Architectural Digest: It’s hard to think of a more iconic exchange in the history of theater than the balcony scene of Romeo and Juliet. Those legendary lines. That stolen kiss. It’s been performed countless times the world over. And it was for that reason that Andrew Moerdyk, Kimie Nishikawa, and Santiago Orjuela-Laverde, founders of the Brooklyn-based scenic design studio dots, hoped to reinvent it, when tapped by director Sam Gold for the Circle in the Square Theatre’s recent Broadway adaptation.
6 comments:
Reading about the imaginative work of this design collective is inspiring in many ways as it not only asks what is possible to see on stage, but also allows for exciting innovation backstage and in technical design to ensure effects like those described in the article work flawlessly and easily. It would be interesting to hear more about how this collective interacts with the technical personnel involved in the creation of their shows in terms of how they decide they are able to move forward with a particular idea as I would hope their creativity and flexibility within a creative team would extend to those on the technical side of everything. Further, in those conversations, how much is the design being solely driven by this collective? Or how often do limitations or further ideas in technical design drive new innovations in scenic design itself? We often hear about how design (especially in theater) derives ideas and inspiration from other industries, but how often do designers get ideas from the limitations they’re provided with?
What I first noticed when looking at all the pictures of this group’s various sets was how each set had varying levels of detail. For Appropriate, the set is incredibly detailed and cluttered, while Floyd Collins and Romeo and Juliet have sets that have much more empty space. I think its amazing how while the group certainly has a specific and unique style, each show they design is so different and so uniquely fitted to that show’s story and situation. I think this must be enhanced by the group’s collaboration. It is incredible that three people are able to constantly work together, each offering their own perspectives, and still keep a consistent style while also offering new, fresh design perspectives on each show. I think it would be interesting to hear more about their collaborative process. Does one person take the lead on a production while the others assist? Or are all the designs a completely collaborative effort?
The set that’s sticking with me the most is the set for Appropriate of the cluttered Arkansas plantation. I’ve never seen the play, and my favorite thing about scenic design is that I can immediately try and discern some of its themes from just one picture. It’s a grand plantation house (which has racial implications in its own right), populated by furniture, bags, boxes, and, to the viewer’s eye, junk. The discordance between the grandiose of the set’s bones and the mess of its dressing implies issues in the home–issues in the family. The characters could be trying to get their lives together, maybe trying to get them to fit into a "perfect" home.
On another note, I’ve been lucky enough to see both Oh, Mary! and Romeo and Juliet. Looking at them, you’d have no idea they were designed by the same collective. Oh, Mary!’s set seems to be, for the most part, bland and historically accurate, which makes the wild, nonsensical plot, preposterous dialogue, and larger-than-life characters stand out more. The play would seem less hilarious if the set was as abstract and hilarious as its plot and characters. Romeo and Juliet on the other hand, stays true to its original plot and message: feuding is bad. It’s very traditional in that sense. Its unique, experimental set design, however, sets it apart. Personally, I gasped when the platform split apart and the stage of flowers was revealed. R&J had design make a statement (young love, the wildness of youth), while Oh, Mary!’s design took a backseat in order to let the messages (laugher) of the show shine.
I found this article extremely interesting! In my opinion a great scenic design is instrumental in creating a great production. Without one, I often find myself disengaged and bored. They fill the space and literally create the world around the actors. Scenic elements and details also give audience members things to look at when there is little to no action onstage. Thinking outside the box and innovating keeps getting harder and harder, however the more that we do it the more that our industry will succeed. It is important to honor the art that has been created before us, but we need to keep it fresh and new. A perfect example of this is the recent production of Romeo and Juliet. They reinvented a play that has been done thousands of times, through a new and exciting set design. Instead of having a standard balcony that has been done countless times, they made a suspended bed for Juliet!
I worked with DOTS at WTF during the summer of 2022. I wasn’t part of the design-to-build process that year, as Hudson Scenic handled the scenery construction, but I did take part in the load-in process. Needless to say, working with DOTS was not quite like how the article describes it—only one representative was present to oversee the install. Although he was very adamant that his team had designed the set, it was ultimately up to him to make the final calls. I assume that, depending on the scale of the production, the number of team members sent to participate in tech and be “the person in the room” varies. What I will say is that this production was greatly enhanced by the scenery; the worlds created by DOTS were truly impressive, and I really enjoyed seeing everything come together. I also think that working on a design as a group always makes collaboration easier, because theatre is ultimately a collaborative art form. It allows us to lean on one another’s ideas and highlight different aspects of the production.
What I adore most about the sets made by this collective is the range of different details and ideas that they have been able to create. From the grounded realism of the inside of a house to a bed flying up into the sky over hundreds of flowers, the creatives are able to accomplish a great range of design ideas. The set of theirs that is the most striking to me is at the top of the article, from the Lincoln Center’s Floyd Collins, with all three creatives standing upon it. The set almost seems to be simple, with beams hanging from above, strings of lights strung around in a fashion that seems random, and various other small objects around the stage. It’s so simple in its basic concept, but it is so engaging to look at as an audience member. The set seems to be drawing me in on its own.
Post a Comment