Dramatics Magazine: Early in my career as a designer, I was challenged many times with the need to create multiple settings for a production while taking up minimal space. Many young set designers are most familiar with the traditional three-walled set, which features a back wall and two side walls on angles. This model and its variations work well for shows requiring a unit set, where all of the scenes take place in the same location. You can design a convincing and lovely room or set of rooms to give the audience a sense of space and time.
4 comments:
I have worked with and built periaktoi in high school, and they can be a lot of fun. I disagree with the idea that it makes scene changes take longer. Granted, it won’t be as fast as something being flown in, but it can be a whole lot faster than rolling big wagons on and off. It just takes a few well rehearsed stagehands to each grab one and move them together smoothly. This idea of inverted periaktoi is interesting though because it allows for a lot more dimensionality that is lost with traditional periaktoi. Being able to add walls onto them that can be angled out and have doors/ windows in them is really exciting. I love the fact that these historical theatre pieces are still used today in many productions. It is still a great solution to many of the challenges we face today that is simple and elegant in a way that intense automation or modern stage tricks just cannot defeat.
I think the concept of periaktoi is super interesting and a different way to run theatrical transitions. I understand the argument of them making scene changes longer, but I also think there can be some use in the periaktoi’s transition based on the show. The inverted periaktoi is interesting but after looking at the designs for it, I can understand how their use can be beneficial in creating a performance. It also allows for more dimensionality than the traditional periaktoi and can create sets that allow for entrances and exits within them, versus the normal periaktoi’s two dimensional appearance on the face that really only allowed for it to be painted on. I think that the inclusion of the periaktoi would bring back the traditional elements of theatre in a new way, especially if done as an inverted periaktoi where it is almost a twist on something so commonly done in older, more traditional practices.
Periaktoi have got to be one of the coolest technical element for scenery that I have learned about since I have gotten here to Carnegie Mellon. I echo what Mary Emily and Cooper say, not seeing how periaktoi could take longer to transition, even if there were a lot of them, but maybe that is because I have never used them before. I do understand the restraint of having a fairly flat dimensional surface to work with on a periaktos – they were designed to be an alternative to lots of backdrops. I also agree with what was said above, that the aspect of having dimensionality on an inverted periaktos is massive perk, and probably the biggest upside to using these over a traditional periaktos. However, I do not understand how this solves the other problem the author highlights, that you are restrained to the diameter of the periaktoi’s rotation, and that they take up all that space upstage. Would the inverted periaktoi take up just as much, if not more space on stage? If they were going to keep within the space that the original kind did, they would still only have a small amount of space to be dimensional. These wagon like structures would still take up a ton of space on stage. I love this idea however, and maybe I just need to see a video of the real thing in action to understand what make them better than regular periaktoi.
I have always loved multi-sided sets. They can add so much with very little to the telling of a story. It still surprises me how simple and old this technique is. People of ancient greece used to use this multi-sided set, and it is still sometimes a great option for trying to put on low-space/ low budget show. It is just another reminder for me that there is no one way to do things. Every situation is different, and there is no one way to answer a similar problem. There is an extent in which we choose to go within scenic art and technical direction in which we choose to mimic life. Do we use the original object or try to create a believable option? What’s simpler? We must continue to find new ways to present the world in which the theater takes place. This will keep theater engaging, to be able to find a reality in a performance.
Post a Comment