I sat next to a very nice woman who was a native Californian and a frequent patron of the Globe. During the intermission, she pried from me that I was working as an Assistant Director there and was very impressed. At the conclusion of the show, she said to me "And you're one of the people that makes these things happen? I always knew that human beings were responsible, but I've never met one." Well, I had nothing to do with "The Tempest", but I still felt like a million bucks.
While I was watching the play, I thought to myself what a fine line there is between sending your audience out saying "That was beautiful and moving" and "That was beautiful... but I don't get it".
There are an infinite number of amazing things you can do in a production when you have money, imagination, or, best of all, both. It's important to analyze why you're doing what you're doing and also if the audience is going to understand it.
I think there are some genius directors out there with magnificent ideas that can weave fantastic stories in their productions. As I sat there, though, I wondered if the blue collar directors, who work with simpler and fewer ideas, aren't better suited for most types of theater. How can the average patron comprehend every idea, art form, and symbol being put into play when they are usually engaging themselves fully already in just the story of the play (if it has any merit).
I suppose my question is, what is the best way to tell a story? Simply? Flamboyantly? Or somewhere inbetween?
No comments:
Post a Comment