Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, March 25, 2022
How the Oscars Incorporated 90,000 Swarovski Crystals Into Ceremony
Variety: The 94th Academy Awards is returning to the Dolby Theatre this Sunday, and Swarovski has teamed up with Emmy-award creative director and designer David Korins (“Hamilton”, “Dear Evan Hansen”) to provide 90,000 Swarovski Crystals for the stage design.
8 comments:
John Alexander Farrell
said...
This article is so interesting, though frankly, it is shocking on a lot of levels. Firstly, in my mind, the question of Why is raised. I have always found myself admiring David Korins's work, but this felt a little out of the left-field for him. I understand the temptation to fully employ the element of luxury in a design especially when you have the capital to support that, but it seems like a bit of a waste. I am positive there are fantastic cheaper alternatives, so the only reason to pursue this idea in my mind is to say that it was done. That being said, it is effective, 90,000 Swarovski Crystals in a headline are certainly eye-grabbing to a reader and bring attention to the event. But also, is something as well-known as the Oscars really in need of more publicity? The rest of the design is extremely well-designed, and it definitely is exciting, it just seems like the material choices were a bit extravagant.
I’m a simple creature - I see sparkles, I get excited. It only takes one comparison between your run-of-the-mill rhinestone and a Swarovski crystal to realize why they are so loved. I’ve seen costumes onstage before and after being stoned with Swarovskis, and the effect is amazing for such tiny little crystals. Having a beautiful set at the Academy Awards is very important to me as a viewer, because I feel it demonstrates an appreciation for good design and spectacle on a night that is highly anticipated by a lot of people. I’m excited to see the full stage tomorrow, because the photos in the article look beautiful. The crystals reflecting off of the polished metal was a smart way to maximize the sparkle. I’m also interested to see how Korins used LEDs, as the article is pretty vague about what kind of visual effect they will have on the space.
Funny enough, my sister was oddly obsessed with Swarovski crystals back in the fifth grade, so upon seeing the article name I felt like I just had to read it. And although she unfortunately never bought any Swarovski product, it does make sense why this iconic jewelry company is so revered for its work. It also however is really difficult to fathom how and why the Academy managed to get 90,000 of these crystals into their show. From domes to curtains, every part of the stage design is bedecked in these brilliant rhinestones; the designer, David Korins, explained that the luminescence of these Swarovski crystals made it so that there was “no need for scenic enhancements”. Although very impressive in execution, I didn’t quite understand Korins’ design explanation that these crystals symbolize “inclusivity and community”. Yes, it is a very aesthetically pleasing visual design, but it does not really allude much to deeper issues.
I think its super cool that they are using Swarovski crystals into the set and not just for the sake of using the crystals. It is very easy to use super expensive materials for the sake of using that material and saying that so and so amount was used or so and so amount of money was spent on the set. I like the fact that these crystals were used for how the capture and reflect light and the unique quality they have compared to other crystals. I do think they are used beautifully and brilliantly and hope it is captured well on camera and is not just for the enjoyment of the select few that are there. I also hope that the people being used to put up this set and the people that are working the event itself are being paid fairly and not told they are being paid through exposure as then spending so much money on crystals seems insanely unfair. As long as the process is fair I think this is a beautiful design perfect for the oscars.
Y'know, whenever I see any news relating to the oscars I usually look at it with a bit of scrutiny, since it always tends to be, as the article says, a stuffy event catering to one-percenters, and also a bunch of old white guys in a room who are supposedly the authorities on "good cinema". This, however, looks promising! Swarovski crystals are incredibly beautiful, and I love the idea behind the set design. It's quite extravagant in execution, which seems incredibly extra, and as someone else said, I really hope that all this money being spent means that at least the workers are paid well, or at least, a living wage for this kind of work.
As a side note, the fan-favorite category is a really good thing to add! With how supposedly "prestigious" this event is, I'm incredibly shocked by the lack of audience representation over the years. I think, for once, I'm actually believing them when they say they're trying to make things more inclusive.
This article, unfortunately, only reinforces my belief that David Korins makes the most boring scenic designs of all time. Are they pretty? Yes, for sure. But for the money given to Korins for this event, he could have done a million cooler things than buying 90,000 swarovski crystals. From what was visible on TV, the effect of the crystals could have been as easily given by a LED wall. One thing in this article did stand out to me. Specifically, producer Will Packer’s quote “It creates a two-way dialogue and is more inclusive because the Oscars always felt so stuffy and so one-percenter.” This quote refers to the new fan favorite Oscar, but feels incredibly out of place in this article. I’m no expert, but when I think “less stuffy and more inclusive” I don’t jump to 90,000 Swarovski crystals. Korin’s made a beautiful set, but it’s uninspired and antithetical to what story the Oscars attempted to tell this year.
A little bit of better, less serious news for today, I thought that this article was really fun to read. I have never been a consistent fan of the Oscars, but I do love the grandiose nature of the stage. I was super disappointed at the tiny, blackbox like theare of the Oscars during the pandemic, but they really brought back the set this year. It is a really pretty concept, liked the emphasis on unity and togetherness. I don’t know, as abstract as the stage was, if it particularly read at that, however, it was really luxurious and beautiful to look like. I think thats what the Oscars should be- big and bright and out of reach to us all. Its more fun to watch that way. Last year, I feel like they tried to bring down the tone of the show a little, since it was during the pandemic and it was a time where they wanted to connect to the common peoples more. But it didn’t work in my opinion. But those 90,000 Swarovski Crystals sure did.
Really not a fan. Like others have said, what immense waste at play here. But then, it just seems really tacky and meant to seem impressive and headline title attention grabby. Art for the sake of art is one thing, but what the hell is this? Gilding an 8x4 platform doesn't make it anymore impressive because you spent money on some useless shiny shit.
And I get that part of the idea is to be attention grabby and ostentatious as this grand gesture of opulence. But it simply isn't for me and that's a large part of why these sorts of things don't appeal to me.
All that said, the form of the set itself is beautiful. And as a grand opulent gesture, it really is.
I just hope that all that expensive shit didn't immediately get tossed in a dumpster or some warehouse to be forgotten about for the next several decades.
8 comments:
This article is so interesting, though frankly, it is shocking on a lot of levels. Firstly, in my mind, the question of Why is raised. I have always found myself admiring David Korins's work, but this felt a little out of the left-field for him. I understand the temptation to fully employ the element of luxury in a design especially when you have the capital to support that, but it seems like a bit of a waste. I am positive there are fantastic cheaper alternatives, so the only reason to pursue this idea in my mind is to say that it was done. That being said, it is effective, 90,000 Swarovski Crystals in a headline are certainly eye-grabbing to a reader and bring attention to the event. But also, is something as well-known as the Oscars really in need of more publicity? The rest of the design is extremely well-designed, and it definitely is exciting, it just seems like the material choices were a bit extravagant.
I’m a simple creature - I see sparkles, I get excited. It only takes one comparison between your run-of-the-mill rhinestone and a Swarovski crystal to realize why they are so loved. I’ve seen costumes onstage before and after being stoned with Swarovskis, and the effect is amazing for such tiny little crystals. Having a beautiful set at the Academy Awards is very important to me as a viewer, because I feel it demonstrates an appreciation for good design and spectacle on a night that is highly anticipated by a lot of people. I’m excited to see the full stage tomorrow, because the photos in the article look beautiful. The crystals reflecting off of the polished metal was a smart way to maximize the sparkle. I’m also interested to see how Korins used LEDs, as the article is pretty vague about what kind of visual effect they will have on the space.
Funny enough, my sister was oddly obsessed with Swarovski crystals back in the fifth grade, so upon seeing the article name I felt like I just had to read it. And although she unfortunately never bought any Swarovski product, it does make sense why this iconic jewelry company is so revered for its work. It also however is really difficult to fathom how and why the Academy managed to get 90,000 of these crystals into their show. From domes to curtains, every part of the stage design is bedecked in these brilliant rhinestones; the designer, David Korins, explained that the luminescence of these Swarovski crystals made it so that there was “no need for scenic enhancements”. Although very impressive in execution, I didn’t quite understand Korins’ design explanation that these crystals symbolize “inclusivity and community”. Yes, it is a very aesthetically pleasing visual design, but it does not really allude much to deeper issues.
I think its super cool that they are using Swarovski crystals into the set and not just for the sake of using the crystals. It is very easy to use super expensive materials for the sake of using that material and saying that so and so amount was used or so and so amount of money was spent on the set. I like the fact that these crystals were used for how the capture and reflect light and the unique quality they have compared to other crystals. I do think they are used beautifully and brilliantly and hope it is captured well on camera and is not just for the enjoyment of the select few that are there. I also hope that the people being used to put up this set and the people that are working the event itself are being paid fairly and not told they are being paid through exposure as then spending so much money on crystals seems insanely unfair. As long as the process is fair I think this is a beautiful design perfect for the oscars.
Y'know, whenever I see any news relating to the oscars I usually look at it with a bit of scrutiny, since it always tends to be, as the article says, a stuffy event catering to one-percenters, and also a bunch of old white guys in a room who are supposedly the authorities on "good cinema". This, however, looks promising! Swarovski crystals are incredibly beautiful, and I love the idea behind the set design. It's quite extravagant in execution, which seems incredibly extra, and as someone else said, I really hope that all this money being spent means that at least the workers are paid well, or at least, a living wage for this kind of work.
As a side note, the fan-favorite category is a really good thing to add! With how supposedly "prestigious" this event is, I'm incredibly shocked by the lack of audience representation over the years. I think, for once, I'm actually believing them when they say they're trying to make things more inclusive.
This article, unfortunately, only reinforces my belief that David Korins makes the most boring scenic designs of all time. Are they pretty? Yes, for sure. But for the money given to Korins for this event, he could have done a million cooler things than buying 90,000 swarovski crystals. From what was visible on TV, the effect of the crystals could have been as easily given by a LED wall. One thing in this article did stand out to me. Specifically, producer Will Packer’s quote “It creates a two-way dialogue and is more inclusive because the Oscars always felt so stuffy and so one-percenter.” This quote refers to the new fan favorite Oscar, but feels incredibly out of place in this article. I’m no expert, but when I think “less stuffy and more inclusive” I don’t jump to 90,000 Swarovski crystals. Korin’s made a beautiful set, but it’s uninspired and antithetical to what story the Oscars attempted to tell this year.
A little bit of better, less serious news for today, I thought that this article was really fun to read. I have never been a consistent fan of the Oscars, but I do love the grandiose nature of the stage. I was super disappointed at the tiny, blackbox like theare of the Oscars during the pandemic, but they really brought back the set this year. It is a really pretty concept, liked the emphasis on unity and togetherness. I don’t know, as abstract as the stage was, if it particularly read at that, however, it was really luxurious and beautiful to look like. I think thats what the Oscars should be- big and bright and out of reach to us all. Its more fun to watch that way. Last year, I feel like they tried to bring down the tone of the show a little, since it was during the pandemic and it was a time where they wanted to connect to the common peoples more. But it didn’t work in my opinion. But those 90,000 Swarovski Crystals sure did.
Really not a fan. Like others have said, what immense waste at play here. But then, it just seems really tacky and meant to seem impressive and headline title attention grabby. Art for the sake of art is one thing, but what the hell is this? Gilding an 8x4 platform doesn't make it anymore impressive because you spent money on some useless shiny shit.
And I get that part of the idea is to be attention grabby and ostentatious as this grand gesture of opulence. But it simply isn't for me and that's a large part of why these sorts of things don't appeal to me.
All that said, the form of the set itself is beautiful. And as a grand opulent gesture, it really is.
I just hope that all that expensive shit didn't immediately get tossed in a dumpster or some warehouse to be forgotten about for the next several decades.
Post a Comment