(no subject)

[learnedax]

Saw the Harvard production of Chess this evening, and overall I liked it. The acting was good, the singing was decent, and the play is an interesting work, though not brilliant. I would echo cristovau's comments that the singers were often too quiet and the orchestra too loud, but I think that is part of a more general problem. My impression was of a good show struggling through overworked production. The lighting crew used an enormous number of instruments, yet managed to leave many crucial parts of the stage in shadow. The sets were elaborate, but tossed about without interacting with the actors, making the show seem at once static and chaotic. All the actors were amplified, but little care was taken to balance the volume of competing noise. All of these things could have been done better, with less expense; they come off as sloppy. I think that if the technical side had been less jumbled, the artistic side would have shined much brighter.

Of course, I just finished a nearly bare-stage production, so the difference is jarring. I think, however, that even if I had not my criticism would be the same: just because you have a lot of toys, don't try to use them all.

Comments

The technical side...

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

I think there were some good technical aspects. The half chessboard frame in the back and the blended lighting effects were spot on. They even hit their cues well. The raised platforms were interesting and effective in many scenes. The railing should've been shorter to allow for movement and keep that side of the stage open and to mirror a chessboard (12 squares?) It was a good idea, but too often obtrusive.

The spot operators should have been hanged from the catwalks. The chorus should have been twice as large to fill the stage and deliver the proper mikeless punch. They should have just skipped the UFO chess table, a broadway level stunt. I thought the tech people (excluding the spot operators) deserved a B. The major problem is this, and all musicals, are big productions and that needs to be respected.

[jducoeur]

just because you have a lot of toys, don't try to use them all.

That's one of the key differences between the amateur and the professional in many arts, really. The amateur wants to twist every knob and play with every setting, in order to look powerful and cool. The pro knows which bits to emphasize, and which to leave well enough alone.

I see this in writing all the time. Another manifestation (that I was mentioning in someone's else LJ a few weeks ago) is World Exposition Syndrome -- the tendency to put every bit of world that you've designed into what you write. The pro, by contrast, designs an enormous amount, and then exposes only the bits that are actually relevant.

In all arts, less is often more...