Everyone knows and loves the classic show “The Nutcracker.”  This play has been around for ages, so it just figures that someone would try and change it to fit into today’s modern times.  It seems as though nothing can remain in its original form anymore–classic novels are being made into movies, Shakespearean plays are being made into modern films, Mozart operas are being portrayed in time periods very different from the intended one, the list goes on.  Sometimes these modifications and remakes are actually very good, and other times they nearly ruin the original.

This version of “The Nutcracker”, written by Mark Morrison and called “The Hard Nut” has actually become quite popular, although it is radically different from the original show.  For example, the original show features a beautiful pas de deux, whereas “The Hard Nut” transforms this scene into a large ensemble number.  Morrison sets many other scenes in ways other than envisioned by Tchaikovsky, but even still these scenes are filled with as much wonder and excitement as Tchaikovsky intended for them to be.  Interestingly enough, Morrison uses the entire Tchaikovsky score, without any cuts, in the original order, which allows the show to remain connected to its “Nutcracker” roots.

This article on “The Hard Nut” made me think of the two different performances of Cosi Fan Tutte that we watched in class.  Some of my classmates preferred the more modern version, while others were horrified by that one, and would much rather have watched the more original video.  Both tapes contained the original Mozart scores, although the more modern version may have changed a few of the subtitles to fit the time period.  I guess what it comes down to, ultimately, is a matter of taste.

To read more about “The Hard Nut”, click here.

I found something extremely interesting in the Theater section of the New York Times this week. It is a new class called Act Out, which began in September, and is geared towards helping to bring out the best in a certain kind of actor: gay actors. It is held at the Studio, a small acting school run by Mr. Calcaterra, in Chelsea. It is a class that does do the usual improvisational readings, acting drills and techniques but particularly focuses on getting comfortable with their own sexual identity. One of the first classes consisted of each student giving Mr. Calcaterra their personal histories, including the trouble they had with being homosexual or transgender and all of their past relationships, both good and bad.

I think that this is a phenomenal idea because if you aren’t comfortable with who you are as a person, it would be exceedingly difficult to try and play the part of another person convincingly. Richard Feldman, the associate director of the drama program at Juilliard, put this intelligently saying that, “Acting is all about being personal in your work and at the same time being able to embody somebody else’s story.” I also commend these young actors for being open enough to try something like this class out; it must be so hard to tell so much of their personal stories to others that they don’t know that well. This group also enforces the idea that we discussed before about using one’s own emotion in performance in order to deliver a truly inspiring one. However, let’s say you wanted to conceal or hold back part of who you were; you would never get an audience to believe your character’s role!

Check out the article here.

There is only so much space on Broadway that can go around. Consequentially, due to certain spacial and financial reasons, “Rock of Ages” and “Rain” will be relocating their performance space in order to prolong their runs. There are several reasons for this change in locality, according to this New York Times article. First, even though the shows are successful, it is difficult to fill an immense number of seats on weeknights. Many other performances face the same issue. Second, these musicals contain interactive moments between recitalists and observers. Such personality would be easier to execute with smaller, yet denser, crowds; it would create a more intimate atmosphere among those involved, in comparison to larger, yet scattered, audiences. Lastly, having fewer seats reduces the weekly cost of maintaining the run of a show, which would in turn lower finances of other involved responsibilities (such as advertising and staff).

The Beatles-tribute band has only been on Broadway for twelve weeks so far, compared to the commencement of “Rock of Ages” in March 2009. Frankly, I am surprised that shows like these have lasted for as long as they already have. I am well aware that The Beatles and 80’s metal are still strong in musicians’ hearts today. Nevertheless, to translate these “historic” rock-‘n-roll entertainers successfully into the form of musical theater seems unorthodox; audiences usually associate Broadway with Disney-inspired musicals (i.e., “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast”) and romantic classics (i.e., “West Side Story”, “Aida”). I suppose that these two shows – in addition to others such as “American Idiot” and “Rent” – are introducing a new common style/theme of musical theater.

As I read the review of the play, “The Wife”, I couldn’t help but think back to the play we

read in the very beginning of the year, “The Indian Wants the Bronx”, by Israel Horovitz. Like Horovitz, Tommy Smith shows the interaction between different racial groups in the city. In “The Wife” the circumstances are less violent and more sexual. In fact, all the characters are linked by who has sex with whom. There also is a strong dark undertone and the element of viole

nce. I wonder if that is what artistically defines race relations in an urban setting.

I came across this article in the New York times, about set design for Broadway plays. The article discusses theaters that are elaborately decorated, which are meant to submerge the audience into the play before it even begins.

The stuffed horse that hangs in the theater where "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson" is running.

The Bernard B. Jacobs theater, where “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” is currently running, is decorated with vintage paintings and chandeliers, not to mention a giant stuffed horse hanging by its legs from the ceiling. In “Rock of Ages,” patrons are treated to music from the “thrashing-hair” era on full blast, with barely-dressed cocktail waitresses walking down the aisles taking drink orders, to create a rock-n-roll vibe.

“Cats” was one of the first plays to experiment with creating n atmosphere for the audience to settle into. The Winter Garden Theater, where “Cats” had its run, was made to look like a garbage dump.

Although this seems like an interesting idea, I do have a problem with it. Broadway shows should be able to stand on their own, without having to create an atmosphere for the audience to enjoy before the show starts. If a play is really that good, the audience will be drawn into the story and world being presented to them, without the need of stuffed horses or cocktail waitresses. I know that hard work and effort is put into decorating the theater during these shows, but this effort can be put into the actual show itself, which is what the audience is there to see.

What do you think?

I remember I had to read Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka for my english class in high school, so I was pleasantly surprised when I found out about a new play based on the book that is happening at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, as a part of the 2010 Next Wave Festival.

For those of you who haven’t read the book, it is about Gregor Samsa (left), a young man who wakes up one morning to find that he has morphed into a bug. The rest of the book deals with how he interacts with those around him, particularly his family, after his metamorphosis. The plot may seem a bit silly, and I admit that I did not want to read the rest of it after the first sentence, but it really is a touching and emotional book, that actually made me cry.

I’m curious to see how the emotion of the story will be transferred from the book to the stage, and how realistic the special effects will be. Looking at the website, it looks like a great production that is worth seeing. Performances began yesterday (Nov 30) and run until December 5th.

Avatar in 3-D!! Shrek in 3-D!! Kung Fu Panda in 3-D!! Over the past few years, filmmakers have increasingly attempted to make the jump to the third dimension. It seems like half of the previews out there today are for 3-D movies. People wear those thick black 3-D glasses so often that it has even become a fashion statement to wear them out on the streets. However, while cutting edge technology has carried many films into an additional dimension, new technology on Broadway has seemingly taken live theater back to the second dimension. As I was reading this, I thought the same thing that may be on your mind right now: What in the world does that mean that Broadway is now in 2-D? Have the actors become South Park-like cardboard cutouts?

Well, obviously not. The 2-D aspect of theater isn’t referring as much to the actors themselves as it is to the sets around them. In the past, Broadway shows took great pride in their elaborately designed sets, with extremely realistic props and enormous backgrounds that took a great deal of artistic ability to create. As we discussed in class, the set itself impacts how we judge theater performances. In the Iolanthe performance at Pace University’s theater, there was a very simple set. Nevertheless, various aspects of it, including the flags and the design on the floor, impacted our appreciation for the operetta. Recently, a trend has begun to emerge on Broadway, where sets are leaving behind the traditional physical sets that we are accustomed to seeing, and using digital projections instead. Hence, the 2-D classification of a live Broadway show.

Although projections aren’t entirely new to theater, lately they have become much more common. Do you think that digital sets enhance theatrical performance as whole more than they take away from it? Do you want this trend to become more mainstream or do you feel that it diminishes the tangible nature of experiencing a truly live show?

Read The New York Times article

“Wintuk”, Cirque du Soleil’s last seasonal show, will be continuing at the Theater at Madison Square Garden up until January 2nd.  This show is about a young boy and girl who stumble upon an ice kingdom, where they search for snow and meet lots of crazy characters along the way.  However, the majority of the audience does not see “Wintuk” for the plot line itself.  Instead, people come to hear the New Age music and see the amazing stunts performed.  The creators of “Wintuk” must keep the attention on their talented performers, while still managing to sell enough tickets to make a profit.  Because of this, the amazing “stuff” going on throughout the show has to be so great that people will be longing to come see the performance.

This reminded me of what we had talked about after going to Fall For Dance and seeing the Keigwin production.  Even though the dancing was not extremely complicated and there was no main story line to follow, the audience was wowed by the sparkly costumes and exciting music.  Is is more important for playwrights and choreographers to focus on the actual content of a performance, or on what they think will please the audience?  It all comes back around to a balance between the two.  It seems as though everything in music, art, theater, dance, etc. all comes back to this idea.

Long story short, this article here gives a nice summary about a play called “Pitmen Painters,” on Broadway at the Samuel J. Friedman theater. What’s cool about this play is that it depicts a true story that started in 1934. A group of North England miners join an art appreciation class for the obvious reason- to appreciate art. They walk in, and demand to be talk “the meaning behind the meaning,” or “the secrets behind what’s going on” in art. Their teacher (who happened to be a professional artist) tells them that the only way to find the answer to any of these questions or learn how to appreciate art would be to become artists themselves. So he has them become painters, and two decades into the future, several of the men form an exhibit together as “The Ashington Group” (named after their mining village). They get some good success with their paintings that stem from their village life. This group, like many others, faded away with time, but they were rediscoered by an art critic in 1971 who wrote a book on the group.

From "Pitmen Painters."

So yeah, there’s the general plot. What’s not cool about this is that the article hints that while it’s a story with potential the play itself is all dry art talk. But as I’m not going to see this play, it doesn’t affect me much at all.

But what did strike me about the story of this play was how it all started; miners who wanted to know what art was. I think that’s a great reason to be captivated. Afterall, we are an arts in the NYC class that at least TRIES to understand or critique art through the use of blog posts, no? In order to make these guys answer the questions about art, he turned them into artists. Because the best way to appreciate art (or anything for that matter) is to have some experience within the field. And that makes perfect sense. It made me think about how we’re always running to the city a couple times a month to see a performance of some sort. We’re experiencing art; but are we experiencing it to the fullest?

I remember the classical guitar playing by the Asad brothers recently. And while there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that this pair was talented, all I could do was sit there and appreciate the sounds that I was hearing. Whereas for the music majors like Alyssa and Alexandra, they were having discussions about what was being played, and talking about certain scales and something about an A-flat (probably not an A-flat, I’m not sure if that even exists, but you get the point) and discussing the Asad brother’s playing. Because they have experience playing music, they were able to have a more fuller experience at the classical guitar playing. Whereas for me, I just sat there and enjoyed what I heard.

But yeah, what struck me about this article wasn’t the play itself, but the reason the original story behind it started. Maybe we should have all become amateur opera singers, and instrument players, and abstract expressionists before setting out on all of these trips, so that we could’ve had fuller experiences? 😀

After having just gone to see Iolanthe as a class and discussing it’s ups and downs, I think it would be interesting to see another of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas. Many of our complaints (for those who did have them) were centered around the performance done by the Village Light Opera Company such as a lack of diction, and were not necessarily directed towards the actual show itself (which I happened to find very charming). This other show, which I came across in the NY Times, is called “Utopia Limited” and is being put on by the New York Gilbert & Sullivan Players in Symphony Space as of Sunday. Much like Iolanthe, it is a commentary on society and pokes fun at the uppermost British class with satire. It criticizes Britain’s hunger for land and power by setting the play in Utopia, a South seas island, where British government officials are left to follow Princess Zara, who was actually educated in England. The British bureaucrats are meant to straighten out the political affairs on the island where the Princess’ father has a monarchy.
“Utopia, Limited” was Gilbert and Sullivan’s second to last last work together and was hard to coordinate after a two year feud between the two men; this is why it hasn’t gotten as much recognition as some of Gilbert and Sullivan’s others and is said to be less funny. I know that we are all aware of how hard it is to work with someone else, especially when you are fighting with them! The other difficulty was that Sullivan was ill while composing, which could’ve also taken a toll on the value of it in comparison to their others.
Whether people like a show or not, it is still a great work of art to be simply appreciated at the very least.

View the “Utopia, Limited” review here.

Poster for the Spiderman Musical

I have watched and enjoyed the Spiderman movies, and I think the reason why the movie franchise is so popular is because of the special effects. Most of the stunts and special effects look very realistic, and I think that really draws the audience in. Watching a movie with brilliant acting but horrible effects does ruin the feel of the movie, especially if you see the actors hanging on wires and dodging explosions on a green screen. That’s why I’m not sure how Spiderman the musical will do in attracting and keeping fans and audiences. Although it is already being called “the most expensive and technically elaborate Broadway show in history,” I don’t think it can be as great as the movies. Yesterday in class Professor Smaldone said that a play can have a cheaper set, but as long as it changes throughout the performance and the audience uses their imagination, it can suffice. While I do think it’s true in the case of Iolanthe, something that is so popular and well-known as Spiderman is bound to have negative reviews because it just can’t live up to the movies.

Producers are keeping the details of the show a secret, but there is a video posted on facebook that shows a pretty interesting set and flying!! HERE IS THE LINK What do you think?

New York Times Article

What sets theater apart from the film and movie industry is it’s 3-D element – that the actors are as real as you yourself sitting in the audience. However, these days, many theater productions are adding digital and 2-D elements to the productions. Projections are being used to add to the setting where scenery sometimes cannot suffice. At times this can be extremely effective (such as in “Angels in America”), yet at times this can be overwhelming and obtrusive (as in “Women on the Verge Of a Nervous Breakdown”). It seems as if at times the use of digital images and screen projections are being used to aid the audience in determining the historical and social contexts of the play – as if they are incapable of figuring it out themselves. In some theater productions, actors interact with the 2-D installments. For instance in the Wooster Group’s 2007 production of “Hamlet” live actors engage in dialogue with a film of the Broadway stage production starring Richard Burton. Similarly, in the Kneehigh Theater Company’s “Brief Encounter”, the actress steps through a screen that is portraying her life.

This introduction of film and 2 dimensions into the theater has been contrasted with the recent obsession of creating 3-D films and movies (Avatar, Jackass 3-D.. ahem, Doron). The two worlds are now crossing over and experimenting with the different dimensions and their interaction. The author of the NY Times review ends the article with the question “How do you feel about the marriage of live theater and film technology?” so I want to ask you the same thing. Do you feel that film and digital projections should remain a genre of their own or do you think that theater can benefit greatly from this new introduction of technology into its productions. Although the author believes this to be a “perverse competitive spirit” of the theater world to compete with the movie industry, I think theater will be enhanced by this new addition. I believe that the theater world has begun to introduce digital projections because they are facing heavy competition with movies, which are both cheaper and capable of being digitally altered and edited to produce films that engage audience viewers and affect their emotions.