Well I saved this theatre journal for a little bit later because I wanted to write about the two plays I went and on Thursday night and Friday. I saw an amatuer production of ‘Grease’ the musical and ‘Knives in Hens’ on Friday. Both were interesting plays for different reasons.
Grease- Grease is by far one of my favourite movies, so I was interested to see how they would make it into a play. It was certainly interetsing, as with every school production, the cast was very nervy (it was opening night) and there were a lot of things that went wrong, however, all in all, there were a few performers that were really good and stood out amongst the others. The girl who played the character of Rizo captured her personality and portrayed that both physically and vocally. Unfortunately the boys had no resemblance to John Travolta though! In a theatrical aspect, they used multimedia quite a lot in regards to sound, and of course for the sing-a-long music. There were basic props used, however these were used quite effectively and I think they were quite good. There was a hint of naturalistic theatre as they were eating real food and drinking real wine (cordial). The choreography was quite well done, although there was some lacking of motavation from the boys!! I think the lighting was not used effectively, at our school, we have a very basic lighting setup and this school had a much better sound and lighting setup, however we use our lighting much more effectively and symbolically where I felt they just used their lighting to…light the stage so people could see! However you do have to realise that it is a amatuer production, and they have not attended theatre schools or universities dedicated to the arts, so it is harsh when comparing them to professional productions. Although it certainly was an interesting experience!!!
Knives in Hens: After finally getting to the Beckett theatre (yes, like Samuel Beckett-Theatre of the Absurd!!) as a result of getting lost in the city, we finally saw this production. The imediate feature about the set that I noticed when I walked in was the use of shadow, reflection and silouettes. Throughout the entire production the stage was never intensely lit, we were in a constant state of low light. This really emphasised the presences of shadows, everything had a shadow. I am bit unsure why this was, but my interpretation was that the producer wanted to either a) emphasise that what you see has another side, ie. the shadow-this comes through in the characters, or b) wanted the set to have an eerie and ominous atmosphere. I really enjoyed the ambiguity of this play, the dialogue was sometimes structured, and other times only semi-structured. There was never really a set time that the actors would use structured or un-structured words, it was just random. Now into the plot so you understand a little more of what I am talking about!! A young woman married to a far older man (a ploughman, an accepted villager) must take her seeds to be ground into flour at the miller’s house. This house is out of the village, and the miller has been used as a scapegoat for the death of his wife and daughter. The young girl takes on a journey of oppression to liberation as she becomes closer to the miller, and this directs her to murder her husband (well he was sleeping with other women in thier own barn!). She takes the miller’s place as miller at the end of the production, showing the shift in personality she has undertaken. Actor Kate Box carries this out perfectly, she becomes more fluent and comprehendible in her speech whilst the miller becomes free of his past life and profession. There was not a lot of sound used, only ominous tones when something ominous was happening!!! Also the murder of the husband was not seen on stage, instead sound effects were used.
From thinking about it on the weekend and discussing it in class on Monday, I will be able to add other people’s opinions.
Posted in 1