Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
General Discussion / Closer bonds between Theatre and RTVF?
« Last post by JesseItskowitz on April 28, 2014, 08:25:17 pm »
Hey friends. As a film major and a theatre minor, I'm often frustrated by the lack of intercommunication between two communities I love. I can't tell you how many times I've been thankful for this or that bit of theatrical experience while working on a film set, and vice versa. The film program has amazing resources for writing, lighting, and technical skills; the theatre program has equallly extensive resources for set, costume and performance. A closer bond between Theatre and RTVF could help alleviate the shortage of certain types of designers and practitioners on both sides of the line, and provide everyone with a better-rounded set of skills for creating dramatic art.

Do you agree? If so, what can we do to start a useful dialogue between these two separate-as-of-now communities?
72
General Discussion / Re: The Culture of Casting/Petitioning
« Last post by AlexGold on April 28, 2014, 02:15:42 pm »
I believe the culture of petitioning needs a vast overhaul. Similarly to Hale, I feel that the social media overload that tends to happen around "petition season" is not only unnecessary, but actively detrimental. Boards should be excited to welcome new members and work with them, but the overhyping of petition events and then social media celebration of new members makes it extremely difficult for those who petitioned and weren't lucky enough to get a spot. It might be helpful for boards to focus more of their excitement and celebration privately.

As someone who petitioned for boards twice last year and was rejected both times, it felt pretty awful to be barraged the Monday after deliberations with excitement about new board members and feel very left out. The vast majority of StuCo seem to be members of a board, but there are many members of our community who are not (whether by choice or not) and I worry that the overly "familial" attitude about boards excludes those members from feeling truly involved.
73
General Discussion / Re: Budgets & Funding
« Last post by NickRaef on April 28, 2014, 09:22:43 am »
I would agree with a lot of the sentiments above. Lower-tech shows would be a really valuable for a few reasons. For one, it could take some of the strain off of the very few designers we do have at the school. I know many designers, myself included, who have felt an emotion close to obligation when asked to design for shows because no one else is available. It does not mean that designers aren't excited to help make those shows happen, it just means that it could be their 6th tech week of the quarter and they want a break. Additionally, if each board poured more of their resources into one show for the year, they could really put up something spectacular and give designers an even more thrilling opportunity to create expressive physical art.
74
General Discussion / Re: Environmentally-friendly Theatre
« Last post by samgarrott on April 27, 2014, 09:33:52 pm »
Question to Jamie -- how much notice does NSF need to have for the application?

Must individual shows apply for a grant, or could boards do it for their season or could StuCo do it collectively? And then just only pull from the larger pool of "efficient light money" for lights that are actually efficient all year long??
75
General Discussion / Re: The Culture of Casting/Petitioning
« Last post by GHV3 on April 27, 2014, 06:38:52 pm »
As far as I can tell when it comes to auditioning, it seems that as soon as someone's been cast in one show, people sort of figure out that they can perform and they'll usually be cast in future shows, but some people get cast in their first show fall quarter freshman year and some people don't get cast until a year or more later--not because of inherent unfairness, necessarily, but because people are more likely to cast someone that they've seen onstage before and that they know can go through a rehearsal and performance process. Unfortunately, this means that as time passes, an individual who hasn't been cast yet will get more discouraged, have more trouble breaking into performance, and have less experience to help them grow and learn. Fortunately, there do seem to be a good number of opportunities for people who haven't yet been recognized by the community as performers, and I think that we as a community need to make sure that we're encouraging people to audition for and perform in these productions, and that overall we should have a culture of getting excited to see people onstage that we haven't seen before, instead of being dismissive of actors we're unfamiliar with (not that this is necessarily the existing culture).
76
General Discussion / Re: Budgets & Funding
« Last post by emilymartin on April 27, 2014, 04:08:25 pm »
This conversation about lower tech shows is interesting - it's important though, to not ignore design elements as a form of creative expression. They aren't just (or shouldn't just be) frivolous decoration on a production, but rather another way of exploring how to create a full theatrical experience. I understand this presents budgetary issues, but it's just something to keep in mind.
77
General Discussion / Re: Budgets & Funding
« Last post by nikolajcs on April 27, 2014, 04:06:01 pm »
I'm inclined to say there's a difference between low-budget and low-tech. If a director wants the production to focus more on character or plot or what have you, then that's their decision, but I think to make that decision on a macro level (i.e. in terms of slot and budgeting) may be a mistake. By making a slot specifically structured in a way that limits designers financially, you make the slot less appealing for said designers. A simple set can be achieved on a low budget, yes, but with a full budget, that simple set can become an elegant set.

I also think pursuing this as a means of taking the load off the designer community may be somewhat misguided. Just because it's simple doesn't mean someone doesn't still have to commit time to design and build it, it just makes it a less appealing design opportunity in terms of resume, portfolio, creative satisfaction, etc. So what would likely happen there would be younger designers would pick it up, which is by no means a bad thing, but it'd be an additional burden on them to be not only having to discover what resources are available to them, but also to immediately have to figure out the most cost-effective utilization of those resources.
78
General Discussion / Re: Budgets & Funding
« Last post by AlexGold on April 27, 2014, 02:12:20 pm »
I agree with Matt - for many directors and designers in StuCo, the support that the board structure allows is an unparalleled opportunity to create a full production the likes of which they may not get a chance to at first when they graduate. It's easy to say "shows should have sparser design in general," but but people who get a shot to direct or design may not want to be the one to scale back their vision.

I would argue, however, that the best exercise as theatrical leaders (especially directors) is to do more with less and create impressive storytelling without the overreliance on design elements.

I'm arguing both sides here sort of, but I think there's a happy medium to be reached, but I think it's exciting that we get so many opportunities to create such full-fledged productions and learn to translate a grand vision to a practical application. I don't think StuCo needs to scale back designs in general - I think instead what we need to be evaluating is to what will best serve the production and the story.

Trending towards high-buy, low-build sets is also a good idea - speaking from personal experience producing Mee-Ow (which involved very little building but mainly purchasing of actual objects and pieces) I was amazed by how cheap and how efficient a utilization of resources and manpower it turned out to be (thanks Matt Moynihan). Our approach wouldn't work for every show, but it's something to consider for the future!
79
General Discussion / Re: POLL: What could Stuco use MORE of in our next season?
« Last post by AlexGold on April 27, 2014, 02:02:02 pm »
As StuCo usage of Norris performance spaces is dialed back, boards could stand to support more special events and scaled-down productions that exist outside of normal "show slots" and explore other performance spaces on campus that call for a more scaled-back approach and yet are underused by boards - Annie May Swift's Alvina Krause Studio, Harris 107, Fisk 115, even the Lakefill or other classrooms. More special events will not only give more performance opportunities to Northwestern's actors and directors - it can create opportunities for performers who are underserved by existing StuCo programming.
80
General Discussion / Re: Environmentally-friendly Theatre
« Last post by JamieYarmoff on April 27, 2014, 01:54:16 pm »
I'm so glad that people are interested in having this discussion!
As a theatre major who is on the voting committee for the Northwestern Sustainability Fund, I'd be thrilled to see more theatre-related applications. More efficient lights (though not always every designer's first choice) would be a spectacular candidate for funding.
Last month, we funded several hundred dollars worth of carbon offsets for StuCo productions, which is hopefully just a start in pointing NU's theatre scene in a more sustainable direction. Again, I recommend NSF (http://sustainability-fund.northwestern.edu/) if you'd like to apply for funding. We intend to open up another deadline before the year closes. It's a rockin' resource for sustainability projects on campus!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10