![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night I saw my first production of Chess. I'd been assured it's a wonderful musical, and I'd be willing to give it a second chance.
This was a student (undergrads, that is) production using the main ART stage. This meant that there was room for the musicians in the pit that was partly below the stage, and there was a lot of room on the set, much more so than had they been in the Loeb Ex (a smaller black box theater space in the same building; I've been to a bunch of shows there, and it's always interesting to see how it's configured differently for different shows).
Unfortunately, these did not turn out to be advantages. Some of the musicians were just fine, but others were noticeably the opposite, especially in the brass section. This makes a big difference in a musical... Not to mention that there were times they played loudly enough to overpower the songs being sung.
To go along with that, there were miking issues with most of the actors who were miked (the chorus and other incidentals weren't). There were dead spots on stage, and one of the male leads seemed to have a mike that was malfunctioning most of the time. I could barely catch any of the words in his songs/song parts at all. Through the other scenes, it was clear that this was an American brat of a chess player, but I would've liked to have heard exactly what was going on. The other lead had a bigger voice, or something; I was able to catch most of his songs. Both of the women who had major parts had lovely voices, which was the one shining highlight of the performance.
The set. What shall I say about the set? Just because you *can* have things come down from above doesn't mean it's useful or good to do so. Sometimes it can even detract from the performance, like the Levitating Chess Flying Saucer: it was supposed to be a table top or something, but had some shiny stuff around it, and was suspended on wires, so whenever an angry chess player slammed a piece down (a not-infrequent occurance), the table swung gently from the force of the impact. A plain table would've been better, and one that tilted slightly towards the audience or in some way let them see the moves would've been excellent. Of course, they *had* to place the opponents' seats facing each other, which meant the male leads were singing to each other, not the audience (feh).
Also descending from the ceiling were three columns that were completely superfluous to the story at all, used to show spaces that would've been better shown in different ways.
My other nit to pick is small, I suppose, but it really annoyed me: in the last, important match, they had the black pieces in front of the guy who made the first move. Hello? This is a show about competition-level chess, and white always goes first. Details do matter!
There were one or two other nice bits. The guy in drag in the Bangkok nightclub did a good job, as did the little girl in the opening scene.
...at least there was no lack of what to talk about, and it was nice to have people to share the awfulness with...
This was a student (undergrads, that is) production using the main ART stage. This meant that there was room for the musicians in the pit that was partly below the stage, and there was a lot of room on the set, much more so than had they been in the Loeb Ex (a smaller black box theater space in the same building; I've been to a bunch of shows there, and it's always interesting to see how it's configured differently for different shows).
Unfortunately, these did not turn out to be advantages. Some of the musicians were just fine, but others were noticeably the opposite, especially in the brass section. This makes a big difference in a musical... Not to mention that there were times they played loudly enough to overpower the songs being sung.
To go along with that, there were miking issues with most of the actors who were miked (the chorus and other incidentals weren't). There were dead spots on stage, and one of the male leads seemed to have a mike that was malfunctioning most of the time. I could barely catch any of the words in his songs/song parts at all. Through the other scenes, it was clear that this was an American brat of a chess player, but I would've liked to have heard exactly what was going on. The other lead had a bigger voice, or something; I was able to catch most of his songs. Both of the women who had major parts had lovely voices, which was the one shining highlight of the performance.
The set. What shall I say about the set? Just because you *can* have things come down from above doesn't mean it's useful or good to do so. Sometimes it can even detract from the performance, like the Levitating Chess Flying Saucer: it was supposed to be a table top or something, but had some shiny stuff around it, and was suspended on wires, so whenever an angry chess player slammed a piece down (a not-infrequent occurance), the table swung gently from the force of the impact. A plain table would've been better, and one that tilted slightly towards the audience or in some way let them see the moves would've been excellent. Of course, they *had* to place the opponents' seats facing each other, which meant the male leads were singing to each other, not the audience (feh).
Also descending from the ceiling were three columns that were completely superfluous to the story at all, used to show spaces that would've been better shown in different ways.
My other nit to pick is small, I suppose, but it really annoyed me: in the last, important match, they had the black pieces in front of the guy who made the first move. Hello? This is a show about competition-level chess, and white always goes first. Details do matter!
There were one or two other nice bits. The guy in drag in the Bangkok nightclub did a good job, as did the little girl in the opening scene.
...at least there was no lack of what to talk about, and it was nice to have people to share the awfulness with...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 10:01 am (UTC)My main problem with the production as someone who knows the score (embarrassingly, both the concept album and the Broadway cast versions -- yes, I was a theatre geek in high school) nearly by heart was that the tempos were all screwed up: a lot of numbers felt very rushed, and a lot of the phrasing (especially of openings of songs) was either too soon or sludgily late. The fact that the pit band played the wrong notes a good amount of the time also meant that the singers didn't always have the right pitches to come in on; having had this happen to me during live performance, I can attest to how disorienting it can be.
That said, the actresses playing Florence Vassy and Svetlana Sergievsky were both lovely singers, and the numerous beds on stage looked pretty comfy. And the company was indeed nice.
Hey, as one of my companions said, "What did you expect for eight bucks?"
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 10:31 am (UTC)Definitely, the levitating UFO chessboard didn't make a lot of sense. I would have been perfectly happy if they just left the chessboard on the table, maybe on a high platform, all the time. After all, it makes sense that the game be constantly in the background, both literally and metaphorically. And you don't have it wobbling around. Also, for the sake of accuracy, where was the chess clock!? Where's the move-BANG-pause-move-BANG-pause rhythm?
The three pillars were supposed to represent that the scene was in an underground parking garage. I liked their use of offstage headlights to indicate cars coming, but the pillars...Well, I dunno. They just didn't seem to fit. And then they redressed them for another scene, which was even weirder.
Both female leads were excellent. Freddie was okay. I've never found his character to be that convincing, BTW...He's a self-centered brat through 5/6 of play until his melodramatic solo in act II where he reveals to the reporter - GASP! - That he turned to chess because his parents ignored him. Oooh, poor Freddie.
But all-in-all and putting the nits aside, I was very happy with the show.
Still can't comment on your comments directly
Date: 2003-04-10 10:59 am (UTC)I didn't get that the pillars were supposed to be an underground parking lot at all; I thought it was an airport or something. And the church was more than adequately indicated by the lights cast on the back wall.
And I had thought briefly of a chess clock, but then thought that there might be noise or something from it that wouldn't work. Still, perhaps that would've meant less slamming of pieces onto the CFO (chess flying object).
Freddie seemed to be the most uni-dimensional character, which is a contrast to the others who are much more well-rounded. I thought that perhaps he was based on a particular chess player who was that obnoxious, or there was some reason to have him be such a charicature (unless it's just blatant anti-Americanism... :-)
I guess I don't understand why one would choose to do a show one doesn't have adequate resources for (musicians, singers, whatever).
side note: I kept thinking of one year's Purim reworking "One Night in Sushan" during that piece...
.
Re: Still can't comment on your comments directly
Date: 2003-04-10 11:21 am (UTC)Interestingly, in the Broadway version of Chess (brief history: the show started life as a concept album, much like Jesus Christ Superstar, back before it was ever staged -- a sort of a story in music with characters and a plot but no book; later it was actually fleshed out, reworked, and staged in varying ways in both England and the U.S.), Freddie is much more of a unidimensional ugly American stereotype than on the original concept album, which was performed mostly by Brits. The British Freddie, sung by the wonderfully acid Murray Head, is a lot smarter, more cynical, and more attractive in an antiheroic sort of way; at least he's not an anti-intellectual cretin.
However, one of the things I've always found disturbing about the concept album version of the character is that he's presented not just as a spoiled brat, but as a closeted homosexual; the implication is that his misogyny and general obnoxiousness stem from his repression, or maybe just from his sexual orientation, period -- it's unclear. There's a lyric in the Broadway version (which was by and large what we saw last night) where Anatoly sings of Freddie, "I would say, with regard to him,/ it is hard to rebut/ ever-growing suspicions/ my opposition's a nut." On the original concept album, Anatoly's lyric is "Through the elegant yelling/ of this compelling dispute/ comes the ghastly suspicion/ my opposition's a fruit" -- arguably rather homophobic (the character at least, if not Tim Rice the lyricist). Since in the concept album version of the story Freddie and Florence have never been lovers, Freddie's sexuality is much more ambiguous as well.
While I'm troubled by the seeming anti-gay sentiment in the original, concept-album Freddie is still more intelligent and acerbic, and has some extra lyrics/songs that are sadly absent from the Broadway iteration. And Head is simply an amazing actor; his singing voice, world-weary and caustic, speaks volumes about Freddie's disillusionment; no other actor I've seen or heard in the role has done as much with it.
Wow -- did I really write all that about Chess? Told you I was a theatre geek. :)
Re: Still can't comment on your comments directly
Date: 2003-04-10 11:32 am (UTC)I find the thought of someone repressing natural tendencies being a bit of a jerk in reaction reasonably plausible. Not that everyone in that situation would have the same reactions, but that it works as a possibility.
I'm glad to hear that there are versions where Freddie is intelligent about more things than just chess; I just couldn't buy the character was presented last night (though I hear the hair was spot on...).
And theatre geeking is fine by me :-)
(total tangent time) I still have a pass that gets twofers at a bunch of local theaters (including some in the Worcester area) (once at each theater). I get them every year as part of the Brandeis subscription, but end up rarely, if ever, using them on my own. If there is interesting theater coming up, it could be useful...
o
Re: Still can't comment on your comments directly
Date: 2003-04-10 12:14 pm (UTC)Cool! Let me know what comes down the pike (literally!) that sounds interesting....
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 01:04 pm (UTC)FYI, I also have a theater discount card thingie ("Circle of Friends" card) from my Lyric Stage sub, which includes theaters all over the place, for varying discounts. I haven't actually used it even once yet, so I have no idea what I really get.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-10 02:50 pm (UTC)If that's what I think it is, it gets you two-for-one tickets at a bunch of the lesser-known venues around town. Check out Arlington Friends of the Drama, and Reagle Players (in Waltham) for some excellent-quality semi-pro theatre! The Volks Theatre is also rather endearing, but I don't know if they're included.
Circle of Friends
Date: 2003-04-11 05:42 am (UTC)Every year I say I'm going to use the pass to go to theaters I haven't been to, but usually I don't manage it. They're good through September 30, so... wanna have some theater outings? (We can rustle up 6 half-price tix between us....)
no subject
Date: 2003-04-11 05:45 am (UTC)(For the record, they list 27 theaters in the greater Boston area, 5 in metro west, 6 in the Merrimack Valley/north shore, 2 in metro south/south shore, one on the Cape, 2 in Worcester, and one in NH.)
no subject
Date: 2003-04-11 01:35 pm (UTC)Oh, it's absolutely darling! Beatrice Herford's Vokes Theatre (http://members.aol.com/vokesplays/index.html) is the full name, they're in Wayland. (sorry about spelling it rong the first time)
Beatrice was a turn-of-the-century matron who fancied herself a patron of the arts. Unfortunately, her estate was too far from Boston (in 1900) to make it practical for her to venture into the city often. So she built this miniature theatre on her own property...It's a complete tiny theatre, seating maybe a hundred including the two-row balcony, but is otherwise fully functional!
Vokes theater
Date: 2003-04-11 02:25 pm (UTC)That sounds like a lovely theater; I definitely want to go there, though I'm not sure whether for the current production or the next one, in the summer.
My favorite theater on the Brandeis campus seats about a hundred people, and I always think it's a really good size.
One more review from the trenches.
Date: 2003-04-11 02:28 pm (UTC)I'm a theatre geek from way back, doing mostly tech work through highschool, and working the fandom stuff for the last couple years. I'm also a HUGE Chess [the musical] fan, and I've memorized all the songs.
This production was heavily based on the American version, with much of the byplay taken directly from the soundtrack. Those used to the british version would definately be off-beat, since had many changes
On to the problems.
The primary gaff was the use of an ABYSMAL horn player. A trombone or trumpet player was offkey half the time, sometimes as much as a full note off, and would HOLD that offkey tone, or waver it around trying to find the right key. He should have just SHUT UP. He detracted so much from the performance, I think both performers and audience members were ready to jump into the orchestra pit and throttle him.
Sound - I talked with the sound operator during the intermission. They located the sound board -behind- the stage speakers (above the audience). So what the sound operator was hearing was not what the audience was hearing (the audience was down near hte orchestra pit). 90% of Freddy's singing was completely inaudible, and some of the best byplay was lost.
I can't say enough wonderful things about the woman playing Florence. A strong voice, a decent actress, someone who did not depend on the soundsystem to get her voice off the stage.
The sets? Eh. They were minimalistic, but I thought used well. I didn't care for the chess UFO playtable, but it wasn't htat horrible. The wobbling during frenetic moves could have been managed by a stage director who understood what was going on, but clearly the actors were never told of that distraction.
The Moderator, who is best known in public circles as person who sings One Night in Bangkok, was not nearly as pompous as he should have been. That character is comic relief for the entire piece, and was basically ignored.
Some of Anatolys songs, amazingly powerful pieces, were lost due to a somewhat wooden performance by the actor, though he had a decent singing voice. Poor music and poor sound destroyed some of the most beautiful and moving pieces (I'm thinking particularly of "Heaven Help my Heart" and "Endgame") were really reduced to "just another song."
One bit about chess tournaments. They're not played on teeny boards the audience can't see. There is always a display board showing the current tournament. All players ALWAYS use chess clocks. Its part of the interplay on the table. Reach, move, [take piece], punch clock. Christ, haven't these people seen Searching for Bobby Fischer?
Anyway. I'm glad I went, I want to see more plays, and I -did- enjoy certain parts of this production, so it wasn't a complete loss, but without the fixes to the sound, someone who didn't know the soundtrack intimately would have been bored out of their skull.
Re: One more review from the trenches.
Date: 2003-04-12 09:46 pm (UTC)I wanted to kill the orchestra. They overwhelmed the soft songs, particularly the last couple of songs, and they really botched the opening pieces. Ick.
The background of the play was (I assume) supposed to be a chess board. This would have been a great place to broadcast the chess moves, and it would have taken minimal equipment. Dumb decision to just have it change pretty colors. I would have objected less to the Amazing Flying Chess Table if the background had been used in this manner, or they had conveyed the chess moves in some other way. I agree with everyone else about the chess clocks, as well. I've never seen Searching for Bobby Fischer, and I still was surprised to note the absence.
I was appalled when I realized that Freddie actually did have a decent voice. The point I realized this was when he and Florence had their shouting-at-each-other duet in the second act, and Freddie's voice was picked up by Florence's mic. All of a sudden, I could tell what he was singing! Perhaps that was also the issue with Anatoly's performance. Florence seemed to be the only one with a decent microphone.
Anatoly's wife was also a decent singer, but she dragged out notes a little too long tonight, and occasionally had to catch up to the music.
The silhouette dancers with chair dancing? They used their silhouettes pretty horribly, looking face-on to the audience when trying to do a chair dance and standing in the same sight line as the chair. It made them look like six-legged elephants, not chair dancers.
I was also really irritated by the lighting on the right-hand side of the stage, the area where the hotel rooms were. Everyone looked like a ghost, with the lights coming down from directly above them. They all had shadows under their eyes and hair shadows. The color was a really bright white, making them look chalky. I'm not a techie, but once my friend
I object, too, to the white screen used in front of some of the scenes. At one point, it was raised in the middle of action in a scene, and that really blew the entire use for me. Blah.
I'm sure that everyone worked hard on this play, but I really wish they had spent another month on it. Perhaps they could have redeemed the experience for more of the audience. :(
no subject
Date: 2003-04-12 10:06 pm (UTC)Re: One more review from the trenches.
Date: 2003-04-13 02:51 pm (UTC)