The show was a slightly impromptu encore performance that was something I hadn’t experienced before. There was a sense of community in the auditorium. The people were friendly and the tickets were based on donation. The greeters were wearing t-shirts advertising the show and they were friendly to guests. There were no concessions but the lovely t-shirts the greeters were wearing were on sale. The audience was talking quietly before the show.
The audience was comprised of mostly students and parents. They audience was small overall especially for how large the theatre was but everyone sat together and everyone got a good seat. Most seemed excited. I predict this was because many were getting a chance to see the show for a second time which
…show more content…
So much so, in fact, I couldn’t count the number of seats. The audience filled probably about half of one section. Despite the size, the actors felt close like you were watching in a much smaller theatre. I think this had something to do with the audience size and the nature of the show. You could always see everything that was happening on stage was happening on stage. The show was more effective because there were no scene changes. The minimalist kept the show moving quickly and forcing the audience to stay engaged in the story. There were no technical elements to let us know the show was starting however he director came out and spoke before they dimmed the lights. The audience was small enough and everyone sat near to the stage that this was all that was necessary to gain the audience’s attention. This start to the show added to the sense of community in the …show more content…
It had an enormous capacity to make audiences think however the long monologues and quick wit of the show made it difficult to follow. I found that once I let go of my need to understand every word I was able to take away so much more. In the end, it was like watching Shakespeare which of course seems logical as it was a take on Hamlet and contained direct quotes. I found the Shakespearian lines to be the least confusing as I was reading Hamlet at the time I saw the show. This made it entirely easier for me to understand the plot of the show. The characters though known from their appearances in Hamlet were a type of caricature of their counterpart. This made them 1000 times funnier and made them fit into the, for lack of a better word, absurd nature of the comedy. For example, Ophelia didn’t speak, that I can recall, which, through her sighing, and physical acting choices made her a different version of her traditional characterization. I think it showed her insignificance to our heroes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and allowed us to laugh at the “drama”. Speaking of our heroes, since they occupy a significant portion of the dialogue, they are interesting to analyze. I really enjoyed how the script poked fun at the fact that the always show up and do everything together but gave them differing personalities that in equal parts, cooperated and clashed. Personally, I identified with Rosencrantz “let analyze
The setup of the stage was very simple. It was the living room of a home in the early 1980’s. It looked like a normal household, and it had small things such as crumpled up pieces of paper lying around the wastebasket. It also had a couch, circular class table and a recliner in the living room. The dining room was to the left side of the stage and only had the dining table and surrounding chairs. There was a door in the back of the set where characters entered and exited through. Beside the door was a table and stool where Willum presumably worked on his blueprints for the hotel. The lighting design was great; it put you into the atmosphere of the
... Finch and J.B. Biggley stood out the most to me because they showed that you really don’t have to be very smart to make it. Biggley stood out because he didn’t seem to do a lot of work, he was just there to fire people and Finch stood out because he used charm and just the book to advance in the company. I think young adults and adults who are into economics, how companies work or even realistic plays would like the production that was put in. It was simple and gave a clear point.
The production had many elements which for the most part formed a coalition to further the plot. The characters, the three part scenery and costumes represented well the period of time these people were going through. As far as the performers entering and exiting the stage, it could have been more organized. There were a few times when the performers exited at the wrong times or it seemed so due to the echo of the music. At certain moments the music was slightly loud and drowned the performers. Many of the songs dragged on, so the pacing could have been more effectively executed. Though the music was off at times, the director's decision to have most of the songs performed center sage was a wise one. Also the implementation of actual white characters that were competent in their roles came as a great surprise to the audience and heightened the realism.
Throughout the play Hamlet, there are many symbols, characters, themes and motifs which have very significant roles. Within the context of characters, those with the greatest impact are more often the major characters than the less significant. However, in the case of one pair of characters, it is rather the opposite. The use of the characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet is for more than just comic relief. They are a representation of the betrayal and dishonesty that runs deep within the play.
Overall, I was very impressed by the concert and I feel that the rest of the audience was also impressed. The expectations for the members of the Chamber Orchestra are high and those were met, but I feel that the expectations for the choral group were not as high. My expectations for the choir were not very high and they were immensely exceeded. The level of talent in that group was something that I was really not expecting at all.
that they had to draw in the audience so that they would not turn over
The dynamics were played out excellently by the use of unity of time, place, and action. The climate was heated and so too were the members of the jury as the story progressed. The characters grew to understand each other and the audience learns more and more about the individuals. Perhaps, the motive for that said characters verdict or backstory on the matter. A few characters were highly stereotypical and the actors did a worthy job in portrayed them as accurately as possible. For such a short production, it was an extremely elaborate one. The absence of an intermission also played an important role in keeping the audience submerged in the action. The use of the thrust stage made the acting and situation feel more real. The message was powerful and received well by the audience.
The theatre can hold up to 1500 and more people, so each performance is in front of a huge audience. Many members of the audience can watch from the grounds directly in front of the stage. Up to 3000 people can stand there to be exact.
The audience, for the most part, seemed to be made up of college students attending for the same reasons as myself. However, there were some audience members who are part of older age groups in the audience. They were there only seeking a good performance and a great time. These older age group audience members were located mostly in the center section of the theatre seated in the first few rows. The dress was more casual among the students but dressier for the older people. Some people were in jeans and a T-shirt, including myself, while some wore nice clothes. The audience rewarded each soloist with a warm ovation of applause after their turn was finished. This led me to believe the audience enjoyed the performance and was very respectable to the performers.
The sound design and choreography intensified the overall musical. They created the time, place, and mood through rhythm and great energy. The actors had wireless, behind the ear mikes, that attached to the mike pack which amplified the sound, making it very clear. I could easily understand what they were talking about or singing.
The most successful aspect of the performance for me were the scene changes. I found that the rotation of the blackboard, center stage, where the actors were able to stoop beneath it in order to enter and exit the stage, was an effective touch to this non naturalistic performance. When this was first used, at the end of the first scene, when the characters Ruth and Al left the stage, I thought it didn't quite fit as at the beginning the style was leaning towards realism. But as the play progressed and the acting style became more and more non naturalistic, and this rotation of the black board technique was used more frequently it fitted in really well and became really effective.
One the strongest parts on the set design was how they were able to use the lighting to change the audience’s focus from the lower floor of the house to upper portion of the attic. This stood out because I did not think before this class how much something so simple as a lighting change could affect the focus on the stage. The biggest strength thing that stood out to me the acting was how the characters who not saying the lines at the moment remained in character. For instance, when Mr. Biederman was talking to the arsonists downstairs the maid was rolling her eyes and acted annoyed or impatient with all that Mr. Biederman was asking her to do. This made the play for more alive because a person in reality would continue to act this way as well, despite the maid not being the main focus at that
In this paper, I will be focusing briefly on my knowledge and understanding of the concept of Applied theatre and one of its theatre form, which is Theatre in Education. The term Applied Theatre is a broad range of dramatic activity carried out by a crowd of diverse bodies and groups.
Much of the negative criticism Hamlet has received is in regard to vague characterization. This only helps the play. It allows the reader to make his or her own inferences about the character. Prince Hamlet is the best example of this. There is no quintessential Hamlet to be discovered by poring over the text, and there is no need for such a discovery; yet one can hardly shrug their shoulders in resignation, for the pleasure of this play comes largely from the quest to solve its mysteries, to interrogate its ghost; and if one fails to seek what it never surrenders, they fail to enjoy what it renders (Bloom 31). Many shortcomings of other works come in overdeveloping characters.
There wasn’t any particular scene on stage that made me doubt the integrative work of the director since all the staging work such as lighting, design, costumes and performance were well coordinated and blended for a very good production. The lights were well positioned with well fitted costumes and a very ideal scene to match. There wasn’t much change of scenes in the play except for some movement of tables and chairs. There was an entrance and exit for the performers which made their movements uninterrupted. There was a loud sound of a bell when school was over while the lights were dimmed whenever there was a change of scene. The pace of the production was very smooth since one scene followed the other without delay and most likely because most of the performers wore the same costume; especially all eight students wore the same costume for the entire