Welllllllll...... I saw Spitfire Grill several weeks ago at Portland Christian High School. It was quite fantastic!! I had so much fun! Spitfire Grill is about a woman who just got out of prison. She is sent to a little town to finish her parole. She learns the importance of friendship, love, and truth. It's a real heart-warming musical. In fact, I cried sometimes.
The script was VERY well written. It was for common people, but intelligent enough you had to use your brain to understand the meaning behind some of the monologues and songs. The cast, for a low budget high school, did fantastic. The costumes were perfect for each character, very plain and matched the personality of each character.
The set design was fantastic! They built a great stage. It was quite cool!! The stage is a proscenium arch. There was also a thrust constructed. It was quite grand! The set was well designed, with a moving bar stand. It was painted perfectly and the tables and chairs that made up the restaurant set.
The director, who I knew was great. She blocked fantastically, and did great at the casting too. Each actor was perfect for their role. I had a lot of fun. It was a great show!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Three Sisters Questions
1. What type of stage would you consider this to be? A thrust? An arena? With a proscenium arch?
2. Why the octagonal shape of the platform instead of the usual regtangular shape?
3. How did you make those pretty trees? We wanted to touch them . . .
4. Staged transitions between Acts 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 . . . beautifully done. Was this indicated in the script or is this the director's choice?
5. Why is the piano outside in nature? Is it in the garden? On a deck? In a gazebo? Symbolically staged in the woods?
6. Did you specifically cast actors with Russian-looking features?
7. Were there any major differences between Chekhov's original play and this particular adaptation by Tracy Letts? If so, what?
8. A lot of the characters' costumes looked similar--it was difficult to discern who-was-who at the beginning. Was this intentional? (especially with the soldiers/doctor/baron)
9. Was the nurse's costume bunched up in the back to intentionally look frumpy or was that an accident the night we saw it?
10. Andrey--pushing the perambulator between audience and scene on the platform. Was this meant to take focus away from the scene? Was it meant to emphasize Natasha's lack of interest in a "girl" rather than an "heir?" Or are we reading too much into it? Was it simply that Natasha lost interest in her children?
11. Was the gunshot in the duel meant to be so very quiet? It's as if the characters onstage didn't hear it . . . was it fired for the audience's benefit so we could hear it?
12. Did the actor really play the piano? (It sounded great!)
13. We loved the live guitar and flute music. Did you ever consider having more of it throughout the play?
14. Casting--most actors seemed perfect for their roles. We were surprised at the comic nature of the baron. We were surprised at the older features of Masha. Were these casting decisions intended to highlight these aspects of the characters?
15. Acting--really great, all of them. Thank you!
16. Why did you decide to have Masha on the floor? Was that an actor choice or a director choice?
17. Was there meant to be an underlying, suppressed love between Masha's husband and Olga? (We saw it there . . .)
18. Were you doing anything intentional with the Ferapont's earmuffs? (We liked them, too.)
19. We're just curious, how many lighting instruments are used for this play?
2. Why the octagonal shape of the platform instead of the usual regtangular shape?
3. How did you make those pretty trees? We wanted to touch them . . .
4. Staged transitions between Acts 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 . . . beautifully done. Was this indicated in the script or is this the director's choice?
5. Why is the piano outside in nature? Is it in the garden? On a deck? In a gazebo? Symbolically staged in the woods?
6. Did you specifically cast actors with Russian-looking features?
7. Were there any major differences between Chekhov's original play and this particular adaptation by Tracy Letts? If so, what?
8. A lot of the characters' costumes looked similar--it was difficult to discern who-was-who at the beginning. Was this intentional? (especially with the soldiers/doctor/baron)
9. Was the nurse's costume bunched up in the back to intentionally look frumpy or was that an accident the night we saw it?
10. Andrey--pushing the perambulator between audience and scene on the platform. Was this meant to take focus away from the scene? Was it meant to emphasize Natasha's lack of interest in a "girl" rather than an "heir?" Or are we reading too much into it? Was it simply that Natasha lost interest in her children?
11. Was the gunshot in the duel meant to be so very quiet? It's as if the characters onstage didn't hear it . . . was it fired for the audience's benefit so we could hear it?
12. Did the actor really play the piano? (It sounded great!)
13. We loved the live guitar and flute music. Did you ever consider having more of it throughout the play?
14. Casting--most actors seemed perfect for their roles. We were surprised at the comic nature of the baron. We were surprised at the older features of Masha. Were these casting decisions intended to highlight these aspects of the characters?
15. Acting--really great, all of them. Thank you!
16. Why did you decide to have Masha on the floor? Was that an actor choice or a director choice?
17. Was there meant to be an underlying, suppressed love between Masha's husband and Olga? (We saw it there . . .)
18. Were you doing anything intentional with the Ferapont's earmuffs? (We liked them, too.)
19. We're just curious, how many lighting instruments are used for this play?
Acting
For my analysis for this week was acting. I wanted to know, “were the actors believable and convincing. The three elements that I looked at were body gestures, voice, and simply looking the part.
Overall I liked this show. I thought that the actors did a very good job. I am not going to exam all the actors but only a couple, the first was Andrea Frankle (Olga) I seemed to gravitate to her for the way she played her part. The first thing that I looked at in Andrea was her body gestures. She stood tall when she was happy, and when she was feeling tired from the hard day at work she showed me that she was tired, When she came on stage she told us that she was tired but her body movement pronounced it. I know when I come home and I am tired I don’t even have to say it; everyone in the house knows it by my appearance.
As for her voice, in the same scene she did not speak happy or full of energy when she came home from work, rather she talked slower and deeper. The words seemed to stretch giving the sounds of someone that truly just needed to go to bed. I loved how she managed her voice in this manner.
The third element that I looked at was looking the part. I feel that the nurse truly looked her part. For instant, Her face looked old from what looked like she had worked them to the bones for so many years. She was an old maid which meant from the audience point of view she should never be in a hurry. An example of this is when she brought in drinks and was handing them out. She was never in a hurry and when she left the stage it was slow like she had all the time in the world. I loved watching her enter and leave the stage. Again, all of the acting in this play was done well and I’m glad that I had the chance to see it.
Brad Goolsby
Overall I liked this show. I thought that the actors did a very good job. I am not going to exam all the actors but only a couple, the first was Andrea Frankle (Olga) I seemed to gravitate to her for the way she played her part. The first thing that I looked at in Andrea was her body gestures. She stood tall when she was happy, and when she was feeling tired from the hard day at work she showed me that she was tired, When she came on stage she told us that she was tired but her body movement pronounced it. I know when I come home and I am tired I don’t even have to say it; everyone in the house knows it by my appearance.
As for her voice, in the same scene she did not speak happy or full of energy when she came home from work, rather she talked slower and deeper. The words seemed to stretch giving the sounds of someone that truly just needed to go to bed. I loved how she managed her voice in this manner.
The third element that I looked at was looking the part. I feel that the nurse truly looked her part. For instant, Her face looked old from what looked like she had worked them to the bones for so many years. She was an old maid which meant from the audience point of view she should never be in a hurry. An example of this is when she brought in drinks and was handing them out. She was never in a hurry and when she left the stage it was slow like she had all the time in the world. I loved watching her enter and leave the stage. Again, all of the acting in this play was done well and I’m glad that I had the chance to see it.
Brad Goolsby
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Boy im not feeling original at all... Three sisters script/text
I knew very little about this play before going in. The only thing that really stuck in my mind from class before the play, was that chekov's plays were supposed to be funny, but no one ever thought they were. Thats possibly because his plays are depressing, but he tries to laugh his way through it. Like we know were all depressed, but maybe I'll just make a joke here and there to lighten the mood.
I felt like he did a good job of this. I felt like going to moscow was symbolic of a better life in general. They just happened to pick moscow. I felt like throughout everything They just kept getting more and more depressed because they werent changing anything. Irina and the oldest sister Olga kept talking about going to moscow, but it never happened, and who knows what was up with masha the middle sister. She was just unhappy the entire play, I suspect maybe chekov was not a fan of marriage. That seems to be her biggest issue, because when she met the colonel, she was happy and giddy.
Anyway...Im getting off track. The script to me was very well written, and funny. It took real life issues; a sucky marriage, a dreamer, being stuck in a rut so to speak, and having an awful sister in law who you just want to pummel, and throws them in your face with a splash of humor.
I feel like the real underlying issue and theme of this play, isnt that we should make something of our lives, or dream big, but whatever life gives you, try and find the humor in it. I dont think that the characters did that necessarily, but by chekov giving us these characters, with so many different problems that maybe we can relate to, he is giving us a situation where we can laugh, and say yeah, I want to move to moscow (hawaii), maybe thats not going to happen, but I should laugh, dance, and enjoy the company Im with, because I might not be with them forever. Things in life arent going to always work out, maybe you will be stuck in a less than desirable job, but try and laugh a little more.
Thanks for letting me rant.
sorry its late...again....
Alex Ashton :)
I felt like he did a good job of this. I felt like going to moscow was symbolic of a better life in general. They just happened to pick moscow. I felt like throughout everything They just kept getting more and more depressed because they werent changing anything. Irina and the oldest sister Olga kept talking about going to moscow, but it never happened, and who knows what was up with masha the middle sister. She was just unhappy the entire play, I suspect maybe chekov was not a fan of marriage. That seems to be her biggest issue, because when she met the colonel, she was happy and giddy.
Anyway...Im getting off track. The script to me was very well written, and funny. It took real life issues; a sucky marriage, a dreamer, being stuck in a rut so to speak, and having an awful sister in law who you just want to pummel, and throws them in your face with a splash of humor.
I feel like the real underlying issue and theme of this play, isnt that we should make something of our lives, or dream big, but whatever life gives you, try and find the humor in it. I dont think that the characters did that necessarily, but by chekov giving us these characters, with so many different problems that maybe we can relate to, he is giving us a situation where we can laugh, and say yeah, I want to move to moscow (hawaii), maybe thats not going to happen, but I should laugh, dance, and enjoy the company Im with, because I might not be with them forever. Things in life arent going to always work out, maybe you will be stuck in a less than desirable job, but try and laugh a little more.
Thanks for letting me rant.
sorry its late...again....
Alex Ashton :)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Three Sisters
Walking into the auditorium, right then I knew I got excited about the play more so than before. The background definitely got me interested right away; I couldn’t stop staring at it. It was really neat, and I liked the octagon stage and the whole auditorium itself, it reminded me of the pictures in the text, how it looked like an arena stage.
Along with looking like an arena stage, to me it also looked like a combination of a thrust stage and a proscenium stage. I liked that the stage was in a shape of an octagon. It was nice because the actors were acting from all different angles of the stage, and did it well. To me, most of the scenes during the second act seemed intimate when the lights were dimmed and the lights were only on the actors on stage. And I quite enjoyed that, especially from where I was sitting.
I liked the moss on the ground just skirting the stage and the use it made for the character Andrey for example, when he was strolling around with the baby cart towards the end of the play. I liked the use of the background as well. For example, when Irina and the Baron would be on the platform, Masha would be walking aimlessly in the background. I liked how they had her character do that, it had us wondering what she was doing without trailing so much from the actors who were currently talking on stage.
Along with looking like an arena stage, to me it also looked like a combination of a thrust stage and a proscenium stage. I liked that the stage was in a shape of an octagon. It was nice because the actors were acting from all different angles of the stage, and did it well. To me, most of the scenes during the second act seemed intimate when the lights were dimmed and the lights were only on the actors on stage. And I quite enjoyed that, especially from where I was sitting.
I liked the moss on the ground just skirting the stage and the use it made for the character Andrey for example, when he was strolling around with the baby cart towards the end of the play. I liked the use of the background as well. For example, when Irina and the Baron would be on the platform, Masha would be walking aimlessly in the background. I liked how they had her character do that, it had us wondering what she was doing without trailing so much from the actors who were currently talking on stage.
I also enjoyed the scene changes because it showed that time was passing, like seasons. It was clever and fit well with the setting and plot of the play. You also saw the personality of some of the characters changed too. Like Natasha for example. She definitely changed! The scene changes to me, also felt intimate with the audience.
I really enjoyed this play more so than I thought. I definitely didn’t know what to expect. I loved the background the most. I think I was starring at that most of the time instead of watching the actors.. ;)
Sam
Sisters stick together
The play "Three Sisters" was a great story and I am very happy that I had the chance to see it. I had a great view thanks to my nice teacher, thank you Mrs. Christiansen:) I was very impressed with the actors and actresses lines. Each one of them did a tremendous job, not one of them strayed out of character nor did any of them forget their lines. I really liked how I could feel the special bond between each of the sisters. They really care about one another and that was very evident when listening to their speeches to each other. The eldest; Olga, clearly takes her many jobs very serious. Not only is she a very respectable teacher, she is also very important in her sister's lives. She cares about them and she has clearly taken her job as the oldest to heart, especially since they no longer have their parents. The middle sister; Masha has a difficult story where she is stuck in a marriage where she clearly has not been happy for quite some time. Her husband Kulygin clearly cannot see or just chooses not to see just how unimpressed she is with him anymore. The youngest sister Irina is depicted as a happy go lucky women who seems to see the bright side to life and does not have blue days. She also appreciates hard work and does not seem to mind early hours and thinks it is necessary for everyone to have jobs. The director did a great job with the script/text, each line either made you frown or laugh. This story really got to the base of what people go through, the good and the bad. There is a lot of good topics that are brought up. I really enjoyed the lines that Natasha had, she had a killer script. Her performance was well done, I really disliked her and that was the intent on her performance, she did a tremendous job with her script. I really feel that she owned her script, that is just how good she really was. I could feel the happiness that Andrey the brother really felt when making Natasha his wife, and how he progressed into slow bitterness over realizing that the women he married was not as great as he made her out to be. His misery was very clear and he did a great job. Each of the performances really shined with wonderful directing and acting. The script really showed how each one of the actors changed, some for the better and some not so much better. A very tremendous performance by each and every one of them. It was well worth seeing.
Thank you,
Tracy:)
Thank you,
Tracy:)
Into The Blue
Three Sisters was a great play. I really enjoyed the story line as well as the actors and the whole piece as one. The actors were very good and the professional feel of it all was great.
The set was very different looking, with all the trees and forestry, yet the inside of rooms were being portrayed on the stage. I liked it alot, the trees were very cool and the backdrop was painted so well that it blended in perfectly with the 3 dimensional tress. I was very confused on that decision though. Although entertaining, I really don't know why the director chose to have the outside clash with the inside on the set.
The stage was set in a thrust/in the round because the audience was not completely around the stage but they were a little bit more than three quarters around. I really enjoyed it that way. And how the corners where the actors entered and exited, and even dressed were right by the audience, was really interesting. The action seemed to be so close, which made it really intimate.
The lights became dimmer it seemed in the second act when it opened on the sad dark scene with the fire. And I noticed that there were a lot of blue lights as well as purples and oranges. They seemed to portray a warm feel yet a hint of sadness with the blues. I thought that was very well thought out. The play started out with a little bit of a warm loving feel, and also some tension, and then progressed more into depression, and I think the lights portrayed that very well.
The set changes were fairly fast and I really liked how the actors were dressed on stage in the blue lights, and the fact that we could see them made them stay in character. The shows we have seen in this class have had minimal props until this one. And both amounts of props are enjoyable to watch. This play had man props and were used very well.
Even though Three Sisters was a long and sad play, I still really enjoyed it.
Heather Harlan
The set was very different looking, with all the trees and forestry, yet the inside of rooms were being portrayed on the stage. I liked it alot, the trees were very cool and the backdrop was painted so well that it blended in perfectly with the 3 dimensional tress. I was very confused on that decision though. Although entertaining, I really don't know why the director chose to have the outside clash with the inside on the set.
The stage was set in a thrust/in the round because the audience was not completely around the stage but they were a little bit more than three quarters around. I really enjoyed it that way. And how the corners where the actors entered and exited, and even dressed were right by the audience, was really interesting. The action seemed to be so close, which made it really intimate.
The lights became dimmer it seemed in the second act when it opened on the sad dark scene with the fire. And I noticed that there were a lot of blue lights as well as purples and oranges. They seemed to portray a warm feel yet a hint of sadness with the blues. I thought that was very well thought out. The play started out with a little bit of a warm loving feel, and also some tension, and then progressed more into depression, and I think the lights portrayed that very well.
The set changes were fairly fast and I really liked how the actors were dressed on stage in the blue lights, and the fact that we could see them made them stay in character. The shows we have seen in this class have had minimal props until this one. And both amounts of props are enjoyable to watch. This play had man props and were used very well.
Even though Three Sisters was a long and sad play, I still really enjoyed it.
Heather Harlan
The Directing eye
Even though my job is to talk about the directing of this play, I have to say that the set design was magnificent! The director has say in that, so his eye for settings is great.
The play starts off with the three sisters walking around the stage looking out into space. The other characters did a little bit of that on their way to their position; which was a chair out in the woods. As the three sisters got into their early dialog you could see the cast holding private conversations in the woods, and then someone would shout out something against what the three sisters were saying but it would be directed at the person the character was talking to. I thought that was interesting. I thought the blocking was good, and you'd probably find a lot of directors who may not like the fact that conversations in the story were from a sitting position, or they just stood in one place moving here and there but not much. I liked the way the director used four entrances to the stage, it gave the stage more dimensions. We as the audience got to imagine that there was a living room area by the way the director sold the laughter coming from the speakers above the exit by the lobby.
I thought the play was good, but I didn't like the relationship between the eldest sister and her husband the teacher. The fact that she wasn't happy with him but she felt that a soldier with a sick wife for whom he referred to disrespectfully would be better for her...huh?
By: Patrick Ford
Even though my job is to talk about the directing of this play, I have to say that the set design was magnificent! The director has say in that, so his eye for settings is great.
The play starts off with the three sisters walking around the stage looking out into space. The other characters did a little bit of that on their way to their position; which was a chair out in the woods. As the three sisters got into their early dialog you could see the cast holding private conversations in the woods, and then someone would shout out something against what the three sisters were saying but it would be directed at the person the character was talking to. I thought that was interesting. I thought the blocking was good, and you'd probably find a lot of directors who may not like the fact that conversations in the story were from a sitting position, or they just stood in one place moving here and there but not much. I liked the way the director used four entrances to the stage, it gave the stage more dimensions. We as the audience got to imagine that there was a living room area by the way the director sold the laughter coming from the speakers above the exit by the lobby.
I thought the play was good, but I didn't like the relationship between the eldest sister and her husband the teacher. The fact that she wasn't happy with him but she felt that a soldier with a sick wife for whom he referred to disrespectfully would be better for her...huh?
By: Patrick Ford
A little on the story of life
Anton Chekhov’s play The Three Sisters has all the elements necessary to create a successful Drama of lies, betrayal, and death. It is a story that many people have experienced. The story of regret.
The three Prozorov sisters, Olga, Masha, Irina, and their brother reside in a small provincial Russian town, where there isn’t much excitement. They lounge around with relatives and friends day-dreaming of possibilities and returning to Moscow, where they lived when their father was alive, as if it were some sort of Promised Land.
In life we all yearn to progress, fulfill dreams, accomplish great things and become somebody. These are the same emotions the Prozorov family have, and like most people, they do not take the necessary steps to nourish their dreams, which leads them down a path of regret and of what ifs.
Because of the unique stage design, a combination of arena and thrust, the director, for the most part, made successful blocking choices. I did not understand why the director made the choice, at certain times during the production, to have the actors face the woods, leaving their backs faced towards all the audience. Also I would have appreciated it more if the forest was moved out a little. From where I was sitting it was hard to view the entire forest and the actors in that forest, perhaps it was the “cheap seats”, lol.
Overall it was an incredible production, I very much appreciated the acting and the Directors vision. I definitely recommend this production.
Thank You
James L.
The three Prozorov sisters, Olga, Masha, Irina, and their brother reside in a small provincial Russian town, where there isn’t much excitement. They lounge around with relatives and friends day-dreaming of possibilities and returning to Moscow, where they lived when their father was alive, as if it were some sort of Promised Land.
In life we all yearn to progress, fulfill dreams, accomplish great things and become somebody. These are the same emotions the Prozorov family have, and like most people, they do not take the necessary steps to nourish their dreams, which leads them down a path of regret and of what ifs.
Because of the unique stage design, a combination of arena and thrust, the director, for the most part, made successful blocking choices. I did not understand why the director made the choice, at certain times during the production, to have the actors face the woods, leaving their backs faced towards all the audience. Also I would have appreciated it more if the forest was moved out a little. From where I was sitting it was hard to view the entire forest and the actors in that forest, perhaps it was the “cheap seats”, lol.
Overall it was an incredible production, I very much appreciated the acting and the Directors vision. I definitely recommend this production.
Thank You
James L.
To Touch or no?
Well, although I was unsure about watching this show, and I felt horrible the entire time, I rather enjoyed the show. I think it was well put together for the most part. I was to be paying attention to the design elements, and there is so much to say.
For starters, the stage itself. Well, we knew it was supposed to be a black box, but I don't think that anyone would argue that they turned it into a thrust stage, that easily could have wound up being in the round. From where I was sitting in seat A1, it seemed almost as if it went slightly past 3/4 so it was a little weird. Then there was the scenery, which consisted mostly of the Birch trees that were mentioned so many times throughout the show. Those trees actually made my spot a terrible place for me to sit. I like to touch and feel things and there were trees all of about a foot away from me. The temptation to reach out and touch them to see what they were made of was nearly overwhelming and quite distracting from me. Somehow, I managed to resist temptation but I believe they were made from some sort of paper mache wrapped around some poles to make them sturdy to stay standing and then painted.
The set pieces they used although moved around quite a bit, were pretty minimal. A few dining chairs, 1 fancy chair, a little vanity, and 2 beds, most of which didn't stay on for very long. Although there was one chair that was sitting amongst the trees I believe for most if not all for the show, and the piano that had stayed in the trees for most of the time. I think they executed moving them on and off fairly well, though. I must complain of some of the placement, though. It is thrust, not in the round, so I am not quite sure exactly my view was blocked so much. From the actors angle, a lot of action seemed to happen stage right when a line of actors would be watching what was going on and preventing me from seeing it. I lost whole pieces because I couldn't see over and around them, it was especially frustrating during one scene, I believe it was during the birthday party at the beginning, when there was nothing up center, but almost all the military people were standing in front of me while two characters were confronting each other. Although, yes, that is largely an issue with the directors choice, it also is part of the design because the space you are using and the set pieces needed on stage go hand in hand. You don't put a tree in the center of arena style theatre because it would block. The same logic applies here. I think logic should have said the stage was too dense over here, particularly during the lighter scenes. A different configuration where there was more space between chairs or if they were divided on both sides would have not only increased visibility but balanced it out on the platform, making a more aesthetically appealing set up.
As for the costumer, they were great. I think they fit the characters very well. And the first costume worn by Natasha was perfect in retrospect. At first I was so unsure about it because it was so different and she looked like a 12 year old. However after seeing the whole story, I think it suited well because it established that Natasha was so very different from the rest of the characters, and they had mentioned in the beginning that she dressed and did her hair like a little girl. I liked the military outfits, a lot. For the most part they were simple while giving that military air, but they also easily showed the main ranks of those wearing them. And of course, I have to say, I loved the belt that was worn by Irina, no matter what Natasha thought of it.
Overall, a good production. Of course, like every good show put on, and, of course, every bad show, it could stand for a few improvements.
Ember Dahl
For starters, the stage itself. Well, we knew it was supposed to be a black box, but I don't think that anyone would argue that they turned it into a thrust stage, that easily could have wound up being in the round. From where I was sitting in seat A1, it seemed almost as if it went slightly past 3/4 so it was a little weird. Then there was the scenery, which consisted mostly of the Birch trees that were mentioned so many times throughout the show. Those trees actually made my spot a terrible place for me to sit. I like to touch and feel things and there were trees all of about a foot away from me. The temptation to reach out and touch them to see what they were made of was nearly overwhelming and quite distracting from me. Somehow, I managed to resist temptation but I believe they were made from some sort of paper mache wrapped around some poles to make them sturdy to stay standing and then painted.
The set pieces they used although moved around quite a bit, were pretty minimal. A few dining chairs, 1 fancy chair, a little vanity, and 2 beds, most of which didn't stay on for very long. Although there was one chair that was sitting amongst the trees I believe for most if not all for the show, and the piano that had stayed in the trees for most of the time. I think they executed moving them on and off fairly well, though. I must complain of some of the placement, though. It is thrust, not in the round, so I am not quite sure exactly my view was blocked so much. From the actors angle, a lot of action seemed to happen stage right when a line of actors would be watching what was going on and preventing me from seeing it. I lost whole pieces because I couldn't see over and around them, it was especially frustrating during one scene, I believe it was during the birthday party at the beginning, when there was nothing up center, but almost all the military people were standing in front of me while two characters were confronting each other. Although, yes, that is largely an issue with the directors choice, it also is part of the design because the space you are using and the set pieces needed on stage go hand in hand. You don't put a tree in the center of arena style theatre because it would block. The same logic applies here. I think logic should have said the stage was too dense over here, particularly during the lighter scenes. A different configuration where there was more space between chairs or if they were divided on both sides would have not only increased visibility but balanced it out on the platform, making a more aesthetically appealing set up.
As for the costumer, they were great. I think they fit the characters very well. And the first costume worn by Natasha was perfect in retrospect. At first I was so unsure about it because it was so different and she looked like a 12 year old. However after seeing the whole story, I think it suited well because it established that Natasha was so very different from the rest of the characters, and they had mentioned in the beginning that she dressed and did her hair like a little girl. I liked the military outfits, a lot. For the most part they were simple while giving that military air, but they also easily showed the main ranks of those wearing them. And of course, I have to say, I loved the belt that was worn by Irina, no matter what Natasha thought of it.
Overall, a good production. Of course, like every good show put on, and, of course, every bad show, it could stand for a few improvements.
Ember Dahl
In the Woods...
I thought that the Scenic Design at the Artist's Repertory Theatre's Three Sisters was beautifully done. The stage was very visually intriguing. As you enter the auditorium and walk to your seat, you basically step in the set. The moss on the floor was a great touch. My seat, which was on the far side stage left, I felt that I was a part of the woods and trees. The birch trees were very realistic looking, even from close up. Jeff Seats, the designer did a great job. The idea of combining the house with the woods around them was very dream like yet made sense in the set of the show. The Piano was incorperated very nicely. It caught my eye without taking me out of the scene I was watching.
Overall, I really enjoyed the show. It was dramatic, however, had nice comic relief moments. The scene changes were done right in front of us by the characters on stage. At first I thought it was a bit awkward, but I grew to like it. It showed a passing of time and the realism of someone changing their clothes. I also thought that in general, the costumes were very consistent with the time period and they were executed pretty well.
The camera of course was one of the best props used in my opinion. The realism of how long it took back then to take a picture was very funny. We all take cameras for granted, not realizing how new of a technology it is.
My experience watching Three Sisters was a positive one and I believe that the set was one of the greatest elements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
