I went to a show last night that friends who saw preview performances said was innovative and thought-provoking. It was a mistake to get my hopes up. What I saw was a run of the mill performance of an obvious concept for a show that was just fine, but wasn't breaking any new ground for me.
At the moment the lead male was kissed by a supporting male, however, gasps rang through the audience, and I was forced to admit that someone in the audience was having a thought-provoking experience.
I've been lucky enough to work with people trained in burlesque, busking and street performance. It's different from stage acting, it's more raw, more real, and this was fake acting up close in a show that was afraid of the audience sitting six inches from it.
The best performer the entire evening was the scenic designer, a friend who was forced to be a real person because he was playing the locale's bouncer, a very real necessity for a show featuring that many scantily clad ladies, and was also incorporated into the performance. He knew what he was doing. The rest of the cast was just acting.
I was disappointed. I know the problem is me, and people will be lauding the young director as a genius, and if I were 18 and looked up to him, I would probably agree, but... It could have been so much more.
The other difficulty was they billed the show as 18+. I assumed this meant that it had some guts and took some real risks, but I think all it meant was that the bar it was performed in had an 18+ license. A show that could have been ribald and raunchy wasn't willing to be more than just a little bit naughty.
Genuine props to the curtain call, which did not exist. It was the right choice, it was done pretty well, and the only thing it needed was one tiny something to make the audience realise it wasn't a mistake. The bar was still open, so they couldn't toss a towel over the taps, but if they'd had the stage manager come out and turn off the single stand light, that would have done it, I think. Just a tiny signal, because instead of being powerful with the audience, it became an awkward moment that turned funny, so, like every other choice in the show, it was a solid idea that didn't really come to fruition, but this one was the most successful, because it DID create a moment of "wait, what?" in the audience that the show failed to create at any other time, it just wasn't entirely crafted. He's young. He will learn.
Maybe it's the culture. As a product of this culture, I sort of doubt it, but it might explain why I can't get my actors to come with me on my show. Maybe it's the actors: these aren't actors, they're people with real jobs who sometimes act and enjoy theatre. There's nothing wrong with that. That's fine. But if you're a person who can't take the risk not to have a full time job with benefits and actually perform, you're probably not going to take those risks as a performer.
I'm not a performer. I don't take those risks as an actress, or rather, when I act, that's risk enough, what more do I have to do? So I understand, but I pick and choose my roles and shows. As a director, I'm willing to go there. As a playwright, I'm not. I should be. Those acts tumble from my brain just the same whether I scribble them furiously in the margins of a script or type it out and print it.
So I will probably make my audience on Tuesday night extremely uncomfortable. That's my goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment