Actors as orchestra -- getting tired- Page 3

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:55am

Unlike me, she wasn't familiar with the SWEENEY storyline and she kept saying: "Where were they? What was happening?"

I went into Sweeney knowing practically nothing about the show, having heard none of the music and it was the first Sondheim show I'd seen onstage. I understood everything that was going on and was actively engaged in the story through the end- even though I had been up for 48 hours straight at this point and was in standing room. Is the Columbia mention supposed to give her some sort of extra merit to her opinions? Because it leaves me wondering about their admissions policies.

If your friend had been sitting next to me, I would have told her to shut the hell up so I could enjoy the show.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 1:58am

Well, I think there's issue with slapping "accessible" versus "inaccessible" on a show as a universal label, especially with something that, though different, is still fairly mainstream. I still think the bottom line is that there are problems with everything, yes, but even stuff that's not typically "inaccessible," has its opposition; is Tarzan inaccessible? No. Does it work for everybody? Absolutely not.

The first time I saw Sweeney, I was very, very confused. There was too much going on, and I missed a lot of detail because I had a difficult time deciding what to focus on. That's Sondheim; the material itself to begin with, regardless of how it's produced, isn't for everybody. You have to be willing to concentrate.

[vc2134]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 2:13am

The first time I saw Sweeney, I was very, very confused. There was too much going on, and I missed a lot of detail because I had a difficult time deciding what to focus on.

The only problem is that most (not all) audience members aren't willing to buy more than one ticket to a production (especially at $110+ each). Therefore, the director needs to make the production fully comprehensible the first time around. This isn't like working in film where, if an audience member misses a section of the plot, he/she can spend another $10.50 and see the film again. I agree that Sondheim isn't easily understandable, parts of the plot are inevitably going to be missed and that's partially the nature of the material. I'm saying, however, that Doyle could have done more to facilitate the audience's understanding of the material. I am in no ways opposed to the SWEENEY revival. As previously stated, I think that the ideas/concepts used by Doyle are quite refreshing in many ways. (And no, TARZAN doesn't work for everyone. You couldn't be more correct about that one.)

On another note, orangeskitties, I'm glad to find that these message boards are just as hostile as my co-workers told me they would be. I would be completely disappointed by anything less.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 2:20am

Right, obviously. But to that, I could say that you should be educated about what you're seeing before you drop over $100 for it, no?

I don't really agree that a director's entire purpose should be to do what's pleasing to the audience, if it sacrifices his artistic vision, and it's a legit one. Obviously the director's job is to create work that will make sense to the audience, etc, but come on, you can't please everybody -- especially with something as off-the-beaten-path as Doyle's production of Sweeney. I'll concede that as with anything, there are imperfections, and little choices that probably could be better -- BUT, not only have changes been apparently made since previews; there was just very recently a new round of changes to make things clearer to the audience.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 2:37am

I enjoy this concept as it's been applied to Sweeney and Company. Having the actors play the instruments adds another dimension and, in some difficult-to-pinpoint way, additional characterization. Especially with Sondheim, where the melodies are so intricate and relate so precisely to the lyrics (sometimes complimenting one another, other times seemingly at odds), seeing the actors on stage playing the music emphasizes that relationship. The casts that Doyle has put together for these shows are wonderful and know how to make the instrumentation a part of their characters, and I think that you take something new away from the shows that way. The actor/musician concept as used in Company does a brilliant job of highlighting the central character's emotional detatchment and eventual awakening to the possibilities of life, and this seems more real because it's also expressed through music.

On the other hand, I do see the points in terms of potentially confusing blocking not appealing to the casual theatergoer. And I think that's true, but these are shows that are meant to make you think and analyze and pay attention to the minute details. I had no problem following Doyle's Sweeney Todd, though I was admittedly acquainted with the material beforehand, but I don't think that it's a bad thing at all to engage audiences and challenge them to use their imaginations to fill in some of the blanks. If anything, that makes for great theater. Things should hopefully not be outright confusing, but I'm sure they're bound to be for some people.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 2:54am

Just because I said people were thinking of doing more of these shows, I certainly hope this fad fades fast. There is nothing like a pit orchestra - and nothing in the world like a Broadway orchestra pumping out that score. Just the thought of it gets my bl;ood flowing. Let's hear it for the band!

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 4/21/06 at 4:54pm

I agree with you. Unless it's absoultly necsasary to the show, then don't take other people's jobs away from them. I love love love love the pit, they are so under appreciated and I hate seeing the musicians get less and less work.