Bare stages in musicals a new trend?
Sean L. Gilley
the sets were less than spectacular. Many scenes were played on
a bare (or almost bare) stage with a backdrop, a few were played on a
bare stage with a "sky" backdrop (projected), a few played on a bare
stage with a projected backdrop with some kind of scene.
(Don't get me wrong.. it's a great show and worth what I paid to see it,
it's just that the scenery seemed sparse.)
That got me started thinking. Due to financial restrictions, I don't see
many touring shows, and I certainly can't get to NYC right now, but
I did see Les Miserables on Broadway, and while it is certainly at
times spectacular staging, there are other times (On My Own, for example)
that again the scenery seems sparse. And while I can't put my finger
on other show I've seen recently that do the same thing, I do remember
being disappointed in the sets for most of the last few shows I've seen.
Is this a trend? Are at least some shows going toward fewer sets and
essentially bare stages for a good number of scenes? Or am I just
underprivileged by only seeing touring productions and the non-touring
shows have more/better sets?
Sean.
Scott
scale-down of the scenery for the tour. On Broadway it is spectacular and I
personally belive Eugene Lee should've won the Tony.
Often with National Tours the set is really scaled down. An example would be
Titanic. I went to see it in Boston expecting something amazing to appear on
stage. All I saw were some phony looking backdrops. The recent tour of Grease
was basically all cutouts.
Sometimes though, no set is needed and can often be very dramatic. In A Chorus
Line, all that is called for are a few mirrors.In Our Town, there are a few
platforms with two tables and chairs. Shows like Pippin and Godspell don't even
need sets all the time.
You mentioned Eponine singing "On My Own" as being too simple. Sometimes the
simplest things end up being the most complex. Would it really have worked if a
huge piece came down with E P O N I N E in lights and flashy effects? No, but
in scenes like the revolution of course. Having a lavish set or no set both can
be very dramatic. The "entrance" of Nora's mansion in Sunset Boulevard can be
breathtaking, then again at the beginning of Fosse's Pippin, those hands
illuminating Ben Vereen were too! It all depends on how you look at things.
Scott
now...
Bettina Pfeiffer
right
>now...
(Why, doesn't she? Did I miss anything?)
But to add something to the original thread, an example of a long-run show
that uses almost no scenery: "The Hunchback..." (Berlin). There are just
those big "blocks" with some nice lighting on them, but apart from that I
only remember one or two chairs and the podium for the King of Fools.
Bettina :-)
*Smile... People will wonder what you were up to*
Jason Travis
> many touring shows, and I certainly can't get to NYC right now, but
> I did see Les Miserables on Broadway, and while it is certainly at
> times spectacular staging, there are other times (On My Own, for example)
> that again the scenery seems sparse. And while I can't put my finger
> on other show I've seen recently that do the same thing, I do remember
> being disappointed in the sets for most of the last few shows I've seen.
Bare stage is often a choice. I remember seeing a tour of THE WIZ where the
finale consisted of nothing but Dorothy in a spot in front of a black wall,
and it was the most spectacular thing you could imagine listening to this
huge sound come out of one woman. Many shows are written with "in one"
scenes which are simple enough to be played on the apron while the set is
changed upstage. This happens a lot less frequently now with all the
machinery that people *want* to see move. But if you had tons and tons of
scenery moving every four seconds, it would get old.
IUP 36
Awards. During the telecast there was a segment on the designers. The scenic
designer of Ragtime, Eugene Lee, said something like, "scenery is kind of
overrated, if you're looking at the scenery there's something wrong, good
scenery you don't see."
I had never thought about it that way, I found it to be an interesting way of
looking at scenic design.
Susan
David A. Gilman
>This thread reminded me of something I remember hearing on the 1998 Tony
>Awards. During the telecast there was a segment on the designers. The scenic
>designer of Ragtime, Eugene Lee, said something like, "scenery is kind of
>overrated, if you're looking at the scenery there's something wrong, good
>scenery you don't see."
>
>I had never thought about it that way, I found it to be an interesting way of
>looking at scenic design.
This is the way most designers in all the disciplines (sound, costume,
lighting, scenery, props, makeup...) look at things. Usually the idea
is for the designers to support, not overshadow, what the director is
doing with the actors.
My professor once told me "You never want people to leave a show
humming the (insert design element here)" This is very true. When
people leave and all they can think about is how great the flying
chandelier was, or wow what an amazing helicopter they have on stage,
there is a problem.
Of course, often times, with different types of 'avant garde'
productions, this isn't necessarily true. YMMV
--
David A. Gilman
PensNest
"Jason Travis" <JCTr...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>> That got me started thinking. Due to financial restrictions, I don't see
>> many touring shows, and I certainly can't get to NYC right now, but
>> I did see Les Miserables on Broadway, and while it is certainly at
>> times spectacular staging, there are other times (On My Own, for example)
>> that again the scenery seems sparse. And while I can't put my finger
>> on other show I've seen recently that do the same thing, I do remember
>> being disappointed in the sets for most of the last few shows I've seen.
>
>Bare stage is often a choice. I remember seeing a tour of THE WIZ where the
>finale consisted of nothing but Dorothy in a spot in front of a black wall,
>and it was the most spectacular thing you could imagine listening to this
>huge sound come out of one woman. Many shows are written with "in one"
>scenes which are simple enough to be played on the apron while the set is
>changed upstage. This happens a lot less frequently now with all the
>machinery that people *want* to see move. But if you had tons and tons of
>scenery moving every four seconds, it would get old.
>
I don't seem to have seen any scenery lately, and hadn't noticed the lack
until now. Admittedly I haven't been to any of the 'spectacle' musicals.
I expect the setting is sometimes necessary to make the experience work -
but doing without the physical representations of place makes the audience
work harder and requires us to join in with the show. In the National
Theatre's wonderful 'Candide', six trunks and a large cloth served as
horses, boats, a canoe - all sorts, and it was quite magical. With this
kind of setting, I think the audience gets more involved in the experience
than is possible when there are realistic representations and spectacular
effects which cause people to take a mental step backwards in order to
admire.
Then again, bare stage may be a financial choice as well as an artistic
one.
Pen
Koon-Cosgrove
> horses, boats, a canoe - all sorts, and it was quite magical. With this
> kind of setting, I think the audience gets more involved in the experience
Funny you mention that [I wish I had seen it]. In the 1974 Broadway revival
of CANDIDE the "environmental" set was actually so complex, but so well
done, that it seemed almost not to exist as a "set", except for a couple of
scenes that were done on the stage proper, which seemed very "stagy by
comparison. Of the productions of this show, which I've seen at least, it
was by far the best for exactly the reasons you note.
I have, by the way, seen a production of THE FANTASTICKS which had a "full"
set [why???]. It ruined the [IMHO very "magical"] show.
On the other hand, some shows are enhanced by a realistic set. Two which
come to mind are ON THE 20TH CENTURY and SHE LOVES ME.
Mila
--
Remove "nospam" to reply directly.
"Growing older is mandatory, growing wiser is optional!"
"PensNest" <pens...@notatglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B498EB5E...@p88s10a07.client.global.net.uk...
Jason Travis
> come to mind are ON THE 20TH CENTURY and SHE LOVES ME.
Hey, no problem! Ya got your OUR TOWNs, and you got yer incredibly
realistic Neil Simon "build an entire house onstage" sets. Good theatre can
be performed in an empty room with sticks serving as props if you're
creative.
SHE LOVES ME is just one of those perfect shows. I don't recommend anyone
not do it on a mechanical revolve just because of the gorgeous music-box
that is the perfect shape of it.
Jason Travis
> until now. Admittedly I haven't been to any of the 'spectacle' musicals.
> I expect the setting is sometimes necessary to make the experience work -
> but doing without the physical representations of place makes the audience
> work harder and requires us to join in with the show. In the National
> Theatre's wonderful 'Candide', six trunks and a large cloth served as
> horses, boats, a canoe - all sorts, and it was quite magical. With this
> kind of setting, I think the audience gets more involved in the experience
> than is possible when there are realistic representations and spectacular
> effects which cause people to take a mental step backwards in order to
> admire.
Hear hear! I think theatre as a whole has reached the saturation point for
what you can do onstage mechanically, and people honestly aren't stupid
enough to embrace yet another musical about kitties dancing around a
hydraulic ram. Yes, we've seen the helicopter. Realism in theatre often
defeats the purpose. There are things you can accomplish in live
performance that no broadcast media can reproduce.
I still can remember reading some sort of essay on Shaffer's ROYAL HUNT OF
THE SUN about how the most stunning moment came when a group of actors in
masks tilted their heads up into the light and the audience all believes
that the expression on the mask's face has changed. A similar sort of
ingenuity is what makes LION KING a surprising success theatrically.
> Then again, bare stage may be a financial choice as well as an artistic
> one.
I often wonder if Broadway could be saved simply by lowering ticket prices.
Truly the overhead is probably astronimical, but who wouldn't regularly go
see shows every week if it were only $25? Hell...that'd make me take a
chance on potentially risky material...sure...bring on Carrie. Millions of
people see movies that are regularly panned by critics just because there is
no fear in losing a huge wad of cash on what is essentially a fun night out.
Isabelle
falling apart....but the shows are always great....And thats what makes
people go to our musicals (we have huge crowds in a regular - not regular
high school - sized theater) Its not about the sets, its about the talent.
--
Isabelle
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
To anyone out of the mainstream, is anyone in the mainstream?
Jason Travis <JCTr...@nospam.email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eeaUxpAW$GA.265@cpmsnbbsa04...
Sean L. Gilley
someone wrote:
>kind of setting, I think the audience gets more involved in the experience
>than is possible when there are realistic representations and spectacular
>effects which cause people to take a mental step backwards in order to admire.
As the person who started this thread, I think perhaps what I said came
out a bit wrong.
I don't really have anything against a bare stage, nor do I have anything
against fairly simplistic sets. One of the best shows I was ever in had
just some platforms, and many scenes were played with little or no
other scenery than those platforms. And there can be wonderful moments
performed on essentially a bare stage. One person mentioned "A Chorus
Line", and I've seen the show, and yes anything but a bare stage and
some mirrors would simply seem wrong. I also saw Man of la Mancha last
year, and while it wasn't bare stages, it was certainly minimalistic, and
it fit, and it was a good show.
However, it seems to me that just as you don't want an audience leaving
the theatre marveling over the sets and not the show, you don't want
an audience wondering over the sparcity of scenery either, and that's
how I felt coming out of Ragtime.
As for "On My Own" in Les Miserables, perhaps that was a bad example,
but I do remember sitting in my seat thinking that I wanted a bit more
set during that song. (Of course, my first viewing of the show I
was a bit peeved that all that wonderful music wasn't on my album, and
that may have colored how I felt about the rest of the show as well.)
One last point.. one person said that the sets for the touring company
of Ragtime were considerably scaled down. Is there a reason why? I
saw Miss Saigon both on Broadway and on tour and the shows were
essentially identical. Same for Phantom and Les Miserables if I remember
correctly. I know it costs more to carry a full set, but other shows
seem to make their money back.
Sean.