I am stuck at home with the flu this weekend and needed a project... : )
October 25, 2009 - Ok, I'm done.
1 hour ago
Friday, October 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Interesting...
Still intrigued by Mr. Ken Davenport’s Audience Study Blog Click here
As an Usher at the Hilton Theatre during the run of Young Frankenstein I learned a lot about this subject from daily interaction with the patrons. I remember this one time a woman was so upset about Rodger Bart being out that she walked up waving the notice and screamed that the paper in her hand was a problem. Then she demanded to know why he wasn't going to be on stage that night. Which we were not allowed to tell even if we did know; if they were sick sometimes I would bend that rule but it depended on how I thought the person would react.
I never realized just how much patrons cared about the subject until almost every time there was an understudy on patrons would ask me, "Is Sutton Foster's Understudy any good? I paid a lot of money for these seats.” Which for that show some groups paid about $450.00 per ticket.
For Young Frankenstein we were lucky that all of the understudies were very talented (except for one of Igor’s but Christopher Fitzgerald was hardly ever out). Rodger Bart’s understudy Jon Patrick Walker was the best!
I think that audience members are very sensitive to what they paid for. For many patrons going to the theatre is a special event with family and friends. In my opinion the problem is the psychology behind when you plan something and things don't go exactly the way you imagined, it's in our nature to get disappointed. Therefore I think the main perception that needs to be changed is at the point of sales. Personally I think in an ideal world the audiences would be built around the show concepts. People should be paying to see the show not the stars in the show.
I think it would help if audience members were more informed about policies and procedures (i.e. If the actor's name is above the Title and they are out you can get your money back), of course within reason. I found once I explained to an audience member certain things that they were much more content and willing to accept the situation. An uninformed audience is one most likely to get fed up and tell their distant cousins about it. That's why I love that telecharge.com will sometimes let you know if a big name star will be on vacation before you purchase the tickets. Also for day of information we now have www.broadwayunderstudies.com (there is also a West End version).
Something to ponder: What would be some good ways to keep an audience informed though?
Ticketmaster or Telecharge sending out a mass e-mail if there are any changes 24 hours before the show?
Making the fine print larger?
Broadway for Dummies book? (I wonder if they have one already) Broadway 101 pamphlets?
Promoting the informative sites like broadwayunderstudy.com?
As an Usher at the Hilton Theatre during the run of Young Frankenstein I learned a lot about this subject from daily interaction with the patrons. I remember this one time a woman was so upset about Rodger Bart being out that she walked up waving the notice and screamed that the paper in her hand was a problem. Then she demanded to know why he wasn't going to be on stage that night. Which we were not allowed to tell even if we did know; if they were sick sometimes I would bend that rule but it depended on how I thought the person would react.
I never realized just how much patrons cared about the subject until almost every time there was an understudy on patrons would ask me, "Is Sutton Foster's Understudy any good? I paid a lot of money for these seats.” Which for that show some groups paid about $450.00 per ticket.
For Young Frankenstein we were lucky that all of the understudies were very talented (except for one of Igor’s but Christopher Fitzgerald was hardly ever out). Rodger Bart’s understudy Jon Patrick Walker was the best!
I think that audience members are very sensitive to what they paid for. For many patrons going to the theatre is a special event with family and friends. In my opinion the problem is the psychology behind when you plan something and things don't go exactly the way you imagined, it's in our nature to get disappointed. Therefore I think the main perception that needs to be changed is at the point of sales. Personally I think in an ideal world the audiences would be built around the show concepts. People should be paying to see the show not the stars in the show.
I think it would help if audience members were more informed about policies and procedures (i.e. If the actor's name is above the Title and they are out you can get your money back), of course within reason. I found once I explained to an audience member certain things that they were much more content and willing to accept the situation. An uninformed audience is one most likely to get fed up and tell their distant cousins about it. That's why I love that telecharge.com will sometimes let you know if a big name star will be on vacation before you purchase the tickets. Also for day of information we now have www.broadwayunderstudies.com (there is also a West End version).
Something to ponder: What would be some good ways to keep an audience informed though?
Ticketmaster or Telecharge sending out a mass e-mail if there are any changes 24 hours before the show?
Making the fine print larger?
Broadway for Dummies book? (I wonder if they have one already) Broadway 101 pamphlets?
Promoting the informative sites like broadwayunderstudy.com?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Original Material on Broadway
Inspired by my good friend Ant Mennuti I decided that this update should be about my theories the lack of original material on Broadway. Some people may ask why not take a recognizable product and present it back to the audience in a different art form. They argue that taking a popular movie and making it into a show that tweaks the story makes it original material. Nope, friends the dictionary defines original as the following...
1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2. new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4. capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.
6. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made: The original document is in Washington.
There is no mention of remakes or reinvents to be found...I think that people are ready and want to see something original on stage. My mother always talks about getting to see the original productions of shows being revived today and they hold a special place in her memories.
Here are two of my theories…I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject these are just my thoughts…
Theory # 1 – You already have an audience for the material.
It’s logical to think that when you take a preexisting story you will have an audience that comes with it. Which then creates word of mouth because once that audience finds out there is something new coming out using their favorite story they’ll start talking about it. Questions such as, “I wonder how [insert actor here] will do as Elizabeth Bennet?” will be asked and the ever so popular statement, “They better not ruin my favorite story.” will be heard. I have to admit to being one of these types of audience members myself. When I heard that Pride and Prejudice was becoming a Musical I asked/spoke the statements above to anyone who would listen. Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, and the BBC Film version is my favorite movie. It could be a really great musical if it is done right. I have an idea in my head about how the show could work, but that is for another post entirely.
Theory # 2 – Producer’s are the Audience members themselves – having an attachment to the material can be deadly in this business.
I remember whenever I Stage Managed or Teched a show in college that I loved whatever show I was working on. Alas… after a performance when I had asked my friends what they thought I would get really offended and not understand why they didn’t like some of them. Now that I look back I liked some pretty crappy shows which shall remain nameless. So I agree with the point that one should never so close to the material that they become blinded by their love of it.
1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2. new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4. capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.
6. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made: The original document is in Washington.
There is no mention of remakes or reinvents to be found...I think that people are ready and want to see something original on stage. My mother always talks about getting to see the original productions of shows being revived today and they hold a special place in her memories.
Here are two of my theories…I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject these are just my thoughts…
Theory # 1 – You already have an audience for the material.
It’s logical to think that when you take a preexisting story you will have an audience that comes with it. Which then creates word of mouth because once that audience finds out there is something new coming out using their favorite story they’ll start talking about it. Questions such as, “I wonder how [insert actor here] will do as Elizabeth Bennet?” will be asked and the ever so popular statement, “They better not ruin my favorite story.” will be heard. I have to admit to being one of these types of audience members myself. When I heard that Pride and Prejudice was becoming a Musical I asked/spoke the statements above to anyone who would listen. Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, and the BBC Film version is my favorite movie. It could be a really great musical if it is done right. I have an idea in my head about how the show could work, but that is for another post entirely.
Theory # 2 – Producer’s are the Audience members themselves – having an attachment to the material can be deadly in this business.
I remember whenever I Stage Managed or Teched a show in college that I loved whatever show I was working on. Alas… after a performance when I had asked my friends what they thought I would get really offended and not understand why they didn’t like some of them. Now that I look back I liked some pretty crappy shows which shall remain nameless. So I agree with the point that one should never so close to the material that they become blinded by their love of it.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
I like the shores of America...Comfort is yours in America...Knock on the Doors in America...West Side Story
West Side Story is not one of my favorite shows to begin with, but I really wanted to see this production because I was curious about the Spanish integration and I had never seen it on stage before. They used the original choreography that Jerome Robbins created instead of going a new route and I couldn't picture any other type fitting in so well. The dance fights were beautifully done, but I wanted the show to be on bigger stage I felt it needed more room especially in the Dance scene. I actually sat wondering how many times people had been kicked during rehearsals because they seemed so close sometimes. The rumble was perhaps my favorite scene. I thought the lighting was really well done. I was impressed with the staging and arrangements of the music. However, I could see why people wouldn't like this version as much as the original though it almost seemed too happy.
I thought that the Spanish was a really great addition to the story it added a realism creating more of a border between the groups. I think this story is extremely relevant and I liked the reminder that we still face this ignorance and prejudice. Different doesn't mean wrong and I think that people need a reminder like that every day.
I really enjoyed watching the production because Arthur Laurent (who is somewhere in his 90s right now) directed this version and I have to say that watching this production made me realize that the experienced people in the business are the true experts.
I loved the end of the show the best where Tony is shot - having one of the Jets to place the shawl on the grieving Maria was brilliant. Josefina Scaglione delivered her speech with just the right amount of effective passion. Then the bows had no music playing which was such a brilliant way to end the show. It was wonderful to watch the fruits of such a seasoned Professional's labor.
Next up Superior Donuts and Billy Elliot in November or December!
I thought that the Spanish was a really great addition to the story it added a realism creating more of a border between the groups. I think this story is extremely relevant and I liked the reminder that we still face this ignorance and prejudice. Different doesn't mean wrong and I think that people need a reminder like that every day.
I really enjoyed watching the production because Arthur Laurent (who is somewhere in his 90s right now) directed this version and I have to say that watching this production made me realize that the experienced people in the business are the true experts.
I loved the end of the show the best where Tony is shot - having one of the Jets to place the shawl on the grieving Maria was brilliant. Josefina Scaglione delivered her speech with just the right amount of effective passion. Then the bows had no music playing which was such a brilliant way to end the show. It was wonderful to watch the fruits of such a seasoned Professional's labor.
Next up Superior Donuts and Billy Elliot in November or December!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Dreams
One of the most common themes in Theatrical productions, Movies, and TV shows are dreams. Characters striving for some goal or searching for something that makes them complete. Most fail a couple of times; they may get sidelined by something then comes some defining moment where an inspiring song plays and the person gets better at what they are doing or just closer to what they want. The Mom, Dad, teacher, or coach has a heart to heart chat with the person and at long last comes the TADA! moment when they achieve what they had been fighting for. The audience is supposed to get inspired by the story and get motivated to achieve their own dreams. The point I am trying to make is we are all suckers for these types of stories and that's why the theme is so common.
Now there is a dark side to this type of entertainment and I believe the problem that now develops is that people get lost in those stories and they keep watching them over and over again because it's better than their real life. They get a sort of high from watching it because the brain produces endorphins that put them in a happy state. You might be asking yourself why I would be so against the happy state. It's just because the "happiness" is not real; it is not their own achievement people just take on that elation from the fake moment. See in real life Mom and Dad are so consumed by their own lives they don't pay attention to little Timmy's wish to go to an elite acting camp. In real life practicality has to win out most of the time and for this very fact the dreamers of this world are a dying breed. It's sad that people turn to false entertainment happiness and do not strive for what will make them truly happy.
Reality can really be heartbreaking...and that is why there should be more shows like Next to Normal in the theatre world. Shows that are real, gritty, and will break your heart that is what we need. Producers can't give this to people sadly because the thing is Dreams are mass appeal and reality is a bit more off the beaten path these days. I hope that we’ll see more shows out there that are real and that dare to be different.
In the meantime go see Next to Normal
Quote of the Day...
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Now there is a dark side to this type of entertainment and I believe the problem that now develops is that people get lost in those stories and they keep watching them over and over again because it's better than their real life. They get a sort of high from watching it because the brain produces endorphins that put them in a happy state. You might be asking yourself why I would be so against the happy state. It's just because the "happiness" is not real; it is not their own achievement people just take on that elation from the fake moment. See in real life Mom and Dad are so consumed by their own lives they don't pay attention to little Timmy's wish to go to an elite acting camp. In real life practicality has to win out most of the time and for this very fact the dreamers of this world are a dying breed. It's sad that people turn to false entertainment happiness and do not strive for what will make them truly happy.
Reality can really be heartbreaking...and that is why there should be more shows like Next to Normal in the theatre world. Shows that are real, gritty, and will break your heart that is what we need. Producers can't give this to people sadly because the thing is Dreams are mass appeal and reality is a bit more off the beaten path these days. I hope that we’ll see more shows out there that are real and that dare to be different.
In the meantime go see Next to Normal
Quote of the Day...
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Why Theatre?
Ever find that when you’re really passionate about something people are always asking you what it is about that thing that makes it so special to you? Well I get that question all the time about theatre. So I decided to take a blog post to try to describe the reason that I love theatre so much.
1. When you watch a show you are often watching dreams come true...whether it's the actors, the crew, the producers, the writers, or the company manager's dream you are watching the fruits of someone labor of love. I don't think I've ever met anyone in the industry who didn't love going to work every day and felt extremely lucky to be where they were. Which is very rare thing; there are not a whole lot of industries out there that can make that claim.
2. The ability to create is almost endless - There is just so much you can put on stage to entertain, make a statement, to encourage and inspire people.
3. It's as scary as it is rewarding - there is something attractive about that combination
4. It's challenging - The theatre industry requires you to think creatively and problem solve every day. Plus it is always different from one day the next.
I guess that's it - at least the reasons that I can put to words. These questions are always hard because I think it's hard to describe anything we love. We don't always know exactly why we love the things we do…we just kind of do.
1. When you watch a show you are often watching dreams come true...whether it's the actors, the crew, the producers, the writers, or the company manager's dream you are watching the fruits of someone labor of love. I don't think I've ever met anyone in the industry who didn't love going to work every day and felt extremely lucky to be where they were. Which is very rare thing; there are not a whole lot of industries out there that can make that claim.
2. The ability to create is almost endless - There is just so much you can put on stage to entertain, make a statement, to encourage and inspire people.
3. It's as scary as it is rewarding - there is something attractive about that combination
4. It's challenging - The theatre industry requires you to think creatively and problem solve every day. Plus it is always different from one day the next.
I guess that's it - at least the reasons that I can put to words. These questions are always hard because I think it's hard to describe anything we love. We don't always know exactly why we love the things we do…we just kind of do.
The Twelfth Night and Waiting for Godot
Theatre weekends are always the best most relaxing weekends for me...I don't know why but being in a theatre looking around at the lighting grids, reading the playbill about to see a show are some of my favorite moments. Especially in a house like Studio 54 which has no real house lighting and is lit by Stage lights. Studio 54 is my favorite Broadway House because when I walk in I feel like I should be in a flapper dress with a feathered hat on my head ready to go swing dancing or to a speak easy once the show is over. (Did I mention I was a bit of a nerd? Just checking)
Plus NYC provides great food options for before or after a show so be sure check out the restaurant McCormicks and Schmick's Seafood for great crab cakes. If you are looking for food options before Shakesphere in the Park however do not go to the Upper East Side. I have learned that Upper East Siders shop and do not eat from Lex to 5th Avenue. 3rd Avenue you'll start to find places but be sure you to have cash on you. Moving onward the purpose of my Blog...
The Twelfth Night - This was the first time that I had gotten the opportunity to see professionals perform Shakespeare and it was an incredible experience. First let me say that the Twelfth Night is one of the easier more accessible plays that Shakespeare wrote; it is in my opinion his best comedy. Raul Esparza was amazing as always, he didn't blow me away like he did during Speed-the-Plow but this wasn't that type of role. Anne Hathaway had an absolutely surprising stage presence which was really interesting to watch. I thought she'd be more stagnate and professional on stage but she was relaxed. Also...Man can she sing! The people that really stole the show were David Pittu who played Feste, Hamish Linklater - Andrew Aguecheek, and Jon Patrick Walker playing Fabian. Also Jay O. Sanders and Julie White were fantastic of course! All of these characters had the audience putty in their capable hands. Every time they came out the audience just wanted more and more. David Pittu really was my favorite though he was just brilliant! The way he seemed to be tailoring his performance to the audience’s reactions but not compromising his character was so different to experience. Can't wait to see him in more stuff, he is definitely one that I am going to keep my eye out for. I'd hate to say it but Audra McDonald was really great, but she was just so rigid on stage until the very end.
What I really loved about this play was the musical score they wrote for it. It was beautiful and the cast were all talented vocally. I was worried because I hadn't seen a play in so long that did not have scenery changes, but the way the blocking was done there was no need for it. The formation of the director's blocking allowed the audience to know where the characters were at all times. Kudos to Daniel Sullivan!
The Delacorte Theatre was a great venue - great site lines, but always remember to bring a sweater when you go see a show there because it is right off of Turtle pond and that makes it windy and cold sometimes. Learn from my novice mistakes.
Waiting for Godot - Ah gees...this play takes a certain audience and I don't know if I am the type to fit into that audience. It was a good play again no scenery changes, but this time during the first act I was falling asleep (sorry guys - shameful I know...but it's never happened to me before). Bill Irwin was really good - Nathan Lane was Nathan Lane but at times too much of his usual actor ticks came out (actor ticks - what I call recognizable actions and vocal inflections that actors reuse in various roles) John Goodman not a big fan but he was creditable. John Glover was great- his role was the most interesting to me. The play overall was about Waiting for something to change and being trapped in the same place because you keep on Waiting; People equate it to being in Purgatory. I felt like the first act they were talking in circles too much and the second act was much better. It was heart breaking at times, funny, and it gave you a lot to think about. It's one of those I don't quite know what I think of it but it was interesting and I'm glad I saw it.
Next up will be either West Side Story or Billy Elliot. I want to see Hair but I don't know what I'll end up seeing...until next time
Plus NYC provides great food options for before or after a show so be sure check out the restaurant McCormicks and Schmick's Seafood for great crab cakes. If you are looking for food options before Shakesphere in the Park however do not go to the Upper East Side. I have learned that Upper East Siders shop and do not eat from Lex to 5th Avenue. 3rd Avenue you'll start to find places but be sure you to have cash on you. Moving onward the purpose of my Blog...
The Twelfth Night - This was the first time that I had gotten the opportunity to see professionals perform Shakespeare and it was an incredible experience. First let me say that the Twelfth Night is one of the easier more accessible plays that Shakespeare wrote; it is in my opinion his best comedy. Raul Esparza was amazing as always, he didn't blow me away like he did during Speed-the-Plow but this wasn't that type of role. Anne Hathaway had an absolutely surprising stage presence which was really interesting to watch. I thought she'd be more stagnate and professional on stage but she was relaxed. Also...Man can she sing! The people that really stole the show were David Pittu who played Feste, Hamish Linklater - Andrew Aguecheek, and Jon Patrick Walker playing Fabian. Also Jay O. Sanders and Julie White were fantastic of course! All of these characters had the audience putty in their capable hands. Every time they came out the audience just wanted more and more. David Pittu really was my favorite though he was just brilliant! The way he seemed to be tailoring his performance to the audience’s reactions but not compromising his character was so different to experience. Can't wait to see him in more stuff, he is definitely one that I am going to keep my eye out for. I'd hate to say it but Audra McDonald was really great, but she was just so rigid on stage until the very end.
What I really loved about this play was the musical score they wrote for it. It was beautiful and the cast were all talented vocally. I was worried because I hadn't seen a play in so long that did not have scenery changes, but the way the blocking was done there was no need for it. The formation of the director's blocking allowed the audience to know where the characters were at all times. Kudos to Daniel Sullivan!
The Delacorte Theatre was a great venue - great site lines, but always remember to bring a sweater when you go see a show there because it is right off of Turtle pond and that makes it windy and cold sometimes. Learn from my novice mistakes.
Waiting for Godot - Ah gees...this play takes a certain audience and I don't know if I am the type to fit into that audience. It was a good play again no scenery changes, but this time during the first act I was falling asleep (sorry guys - shameful I know...but it's never happened to me before). Bill Irwin was really good - Nathan Lane was Nathan Lane but at times too much of his usual actor ticks came out (actor ticks - what I call recognizable actions and vocal inflections that actors reuse in various roles) John Goodman not a big fan but he was creditable. John Glover was great- his role was the most interesting to me. The play overall was about Waiting for something to change and being trapped in the same place because you keep on Waiting; People equate it to being in Purgatory. I felt like the first act they were talking in circles too much and the second act was much better. It was heart breaking at times, funny, and it gave you a lot to think about. It's one of those I don't quite know what I think of it but it was interesting and I'm glad I saw it.
Next up will be either West Side Story or Billy Elliot. I want to see Hair but I don't know what I'll end up seeing...until next time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
