Imperfect, but pleasing
Nov. 7th, 2004 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayA good description of the day as a whole, and the play in particular.
Got some socializing and dancing accomplished, all of which was to the good. Even talked![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kestrell into dancing the Black Allemagne with me. She was extremely nervous, but no worse in practice than a typical novice dancer. Now that she's occasionally coming to dance practice, perhaps she will learn more dances. I think Allemagnes in general are probably best for her, as they are relatively simple, and don't usually involve long separations from your partner.
Dayboard was scrumptious and ample. Thankselizabear!
I displayed some of my Coney-Catching books at the A&S table. Brought some extras to possibly sell, but didn't actually sell any. Then again, was too busy socializing to make any great effort to do so. Speaking of the A&S table, I finally sawrufinia's Byzantine outfit. Most resplendent!
Still a little unsure about my "place" in Carolingia these days. Given how little storytelling I've done of late, "Alessandro the Storyteller" doesn't seem quite right. Carolingia is still the source of my social circle, but I feel somewhat outside it of late. [See alsosiderea's recent post about "insiders" vs "outsiders".]
Ran into Gareth Hinds in the audience of the play. He was formerly an artist at Looking Glass, and then Irrational, before leaving to do comic books full time. He's now working on a comic book version of King Lear, and was here with his sketch book to do some Shakespearean studies.
So, onto the play. Caveat up front: Not only am I a perfectionist, but a few years ago I saw a nigh-perfect Macbeth production, so my standards are incredibly high. Eh. This show was mildly entertaining, but full of missed opportunities.
High points for me were: the witches, who had excellent evil laughs all around.dreda, in particular, managed not just an evil laugh, but an evil *posture* that was a wonder to behold. Gregorian, as MacDuff's young son, did a marvelous job, and got the only big laugh of the show. The murder of Banquo was also well done, with boffer "clubs" that made satisfying "thunks", and whose blows didn't have to be pulled particularly.
The rest of the cast was -- uneven. Many were individually quite good, but others (naming no names) were just completely flat in their delivery, which dragged down the ensemble. When there are one or two people who are flat, I can blame the individual actors, but with so many, I put the onus on the director. I'd heard from more than one cast member that he was very laissez-faire, and it showed in the final product.
I mentioned above that Gregorian got the one big laugh. Kudos to him for getting it, but any Shakespeare show that has only one laugh in it is clearly being done wrong. Done properly, Macbeth is full of laughs, frequently juxtaposed with the most horrific moments. This macabre humor actually serves to *increase* the horror, by varying the tone. When the horror is unalloyed, it dulls the palate.
Pacing has become my constant gripe for live theater in general, and Shakespeare in particular. Macbeth is the shortest of his plays, and it should come in comfortably *under* two hours, 100 or 110 minutes or so, not run 2:10. Part of this can be laid at the foot of the set management. Although the sets were simple and largely abstract, they paused between most scenes in order to rearrange the set. All that dead air just saps the momentum of the story badly, and to no good effect. Shakespeare barely needs sets at all, as he always begins a scene with some sort of place-setting exposition. If you *must* have sets, for heaven's sake don't pause the action while rearranging them. Have servants bring on the banqueting tables and chairs *during* the beginning of the banquet scene, for example. The set (mis)management is only part of the problem, though. Even when they weren't messing with the set, the entrances weren't nearly as crisp as they ought to be, and there were far too many (un)dramatic pauses.
They only cut one scene. Sadly, it's the scene that, while frequently cut, is the thematic *heart* of the play. Hecate's talk with the witches about the nature of free will and predestination is, I think, crucial to the story, and its absence always weaken the show.
Act V had no armor. I found that especially anomalous in an SCA production, where, face it, practically all the actors already *owned* perfectly acceptable armor. Macbeth has all these great lines about "strap my armor on me" and "at least I'll die with my armor on", but no armor is to be seen. At least they did have some actual blood for the murder of Duncan.
One of these days, perhaps my frustrated perfectionism will lead me to direct something again myself. Not that I am capable of *achieving* perfection, but there are definitely areas where I think I could improve upon the current Baronial state-of-the-art. Mister Humility, that's me :-s
Got some socializing and dancing accomplished, all of which was to the good. Even talked
kestrell into dancing the Black Allemagne with me. She was extremely nervous, but no worse in practice than a typical novice dancer. Now that she's occasionally coming to dance practice, perhaps she will learn more dances. I think Allemagnes in general are probably best for her, as they are relatively simple, and don't usually involve long separations from your partner.Dayboard was scrumptious and ample. Thanks
elizabear!I displayed some of my Coney-Catching books at the A&S table. Brought some extras to possibly sell, but didn't actually sell any. Then again, was too busy socializing to make any great effort to do so. Speaking of the A&S table, I finally saw
rufinia's Byzantine outfit. Most resplendent!Still a little unsure about my "place" in Carolingia these days. Given how little storytelling I've done of late, "Alessandro the Storyteller" doesn't seem quite right. Carolingia is still the source of my social circle, but I feel somewhat outside it of late. [See also
siderea's recent post about "insiders" vs "outsiders".]Ran into Gareth Hinds in the audience of the play. He was formerly an artist at Looking Glass, and then Irrational, before leaving to do comic books full time. He's now working on a comic book version of King Lear, and was here with his sketch book to do some Shakespearean studies.
So, onto the play. Caveat up front: Not only am I a perfectionist, but a few years ago I saw a nigh-perfect Macbeth production, so my standards are incredibly high. Eh. This show was mildly entertaining, but full of missed opportunities.
High points for me were: the witches, who had excellent evil laughs all around.
dreda, in particular, managed not just an evil laugh, but an evil *posture* that was a wonder to behold. Gregorian, as MacDuff's young son, did a marvelous job, and got the only big laugh of the show. The murder of Banquo was also well done, with boffer "clubs" that made satisfying "thunks", and whose blows didn't have to be pulled particularly.The rest of the cast was -- uneven. Many were individually quite good, but others (naming no names) were just completely flat in their delivery, which dragged down the ensemble. When there are one or two people who are flat, I can blame the individual actors, but with so many, I put the onus on the director. I'd heard from more than one cast member that he was very laissez-faire, and it showed in the final product.
I mentioned above that Gregorian got the one big laugh. Kudos to him for getting it, but any Shakespeare show that has only one laugh in it is clearly being done wrong. Done properly, Macbeth is full of laughs, frequently juxtaposed with the most horrific moments. This macabre humor actually serves to *increase* the horror, by varying the tone. When the horror is unalloyed, it dulls the palate.
Pacing has become my constant gripe for live theater in general, and Shakespeare in particular. Macbeth is the shortest of his plays, and it should come in comfortably *under* two hours, 100 or 110 minutes or so, not run 2:10. Part of this can be laid at the foot of the set management. Although the sets were simple and largely abstract, they paused between most scenes in order to rearrange the set. All that dead air just saps the momentum of the story badly, and to no good effect. Shakespeare barely needs sets at all, as he always begins a scene with some sort of place-setting exposition. If you *must* have sets, for heaven's sake don't pause the action while rearranging them. Have servants bring on the banqueting tables and chairs *during* the beginning of the banquet scene, for example. The set (mis)management is only part of the problem, though. Even when they weren't messing with the set, the entrances weren't nearly as crisp as they ought to be, and there were far too many (un)dramatic pauses.
They only cut one scene. Sadly, it's the scene that, while frequently cut, is the thematic *heart* of the play. Hecate's talk with the witches about the nature of free will and predestination is, I think, crucial to the story, and its absence always weaken the show.
Act V had no armor. I found that especially anomalous in an SCA production, where, face it, practically all the actors already *owned* perfectly acceptable armor. Macbeth has all these great lines about "strap my armor on me" and "at least I'll die with my armor on", but no armor is to be seen. At least they did have some actual blood for the murder of Duncan.
One of these days, perhaps my frustrated perfectionism will lead me to direct something again myself. Not that I am capable of *achieving* perfection, but there are definitely areas where I think I could improve upon the current Baronial state-of-the-art. Mister Humility, that's me :-s
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 12:55 am (UTC)Isn't that a scene that it's strongly suspected was added in at a later ddate, and was not even wirtten by Shakespeare (or who ever)? I seem to remember being told in some english and/or theatre class that it was often cut for that reason...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 01:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 01:05 am (UTC)I feel like Giles.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 05:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 05:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-08 05:37 am (UTC)A big issue
Date: 2004-11-08 02:22 pm (UTC)The fight scenes were fine, but we are a group that does fighting all the time and is used to seeing melee, tournament and war. Especially in such a martial play, I'd expect to see this.
Sunday night Jehan and Luke were in the audience and my heart sank. There we were a company of pikers, and we looked terrible by real standards. Sigh.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-10 05:38 pm (UTC)Is he, now? Very neat -- I thought that his adaptation of Beowulf was excellent. I look forward to this.
One of these days, perhaps my frustrated perfectionism will lead me to direct something again myself.
If you do, I'll suggest again doing something other than Shakespeare. One of my main frustrations with the Mummers is the complete absence of the other playwrights. Granted, one has to look harder for good plays, but he wasn't the only decent playwright of his day.
I had really expected Pestle to break the ice, and get some other playwrights into the mix. I'm still disappointed that that didn't seem to sink in...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-12 10:58 pm (UTC)I don't have a problem with flat delivery per se. It's often better than the opposite extreme. But the characters do have to have emotional energy *between each other*, and this was missing at times.
Lear is coming together. Slowly. Hoping to ship it in the spring; updates on the website in a month or two. Might scan some of the SCA sketches if I have spare time to do so. BTW, props to Mike Bergman for telling me about the event. Oh, and let me know when/if videos are available from the Lear production.
Cheers,
Gareth