Changing Lighting Conventions?

[gafftaper]

[user]CBR372[/user] 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]

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]

\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]

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?

 

[thelightguy87]

I am definetely one of the younger generation designers, but automated lights have had such an influence to my career so far that I'm a little on the fence for this one. I've owned my own High end Trackspot and Trackspot 2's and a slew of cheaper movers for a long time now, and use them on most the shows i design. I generally find ways to use them to highlight someone without hanging a special, but also don't want a full spotlight on them. I've used them for just the gobos/colors, and in august I will be using them in a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, UK version. I think half my notes from the director when talking through the show is, "crazy lights" ex. Go Go Go Joseph, Pharaohs Story, One more Angel in Heaven...for the hoedown dance break, and a few others, but most importantly, the Mega Mix.

For the sake of this thread, this is certainly a combination lighting styles. But this show itself, I think calls for it. So I'll have 4 Trackspots, 2 Technobeams, 2 Trackspot 2's, 8 LED Pars and at the moment maybe a few Elation Design Spots. Additional to my conventional lighting system.

I don't think I'd ever use these lights in a classical theater production. I designed Brigadoon this past may, and had a few cyberlights at my fingertips but instead i used a couple I-Cue's instead for a few specials and went conventional with gobos and scrollers. But I will be designing Beauty and the Beast next may, and I probably will use the cybers and whatever else i'll have at the time because it can be tasteful and flashy at the same time.

maybe theres a need for a new "style" instead of combining 2...very different styles.

 

[SteveB]

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)
i

Whoa..... You be toying with childhood memories here. Does this mean that Charlie is no longer interested in Lucy, but instead possibly has his eye on Linus, or secretly maybe PigPen ?. Will Charlie Browns Christmas Special now include a scene where he comes out of the closet ?.

Sounds like a great South Park story line, if 'ya ask me !.

SB

 

[gafftaper]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone and please keep the discussion going. I find it fascinating. I find myself nearing 40 years old. I was trained to design lights with a pencil and run them on a 2 scene preset board. I was taught that lighting done well is a powerful but subtle part of the show. Guiding the audience to know how to interpret the scene like the score of a movie. Good lighting is felt but not seen.

The earliest concerts I went to as a kid were all PARs and followspots. My senior year in college I had my mind blown away by the Genesis tour of 92 with it's a massive arsenal of moving lights and three 20' wide Jumbotron screens. Anybody here see or work on that tour? It was WAY ahead of it's time. Over the years I've loved the way concert lighting has changed and the power that intelligent lighting has to accent and guide your reaction at a concert is amazing.

Now over the last 5-10 years we are merging the two worlds. I've seen it done well and I've seen it down poorly... while I have no problem with the concept of an edgey production of Charlie Brown... I don't like the idea of Shakespeare being done with flash and trash. While I'm sure it's already been done, even the mention of Dolly or Sound of Music done with R&R lighting is just horrifying to me. I do like the point that if it's always done the same way it get's boring, on the other hand, I don't want to see a strange adaptation of Les Miserables with flash and trash in a contemporary setting. I want to see the original Broadway production's art left alone... and I want my kids to be able to experience it that way too someday.

Hmm... I suppose as time passes (and more lower budget theaters get more intelligent gear) we will see many versions of the classics done with flash and trash. Some will work to create a whole new vision of art and others will suck. If you can't dazzle them with acting talent you can always distract them with lighting. It will be interesting to see if we continue to keep the two conventions seperate or if we merge them together over time. Will we see a rise of straight dramatic theater with flash and trash lighting? I don't know maybe it's just me but I sure find this topic fascinating.

 

[derekleffew]

Why must we immediately leap to the conclusion that use of automated lighting and/or Rock'n'Roll style automatically leads to flash and trash? If I recall, we had difficulty defining flash and trash: http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting/10954-talkin-trash-flash.html.

Personally, I get annoyed when I attend a theatrical performance and have lights shining in my eyes. I am there as an observer, not a performer, and find it distracting. For the same reason, I dislike audience participation shows and performers breaking the fourth wall.

...Does this mean that Charlie is no longer interested in Lucy, but instead possibly has his eye on Linus, or secretly maybe PigPen ?....

CB only had eyes for "the little red-haired girl." Lucy was a nemesis, and Linus (the original sensitive emo-boy) would be age-inappropriate. The jury's still out on PigPen. Peppermint Patty and Marcy are still happily together--I believe one of them became a Lighting Designer.

 

[FatherMurphy]

It seems to me that the yardstick to use is the same one as always - does 'X' help the show, or hurt the show? Does a light cue support the action onstage, or does it merely call attention to itself?

I was able to see a performance of 'Lord of the Rings: The Musical' during a trip to London a year or so ago - the moving lights rig was so extensive that they had to put in an enlarged power substation to support it (plus a turntable consisting of four concentric rings, and 19 independant lifts). Throughout the show, I spent a lot of time ignoring the actors and merely watching the lights whirl and the turntable spin about. This wasn't just an occupational hazard - the show was firmly in the 'leave the show whistling the scenery' zone. Granted, the script didn't do a very good job of explaining Tolkien's story to the audience, so the fault was not exclusive to the lighting or scenery, but the gee whiz factor didn't help.

This thread puts me in mind of a debate that occurred in a theater pipe organ magazine I get - the upshot was that an organist sitting down to play a concert has three options before him. He can a) play the notes, b) play the music, or c) play the instrument. A lighting designer also has these three options. They can play the notes by simply turning a wash on and off for each scene, play the music by using lights to evoke a mood for a scene, or they can play the instrument by using every trick and feature in the book for the console and fixtures. If a cue helps the show, put it in. If it's there only to allow the LD to show off, cut it out. There's no laws that I've ever read that state certain events must be lit certain ways. Conventions, yes, laws, no.

Shows are constantly being revised and restaged to different eras, and they don't have to be constrained to being lit in a period style, unless the director and designers have chosen to maintain that style. I saw a version of Shakespeare's 'Measure for Measure' set in a 1984-type police state (in 1984, even, iirc), and I've seen Shakespeare plays done in ruffs and tights by torchlight. I've even heard of doing the Scottish play in black leather and bicycle reflectors, completely out of any time reference. Any one of us could go on for hours about style mash-ups like these, and they all have or had potential to be good shows. Choose any kind of lighting style you like, just make sure it's doing what you want it to do for that show.



BTW, I read 'Charlie Brown in eyeliner' to mean he was emo or maybe mallcore Goth, not a drag queen. Although, both could be interesting takes on the character. (thinks about casting Rocky Horror with Peanuts characters)

 

[beltsvillecrucib]

I thought Ken Billington did a great job of mixing the two in his design for High Fidelity.

 

[Esoteric]

I love it!! This was kind of ushered in by Spring Awakening, but is moving more and more into that realm. Theater must evolve. Then again I am known for cutting edge design and concepts. My latest show uses the houselights to bring the audience into the play. I often use video (environmental projection and screens) as part of shows.

I was taught to create the environment for the actors to tell the story. LD's do not tell the story. We are there to support the actors. So if the necessary environment is a rock and roll stage I will create that. If it is a very dark room (my newest production has a scene in it with no lights on, all the light is from practicals) that is what I will create.

But flash and trash does not belong in the theater. Flash and trash is what you do because you don't have time to do real cuing. There is no excuse for flash and trash in theater.

Mike

 

[ship]

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...

The Brecht type involvement of the audience amongst other breaking of the third wall idea and or that presented above are very valid design intents which would be appropriate in trying something new beyond how it's supposed to be done. Kudos on the attempt to make Charlie Brown a statement of art rather than typical presentation of it if that was the intent and need. This need to make it immeidate and refreshing so long as it worked in the end and art was made as no less important to doing it normally and also making art with it.


No matter if laser light show or LED video screen behind the stage, moving light or scroller, all a question in the end of did it work? Did the audience get drawn into the show or as it were perhaps helped to be kept aback from it some in theater of annoyance as per some concepts of Brecht and other authors between the 30's thru 60's? Such challenges in script have been undertaken for many years now with good and bad results beyond even just modernizing say "Chess" which didn't work out so well. At times art or not. "Romeo and Juliet" or "West Side Story"; "Turnadot" or "Italian American Reconciliation" "Wizzard of OZ" or "The Wiz" in play type themes modernized as example which stand alone. Or even to the extent of one Shakesphere play I forget the name of at the moment in movie form. One a black and white classic, the other from within the last say ten years more like in the style of ClockWork Orange and hard core but with merit.

Lighting as with set and costumes being a tool for the show. Did it work in the end in convaying the artistic intent with little to nothing in detail necessary right or wrong. My opinion at least.

 

[SteveB]

(thinks about casting Rocky Horror with Peanuts characters)[/SIZE]

(Sung to the tune "I'm just a sweet Transvestite, Tran-sexual, from Transylvania")

"I'm just a sweet Cartoon Character..... Commminnnn Out'a the Closet, in Middlllllle Amerrrrricaaaaaa"..

SB

 

[NickJones]

Wow, all great points. In my view as a young-un, I think that it entirely depends on the show. A show with a rock and roll style numbers, that are full of energy, then the lighting should help to enhance the energy. I think that movers can be great tool in the theatre for moving specials, gobo rotation & moving specials.

I generally get all the "Play" out of my system before doing any programming. I have no problem with adding R&R to the theatre, as long as it is at the right time. Spring Awakening, sure, its rock and roll and it showed contrast between the past and the present, okay, you don't want them in the death scenes. We all lay into WestLakeTech's former high school for having so many movers, without seeing any shows other than the light show they did for there collage awards night, (where all the flash trash is allowed to be used) as a lot of member are anti movers. Movers aren't going to replace conventionals any time soon, but they are becoming more and more common, and cheaper, look at the MinSpot, it's cheap, why wouldn't a school get some. Technology is evolving, but why keep doing your conventional rig, when movers are a great part of your inventory, they just have to be used when appropriate. I can't comment on Charlie Brown having never seen the show, but I can say that when appropriate, and when okay with the director, I would have no hesitation in using the movers, as they are a tool, but they just have to be used wisely. As someone who is young and still relatively new to the industry, I find that in the past 3 or so years, I have been seeing movers more and a friend is currently doing a show at a school with one 12 channel dimmer, and one or two smaller 4 channel dimmers, 6 movers and a Hog. I haven't seen this show, so I can't comment on the appropriateness, but this seems like such overkill. Considering he told me a few months ago, that they couldn't get a proper stage wash. Movers are accessories, useful sometimes, but in no way crucial. I was bumping out a show with a friend and saw they had to movers I watched the show without realising they were even there, on any normal theatrical show, I don't think they should be noticeable, but on R&R why not? You have the technology, use it. You can't say never use movers or movers aren't appropriate in the theatre, in the same way you can't tell someone how to light the stage well. Movers just need to be used responsibly, and where appropriate.
I couldn't think of my obligatory Charlie Brown in The Future Comment.
Just my 5c (Currently worth 4.01832 US Cents)
Nick