As I was arriving to the Singletary Center to watch the play Henry V, I didn’t know what to expect from the actor’s performance, set design, lighting, or costumes. I am not too familiar with Shakespearean plays or subjects around mid-century politics, other than art history and architecture. I went to the play with an open mind and would use my design background to understand the art, language, and emotion of the performance.
As I was arriving to the theater, I was pointed in the direction of a vertical standing structure. It appeared to be holding light and color from escaping into the empty seating down stage. The vertical standing structure turned out to be a coliseum style seating. I found this style of seating to more interesting and interactive as it would become apart of performance.
…show more content…
The lighting was very simple which expressed mystery and pro-longing emotion. The set was built above and below our seats. Which provided more space for the actors to freely use their surroundings for more intimate scenes between the audience. The actors expressed drama, humor, and despair with only little props and stage design. This made it more challenging for the audience to understand what was being said. The actors did an amazing job with there performance and the way they expressed their multiple characters. I found it to be very unique that I was more in-tuned with the French than the Shakespearean language. The use of the actor’s body language, hand-motions, and costumes made it easier to understand and connect
So this was not my first time at the University’s theater. I arrived early in hopes of finding a good seat, and saw a number of tables set up across the stage. In addition
The set was simple, and it had a lot old fashion furniture that you don't see that much unless you have grandparent that still have old style furniture. The theater was small and minimalistic and help the audience feel closer the
With each scene being completely disconnected from the previous one the set had to change around every time a new scene was starting. Including two turntables and backdrop where projection could be made, helped the scene to feel more realistic to the location the act was supposed to take place. The scene “What?!?” had the turntable set to where there was a door and a park bench. The backdrop had a house projected on it. These elements made the audience understand that the scene was taking place outside of a house.
The scenes consist of the many techniques mentioned above, there are two main characters are shown and the play is set in contrasting between the past and the present. There are two real locations that are the TV studio and Melbourne hotel, however the interplay of the techniques in the scenes works together to create a wartime setting. The audience awareness is developed through the historical information from each scene. Theatrical devices a re combined to create various features and have a great dramatic impact. The structure promotes the audience to watch the play because the structure of this storyboard is contrasted between the past and present that will attract audience attention, as it is an historical play set between different times.
One of the most important in this particular play is the acting. The actors are good at adapting from one role to the next and switching accessories quickly. The different use of British and other accents in a stereotypical but serious way. The director attempts to make the play successful by bringing everything to life and using the actors to do everything in a smooth and funny matter.
The performers did an excellent job acting out the parts they were assigned. In the beginning of the first act, I made a note of them being very rocky in the beginning and only acting with their body language and not much with their emotions, but once they got more comfortable on stage they brought the characters to life. The main actor, Chaz Pitman, who played the role as Ben, impressed me the most because he was both the main actor and the director of the play. His acting was very believable and at the end when he was having a mental breakdown, I shed a few tears due to how convincing he made it seem. Jeeter and Salyer, who were played by Hal Greer and Kat Lys were the other two actors who captivated my attention.
Designed as a faithful reconstruction of the original, it uses the building methods of the time and traditional materials (oak timbers, plaster walls, wooden pegs, water-reeds for thatching the roof). From above, the shape seems circular (actually, it is twenty-six sided) with three covered tiers of seats surrounding a central area which is open to the sky. There the "groundlings" may stand to see the action taking place on the stage, which occupies almost half of the inner space. There are no artificial lights, no conventional sets, no fancy rigging. Now in our time period we have fancy lighting, comfy chairs, beautiful stages, and ad acquit shelter from the weather.
In my opinion, I really like the play, because it was really funny. However, the movie, in my opinion, was very bland and boring. The play was much funnier than the movie, while the movie was a very antique and old film. The only thing that I liked about both, the movie and the play, was that there weren’t that many differences that stood out to the people. There a lot of similarities, between the movie and the play, than there is differences between the movie and
While both stage and screen portrayals were highly acclaimed there are some similarities as well as some marked differences in each interpretation. On the surface, the first difference noted between the stage and screen versions are the sets. The stage version describes the setting of the play, the Younger family living room, as a
The stage design gives the impression of the characters being in two separate rooms, the positioning of blocks and pillars helps again to demonstrate this. This intricate attention to detail enables the performance to be compared so similarly to the movie adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic, although the ‘big screen’ enables more room for a fast change in setting and shots, Rourke does a phenomenal job trying to create this illusion which works so brilliantly. The night before the wedding or you could refer to it as the ‘stag and hen do’ was an unexpected twist that the audience definitely did not see coming. Again, the revolving stage was used to represent the divide between the women and the men and to compensate for the lack of space that the stage could carry.
The productions of this play were successful through stage design, lighting crewing, and acting. Those three aspects made the quality of the play stand out to me, as an audience member. The production of the set design of the play was a good effort. The set design for the play staging aims for the sweet spot between feeding adult nostalgia and satisfying a new generation of children.
We went to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre on Thursday 22nd October 2015 located in Stratford to watch Gregory Doran's adaptation of Henry V, written by William Shakespeare. Doran cleverly intertwined Stanislavskian characterisation with Brechtian elements to create a realistic yet dramatic performance. My expectations for this play were high because the Royal Shakespeare company are highly renowned and it intrigued me to see how they would make a historical play set in the 15th Century captivating and relatable to a modern audience. Doran's use of the thrust stage broke the illusion of a fourth wall as the two walkways (used as both entrances and exits to and from scenes) further involved the audience, ultimately making them feel part of the story and immersed in the action. The use of breaking the fourth wall displayed a Brechtian element to the play
The Tech Theatre students did a great job on the set. It was very functional and clearly showed the scenes. The layering of the boards and the easy exits for the witches and other characters made the show very appealing. The use of the plants and colors made it look very realistic,
“William Shakespeare’s Impact on Theater” says that “Theater, in particular, has experienced many changes due to his influence,” and without any major influence like Shakespeare to guide the changes of theater, it would be extremely different (Octane 1). Shakespeare introduced many new elements to theater because of how his writing was unique in his time period. Despite this, his writing appealed to many different audiences. For instance, Octane says that “The way in which Shakespeare’s plots move forward has helped define modern play-writing. Similarly, Shakespeare’s complex characterizations have brought forth a new type of storytelling in which characters’ choices drive plots forward” and “His plays were often imbued with universal truths of human existence, rather than acting as mirrors of the privileged life.
In the twenty-first century, the plays of William Shakespeare may at first appear dated and irrelevant: they use archaic language, are set in the age of Kings and Queens, and the Kingdom of England. However, it would be plainly mistaken to construe that Shakespeare’s works do not still remain integral to a twenty-first century society. Shakespeare’s plays gave the words and expressions one uses every day, revolutionized the art of theater as it was known, and forewarned about issues that would unknowingly still apply centuries later. Therefore, Shakespeare has had a profound effect on our lives by enriching our language and culture, as well as providing ideas that would still apply five centuries later, and it would thus behoove us to learn from his works and life.