Showing posts with label angry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label angry. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

On Coexistence:

overheardinthetheatre:

“Actors without Technicians are just naked people standing on a dark and empty stage trying to emote. Technicians without Actors are just people with markitable skills and lots of free time.”

-Crew T-shirt

I have seen this quote and its variations many a time, and it never ceases to piss me off. Today it appeared on my tumblr as a post from the often hilarious "Overheard in the Theatre" blog, and I felt the need to break my 2-month blogging hiatus to rant about it.

The superiority complex that so many technicians/designers have over actors is frankly just stupid, and the fact that the post was titled “Coexistence” just makes that feeling of entitlement ironically condescending. Obviously we high and mighty technicians deign to bestow our marketable (notice how I spelled that correctly) skills upon you pitiful, helpless actors in our bountiful free time.

My job has no purpose without actors. I depend on them for my livelihood. My job title is “stage manager-” a stage with nothing on it does not need a manager. We coexist, a symbiotic relationship, like sharks and those little sucker fish that follow the sharks around.

The respect that I have for actors is enormous. It takes skill, hard work, passion, and training, and a level of determination and self-sacrifice that few professions require. I have no illusions about my skill (or lack thereof) as an actor. Without technicians, an actor is "a naked person standing on a dark and empty stage, trying to emote." I beg to differ. An actor, a decent actor anyway, any actor worth his salt, would not allow a lack of technical assistance to prevent him from telling his story to the audience. He would find some clothes, he would find a light switch, and he would not try to emote. He would act. Just ask the girls in the BFA Performance program my senior year at Auburn, who produced Five Women Wearing the Same Dress without any technical staff, and gained not only new skills, but a greater respect and understanding for those of us on the other side of the curtain.

It is true that there are sometimes actors who don't understand what goes into the technical aspect of a production- take, for example the tech process of a musical I recently worked on. We were having sound issues, namely the orchestra was overpowering the cast due to their placement in the house. The cast couldn't hear themselves in the monitors, no one in the audience could hear them, etc. Instead of working through it, they were angry with our sound designer- Why can't he just turn down the volume? It's too loud! They had no concept of how difficult it is to mix a live orchestra, and no trust in the designer to fix the problem as best he could until we could find a more permanent solution (ie, moving the orchestra into another part of the building entirely & just using the monitors).

However, this goes both ways. I recently worked on a production that had a large, moving scenic element that rotated without a fixed point. The actors were moving this unit themselves without a run crew of any kind, and unanimously told me that it was very difficult to move and control- they needed handles. When I relayed this information to the scenic designer, he replied "They don't need handles. They're actors. You can't expect them to figure out how to rotate it correctly on their own." When we showed him that the way the actors were moving the unit was exactly the way they had been instructed to and it was still unnecessarily difficult, he agreed to the addition of handles.

Basically what this all boils down to is respect. Respect for other artists. Respect for another person's work. Having enough respect for someone else as a person to view their work as art. Respect for the creative process. Eliminating the sense of "the other" or "the inferior" so that all members of a company are viewed as equals.

Theatre is a collaborative art, y'all. Truly the most collaborative art form in existence, and without respecting your co-collaborators, where are you?



Wednesday, January 12, 2011

One day, I am going to go into the scene shop when there is nobody there and take all of their drill guns, hide them in various places around the building, and then promptly forget where I left them.

Yesterday, I had a push broom, a regular broom, 2 dustpans, & a foxtail in the green room, all labeled CIRCUIT SM ONLY.

Today, when I needed to sweep before our first rehearsal onstage, I instead spent 15 minutes looking for those items.
Here's my tally:

  • Push broom: UNDER THE ROCK WALL. Really? It's under the wall. You need to sweep under the wall?
  • Regular broom: MIA
  • Big dustpan: Under a trashcan backstage
  • Small dustpan: On the tablesaw in the scene shop
  • Foxtail: MIA.
Really I just want my foxtail back. Is that so hard?

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Phantom Phish Pheeder


What kind of person takes it upon themselves to feed a fish that isn't theirs? I mean really. And they didn't just feed him, they dumped food into his tank. Sorry, Jessica! I'm tryin' to take care of ya, really!

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Lazy playwrights

We opened Black Pearl Sings! last night! It was a great opening performance, the audience loved it and the 2 actresses in the show had maybe the best run we've had so far.

The story of the play is great, but I just really have a bone to pick with the playwright. There are so many historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the script it's just ridiculous. None of them are so major that they couldn't be fixed with a little tweaking, but they're also big enough that anyone who does even a tiny bit of googling will notice them immediately. The fact that they're there in the first place is really just appalling- he either did no research into the historical accuracy of what he was writing about, or he chose to completely disregard it. I need a little time to rant...

-The biggest inaccuracy is the fact that the play is set in 1933 and Susannah states multiple times that she wants to be the first female professor at Harvard. The first female professor at Harvard was Alice Hamilton, an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial Medicine and a pioneer of workplace safety regulations who was hired in 1919.

-Another thing that bothers me is the terrible dialect that Pearl's lines are written in. She is from Hilton Head, and a part of the Gullah people. The Gullah dialect is extremely distinctive, and Pearl's lines are written phonetically in what I can only describe as some sort of generic, inconsistent, stereotypical poor grammar that bears no similarity whatsoever to the Gullah dialect. What bothers me the most, I think, is the inconsistency- she doesn't always use the singular instead of the plural. She doesn't always use incorrect verb tenses. She doesn't always drop the possessive. Just sometimes.

-Another historical inaccuracy- Pearl says "Those historical ladies last night say they got a motto- 'Well behaved women never make history.' " That phrase was coined by a woman named Laurel Thatcher Ulrich at some point in the 1970s.

-Another lovely inaccuracy- they mention in the play multiple times that the house across the street is "the narrowest house in New York" and "the poet Edna St. Vincent Millay lives there." Edna St. Vincent Millay really did live in the narrowest house in New York... for one year. 1923. A decade before the play takes place.

-Another brilliant lack of historical research on the playwright's part is the fact that in the summer of 1933, the governor of Texas (referred to in the play multiple times in the masculine, but never by name) was a woman named Ma Ferguson.

Plus the fact that he made the daughter's name Uniqua just irks me. It's drawn a laugh from the preview audience & the opening audience, and it's not supposed to be funny...