In order to review Sherlock Holmes: The Last Adventure I
would need a program to orient myself with the actors. As McLeese states, theatre is an
“actor’s medium.” The same
production could have been in Grand Rapids that same night, but it would have
been different based on the cast of the show.
With a background on the actors, I
will be able to analyze their performance and compare it to a range of their
ability (other characters they took on in past productions) or lack there
of. I would also be interested to
see if anyone has worked with each other before in a set because this might
help me understand some stage dynamics: either awkward interactions or smooth
exchanges.
For example, it seemed like Watson
and Sherlock weren’t the most relaxed with each other, whereas Sherlock and
other characters such as the King or Irene intermingled comfortably. Instead of just commenting on Watson’s
acting abilities, I would like to know more about him: is he new to Kalamazoo’s
Civic Theatre? Is this a role where
he stepped out of his comfort zone?
McLeese explains that theatre is more
comparable to “concerts or dance recitals” as opposed to “film” because “movies
remain the same every time it’s shown.
But live performances offer the possibility of differences…each
night.” For this reason, I would
consider it wise to go see the performance two times before I write my overall
review. I can still use my “gut
reaction” that I had after the first performance, but I also would have done my
“research” by comparing the consistency of the two nights and analyzing if the
theatre made some critical changes after the prior performance.
Theatre seems like it is a learning
process. Productions ranging from Shakespeare
to not-so-famous play writers such as Ionesco are reproduced throughout
time. It would make sense to
compare an old viewing of a similar production in order to understand the
director’s flair or the venue’s vibe.
For example, does the director decide to follow a flexible manuscript
that changes with modernity, or stick to a rigid original? Is the vibe of the theatre more of a
classic, high chandelier, formal setting to match with the latter style of the
director? Since there are
adaptations out there, I would think it best to use all of the resources
available. For all the audience
member knows, the play could be perfectly fine but the acting was abysmal, or
vice versa. By comparing more than
one production, the review would be more reliable.
I have been to the theatre quite a
few times in my childhood; I have even been on the stage a handful of
times. It was kind of bizarre at
first, walking into a formal theatre setting with an empty auditorium. It was
difficult to put myself in the mindset that I was out to see a production. Even though the beginning may have
started off a little bit slow, I soon fell into my typical, zombie like trance
(I cannot EVER take my eyes off of a television screen) towards the middle-end
of the first Act. It seemed like
my mind and those of the actors were in sync, we started off not really “in character”
to go see a play or to perform one, and then as we got more comfortable
throughout the evening we embraced our respective roles.
McLeese also notes that important
elements of the show are “lighting, staging, pacing, sets, costumes,” and while
I am not too familiar with this technical vocabulary, if I were to have seen
the production twice, I could make more of an assertion regarding the effect of
these characteristics. Also with a
comparison, I would be able to witness the critical eye of the director and his
or her effect on the show, because I would know if an error was corrected from
the night before.
For me, film reviews seem to be more
challenging than a theatre review.
Film, as McLeese mentions, never changes. It has an infinite amount of “takes” to perfect its image
and the actor, director, set-coordinator all sort of blend together as
one. However for a theatre
production, all eyes are on the actor, from the front row to the nose bleed
section. This is a lot more
pressure on the talent of the actor; he or she cannot rely on a scene “cut”
until the curtain falls.
When reviewing theatre, I would be
mindful that Broadway productions and downtown plays are different, just like
small-budget documentary films and Hollywood blockbusters. The role as a theatre critic versus a
film critic involves more of the feeling aroused by the actors, the
interactions between the actors and the environment of the performance, and in
a film review, direct relations to the venue or interaction between characters
would not be as effective because of the physical detachedness from the actors
and the audience.
Theatre adds an extra layer of excitation to the
experience because actors only have one chance for each line. If they have a brain freeze or stumble
on a prop, they have to work through it and maintain composure and
character. In theatre, actors do
not have the luxury to request a Venti decaf, 2
shots of espresso, skim, blended with ice every time they need a break; the
only break they get is “a leg.”
