edmonton theater is really vivid and i try to see one a month, but it is prohibtivley expensive.
― anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:22 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 17:43 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:04 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:38 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 19:55 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:29 (11 years ago) Permalink
― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 6 April 2003 20:58 (11 years ago) Permalink
Quite so. This is the strength and the weakness of theater.
― Skottie, Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:05 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 6 April 2003 21:11 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:22 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Dan I., Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:28 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:29 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Methuselah (Methuselah), Sunday, 6 April 2003 23:30 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Douglas (Douglas), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:44 (11 years ago) Permalink
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:55 (11 years ago) Permalink
What about the differences between watching a concert video or being at a concert. The is more excitment and energy live, it is happening 'now', and there is no setbacks of use of media when seeing it live.
I think potentially theater could be one of the most amazing artforms, but I've never seen anyone do much good with it.
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 7 April 2003 00:59 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 7 April 2003 05:17 (11 years ago) Permalink
and Top Girls at the Guthrie Lab- no idea.
anyway the Guthrie is nice and usually lush and well-produced an stuff, and i get starry thinking about upcoming Shakespeare but it is warping my young mind by relentlessly beating on about the CLASSICS. etc. i really need to find myself a wealthy sugar-momma to take out to other theaters.
ok i got my tightpants on- i'm off to lurk 'mysteriously' outside high-priced Edina hairsalons.
― gabriel (gabe), Monday, 7 April 2003 08:37 (11 years ago) Permalink
― nathalie (nathalie), Monday, 7 April 2003 12:22 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Erik, Monday, 7 April 2003 12:30 (11 years ago) Permalink
― the pinefox, Thursday, 24 April 2003 23:18 (11 years ago) Permalink
good theatre is great. people who think theatre is obsolete know nothing.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:01 (11 years ago) Permalink
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 25 April 2003 11:02 (11 years ago) Permalink
In addition Lepage/ Ex Machina were frequent visitors to Glasgow and i think i have seen most oof his plays here. Theatre de Complicite don't come here anymore either. I miss stuff like this.
― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:56 (9 years ago) Permalink
― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 17:59 (9 years ago) Permalink
― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink
― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:05 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:37 (9 years ago) Permalink
― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:40 (9 years ago) Permalink
Of course, this is only true if you disregard the technical differences between onstage performance, film and television. As far as I am concerned the differences really are minor technicalities.
In all three media you have scripted dialogue telling a story with actors, costumes, scenery, lighting, incidental music, and so on.
The fact that a camera lens imposes a control over the audience's point-of-view that cannot be utilized in stage performances does not make much difference in my view. Stage direction tries to filter the audience's attention, too, except it uses lighting effects, blocking of actor's movements, and other technical means that are somewhat less effective than a camera. The goal is quite similar.
Theater people are just blinded by their nostalgic love of certain techniques that must be modified or discarded in a filmed setting as opposed to a stage setting. They identify these technicalities with 'theater', abhor the new technicalities of movies and tv, and overlook the overwhelming similarities between all the various forms of the modern theater.
― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:49 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink
you're making like montage is just another nifty gadget in the film director's toolbox; really it is ESSENTIAL to film, much more so than lighting and blocking is to theatre
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:54 (9 years ago) Permalink
― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:57 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 18:58 (9 years ago) Permalink
the spatial quality of film and theater are to a large extent opposed.... the camera's "field of vision" is like an upside-down triangle, whereas a conventional stage is a bit the opposite (why it's rare for a theater director to stage a signification action in the back of the stage--harder to ensure that the audience's attention is directed to it). so they pose very different staging problems. i don't quite buy aimless's argument that this means they are different only in the method by which an audience's attention is directed. i think there is a place for ontological speculation....
― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:03 (9 years ago) Permalink
― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:04 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
― phil-two (phil-two), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (9 years ago) Permalink
slocki, it seems to me a hell of a lot of great films were made in the 1930s, and many of them were only a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.
If montage is as ESSENTIAL as you say it is, then these films would have failed at birth, rather than becoming successful films - which, not coincidentally are still watched, enjoyed and studied today. Montage is just another nifty tool in a director's toolbox. It just happens to be such a useful tool that it gets used a lot.
― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:07 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:08 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:09 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Mad.Mike, Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:10 (9 years ago) Permalink
30s films are usually edited pretty briskly, so it's not simply a matter of using up a reel of film shooting an integral theatrical performance. "montage" doesn't mean soviet montage necessarily--just, y'know, editing bits of film together. all hollywood films are edited together from master shots, medium shots (plan american etc.), and occasionally inserts/close ups at a rate of i dunno one shot every 10-12 seconds. (nowadays it's more like every 5 seconds but we're talking about the 1930s)
i think this is pretty important: "filmed theater" isn't really as simple as that, the fact of it being filmed and edited together in the conventional way transforms the way the story is being told. perhaps the "meaning" is ultimately the same, but i'm not sure that's true or if it even matters so much.
― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Sunday, 24 October 2004 19:11 (9 years ago) Permalink
yeah i love that play. also did it for the leaving.
i was thinking of entire plays that consist of monologues when i asked about this - seems to be something irish writers favour.
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:35 (11 months ago) Permalink
Saw a great monologue (one-man play) a way back in the 80s called Judgement by George Dillon. Very powerful and haunting, the memory of it has never left me.
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 15:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
that does sound good, hard to find though!
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 29 October 2013 21:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
do ppl like Rattigan? My exposure is limited, but The Winslow Boy is getting p damn good reception on B'way
― eclectic husbandry (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 October 2013 21:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
So...if you're a fledgling theatre group doing Sondheim's Assassins, and charging $20 a ticket, perhaps don't use MIDI FILES as your fucking accompaniment tracks? Also perhaps when you have a four part barbershop harmony in "Gun Song", that at least two of you are on the correct notes?
Feel so ripped off, if a friend of mine hadn't have been in it, I'd have left midway through.
― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Saturday, 16 November 2013 06:53 (11 months ago) Permalink
What do you all think of Punchdrunk in general? I see Ledge was at The Drowned Man in London, upthread.
I saw this last night and I thought it was amazing, incredible sets, totally immersive, brilliant physical theatre. I saw Sleep No More i New York a few weeks ago and I loved that too.
My friend left early and I suspect she hated it. I just found the entire thing incredibly absorbing, it reminded me of the weirdest elements of acting class, and the same feeling of freedom that you get from that sort of deep dive into theatricality.;
Some of the David Lynch influence went from nod to rip-off, in The Drowned Man, like actually using music written by him felt a bit much, even if it was amazing seeing their incredibly costumed dancers shuffling along to The Pink Room from Fire Walk With Me... always felt this should be some alternative form of techno.
I also feel there's a slight hint of money spinning from what they do, but still love the worlds they create.
Last night I had this really odd one-on-one with one of the actresses where she led me into this room, shone a red light in my eyes and examined my face, then made me sign a form making my image "the property of Temple Studios" (the whole thing is set in a 60s film studio.)
She then put a trenchcoat and scarf on me and walked me into this pitch black corner of the room and left me for a minute or so, then these strobes started flickering and a director's voice came through directing me in this love scene whereby the actress re-entered from the darkness further away and this sort of face-off happened, it was all amazingly scripted, and the "scene" went on for a few minutes, then the lights came back on and she led me out and was like "that was wonderful - the studio will be in touch."
It's just been extended to March, I really recommend going.
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 12:34 (10 months ago) Permalink
I really liked it and I was a bit cynical at the outset and would actually really like to go again and have a different experience (I imagine) but it's expensive got my brother and his girlfriend tickets for his birthday and saw him a few days later and all he said was "your cowboy play was weird". I went in july (cheaper preview) and have occasionally thought since then "that's still going on night after night that's pretty cool" and now they've extended it!
― conrad, Friday, 13 December 2013 13:14 (10 months ago) Permalink
Yeah I am tempted to go again, it was absolutely huge, I was on each floor but I am sure I missed bits. There were some incredibly creepy nooks and crannies around the place.
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 13:15 (10 months ago) Permalink
Their NY show has been going for two years.
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Friday, 13 December 2013 13:16 (10 months ago) Permalink
I'd love to see this. Is there much of a narrative running through it LG?
― sktsh, Saturday, 14 December 2013 14:11 (10 months ago) Permalink
^ pofaced way of saying tell us more about this love scene, tbh
It's all based on Woyzeck and Day Of The Locust, there is a narrative but it's quite abstract and the experience will be different wherever you decide to go, or whomever you follow. Personally after seeing the NY show, which was Macbeth meets Hitchcock, I didn't feel the need to follow all the main characters or to see the main scenes. Though it probably would be enjoyable to do that. It can be a collection of lots of little experiences.
It's mostly silent scenes expressed by physical theatrics or dance, though there is some speech. It's all quite muscular and wringy.
The love scene thing was like a one to one, which can happen you at Punchdrunk shows, but not always, is kind of luck of the draw, there are tons of different ones in each show they do, I think. (In NYC I waltzed with a witch.)
I basically walked after a sort of PA character after she'd done one of the main characters make-up and after she put me in the dark the director's voice came on and was talking about darkness and the city, and as the strobes came on it was like "in the shimmering lights a figure approaches you" and the actress kind of walked into this tiny enclosure of red curtains I was in.
There was a sort of confetti effect to the strobes and the director's voice was all this stuff about like "you never thought you'd see her again, yet here you are, you touch her face, you take her hand, you know this moment is fleeting, but it is the greatest moment of your life" and she was about to kiss me and then he's like CUT and it all ended.
It was sort of cheesy and dark in a Lynchian kind of way, but also really intense, the actress was v striking, again it reminded me of some of the more full-on things I've done in acting class, like total immersion in another person.
Obv lots of titillation involved, but that's kind of what Punchdrunk do, the shows are brimming with sex and sexual jealousy.
― Legitimate space tale (LocalGarda), Sunday, 15 December 2013 09:47 (10 months ago) Permalink
It's funny, the completist in me gets a bit paralysed by choice at the thought of open-ended participatory stuff in case I end up somehow missing what's 'important'. Obv I know that's not the point at all and is a stupid way to think, but it's a feeling I can never shake. Innocuous things that make you irrationally unconfident etc.
(Sounds great though!)
― sktsh, Sunday, 15 December 2013 16:11 (10 months ago) Permalink
Speaking of caring about theatre, the four-hour Einstein on the Beach is streaming online this month, somewhere out there.
― tbd (Eazy), Wednesday, 15 January 2014 04:40 (9 months ago) Permalink
I'm going to see Frank Langella in King Lear this Saturday. Don't think that one has anal sex in it, iirc.
― signed, J.P. Morgan CEO (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 January 2014 04:44 (9 months ago) Permalink
Excited to see this Peter Brook doc at some point:
― That's So (Eazy), Monday, 10 February 2014 04:30 (8 months ago) Permalink
Medea at the Riverside (run has just ended) was v good, in parts. Medea itself was played as a vampiric sort which didn't scan with the later, powerful scenes where the logic for her actions is more fully laid out with an emotional core to them. The messenger's speech and re-telling of death was poetically and psychologically convincing and my favourite bit of acting. The score was excellent as well.
I should re-watch the Pasolini film, the play made it seem worse in my faint recollection of it.
― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 23 March 2014 12:13 (6 months ago) Permalink
why does dudes never want to watch rocky musicallllls
― j., Sunday, 30 March 2014 14:48 (6 months ago) Permalink
everyone really owes it to themselves to see an episode of john jesurun's "chang in a void moon." these don't happen very often anymore...
― Thus Sang Freud, Sunday, 30 March 2014 16:00 (6 months ago) Permalink
Wanted to see this during its brief run last year... I guess it took a Pulitzer to get it reopened.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Monday, 14 April 2014 23:56 (6 months ago) Permalink
King Lear at the National last night (Dir: Sam Mendes, Lear: Simon Russell Beale). Not very good, really. Heavy handed modern military dictatorship setting; hard to feel anything for this Lear; didn't pull off the long scenes that you need for the narrative (eg reduction of the retinue); some quite poor verse-speaking (Regan basically incomprehensible by act V). So it hit that problem where it really drags during 4 & 5 because it's lost you during 1-3 (Bad sign: during final scene – Lear's death, Cordelia's corpse – I was mostly thinking about how Edgar is going to sort out this political mess). There were good things - Beale hit it sometimes, I liked Kent, the Fool and Goneril – but generally disappointed.
I do want some metaphysical horror at abject, obtuse & cruel existence in my lear, and there wasn't a bit of that.
― woof, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:07 (5 months ago) Permalink
oh, & I'd seen this in one or two reviews & thought it was facetious or captious criticism… but it's quite hard to get Uncle Albert from Only Fools and Horses out of your head while watching Beale. I don't think it's just the beard – it's the movement & posture.
― woof, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:26 (5 months ago) Permalink
yes I too detected a merryfieldian influence in his characterisation
― conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:41 (5 months ago) Permalink
well we don't know that here. I think I've only seen him onstage in Spamalot.
SRB is Falstaff in a new TV Henry IV
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 10:57 (5 months ago) Permalink
from two years ago
― conrad, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 11:24 (5 months ago) Permalink
btw morbs the flick totally slays, make sure you get to it
― schlump, Tuesday, 29 April 2014 18:03 (5 months ago) Permalink
i'm playin G.W. in a production of S0rdid Lives. kinda fun, but def a weird turn for me
― getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 19:27 (5 months ago) Permalink
I just saw the DC production of Henry IV Part I with Stacy Keach as Falstaff... good, tis a pity the king is like the 5th most interesting character... But the actor who plays Hotspur is very distracting when shirtless bcz he has the most chiseled abs ever seen in the theater. During his "letter" scene I was just thinking "NO ONE is listening to you right now."
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 19:32 (5 months ago) Permalink
I saw Stacy Keach as King Lear a few years ago (Robert Falls directing).
Set in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Opening scene in a hotel bathroom, then ballroom:
― That's So (Eazy), Tuesday, 29 April 2014 20:00 (5 months ago) Permalink
welp S0rdid opens tonight. even tho I've done this about 50 times now I'm a ball of nerves, fortunately I get to drink beer on stage tho.
― getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Friday, 9 May 2014 16:07 (5 months ago) Permalink
break a leg n!
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 9 May 2014 18:30 (5 months ago) Permalink
― getting strange ass all around the globe (Neanderthal), Friday, 9 May 2014 18:31 (5 months ago) Permalink
@MarkHarrisNYC When I was a kid, they showed actual scenes from plays on the Tonys. Sometimes they made me want to see plays. Thank God they stopped that.
― images of war violence and historical smoking (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 June 2014 16:12 (4 months ago) Permalink
any theatre homies know anything that's playing the San Diego Fringe? First one I see with a pedigree is an Edinburgh standup alum, Jon Bennett.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 June 2014 16:14 (3 months ago) Permalink
TAVI thread has me thinking again about the Steppenwolf production of This Is Our Youth. As a script, I thought it was great and confirmed the favorable opinion I have of Lonergan from his film work. Staging by Anna D. Shapiro generally good and interesting, in part because it was performed in a small space with the audience facing each other on two sides of the stage. (Is there a name for that? I thought black box was audience on all four sides, but what I'm talking about is like bleachers at a high-school football game. And the production of RENT that I saw a year or two ago was like this, too.) Performances are where I'm the most uncertain: Like I thought, coming out of the theatre, that Kieran Culkin was by far the best in the bunch, but am I only thinking that because his character is the showiest, all insults and mock-heroic language? I mean, I thought Cera was kind of milquetoast, but again, thinking about it: Is that because his character himself is a willowy, passive dude? Like, was he actually well-cast for the part? (Don't know exactly, because I'd never seen/read the play before.) I dunno, there were particular readings that seemed a little wooden, though. Maybe he's gotten better. Oh, but I read two separate reviews that praised him! Like, the Chicago Reader review singled him out specifically. Tavi, I thought, totally acquitted herself well. Struck me as kind of a Michelle Williams role? Like, Tavi doesn't have M-Will's range, but it's that kind of character. Huh, Kenneth Lonergan and Sarah Polley seem kind of simpatico, in a weird way.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 05:35 (2 months ago) Permalink
This Is Our Youth is only doing 'modest' Broadway biz. NYC millenials can't figger out how to download theatre.
Staging of Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage downtown getting raves, $75 too rich for my blood tho.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 October 2014 11:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
was it toneehuis directed by Ivo Van Hove?
it's expensive but i'd pay to see anything IVH did.
― Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Saturday, 11 October 2014 00:58 (1 week ago) Permalink
Van Hove, yeah -- he also has an Angels in America production that's about to play here.
― this horrible, rotten slog to rigor mortis (Dr Morbius), Monday, 20 October 2014 17:37 (2 days ago) Permalink
Thanks for that link, excellent interview.
― Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:52 (Yesterday) Permalink
although the AIA looks a bit unconvincing. i love the idea of an empty stage too but having people sit on the edge of the proscenium when they need to sit down is a bit bizarre.
― Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:55 (Yesterday) Permalink
not unconvincing just... trying a bit too hard or something.
― Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:56 (Yesterday) Permalink