BackStage Utah

spiker wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 8:46am:


Hmmm, gotta remember back to when I was something approaching a triple threat.... ok, that was about twenty years ago.
-More opportunities, more roles available to compete for, more roles that actually paid.
-Wider range of skills required (this is coming from one who views acting as a craft rather than an art).
-More women likely to also be involved (remember, this was more than 20 years ago).
-Generally a more positive and receptive audience response.

Quote:


Caesar at PTC.

Quote:


The Desk Set.

Quote:


The Pillowman.

Quote:


Don't have a preference... just like good work.

spiker wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 9:06am:


Not there... here in Arkansas.... but it would be an interesting dose of dark-'n-freaky to spring on a Utah audience.

Okay, I'm going to be somewhat of a devil's advocate make a case against straight-plays:

They tend toward being slow-moving and talky.

The comedies (especially farces) are far too contrived.

kitchensinger wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 9:29am:


K, can't do just 10.... but here's your reading list for the summer: Roughly chronologically....

-Oedipus Rex
-Lysistrata
-Everyman
-Hamlet
-Tartuffe
-Faust
-A Doll's House
-Uncle Tom's Cabin
-The Hairy Ape
-Six Characters in Search of an Author
-Waiting for Lefty
-Our Town
-Mother Courage and her Children
-Marat/Sade
-No Exit
-Waiting for Godot
-Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
-Dutchman
-Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
-Buried Child
-Zoot Suit
-Glengarry Glen Ross
-Torch Song Trilogy
-Uncommon Women and Others
-Angels in America
-Topdog/Underdog
-Proof
-Copenhagen

Yes.  I was just thinking I wouldn't know how to put together a list of only 10 "groundbreaking" plays, but I could put together a longer list of plays I think everyone involved in theatre should read, just to have a good knowledge of the history and landscape of theatre.  Professor Tshep is good at that. 

I would add:
Importance of Being Earnest
either Major Barbara or Pygmalion
and a Pinter, either The Birthday Party or Betrayal

IMHO, as far as the general theatergoing public is concerned, musicals are indeed the "shorthand" pieces of theater. We live in a fast paced society, mass entertainment is simple, people don't have to work at being entertained anymore. That is the beauty behind most musicals. Plays take work from an audience, which today's society just doesn't want to do anymore. That is the sad fact. That is why, even on Broadway, musicals are the moneymakers. It's a sad and tragic fact.

That's my two cents worth. I totally disagree with this sentiment in the public though. I think the public is lazy and is missing out on a rich cornucopia of wonderful entertainment by sticking to musicals. Musicals are great and they have their place, but there is so much more out there. And sorry, I have to disagree, IMHO bad acting is even more harder to hide in musicals. OMG! If you can't make the process from script to music and then back to script beliveable, I'm outta there in a New York minute. Bad acting ruins musicals every time! Music is only the tool to move a plot along and to express something that cannot be expressed in words alone. No more no less. The acting IMHO has to be at the top of its game for it to work! That is why so many productions, not the material itself, suck!

Tshep wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 9:16am:


Well, lucky for you then, because the U is doing it in November!  Of course, they have to start taking a serious interest in Martin MacDonagh AFTER I graduate, but such is the nature of flux within this world...

I personally love straight plays almost as much as musicals. Unfortunately, I usually get cast in musicals because I can sing and fake dance, and as such I've developed a lot more familiarity with musical theatre than non-musical theatre. Some of my most fun theatre experiences, though, were doing things like Caucasian Chalk Circle or Cash on Delivery! in high school, and if I thought I could get cast in plays as often as I'm cast in musicals, I'd audition for them much more often. But, just like musicals, straight plays rely mostly on type; and most theatres, especially in Utah, rely on familiar faces. At stops like SLAC or Plan-B or USF, I'm still just a college student without his Equity card, who, 90% of the time, doesn't fit the role. And on top of that, there are much better actors going for the roles. So, my resume ends up dominated by what I know best: musicals.

Here's just a theory:

Pace is one of the more complicated and advanced things in theatre, I think. Learning to act on the line, taking the air out, driving the rythyms of a scene. It's vital in "straight" plays to have that sense of pace, but it's something that's lacking in many productions, especially in venues where tyere's less training and/or experience.

In Musicals, much of that pace is done for you. I realized when working on a recent musical that there wasn't much we could do to shave time off the show. Tightening the dialog will only do so much, as a great majority of the running time is determined by the music.

In "straight" plays, the pacing is usually up to the actors and director to find. In musicals, that's largely the creation of the composer, and the musical director's interpretation of the tempo notation. It's a bit easier to control pace in a musical, and that means it's generally a more enjoyable experience for the audience.

Toddy wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 8:43pm:


there is no smiley face that lets me applaud this quote. My sentiment exactly. There are SOOOOOo many wonderful plays out there that mainstream america totally misses because of mass media and the easy access we all have to entertainment. It is soooo sad. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that I love the occasional season of next top model or project runway or american idol, and especially don't get me wrong...I ADORE musicals. I have done more musicals than plays, and it is a top passion in my life...but I think that highschools and colleges should be required to learn or should at least suggest that their students read the pulitzer prize winning plays of the past years. Such a rich canon of american art. Such a rich cultural experience. I feel bad for people that don't know these wonderful plays.

TenorJew wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 11:27pm:

Why thank you sir I had the pleasure of being the Governor (and I got my face molded out of latex so they could behead me!), the cranky old man who "dies," and Shauwa, the judicial sidekick. It was great fun!

I felt the urge to bring up this little company I learned about called the Around the Globe Theatre Company:  http://www.aroundtheglobetc.com/ So far, after being around for four years and 6 going on 7 big productions, they have yet to solely produce a musical.  They are currently getting started on the Glass Menagerie, one of the best straight plays of all time, at least in my humble opinion.  There are others doing mostly or all straight plays like Pinnacle or StageRight.  It is true that Joseph with his coat of many colors has always and will continue to dominate Utah's theatrical landscape but there is a real variety out there.  You just have to look for it when auditioning or being a patron of the arts.  I recently watched a straight play, I won't say when and where, but it was filled with people who have obviously either just done musicals or never acted and it wasn't very good.  I guess I brought that up because I feel there is a real difference between being good at musicals than there is at being good at straight plays.  I'm not saying you can't be good at both, but there is most certainly a different style to performing one than there is the other and not everyone is ready to jump from musicals to straight plays or the other way around.

DesertPirate wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2008 at 8:24am:


I think you're absolutely right about the potential turn-offs.

I do think that the style of acting in a musical is usually a little different from in a straight play, in the same way that the style of acting in film is different from stage, and it requires some adjustment to move from one medium to another. But it can be done. Nathan Lane and Kristin Chenoweth would lead me to believe even a good �Broadway musical actor doesn't work well on film. Hugh Jackman tells me that's an unfair generalization. It's a mistake to think that being a muscial actor likely makes you an inferior actor. As Gershwin would say "It ain't necessarily so." Some musical performers are more gifted in song and dance than acting. Some are actually better at the acting. There are actually a few who are equally gifted at all three.

As someone who lacks the ability to sing and dance, no one would be better served than me by the idea that non-musical actors tend to be better ACTORS than musical actors. But, if I look at the performers in local theatre I really admire, it just doesn't bare that out. A good actor is a good actor. Some can also sing, and some can't.

When casting my most recent film project, I was strongly encouraged to stay away from "stage" actors, because they're "too big on film". I auditioned close to a hundred people, and most of the leads did, in fact, go to "stage actors" (who, in this case, are capable of make the adjustment to film style), because they happened to be the BEST actors. I find it highly preferable to judge performers on their individual strengths and weaknesses. Making assumptions based on the medium in which they most often work may be a short cut to narrow down your castying process, but you could easily lose your best prospects that way.