Anastasia... just because you can, doesn't mean you should?

jtweigandt

Well-Known Member
Went to see a road company last night. Actors were great, book and music flowed, but the set was primarily 1 large arch and 2 smaller side arches with video wall fill in the middle of each. The transitions and backgrounds were inventive, beatiful, and TOO DAMN DISTRACTING. The wall was way too bright 90% of the time. Primary actors were covered by very soft focused very bright, follow spots that had extreme washout of faces at times, and the poor chorus was left dark even in scenes where it shouldn't have been moody or dark. It almost looked like the primary design goal was to avoid any spill on the video, actors be damned. Lost were any dramatic top color or side washes on the people. If it was there, the eye lost it because of THE WALL. I'm guessing the choice of using the follows so heavily was in part because of having to be in all the different spaces and geometries on the road. 90% of the problems could have been made less noticeable by tuning down the video brightness, so the eye could deal with the contrast better. Made me wonder.. scene design vs lighting design meet at the video wall. Who's in charge of the final balance, and is this the new ongoing interdepartmental battle? This was my first in person show with this heavy use of video, Though have seen for instance the "Frozen" show at Disney, where the video was great, but so was the lighting. Ditto for Mamma Mia at the New Theater in KC. But they had the advantage of being in a resident space. Sorry if anyone here is directly involved.. but it could have been so much more cohesive just by tuning the backgrounds down.
 
That's a shame. The Broadway version incorporation of the scenic wall and top lighting was flawlessly executed and beautifully done. Maybe something was lost in translation in the transition to touring?
 
I have intimate knowledge with this touring show, It works in 99% of other venues, the venue they were in last night is TINY, The spot location isn't good either. That said, the video section falls to lighting but lives largely independently. Ultimately they are in a string of one offs and likely would have fixed the brightness problem had they had time to actually look at it from the front.
 
I have intimate knowledge with this touring show, It works in 99% of other venues, the venue they were in last night is TINY, The spot location isn't good either. That said, the video section falls to lighting but lives largely independently. Ultimately they are in a string of one offs and likely would have fixed the brightness problem had they had time to actually look at it from the front.
I suspected it was a victim of the quick load and turnaround times. I wouldn't call the Adler tiny though. It's a 2400 seat house. Backstage I can see where there are likely severe space limitations and geometry difficulties likely. It is historically an RKO movie house. The animations and transitions were georgous..on their own, and probably most folks watching were not as bothered as me (though my wife was distracted as well) They did really well with the sound which is more often a failing of road shows in that space. Maybe I'll watch for Denver, and go out to see it with my Grand daughter :) Thanks for clarifying.. I have renewed hope in the future.
 
I suspected it was a victim of the quick load and turnaround times. I wouldn't call the Adler tiny though. It's a 2400 seat house. Backstage I can see where there are likely severe space limitations and geometry difficulties likely. It is historically an RKO movie house. The animations and transitions were georgous..on their own, and probably most folks watching were not as bothered as me (though my wife was distracted as well) They did really well with the sound which is more often a failing of road shows in that space. Maybe I'll watch for Denver, and go out to see it with my Grand daughter :) Thanks for clarifying.. I have renewed hope in the future.
My apologies I was thinking this was the orpheum in Sioux city.
 
Went to see a road company last night. Actors were great, book and music flowed, but the set was primarily 1 large arch and 2 smaller side arches with video wall fill in the middle of each. The transitions and backgrounds were inventive, beatiful, and TOO DAMN DISTRACTING. The wall was way too bright 90% of the time. Primary actors were covered by very soft focused very bright, follow spots that had extreme washout of faces at times, and the poor chorus was left dark even in scenes where it shouldn't have been moody or dark. It almost looked like the primary design goal was to avoid any spill on the video, actors be damned. Lost were any dramatic top color or side washes on the people. If it was there, the eye lost it because of THE WALL. I'm guessing the choice of using the follows so heavily was in part because of having to be in all the different spaces and geometries on the road. 90% of the problems could have been made less noticeable by tuning down the video brightness, so the eye could deal with the contrast better. Made me wonder.. scene design vs lighting design meet at the video wall. Who's in charge of the final balance, and is this the new ongoing interdepartmental battle? This was my first in person show with this heavy use of video, Though have seen for instance the "Frozen" show at Disney, where the video was great, but so was the lighting. Ditto for Mamma Mia at the New Theater in KC. But they had the advantage of being in a resident space. Sorry if anyone here is directly involved.. but it could have been so much more cohesive just by tuning the backgrounds down.
You're watching the cut down cut down cut down version of a show with a new crew that's doing a stretch of nine less then ideal cities in two weeks. It's unfortunate, but shows on that schedule are never going to look good, and you're one hundred percent at the mercy of the house for spotlights, which is also a crapshoot in these small cities.

One would think that these venues would charge discounted prices for these discounted shows, but we know how likely that is to happen...
 
You're watching the cut down cut down cut down version of a show with a new crew that's doing a stretch of nine less then ideal cities in two weeks. It's unfortunate, but shows on that schedule are never going to look good, and you're one hundred percent at the mercy of the house for spotlights, which is also a crapshoot in these small cities.

One would think that these venues would charge discounted prices for these discounted shows, but we know how likely that is to happen...
This tour is booked out to May. And really would have been fine with just a tune down of the vid wall brightness. All the other bumps and warts would not have been as obvious. I did see Something Rotten in the same venue a few years ago, and I think we were their very first tour stop first night. Energy from the cast was through the roof, and it was a full on great show end to end. So it can be done. Other shows usually look pretty good, but sound in that space is notoriously difficult, especially balcony... I always have the advantage of at least 2 weeks to hang and light a show in our community theater space as a self taught amatuer. I can't imaging trying to load and aim in one day..even with a crew, so I do feel for them.
 
I used to work in a road house that was overbooked and underfunded and really not meant for touring shows. We used to do a lot of one-night stops and the number of shows that had issues like this amazed me at first. When I was advancing, there were numerous times that the tech advisor I spoke to on the phone assured me that everything would work. Then when the tour showed up and the technical team got off the bus, we'd have to completely rethink the show. Most of the time, the tour team never got our rider or specs in advance. One children's show which was booked required a portal hung upstage on a truss to conceal a lot of the effects. The house couldn't fly the truss, and all the equipment was rigged to the truss, so almost all the special effects got cut. The humorous part was watching the actors try to adapt. The sad part was that we lost probably 30% of the show because of the limitations. Sometimes the disconnect between the management and the tour itself is painful.

On the other hand, there were a lot of tours that came through that were happy that the hall was on the smaller side because it meant less technical issues to possibly deal with and a few times they had someone new on the team that could ease into the position. I usually wasn't 100% pleased with the outcome, but most of the patrons were happy because they got to see something locally that they wouldn't have seen otherwise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back