The Live Element of Performing Arts; A Return to Simple Storytelling

Page 1

The Live Element of Performing Arts A Return to Simple Storytelling

Christopher P. Horvath April 2009


Have you ever stood at the top of a mountain after a long hike, impressed by the beautiful scenery and the vastness which lies before you, only to realize that your camera cannot quite capture the essence of the moment? That is because it is only a twodimensional representation of what you see in three-dimensions with the wider panoramic view of your own eyes. The picture you take can serve as a nice reminder of what you saw in person, but it is still much more meaningful to be there and see it for yourself. This is why even in today’s world with the film industry, television, and all the technology available there is still room for the live performing arts. One of the key differences between live and recorded is that live shows are dynamic, while recorded shows are static. There is a richness in the live element of the performing arts that arises from the creativity of simplistic scenery and staging, variety of story interpretations, and the connection between the performers and audience members. When at the theatre, you are before a large stage with the choice of what to look at, or what characters or bits of scenery to focus on, but when watching a movie on a screen or TV, it has already been decided what to look at through a smaller frame with predetermined camera angles and views. When we went to see Carmen at The Royal Albert Hall we had great seats, situated with a view of the Orchestra in addition to the whole stage. It was great to be able watch the actors for the most part, but when they seemed to go on for too long I could look over at the Orchestra to simply listen the music and watch the coinciding movements of the instruments. Since we watched the recording of Carmen in class beforehand there was room for direct comparison between a live show and a recording. The DVD we watched in class was still originally a live production, but shows some of the limitations of filming. While I actually enjoyed the recorded version of

April 2009

Horvath 1


Carmen more than the live version we saw, it was due to the director’s interpretation of the Opera. I preferred the actors, the interpretation, the language, and the passion of the characters in the DVD. However, I am sure that I would have enjoyed it even more as a live performance with the live music and acoustics, full view of the staging, and more vibrant colors. Just as these two interpretations or versions of Carmen differed, seeing live productions offers opportunities for comparison and analysis. Often times, the same play or opera runs in numerous locations, so there would be much to compare between different versions if the opportunity to see more than one presents itself. This does not happen to the same degree with movies; if a play, opera, or musical is adapted into a movie, usually just one version exists at a time until it is remade many years later. As such, I think it would be very interesting to see another production of The Taming of the Shrew in another city. I would expect to see different staging, actors conveying their characters differently, different clothing style, and a more traditional structuring. While the version we saw was a modern interpretation evident through the structure of the play, a version closer to Shakespeare’s time would be more like the film we watched in class. The modern version leaves the woman empowered in the end, while the traditional version of Shakespeare leaves the woman under the man’s command beneath his foot. While I prefer the traditional version of the play, I appreciate the opportunity for the director to interpret things differently, for which the live performing arts provide room. Elements of the show that bring much interest to the audience are the set design, scenery, and staging of the production. I am always curious to see how each one is set up. I thought that Parlour Song employed the most unique approach to using their stage. The

April 2009

Horvath 2


rotating stage proved to be a good combination with the projector for scene changes, entrances, and exits. I thought the use of the projector was excellent for visuals as well as for mysterious foreshadowing with a simple phrase from the proceeding scene. While this provided more elaborate and dramatic scene changes, I also really enjoyed the simplicity found in Shades. Using music during scene changes and subtle props to convey location was very effective and appropriate for the play. Then in productions like Dancing at

Lughnasa the staging was especially well done in a different way. With the audience all around the stage, the actors had to act in all directions. I especially liked how the house and the yard were in the same space without walls, but could effectively move the focus from one location to the other through the use of nature sounds, conversation, and lighting. Further, with depth perception enabled, looking at the scenery in person brings out textures, colors, and a more fulfilling experience than looking at a two-dimensional screen. This difference in scenery gives a very unique feel to the live experience. On the other side movies usually have very ornate scenery since they can be filmed in actual locations, but often leave very to the imagination. Live performances can be more engaging in this way by forcing the audience to pretend, using subtle hints or descriptive narration to draw conclusions about the environment. Attending a live performance means that for two or three hours you can totally immerse yourself in the story. By dressing up you remove yourself from the association of normal life, and once at the theatre you become free from all the distractions of home. This means no neighbors at the door, no ringing telephone, and no nagging children, leaving you free to focus all of your attention to the stage. There is a similar experience by going to the cinema, but it still lacks the extra dimension. Also, I’ve found that the

April 2009

Horvath 3


audience is much more connected to each other at the theatre than at a movie. This is especially the case with a stage in the centre, since you can more easily see the other audience members. This interaction allows you to gauge your own reaction sometimes by seeing how others react, adding another element to the experience. I remember feeling this way especially during Shades since directly across the stage, maybe 15 feet away, were other people watching the play. As it was a play full of comedy and emotion there were many moments when I would wonder what other people thought and I could easily look to see the expressions of others. When we went to see Isadora & Dances at a

Gathering, I sat next to an older gentleman with whom I talked about education, classes, culture, family, and various other topics. I doubt that I have ever had this sort of experience at the cinema. In this way, going to a production like this brings people together, allowing them to learn from each other through simple interactions. Probably the most significant element of live performances is the connection or interaction between the audience and the actors. The reason for this interaction is related to the proximity of the actors to the audience, which provides the ability to make eye contact. Therefore, if they see everyone in the crowd sleeping, they would likely lose their ambition to do a good job, but if they see attention in the people’s eyes they would be further motivated in their roles. In Shades this seemed to have particular importance, since the whole audience was close to the stage allowing the actors to judge our interest and reaction to the story. Therefore the audience communicates in this way through their eyes and faces, but can also interact similarly through applause. In most cases, when the audience enjoys itself, the enjoyment is expressed through applause or cheers. This in turn signals to the actors and performers that they are doing a good job, supplying confidence

April 2009

Horvath 4


to do even better. I felt that this was much the case when we went to see Isadora &

Dances at a Gathering. After each dance the audience would applaud, but with variation in volume depending on how impressive or entertaining the particular dance was to the audience. In Dancing at Lughnasa, when the radio turned on to spill music into the room, the sisters were infused with excitement and expressed themselves through spontaneous dancing. I remember well that after these few occurrences the audience impulsively applauded because its members found the dancing particularly enjoyable. In comedies such as Parlour Song, the main source of feedback is laughter. I know that the audience found much of the play to be funny, since there were always echoes of laughter to be heard, especially in the more lighthearted portions of the play. It is especially obvious in stand-up comedy that if the audience is not laughing then the comedian is not doing a good job, but continuous laughter is welcomed as a sign of achievement and confidence. The same applies here, meaning that a dynamic relationship is encouraged between the audience and performer in all the live performing arts, through laughter, applause, or simply facial interest. This same sort of relationship is particularly evident in jazz performances as well. I love to go to jazz concerts, and I find that if the musicians know that the audience is having a good time then the music is extraordinary. The audience encourages the musicians by applauding after solos, where the level of applause implies the amount of enjoyment. I’ve found that if a particular show is to be exceptional, it requires an audience full of active, excited participants, not just passive listeners. I went to a concert this year by the Guildhall Jazz Band performing Miles Davis’s The Birth of the Cool Album. The audience was completely enveloped in it, enjoying every moment, which was evident

April 2009

Horvath 5


through the musicians on stage as well. While I had previously listened to the record a few times, the true feeling and beauty of the music came through as never before during that concert. The live performance opened possibilities for more improvised solos and different interpretations which a static recording cannot offer. In a similar way, that live element adds so much to the other performing arts. In the live performing arts there is a sense of greater reality with the possibility of errors, spontaneity, and improvising. There is no room for retakes as in movies, so it is all about being there in the moment. The actors can spice things up by using more passion or feeling, substituting words, or expressing themselves through different movements, making each performance unique, while movies, TV shows, and recordings remain static in each showing. Overall, the live performing arts bring a richness emerging from the imagination of simplistic scenery, the creative interpretations of the story, and the dynamic relationship between the actors and audience members. It is in this way that seeing a live performance brings about a unique experience completely different from TV, movies, or of even the recorded equivalent. While movies and TV shows still continue to provide us with a particular kind of entertainment, there is a certain reality and quality to live entertainment which makes the live performing arts not only relevant, but very significant in today’s technological world.

April 2009

Horvath 6


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.