To start off, I'd like to point out that the play itself is better than I thought it would be. I thought there would be certain inside jokes that only people who were there to witness Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal would know about.
I felt like the script flowed well with the acting. Sure at some parts for others seem a bit long, but there was so much information that was said that made the audience feel the emotion, especially the phone call between Frost and Nixon. You felt the emotion of one man trying to take the other down, and you feel the emotion of that broken man who is ashamed for what he has committed. Plus, isn't this play intended to be based on a true story? However, I would like to point out something I didn't particularly liked as much, and that was the second to last interview. I feel that the momentum slowed down a bit. I wondered how they would end the play. But then again, I feel that the amount of emotion and passion acted took it home. Like I had mentioned before, the emotion felt very real for me that it didn't matter if that part of the play was useful or not. I really enjoyed the scenes when the four men were together trying to break Nixon emotionally down.
I thought their body language helped the effect of the text in communicating the main idea. I enjoyed the play very much, simply because I knew about the Watergate scandal already having taking history last term, and I liked seeing it portrayed on stage with acting and script. I was pretty excited about some of the facts that were talked about in the play. In a social context, I think the director wanted the audience to know the “inside” to the Watergate scandal. I also thought that the characters chosen for the play was very well cast, their performance was effective in the script, the way they persuaded the audience was convincing.
Sam
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Some Things Just Made Me Frosty, Revised Edition
Well, to start off I must say that overall there was excellent casting on the directors part. With just one exception, everyone was perfect for the role they were casted into. The cast connected with each other, so the director obviously didn't cast anyone who would have caused actor drama that cast the carried onto the stage.
Okay, first major issue that came up has to do with the blocking in the phone call scenes. I mean really. In both the phone call between Swifty Lazar and David Frost, and the phone call between David Frost and Richard Nixon they talked directly to each other. The characters weren't even in the same building during the course of either phone call, and it was prior to the cell phone era, so there was just no way. Yes, I know it was a play, but considering it is supposed to be based on reality, that issue just bugged me beyond belief. The show was for the most part realism. Although the use of a narrator and spot lights demonstrate the use of non-realism elements, the play was for the most part a realism production. The way they spoke, the costumes, the interactions between people, even the acting style in general is considered realistic. The speech was realistic. It didn't have weird things emphasized nor given overdramtically. The costumes suited the period very well. They interacted with each other on stage as a person would interact with others off stage. The acting was very believable and natural. They just owned the stage. Not to mention this is a historical play, based on factual events that actually happened. Granted the minimalistic props aren't realistic, but considering everyone was praising how smoothly they transitions were, you can't blame them for doing so as the clutter would make the transitions harder to achieve.
Second huge issue was the blocking involving freezing and people moving behind the screen pieces. I know that movement is distracting and all that, and I cannot tell you how to make it better without having the actors in front of me so I can try and make it work, but they froze way too much. In this case, I was more distracted by how still they were than by even the people who were moving behind the screens unnecessarily. It took away from the realistic part of the show. And about the people behind the screens, did they really have to show Nixon being pushed by the nurse before he actually appeared for his role? What about that other person who I couldn't really see any features make little weird movements that had no point? I seriously lost anything that happened because I was focused on that.
Acting wise, although I was displeased with it at first, I must say good job with the Nixon voice. At first I thought it was a horrible voice because it wasn't something I was used to, but apparently that is how Nixon actually sounded. I am glad the director managed to get that to come through, because the people who knew about Nixon and his era seemed to be overall impressed with how similar he was to who Nixon really was. The character I had problems with was Swifty Lazar. He sounded like some cheesy narrator in a comedy movie that is more of a joke than anything. He could give the guy who narrated George of the Jungle a run for his money, and in this case that wouldn't have been a good thing. The director should have been able to coach these two on that. The other character that had some issues Jack Brennan, the guy who was coaching the president. He was supposed to have been a military man, but he was very un-military. Even his first entrance when he is all dressed up in uniform, he lacked that military air. And when he interacted with the president during the interviews, he was too relaxed and completely not the character he introduced himself as.
On a more positive note, I would have to say that Jim was by far the best person on stage. He did his role well, and was very connectable. He seems like some one you would find yourself going out to coffee with. My only probably is when, at the end, he broke the most basically rule of the stage - he talked upstage! His performance had been flawless and that should have been something the director cut first because as would be expected, I lost everything he said when he was talking towards the psychedelic lights with dancing actors behind the screen. As both an actor who has had the note before, and a director to keep actors from doing this, that is one of the biggest rules that you cannot break, because no matter how good your diction is, it is all lost when you talk upstage, effectively blocking yourself.
Ember
Okay, first major issue that came up has to do with the blocking in the phone call scenes. I mean really. In both the phone call between Swifty Lazar and David Frost, and the phone call between David Frost and Richard Nixon they talked directly to each other. The characters weren't even in the same building during the course of either phone call, and it was prior to the cell phone era, so there was just no way. Yes, I know it was a play, but considering it is supposed to be based on reality, that issue just bugged me beyond belief. The show was for the most part realism. Although the use of a narrator and spot lights demonstrate the use of non-realism elements, the play was for the most part a realism production. The way they spoke, the costumes, the interactions between people, even the acting style in general is considered realistic. The speech was realistic. It didn't have weird things emphasized nor given overdramtically. The costumes suited the period very well. They interacted with each other on stage as a person would interact with others off stage. The acting was very believable and natural. They just owned the stage. Not to mention this is a historical play, based on factual events that actually happened. Granted the minimalistic props aren't realistic, but considering everyone was praising how smoothly they transitions were, you can't blame them for doing so as the clutter would make the transitions harder to achieve.
Second huge issue was the blocking involving freezing and people moving behind the screen pieces. I know that movement is distracting and all that, and I cannot tell you how to make it better without having the actors in front of me so I can try and make it work, but they froze way too much. In this case, I was more distracted by how still they were than by even the people who were moving behind the screens unnecessarily. It took away from the realistic part of the show. And about the people behind the screens, did they really have to show Nixon being pushed by the nurse before he actually appeared for his role? What about that other person who I couldn't really see any features make little weird movements that had no point? I seriously lost anything that happened because I was focused on that.
Acting wise, although I was displeased with it at first, I must say good job with the Nixon voice. At first I thought it was a horrible voice because it wasn't something I was used to, but apparently that is how Nixon actually sounded. I am glad the director managed to get that to come through, because the people who knew about Nixon and his era seemed to be overall impressed with how similar he was to who Nixon really was. The character I had problems with was Swifty Lazar. He sounded like some cheesy narrator in a comedy movie that is more of a joke than anything. He could give the guy who narrated George of the Jungle a run for his money, and in this case that wouldn't have been a good thing. The director should have been able to coach these two on that. The other character that had some issues Jack Brennan, the guy who was coaching the president. He was supposed to have been a military man, but he was very un-military. Even his first entrance when he is all dressed up in uniform, he lacked that military air. And when he interacted with the president during the interviews, he was too relaxed and completely not the character he introduced himself as.
On a more positive note, I would have to say that Jim was by far the best person on stage. He did his role well, and was very connectable. He seems like some one you would find yourself going out to coffee with. My only probably is when, at the end, he broke the most basically rule of the stage - he talked upstage! His performance had been flawless and that should have been something the director cut first because as would be expected, I lost everything he said when he was talking towards the psychedelic lights with dancing actors behind the screen. As both an actor who has had the note before, and a director to keep actors from doing this, that is one of the biggest rules that you cannot break, because no matter how good your diction is, it is all lost when you talk upstage, effectively blocking yourself.
Ember
"Frost/Nixon:" A Discussion with the Pro's
Join us for
Bread & Circuses: Politics, Spectacle & Public Memory
Portland Center Stage, Oregon Council for Humanities and University of Oregon's Turnbull Center invite you to join nationally syndicated radio host THOM HARTMANN, The Oregonian's DAVID SARASOHNand JACK OHMAN, and moderator AL STAVITSKY, director of the University of Oregon's Turnbull Center at the School of Journalism and Communication for BREAD & CIRCUSES: POLITICS, SPECTACLE & PUBLIC MEMORY-a look through the lens of Frost/Nixon that considers how politics and entertainment, power and truth, media, and public memory have been transformed in the intervening years since Watergate.
Presented in conjunction with the opening weekend of Peter Morgan's Frost/Nixon (directed by Rose Riordan) at Portland Center Stage Bread & Circuses: Politics, Spectacle & Public Memory with Thom Hartmann, David Sarasohn, Jack Ohman and Al Stavitsky
Saturday, April 18, 2 pm
Portland Center Stage-Main StageGerding Theater at the Armory (128 NW Eleventh Avenue)FREE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Cosponsored by Portland Center Stage, Oregon Council for Humanities and University of Oregon's Turnbull Center
BREAD & CIRCUSES is made possible in part by grants from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Maybelle Clark Macdonald Fund, and the Oregon Community Foundation, with additional support from the James F. & Marion L. Miller Foundation
Questions, Questions, So Many Questions!
Were the actors paid?
Why is the trash can left full of cans sitting there un-redeemed the whole length of the play?
Why is Louis' true nature "vague-ish" until the end?
Louis . . . Louie . . . huh?
Why bring out the feathers at the end?
Why some professional actors w/o evidence of training?
Why so many characters?
Is this play still in the process of being written?
Why clean clothes for street characters?
Facial Hair . . . ?
Dialogue not as realistic as it could be . . . ? (Police brutality, esp.)
How would the set be changed in a bigger stage space?
Why band-aids on the elbows of the young boy?
Why kids swearing?
Why did the director choose to direct this play?
Why was the "trashing" of Dimitri's place very tame?
Why the black-outs for scene changes?
Why have the audience cross on the stage to get to seats?
Why actors wandering onstage in scene changes?
Music at end only . . . deliberate choice? Why?
Was "Bright Girl" an angel the whole time, or was the actress doubling-up on 2 roles?
How was the casting done? (Esp. Tessie?)
Why did the actors clap for the technicians at the end of the play? (Is this customary in theatre?)
Why is the trash can left full of cans sitting there un-redeemed the whole length of the play?
Why is Louis' true nature "vague-ish" until the end?
Louis . . . Louie . . . huh?
Why bring out the feathers at the end?
Why some professional actors w/o evidence of training?
Why so many characters?
Is this play still in the process of being written?
Why clean clothes for street characters?
Facial Hair . . . ?
Dialogue not as realistic as it could be . . . ? (Police brutality, esp.)
How would the set be changed in a bigger stage space?
Why band-aids on the elbows of the young boy?
Why kids swearing?
Why did the director choose to direct this play?
Why was the "trashing" of Dimitri's place very tame?
Why the black-outs for scene changes?
Why have the audience cross on the stage to get to seats?
Why actors wandering onstage in scene changes?
Music at end only . . . deliberate choice? Why?
Was "Bright Girl" an angel the whole time, or was the actress doubling-up on 2 roles?
How was the casting done? (Esp. Tessie?)
Why did the actors clap for the technicians at the end of the play? (Is this customary in theatre?)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
DIE-ALOGUE
Last week we went and saw a dramatic representation of urban habitation in non-conventional locales. Sounds a bit fancier than we saw a play about a bum, but in all honesty that's what it was. It was touching in some parts, however for the most part it displays a lot of forced dialogue and what appear to be lines cut from movies we never saw for a reason. There were moments when the characters speech really went with the emotions they were displaying, and everything meshed and was believable for the audience. That was why I kept watching with this particular topic; hoping that would happen again. It didn't happen as often as I'd have liked, but it did happen.
For instance, most scenes between Dimitri (the bum) and Louie (the pigeon/imaginary friend of Dimitri), were fairly real. They were played as two friends having a real conversation apart from the world, like nothing else mattered. There was real emotion, there was real thought, and cares and wants there. The strongest was the first game, called Conversations, between Louie and Dimitri, and the final moments of Dimitri's lose of understanding for the world he knew seeing it become less and less concerned with anything that isn't an individual.
Sergent Tracy seemed to be an interesting character partly because he didn't seem to understand fully what his character wanted. It became clearer as the story went on, more so at the end, what he wanted. And as he lost a person that he cared about, he really stood out with his lines and meaning. He seemed like he knew what it was to say those things and for possibly the first time in the whole show it didn't seem like he was pushing it, and you could see why he was chosen. He had one moment at the end that didn't seem like campy, cliche cop dialogue and that is what stuck with me.
But, like so many things in life. It also had moments that didn't work. Much like the hull of the Titanic really didn't work after the collision with the iceberg. None of this is the actors fault, I learned afterwards that the script was still in the working stages while the play was being performed. This might mean that lines were thrown in just to tie together the script and not to display anything at that point, but it really shows. Take for example Officer Charles, the only moment when he might have been believable was when he was screaming at Dimitri before actually arresting him. All his other threats are police brutality, and would never even cross the minds of real officers, plus the seemed totally unrealistic. Bernie was only slightly better. The only lines I really believed from him were, "what," "huh," "I'm sorry, I just can't get involved." It is my opinion that the writer wanted these characters to be more disliked instantly than viewable as real. A poor choice overall, but there's still time to rectify it.
As a whole, the show works. And works well. Acting needs some fine tuning, but I believe that this might be in part to the strange nature of an ever-changing script. Dialogue needs some reinforcement, and the connections need some work, but all in all Louie's at 1st & Main delivered quite the show. The actors did what they could, but the script needs a bit more tweaking before it's next debut. A hearty round of applause to all involved, it was a great show, but occasionally you might have been better off book.
Mike Cole
For instance, most scenes between Dimitri (the bum) and Louie (the pigeon/imaginary friend of Dimitri), were fairly real. They were played as two friends having a real conversation apart from the world, like nothing else mattered. There was real emotion, there was real thought, and cares and wants there. The strongest was the first game, called Conversations, between Louie and Dimitri, and the final moments of Dimitri's lose of understanding for the world he knew seeing it become less and less concerned with anything that isn't an individual.
Sergent Tracy seemed to be an interesting character partly because he didn't seem to understand fully what his character wanted. It became clearer as the story went on, more so at the end, what he wanted. And as he lost a person that he cared about, he really stood out with his lines and meaning. He seemed like he knew what it was to say those things and for possibly the first time in the whole show it didn't seem like he was pushing it, and you could see why he was chosen. He had one moment at the end that didn't seem like campy, cliche cop dialogue and that is what stuck with me.
But, like so many things in life. It also had moments that didn't work. Much like the hull of the Titanic really didn't work after the collision with the iceberg. None of this is the actors fault, I learned afterwards that the script was still in the working stages while the play was being performed. This might mean that lines were thrown in just to tie together the script and not to display anything at that point, but it really shows. Take for example Officer Charles, the only moment when he might have been believable was when he was screaming at Dimitri before actually arresting him. All his other threats are police brutality, and would never even cross the minds of real officers, plus the seemed totally unrealistic. Bernie was only slightly better. The only lines I really believed from him were, "what," "huh," "I'm sorry, I just can't get involved." It is my opinion that the writer wanted these characters to be more disliked instantly than viewable as real. A poor choice overall, but there's still time to rectify it.
As a whole, the show works. And works well. Acting needs some fine tuning, but I believe that this might be in part to the strange nature of an ever-changing script. Dialogue needs some reinforcement, and the connections need some work, but all in all Louie's at 1st & Main delivered quite the show. The actors did what they could, but the script needs a bit more tweaking before it's next debut. A hearty round of applause to all involved, it was a great show, but occasionally you might have been better off book.
Mike Cole
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Stage Space at Louies 1st and Main
Walking into the Back Door Theater I was shocked and surprised at the stage layout. I loved that I was assigned to Stage Space, in such a unique theatre and enviorment. Though I did not attend with the rest of the class, I did have a chance to see the play.
By: Alex Ashton
I love how they utalized the limted space they had. The use of the cardboard box, and the two doors was very effective for a street feel. Especially the doorsteps, I know are very common is larger cities (such as chicago). I felt that the audience being so close to the stage was also very unique. I was not effected by the change of props throughtout the play, I thought it gave the audience a chance to gather their thoughts about the play. I did not however like the fact that the actors were behind the audience walking at some points. It was very distracting to me, as I was seated in the back row. I loved that the theatre was in the back of a cafe, and the audience could go in there at intermission.
Another point I loved was the fact that stage was set up, in such a way that I felt like I was witnessing something real. It wasnt straight rows, it was kind of a thrust stage element. I loved that it was as if we were sitting on the street witnessing this real life issue play out, like I was peeking in on something I wouldnt normally be able to stop and listen to. I was sitting in the top row in the corner, so not only did I get a full view of the performance, but I also got to peek around and see the reactions of the audience.
One thing I did not like, was when you entered and left the theatre, you were literally walking on the stage. Especially during intermission when Dimitris possesions were thrown about. I didnt want to disrupt the props, but to get out of the theatre you had to walk right over it! I felt that that was a little intrusive, the audience doesnt belong on the stage, nor should it have to walk on the stage to get by.
Overall I really enjoyed the production and felt they used the stage space perfectly. I felt like I was watching a real scene played out on the street, but in more comfortable seating!
By: Alex Ashton
Design Element
Costumes for Louie’s 1st and Main
When our class went to Louie’s 1st and Main, I thought that the play was going to be iffy, and whether or not they were really going to pull off the costumes or not. Because I was assigned Design Elements, I figured I would go onto the points of the costume pieces. Basically, what worked and what didn’t.
What worked for the play was how there was many costumes to define the actors who were portraying more than one character. Such as the lady who was playing Romy and The neighbor who would hand out her change every time nonchalantly. I really enjoyed how they chose the policemen’s uniforms, because they were really believable. I especially applaud for how they kept their own hats up off of their face so we could see every expression they wanted to portray. Towards the end of the play I thought it was nifty of how they showed us the understanding of Louie as a pigeon. Starting off with the torn up feather jacket,. and the ankle tracker with his ID number. Those were a few of the things that I did enjoy, but now onto the things that were misleading and not very believable.
First off the modern day clothing they put on Romy and Stanley bugged me. How old where they? And on all honesty, I thought that if they were swearing, Disney wasn’t the picture they wanted to portray for their own ages. Second off, Officer Charles facial hair bugged me. I don’t think it was necessary for him to keep, as well as Bernie’s. I had a hard time with Louie who is supposed to be a bird wearing facial hair as well.. I could not picture a pigeon with a beard frankly and long hair. And what really aggravated me was Dimitri’s look. He was a very clean bum if I do say so myself. If you go to downtown Portland all the bums are: raggedy, scrounge, gross smelling, and their hair nor facial hair is kept up. How they only gave him jeans that were sewn every which way, and a t-shirt with one measly hole. His clothes looked way too clean, and his hair is way too shiny and washed. So personally it was good, but overall something’s could be touched up to become more realistic.
Nici
When our class went to Louie’s 1st and Main, I thought that the play was going to be iffy, and whether or not they were really going to pull off the costumes or not. Because I was assigned Design Elements, I figured I would go onto the points of the costume pieces. Basically, what worked and what didn’t.
What worked for the play was how there was many costumes to define the actors who were portraying more than one character. Such as the lady who was playing Romy and The neighbor who would hand out her change every time nonchalantly. I really enjoyed how they chose the policemen’s uniforms, because they were really believable. I especially applaud for how they kept their own hats up off of their face so we could see every expression they wanted to portray. Towards the end of the play I thought it was nifty of how they showed us the understanding of Louie as a pigeon. Starting off with the torn up feather jacket,. and the ankle tracker with his ID number. Those were a few of the things that I did enjoy, but now onto the things that were misleading and not very believable.
First off the modern day clothing they put on Romy and Stanley bugged me. How old where they? And on all honesty, I thought that if they were swearing, Disney wasn’t the picture they wanted to portray for their own ages. Second off, Officer Charles facial hair bugged me. I don’t think it was necessary for him to keep, as well as Bernie’s. I had a hard time with Louie who is supposed to be a bird wearing facial hair as well.. I could not picture a pigeon with a beard frankly and long hair. And what really aggravated me was Dimitri’s look. He was a very clean bum if I do say so myself. If you go to downtown Portland all the bums are: raggedy, scrounge, gross smelling, and their hair nor facial hair is kept up. How they only gave him jeans that were sewn every which way, and a t-shirt with one measly hole. His clothes looked way too clean, and his hair is way too shiny and washed. So personally it was good, but overall something’s could be touched up to become more realistic.
Nici
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Acting of "Louie's at 1st and Main"
I think that the acting in the play "Louie's at 1st and Main" was a mixed bag of the good and the mediocre. Nolan Chard, the man who played the character Dimitri, did in excellent job of making the character seem real. He incorporated little mannerisms you might find in someone who talks with their hands with out drawing undue attention to them. Things such as fiddling with his fingernails when he was nervous, or even the posture he held when he was talking to one of the other characters about his previous life. Dalene Young, the woman who portrayed the crazy lady Tessie stole the show in what few scenes she was in. She managed to portray absolute crazy with a little bit of self mocking humor. Her Tessie reminded me a lot of a mentally disabled person who used to come into one of my old jobs and do nearly exactly what Tessie did. I also think that Elaine Flowers did a wonderful job of channeling a young child in the role she played.
I felt that a few of the roles were much too flatly played. I felt that Chandler Adams did not bring enough feeling to the role of the empathic Sgt. Tracy. He was however partially redeemed at the ending, when he started to let a bit of the inner Sgt. Tracy through. Silas Webb felt a little off as well. His portrayal of the bigotted Officer Charles felt very one dimensional. I'm not sure if it was his acting or the role however. I think that Colin McLeod put in a rather poor performance personally. I felt that his Louis was very flat, very unemotional. The only emotion I really noticed was the sly smirk he occasionally gave the audience and I felt it was a bit offputting.
I still think that the play was good enough to see however. It will still pull at your heartstrings and make you laugh.
I felt that a few of the roles were much too flatly played. I felt that Chandler Adams did not bring enough feeling to the role of the empathic Sgt. Tracy. He was however partially redeemed at the ending, when he started to let a bit of the inner Sgt. Tracy through. Silas Webb felt a little off as well. His portrayal of the bigotted Officer Charles felt very one dimensional. I'm not sure if it was his acting or the role however. I think that Colin McLeod put in a rather poor performance personally. I felt that his Louis was very flat, very unemotional. The only emotion I really noticed was the sly smirk he occasionally gave the audience and I felt it was a bit offputting.
I still think that the play was good enough to see however. It will still pull at your heartstrings and make you laugh.
Directing With Louie
This show was definitely different from what I expected it to be. The director of the show made some interesting choices that created an experience unlike any I had been to before.
First of all, I want to commend the director for choosing a play that was so unknown. It is one of a director's first jobs to choose a good play to perform. This play is very socially charged, dealing with the homeless and people's reaction to the homeless community around them. This choice of script shows that this is something that the director wanted to make the audience aware of, and she succeeded.
One of the things that bugged me for a while was the fact that the actors seemed to do their thing in a line: the space provided allowed for them to move closer to the audience, even up to the laps of the first row, but they didn't do this. It nagged at me, until I remembered that the play is taking place on a city sidewalk. After that, it worked really well. In fact, there were a lot of things in this play that worked. I liked having Louie barefoot, especially when we discovered a little more about him... The interactions between the Sergeant and Dimitri worked well, and it seemed natural. I liked having the entire space used lengthwise, with exits at the right side of the room, through the “alley” and out to the coffee shop.
This said, however, there were some things that I thought would have helped the performance. For example, there were a few long stage changes that were done in the silent dark. I would have liked some music to pass the time. Also, the actress who played the younger girl just didn't work. I know that the director had to double cast this for the night, but the age thing just didn't translate. And when the kids messed up Dimitri's lodgings, it wasn't very messed up. They could have ripped the box and crushed some of his belongings, something I could easily see kids doing in this kind of situation.
All that said, though, it was a very enjoyable evening. The themes were conveyed well, and the revelations about the characters at the end of the show were just perfect. It definitely made me think, something I didn't think I'd be doing when I walked in the door. I don't know if this is a show that I'd recommend to the serious theatre connoisseur, but it is an experience that would round out a good night on the town.
Louie's at 1st and Main
Louis's at 1st and Main is the story of Dimitri, a homeless person living in a cardboard box in an alleyway in Chicago. It is staged in a black box theatre, bare except for two brownstones with an alley between them. The brownstones were very realistic looking though smaller in stature than a real brownstone. They seemed more symbolic than realistic, as did the box that Dimitri lived in. I thought the the box seemed a little small to actually live in, but it could work, since the play was more symbolic that reality in itself. The second set of boxes did have a little more livable space, but still didn't look like it could work in the real world.
The backdrop did serve an important purpose, giving us a location for Dimitri, whose clothes though torn and tattered, did look a little too clean for a real street person. I also wondered about Louis's clean feet, though in the end we find out he is really a pigeon, which explained his cleanliness. The band and feathers on him in the end also gave clues to his real identity. Tessie's costume was also very effective, with mismatched colors and things thrown together, She actually looked like one of those crazy ladies you see on the street.
The actors were more important than the scenery, our eyes focused on them throughout. Dimitri weaves an important story of an invisible person who lives a real life that normally is not noticed. We are forced to notice his world, so the play serves an important purpose of bringing this uncomfortable situation to light. Everything works together perfectly, the scenery is unobtrusive but very effective.
Nancy Prohaska
The backdrop did serve an important purpose, giving us a location for Dimitri, whose clothes though torn and tattered, did look a little too clean for a real street person. I also wondered about Louis's clean feet, though in the end we find out he is really a pigeon, which explained his cleanliness. The band and feathers on him in the end also gave clues to his real identity. Tessie's costume was also very effective, with mismatched colors and things thrown together, She actually looked like one of those crazy ladies you see on the street.
The actors were more important than the scenery, our eyes focused on them throughout. Dimitri weaves an important story of an invisible person who lives a real life that normally is not noticed. We are forced to notice his world, so the play serves an important purpose of bringing this uncomfortable situation to light. Everything works together perfectly, the scenery is unobtrusive but very effective.
Nancy Prohaska
It Looked So Real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"It looked so real," I thought as I walked into the backdoor theatre Thursday evening. Louie's on 1st and Main could have been done with just the cardboard box and nothing else, being that the writing was so strong and it was a Black Box stage setting. But instead the company went above what one would of expected from a theater in back of a bar and lounge.
There were two brick buildings erected side by side with what looked like an alley between them with a cardboard box in it. I didn't touch the building because I thought that would be inappropriate, so I can't tell you what the bricks could have been made of; but it looked real enough. The buildings looked like New York style brownstones. They came equipped with stairs and a bench, and the porch lights were surprising to my expectations. They were real; which gave the buildings more authenticity. The cardboard box was very cliche, whether that was real or not, seeing a can of beans, panhandler cup, I almost expected Dimitri (the bum) to make his appearance in a trench coat wearing wool gloves with the fingers missing, and holding a bottle of whiskey. They could have been a little more modern with his place of residence. Maybe had him sleeping at a bus stop by the buildings.
The clothing was another story. Dimitri didn't come out in a trench but when he appeared sitting in front of his "home" his clothing wasn't what I expected. He had on pants and shirt but they looked like he was doing a tide commercial. His shirt had a couple of rips that were hidden behind his jacket, but other than that I couldn't match the fire in his words with the clothing on his back. His lack of filth took away from some of the passion they were trying to get across. He didn't look hungry broken enough. Elain Flowers (Remy) clothing looked more like a bum then Dimitri's. Louis's clothing was confusing only until I found out that he was actually a pigeon, hence the bare feet. You can't do anything but laugh at that.
The sound wasn't an issue with this play being that the actors were only feet in front of us. I'm being kind in saying that there were thirty chairs inside of the theatre. The black curtain in the alley gave it depth behind Dimitri's cardboard box, along with the lighting being just right in such a small space. I didn't feel like I needed sunglasses during this production.
Overall it was a well put together piece of work. Other then the clothing on Dimitri the stage, lighting, and costumes made Louie's at 1st and Main worth watching.
There were two brick buildings erected side by side with what looked like an alley between them with a cardboard box in it. I didn't touch the building because I thought that would be inappropriate, so I can't tell you what the bricks could have been made of; but it looked real enough. The buildings looked like New York style brownstones. They came equipped with stairs and a bench, and the porch lights were surprising to my expectations. They were real; which gave the buildings more authenticity. The cardboard box was very cliche, whether that was real or not, seeing a can of beans, panhandler cup, I almost expected Dimitri (the bum) to make his appearance in a trench coat wearing wool gloves with the fingers missing, and holding a bottle of whiskey. They could have been a little more modern with his place of residence. Maybe had him sleeping at a bus stop by the buildings.
The clothing was another story. Dimitri didn't come out in a trench but when he appeared sitting in front of his "home" his clothing wasn't what I expected. He had on pants and shirt but they looked like he was doing a tide commercial. His shirt had a couple of rips that were hidden behind his jacket, but other than that I couldn't match the fire in his words with the clothing on his back. His lack of filth took away from some of the passion they were trying to get across. He didn't look hungry broken enough. Elain Flowers (Remy) clothing looked more like a bum then Dimitri's. Louis's clothing was confusing only until I found out that he was actually a pigeon, hence the bare feet. You can't do anything but laugh at that.
The sound wasn't an issue with this play being that the actors were only feet in front of us. I'm being kind in saying that there were thirty chairs inside of the theatre. The black curtain in the alley gave it depth behind Dimitri's cardboard box, along with the lighting being just right in such a small space. I didn't feel like I needed sunglasses during this production.
Overall it was a well put together piece of work. Other then the clothing on Dimitri the stage, lighting, and costumes made Louie's at 1st and Main worth watching.
The plot thickens
From the moment the lights went up and "Louie's at 1st and Main" began I was questioning the show. It is always hard to be sitting in a show that you have never heard of and have positive expectations. Just hearing the name of the theatre was enough to get me skeptical. As the show started, a seemingly slow start at that, I began jotting down notes. A few things impressed me from the get go. Dimitri, the homeless man and his friend Louie exchanged witty banter throughout the entire show. At one point they were discussing bread as though it were a fine Merlot. They comparisons they came up with were witty and added a nice flavor to the dialogue. While I was not able to pick up on it at the time, this show had a great deal of foreshadowing in it. From little things like Dimitri feeding Louie bread or crackers, to more obvious lines like Dimitri asking why Louie never talked while others were around, the foreshadowing was subtle and clever.
The crazy cat lady, Tessie, had brilliant lines. The playwright certainly did a number with creating that role! She would mutter and sputter about who knows what and work herself into a frenzy over Aztecs and space ships and talking to her kitties that were never to be seen. Tessie also gave a bit of foreshadowing by telling Dimitri that there are angles everywhere. while he wrote it off to be one of her crazy rants, it ended up being very true and personal to him when the "smart girl" ended up being his angle taking him to heaven.
Certain parts of the script stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Scene lengths dragged on somewhat pointlessly, especially when it came to Dimitri explaining to Sgt. Tracy about his experience with teaching and how he ended up on the streets. I feel like that whole scene lacked some much needed editing in order to pick up the pace and make it easier for the audience to stay captivated. Another thing that really stuck out was the constant mention of "this city". I continuously wondered through the entire show where it was set and paid close attention to hear a name, yet never got an answer.
The one part of the script that I really appreciated was how the "bum" could talk circles around the "educated" people and make comments that would fly right over their heads. It really goes to show that you can never stereotype people based on what you think they are like. You never know what kind of life they have lived and what circumstances led them to this point. The successful businessman may have just inherited the business from daddy, the seemingly poor couple may just be using their money for more important things in life than shiny cars, and the homeless man you pass every morning may indeed once have been a respected professor at a university whose life took an unexpected turn for the worse.
The crazy cat lady, Tessie, had brilliant lines. The playwright certainly did a number with creating that role! She would mutter and sputter about who knows what and work herself into a frenzy over Aztecs and space ships and talking to her kitties that were never to be seen. Tessie also gave a bit of foreshadowing by telling Dimitri that there are angles everywhere. while he wrote it off to be one of her crazy rants, it ended up being very true and personal to him when the "smart girl" ended up being his angle taking him to heaven.
Certain parts of the script stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Scene lengths dragged on somewhat pointlessly, especially when it came to Dimitri explaining to Sgt. Tracy about his experience with teaching and how he ended up on the streets. I feel like that whole scene lacked some much needed editing in order to pick up the pace and make it easier for the audience to stay captivated. Another thing that really stuck out was the constant mention of "this city". I continuously wondered through the entire show where it was set and paid close attention to hear a name, yet never got an answer.
The one part of the script that I really appreciated was how the "bum" could talk circles around the "educated" people and make comments that would fly right over their heads. It really goes to show that you can never stereotype people based on what you think they are like. You never know what kind of life they have lived and what circumstances led them to this point. The successful businessman may have just inherited the business from daddy, the seemingly poor couple may just be using their money for more important things in life than shiny cars, and the homeless man you pass every morning may indeed once have been a respected professor at a university whose life took an unexpected turn for the worse.
comment 4
My 4th comment pertains to Nice girl and Dimitri. Being that this was the first play that I have been to, I found myself going through many types of emotions. These emotions consisted of anger, happy, bored, and sad. And of these emotions the sad part stood out the most for me. When Nice girl and Dimitri had their moment of frustration of trying to make the other feel good. I felt that the actors did a great job of acting their parts to pull that emotion out of me. I truly felt that I was in the part. When looking back at that part, I can't remember anything else in the room except for the two actors themselves.
Comment 3
My third comment on the play is the cast. This here comment is not so much for bad or good but that of a question of pointing up to the lighting booth or directors booth. Were the actors acknowledging the director or helpers, or both. And if so, is this a custom in theatre at the end of each show.
Attire
In the play Louie's at first and main, I noticed that the attire was not quite what I would have expected for this play. Some of the actors seemed dressed for the part, but others were not. Although I was very impressed with The actor ability to play Dimitri, I don't think much effort was put into making sure that the actors attire fit the part. The actor did a fine job of portraying a street bum with his expressions and messed up hair, but the cloths just didn't do it for me.
The Act Of Reality
Louie’s at 1st and Main started out to be a disappointment to me, with a wide variety of performance levels and acting choices, but by the end of the show I noticed that I was questioning my judgment. At first I caught myself writing a lot of negative notes right off the bat on the acting ability. I found that some of the strongest actors were playing the smaller parts in the show, which baffled me on the decision of the director.
The mean hearted cop had his debut of acting in this show, and honestly I could tell. His expressions were very big; the huffs and eye rolls were very bold, enough to make an audience member uncomfortable. The lady who played the angel was refreshingly excellent. Her expressions seemed so real, as if she was having a conversation with one of her friends outside of the show. She was absolutely lovely to watch. The friendly cop also played his part very well. I felt that he was genuinely sorry for Dimitri. And for Dimitri, at first I didn’t like his character at all. I thought he was overdoing his role and was much too happy to be a bum. But as the play progressed, my heart melted for him. His spirit was wonderful and his laughs seemed so real. He made me think back to some very optimistic bums I have passed on the streets. The old cat woman also did a remarkable job as a crazy bum. I would have to say that I enjoyed her the most. She portrayed a mumbling, mad, yet passionate bum as well as any great actor could do. The only thing I didn’t enjoy was the fact that for one line, she made eye contact with the man in the first row. Despite the humor in it, the show was not one where the audience is involved or the “acting wall” is broken.
The biggest disappointment to me however was the young man playing the part of Louie. Louie was a very important role, but the actor did not live up to the significance of the part. His acting ability seemed to be that of a beginner’s. He looked very much like a stereotypical hippie, and acted like one as well. He was very laid back and quiet, talking as if he had maybe done a bit too many drugs in his lifetime. His acting did not appear real to me, with a permanent smirk on his face, and overdone eye rolls. But maybe that’s how a pigeon would act; quiet, and not very expressive. Maybe a pigeon would be faintly smiling all the time, if pigeons could smile. By the end I appreciated more the calmness of his part when the twist of him being a pigeon was revealed.
The acting wasn’t spectacular, though a couple of them were, the overall character performances did not blow me away. But the show itself was beautiful, and by the end of the show I fell more in love with the characters. I left very happy and touched.
Heather Harlan
The mean hearted cop had his debut of acting in this show, and honestly I could tell. His expressions were very big; the huffs and eye rolls were very bold, enough to make an audience member uncomfortable. The lady who played the angel was refreshingly excellent. Her expressions seemed so real, as if she was having a conversation with one of her friends outside of the show. She was absolutely lovely to watch. The friendly cop also played his part very well. I felt that he was genuinely sorry for Dimitri. And for Dimitri, at first I didn’t like his character at all. I thought he was overdoing his role and was much too happy to be a bum. But as the play progressed, my heart melted for him. His spirit was wonderful and his laughs seemed so real. He made me think back to some very optimistic bums I have passed on the streets. The old cat woman also did a remarkable job as a crazy bum. I would have to say that I enjoyed her the most. She portrayed a mumbling, mad, yet passionate bum as well as any great actor could do. The only thing I didn’t enjoy was the fact that for one line, she made eye contact with the man in the first row. Despite the humor in it, the show was not one where the audience is involved or the “acting wall” is broken.
The biggest disappointment to me however was the young man playing the part of Louie. Louie was a very important role, but the actor did not live up to the significance of the part. His acting ability seemed to be that of a beginner’s. He looked very much like a stereotypical hippie, and acted like one as well. He was very laid back and quiet, talking as if he had maybe done a bit too many drugs in his lifetime. His acting did not appear real to me, with a permanent smirk on his face, and overdone eye rolls. But maybe that’s how a pigeon would act; quiet, and not very expressive. Maybe a pigeon would be faintly smiling all the time, if pigeons could smile. By the end I appreciated more the calmness of his part when the twist of him being a pigeon was revealed.
The acting wasn’t spectacular, though a couple of them were, the overall character performances did not blow me away. But the show itself was beautiful, and by the end of the show I fell more in love with the characters. I left very happy and touched.
Heather Harlan
Eye contact
The first comment is about eye contact. I had a problem with the actor who played Officer Charles. He seemed to be just saying his part but not truly acting it out. That is to say, he would say his lines but would look away, up into the make belief sky away from the opposing actor. I really don't know if this is how he is suppose to do it, but for me I felt no connection with his acting of the part besides the comments showing hate of those who are forced out on the streets.
Crisis and Climax
Louie’s at First and Main
My part of analysis of this play was script/text. I did my analysis on crisis and climax of the script. Every play or movie will have a series of crisis and climax’s. I thought about this during the play and noticed that there are a series of these throughout the play. The first was at the beginning of the play. Dimitri was sitting there next to his house “a cardboard box” with a cup in his hand begging for money. He got change from some without any problems but with others, the patrons would be reluctant to give. In any case, Dimitri seemed happy go lucky and made the best of it with his friend Louis.
However, the crises came when Officer Charles came by. He acted as if he physically owned the side walk and detested Dimitri on it. He ridiculed, shamed, and threatened Dimitri. This changed the mood of Dimitri even though Dimitri tried to see the good in everything, it was clear that was ashamed to be in the position that he was in. The second crisis/climax that I noticed is when Dimitri was arrested. Prior to getting arrested, a nice girl had came by and visited with Dimitri. She was known as nice girl, because she was always nice to him and Louie whenever she came by. Dimitri was in his happy state, knowing that someone did care about him; however, it quickly changed when Officer Charles came by again and started abusing him with threats and name calling. Dimitri stood up for himself with the power of language and was quickly arrested and hauled off to jail.
Finally, the third crisis to climax was when the kids tore down Dimitri’s house. Dimitri loved his house and what valuables he did have. It was a sense of ownership. But what do you know, kids being destructive and having no sense of care, tore down his box house. Demitri was upset, but after talking to Louis, Dimitri built a d new and improved two story house. He then got to show off his new and improved two story box house to nice girl.
Although there are more than just these three series of “crisis to climax” in this play, I felt that the writer did a fine job of building the audience up, and then abruptly changing the mood by using this method.
My part of analysis of this play was script/text. I did my analysis on crisis and climax of the script. Every play or movie will have a series of crisis and climax’s. I thought about this during the play and noticed that there are a series of these throughout the play. The first was at the beginning of the play. Dimitri was sitting there next to his house “a cardboard box” with a cup in his hand begging for money. He got change from some without any problems but with others, the patrons would be reluctant to give. In any case, Dimitri seemed happy go lucky and made the best of it with his friend Louis.
However, the crises came when Officer Charles came by. He acted as if he physically owned the side walk and detested Dimitri on it. He ridiculed, shamed, and threatened Dimitri. This changed the mood of Dimitri even though Dimitri tried to see the good in everything, it was clear that was ashamed to be in the position that he was in. The second crisis/climax that I noticed is when Dimitri was arrested. Prior to getting arrested, a nice girl had came by and visited with Dimitri. She was known as nice girl, because she was always nice to him and Louie whenever she came by. Dimitri was in his happy state, knowing that someone did care about him; however, it quickly changed when Officer Charles came by again and started abusing him with threats and name calling. Dimitri stood up for himself with the power of language and was quickly arrested and hauled off to jail.
Finally, the third crisis to climax was when the kids tore down Dimitri’s house. Dimitri loved his house and what valuables he did have. It was a sense of ownership. But what do you know, kids being destructive and having no sense of care, tore down his box house. Demitri was upset, but after talking to Louis, Dimitri built a d new and improved two story house. He then got to show off his new and improved two story box house to nice girl.
Although there are more than just these three series of “crisis to climax” in this play, I felt that the writer did a fine job of building the audience up, and then abruptly changing the mood by using this method.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Heavenly Concept, Earthly Energy
In any production, a director would always try to catch the audience’s attention by using effective blocking and flow in conjunction with the actors’ delivery of their lines to produce an energy that keeps the audience interested. If there isn’t enough of this energy, audiences will tend to get restless, looking at their watches, wondering what was on Oprah that night, etc. Louie’s at 1st & Main had a great storyline and the actors delivered it well, but I wasn’t completely captivated, due to blocking mishaps that took away from the energy of the scene.
Energy must be constantly flowing, especially during entrances and exits to keep audiences enthralled. The doors were definitely important to character entrances and exits, but they also acted like a brick wall to the energy of the scene when a character exited. When a character delivered their last line, all was silent and still as they jiggled their key into the lock of the door to make their exit. This made the energy come crashing down, and I was lost as an audience member until the energy picked back up. My suggestion to the director would be to let the actor say their final lines as they are opening the door.
Blocking combined with the text can also determine the “strength” of a character. If a character has weak blocking in comparison to their fervent lines, then the audience would be left confused as to why such a verbally strong character isn’t showing that strength standing up. The character of Sgt. Tracy is chock full of passionate lines, but I was left confused as to why the director let such a strong character make movements that directly contradicted those lines. Sgt. Tracy seemed to make weaving movements all too often; he didn’t pick a spot and stuck with it strongly. One of the most rudimentary techniques of character strength in acting, as a director would say is picking a spot and planting your feet, not shuffling back and forth and keeping your weight shifted unevenly. Some actors aren’t comfortable with standing in one spot because they’d think that that would take away from the scene, but quite the contrary, one dedicated position does more for a scene than unmotivated zigzags.
Pacing is whether the spoken lines are able to click, one after the other, making an effective rhythm for creating and maintaining energy. A great example that demonstrates this is the scene between Dimitri and the Bright Girl, when Dimitri trades his mother’s unicorn to the girl. Not only did their lines come right after the other, keeping an effective rhythm, but they also had very strong blocking to compliment their scene. Because of these, I believed this scene to be one of the strongest of the show.
As I’ve said, I wasn’t completely captivated, but I was still captivated nonetheless. The director overlooked some blocking mishaps that could have made a positive effect on some scenes, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this show and fully recommend it from an audience member’s perspective. Though those with a heavy theatre background, like this audience member, might wince a few times from glaring mishaps that an untrained eye might not catch.
~Chris McVey
Energy must be constantly flowing, especially during entrances and exits to keep audiences enthralled. The doors were definitely important to character entrances and exits, but they also acted like a brick wall to the energy of the scene when a character exited. When a character delivered their last line, all was silent and still as they jiggled their key into the lock of the door to make their exit. This made the energy come crashing down, and I was lost as an audience member until the energy picked back up. My suggestion to the director would be to let the actor say their final lines as they are opening the door.
Blocking combined with the text can also determine the “strength” of a character. If a character has weak blocking in comparison to their fervent lines, then the audience would be left confused as to why such a verbally strong character isn’t showing that strength standing up. The character of Sgt. Tracy is chock full of passionate lines, but I was left confused as to why the director let such a strong character make movements that directly contradicted those lines. Sgt. Tracy seemed to make weaving movements all too often; he didn’t pick a spot and stuck with it strongly. One of the most rudimentary techniques of character strength in acting, as a director would say is picking a spot and planting your feet, not shuffling back and forth and keeping your weight shifted unevenly. Some actors aren’t comfortable with standing in one spot because they’d think that that would take away from the scene, but quite the contrary, one dedicated position does more for a scene than unmotivated zigzags.
Pacing is whether the spoken lines are able to click, one after the other, making an effective rhythm for creating and maintaining energy. A great example that demonstrates this is the scene between Dimitri and the Bright Girl, when Dimitri trades his mother’s unicorn to the girl. Not only did their lines come right after the other, keeping an effective rhythm, but they also had very strong blocking to compliment their scene. Because of these, I believed this scene to be one of the strongest of the show.
As I’ve said, I wasn’t completely captivated, but I was still captivated nonetheless. The director overlooked some blocking mishaps that could have made a positive effect on some scenes, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this show and fully recommend it from an audience member’s perspective. Though those with a heavy theatre background, like this audience member, might wince a few times from glaring mishaps that an untrained eye might not catch.
~Chris McVey
Acting on the Street
While watching Louie's at 1st and Main, my feelings tended to vary. Overall, I was amused. However I feel that the execution of this show was lacking connection and passion from the majority of the actors. Don't get me wrong, there were some good strong parts. Most of those were scenes including Tessie. I believe that her role was the most convincing and vulnerably accurate. I have definitely seen many people like her in the streets of Portland. The actress, Dalene Young, had great use of comedic timing and conviction to her character. For example, her conversation with the little girl, Romy.
On a different note however, I felt as though the actor who played Louie had so much room to expand his character. He physically was a good pick for the role, but, he seemed rather cold and disconnected for someone who is supposed to be Dimitri's best friend. His choices made a little more sense once it was revealed to us that his identity was a pigeon. Yet, I still craved more from his acting. Instead of appearing like he was observing and watching (like we have all seen so many birds do), he just looked bored. However, his interactions with Dimitri were cute and witty, he just could have picked up the pace a bit more.
Another character that I was not satisfied with was Officer Charles. While his character was supposed to be static and embody those people who don't give a second look to homeless people, I felt that all he did was yell. But, he was not all bad. In the scene when Dimitri and Louie had passed on, his callous disregard for a human life shined through brightly.
I did appreciate what the cast and crew were trying to share with us. I think that the text was interesting and worth performing. The actors just needed to showcase more human connection and a quicker pace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
