LeBron and Co. to win the E. Conference finals in 2007

A month and a half ago I said:

"LeBron is slowly (or quickly) becoming the best player that has ever played the game. He has the Cavaliers playoff-bound in only his third season with a 43-29 record. I am predicting the Cavs to beat the Wizards in the first round and give the Pistons a run for their money in round two."

Well, today I say that LeBron and company will be seeded number two in the East for next year's playoffs, beat the Bucks 4-1 in round one, beat the Heat 4-2 in the Semis and beat the Pistons 4-3 in the Eastern Conference Finals. This possibility will be due to the new playoff formatting likely to take effect before next season.

The Cavs will square off against an able Mavericks team in the NBA finals and LeBron will take a game-winning shot in the seventh and final outing. Outcome yet to be determined.

This will be the beginning of the LeBron dynasty.

Transcendent Characters

A person’s identity must be strong and unique to stand out from the common crowd. Likewise, a good playwright must develop traits within his or her characters that are distinctive and exceptional, yet maintain elements of human connection to which an audience can relate. Further, characters should borrow upon the successful traits of beloved characters that precede them. Playwrights and composers, after all, are attempting to examine human interaction, whether to make liberal statements about social life and values or simply to portray the beauty of love. Therefore, common elements will be found amidst characters that defy genres, from Shakespeare’s comedies to Lloyd Webber’s musicals to Ibsen’s dramas. Thus, there are common traits found within the characters of the many current performances in London. However, for a play to develop its own voice, the characters must move beyond simply mimicking the thoughts and actions of characters past, so, to an audience’s benefit, there is contrast found among these characters as well.

Malvolio, a simple, stiff puritan from Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night envelopes many of the same qualities as Fergus Crampton from Shaw’s You Never Can Tell. Both characters are formal and set in their ways about how things should operate. Both men are rigid and powerful and demand attention as presupposed by their prestige. The contrast exists in the fact that Crampton adapts to the changing times at the end of the show, thus accepting love and having love accept him, whereas Malvolio is contented only by self-knowledge that he is sane, as “at the close of the play, he is brought out of the darkness into a celebration in which he has no part, and where no one seems willing to offer him a real apology” (Spark Notes). Despite formality and rigid behavior toward the beginning of each play, each character adapts differently and thus receives a different outcome.

Analyzing the same two productions, Shaw’s character of Valentine shares similar attributes as Shakespeare’s Viola, both possessing the courage to make more from their life. Viola, the play’s protagonist, assumes the identity of her twin brother when her ship is wrecked in a storm. The assumption of a new identity to further her life is similar to Valentine’s eagerness to progress his dental practice, despite his lack of clients and resulted lack of income. Viola suffers from what she believes to be unrequited love with her infatuation for Orsino, finding “that her clever disguise has entrapped her: she cannot tell Orsino that she loves him, and she cannot tell Olivia why she, as Cesario, cannot love her" (Sparknotes). Valentine on the other hand faces outward unrequited love with Gloria due to complications between social upbringing and a general misunderstanding. Valentine is a character that benefits from intelligence yet suffers from his strong passion to be an earnest suitor. Both characters are young and are in search of love and more understanding to life, but due to different circumstances, both face adversity in claiming their hearts’ true desires.

In A Man for All Seasons, the character of Sir Thomas More “refuses to sacrifice his self, which he defines by his moral conscience, even as he sacrifices his life,” while The Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera behaves similarly, refusing to sacrifice love while continuing to haunt a place in which he does no longer belongs (Spark Notes). More sacrifices his own happiness and the happiness of his family by refusing to back down on his moral stance, resulting in self-imprisonment and hindered self-evolution. In contrast, the Phantom in many ways imprisons the one he loves, Christine, by refusing to let her love and exist in her own world, the world in which she belongs. The Phantom’s mask and More’s cross become symbols of restraint and personal imprisonment. However, the characters contrast as “More’s reverence for being practical…is rooted in his love for the law,” while the Phantom’s actions are rooted in his love of love (Spark Notes). More is rigid due to personal beliefs, while the Phantom is rigid due to jealousy and anger. More’s refuge is his home, his bible and his cross, while the Phantom’s refuge is underground lair, music and his mask. Both characters are resistant to change and thus face harsh consequences in a life that is filled with little love.

All four of these productions have withstood history and changing times and discerning audiences worldwide largely in part for developing characters who have moral objectives yet retain enough human qualities to remain relatable and common. Though each character borrows from the traits of many before them, they are all instilled with a voice unique enough to stand alone. Built from qualities essential to human existence, the characters who break the mold of the common stock envelope a sense of new and a sense of specialty, managing to communicate very large and profound visions to the simplest of individuals in an understated way.

Webber's Longevity: The "Phantom" PR Machine

“Hit Me Baby, One More Time,” sings Britney Spears on her 1999 debut single “One More Time” from the album of the same name. When it comes to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera, the more appropriately named title track would be “Watch Me Baby, One More Time.” A musical that debuted at Her Majesty’s Theatre in London on 9 October 1986, is still selling out performances worldwide, and just became the longest-running Broadway musical ever is now part of any theatre-attendee’s common vernacular (Her Majesty’s). And to sustain such a long run, it can be asserted that many people filling the seats are repeat viewers. But the true cause of this success is arguable: is it the art of its compositions that has catapulted its popularity, or has publicity, marketing dollars and a gigantic production budget maintained its longevity and superstardom? Marketing hype, combined with the publicity garnered from Lloyd Webber’s prior prestige is responsible for the majority of the longevity of Phantom of the Opera.



On the walk to see Phantom

As stated in the program from Her Majesty’s Theatre, in January 1986, nine months before the London opening of the show, the title track was released as a single to gain publicity and speculate interest. This is a technique not fully embraced by American pop artists until many years later, and one that is still being expanded today through the use of various types of media releases in a digital world. Utilizing a technique like pre-releasing a physical product many months before the show’s debut is pure publicity, and the stunt utilized Lloyd Webber’s name as the “brand leader” to market the new category: a grand scale, operatic and romantic night out. Take a publicity move, cast a few star actors, and the producers are left with a winning combination to fill seats for the opening – and apparently for twenty years thereafter. Successful marketing consultants Al and Laura Ries maintain that “leadership alone is one of the primary objectives of any marketing program” (Fall 202). They continue, “It’s why you want to create a new category (so you can start the brand from day one as the leader),” and this is the technique first utilized in 1986 and still driven home today with Phantom (Fall 202). Essentially, there has been no production to follow Phantom that contains the same formula, mainly because for a show to supersede Phantom, it would have to be written in a different style so it too can be a market leader. Simply copying the magical formula of Phantom would result in a number of difficulties, from securing enough funding to produce a similar show in quality to gaining attention while not being remembered simply as Phantom’s successor.



New Year's Eve, Just after curtain call

The show is a high-budget dazzling spectacle that cannot be equaled by smaller stages which creates further demand to see the big production on the grand stage. Conversely, a show like Les Miserables could be performed effectively utilizing a unit setting or limited hand props and fourth-wall convention. It would be extremely difficult to portray a crashing chandelier on a community theater budget. Thus, Phantom has created a niche in the market, such a large production value complete with intricate effects unable to be replicated without the properly funded production to implement them, let alone a staff trained to handle such complexities. Even a cast filled with talented actors and vocalists would come across as performing a bare rendition of Webber’s score, which brings forth the interesting argument that without the million dollar budget and intense spectacle, the show would not stand on music alone. Further, the music is so accessible in the package that it is presented, that it can only be presented as a large-scale performance at prestigious theaters; otherwise the romantic appeal is lost on the audience.
In a 1998 article for WeeklyWire.com, Dalt Wonk echoes the need for the spectacle to accompany the content of the show, claiming that it is the production that enchants the audience:

I can't help thinking of the character "Chorus" in Shakespeare's Henry V, standing alone in the Globe Theater, asking the audience to use their imaginations to fill out "this unworthy scaffold ... this wooden o" -- the empty stage on which the play would unfold. Lloyd Webber and company have taken the exact opposite approach. Their promise is that no imagination will be required. The audience will be swept up in a seamless miracle of stagecraft, a total illusion. Phantom sets out to incarnate in three dimensions the magic one has come to expect in films. It is a phenomenal challenge. And to a remarkable degree, Phantom reaches its goal (Wonk).

And, so, the audience is swept up in magic. Not an incredible score or life-changing dialogue, but, rather, the magic of seeing a show that many have seen before. The magic of marketing hype, publicity, word of mouth advertisement and the magic of millions of dollars in costumes, lighting and scenic design. Arguably, this is the same magic that millions of teenage concert goers witness when they attend a Britney Spears concert. Spears' material is definitely not art, and definitely not suited for a jazz club filled with a discerning audience. Yet, Spears material has become “Pop Art,” and so has Lloyd Webber’s – work recognized as art due to its popularity. The popularity of Lloyd Webber’s Phantom was propelled thanks to clever publicity, marketing a new “category” of theatre and incredible word of mouth promotion from novice theatre goers that were wooed by the production value. Evidence of the lack of art in the show is magnified by the soon to be introduced 90-minute Las Vegas Casino format. Phantom is about spending marketing dollars to make more on the return, as any good business should be concerned with, but an artistic production would fight any push to condense material to simply make money, which is clearly not the case with the content of Phantom. Within five years, one should expect to see a discontinuation of Phantom and an underground publicity campaign that reestablishes the show as the “greatest spectacle of the Twentieth Century,” which will spawn another twenty year run promoted by millions of dollars and performed with the help of millions of dollars.

A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt

IMG_5140.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

January 5, 2006
Theatre Royal Haymarket, London, UK

Teacher, playwright and producer, Robert Bolt’s most noted work, which was voted Best Foreign Play of the Year in 1962 details the Reformation in England during the 1500’s. More specifically, it focuses on the life of Sir Thomas Moore, Lord Chancellor of England and the moral decisions he is forced to make during his life. The January 5, 2006 production of the play at Theatre Royal Haymarket highlighted the moral dilemmas faced by Moore and the struggle between good and evil. The production, directed by Michael Rudman, was my second favorite show that we saw in London. I specifically enjoyed the use of the static set throughout the entire performance, which is a staging layout I’m familiar with from my days of theatre. Referred to as a unit setting, the lighting and scenic design stayed primarily constant during the entire evening, save for lighting changes to emphasize mood changes and sense of day or night, dusk or dawn, interior or exterior. It can even be argued that the lighting was chiaroscuro at times, as the contrasts of light and shade were used to highlight change in mood and change of location. The scene at the bridge was especially chiaroscuro due to the harsh lines, deep colors and dark shadows, all converging to hint toward a conspiracy. The beauty of a unit set is that in its skeletal form, it provides a fragmented background that the audience must use as the outline of the setting and then fill in the blanks, requiring tangible participation from the audience. A Man for All Seasons required this participation, but it was carried out willingly, creating a vibrant performance that complemented the theatre. The beauty of the rhythm set allowed for the flow to follow the precedent set by quick scene changes found in film and helped fill downtime appropriately. The unit set allowed the monologues of The Common Man (Tony Bell) to fill in the time that would otherwise be gaps during the performance, and the flow worked appropriately.

The character of Sir Thomas Moore (Martin Shaw) was extremely well acted, coming across as with a personality strong and weak, morally unwavering and selfishly stubborn. The overall quality of acting was in my opinion the second strongest of all the shows we saw in London, as Clive Carter cleverly played the crafty Thomas Cromwell, Daniel Flynn portrayed King Henry VIII’s colorful personality and Tony Bell was hilarious yet controlled and understated as The Common Man. Tony Bell steals the show in an appropriate way, successfully undertaking the role of the common person throughout his various roles.

Phantom of the Opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber

December 31, 2005

Her Majesty's Theatre, London, UK

IMG_5184.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

Life is a Masquerade. There are different masks for different functions, from work to home, from family to friends. And perhaps one of Phantom of the Opera’s true objectives is to present this idea of hiding from the truth for the sake of entertainment and enjoyment. Before our December 31, 2005 viewing of the show at Her Majesty’s Theatre, my only experience with the show had been the various soundtracks, from the Original Canadian Cast featuring Colm Wilkinson to the Original Cast Recording featuring Michael Crawford. My initial impression of the music was very similar to the other works of Lloyd Webber: cliché, overly dramatic, average and very plain. But perhaps I was taking the show too seriously, judging the works as art when they are actually overtly dramatic for theatrical purposes. Perhaps Lloyd Webber was not trying to compose the greatest original score, but rather an extremely accessible score in a spectacular, theatrical sense that would translate well to audiences worldwide. After our viewing at a theatre more than one hundred and twenty five years old, I finally grasped the true spectacle of the performance, and that the visuals must complement the music in order to empathize with the story and characters.

The show lived up to its expectations of providing a magnificant visual display, from elaborate backdrops to intricate costumes to swinging chandeliers. Overall, I enjoyed the show for the amazing experience of viewing such a long-running and worldwide phenomenon at such a beautiful and historic theatre. Our seats were in the Grand Circle, which provided an outstanding view of the elaborate sets and costumes. Also aiding the overall visual experience were the dramatic lighting designs, including chiaroscuro contrasts to enhance the darkness of scenes involving the Phantom and for scenes like Masquerade/Why So Silent. I am grateful for the position of our seats, as I fear the drama of the spectacle would not have been nearly as prevalent from any other location.

Speaking to the tripartite instrument, the director of this production was trying simply to capture the magic and ride on the publicity and longevity that the show has produced in its long-running history. There was no reason and should be no reason for many years to come to break the mold that has produced critical acclaim and filled seats for decades. Further, the show was trying to capitalize on the many themes crucial to the show, such as unrequited love, saving grace and jealousy. Also, the show capitalized on the visually stunning elements to effectively aid audience understanding and express the show’s many themes. The production was effective in accomplishing those objectives and it was worth demonstrating them to the audience.

My main complaint of this performance versus the selections I am accustomed to from the soundtrack was the difficulty to understand the lyrics during group vocal selections. Anytime there were multiple voices involved there was a lack of clarity in the delivery to the audience, causing me to miss some of the important content within the lyrics. From a performance standpoint, the cast was very talented, carried for the most part by the strength of the Phantom of the Opera (Earl Carpenter) and Raul, Civomte de Chagny (David Shannon). Despite the difficulty in understanding the pronunciation of songs featuring multiple parts, the ensemble was very strong, as emphasized in large cast numbers like “Masquerade.” The only weakness of the cast rested in the performance of Christine Daae (Rachel Barrell or Celia Garaham). She was tonally solid, but the strength of her voice varied and sounded stretched and strained on higher pitches. The role of Christine is far too important to the movement of the plot to accept a weak performance at this level of theatre. The remaining members of the cast filled their respective roles appropriately, supporting the vocal strength of the Phantom and Raul with very straightforward interpretations of their characters.

The elements unique to a production of Phantom of the Opera include the reverse stage angle, making the audience feel as though we are viewing the action from the back of the stage, seeing the action as the actors would, and the use of the mirror to produce an almost magical element with the appearance of the Phantom in its reflection. With such a large production budget and nearly a twenty-year run history, these are elements that are necessary in order for fans to continue to spread the publicity about making sure to see Phantom during their next visit to London’s West End or New York's Broadway.

My favorite Lloyd Webber shows are his earlier works like Joseph and the Amazing Technical Dreamcoat and Jesus Chris Superstar because I feel as though they present more of an original voice with less of a confined and plagiaristic delivery on the compositions, as I fear is prevalent throughout the compositions in Phantom of the Opera. But, the beauty of Phantom is not just the music in an isolated format, but it is the combination of the compositions and visual spectacle within the plot of unrequited love, jealousy and acts of saving grace. The performance that we saw in London was everything that the show is supposed to be: visually stunning, musically interesting and overall solid. Despite a weak performance from the character of Christine, the show went forward as hyped, completing a nice afternoon. To be fair, there a few songs in Phantom that deserve critical acclaim, and the renditions of “The Music of the Night,” “All I Ask of You,” and “Masquerade” presented the magic and charm that is described in the reviews that preceded them.

The best element of the show actually occurred after the final curtain call, when the cast entertained us with a very professional rendition of "Auld Lang Sang," wishing everyone a joyful New Year. Though I do not view Phantom of the Opera as art, the popularity of the show has turned it into a popular culture phenomenon. And no, the New Year’s Eve show that we watched was not the most amazing performance I have ever seen, but it was a strong rendition of a show responsible for rejuvenating popularity for theatre worldwide. And, despite average music, the show connected with the audience thanks to visual excellence, including lighting and costuming.

Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare

London Eye (from Victoria Embankment)
Originally uploaded by dwri.

December 29, 2006

Novello Theatre, London, UK

It had been years since I had any encounter with William Shakespeare, managing to avoid his works during college without fail. So, I was slightly nervous for our second theatrical encounter in London. Twelfth Night is a play I was not previously familiar with, which created difficulties in following the plot, and without our high-level introduction beforehand I fear I may have fallen victim to complete confusion. Performed at the newly refurbished Novello Theatre, the December 29, 2006 production of Twelfth Night by the Royal Shakespeare Company proved to be hit, but unfortunately more miss during the course of the evening.

I was thrilled to experience Shakespeare in London. Perhaps being in the place where most of the magic was first transcribed on paper would propel me to a new appreciation of his work, or provide me the required motivation to comprehend his work. The theatre was nice, yet the seats were uncharacteristically cramped and uncomfortable. Upon entering, the first thing I noticed was an unusual display of props: music stands, chairs and desks hung by string, dangling in air. I was hoping for a non-traditional interpretation of Shakespeare’s work, and the play delivered in that regard without fail.

I thoroughly enjoyed the use of music throughout the evening. The implementation of violin, clarinet, saxophone, trumpet, cello, double bass, percussion and keyboards created a very retro vibe amidst modern costuming. The music, composed by John Woolf and Sianed Jones, both doubling as musicians during the performance, was a very successfully entwined accent to the play’s progression. The music had a very defined and familiar yet new and non-conformed sense to it, as composer Jones brings a worldly influence to the project, having previously studied various styles from Welsh choral to East African techniques.

For me, the beauty of this production rested in the original musical compositions and the creation of a simultaneous modernistic yet retro feeling through lighting and costuming. The combination of a modern interpretation and the feeling of a 1940’s Jazz Club during the scenes involving music come together to imply that the story is timeless, but unfortunately, the acting did not portray the story as a timeless piece of material. The character of Feste (Forbes Masson), jester and servant to Olivia (Aislin McGuckin) captured the heart of the original compositions with his vocal talent, but unfortunately, for assuming the role of comic relief, he fell short with his acting. However, with that said, my favorite moment during the play was Feste’s moving vocal performance at the piano, capturing most of the magic that a gifted lounge performer would capture on a late night at a smoky hotel singing to an intimate crowd.

Overall, I feel the production could have been more appropriately adapted to a modern setting. I appreciate the avant-garde, or experimental, unorthodox approach, however it forces the question to whether we really need productions that go beyond the true intent of Shakespeare’s work? If Shakespeare were writing today, he surely would break the mold yet again, but it does not mean that a performance in 2435 of his work from this century would require futuristic adaptation. Shakespeare’s writing is brilliant, and the focus should be on the words, not conceptual visions that compete with the strength of the pen with which he wrote. And, unfortunately, this performance of Twelfth Night competed with the poetry in Shakespeare’s writing.

King James, the Cavaliers and the Playoffs

While most of the sports world was drawn to a #2, #3, #4 and #11 seed in the NCAA Final Four, the most impressive 21-year-old in the basketball world quietly secured his tenth career triple-double against Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat, beating the Heat 106-99.

James became only the fifth player in NBA history to record a triple-double when scoring 45 or more points, scoring 47 points (16-for-25 shooting), grabbing 12 rebounds and handing out 10 assists, ESPN reported.

More from ESPN:

The two young stars put on a show of dazzling dunks, drives and playoff-caliber hustle that awed fans, their teammates and a coach who witnessed the legendary battles between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. "People got a view of absolute greatness," Heat coach Pat Riley said. "It's absolutely beyond description. I haven't seen players do that in a long, long time."

Over the last five games, LeBron is shooting 69-129 from the field while averaging 40.4 points, 8.2 rebounds and 7.8 assists. Wade was also impressive in the duel, nearly recording a triple-double of his own. LeBron is slowly (or quickly) becoming the best player that has ever played the game. He has the Cavaliers playoff-bound in only his third season with a 43-29 record. I am predicting the Cavs to beat the Wizards in the first round and give the Pistons a run for their money in round two.

You Never Can Tell by Bernard Shaw

IMG_4929.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

January 8, 2006

Garrick Theatre, London, UK

Our last day in London as a group turned out to be a real treat complete with my favorite production of our stay, You Never Can Tell by Bernard Shaw and performed at the Garrick Theatre. Funny, entertaining and relevant are the first three words that come to mind when reflecting upon the show. The acting was top notch, and each character’s sense of timing meshed well to produce a natural comedic presence. Written in 1896, the material felt just as fresh today as I’m sure it would have during Shaw’s day, as he tackles themes of women’s liberation, the generation gap and gender comparisons. Looking at production value, I feel this show was the most enjoyable of our trip and a notch above the others in pure talent, dedication and delivery. Specifically, the portrayal of Valentine (Ryan Kiggell) and the Waiter (Edward Fox) moved the dialogue forward smoothly and effortlessly, and the rest of the cast complemented flawlessly.

Staged in four simple acts with a different setting for each, the play seemed to flow at a very comfortable and appropriate pace. The comedic timing and stage presence of Kiggell proved to be extremely seasoned, despite his recent entrance into professional acting, graduating just four years ago from LAMDA. The chemistry between Kiggell and Nancy Corroll, who played Gloria and who is a fellow trainee of LAMDA, was demonstrated instantly and repeatedly to the audience, creating for a very comfortable experience. In all honesty, this play is better suited for an afternoon in the theatre than a night out, as its pace suits a lazy day in the park or reading a good novel by the pool. I was astonished to discover at intermission that the role of Mrs. Clandon was actually being played by an understudy, Lin Blakley. Even more astonishing is that this performance marks Blakley’s inaugural performance in London’s West End. Perhaps it is the youth and excitement of this cast that culminated together an understanding and energy unmatched by the comfort that comes when one reaches the top of the ladder. Whatever the formula is, the cast of the Garrik’s production of You Never Can Tell produced a very professional and natural performance.

The pace of Shaw’s writing seems to also match the tone of a long afternoon walk, and this writing style is further mimicked by the location in which he sets each act, most of which revolve around the water and one’s ability to enjoy its mystique. The truly amazing attribute of Shaw’s writing is his ability to make the material so accessible to everyone, funny to most, extremely witty to some, yet socially relevant to all. The theme of gender equality would not truly be tackled from a legalistic standpoint until twenty years later, yet Shaw insisted on raising the social importance of gender status in the class hierarchy, carefully intertwining his opinion into his very funny and accessible language.

Trying to categorize the type of comedy implanted in this work, Roger Warren suggests in the program’s forward that “perhaps it is best to forget about labels altogether, and to relish the life-enhancing quality of this ‘delectable entertainment.’” This production enhanced the idea of this work being “delectable entertainment” without getting in the way with modernistic approaches such as overshadowing the play’s content with innovation (as done in Twelfth Night) or failing to communicate an idea due to overlooking the natural charm of live theatre and replacing it with digital catastrophe (Woman in White). The performance worked for a number of reasons, but the major ones being that its cast was extremely talented and properly cast in their roles and that the play focused on the content of the script and worked to best portray that content in its original sense so that a modern audience would be able to understand and emphasize properly.

In regards to Wolfgang von Goethe’s tripartite instrument, I believe that the production was trying to carefully understate very important social issues by overstating the comedic presence of the writing. The comedy was further enhanced through the usage of setting that was equally over-the-top, but in a manner that suited the setting, dialogue and individual relationships on stage. Essentially, the play would be enjoyable to all who watched, but only those audience members willing to read between the humorous jokes and purposefully awkward moments introduced for comedic enhancement would understand there is a whole lot more being discussed during this turn of the century production. I feel as though this production properly executed Shaw’s original intent and it was extremely worthwhile to do so. The show felt natural and comfortable.

The blocking of the show was well-imagined and nicely executed, as each scene felt new and worked well to complement the full use of hand props and a realistic set. My favorite scene during the show was the first, taking place in Valentine’s dentist office. This scene allowed for the actors to reveal the personalities of their respected characters while establishing the pace for the rest of the evening. Furthermore, since the show’s action took place in only four segments, it allowed for very intricate and imagined sets and required the full usage of material props to make the action seem turn of the century and real yet comedic at the same time. This show would not have worked as well, even with this talented set of actors, in a unit setting with limited hand props. Given the costuming and the setting of the show, the lines required a real environment to support them. The combination of intricate hand props and sets combined to support the comedy in an effortless manner, but without these elements, the play would have stumbled in transporting the audience into a different generation and forcing them to think as an audience member would one hundred years ago.

Overall, the play would have been solid and well received due the talent of it actors. However it is the properly executed costuming and scenic design that aid the setting of the play and recreate a subtext within Shaw’s clever humor. After witnessing this production, it is easy to understand why the term “Shavian” is tossed around so readily in the theatrical world, as he managed to utilize techniques in scripting that others had established while writing in his own voice to provide humor with an understated observation of social rights. As the waiter says, “A hotel is a refuge from home life.” As is the theatre, and Shaw’s writing allows the audience to remember that life is, after all, humorous, and worth observation.

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Commercial

This is one of the funniest commercials that never aired. I think Kellogg's really had something good going for them here. I mean, just watching it makes me feel great.

Quite Impressive

Woman in White by Andrew Lloyd Webber

December 28, 2005

Palace Theatre, London, UK

IMG_4888.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

“I have a secret,” said Andrew Lloyd Webber, late one night to his friend over a few beers. His friend sat patiently, wondering when the secret would be told. Hours passed, and a few beers later, Webber finally revealed his secret. He continued, “I took all of the compositions that did not make their way into Phantom of the Opera and threw them together to create The Woman in White.” Of course this dialogue did not truly occur, but this is how I was left feeling by intermission. But here’s the kicker, the book by William Wilkie Collins that goes by the same name which he used as the basis for these compositions was a best-selling phenomenon with immediate impact. Which, are unfortunately (and hopefully) accolades and overall audience and critical impression that this musical will never garner.

I’m not sure what I disliked more, the unconventional scenic design or uncreative compositions. Fortunately, I don’t have to decide, because neither worked and the show suffered from the first scene forward. Sure there was decent vocal talent from most actors, specifically the roles of Marian Halcombe (Ruthie Henshall), Sir Percival Glyde (Michael Cormick), and Walter Hartright (Damian Humbley). The play’s bright spot was the portrayal of Mr. Fairlie (Edward Petherbridge), humorous, fitting and well-developed.

I’m not a huge fan of Webber’s work, but I’m comfortable with some of his earlier musicals such as Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and Jesus Christ Superstar. But from there, he decided to be progressive, and he should have stopped while his stocks were up. The measurement of the success of the technological implementations is where my interpretation diverges from most of the class. While my peers view the use of the projected images as a movement forward, placing the theatre in close company to film, I view this as a step backward, confusing the true beauty of cinematography. While the use of moving screens and projection technology is seemingly a move toward the future, it actually underplays the magic and variety that live theatre accomplishes. Live theatre and today’s film cannot be measured using the same instruments. Film is successful because it shows true human interaction in realistic spaces, highlighting the intimacy of communication. In film, close-ups cause us to be closer to the truth of subjects. Theatre is the opposite. Unit sets are successful because the audience fills in the gaps of what the room would truly look like. The use of projected images and limited hand props causes the realism to be one step further removed, because now you have actors standing in front of intangible items. This is the exact opposite of film, and thus, in my eyes, is a move in the completely wrong direction for a live performance to make a mark on an audience.

Pillars of the Community by Henrik Ibsen

IMG_5197.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

January 6, 2006
Lyttelton Theatre, London, UK

It is easy to understand why Pillars of the Community was the first of Henrik Ibsen’s plays to be performed internationally, and further, it clear as to why it is still being performed in the heart of London’s theatre scene more than one hundred and twenty-five years later. Dubbed the “Father of Modern Drama,” Ibsen’s work deals with significant social issues, but the beauty of his writing is that he seamlessly incorporated pertinent, relevant and substantive material into an already established, successful and formulaic style. The writing, as confirmed by its continued existence, is intelligent and creative, capable of translating to a modern audience. The January 6, 2006 performance of the play at the Lyttelton Theatre was solid from the acting to the lighting to the overall scenery and staging.

Directed by Marianne Elliott, the show transitioned well, did not drag in unexpected places, and for the most part illuminated the key messages of the play to the audience cleanly and effectively. Staged in a box set to emphasize the period of realism in which the play was written, most of the action took place on a stage decorated to recreate a room. Good scenic design should emphasize two parameters: first, to express a play’s qualities, and second, to aid audience understanding. By staging the play in a box set, both requirements were met, as the audience viewed a performance amidst a true backdrop, with tangible walls. The implementation of a box set made the performance come across more like a movie, played out in true rooms as opposed to the stage. I personally favor a play to embrace the fact that it is a performance, with all the nuances that live performance encompasses as opposed to trying to ignore the theatrical elements that can become so magical when overstated. However, performing the work in the context it was written allowed the performance to showcase realism, or an attempt to portray faithfully the surface appearance of life. I felt the use of lighting aided the portrayal of realism, from the light illuminating through the shutters to the use of real candles. The costuming of the characters were visual attempts to match the personalities of the characters. Lona Hessel (Leslie Manville) the half-sister of Karsten Bernick’s wife Betty, was costumed in bright, vibrant red to emphasize her strong and outspoken personality. In contrast, to emphasize the American influence of Johan Tonneson (Joseph Millson), Betty’s brother, he was costumed in a much less formal manner, communicating the geographical gap between two cultures.

Beyond geographical boundaries and differences, the social gap was well portrayed in this production, a theme that can translate to any generation, as technology and morals constantly progress, or rather, become more progressive. The acting was strong enough to demonstrate related themes of honesty and deceit, virtue and the destruction of innocence. The performance demonstrated the ever-changing stance on what honesty entails and how a culture reacts to various moral issues. I enjoyed this performance, but found it ironic that a show set in the 1870’s, portraying realism in context and on stage would be performed in such a modern venue. However, I feel that staging this play as they did in a progressive theatre like the Lyttelton is a testament to the timelessness of Ibsen’s material and an indication that his work will be studied one hundred and twenty-five years from now.