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

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

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

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

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

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

---

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???

---

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.

---

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...!

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.

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.