Wonderful play with a lot of insight to people that we are not comfortable seeing in life. I was not expecting much from Louie's at 1st & Main, with little to no budget and a very small stage space. Frankly, I was very surprised! I absolutely loved it:) Sometimes taking a small space and a smaller audience works out quite well, for this play it was just that, well done. In fact, I do not think it would be as good if it were done in a large theatre with a large audience. Having a small space allows the audience to have to pay attention to all of the aspects of the world of this man who is on the street. It may be uncomfortable for some people but sometimes you have to do that to get people to pay attention and get more out of it that skeptism. A lot of people do not understand that kind of life. I have to be honest and say that I am still one of them. This play gave me a glimpse into a different world, not always fair and not always right, but that is life. The truth is not always the truth. Some people truly believe they know why someone is in a certain situation but you cannot truly know unless you have or are living their life. Because I can say that I have not had to live on the streets before I do not know what that kind of life would really be like. I really believe that with the smaller space they have to tell their story it really forces the audience to think in a different way, challenging what they may have thought before. Dimitri is just an intelligent man who did the best he could and wants to believe in human decency, even when that is challenged. From watching the play, you see that in everyday life, people believing against all odds that there are still others out there that care. It is hard to believe with all of the violence and negativity from others around the world due to not understanding or not being in that particular situation. Anyone can make a difference, just believing in yourself and others. I really believe that Dimitri made a difference for several of passby's who at first judged him and then got to know him. The stage space could not have been used better in my opinion.
Thank you,
Tracy :)
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
"Frost/Nixon" Was it Realism . . . or Not?
Class Consensus Says:
Realistic Theatrical Elements:
Realistic Theatrical Elements:
- Lighting—yes, some was realistic—tv studio lights
- Acting—mostly realistic, but not some of the phone calls
- Costumes—yes
- Make-Up—yes
- Language—yes
- Story—yes , historical
- Structure—yes, mostly realistic use of time
- Characters—yes, real people portrayed realistically
Non-Realistic Theatrical Elements:
- Acting—narration, phone calls
- Lights—narration spotlights, back ground mood lights
- Scenery—platforms, panels, bare stage of sorts
- Structure—summaries done by narrators, time stretched and compressed
Frost/Nixon Q's
Why use multiple screens for the backdrop rather than one big screen?
Why use the wooden panel sliding pieces for the set?
Why were people crossing behind the screens during scenes?
Why no microphones?
Why did the director make the choice to have Frost and Nixon speak directly to each other during their intense phone conversation?
Was the actor who played Nixon using his own real voice, or did he stylize for the role?
Was David Frost's airplane girlfriend a real person in this historical story?
Any other historical embellishments?
Which came first--the play or the movie?
Where did you find those real 70's tv cameras?
During the Frost/Nixon interviews, were the cameras all real-time footage, or was some of it pre-recorded clips?
What's the magic behind the motion of the set platforms/set pieces?
Were those 70's props and set pieces authentic or great replications?
Why no intermission? (We liked it, but . . . why?)
Why stage this play in the Gerding theatre (instead of some other theatrical space)?
What's the end of the story behind Frost and his girlfriend? Did he settle down with her?
Every prop was used . . . elegantly sparse. Was this a budget choice or a director's choice?
Casting process? How did you get these actors?
Were details intentional from the director, or actor choices? (ie, woman with the book on the airplane--half-read through.)
Why use the wooden panel sliding pieces for the set?
Why were people crossing behind the screens during scenes?
Why no microphones?
Why did the director make the choice to have Frost and Nixon speak directly to each other during their intense phone conversation?
Was the actor who played Nixon using his own real voice, or did he stylize for the role?
Was David Frost's airplane girlfriend a real person in this historical story?
Any other historical embellishments?
Which came first--the play or the movie?
Where did you find those real 70's tv cameras?
During the Frost/Nixon interviews, were the cameras all real-time footage, or was some of it pre-recorded clips?
What's the magic behind the motion of the set platforms/set pieces?
Were those 70's props and set pieces authentic or great replications?
Why no intermission? (We liked it, but . . . why?)
Why stage this play in the Gerding theatre (instead of some other theatrical space)?
What's the end of the story behind Frost and his girlfriend? Did he settle down with her?
Every prop was used . . . elegantly sparse. Was this a budget choice or a director's choice?
Casting process? How did you get these actors?
Were details intentional from the director, or actor choices? (ie, woman with the book on the airplane--half-read through.)
C-Span this Ain't...
I was a little wary about this production, I must admit. I'm not a big political guy, and a full show about political controversy, even if it was the Nixon controversy, was not exactly inviting. But this show exceeded my expectation from the start. The script of this show was put together really well. It was witty and biting, with characters that an audience could have fun with. One of the things I wondered about this script that I wonder about is how close to life the text stayed. With a historical basis like this there are many things that were actually said, and actually done. Did the author research into these characters, interviewing and prying into the past, or did he just put down what could have happened? Either way, I really enjoyed it. The scene where Nixon drunk-dials Frost was brilliantly written. I liked that there were two narrators for the show, one from each "side". It gave a well-rounded picture of what happened. And I liked how Jim transitioned from narrator to active character by merely picking up the phone. This show passed my expectations and then some, bringing the story of history to life in all its colors and glory. I would recommend this play to anyone, regardless of their political background.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Frost/Nix-Fun
I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of Frost/Nixon by Portland Center Stage on Thursday evening. I found the play to be clever, entertaining and fairly comical at many points. However, as excellent as the actors might have been, it still became quite apparent that we weren't there to see any high school play. The stage we saw that night gave a real feel for being in the midst of the Watergate Era. Part of this has to do with the overall design of the stage; simple yet elegant, but all in all a perfect choice for that performance. However a show is only made better when all the details are realized and seen through. In this particular regard, PCS certainly shined gloriously.
First things first, and as an actor I really appreciate this, is the drinks. Every drink actually had a liquid in it, which helps substantially in my own mind. Sitting on stage and trying to imagine you have a liquid in your hand doesn't work. Period. The drink helps bring the fantastic world of theatre come alive for both sides; the audience watching and enjoying the play, and the actors performing the play.
Next is the Airline Seats, and quite frankly the whole in flight scene, as everything was taken care of. Every minor detail from the way the champagne was presented by the stewardess down to the advanced placing in the book (indicating a long flight and a well educated woman, as she was portrayed), and even the seats themselves were all too perfect. They were either very good fakes or the real deal in a lot of parts.
Finally, and these were possibly the most commented on from what I heard, was the cameras. Somehow, I'm not sure in what manner they came to possess them but I'm very glad they did, the fine people at Portland Center Stage manged to get not one, but two real-life, working television cameras from the Seventies. Brilliant, is all I can say. It pushed further with the fact that they actually functioned. Many of us in the audience sat thinking that the responses and projected video clips were prerecorded and were set to match the actors as they delivered the lines in real time. A simple concept, but not what happened. Each detail from a ruffled brow to a wicked smirk was captured just as it was happening on stage in the clip. It was a work of genius.
Though the political side might not be every one's cup of tea, I think that Frost/Nixon will still be among my favorites of the shows seen. The dedication is always in the theatre between the actors, audience and the ever important backstage crew, but to have a source of backing equal to that of PCS, really shows some dedication. Not saying money is everything, but it certainly helps in some cases. For many reasons, Frost/Nixon gets two big thumbs up from me.
Mike
PS. Yes I know the title's lame, but I'm tired and need to go to bed.
First things first, and as an actor I really appreciate this, is the drinks. Every drink actually had a liquid in it, which helps substantially in my own mind. Sitting on stage and trying to imagine you have a liquid in your hand doesn't work. Period. The drink helps bring the fantastic world of theatre come alive for both sides; the audience watching and enjoying the play, and the actors performing the play.
Next is the Airline Seats, and quite frankly the whole in flight scene, as everything was taken care of. Every minor detail from the way the champagne was presented by the stewardess down to the advanced placing in the book (indicating a long flight and a well educated woman, as she was portrayed), and even the seats themselves were all too perfect. They were either very good fakes or the real deal in a lot of parts.
Finally, and these were possibly the most commented on from what I heard, was the cameras. Somehow, I'm not sure in what manner they came to possess them but I'm very glad they did, the fine people at Portland Center Stage manged to get not one, but two real-life, working television cameras from the Seventies. Brilliant, is all I can say. It pushed further with the fact that they actually functioned. Many of us in the audience sat thinking that the responses and projected video clips were prerecorded and were set to match the actors as they delivered the lines in real time. A simple concept, but not what happened. Each detail from a ruffled brow to a wicked smirk was captured just as it was happening on stage in the clip. It was a work of genius.
Though the political side might not be every one's cup of tea, I think that Frost/Nixon will still be among my favorites of the shows seen. The dedication is always in the theatre between the actors, audience and the ever important backstage crew, but to have a source of backing equal to that of PCS, really shows some dedication. Not saying money is everything, but it certainly helps in some cases. For many reasons, Frost/Nixon gets two big thumbs up from me.
Mike
PS. Yes I know the title's lame, but I'm tired and need to go to bed.
Stage Design and all that good jazz
Sitting in the audience of the Portland Center Stage, I realized that the seating was so much more cramped rather than Louise 1st and Main. You could hear everyone who was talking, coughing, and moving around. the stage was a Proscenium Arch, and it had a nice view for the entire show I thought. I thought that Frost/Nixon turned out well on this stage all in all.
Since it was the Gerding Theater, I was kind of dissapointed that the actors themselves weren't on microphones. Because there were alot of people, it was really difficult to hear the actors from so far back. Maybe that was the whole purpose, so we as an audience would have to pay real close attention to the dialogue to understand the play.
As for myself, I prefer watching productions on this stage. It's bigger and livelier, and has more room for the many different effects of stage designs. One thing I thought that they could have done was put in an intermission. Sitting there for two and almost a half hours straight through was really tough on my own part towards lack of attention span.
Although the Keller Auditorium is one of my all time favorite theatre spaces, The Gerding Theater at Portland Center Stage comes in a close second in my own book. I think its because of the formality in the structure, stage, and audiences themselves that intrigue me. I enjoyed dressing up to go see this play, and I am excited to see more pieces there in the future.
~Nici Benois~
Since it was the Gerding Theater, I was kind of dissapointed that the actors themselves weren't on microphones. Because there were alot of people, it was really difficult to hear the actors from so far back. Maybe that was the whole purpose, so we as an audience would have to pay real close attention to the dialogue to understand the play.
As for myself, I prefer watching productions on this stage. It's bigger and livelier, and has more room for the many different effects of stage designs. One thing I thought that they could have done was put in an intermission. Sitting there for two and almost a half hours straight through was really tough on my own part towards lack of attention span.
Although the Keller Auditorium is one of my all time favorite theatre spaces, The Gerding Theater at Portland Center Stage comes in a close second in my own book. I think its because of the formality in the structure, stage, and audiences themselves that intrigue me. I enjoyed dressing up to go see this play, and I am excited to see more pieces there in the future.
~Nici Benois~
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Design Elements
Wow, what a show! I never imagined watching something live and being that incredible. I didn't get to take much notes do to not being able to see my pad and not wanting to miss anything. However, three things stood out in the design elements for me. The first is the big screen. The stage itself looked like a big screen t.v. but the screen at the back of the stage were also t.v. screens. Right from the beginning the scenes on the big screen got my attention and set in motion a series of events. However, the only thing that I didn't like is when the scenes would take more than one block, the borders would be in the way. Other than that, I loved how the screens were used to help in the guidance of the show.
The second thing that I noticed was the clothes. During the 1960's and 1970's the attire looked exactly the same as what was being worn. The button up sweater that the president wore and the military officers cloths that were as plain as in there day. But the one thing that really got my attention were the pants that Frost was waring! They were tight, high in the waste with no need for a belt. All of these factors gave truth the the time period for me.
The third and final thing that I noticed was the props! For me, I feel if they don't match the time period, then I don't feel the connection, however, they did a great job of showing the time line with the props. The first was the phone, no it wasn't a cell phone! It was one of those heavy phones that had a cord connected to it in which you had to have 500 ft. so that you could travel from room to room. Another prop that I liked was the yellow chairs. These were a prime example of what the furniture during 1970's, I could almost bet that they didn't have to pay for those chairs!
I really did enjoy this play. I thought I was going to be bored with this play, and couldn't wait for it to start and finish so that I could go home! I was truly shocked and glad that I didn't miss this one.
By: Brad Goolsby
The second thing that I noticed was the clothes. During the 1960's and 1970's the attire looked exactly the same as what was being worn. The button up sweater that the president wore and the military officers cloths that were as plain as in there day. But the one thing that really got my attention were the pants that Frost was waring! They were tight, high in the waste with no need for a belt. All of these factors gave truth the the time period for me.
The third and final thing that I noticed was the props! For me, I feel if they don't match the time period, then I don't feel the connection, however, they did a great job of showing the time line with the props. The first was the phone, no it wasn't a cell phone! It was one of those heavy phones that had a cord connected to it in which you had to have 500 ft. so that you could travel from room to room. Another prop that I liked was the yellow chairs. These were a prime example of what the furniture during 1970's, I could almost bet that they didn't have to pay for those chairs!
I really did enjoy this play. I thought I was going to be bored with this play, and couldn't wait for it to start and finish so that I could go home! I was truly shocked and glad that I didn't miss this one.
By: Brad Goolsby
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reality T.V
I was expecting the worst from the play "Frost/Nixon." When it comes to politics, I'm not very educated. I was expecting the show to be very long, boring, and confusing. However, I was pleasantly surprised. I was able to not only understand the show, but enjoy it as well.
I loved how simple, yet beautifully interesting the sets were. And the set changes moved so quickly. Everything was so precise and where it should be at exactly the right time. I think it was easier to focus on the intensity of the story with the set being so simple. I also loved how the t.v screens were set up, as if you were really in the studio, and also watching it on t.v at home. It was all so realistic.
The directing, I thought, was absolutely great. All the blocking of all the characters seemed to flow very nicely. All the movement seemed very natural, not at all forced; which is very difficult to watch. The characters fit their roles perfectly. I'm sure all the actors worked on their character building with the director, and it definitely paid off.
I thought all the direction was very smooth and natural, however, I did not like the two phone conversations where the attention focus changed. The characters were talking on the phone, then all of a sudden they were talking face to face with the person who was supposed to be on the phone with them. That does not happen in real life. Maybe some people enjoyed that, and maybe it was a creative edge that the director was putting on the play, but I didn't like it nor did I understand it myself. When an entire show is portrayed so realistically, it's hard to appreciate the quick change of realism, like those phone calls.
Overall, the show was a pleasant surprise, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Heather Harlan
I loved how simple, yet beautifully interesting the sets were. And the set changes moved so quickly. Everything was so precise and where it should be at exactly the right time. I think it was easier to focus on the intensity of the story with the set being so simple. I also loved how the t.v screens were set up, as if you were really in the studio, and also watching it on t.v at home. It was all so realistic.
The directing, I thought, was absolutely great. All the blocking of all the characters seemed to flow very nicely. All the movement seemed very natural, not at all forced; which is very difficult to watch. The characters fit their roles perfectly. I'm sure all the actors worked on their character building with the director, and it definitely paid off.
I thought all the direction was very smooth and natural, however, I did not like the two phone conversations where the attention focus changed. The characters were talking on the phone, then all of a sudden they were talking face to face with the person who was supposed to be on the phone with them. That does not happen in real life. Maybe some people enjoyed that, and maybe it was a creative edge that the director was putting on the play, but I didn't like it nor did I understand it myself. When an entire show is portrayed so realistically, it's hard to appreciate the quick change of realism, like those phone calls.
Overall, the show was a pleasant surprise, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Heather Harlan
A wonderful production even with no break:)
Last week I saw a play "Frost/Nixon" at Portland Center Stage. I was thrilled to have the chance to be at this theater for the first time but I was a bit unsure as to wether I would actually enjoy it. Luckily, even with no intermission, I absolutely loved it! Everything about this play amazed me. Bill Christ made me hate him, he played a part well done. I actually forgot several times that he was not the actual "Richard Nixon" he is just that good. From the tone of his voice to the way he carried himself I felt that I was meeting the real man. I had essentially no knowledge of the history of the scandal with the water gate crisis, nor did I understand why Nixon was so hated as a person and a political activist. Watching this play really gave me an important understanding of just how rude, obnoxious, arogant, etc. Nixon really was. I really believe that if you did not leave the theater with a feeling of animosity towards our 70's president who was so terrible that he had to resign then you did not pay that close attention to his entire performance. That is what made his performance so well done.
Now, I must tell you that I feel on a whole the rest of the cast really nailed their parts. I really felt the talk show host, Frost did an outstanding job. He made you love him and also turn your head and laugh. He loved the ladies but you could really tell that he tried to do the best job he could possibly do when it came to interviewing the president. It was Frost who was able to get Nixon to admit in some way that he was wrong and he had in fact committed a very stupid crime.
When it came to the man ( I for the life of me cannot remember his name) that had the most animosity towards Nixon, I could feel how disgusted he was with his president that he betrayed so many. When he finally had a chance to tell Nixon how he really felt he just froze and shook his had. I really sensed just how captured he was by the shear look of the tall intimidating man that Nixon was. The actor protraying Nixon really made you feel that intensity that the real man Nixon himself gave to so many.
The acting in Frost/Nixon itself was absolutely wonderful. I strongly recommend this play, it is one of the best productions of this year and will be remembered as that. I have not mentioned anything about the set which was very fun and classy. It made me want to go back to the 70's and have a chance to experience it for myself. Everyone involved in this play should pat themselves on the back. A play well worth watching, even with no intermission :)
Thank you,
Tracy:)
Now, I must tell you that I feel on a whole the rest of the cast really nailed their parts. I really felt the talk show host, Frost did an outstanding job. He made you love him and also turn your head and laugh. He loved the ladies but you could really tell that he tried to do the best job he could possibly do when it came to interviewing the president. It was Frost who was able to get Nixon to admit in some way that he was wrong and he had in fact committed a very stupid crime.
When it came to the man ( I for the life of me cannot remember his name) that had the most animosity towards Nixon, I could feel how disgusted he was with his president that he betrayed so many. When he finally had a chance to tell Nixon how he really felt he just froze and shook his had. I really sensed just how captured he was by the shear look of the tall intimidating man that Nixon was. The actor protraying Nixon really made you feel that intensity that the real man Nixon himself gave to so many.
The acting in Frost/Nixon itself was absolutely wonderful. I strongly recommend this play, it is one of the best productions of this year and will be remembered as that. I have not mentioned anything about the set which was very fun and classy. It made me want to go back to the 70's and have a chance to experience it for myself. Everyone involved in this play should pat themselves on the back. A play well worth watching, even with no intermission :)
Thank you,
Tracy:)
Stage space
The use of stage space in Frost/Nixon was very effective, using a proscenium stage, it framed the action of the play. The picture frame created the illusion of a television screen, it is a T.V. show about the president. As the play opened we see the desk of the president in the oval office. This is an important aspect because the actions in the oval office prove to be very important in the Watergate investigation, being that Nixon's phone conversations were being recorded in that very location.
Then we have the television studio with Frost and Nixon facing each other, adversaries in the drama/comedy that unfolds before. It is as if we are watching the interviews all over again. The picture-frame stage is again giving us a view of a television. We as the audience are watching a giant screen T.V. The proscenium opening is a transparent glass wall/screen throug,h which we are viewing the action.
The wall in the back also continued the idea of a television screen, with all the monitors, displaying the action of what is happening on stage.
The proscenium stage also helps in realistic scenery, Frost's living room, the studio, even the illusion of being on an airplane. It gives us a strong focal point, we are witnesses to all the action on stage and we become involved as the story unfolds. It was very effective as it built to the conclusion of Nixon's ultimate downfall.
Nancy
Then we have the television studio with Frost and Nixon facing each other, adversaries in the drama/comedy that unfolds before. It is as if we are watching the interviews all over again. The picture-frame stage is again giving us a view of a television. We as the audience are watching a giant screen T.V. The proscenium opening is a transparent glass wall/screen throug,h which we are viewing the action.
The wall in the back also continued the idea of a television screen, with all the monitors, displaying the action of what is happening on stage.
The proscenium stage also helps in realistic scenery, Frost's living room, the studio, even the illusion of being on an airplane. It gives us a strong focal point, we are witnesses to all the action on stage and we become involved as the story unfolds. It was very effective as it built to the conclusion of Nixon's ultimate downfall.
Nancy
Bring on the 70's baby!
"Two hour play about scandal from before I was born with no intermission? Hmm... no thank you." I don't know what it is about shows I have not seen before, but I am always close minded about them. I guess that is just the pessimist in me. But at least this way I am very rarely disappointed, as I go into it expecting the worse. I must say, Frost/Nixon definitely surprised me and turned out to be a very enjoyable two hours.
I love the 70's. I always have. It seems very unfair to me that I missed the era of avocado green toilets and orange floors (I would assume my fixation on the era came from my bathroom growing up...). But the costumes and furniture used in this show were absolutely perfect for recreating a time and atmosphere! Striped pants, plaid shirts and silk vest were covering the cast. There was a great balance of looking different from the time we are in now and not overdoing it so much that it is just laughable and distracting. One thing I found (through close scrutiny) was that the actor playing President Nixon was wearing shoes with a heal to give more of the height that the late Nixon was so infamous of. It really helped the actor stand a head above the crowd and was a nice affect. The couches and chairs and telephones were all straight form the 70's as well. It was such a great set they created and added so much visually.
Being a professional theatre, Portland Center Stage has so many resources and financial ability to create a visually stimulating set. Throughout the entire show there were movable panels used to create rooms. This made it possible to go from a scene in a hotel room to an office or hospital with ease and not disrupt the narration going on by blacking out and having the set changers come out. One thing that I really appreciated was the actors did a large number of the set changes. I never am a fan of the lights going all out and being able to hear set changes going on. When they happen so smoothly while acting is still taking place it adds so much to the believability of a show.
The music and lighting in Frost/Nixon really dictated the mood of the scene. It often times changed so much and the lights and sound acted as little cue cards telling the audience how to feel. In just a split second the emotion could go from sad and forlorn, with slow music and dark lighting to an upbeat British talk show with phycadelic lights and funky music. With so much ebb and flow of the play, this really gave quite a bit of interest to the work.
Overall, I was very pleasantly surprised by Frost/Nixon. Nothing seemed out of place from the design elements and everything flowed together so well. This truly was a fantastic production!
Emily Adele
I love the 70's. I always have. It seems very unfair to me that I missed the era of avocado green toilets and orange floors (I would assume my fixation on the era came from my bathroom growing up...). But the costumes and furniture used in this show were absolutely perfect for recreating a time and atmosphere! Striped pants, plaid shirts and silk vest were covering the cast. There was a great balance of looking different from the time we are in now and not overdoing it so much that it is just laughable and distracting. One thing I found (through close scrutiny) was that the actor playing President Nixon was wearing shoes with a heal to give more of the height that the late Nixon was so infamous of. It really helped the actor stand a head above the crowd and was a nice affect. The couches and chairs and telephones were all straight form the 70's as well. It was such a great set they created and added so much visually.
Being a professional theatre, Portland Center Stage has so many resources and financial ability to create a visually stimulating set. Throughout the entire show there were movable panels used to create rooms. This made it possible to go from a scene in a hotel room to an office or hospital with ease and not disrupt the narration going on by blacking out and having the set changers come out. One thing that I really appreciated was the actors did a large number of the set changes. I never am a fan of the lights going all out and being able to hear set changes going on. When they happen so smoothly while acting is still taking place it adds so much to the believability of a show.
The music and lighting in Frost/Nixon really dictated the mood of the scene. It often times changed so much and the lights and sound acted as little cue cards telling the audience how to feel. In just a split second the emotion could go from sad and forlorn, with slow music and dark lighting to an upbeat British talk show with phycadelic lights and funky music. With so much ebb and flow of the play, this really gave quite a bit of interest to the work.
Overall, I was very pleasantly surprised by Frost/Nixon. Nothing seemed out of place from the design elements and everything flowed together so well. This truly was a fantastic production!
Emily Adele
The paranormal stage
There was something paranormal about the way they utilized the stage. The stage I believe was a black box with hidden scenery in the way back. I arrived at the play late so I didn't get to see the stage before the curtain came up. I can imagine what it was like, and I wouldn't of been able to fathom how they would simulate the airplane scene. I couldn't of dreamed of how they could turn a hotel room into a television studio and keep the momentum of the play going; due to the magnitude of the story.
Using sliding mechanism or whatever that was to move the set in and out without having to take too many breaks in the action was brilliant. They made perfect use of the little bit of space that they had to work with. Don't get me wrong, it was a huge stage but it wasn't big enough for the settings needed to tell this story. That'
s why I'm so impressed by what they did with what they had. Even though we could see the props moving which was very unusual to me at least, it worked all the same. I thought the use of the televisions in the background were an excellent idea. It did a great job helping fill up the stage when there was only the island with the two chairs sitting on top of it for the interview between Frost/Nixon.
I thought they did a brilliant job with the stage space. It shows that they were dedicated to giving us the best show possible.
Patrick Ford
Using sliding mechanism or whatever that was to move the set in and out without having to take too many breaks in the action was brilliant. They made perfect use of the little bit of space that they had to work with. Don't get me wrong, it was a huge stage but it wasn't big enough for the settings needed to tell this story. That'
s why I'm so impressed by what they did with what they had. Even though we could see the props moving which was very unusual to me at least, it worked all the same. I thought the use of the televisions in the background were an excellent idea. It did a great job helping fill up the stage when there was only the island with the two chairs sitting on top of it for the interview between Frost/Nixon.
I thought they did a brilliant job with the stage space. It shows that they were dedicated to giving us the best show possible.
Patrick Ford
An Oxymoron at its Finest; Scandalous Indeed
There can be many things that can surprise an audience in theatre: shocking twists, a magnificent spectacle, perhaps even a nice piece of eye-candy in the form of an actor. But what can really raise some eyebrows (in a good way) is giving the audience something that far exceeds their expectations. For me, Frost/Nixon was a huge surprise of a play, it kept me hooked in from beginning to end, without me having to look at the time on my cell phone, as if to say, “Ugh…when is this going to be over?” This production had several aspects in its text that kept me interested while keeping a smile on my face.
I greatly appreciated the side commentary that was offered by Jim and the Chief of Staff. These little side narrations let me see the scene from a different person’s perspective and how they felt and thought during that current moment in time. Not only did these soliloquies put up alternate viewpoints, but they also offered bits of history that filled in a couple of blanks. This seriously helped to explain things to those of us who didn’t happen to be born during the Nixon era, or those of us who didn’t pay attention in our U.S. History classes when it came to the late 60’s-early 70’s.
When the script called for using TV interludes was a brilliant idea, as they, along with the aforementioned commentaries, helped paint a picture in the audience’s head as to what the Nixon era was like. Even if these intervals didn’t play a huge part in anything, they were still very fascinating in letting us see actual footage from events past. When an audience’s attention is kept in check by intriguing trifles such as these, they are able to stay with the story and understand the subtext, bit by bit.
I especially liked the development of Nixon’s character throughout the course of the play. Nixon progressively went from a sleazy, underhanded disgrace, to a drunken, sad, emotional mess of a man. The scene where Nixon calls up Frost in a drunken stupor best illustrates this, how in this inebriated state allowed his true emotions to come to the surface. Seeing this rare and different side of such an important character would make one want to look even deeper into what kind of person he actually was. When strong character development like this is made, it makes the text of the show all the more interesting and stimulating.
Originally, I had thought that anything connected with politics had to be dramatic, so I had prepared myself for 2+ hours of nothing but the doom and gloom of the Nixon era. But as the first uproars of laughter filled the auditorium, I immediately knew that this was nothing like what I’ve expected. That’s why I am amused by the fact that it’s a political comedy, it’s an oxymoron—politics seemed like they couldn’t ever be a part of comedy because one could never presume to attribute laughter with a legal situation.
~Chris McVey
I greatly appreciated the side commentary that was offered by Jim and the Chief of Staff. These little side narrations let me see the scene from a different person’s perspective and how they felt and thought during that current moment in time. Not only did these soliloquies put up alternate viewpoints, but they also offered bits of history that filled in a couple of blanks. This seriously helped to explain things to those of us who didn’t happen to be born during the Nixon era, or those of us who didn’t pay attention in our U.S. History classes when it came to the late 60’s-early 70’s.
When the script called for using TV interludes was a brilliant idea, as they, along with the aforementioned commentaries, helped paint a picture in the audience’s head as to what the Nixon era was like. Even if these intervals didn’t play a huge part in anything, they were still very fascinating in letting us see actual footage from events past. When an audience’s attention is kept in check by intriguing trifles such as these, they are able to stay with the story and understand the subtext, bit by bit.
I especially liked the development of Nixon’s character throughout the course of the play. Nixon progressively went from a sleazy, underhanded disgrace, to a drunken, sad, emotional mess of a man. The scene where Nixon calls up Frost in a drunken stupor best illustrates this, how in this inebriated state allowed his true emotions to come to the surface. Seeing this rare and different side of such an important character would make one want to look even deeper into what kind of person he actually was. When strong character development like this is made, it makes the text of the show all the more interesting and stimulating.
Originally, I had thought that anything connected with politics had to be dramatic, so I had prepared myself for 2+ hours of nothing but the doom and gloom of the Nixon era. But as the first uproars of laughter filled the auditorium, I immediately knew that this was nothing like what I’ve expected. That’s why I am amused by the fact that it’s a political comedy, it’s an oxymoron—politics seemed like they couldn’t ever be a part of comedy because one could never presume to attribute laughter with a legal situation.
~Chris McVey
Sunday, April 19, 2009
If only we could all be as good as Richard Nixon...oh wait...what?
Wow. What to say about Frost/Nixon. Actually I have a lot to say. So bear with me :)
The entire play exceeded all my expectations. From the opening "credits" of the music and clips of different things, to the very last scene where they are dancing. As I sat there before the play started I was reading the program about all the different actors and actresses. I was very surprised to read that the actor playing Richard Nixon had a very impressive resumee, so to speak, as did the rest of the cast. This only made me more anxious to start the play.
The first thing I noticed was the incredible chemistry between the cast. Each and every character WAS that character. By the middle of the play, I was thouroghly convinced that Bill Christ was Richard Nixon. They interacted with eachother in a way that it made me believe thats how Richard Nixon and David Frost really interacted.
Another thing I loved, was how each character rode the laughter wave. They didnt cut us off, but they also picked up perfectly after each laugh. I know from experience its very hard to say your next line after the audience laughs, because you dont want to cut them off, but you dont want that awkward pause. Each character did that beautifully.
This may sound very common and unnoticeable, and it ties into what I was previously talking about, but the all the actors looked very comfortable on stage. I didnt feel like anyone was shocked, or ever broke character. They truely belong on stage, and it showed.
Overall, I would go see that play over and over. I loved the humor, the plot, and especially the actors. It truely was a night I will never forget, and I wish I could take everyone I know to go see that play. It really opened up my eyes to Richard Nixon, and the era of which he presided. The acting was phenomenal.
By: Alex Ashton :)
The entire play exceeded all my expectations. From the opening "credits" of the music and clips of different things, to the very last scene where they are dancing. As I sat there before the play started I was reading the program about all the different actors and actresses. I was very surprised to read that the actor playing Richard Nixon had a very impressive resumee, so to speak, as did the rest of the cast. This only made me more anxious to start the play.
The first thing I noticed was the incredible chemistry between the cast. Each and every character WAS that character. By the middle of the play, I was thouroghly convinced that Bill Christ was Richard Nixon. They interacted with eachother in a way that it made me believe thats how Richard Nixon and David Frost really interacted.
Another thing I loved, was how each character rode the laughter wave. They didnt cut us off, but they also picked up perfectly after each laugh. I know from experience its very hard to say your next line after the audience laughs, because you dont want to cut them off, but you dont want that awkward pause. Each character did that beautifully.
This may sound very common and unnoticeable, and it ties into what I was previously talking about, but the all the actors looked very comfortable on stage. I didnt feel like anyone was shocked, or ever broke character. They truely belong on stage, and it showed.
Overall, I would go see that play over and over. I loved the humor, the plot, and especially the actors. It truely was a night I will never forget, and I wish I could take everyone I know to go see that play. It really opened up my eyes to Richard Nixon, and the era of which he presided. The acting was phenomenal.
By: Alex Ashton :)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Frost/Nixon
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
