1. Recall two
past productions, either you watched as an audience member or were involved in,
that stand out in your memory. Distinguish between the show that
you just enjoyed (made you laugh, cry, upset, or was entertaining, etc..) from
a production that really informed or convinced you of something True.
2. Is there a
difference between performances that offer some kind of (new or newly
clarified) truth versus performances that strive for documentary “verbatim” or
naturalistic reality?
A recent (in fact, the most recent)
theatre production that I've seen was a production of In the Heights produced by New Venture Theatre, a community theatre
in Baton Rouge. The original Broadway production won the 2008 Tony Award for
Best Musical. With music and lyrics by Lin-Manuel
Miranda (who also originated the leading role on Broadway), and a book by
Quiara Alegría Hudes (Pulitzer Prize winner for her play Water by the Spoonful), it is a story of a
vibrant community in New York’s Washington Heights neighborhood. It is a community on the brink of change, full of
people with hopes and dreams, who deal with the pressures of supporting
themselves and each other. They struggle
with what traditions they take with them, what they leave behind, and where
their true home is.
This show is one of my
favorites as well as one that I am absolutely not cast-able in. Nevertheless, I’ve still read the script,
watched various clips of performances online, and listened to the cast
recording countless times. You could say that I’m familiar with it.
The production the New
Venture offered was an enjoyable one, and had some great moments. The show was
cast with New Venture’s usual group of community actor, who are mainly African
American, so it was a little bit of a stretch for some of these actors to be
playing Hispanic roles and speak with Hispanic accents. Any short comings in
the show(missed harmonies, off-color singing) I was able to “filter” through my
brain because I know the performance of the original cast so well. It’s an
interesting phenomenon, being able to fill in the gaps of a particular
production because in your brain you have memorized the version of the show
that is “best” to you. It usually seems like the first time you hear or see a
production it gets wedged in your memory for you to measure all subsequent
productions you see of the same material. I find this more common to for me
with musical theatre (likely because of cast albums). Of course, if the actor
brings something new to the role or makes an appealing choice on stage, that is
usually memorable.
For Theatre History 3, Dr. Walsh had
us watch a “Great Performances” recording of Anna Deavere Smith’s Let Me Down Easy, a piece of verbatim
theatre. Smith’s signature style of creating theatre is to interview an
eclectic group of people (about 300 in this case), creating her show, and then
performing as the interviewees in their own words. For this production, the
interviews include Rodeo Bull Rider Brent Williams, New Orleans doctor Kiersta
Kurtz-Burke, and more famous people such as Lance Armstrong, Joel Siegel, former
Texas governor Ann Richards, as well as many others.
Smith performs not only in theses interviewees in their own
words, but also performs in their accents and mannerisms. She tries to occupy
or be occupied by their words. Let Me Down Easy, as well as most of Smith's other works, is
about finding the character of America. It asks "Do we have the most caring society we could?" The piece largely concerns people's thoughts on the Healthcare system in the US. It really puts into perspective these interviewees' thoughts and ideas about these issues. When Kiersta Kurtz-Burke's story was performed, we learn that she was a doctor at Charity Hospital in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Lance Armstrong talks about overcoming his cancer prognosis, and how he came back to cycling with the same approach that he did when he was fighting cancer. There are so many wonderful stories in this piece, and luckily for us, the performance is free online for us to watch! Please watch this performance if you have the time.
These performances are different because though I can laugh and cry when watching my favorite musical, I can still go home knowing that it was a great story that used fictitious characters to show the experiences of people in a particular community. In the case of Let Me Down Easy, I know that these stories are real accounts of people that really had these thoughts and feelings. Knowing that makes it different for me.
In The Heights is one of my favorite shows as well, and I seriously considered using it as an example for this topic in my own blog post. I do think it's a show that comes close to blurring the lines between these two types of theatre. To me the the contemporary nature and the emotional response that I experienced through the course of the show helps me to see it as a real set of events. I also think there is an interesting relationship between documentary and a fictional narrative that speaks on a real world topic. I find that there are cases where a fictionalized version of a real demographic can produce a stronger response than a show that is meant to be a documentary. Maybe its because we expect less excitement and entertainment from a show that's "based on a true story", but the more abstract it becomes, the easier it is for us to absorb.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting how your level of knowledge for both shows means different things and holds varying value. When watching In the Heights, you mentioned how you could fill in the gaps and hiccups with your familiarity with the OBC album and clips you've watched online. I do this all the time! Nothing is more of a let down than being totally invested in a show and waiting for your favorite moment of a song, wether it be a certain note or way it's delivered, and then the actor in front of you totally messes it up. Your knowledge of "how it's supposed to be", then, allows to to still enjoy the performance.
ReplyDeleteYour knowledge of the background of the stories encompassed in Let Me Down Easy also allows you to enjoy a production, but in a much different way. You mentioned that you know that those stories are real accounts of people that really had those thoughts and feelings. Because of this knowledge, you were able to "buy" the story more.
It's funny how outside knowledge of a show can do different things. In one instance, outside knowledge allows you to make it more real, or at least true to the original. In the other, outside knowledge grounds the performance in reality, and doesn't require as much effort from you as an audience member. In a sense, both productions became real to you. The base of the reality, whether it be fiction from the start or real people's stories, became clearer because of what you knew beforehand.