The play's the thing, not the set! Or is it?

[gafftaper]

It's sort of like trying to do Miss Saigon without doing the helicopter. I mean, sure, you can, but that's lame sauce and people will be disappointed. There are a bazillion shows out there that don't require a gigantic plant or a helicopter and are equally amazing. Don't set yourself up to fail.

Sorry - I have to disagree with you here. Little Shop is about the plant. Avenue Q is about the puppets. But ( IMHO) Miss Saigon is NOT about the helicopter.

Sorry, I think there's a story in there... I can hear the Don LaFontaine voiceover now....
"In a world, ripped apart by war, a love story evolves. On the night when Saigon falls, a love story begins...
"Helicopters" a new, Disney animated film adapted for Broadway by the folks who brought you Spiderman.

I thought this was the beginning of an interesting discussion, so I moved it out of the Audrey 2 thread so it could have it's own life.

I'll add this: I recently saw the new national tour of Les Miserables. They have removed the revolve and added a lot of video projection. In the end, although many scenes looked much cooler now, I was left missing the revolve and the transforming barricade. It was especially interesting to see that during "Do you hear the people sing?" the choreography had been carefully modified to preserve the exact same marching look, but this time it was done in place instead of sideways on the moving revolve. Thus the revolve has become part of the art and the new design had to compensate for it no longer being there to preserve the art. Weird twist huh?

So what do you think? Where should we draw the line between the script and the set? Is it a good or bad thing that people talk about Miss Saigon and the first thing they talk about is the Helicopter? What about Phantom and the Chandelier?

What's the worst example of a show that is about something other than the script? I nominate Starlight Express! I don't think I've ever heard a song, and I've never seen the show, I've certainly never heard someone say you have to listen to the music from Starlight Express, but I've seen the roller skating pictures! Heck, they were on the cover of the Parker and Wolf book when I was in college.

 

[derekleffew]

The concepts behind Little Shop of Horrors and Avenue Q are more than the scenery or props. The helicopter in Saigon and chandelier in Phantom are just props, inconsequential to the story.

Can anyone imagine a production of A Chorus Line NOT using a white stripe? Wall of mirrors? On the other hand, the "Mondrian" and "Decko" are more open to interpretation. MUST one use periaktoi just because the original Broadway production did?

Regarding Les Miz, we had a discussion here some time back about a group whose rights specifically disallowed the use of a revolve. I still find that questionable.
-----

...What's the worst example of a show that is about something other than the script? I nominate Starlight Express! ...

For shame!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It's a fantastic musical, one of my favorites. And I'll admit to nearly creaming my jeans when at the end during the finale all of the Vari*Lites just went nuts during the "mega-mix" number. (This was around 1990). The show is about anthromorphasized trains. How else but to depict trains than to use roller skates? Note that Starlight Express on Ice was an abysmal failure, both economically and artistically.

My actor friend was in La Cage Aux Folles, then Starlight. He says he went from heels to wheels.

 

[chausman]

No, phantom doesn't need a chandelier, but isn't that almost always what you expect to see phantom? If you going to do such a BIG show, you might as well go all the way.

Actually, don't most rental agreements say something about not changing the authors intent? So wouldnt that make doing these shows without that piece violating the contract? Food for though.

 

[shiben]

No, phantom doesn't need a chandelier, but isn't that almost always what you expect to see phantom? If you going to do such a BIG show, you might as well go all the way.

Actually, don't most rental agreements say something about not changing the authors intent? So wouldnt that make doing these shows without that piece violating the contract? Food for though.

Depends who decided to do the effect that way. If it was the playwright, sure? If it was the first director, nope. The first thing I do anyhow is black out all the directions and tear out the groundplans and whantots in the back of the script, so as I can come up with new and original ideas. One can always buy a new script or just make another copy for the back of one's binder if you want that stuff.

 

[Tex]

I don't remember ever seeing a royalty agreement that mentioned the playwright's intent.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

 

[dvsDave]

I'll bring up another show, Noises Off. You can't pull off that show without a two story set or the ability to rotate the set 180 degrees.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Tex]

I'll bring up another show, Noises Off. You can't pull off that show without a two story set or the ability to rotate the set 180 degrees.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Not trying to be pedantic, (somebody has already cornered that market here) but Casa Manana in Fort Worth used to be an arena theatre. A ticket to their production came with two seat numbers, one in front of the set and one behind. Granted, this isn't possible in most theatres.

 

[josh88]

Not trying to be pedantic, (somebody has already cornered that market here) but Casa Manana in Fort Worth used to be an arena theatre. A ticket to their production came with two seat numbers, one in front of the set and one behind. Granted, this isn't possible in most theatres.

well that still involves a rotation of 180 degrees, whether the set itself does it or you make the people move you still have the rotation and front/back views.

 

[MrsFooter]

Look, I didn't say that Miss Saigon is all about the helicopter. So let's go ahead and take those words out of my mouth, shall we?

However, I think that we can all agree that when the average consumer goes to see Miss Saigon or Phantom, they expect to see a helicopter land and a chandelier fall. You do not have to include these effects; it is your artistic right not to do so. However, if you're not going to have a helicopter land and a chandelier fall like most audience members expect, I think it's your responsibility to create an effect that is even more spectacular and even more artistically "right" that the audience doesn't miss the effects that they came in expecting. But if you're going to try to replace the helicopter with an actor in a gray sweatsuit spinning around with their arms out and a flashlight taped to their chest, you have to expect that the audience will be disappointed.

That is what I'm saying.

 

[Tex]

well that still involves a rotation of 180 degrees, whether the set itself does it or you make the people move you still have the rotation and front/back views.

Speaking of pedantic...
My (very fine) point was that the SET didn't have to rotate, which is what the post to which I replied maintained.

I'll bring up another show, Noises Off. You can't pull off that show without a two story set or the ability to rotate the set 180 degrees.

Actually not so fine a point if you're the scenic designer or carpenter.

 

[josh88]

Speaking of pedantic...
My (very fine) point was that the SET didn't have to rotate, which is what the post to which I replied maintained.

Actually not so fine a point if you're the scenic designer or carpenter.

I understood, I was just being hard on you.

 

[Van]

..... But if you're going to try to replace the helicopter with an actor in a gray sweatsuit spinning around with their arms out and a flashlight taped to their chest, you have to expect that the audience will be disappointed.

That is what I'm saying.

Helicopter snob ! You are not honoring the artistic courage it took for me to tape that flashlight on that kid.....

 

[coldnorth57]

A few years back I saw two shows of "Lips together Teeth apart" the first the desighner went to the greatest level of realism I have ever seen on a stage, wind sock that change direction as the wind blow on shore and off, clouds in front of the sun and many more tricks. Plus the big onea swimimg pool in the pit that was so inviting, and I feel that in this show the sets was the fifth actor on stage. The second was a setless prodution and IMHO was missing a lot of the story, acting to emtey space......

I feel that there will always be places in script calls for the big show piece and if you can't do it then the show is less because of it.

 

[DuckJordan]

not being specific about certain set pieces but rather the whole theme. What would you expect macbeth to be set in? Would you expect a post apocalyptic scenario where guns are as common as swords, and ruins of castles are the endearing places the characters visit?

 

[kiwitechgirl]

The latest Australian tour of Miss Saigon didn't have an actual helicopter, but used a projection screen and video footage instead. Not nearly as cool.

 

[mstaylor]

There are certain shows that would suffer greatly from not having certain set pieces, the barber's chair in Sweeny Todd and the staircase in Man of LaMancha come to mind. When you take that element out of the production it will either suffer or you have to do something pretty creative to replace it. I never saw Miss Saigon but I know the helicopter is mentioned by anybody I ever talked to about it. I saw Starlight Express and I couldn't imagine it not being on skates but the set itself could be a lot of things. The set I saw was in DC and had a bowl in the middle of the stage and a curved thrust over the pit. The race was a combination onstage action and video. Great production but I completely understand why it was too expensive to tour.

 

[JChenault]

However, I think that we can all agree that when the average consumer goes to see Miss Saigon or Phantom, they expect to see a helicopter land and a chandelier fall. You do not have to include these effects; it is your artistic right not to do so. However, if you're not going to have a helicopter land and a chandelier fall like most audience members expect, I think it's your responsibility to create an effect that is even more spectacular and even more artistically "right" that the audience doesn't miss the effects that they came in expecting. But if you're going to try to replace the helicopter with an actor in a gray sweatsuit spinning around with their arms out and a flashlight taped to their chest, you have to expect that the audience will be disappointed.

That is what I'm saying.

If I am going to see a national tour that attempts to re-create the Broadway experience - then yes I expect to see as close to the show as what can be put on a truck. I expect to see a hydraulically controlled helicopter set piece lower in from the flies and the hero ( whose name I can't remember ) climb out.

If I am going to see a local production of the same show, I expect to see some kind of indication of a helicopter. This could be no more than a sound effect, a beacon light from above, and a rope ladder the hero climbs up on - or any other device that the company can come up with.

I would be much happier with a Saigon that tells the story beautifully with no hydraulic helicopter than one that tells the story badly with all of the sets in the world.

Sometimes more sets are good - sometimes they detract from the show.


I am reminded of 1776 which I saw in two national tours. In both productions the main set piece was the room that the continental congress used. We were looking at it from one corner and the downstage edge was defined by a walkway that was used for incidental scenes ( IE the convention was that when we saw an actor on the walkway, they were not in the congress but someplace else ).

The first time I saw it, it was the second bus and truck. In this production what I described was all the set there was.

The second time I saw the show it was the national tour. In this production they brought in screens to close off the room for some of the scenes that took place on the walkway.

I loved the scenery in the second bus and truck - because the calendar, and the fate of America was always looming over all of the action. I did not like the second because when those screens came in, the tension of 'how are they going to get this country started' was lost.


In the 80's and 90's spectacle ruled Broadway and the West End. That's why ( IMHO) there is a visible helicopter that lowers from the flies in Saigon. The script does not demand that we see the helicopter - just that there be one offstage. I think that part of our job as artists and designers is to do the best we can for this production, and try not to get hung up on what someone else did.

 

[shiben]

But if you're going to try to replace the helicopter with an actor in a gray sweatsuit spinning around with their arms out and a flashlight taped to their chest, you have to expect that the audience will be disappointed.

That is what I'm saying.

Save that for the performance artists. They will do better with it and no one respects them anyhow.

 

[shiben]

In the 80's and 90's spectacle ruled Broadway and the West End. That's why ( IMHO) there is a visible helicopter that lowers from the flies in Saigon. The script does not demand that we see the helicopter - just that there be one offstage. I think that part of our job as artists and designers is to do the best we can for this production, and try not to get hung up on what someone else did.

Im pretty sure that this is the reason there is a helicopter onstage, the designers wanted to reference one of the most iconic single images of the war... A rope ladder just doesnt capture the same desperation of a Huey thats just not big enough for all the people that need to get on...

 

[Footer]

Im pretty sure that this is the reason there is a helicopter onstage, the designers wanted to reference one of the most iconic single images of the war... A rope ladder just doesnt capture the same desperation of a Huey thats just not big enough for all the people that need to get on...

Agreed, especially with everyone banging on the fences the entire scene.