Is anybody else tired of the projections-as-scenery trend?

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/16/09 at 11:46pm

Okay, maybe this is a pet peeve of mine, but when did projections onto the back of a stage replace inventive, authentic scenery? I get that it's high-tech and I'm imagining it's cheap as hell--no labor costs, no materials--but jeez, it's annoying me! Not just because it makes so many side seats in theaters suddenly partial-view, but because I feel like it takes my attention away from where it should be, on the actors and their performances.

I get a show like Distracted doing it, because they're trying to make the point that we're all constantly distracted by flashing images and electronic gadgets...and I get that in Sundays in the Park with George it became an indispensable way of expressing the themes there...but All My Sons? Guys and Dolls? 33 Variations?
In recent weeks, I've found myself appreciating the sets of Savannah Disputation and Ruined for simply being down-to-earth and authentic.

Am I a dinosaur? I mean, I don't like reality TV either and that doesn't seem to be going away any time soon

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:01am

Man, you're not kidding. I thought it worked beautifully in Sunday in the Park, but I literally felt nauseous at Woman in White.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:13am

There's times it works, and then there's times it doesn't.

[TheatreFreak05]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:23am

^^^Exactly. Projections can add to a production (like the Sunday in the Park with George Revival) or just take away from a production.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:24am

i don't mind it as a suppliment to the set (i.e. the H2$ revival) but for a full set (excluding sunday in park) its just too much

[Actor 7]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:26am

I have noticed that projected scenery looks much better the further away you are from it. If you're close-up it can cause nausea and headaches. Not fun! I am getting a bit tired of its' over use but I have a feeling it's all about the economy of projected images versus the cost of "real" scenery. It worked very well for "Sunday In The Park" but I have seen it not work so well in other productions. I keep hearing that the technology will improve but so far, it's still got a long way to go.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:27am

For example, they didn't work so well for 9 to 5 in L.A., because they were very blurry and there was already a sufficient set.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:34am

I wouldn't really call it a trend since it dates back, at least to 1979 with Evita, and I also wouldn't call it cheap. Just as someone has to be paid to paint a backdrop, someone has to be paid to gather or draw all the images to be projected and then someone else is paid for the hours and hours of set up during tech to make sure everything looks perfect and appears in the proper place. Not to mention the purchase or rental cost of expensive high end projectors to be compliant with the computers in the booth.
Updated On: 2/17/09 at 12:34 AM

[April Saul]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:09am

Hey Cats--
But doesn't it seem more and more prevalent? I mean, it just seems to be everywhere these days...I just assumed cost was part of it, given the economy, but I could be wrong.

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:10am

Is 9to5 projected? I thought it was an LCD screen

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:11am

It might be, actually, now that I think about it.
Must've been pretty expensive, though- considering how huge it was.

Updated On: 2/17/09 at 01:11 AM

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:23am

I think it is. I'm watching it now and you can make out individual lights.

[hpeabody930]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:28am

I pretty much agree with the general statement of this board. There are shows that works brilliantly for, and others that it doesn't....

[Justin D]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 7:19am

It really all depends. I love the subtle projections in wicked (they are used more as lighting effects than trying to create scenery) the crush purple and green glass for example. But in something like Woman In White I thought it was overdone, interesting, but overdone. I think that show would have worked well with a traditional set, all dark and moody.

[Weez]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 7:21am

Nope! When it's done well, a la Sunday in the Park with George and Macbeth, it's fabulous. Just like anything in theatre, really. If they can do it well, then let them do it! :P

[faithzilla]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 7:41am

How was it used in Guys and Dolls and All My Sons?

[whatever2]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 11:42am

i agree it can be effective when it's done well (a la SITPWG, as has been mentioned several times in this thread).

on the other hand, when it's done poorly, it can make a mediocre show seem even worse ... like it did in Woman in White. the book and score were not great, but what i remember most is leaving the theater thinking: did i really just pay 100 bucks to see an iMax movie???

[Brick]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 11:55am

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm sick of video in productions period, including still projections.

Yes, it has worked beautifully before (in downtown and, now with SUNDAY, in uptown work) and will again, but for the moment I'm sick of it.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 12:50pm

The only time I've actually enjoyed projections were in the NYC Ballet's SLEEPING BEAUTY. It was magical to watch the vines grow over the castle.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 1:30pm

I loved how projections were used in Jane Eyre. They were stunning. And the limited use of projections during Tanz der Vampire in Berlin were perfectly tied to the rest of the production. I hated them in Hunchback in Berlin, however. The projections were overused and dull.

The worst use of projections I ever saw was in a production of Man of La Mancha in Madrid a few years ago. It was basically just a slide show projected onto the back wall and the lighting was such that it visibly projected onto the actors as well. It would have been funny enough to sit through had not everything else about the production been painfully bad. We left after It's All the Same. There was literally nothing to like about it.

[philly03]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 4:22pm

First off, agree with Mister Matt...Jane Eyre's were beautiful, especially when they were "outside." But I always felt that those were part of the scenery, not the actualy scenic design (boy from what I can recall about "In the Light of the Virgin Morning" -- BEAUTIFUL scene (& song)...except the random plants/trees that swung in front of/around the actresses..!)

"on the other hand, when it's done poorly, it can make a mediocre show seem even worse ... like it did in Woman in White. the book and score were not great"

I really enjoyed Woman in White's & their projections; agreed with someone else that while they were a little too over the top, the whole image they were trying to do (& set up from the absolute beginning of the outer walls before the show started) was the whole moving image thing. While it was extremely complicated, it's still one of my favourite sets ever. And for the recording, I would not consider the score of Woman in White weak, ... it was Tony-Nominated !

"I get that it's high-tech and I'm imagining it's cheap as hell--no labor costs, no materials"
Sonia Friedman, the main-producer of Woman in White (& yes, Maria's sister), has been on record to say that the projection design for WiW was cheaper than doing the full-out sets. For those who did actually see it/remember the story line, it took us everywhere from a railroad cut-away (which was my favourite at the end!!!!!) to two seperate mansions to the streets of London and more; totally scattered over England so something was necessary. Apparently, if more (regional) theatres were more equiped with the technology for these projections, it would be extremely low cost to run a tour of the show, considering all of the budget would be considered on the London/Broadway budgets, with minor tweakings obviously. However, the initial funds were slightly costly, as there were several artists who made the images, several who put them on the projections-to-be-shot, projection/projector specialists were brought in...!

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 4:34pm

I saw a mini-tour of Les Miserables this summer at Wolf Trap, and they had projections to symbolize the Paris streets, the sewers, the Seine, a starry sky for "Stars," etc. Which I guess is cool, because it was a small set and everything and it'd be hard to actually build these sets.

But it didn't work at all. Wolf Trap is an outdoor theatre, and I was at a matinee. It was too bright and sunshiny, and the projections didn't show up at all-- only little snatches of projection in the shadowed corners of the backdrop. Most of the time, it was just a plain white backdrop. I could see the projection guy from my seat, and he was pretty much freaking out for the whole show.

[nlm]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 4:52pm

They used projections in "All My Sons"? That would have been intriguing to see.

For me, sometimes it works other times it can be nauseating. So it depends on the production. The way I look at it is this, it's another technical aspect that could go wrong in a show.

[jpbran]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 5:09pm

One example of a projection perhaps used for both logistical AND cost reasons is the helicopter used in the recent scaled-down tour of Miss Saigon. (A prejection vs. the original's mechanized prop)

We were in the 10-ish row, directly center, so the effect worked very well. But I can imagine from the sides or high up, the 1-dimension look of it would have killed some of the effect's effect. (!)

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 2/17/09 at 5:29pm

The projections in All My Sons (along with that ghastly underscoring) nearly ruined the play for me. I thought that production was superbly acted, but the projections were just irritating. John Heilpern said something to the effect of "I know what an aeroplane looks like, you don't need to show me" that I thought was tremendously accurate.