Threaded Order Chronological Order
| an actual baffling misstep... | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:29 pm EST 12/29/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:28 pm EST 12/29/21 | |
| In reply to: re: i found the final image of film to be a baffling misstep... - Chromolume 10:08 pm EST 12/29/21 | |
|
|
|
| Back in 2004, I saw the Trinity Rep production of West Side Story. Admittedly, I was dragged to it - it was an Amanda Dehnert "concept" production, and I really wasn't all that enthused. But then I really started to get hooked on it. Part of the "concept" was that the ensemble played everyone depending on the scene - meaning that sometimes they were all Jets, or all Sharks, or some combination - but it was fluid in that sense. But Dehnert and the choreographer found ways to make that stage language make visual sense right away, and I found myself buying into it. Tony Yazbek played Tony, and was very good. There was another part of the visual concept. The rather empty unit set was "titled" by having cast members spray white paint, graffiti-like, on the set. ("Doc's Drugstore" perhaps, or "The Dress Shop" etc.) It gave the feeling of someone spraypainting on the road or a vacant lot, and it worked. Until the last moments of the show. For which I still want my money back, sorry to say. As I recall, there was something akin to the customary procession at the end, carrying Tony's body off. But then in the last section of the music, the spraypainters appeared again. This time with color paint - and they very quickly painted a complete beautiful colorful replica of the production's logo. Which made no real sense, and robbed everyone of the dramatic impact of the last scene. It was a visual "coup de theatre" in a sense, but it was completely unwarranted and unsatisfying, and didn't match the tone of the show's ending. Much as I had enjoyed the bulk of the production, this left me with a sort of "I told you so" feeling about Dehnert's concept productions. As if, "forget about the show and the plight of the characters at the end - look what we can do with the set!!!!!!! Wow!!!!!" This from the theatre and director that got a cease-and-desist notice after trying to change the ending of Annie the year before this (by having Annie back in the orphanage after all - "it was all a dream"). As I recall, they were forced to restore the proper ending. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc | |
| Posted by: bmc 11:41 am EST 12/30/21 | |
| In reply to: an actual baffling misstep... - Chromolume 11:28 pm EST 12/29/21 | |
|
|
|
| Edward Albee ran across in interview( I think) about \someone who said I'm looking forward to bringing MY vision of TINY ALICE to the stage. Albee replied TINY ALICE is my play, if you have a vision, write yer own dem play(or something like that' ), I Remembered being shocked when a director/dramaturg wrote about their vision for THE GERSHWIN'S PORGY &(sic) Bess, and i was relieved when SJS put his two cents in in the next Sunday times. It's one thing to have a new vision for MACBETH and another to have a new vision of someone else's play, where the copyright has yet to expire. . |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:37 am EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc - bmc 11:41 am EST 12/30/21 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe we’re talking semantics, but every director has a vision for a play. They must. That’s what they offer as interpretive artists. If no vision, then what? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:16 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc - writerkev 05:37 am EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure this is true when you're not directing the original. Many directors (and producers) seem to think that a vision that is *new* or *alternative* is the reason to mount the play, rather than the play itself. Especially with a non-musical, a lot of times the play just needs a director who wants to direct the play, not impose their own "vision" on it. Obviously you always want to be able to see how the play will look and play, and why it would look that way or be staged that way, you want a cohesive vision for it as a whole, serving the text, and you need to execute that. But that's not the same as what is often meant by a director's "vision", so I understand Albee's sentiments. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc | |
| Posted by: StanS 05:55 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
| In reply to: re: an actual baffling misstep.../ MY vision of WSS or TINY ALICE etc - Chazwaza 02:16 pm EST 12/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| Even if the director just wants to "direct the play", the written script cannot give everything. There are always choices to make, or all such productions would be the same. Those choices must come from a coherent "vision", or whatever word you want to use. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.016622 seconds.