Listen & Be Heard Weekly Archives

I have spent the better part of the last four months doing theatre reviews for Listen and Be Heard. In that time I have seen a full range of offerings from drama to comedy, musical to Shakespeare, and they have ranged from excellent to pathetic. The most recent show I went to review will not be covered in this column because it was so bad that I left at the earliest opportunity (which happened to be the first blackout during Act I when a scene change was indicated). I told my editor that life was too short to sit through something that bad. This begs the question: What makes a good play, or excellent theatre?

Before I left Germany, where we lived for three years, I was privileged to see a one-man show called Beyond Glory. This particular show was adapted for the stage and performed by professional actor, Stephen Lang. It was, to coin a phrase, beyond ordinary. Lang , with very few props that mostly consisted of costume pieces, a chair, and his vocal and physical characterizations, was able to completely engage the audience so that the bare stage disappeared. He ignited our imaginations.

Beyond Glory gives voice to several Medal of Honor recipients. Each man was unique in personality, branch of service and events covered most of the major conflicts our nation has fought. Each was an ordinary man that came to be honored for deeds that were deemed of extraordinary valor. Lang?s performance commanded our attention, touched our hearts, and made us laugh and cry, all by virtue of his ability to tell a story in a simple and unvarnished manner. He disappeared in the character he played, and just as quickly morphed into the next. An extraordinary theatre event.

At the other end of the spectrum lie spectacular shows like The Lion King. This profoundly wonder-filled show combines music, dance, puppetry, acrobatics, color, and fantasy. It pulls out all the stops for technical effects, and the lighting, set design, and costumes are just as important and amazing as any other aspect of the show. It grabs the audience, young and old, and overwhelms the senses with sight and sound, color and movement. It takes a simple and well-known tale and presents it elaborately. It, too, is an extraordinary theatre event.

Where, therefore, is the common ground? What is the indefinable something that makes live theatre worthwhile? Does theatre have to be totally simple or elaborately spectacular in order to tell the story and touch the audience? Or can it reside somewhere in between these two extremes? Certainly, I have seen excellent productions that fall in this middle ground too. So, what is one to conclude?

As a director, I have seen an ?ordinary? script turned into something lively and entertaining by the addition of actors that were able to imbue their characters with life and personality. They stopped just saying lines, and ?became? the character they portrayed. They didn?t play to the audience, but played to each other in the world of the play. That the audience was able to enter in and enjoy the experience is both incidental and the ultimate aim.

I have also seen the converse, where an excellent story, well-written and famous to everyone (showing the test of time) is made into a production that utterly fails to either engage the audience or tell the story. Perhaps the director decides to choose style over substance and doesn?t trust the script or the actor to entertain, and the show becomes a vehicle for an ego-trip that ignores the audience. Sometimes failure is due to inexperienced actors that mumble or forget their lines, or simply fail to be in the moment. Being in the moment requires that the actor believe the circumstances of the play as if it were the first time they heard it, saw it, or said it. I recall one inexperienced director who argued that a moment in a comedy in which I was playing could not be played seriously because we all knew what the end would be! If the actors are ahead of the action, how can the audience go along?

So, in the end, what makes a theatre experience good for both participants (actor and audience)? First and foremost it must tell a story. If any of the technical aspects (directing, acting, lighting, sound, set, costuming, etc) get in the way of the story, the project is doomed to, if not failure, then mediocrity. Beyond just telling the story (presuming it is worthy to be told) it must touch the audience in some way.

One of the actors with whom I worked likened memorizing lines to learning music. He viewed the play?s dialogue as his song. The analogy holds on many levels. Just as a memorable song has a structure and melody, a play must have its own ?music.? If the audience cannot hear or see the melody and make some sort of emotional connection (even if it is simply interest to see how it all ends), the theatre experience is one-sided. How best to present the ?melody?? What instruments, amplifiers, orchestrations, tempo and other factors impact how the song is heard and how it is remembered?

When a theatre production is able to find the melody, and present that melody in a manner that leaves the audience humming, it is extraordinary. Laughter, tears, horror, surprise, excitement, any of a myriad of emotions can be elicited by a well-orchestrated show. Whether simple and unadorned, or elaborate and complex, the audience must be able to hear the melody (story). Only performances that engage the audience as an active listener can be called good. Anything less is just an exercise for the acting company, and a disappointment for the audience.

Be Sociable, Share!

•