Final


 * 2. We spent considerable time in class seeing a DVD about the development, rehearsal, and presentation of 4 Broadway musicals. Discuss some of the major topics that were introduced on the DVD. Next discuss what you learned from the DVD about the making and development of these commercial ventures. How did they differ one from the other? What were some of the unique features of each? What were some similarities that they all seemed to share?**

 The DVD we watched goes through the entire creation process of 4 Broadway musicals: //Wicked//, //Avenue Q//, //Taboo//, and //Caroline, or Change//. The documentary chronicles the entire process including casting, staging, previews, opening nights, and Tony Award nominations. Each show struggled with different aspects of production. Avenue Q began as an idea from a lyricist/composer duo and much of their beginning struggles dealt with putting together a team and finding a producer to actually create their ideas. They first wanted to do it on television but then when they got support for doing it on the stage they switched to that. They struggled with figuring out how they were actually going to do the show on stage, landing on using puppets after it seemed to be the funniest thing they tried. They talked a lot about how during the creation process the assembled team of writers, composers and director often did not get along and disagreed over a lot of ideas, sometimes making it hard to get anything done. //Wicked// on the other hand was book discovered by a composer/lyricist who contacted a producer about making it into a musical and from there they were off turning the book into a play. //Caroline or Change// the biggest struggle I remember them having was being worried it wouldn't appeal to a large audience, and making it so that it would be a show that people would come and see. Taboo had a lot of celebrity backing from Rosie O’Donnell and Boy George and was coming to America from a run in London.  All of the shows had issues to overcome with the technical parts of their shows. //Taboo// was a huge productions with lots of lights and backgrounds and as such they had to create a set that would accommodate all of that. //Wicked// had to create the sense that the show essentially took place in another world and as such lighting and set were extremely important to the entire show. The lighting designer talked about how he had to make sure everything that happened, from the sun coming up to the rain falling down, happened in a way that would only happen in Oz. //Caroline, or Change// and //Avenue Q// had a little bit simpler sets than the other two but they had to make sure that everything that was going on within the sets was perfect. There was one behind the scenes look the documentary gave us where the director was working with some of kid actors from //Caroline, or Change// and he was working them really hard to get their lines and specific body movements perfect on stage. That was interesting to see the kid actors being treated as if they were much older, and the director's expectations of them were no less than they were of they adults. I imagine that dealing child actors was also an obstacle to overcome for this show as it seemed as if rehearsals for all the shows could be seemingly never ending. The choreography and stage movement for all the shows was extremely important. We saw the casts of //Wicked// and //Taboo// rehearsing over and over again making sure that each movement was right and made sense, and then we also saw so many changes made throughout the process where they would cut entire scenes out and replace them with something else. The casts had to be ready to change something or learn something completely new even after they had practiced it extensively. I never realized how much of a transformation a show can go through before it opens to the public. Taboo, even after it had been playing in London made changes to the show. //Wicked// would take out entire scenes and songs, a process that I am sure is frustrating for the cast, directors, and writers alike. All of the shows seemed to share the same unease about how everything was going to go on opening night. They were all worried about the critics' comments, good or bad, and they were all worried how their shows would be received by the audiences. No one director or producer they talked to in the documentary seemed overly confident about anything, and yet these were the shows that ended up being nominated. I thought it was interesting and impressive how uncertain everything seemed to be, from what would happen in rehearsal day to day leading all the way up to opening night.  Furthermore, I think the most shocking part of the documentary was seeing how significant the critics’ opinions of the shows could be. The shows were literally relying on good reviews to keep their shows afloat, on Broadway, and in the running for Tony Awards. When we did see the critics talking with one another and comparing notes on shows, it seemed like almost all of their opinions of the shows were negative, which seemed a little crazy considering the extensive amount of work the cast, crew, producers, directors, writers, etc. put into show being able to get their shows on the stage. Taboo for example seemed to get a lot of bad press from the media and critics alike, but fans would go see the play over and over again. It seemed almost unfair that a show that seemed to be so well liked by the public got shut down essentially by the critics and the media.


 * 3. Watch the following recording of a live performance by a group of well-known NY actors, then identify and discuss the genre of the work citing specific moments when the genre is revealed through dialogue, story, and performance techniques and staging**

First of all I would just like to say that this was one of the best things I think we've watched for this class, it embodies so many of the elements we've talked about and was very entertaining to watch. I would say that this performance is a combination of comedy and farce. As mentioned in our book, comedy often starts out with an idea that disrupts the normal workings of life, and generally takes its subject as some kind of social critique. The idea that disrupts normal workings in this performance would be that of the “new theatre” which the the main performer mentions numerous times. It is clear that he is trying to create something that deviates from the traditional idea of theatre. furthermore, throughout the performance traditional theatre is critiqued over and over again. These critiques can be seen when the piano player has his asides and talks about a movement or action that just happened in a very technical and academic way. He explains it to the audience as if they were students taking a theatre class, letting them in on the behind the scenes knowledge, highlighting elements of traditional theatre that most audiences don't ever see. Furthermore, we see comedic satire coming from the struggle between the actor and the reporter/director character. In the beginning the reporter questions the actor about the meaning behind what he’s doing. Demanding to know what the metaphors are and what religious figures he is alluding to. Perhaps a commentary on the common idea that shows in theatre often have deeper meanings than they appear to on the surface. Leading many to over-analyze shows and search for hidden messages. A critique of how maybe we look too much into what theatre is rather than just enjoying it. It is also evident throughout this performance that the show falls into the farce genre. According to our book, farce is concerned with the humorous possibilities of the moment. The main actor throughout this performance uses his body as well as props constantly to make almost every action he completes humorous. The simple task of walking for example was humorous each time he got too close to the right side of the stage, he seemed to be getting pulled back behind the curtain, and he would struggle to break free, a very simple movement on the stage that was funny each time it happened, and was often timed to happen at just the perfect moment making it even funnier. Another example was the use of the trampoline as the actor and the reporter/director ran around the stage and through the audience. The simple addition of the trampoline added a humorous element to the chase as the players could jump in funny ways on and off the stage, and then once it was suddenly removed it was funny as well. Again another simple movement of the body and element of a larger scene that was made significant by the way the actors used it to help themselves be more humorous. In addition, farce is often concerned with anarchy and breaking the rules, a theme that becomes evident as this performance goes on. The reporter/director represents the classical/traditional idea of theatre and seems to be the antagonist force to the protagonist actor attempting to create a “new theatre”. They keep fighting over a trunk, trying to push each other into it, something I came to interpret as confining the idea of “new theatre” to the boundaries of old theatre. Furthermore, the asides from the piano player explaining elements of the show also breaks the rules of theatre in that he’s explaining things that the audience generally isn't supposed to know, like props used to help the actor move the way he does and staging techniques used to make the audience feel a certain way or be involved in the show. In addition, performances in the farce genre highlight actors rather than playwrights, which this play so blatantly does. It is not until the very end of the performance that we see the actor with a script and being directed by a director. For pretty much the entire performance the show focuses on the actor, his movements, his interactions with the piano player and the reporter/director, and his own personal struggle with creating a piece of work that embodies the “new theatre”. Most notably the actor over and over again impressively uses his body and props to make the audience laugh and seems to be going by no script at all, but rather just the general idea that they are creating a piece of “new theatre”. The only real structure in the play comes from the piano player who announces things like, “warning, costume change,” or “clear the stage please,” or “places for dance scene” – an element that I interpreted as both a satire of traditional theatre as well as an element used to provide structure in the seemingly structure-less new theatre. Additionally, the performance is an overall critique of new theatre as well as at the end when the piano player performs with the ventriloquist doll, he says “We’re trying to create a new theatre” to which the doll replies, “Why don’t you just redecorate this one,”, a commentary on new theatre movement itself and perhaps its tendency to try very hard to distance that form of performance from the that of conventional theatre. Another example of this sort of inception critique/satire of this performance itself was when the reporter/director was trying to figure out the meaning of the play and he mentions Beckett - alluding to Samuel Beckett. Immediately the actor seemed flattered and goes along with what the reporter was suggesting - perhaps a commentary on every actor or playwright's desire, no matter what type of performance, to reach high levels of praise and inquiry as Beckett did. I think it also brought on an interesting comparison between the types of performances that Beckett created and this performance, pointing to both parallels and difference between the two.


 * 4. The videos that you were assigned to see regarding Water by the Spoonful provide some revealing things about the purpose, development, and presentation of the play on stage. Comment on each of the videos that were assigned to be seen that help shape your opinion about the work. Knowing what you now know about production of a play from the work you've done on your final projects, what were some things you wish you could have seen that would have helped you to better understand Water by the Spoonful and the production of it? **

From a production stand point I wish I could have seen how they arrived at the idea to portray the relationship between the characters virtually. As the opinions in of the critics in the last video indicated, the show is a bit confusing from that stand point, and I am sure that getting that concept across to the audience is a very difficult one to do. I wonder if each time they decide to put on this production if it takes a while for them to find an adequate space to accommodate the staging needs of this production. Furthermore, the title of the play provides no indication as to the general idea of what the play is about, I imagine that marketing and advertising for this show is quite difficult. How do you let people know, without giving too much away, that this play is about intimate and distant relationships, that there is an online and virtual aspect to it, and that it is the third in a series of plays by the playwright. I imagine that the posters and advertisements would have to very diverse looking. I would also be interested to know what demographic they were catering to. The focus on online relationships is very relevant to younger generations, but older generations probably would not understand as well how intimate a virtual relationship could be. Yet, the themes and topics are very adult. It seems to be seeking a sort of in between audience, old enough to appreciate the content of the play and young enough to understand the technology aspect of it.

__Video One __ Hearing the writer talk about the play from her point of view was very enlightening. She really wanted it to reach a wide span of people and as such the characters all come from very diverse backgrounds. In addition it seemed like she wanted the play to give off a message that someone experiences everyday – where do they fit in the world and how. This message comes from so many different directions and I think the play does a great job of reaching each audience member individually. In addition, she seemed to focus a lot on the globalization aspect of the play and how the world we live in today seems to so universal but things still get lost in translation from relationship to relationship. She evidently put a lot of her own experience into her writing and I think that part of it is what allows this piece to be so real and relatable. __Video two __ The writer talks about how this is a piece about jazz, and how the musicality of jazz is so relevant to the play. Both jazz and the storyline are made up of beautiful details that all eventually come together. A piece of jazz music is like taking a journey, similar to watching a play from beginning to end, and what happens in the middle of the piece of music is something beautiful and seemingly unintended, but once you get to the end it all makes sense and all the sounds come together in a kind of harmony. In addition, she talks about how jazz is uniquely American, and I think the same could be said about this play as well. Nowhere else in the world would so people of such diverse backgrounds come together like this and contribute all to an even bigger overarching story that pretty much any one could relate to. __Video four __ The director talks about some of the characters and who they are within the framework of the play. Specifically when he talks about Odessa and how her online persona and real life persona are two very different people, this sheds a lot of light on just how complex this character is, and maybe why Elliot is so affected by his relationship with her. Its like she has the potential to be the woman Elliot wants her to be, but he himself never really got to experience it. It also sheds light on the mother son relationship and the significant impact of the daughter dying on their overall dynamic, perhaps a parallel to Elliot’s own trouble dealing with the man that he killed. The director then goes on to highlight some other significant relationships in the story, which makes one realize that no relationship in this play is in significant. Each character needs the others in some way or another. __Video Six __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The dramaturge talks about how a lot of the play comes from the playwright’s own experiences and how those experiences, such as being a musician, helped her to structure the piece. She talks about the use of Coltrane and specifically his breakthrough jazz material that was much more free form. She explains that the jazz informs about what the play is about, a sort of dissonance and eventually makes a sort of harmony, paralleling the Coltrane’s work. They are all a bunch of stories that seem to not work tougher but then we eventually see how they are all connected – very much indicative of what the play is about. She goes on to say that the structure and reliance on the music as a parallel to the story help get across the message of trying to feel connected in a disconnected world, and as such each character play an important role, no one is insignificant just like no note in the music is insignificant. This helps one to understand why the characters are so diverse, because like the music, the more diverse the parts the more beautiful the finished product. __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Video Seven __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">In this video the director focuses on the significance of Coltrane’s music on this performance. He talks about how no one note is more important than the other, just like the characters in the play. He also elaborates on the structure and how important the structure of Coltrane’s music is to creating this piece of work. The confusion that goes on between the characters and the relationships and how everyone is connected for much of the play is similar to the middle of a jazz piece, lots of sounds all seemingly separate from each other and then eventually all coming together. The way the characters and the relationships are presented is intentional, not coincidental. The feeling of confusion is intended so that the audience can subsequently find the harmony at the end, something that not only the audience but the characters in the play go through. Both elements of this piece, the storyline and the music mirror this sort of chaos that is life, and is the exact affect it is intended to have.