Design Issues and Solutions -

[icewolf08]

Filling up lots of linesets with lights is not the mark of a good designer. Also, most "Broadway" don't actually have 10-15 electrics, most Broadway theatre don't have that kind of space. Walk into most broadway theatres and you will find that Act II is hanging from chain hoists, the stage door literally opens onto the stage (ie. no wing space), etc. Those theatres look big to the audience, but they are indeed quite small. The mark of a good designer is accomplishing the job as efficiently and effectively as possible while preserving the art.

In my earlier post i did not mean to infer that yo can't learn from plots. I don't think you can learn the art from plots, but the tech you can for sure. Like your scrim scrape example, many people wouldn't think to turn a cyc light on it's side or to scrape an ERS across a scrim or cyc, but doing that all comes back to the why.

Originally Posted by rochem

While I agree that it's not necessarily the best way to learn about lighting, I do not agree that they are "entirely useless". For example, something that I found in more than one of the plots here was all the fixtures being used for cyc lighting. In Wicked for example, they have strip lights mounted on trusses on each side of the cyc, as well as a boom with a number of S4s to wash the cyc from the sides. I had considered trying this in a previous show, but reasoned that it would create an unnatural wash of light, so didn't try it. Now its something I might try next time that my cyc is not being lit the way I want it to.

Lets say, for instance, that for the show you talk about above, you tried your lighting idea. It doesn't matter if it was effective or not, when your teacher (or another lighting designer, or anyone) asks you why you made that choice, what would you say? (you don't have to answer, just think about it.) Now, I have worked with some LDs who I have asked "Why?" and they said they just wanted to try something new, and that is a valid answer, and as a student (and professional), you should always be trying new things, however, in most college level design classes "because I wanted to" may not get you too far.

So, do keep studying! Do keep trying new things! Do whatever you need to to make yourself a good designer!

[derekleffew]

Originally Posted by rochem

As far as I know, there is no piece of paperwork that includes the "why" of the design - although that would be amazing if there was.

See http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/g...statement.html, although you'll have a difficult time getting said document from a professional designer. Often they've done the thought and research, but haven't written it down.

[Serendipity]

Originally Posted by rochem

While I agree that it's not necessarily the best way to learn about lighting, I do not agree that they are "entirely useless". [Snip!] Again, the ideal situation would be to sit down with the designer and discuss it, but until that situation presents itself, I am just going to take what I can get.

Well said post! I agree that they won't hurt your lighting education, and I acknowledge and respect your curiosity, though I still am siding more with the other side of the fence on this one.

Originally Posted by derekleffew

See http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/g...statement.html, although you'll have a difficult time getting said document from a professional designer. Often they've done the thought and research, but haven't written it down.

Thanks for that. I read the post about the lack of documents explaining the "why" and wondered if Design Statements were something used in the "real world" or just lighting classes.

[SteveB]

One of the useful experiences of attending the Broadway Lighting Master Class a few years back, was to have Don Holder explain a good bit of the WHY of the design for the show Moving Out, which we then that evening, went to see. Knowing elements of Why, then allowed us to understand the How, though we had no access to the plot, but got a lec/demo after and I know that those of us attending the show from BLMC spent most of the show counting stage lights !.

This has been discussed before on CB, but Broadway works under extraordinarily constrained space conditions. Old theaters built in the early 1900's, very limited backstage space, minimal FOH positions, etc... all which tend to create a style of design that a for a newbie to follow, may not neccessarily be a good thing. Ditto trying to replicate or use techniques from a touring plot. Why try to replicate a cyc hang, when the entire reason for the instrumentation and placement was due to space (and time) constraints particular to touring ?. Does your theater have the same space issues ?, and are you willing to use the same equipment to get the same effect on a cyc, even though, for the tour or Broadway, expense in terms of type and quantity of tool choice was not an issue. It probably IS an issue for all us regular folks, and while I am now aware of the techniques Don Holder used to light the cyc for Lion King, I would probably have zero opoppurtunity to use them in my own theater, nor would I want too as my particular space and budget would require a different approach.

It's entirely a good thing to be able to pick a designers brain about what they were trying to achieve in a design, what the concept was, how they came to the concept and how they communicated their opinions and ideas to fellow designers and the director. Brian McDevitt had much to say at BLMC about the use of visual imagery in the design prrocess and that is far more useful then studying a touring light plot of Wicked. Unfortunatley, it is rare for any of the current crop of LD's to put down in writing, the intent, especially among the legit theater folks. The trade journals mostly seem to concentrate on R&R and Industrial events.

My $02

SB

[JD]

Originally Posted by icewolf08

Those theatres look big to the audience, but they are indeed quite small. The mark of a good designer is accomplishing the job as efficiently and effectively as possible while preserving the art.

Which begs the question; What is the future of Broadway Theater? Mind you, before I get slammed, I am not questioning the social significance of "Broadway" as a culture concept, or theater as an art. My question is aimed directly at the logistics of the theater buildings themselves. They are quite old and limited in space. In addition, it would be hard to impossible to do any expansion other then in a vertical direction. In some respects, Broadway has given birth to what I call the "Bonsai Tree" plot. With limited space, there is no room for a bloated plot. Everything must have a purpose. To some, this is like distilling the best of the best and coming up with something amazing. The shows I have seen over the years never fail to impress, but as a designer, I am always looking at stage sizes. It is wall to wall. Compare this with some of the casino theaters in LV or any newer show venue. In these settings, a new type of plot has begun to evolve. I call it the "Tropical rain forest" plot. It is easy to get lost even when trying to assess the plot. They just are that big. Considering that we live in a country where McMansions flourish along side SUVs, and meal sizes that could feed a village in some third world country, the question I have is: Are we going to get so spoiled that Broadway is a letdown, or will we look at it as a diamond, where quality is more important than size?

EDIT: I should clarify that "We" refers to the general theater going public (in this case) as compared to people in the technical field.

[derekleffew]

Interesting questions, JD. Cirque du Soleil does huge shows in custom spaces with unlimited amounts of equipment. Recently they've branched out to arena shows/one nighters with Dralion. They've also diversified into seasonal holiday Broadway with Wintuk, at the Madison Square Garden Theater. I haven't seen either of the latter, so I don't know how successfully they've made the transistion.

I think it's sad that the new versions of Theatre Crafts and Lighting Dimensions no longer print light plots, but they take up a lot of space and are not as visually stimulating as pictures to most readers. Plus, Vectorworks symbols on a page all look the same, no matter what show or designer. The Jekyll&Hyde plot above only has UnitNo. and Channel on it: totally useless for evaluating a design, and a strong argument for the British style of including all information on one sheet of paper. It also makes it easier for a Lighting Professor to grade classroom assignments. But let's not have that argument again.

Far more important than gear lists or pictures are the interviews appearing in Live Design and Lighting & Sound America, where the designers actually talk about the productions. These are as close as one is going to get to a Lighting Statement.

[SteveB]

Originally Posted by JD

Which begs the question; What is the future of Broadway Theater?

I think that Broadway in terms of the entertainment art we all know, needs to be on, or near Broadway in Manhattan of NYC in order for it to "Be" Broadway. Simple fact of life and it's what drives all the tourism that comes to see the shows. I don't foresee any major changes in current practice unless the local real estate market allows for major upgrades in the facilities. This has been happening slowly as some spaces have been built new and others have seen consolidation and improvements.

Still, the location dictates the space, which dictates the design, thus the "style" comment I made, which makes "Broadway" a particular art form all to itself.

I actually find it interesting to have read about many of the so-called "Broadway" folks (designers as well as production specialists) that have been encamped in Las Vegas for more then a few major events whom seemingly need their talents. I often wonder what exact talent they bring to the space/event that isn't readily available from the industrial or touring or R&R end of the business. I always assumed that the need to use "Folks from NYC" on occasion, was as much based on fear of having a huge investment and not wanting to lose it due to technical issues. In general, if you have proven that you can do it under the constraints of Broadway (and make money for the producers), you can probably succeed elsewhere, as biased as that sounds.

Steve B.

[Lightingguy32]

10-15 pipes seems reasonable for a broadway sized production. Think about ideal angles of front light as you get further and further upstage (one to 3 electrics near the plaster line aren't going to cut it)

[Footer]

Originally Posted by Lightingguy32

10-15 pipes seems reasonable for a broadway sized production. Think about ideal angles of front light as you get further and further upstage (one to 3 electrics near the plaster line aren't going to cut it)

It really does depend on the show. Usually it depends on how much scenery is being crammed it. Anymore, fly spaces is at an extreme premium. I have seen the number of electrics for a given production reduce over the last few years. I will have to find it, but I believe that Tharon's original design for Chorus Line called for 14 electrics, but the again, that show has very little scenery.

[derekleffew]

Originally Posted by Footer4321

...Anymore, fly spaces is at an extreme premium...

Hardly a recent phenomenon. Richard Pilbrow tells of building lighting bars in the bottom of unused scenic pieces in the West End in the 1960s.

Yes, moving lights have helped to free up overhead real estate. Another "method": scenes are often lit with one collection of lights, and those lights are only used for that scene. So while a show may have 500-600 conventional units, most are only used for five, ten minutes maximum. A recently closed "Broadway show" here in LV had scrollers on all the box boom units, but the scrollers never moved!