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



## gafftaper (Jan 6, 2012)

MrsFooter said:


> 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.


 

JChenault said:


> 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.




pmolsonmus said:


> 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 (Jan 6, 2012)

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.
-----

gafftaper said:


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


For shame! 


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 (Jan 6, 2012)

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 (Jan 6, 2012)

chausman said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

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

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvsDave (Jan 7, 2012)

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 (Jan 7, 2012)

dvsDave said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

Tex said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

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 (Jan 7, 2012)

josh88 said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

Tex said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

MrsFooter said:


> ..... 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 (Jan 7, 2012)

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 (Jan 8, 2012)

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 (Jan 8, 2012)

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 (Jan 8, 2012)

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 (Jan 8, 2012)

MrsFooter said:


> 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 (Jan 8, 2012)

MrsFooter said:


> 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 (Jan 8, 2012)

JChenault said:


> 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 (Jan 8, 2012)

shiben said:


> 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.


----------



## BrianWolfe (Jan 10, 2012)

I love this thread. I actually worked on nearly all the shows mentioned. I want the big special props because that is how I make my living and they are fun to see in the shows. They often make up for lack of content...Spiderman and Starlight come to mind. I don't mind leaving the theatre humming the set.

The big showy props and gimmicks do get people into the theatre. They do get the media to cover the show for free. They are expensive. They often make up for a lack of content and still get the theatre seats sold. Obviously you want both. If you are a small theatre you can put on the show without the prop and just expect some will be disappointed. But if your show is good quality most of the audience will be satisfied. You can have a cardboard cutout chandelier for Phantom and it will work if Christine sings like an angel and the rest of the show is good...just don't charge $100 a seat.

Hard to decide a worst offender. I made the train costumes for Starlight and it was awful. We make the chandelier for Phantom and I hated the music. Made Ho Chi Minh for Miss Saigon and it was not good.(funny how Webber's shows keep coming up). Made Geen Goblin costume for Spiderman and it sucks. The Sunday in the Park with George laser effect was nearly half a million dollars and that second act stunk. The Beauty and the Beast transformation is pretty good for a bad show. The fire at the end of Carrie was great for a stinker of a show. Titanic. Some-set Boulevard. I can go on and on.


----------



## derekleffew (Jan 10, 2012)

BrianWolfe said:


> ..._Some-set Boulevard_. ...


Hahahaha!

"...I lost my Tony, though I'm luckly,
But after a year, this show is hell
Hydraulics made a rancid smell
No one is bitchier than Buckley.
Sunset Boulevard, big-set boulevard
Ticket buying tourists be weary
Sunset Boulevard, miscanned boulevard
Lucrative and dull, a little scary."


----------



## Footer (Jan 10, 2012)

BrianWolfe said:


> I love this thread. I actually worked on nearly all the shows mentioned. I want the big special props because that is how I make my living and they are fun to see in the shows. They often make up for lack of content...Spiderman and Starlight come to mind. I don't mind leaving the theatre humming the set.
> 
> The big showy props and gimmicks do get people into the theatre. They do get the media to cover the show for free. They are expensive. They often make up for a lack of content and still get the theatre seats sold. Obviously you want both. If you are a small theatre you can put on the show without the prop and just expect some will be disappointed. But if your show is good quality most of the audience will be satisfied. You can have a cardboard cutout chandelier for Phantom and it will work if Christine sings like an angel and the rest of the show is good...just don't charge $100 a seat.
> 
> Hard to decide a worst offender. I made the train costumes for Starlight and it was awful. We make the chandelier for Phantom and I hated the music. Made Ho Chi Minh for Miss Saigon and it was not good.(funny how Webber's shows keep coming up). Made Geen Goblin costume for Spiderman and it sucks. The Sunday in the Park with George laser effect was nearly half a million dollars and that second act stunk. The Beauty and the Beast transformation is pretty good for a bad show. The fire at the end of Carrie was great for a stinker of a show. Titanic. Some-set Boulevard. I can go on and on.


 
When we did _Camelo_t in a previous life (Music Theatre of Wichita), the stuff you made for us along with the rest of the scenery and fire were the only redeaming qualities of the show. Same things goes for when we did Saigon there. We paid good money to rent a set that had the helicopter and a drivable pink caddie. Without those elements... there was not really much of a show that someone wanted to chunk out 50 bucks for.


----------



## Van (Jan 10, 2012)

I think some people came to our "God of Carnage" just to see my vomit onstage.


----------



## mstaylor (Jan 11, 2012)

Putting great sets out on a show that sucks is like putting lipstick on a pig. I agree that the show is still the main focus but you can enhance it or make it disappointing with the tech. I saw a dinner theatre production years ago where the show was good, sets were decent but the lighting was painful. It was done in a McCandless stule but they used no gel at all and every cue was run as bumps. He would come out of dark and slam into full stage wash in a bump. It was so bad I wanted to go take his board away from him. If there are iconic sets in a show then you need to either build the set or be very innovative to get around it. 
If you are in a school setting or low budget local theatre, if you can't pull off the production, pick something else.


----------



## chausman (Jan 11, 2012)

mstaylor said:


> Putting great sets out on a show that sucks is like putting lipstick on a pig.


 
So when the show has those really bad actors, that seems like an even bigger reason to do a great set. As the audience stops watching, they can admire the set you've built, or find all the little details of how you've messed something up, like how one piece isn't level where everyone constantly sees it.


----------



## MarshallPope (Jan 12, 2012)

Even non-show critical design aspects can become so associated with a show that something seems lacking when it isn't there. I have seen Legally Blonde twice on tour, roughly a year or two apart. One of my favorite bits of the design of the show when I saw it the first time was the framing LED portal. This was in Dallas, and the show was there for several weeks. The other time that I have seen it was when I worked the show here in Texarkana. The production had naturally been scaled down a bit, but it was still a 4-truck show. However, our 1920s vaudeville stage couldn't fit a good bit of the sets. The portal had to go. Throughout all of the show that I was able to actually watch, I just had the feeling that something was missing, and it was the portal. While this isn't as much of an iconic piece as the Phantom chandelier or the helicopter et al., it just goes to show how certain things stick in someone's mind from a production and subsequently come to be expected.

/rambling


----------



## mstaylor (Jan 13, 2012)

chausman said:


> So when the show has those really bad actors, that seems like an even bigger reason to do a great set. As the audience stops watching, they can admire the set you've built, or find all the little details of how you've messed something up, like how one piece isn't level where everyone constantly sees it.


I don't disagree, as a set builder, I always tried to build the best I could. However, it can make watching a show more appealing, it can't save bad acting.


----------



## derekleffew (Jan 14, 2012)

Love Never Dies. Curtain Never Opens


----------



## MrsFooter (Jan 14, 2012)

derekleffew said:


> Love Never Dies. Curtain Never Opens


 
From what I understand, it wasn't the technical problems that did this show in. Word is it was a steaming pile of crap aaaaaall on its own. (Though I'm sure the technical snafus didn't do it any favors!)


----------



## BarBear (Jun 15, 2016)

Reviving an old thread here, but I can't resist this conversation. I think it's one of the most important ones to be having in the theatre community.

As a Shakespearean, I have the luxury of doing whatever I want because the plays are all in the public domain. I have the challenge, though, of putting on shows that have been done every which way from Sunday for 400 years. I can't afford to take centuries of performance history into account or worry myself with the audience's expectations. It's not my job to make sure they're comfortably seeing the same _Hamlet_ they've seen five times before. It's my job to tell them the story of Hamlet as I see it.

I take that attitude with me when I'm working on modern productions, too. Under no circumstances do I break the copyright or licensing agreement by changing words, etc., without consent. But I don't make my artistic decisions based on what the audience's expectations might be, either. My duty is to tell the story. Tech is just a great tool to do so.

As Ivo Van Hove's now Tony Award-winning production of _A View From the Bridge_ can attest, it's possible to buck tradition while still serving the story. Directors who do that well are often called visionaries. It's the ones who don't do it well we should worry about... 

Production values don't define good theatre, but strong storytelling might.


----------



## RonHebbard (Jun 15, 2016)

gafftaper said:


> 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? A WEIRD NON-TWIST ACTUALLY!
> 
> ...


 I ran a truss spot on Starlight for an 8 performance week and the only song that stuck in my head driving home was "Whoo whooo! Nobody can do it like a steam train!! Whoo whooo! Over and over. Till this day it's still the only Starlight number I can recall" But I STILL can't forget the number of Loadstars they used to haul that rig off the deck, or the sound of that many chain hoists all running at the same instant.
Can anyone here tell me how many points were hung over the stage? How many 1 ton hoists and how many double speed 2 ton hoists? The international touring production definitely was an excellent piece of mechanical design, engineering, construction, packaging, labeling and assembly.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## RonHebbard (Jun 16, 2016)

derekleffew said:


> Hahahaha!
> 
> "...I lost my Tony, though I'm luckly,
> But after a year, this show is hell
> ...



Where did you do your 'Sunset penance' Derek?
I can't recall a 'Vegas production. I know the L.A. production went into storage in 'Vegas for a while but I was involved with building part of the set for Broadway and then again for Toronto. The Toronto set was trucked to Vancouver where I was part of the set-up crew again. I believe the only full bore productions in North America were L.A., N.Y.C., Toronto and Vancouver. I remain pleased to have been involved. I met a lot of really good people doing a lot of great mechanics, hydraulics and pneumatics. Several of the Feller folks were really great to deal with along with the fellow who was head of the hydraulics. The two story raked mansion, including all of the LX pipes hung within the underside of the rake, weighed 40,000 pounds / 20 tons. Add another 40,000 pounds of counter-weight and the mansion alone is loading the grid with 40 tons. If you show up with an 11,000 pound fly piece, you've usually brought the heaviest piece of flying scenery in a production but not with Sunset. At 11,000 pounds, the 'On the road' fly piece was third in line behind the mansion and the 14,000 pound 'pool surround'. They don't teach rigging and mechanics like Sunset, not even at Yale. Say what you like but I'm still thrilled to have three, full bore, productions of Sunset amongst my memories. (Admittedly there are puns to be made on "full bore".)
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## What Rigger? (Jun 17, 2016)

I'm just a guy whose rig faulted at the end of an Easter show with 8000 butts in the seats, causing Haysoos to have to walk out of the arena-church instead of flying out. Because of that, the whole show (that night) became about that one element. Oh Lorde did it ever. You ever been yelled at by a good Christian music director? Just sayin'.


----------



## RonHebbard (Jun 17, 2016)

What Rigger? said:


> I'm just a guy whose rig faulted at the end of an Easter show with 8000 butts in the seats, causing Haysoos to have to walk out of the arena-church instead of flying out. Because of that, the whole show (that night) became about that one element. Oh Lorde did it ever. You ever been yelled at by a good Christian music director? Just sayin'.


On the plus side; at least you didn't drop him to his death.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard


----------



## Moose Hatrack (Jun 17, 2016)

I'm using the mention of the revolve in Les Mis to divert briefly into the rock world. In the late 70's Yes toured arenas with a revolving stage. The stage stood still through the play-on, and it remained still even at the start of the opening number _Siberian Khatru_. Only at the theatrically precise point in the _Siberian Khatru_ intro where a stage should start revolving did the stage start revolving and the crowd went absolutely nuts. I later met a guy who worked the show and he praised the ingenuity of the entire production. (Tait towers I think?) The stage was in the center of the arena so the light and sound rig was assembled and flown from there. Meanwhile, the track on which the stage turned was assembled at one end of the arena floor and the stage itself was assembled at the other end. After lights and sound were up the track was pushed into place followed by the stage. The openings in the track which allowed the stage wheels to get "on track" were chocked and it was ready to go. Then the arena floor seats were set up. During the show, equipment roadies sat in chairs suspended from the underside of the stage below each artist. Another guy was responsible for paying the snake and the electrical onto the drum as the stage went 'round. After a few songs, the stage stopped then restarted in reverse with the next song so the cables could come off the drum. Repeat. It was simple, elegant and the arena never sounded better. Something about the centered rig just sounded better. I bought tickets to see the whole thing again about a year later but the show was cancelled because the roof of the arena collapsed 2 days before the show date. The drummer relates a tale wherein the cable guy fell asleep in Chicago and the snake and cables were shredded and everything stopped but the drummer.


----------

