Changing Lighting Conventions?

[gafftaper]

CBR372 just brought a traveling production of "Charlie Brown" into my space for the week. It was a great performance and he did a great job with the tech. He brought in a set of Colorblaze 72's mounted on booms upstage pointing toward the audience, as well as 5 Mac250's (two of which were also horizontally mounted toward the audience on upstage booms). He asked my opinion of his design work and this brought up an interesting philosophical discussion which I thought would be great to have here. His design choice was to go with standard theatrical conventions for the spoken word parts of the show and then switch to a very rock and roll style for the musical numbers. There were several times that one of the Mac 250's would ballyhoo through the audience or the LED's were used for an audience blinder effect. I want to clarify that this was a design choice and an attempt to create a different form of art. I'm not saying he did a bad job lighting the show or even criticizing his choice. As an audience member I'm really not sure how I feel about mixing in R & R lighting. It's new, different, and not something I'm used to as an audience member... that doesn't mean it's bad or good... just different.

So, stepping back from this particular show and speaking in general theory now... How do you feel about mixing lighting conventions? When do you mix R&R into your designs? Is it only okay when doing something like Tommy? Or is it okay with any upbeat modern show. How do you feel about having LED's/movers on stage in full audience view? As lighting technology changes should we allow it change the conventions of lighting a show as well? How do you feel about migrating new technology into the traditions of theater performance? I'm wondering if some of our old school designers will feel differently about it than our newer younger ones.

[Footer]

This sums up the last 9 months of my life. How do you mix flash and trash with "traditional" design.

My question is this... what was the concept of the show? Why did you feel you needed traditional lighting or flash and trash?

So, on that note, I just did this exact thing. My last show at CCCEPA was As You Like It. The director chose to set the show in essentially a 1960's inspired hippy forest. Between scenes, and sometimes in the middle of them 1960's counterculture tracks were played. I did use my movers for the show, however I chose to never actually move them hot. I used them to give movement to the show through gobowork etc. Occasionally, I would throw in a color roll.

I did draw a hard line with my students when they designed. They could use the movers, as long as nothing moved besides a gobo from the time the light came on to the time the light went off.

Now, for our musicals... it was another story. The director of the program loved flash and trash and glitter. If a light could move, he wanted it to. It drove me up the wall. I to merge that with my usual design sense. It somewhat worked. It nearly killed me, but I did it.

[SteveB]

Absolutely the directors call, in association with related designers, as to appropriateness of the use of lighting as a scenic element, as opposed to a practical element.

One could ask this same question of Kevin Adams, LD for the Broadway revival of Hair. Is he making use of the rig's movers as R&R effect lighting, even though the supposed time line is the 60's, where you would not see this type of effect, or has the director chosen to fast forward 40 years to current time and location, where they become appropriate. From the Live Design article, the Hair director and designers chose present day, and that becomes the answer, Directors Choice.

Steve B.

[ship]

Originally Posted by SteveB

director and designers choice

Steve B.

For better or worse, that's the art in the show. Did it work for you is an observation but given the designer's influences in design and or director's intent, a statement of if such overall design part worked and is proper isn't proper to ask.

More a statement of as applied, these paint brushes as they were, did they work in an overall sense for you in application to the point in the play you saw them during? Did you become involved with the play or distracted might be a more accurate question. Certainly if someone that's trained in looking at lights is in fact looking at lights the first time he or she sees a play sufficiently to note such things in detail, there might be something wrong with the lights and or play.

Don't matter what gear was used, was it a good show and art made?

[mrtrudeau23]

it seems that on many of the shows i have been working recently, the audience could see the lighting fixtures and i or the designer and the director didn't care. it takes us away from the idea that tech should be invisible to the audience, which is cool. anyone in the audience knows that there are lighting fixtures; it's no big secret.

as far as R&R lighting, there are some shows that i think it is more called for, such as hair, chicago or wicked. however, at the same time it is hard to justify the R&R style for shows like hello dolly, sound of music, oklahoma or any other classic musical theatre piece. if done right, i think that the R&R style can add the right feeling to a show, but it can't be just about the lighting, since theatre is still about the performers as well. rock can get away with it more because there is less for the audience to pay attention to on the stage. the actors still need the main attention to further the story during the musical numbers.

i do like to use effect cues for big musical numbers, but i try to make it so that it isn't taking away from the other performances also happening at the same time. it has to be a collaborative effort of the director and the designer. currently working on beauty and the beast, and the director basically wants be our guest to be a flash and trash number as well as the transformation scene. it works and i think, if i can program all the effects correctly that it will work and be tasteful at the same time.

it seems that flash and trash is an inevitable side effect of having the ability to have automated fixtures in the theatre, and for better or worse it depends on the director and the designer.

[rochem]

A couple years ago, I was able to see the show "Spring Awakening" in New York at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre. This was my first exposure to the mixing of "traditional" lighting with R&R lighting. For those unfamiliar with the show, it's set in 1891 in Germany, but the musical numbers are all set in the present, with the characters primarily singing to the audience. The show makes excellent use of shadow and angle during the book scenes to sculpt the actors, something that I am seeing less and less of in professional theatre. The book scenes were lit very traditionally and standard - all conventionals, crossing a cool and a warm tint to mix to a slightly warmer color, and a good balance of key and fill from the front light. During the musical numbers, however, the natural conventional tints would drop off and be replaced by deep primaries from unusual angles, flourescent tubes on the walls flashing, LEDs running through colors, and lots of movement from the movers, all with the units in full view of the the audience. During some songs, the movers would just ballyhoo all over the stage and the audience to give a R&R feel to the show.

This was my first experience seeing such a dramatic mixing of traditional and R&R lighting in the theatre, but I really enjoyed it and honestly felt that the show would not have been nearly as powerful without it. From what I can tell, this shifting of styles for musical numbers is best used when you want to intentionally remove the audience from the world of the show, traditionally something that was to be avoided at all costs. By using such a rapid change in style, you clearly dictate to the audience when they should be paying attention to the story, and when they should be accepting a slightly different world than the show is set in, thus removing any confusion over what is story and what is not. I am currently in the early stages of designing a small original musical where we will use this kind of approach. The book scenes will be lit with a more or less standard McCandless rig, while most of the musical numbers will be full of deep primaries and movement. Bump cues, along with the blocking, will be used before and after most songs to provide an instantaneous change between the two styles.

However, having said all that, I am usually a strict advocate for "traditional" lighting whenever the show calls for it. There's nothing I hate more than going to a show and seeing the LD play with their scrollers and rotators and movers and LEDs just for the sake of playing with them. I have actually walked out of a production of Les Mis because the LD, for some unexplained reason, felt the need to show off every frame of his brand new Apollo Smart Color scrollers, each with an Apollo Theater Gel String.

[Footer]

Originally Posted by rochem

\I have actually walked out of a production of Les Mis because the LD, for some unexplained reason, felt the need to show off every frame of his brand new Apollo Smart Color scrollers, each with an Apollo Theater Gel String.

Thats a bit harsh. To me, scrollers don't even fall into the automated lighting catagory. Instead, they are there as a cost saving/power saving/labor saving measure. Give me 20 scrollers and I can cut my plot down so thats less focus time, less hang time, less pipe weight, and less power used. Scrollers have become to me a back pocket item that I hate to do without. Now, hot moves with scrollers... there is nothing uglier. Would you have walked out if they had hung 15 different colors of one system and changed color every scene?

[rochem]

Originally Posted by Footer

Thats a bit harsh. To me, scrollers don't even fall into the automated lighting catagory. Instead, they are there as a cost saving/power saving/labor saving measure. Give me 20 scrollers and I can cut my plot down so thats less focus time, less hang time, less pipe weight, and less power used. Scrollers have become to me a back pocket item that I hate to do without. Now, hot moves with scrollers... there is nothing uglier. Would you have walked out if they had hung 15 different colors of one system and changed color every scene?

I wasn't walking out simply because they used scrollers. I agree, scrollers are a valuable tool which can really help to cut down a rig. I walked out because the LD seemed to lose all sense of design and composition, and instead just decided to use all the fun colors in the Theater Scroll throughout the show. To clarify, I didn't have a problem with the frequent changing of colors, but rather with the colors he chose. True, that's what was in the scrolls, but in that case it's better to choose one or two frames that work and stick with those, or even hang a new system without scrollers, rather than using the colors just because they're there. I compare it to choosing the gels for your show by reaching into the gel cabinet and using whatever you pull out first. This wasn't the only reason I walked out, there were some other lighting issues that were pretty bad as well, this is just the one that sticks out in my mind.

[CBR372]

Haha, wow I get back from the cast party and there's already a large discussion on this! Thanks gafftaper!

So first off I just wanted to say to everyone who mention Kevin Adams and his designs for Spring Awakening and Hair, and even more Next to Normal and 39 Steps. All of these designs infuse both traditional lighting and R and R lighting. Much like I did with my show, which was what I was going for.

From the beginning in discussions with the director we wanted to make this a "new" Charlie Brown. She wanted it to be a little edgy (which meant a charlie brown with heavy eyeliner) So in order to compliment her vision I made the choice to add the mover and the LED's.

Now even I myself do not know what compelled me to make these choices. Most of my close associates might say I did it to emulate Kevin Adams, who is my favorite lighting designer btw. Yet at while our style was similar I hate when people copy other people work... and plus my rig was no where near as intense as his works. Others might say it's because I belong to this newer generation thats emerging in the workplace. a generation that grew up with rock concerts that had more then just a huge amount of PAR cans.

But yet i don't feel thats why I made that design choice either. So sitting here I'm thinking about it, i've narrowed it down.

Because of the vision the director and I shared I felt it necessary to include these R and R type lighting during the songs because these songs... well mainly happen in th characters imagination. In real life we do not break out into song singing about suppertime, so why should we try to emulate natural light through conventional lighting?

Now I am not saying that everyone should use this philosophy for every show. As I believe there is a place and time for everything and some shows call for a different style of lighting.

Also I believe my choice in style of lighting worked perfect for this "adaptation" for this show as it appealed to our target audience and also provided a lot of people with a learning experience as most of the crew (High schoolers) have never been able to play with a mover, or mix color with several LED units, nor have they ever had to load in and out like a professional show would.

So finally I agree that this infusion of traditional and modern lighting is growing more prevalent in todays show world. Most shows this could be a good thing, some maybe not so much. I just believe as long as there is a COHERENT and SEEMLESS design scheme it works.

... and btw, gafftaper, some of those ballyhoos were not intentional... they happened mainly because I finished programming them right before we opened the doors to our second show...

and that concludes my longest post ever...

[len]

Not being a theatrical person, the only thing I can ask, by way of being sort of a devil's advocate, is: If people keep getting the same production over and over, why do they keep coming back? I saw Pagliacci at the Lyric a few years ago, which was originally set in the mid 19th Century, but they re-set it in the 1920s and used a 1920's era truck instead of a horse and wagon. Half the audience thought it was innovative, the other half hated it. Which was right?