These are some thoughts I had at the beginning of the process that I spoke to the designers about. I will be writing some more thoughts about the play and the process so far later on today, so keep in mind these ideas are subject to change and growth:
From Mid-October:
While I know this term is abused time and time again by scholars, one of the aspects of Fefu that drew me most to this play was its exploration of liminality through a variety of different means. The play is actually a rehearsal within a play, the intermediary preparation of an event before it actually occurs. Fefu is constantly rehearsing or simulating the murder of her husband. The house, in the context of the play, is solely a woman's space, and thus in yet another way an extradaily sphere reserved for a special kind of gathering. Part II is an intermediary space for the characters as well, a rite of passage almost. They are removed from the larger and regular context of the ensemble, undergo/explore some sort of psychological transformation, and then return to the group with a different understanding of their reality and the reality of their scene partners when Part III begins. This is also true of the audience. They begin the play as a traditional audience would: spectators to an event removed from themselves, rife with expository language, with only references to surreal events occurring, and not the actual witnessing of any of them. In Part II, they break from the traditional role of the audience, (one that is more passive and clearly separated from the world of the performer) to an in-between audience status: they do not interact directly with the actors or the character, but suddenly they and the actors share the play-space, and they move through the world of the actors as the events unfold. Moreover, because these are repeated, they break from a realistic and linear progression of time, and instead take a cyclical form. When the audience returns for the third part, their understanding of these characters, and their relationship to them, is much more intimate, and much less presentational than it had been during Part I. This heightened awareness of the play's theatricality comes through in the increased self-reflexivity of the third part: the increased references to why theater is important, why community is important, what it means to rehearse, how theater can change our lives, and the women's increased awareness of their own circumstances (Paula's constant commentary on the jokes, her speech regarding the failures of these women's bourgeois endeavors, Fefu and Julia's confrontation, Emma's entire speech).
What this means for designers: The reason I am pushing us towards CAAS, despite the technical obstacles presented, is because I think the efficacy of this play comes from how close it is to being naturalistic, how it approaches naturalism only to rebound backwards. The play is effective not if the audience sees an explicitly theatricalized space, with fancy light cues, symbolic set pieces, and, as Lizzie so wonderfully put it, crazy Leslie puppet costumes. Rather the elements of the play come through most clearly, I think, if we begin with an unobtrusive, naturalistic world, deceive the audience into buying into that dynamic, then surprising them in specific places with design choices that undermine this absolute naturalism. These choices I don't think need to be introduced until Part II, but mainly in Part III. Even then, I think we need to be delicate with our choices, and in fact will have a stronger design the more we use restraint, and choose wisely which objects, which moments, which devices best serve this idea. Anna, so far what you've been telling me I think reflects this idea most. Hidden lights, box lights, inside dressers or gels over regular lamps, etc will lead us towards lighting that can seem to be naturalistic for the majority of the play, and then in one moment, with one cue, the space can be transformed into other-worldly, and then switch back. This happens when Julia walks to get the sugar, but I think it could also happen in moments when the women are playing in the water fight, maybe even during Emma's speech. For costumes, I've found a couple of pictures of what I DON'T want, which I know is not nearly as helpful as telling you what I do. But Lizzie you mentioned the ecclectic and impulsive nature of Fefu, and given the sort of heterodoxy that is supposed to dominate the set pieces, I was wondering if each woman could sort of have her own style, borrow from a particular aesthetic or period, without having each woman look like she walked out of a time capsule. Does that make sense? Emma's costume would be elaborate, perhaps even a little 1940's dinner party elegance (though the script specifies she's wearing something she got in Turkey...), while Fefu might wear something closer to slacks, a blouse, something practical. For set and props, I really like this idea of imported objects and textures to create spaces that are not inherently part of CAAS. Seeing a room with lots of plants and pots and fertilizer, for instance, for the scene between Emma and Fefu, while the landing in CAAS where I'm thinking of having the Christina/Cindy scene could be littered with old books, the kitchen with lots of pots, pans, dishes, and Julia's bedroom stuffed with storage items and very little room to move comfortably or to fit audience members. The living room, could then be more presentational, more traditionally set up in Part I, and then over the course of Part III the women again litter it with water, turn over couches by jumping over them, and knock Julia from her wheelchair.
Again I think the most important thing with this is that we not overburden the play with lots of supernatural design: one of the brilliant things abotu this text is how much the women's stories, relationships, and interactions already offer up so much of the liminality and in-between status of audience and actor that I mentioned above. I think what we need to do is decide where in the play, in the set, in the lights, in the costumes the design could help tease that out, and where the simple performance of the actors, and their commitment to the text and to each other coudl bring that out without the added elements of design. As Lizzie said, overly symbolic costumes, or overly theatrical lighting could distract from the delicay of this world, and how carefully it treads that fine line between illusion and reality.
I'll put pictures and stuff up too. The link below is a really cool video that transforms objects into food. See where it takes your imagination...I'll be posting more research/inspiration like this as we go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjZMIjV9m2E
Lizzie:
This link is an example of costumes that I think went too far in the direction of stylistic, or statement-y.
What this means for designers: The reason I am pushing us towards CAAS, despite the technical obstacles presented, is because I think the efficacy of this play comes from how close it is to being naturalistic, how it approaches naturalism only to rebound backwards. The play is effective not if the audience sees an explicitly theatricalized space, with fancy light cues, symbolic set pieces, and, as Lizzie so wonderfully put it, crazy Leslie puppet costumes. Rather the elements of the play come through most clearly, I think, if we begin with an unobtrusive, naturalistic world, deceive the audience into buying into that dynamic, then surprising them in specific places with design choices that undermine this absolute naturalism. These choices I don't think need to be introduced until Part II, but mainly in Part III. Even then, I think we need to be delicate with our choices, and in fact will have a stronger design the more we use restraint, and choose wisely which objects, which moments, which devices best serve this idea. Anna, so far what you've been telling me I think reflects this idea most. Hidden lights, box lights, inside dressers or gels over regular lamps, etc will lead us towards lighting that can seem to be naturalistic for the majority of the play, and then in one moment, with one cue, the space can be transformed into other-worldly, and then switch back. This happens when Julia walks to get the sugar, but I think it could also happen in moments when the women are playing in the water fight, maybe even during Emma's speech. For costumes, I've found a couple of pictures of what I DON'T want, which I know is not nearly as helpful as telling you what I do. But Lizzie you mentioned the ecclectic and impulsive nature of Fefu, and given the sort of heterodoxy that is supposed to dominate the set pieces, I was wondering if each woman could sort of have her own style, borrow from a particular aesthetic or period, without having each woman look like she walked out of a time capsule. Does that make sense? Emma's costume would be elaborate, perhaps even a little 1940's dinner party elegance (though the script specifies she's wearing something she got in Turkey...), while Fefu might wear something closer to slacks, a blouse, something practical. For set and props, I really like this idea of imported objects and textures to create spaces that are not inherently part of CAAS. Seeing a room with lots of plants and pots and fertilizer, for instance, for the scene between Emma and Fefu, while the landing in CAAS where I'm thinking of having the Christina/Cindy scene could be littered with old books, the kitchen with lots of pots, pans, dishes, and Julia's bedroom stuffed with storage items and very little room to move comfortably or to fit audience members. The living room, could then be more presentational, more traditionally set up in Part I, and then over the course of Part III the women again litter it with water, turn over couches by jumping over them, and knock Julia from her wheelchair.
Again I think the most important thing with this is that we not overburden the play with lots of supernatural design: one of the brilliant things abotu this text is how much the women's stories, relationships, and interactions already offer up so much of the liminality and in-between status of audience and actor that I mentioned above. I think what we need to do is decide where in the play, in the set, in the lights, in the costumes the design could help tease that out, and where the simple performance of the actors, and their commitment to the text and to each other coudl bring that out without the added elements of design. As Lizzie said, overly symbolic costumes, or overly theatrical lighting could distract from the delicay of this world, and how carefully it treads that fine line between illusion and reality.
I'll put pictures and stuff up too. The link below is a really cool video that transforms objects into food. See where it takes your imagination...I'll be posting more research/inspiration like this as we go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Lizzie:
This link is an example of costumes that I think went too far in the direction of stylistic, or statement-y.
This link is an example of costumes/makeup that just reek of the period. This too I think would not be effective for this performance.
http://www.willamette.edu/cla/theatre/archives/fefu/1.jpg
Other things that I'd like to hear YOUR thoughts on:
--Resolving the issue of firing the gun, a dead rabbit, and the blood on Julia's forehead. I want NONE of those things to sound/look tacky.
--What this play is saying about feminism, about the effects of bourgeois life, education, psychology, and marriage on the female psyche.
--The end, duh. I have thoughts on it, but I'd like to hear yours first. Thoughts can include questions, too, like I thought I understood the significance of this, but then when this happened it made me more confused, or made me think the opposite, etc. When we have a blog, I will post this little theoretical beast there, but for now, just put your name and add your two cents on this as a part of this document.
No comments:
Post a Comment