Threaded Order Chronological Order
| PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 04:27 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| Let's set aside the play. Lets set aside the acting (except Blair Brown who is wonderful as always) Let's just address basic stagecraft - Directing 101. Things that neither director, nor actors, nor producers seem to have notice or cared about. 1) A rich British seeming middle aged man is asked to return a set of keys. He produces them (he has just used them to come into the apt) from his inside left breast pocket of his suit jacket. No man would every carry keys there - among other things the keys would make odd pokes out that would look awful. Checking in with 'The Art of Manliness' confirmed that this is a no no. Keys either go in pants pockets, or in the little key pocket sometimes on the lower left corner inside the jacket, just inside where the jacket opens. 2) Several times they take glasses of bourbon that have not had more than one sip taken from them, and they refill them. This is not a plot point. Its bad stagecraft. Put less 'bourbon; in to start, and instruct your actors as to where to drink the liquid, so that you can do the refill the glass action, if that's important. 3) In Scene 2, an exterior on the terrace of a zillion dollar house or townhouse in DC, we see the French doors which go inside to a room we can't see - there is a terrace, and a railing down stage. Towards the end of the scene, Ms Thurman and Mr Lucas are directed to lean casually the railing, facing us. The only problem is that the railing is not the usual 36", but only about 26-28" tall, because of sight line problems if any higher.. So that the actors have to bend over at a right angle, with their rears in the air, in a totally unnatural and uncomfortable looking position. Why not have them 'sit' on the railing, facing the house, and turn profile. That at least would look like something a human might do. 4) A Character is sitting on a piece of furniture - they get up, and another character almost immediately sits in the just vacated space - even though there are plenty of other places to sit. This doesnt really happen often in an in crowded room - especially if the first person is returning, and one being polite enough to understand that that seat 'belongs' to the person who will be returning. 5) OK. This one has to do with the script. We know from House of Cards that Beau Willimon can write. We are in the home of a DC power couple. He is angling for a Federal Judgeship, and has been for a while. She asks him how he could accept this from Trump, and have to follow his policies. Now - this woman is extremely bright and manipulative and savvy about everything, a DC Power Wife. But somehow her husband has to stop her and explain that a Federal Judgeship is for life, and that after you are appointed you can rule any way you want - there is no need to follow a political dogma as a judge. This is the classic sin of characters saying in dialogue things which they obviously already know. Clunky. Unbelievable. Sadly, like every other word in this 'play'. |
|
| reply to this message |
| maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:58 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? - NewtonUK 04:27 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| is vile and the actors don't want to take more than a sip. Does anyone know what it is--flat coke? I think white wine is usually apple juice and red wine is grape juice. I don't know what brown liquids are. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) | |
| Posted by: carolinaguy 04:12 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) - dramedy 03:58 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| In local productions I've worked on, tea was used to simulate brown liquors. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 07:26 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) - carolinaguy 04:12 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| This always reminds me of the scene in The Adventure of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (the film) where Bernadette instructs the others on how to skim the hotel minibar by filling gin bottles with water and using the complimentary tea bag to do the same with the scotch bottles. I love a good educational film, me. ;) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| thanks | |
| Posted by: dramedy 05:06 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: maybe the brown liquid (bourbon substitute) - carolinaguy 04:12 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| that probably is more drinkable than flat coke. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:03 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? - NewtonUK 04:27 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| Another relatively minor but annoying thing: At one point very early on in the play, three characters are together in a room, and they are the only three people in that room. Yet, at one point, two of them move to the opposite side of the stage to have a conversation that the third person is not supposed to hear at all, even though they are speaking in full voice. I thought that sort of convention went out a hundred years ago or more :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:25 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? - Michael_Portantiere 05:03 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| Now that it is a bit warmer outside, and I do not worry as much about my skin cracking if I smile, a good little laugh is much appreciated. In other news, back seat drivers enjoy road trips a lot less than those who just sit back and relax. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You are too kind | |
| Posted by: aleck 05:01 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: PARISIAN WOMAN - Stagecraft? - NewtonUK 04:27 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| I believe the playwright and the director were relying heavily on the audience's suspension of disbelief -- namely by being in a stunned state of disbelief that they were actually in the same room as Uma Thurman. Obviously, that wasn't enough for everyone . . . But as I have pointed out here previously, there used to be a time when plays of even weaker and more nonsensical (and longer!) content than this play were successfully carried simply by the presence of the star. Nothing else mattered. I can remember, for example, a production that I still think of as one of my best 2 1/2 hours in the theatre watching Ralph Richardson and Celia Johnson is a nothing play (later produced on Broadway by those equal magicians Rex Harrison and Claudette Colbert) called The Kingfisher. The thing was a thin as gossamer and I was transfixed and transported. I can still remember a particular speech that Richardson did that seemed other worldly. Of course, we didn't get that in The Parisian Woman -- or you would not have noticed that the railing was 26-28" tall instead of "the usual 36". But I'm glad you had your visual tape measure with you to catch these people from tricking you with their art. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:48 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: You are too kind - aleck 05:01 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Farinelli" is barely a play that is charming many based on the performance of Mark Rylance (even if he's doing little more than recycling his best bits). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| i'm not a huge rylance fan | |
| Posted by: dramedy 04:04 pm EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 06:48 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| but i did like Farinelli a lot. Maybe it wouldn't have been as enjoyable with another actor, but i felt the story of a king going insane and potentially being dethroned to be interesting and surprising relevant today in US politics. I can see Farinelli stating he is the smartest man in the room! THe subject is covered in probably a better written play--THe Madness of King George--but i felt this play was still interesting and engaging. But i didn't think it was a brilliant play like King Charles III, which I loved a few seasons ago. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 06:48 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think that's fair on either point but you're entitled, of course, to think otherwise. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:15 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 07:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| If you were to hear my full thoughts on the play, I think you would see that I'm being quite generous and respectful in the words I used. From a technical standpoint, it truly is barely a play, in terms of how it handles story, action, and architecture. The physical production and the music are doing all the heavy lifting on this one, and people seem to be leaving genially satisfied. Still, I can't help but notice that half of the positive reviews on Showscore say it's kind of boring. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 11:15 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| generous vis-a-vis your full thoughts, sure, but not fair and not accurate. Not technically a play? Seriously? I'd love to hear that explained. Make sure to link that rulebook. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:10 am EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:53 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| You're right that there's no rule book to what a play is or isn't. There is, though, craft and technical elements, and it takes great skill to tell a story coherently, particularly when you're looking solely at what's on the page, and not what a production wills into being. I didn't say it wasn't technically a play. You're misquoting me. I said that technically it's barely,/i> a play. There is a crucial difference. Van Kampen does manage to string together a series of scenes with a modicum logical coherence. She doesn't quite find an overarching drama that tells a singular story (partly because she doesn't know the characters very well), but she does drop small dramas into her scenes in a way that give it a sense of movement and cause & effect. In this way, she has met the barest criteria for writing a play. Like a jukebox musical, the text mostly exists as a delivery method for production numbers, but it is still enough to be a play. It's just that it's the playwriting equivalent of a sand castle - the kind that are just hills built by hand - and it's being shown on Broadway, where one expects soaring glass and steel condos and the occasional Zaha Hadid masterwork. Fortunately, the play's physical production is sumptuous, which I think is why the set gets the most prominent pull quote outside of the theater. In the same way that your work in producing and commercial theater economics is built upon a great study and a great skill, so is my work in play development and play analysis. There are criteria by which the writing of a play can be assessed. Those critera can be finely calibrated, but they can also be quite broad - if you were to explain to someone the point at which a play stops being a play and starts being dance or performance art, you would be using many of the same concepts to describe what makes a play a play. My impression from some of your writing on this board is that you don't believe that these diagnostic tools and structures exist, but they do, and they are the tools used by everyone who tells a story on stage. As a play is just a text, many underwhelming texts can become great shows when other elements of theater making deliver a compelling experience. The showmanship of "Farinelli" is enough to elevate the piece into something that is satisfying for many, but that's a credit to scenic, music, and all of those candles, as well as Rylance, who does as well as anyone can when they don't have a character to play. Since you liked the play, can you share what story you took from it? What about the play felt complete to you? I welcome your disagreement, but hopefully we can disagree through the play itself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 02:10 am EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for writing more. First of all, as I wrote early on (I think I saw it in the first week of previews), while I was greatly entertained by the show, I did not think it was a great play. (I am not sure I would say I "liked" in much more than the Facebook sense, though, as I say, I was well entertained and not bored.) Second, I very much believe in the diagnostic tools, but I also think that's what they are: things that can be used by those creating theatre, but not intended to shackle them or, most importantly, those consuming it. They may help tell stories, but I don't think we want to be telling (to pick a simple example) Richard Foreman or perhaps Beckett, that what they are writing are "barely plays." I've used this comment before, but I think it is apt here, that Paula Vogel has said that in teaching playwriting, she remains humbled by the notion that had someone turned in Hamlet, she would likely have given it a "D." (or something similar) Moving on, I don't think the playwright is required to tell a singular story to have more than "barely a play," but I have a fairly clear sense of the story being told (bipolar king, concerned wife seeking a "cure," brings that cure prompting the king to come to life and re-position so they can commune with nature (with backstory involving the courtiers) and, I assume we can agree, an unsatisfying ending.) I think if we start dismissing plays with unsatisfying endings we will have eliminated enough plays to prevent many theatres from getting a season up. I have no problem with your criticisms or analysis whether I agree or not; what triggered me was the dismissiveness: I think it is insulting to compare this to a (typical) jukebox musical. Also, you originally were pretty disparaging about Rylance, which you seem to have backed away from (no complaints here). I've gotten into this sort of discussion before (most often relating to lyrics I think) but I do think it is important in any art form to distinguish between what we are taught in school (or otherwise) about tools used to create, and how those tools are or are not employed. We have far more well-educated playwrights following what they were taught and writing lousy plays, and we have great playwrights who famously eschewed what they were taught to go on to become geniuses. (And yes, we also have both currents flowing in opposition to that, once again demonstrating that there are no rules. :-) ) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:21 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm only dismissive of Rylance to the extent that I don't think he's giving us anything new in this play. Much like Bertie Carvel in "Ink", he's dipping into his bag of skills (or tricks) to cobble together a character where there is little on the page. It's the first time I've seen Rylance where nothing surprised me. I don't dismiss the play for it's unsatisfying ending, mainly because the lack of an ending stems from the lack of a meaningful beginning or middle. I do dismiss it for leaving (spoilers, if anyone is reading this) the king's death offstage, just as it leaves the attraction between Farinelli and the queen entirely offstage until the moment they suddenly kiss. There is no depth of character, and I think that we get the plot we do because it is baldly signposted. What most intrigued me, though, is your sense that it's unfair to call it a jukebox show, which to me is the least controversial thing I wrote :). The play essentially lurches from song to song (and I should note here that they added three songs for Broadway), and the entire dramatic engine of the play (to the extent that one exists) is about getting us to a new song. Even the rave reviews have centered around hearing the songs (or watching Rylance hear the songs), and all of the best stagecraft is built around the songs. Much like in a jukebox show, the characters are thin, and the historical information is told in a perfunctory and often tonally uneven style. For me, calling it a jukebox show is a descriptor rather than an insult, but then I don't mind a jukebox show, so long as they have a strong sense of action. Having rules around plays is always a bit of a dicey proposition, and people who work in literary often live in fear of not getting a play right - I almost certainly would have passed on "The Wolves". But there is a difference between people who are playing with form and those who are using an old form poorly. There's nothing in what van Kampen is doing that is experimental; she's attempting a linear, psychologically-based play, and her actual text fails to do much more than supply the basic sketch of the plot. She's working in a well-worn form, so we have a much easier time evaluating the success of her attempt. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:15 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - Singapore/Fling 09:21 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
|
|
|
| There are only a fixed number of times we can recycle this discussion without wearing it out, especially considering that I never intended to wind up defending a play I liked as an entertainment but found "not great." So you thought it was less not great than I did. In fact you didn't think it was great or even good at all. Fine. A few parting comments (and feel free to add yours of course): 1. There are lots of actors who, at times (or more often), seem to be digging into a bag of tricks and yet (I venture to say) you haven't rejected all of them on that basis. 2. Re the kiss: I think this is an example of a point that can't bear the weight you're assigning to it. The king is suffering from a mental disorder. What would you have a kiss mean? What do you know of Gertrude's affection for Claudius? Seriously, if you want to play this game, let's play it with Hamlet. 3. I take your point about experimenting with form etc. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: davei2000 06:33 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: You are too kind - aleck 05:01 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| One of the critics on Channel 13's Theater Talk this past weekend (I think it was Green) singled out the low railing as one of the infelicities of The Parisian Woman. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Again: If you are distracted by the railing height . . . | |
| Posted by: aleck 10:02 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - davei2000 06:33 pm EST 01/10/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think there's much else going on that is of interest. I think the greatest crime in this play was the overwhelming abundance of cliches -- seemingly snatched in whole bites from a variety of plays and movies of the past. That was the true scandal of this play, not railing height. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.058417 seconds.