"Duck! It's Andrew Lloyd Webber on 3-D"

[jo]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:18am

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/theater/newsandfeatures/13pinc.html

A very informative and interesting article on the use of technology for onstage sets. I enjoyed watching the innovation in THE WOMAN IN WHITE and I thought it moved the plot along( and its myriad details) quite effectively.

A future London production of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE is thinking of using the same concept.

"The Menier Chocolate Factory, a London company, is using video for Stephen Sondheim's "Sunday in the Park With George," which begins on Friday. The production will make the Georges Seurat painting at the heart of the show - "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" - come alive by integrating the actors with moving images of trees, dogs, water, boats and other objects from the painting, which will be projected onto drapes, doors and other set pieces...."

Wave of the future?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:35am

Hm...not sure how i feel about it. I think it works for Sunday in the Park with George, but I hope not all these shows start using it. Takes away from actually building sets.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:09pm

I thought it was way overused in WIW. It was very distracting.

[442namffug]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 1:13pm

As said in the article:

As long as the projections used are purposeful and are the most effective way to tell the story and move the audience, no one can complain. When I see the show I will be able to come to my own conclusion.

From what I hear, they are entirely purposeful and inspiring.
Updated On: 11/13/05 at 01:13 PM

[hushpuppy]

Posted: 11/13/05 at 11:49pm

I saw WIW today and hated all the projection. Half the time the cast was moving clockwise on that silly turntable and the projections were moving counterclockwise. I got dizzy. And so many doors opening and closing! It felt like a bad Marx brothers movie. I kept hoping they'd send the cast home and show us a good movie instead. What an awful show.

[StageWhore]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:00am

i haven't seen it, but i don't much like the concept. it just doesn't seem right to make everything seem like those cheap shows at theme parks.

[FriedmanFan]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 12:56am

Hushpuppy-You really made me giggle! Thank you for that. Sorry you didn't like the projections. I have to admit that I love them and they didn't make me dizzy at all. I actually saw the show in London when the projections moved much more than they do now. I understand that they made some changes for the New York production. I think a Projection set design would work quite well for Sunday in the Park! I certainly don't think it is for EVERY show but it could really work for Sunday in the Park. It could actually do the show a great service in its storytelling.
As for the projections in WIW. I belive they work very well because it has a true concept behind it. The musical begins in an attic. The projections then zero in on a "Zoetrope" left in the middle of the attic. As the projections focus in on the Zoetrope the "movie machine" turns on and takes over the entire set. This is when you realize the set is in fact, a large Zoetrope! The first time I saw this my jaw dropped. The designer had created a zoetrope the size of the theatre and we were indeed watching the movie that plays inside. At the end of the musical the walls close and the Zoetrope stops revolving, we are once again back in the cluttered attic as our story comes to its ending. It is a genius premise for this musical. Fun fact: I just looked up the word zoetrope online and it is described as this...
zoetrope 1867, lit. "wheel of life," from Gk. zoe "life" (see zoo) + trope "turn" (see trope).
Perfectly executed in the design of this set. And look at the date mentioned in the definition-"1867" Wilkie Collins' novel was published in 1860. The story takes place in this time period when "zoetropes" were very popular.
I can understand if people don't want to see projections done for EVERY new musical. I certainly don't want that either. But you can't deny that there is a hearty concept at work here. I want to applaud the designer for creating such a unique, complex and truly opriginal way to tell this story. The more I think about it, the more it blows me away. I would much rather see a show with a strong concept than I would rather see one that has none at all. I can compare this to Sweeney Todd's latest revival with the concept of Actor/Musician. While very enjoyable, personally I don't think this concept has much to add to the show. I'm just glad people are finding new and exciting ways to tell a story. These new concepts should be applauded and explored before quickly dismissed! Thanks for listening to the rant!:)

[StageWhore]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 2:06am

hmm... maybe i should see it before i decide, huh?
i have a question, though. is it constantly moving, or is it more of a projected background that changes with the scenes, as most sets do?

[Mamie]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 7:03am

As soon as this show started and I saw how the projections were going to work, I thought of "Sunday" as a perfect vehicle for this type of design. I definitely don't want to see it replace classical sets in all plays, but for this one it's perfect and I think would be lovely for "Sunday" as well.

[DancerGirl16]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 8:24am

I think it sounds nauseating. --- I do believe that threatre should change with the times, and I do believe that sets and props should be more "advanced" as needed, however I do not believe that the theatre should become an imax threatre...

The presence of "real", tangable scenery is what is exciting. The world is created on stage, you can walk through that world, and marvel in the designers genious.

Leave the computers and projected backgrounds to the movies...that is why they cost $8-11 a ticket.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 9:08am

I saw WIW on sunday and while overall I enjoyed the show, I found that the projections come across as just an attempt to save money. It just didn't work for me. I think I would like it much more if it had a real set. I fear that this type of projected set is going to become much more common and I don't like it.

Oh and at the show on sunday I was wondering why the show had not started by 3:15. Then a few minutes later the announcer came on and said that there was a problem with the projectors and some of the imagery would be incomplete. Luckily the only thing that was missing was the extreme right and left of the projections.

I also think that more seats need to be sold as partial view. I was in seat R23 and missed a large chunk of the left side of the stage.

[FriedmanFan]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 10:50am

"i have a question, though. is it constantly moving, or is it more of a projected background that changes with the scenes, as most sets do?"

It is indeed a projected background that changes with the scenes BUT in this production scenes can take place "on the move." It does move quite a bit but I wouldn't say it is constantly moving. An example: In the wedding scene the set begins as the outside of the church, showing the guests arriving. The turntable spins and the projections then change to show the inside of the church. It gives us both perspectives. Stagewhore- You should totally see it before you decide. I have that opinion about everything though not just Woman in White. :)

Oasis- Don't dislike the projections because it saves money. From what I have read and gathered this technique is not cheap. In fact It definitely cost alot more money to design this set, create and shoot projections (I think this took over a year to complete), build a working turntable and full scale moving projection screen, inlist the use of the expensive and high tech projectors themselves, while still using many different set pieces (pooltable, bed, birdcages, piano,etc.) then it would cost to just build a unit set. Hopefully if this technique is used in the future then there will be a strong concept behind as there is in The Woman in White.

[helloitsGabby]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 11:03am

I agree- I in NO way think that technique is cheap. Did you see all those laptops and equipment @ the back of the orchestra? Looks pretty intense... But I think it works with the show and, as FriedmanFan said, the Zeotrope concept. It's unique and it works. The characters are strong enough to stand on their own and not rely on huge sets to enhance their stories.

I commend everyone who took a risk and followed through with these design techniques, they were really beautiful and impressive, however, I do understand why some people won't and don't like them.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 11:12am

FriedmanFan, don't get me wrong. I am sure that it was not cheap to create those images. I was saying that it comes across that way for some reason. I guess part of that feeling came from the image that is projected when you walk into the theater. I thought it was a poor choice. It looks cheap at that moment. Overall I get the feeling that this would be a much more enjoyable production if it had a real set. I am not even necessarily saying that the projections were bad, it just didn't work for me in this show.

My other issue is that the projections were not working fully. While I know this is still in previews, clearly the more technologically advanced something is, the bigger potential for breakdown. And thats what happened when I was there and hope it doesn't happen again. I mean, it seems bad when you walk into a theater and they have to tell you "whoops, our set isn't working properly."
Updated On: 11/14/05 at 11:12 AM

[FrontRowFirst]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 6:36pm

I saw the show Sunday as well. I absolutely loved the concept of the projected sets. It added so much for me. No, it certainly doesn't belong in every show, but for this one it works. I never once got dizzy.

At the stage door, several cast members noted what a fluke it was the the projection system wasn't working properly. They said it had never been a problem before. Really is no different than a truck stranding a set piece offstage or even a hugely expensive car not flying. Just part of theatre.

[442namffug]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 6:41pm

They are most certainly not cheap and are just as artistic and time consuming to create as any other set from any other production.

As I have said (and will continue to say) if it works for the piece, and it is the best way to tell the story, why not use it? It's a new medium and certainly doesn't cover anything up by way of "gimmick". They have the talent and material, as has been reported here on BWW, to back the production up.

Updated On: 11/14/05 at 06:41 PM

[DamnYankees101]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 7:57pm

I love Woman in White. Just had to say that.
Hate Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

Thought you all should know.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/14/05 at 9:23pm

When I saw the show in London I was very impressed by the projection. I think it added to the setting of the musical with its various changes, and that setting often helped establish the mood of the scene. I found it fascinating and all of you who claim it was "distracting" I find somewhat strange. One could argue that every extensive set, like Les Mis or Phantom is "distracting" because it is unique and interesting. Just because something is uncoventional doesn't mean you have to let it distract you. Just take it all in!