical, it feels like no one can erase the memory of the original set. As it it said, necessity is the mother of innovation. Designers overcoming challenging venues always find unique and creative ways to achieve a show.
This is an interesting article. I think that the concept of designing very large musicals for very small spaces is interesting. I think that is a very interesting design challenge that could lead to some interesting shows in the future. But I do think that Schweikardt makes some good points. For example he says that modern audiences do not want to sit through long scene changes, which I do agree with. At this point I do believe that this is where automation comes in. Automation can make scene changes more consistent and much quicker than is possible with human hands. However, looking at these pictures they appear to me more static sets than those that change, which is another valid approach. However, I do tend to think that people do get bored when there’s a lack of changes on stage and there should be at least a few moving elements if it can be managed in the show.
I loved this article and how it didn’t just address the technical and physical challenges of trying to do a musical in a small space, but also of how to design a show and keep it unique and interesting. I appreciated the idea they expressed about how once a show has been done on Broadway, designers will tend to mimic the way they did it rather than developing a new way to make it work for them. I really enjoyed hearing this designer talk about their work in small spaces and the way that space affects their design process- it can be limiting in some ways but can also make the show much more intimate and focused on the “spine” as he calls it. I think this perfectly represents the moods created by different spaces and how stage size can affect a show- large productions on large stages can often feel shallow and impersonal, while smaller spaces tend to allow for more emotion and more intimacy, but fewer people and fewer flashy dance numbers. This designer’s process was really interesting and I love that he incorporated the themes of the play into the set rather than just going “it takes place in a classroom, so let’s build a classroom box set”!
Post a Comment