You've read the plays, you've thought about them, now is the time to post your opinions, both positive and negative. To be honest, I'm on the fence and will gladly direct either one. All I ask is that you:
a.) be frank about your own thoughts/opinions
b.) respect each other's thoughts/opinions.
The hope is to have a constructive conversation and to arrive at a decision together. Let's think of this as an open discussion and see where it takes us.
I am, by the way, very happy and excited to be spending another year with you all.
-Mihalik
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Okay, so I know that I enjoyed Six Characters more. But I also know that Skin of Our Teeth would be easier for our audience to understand than Six Characters. But I also think that the length of Skin of our teeth might be a problem, because like Mihalik said, we would probably need to have two intermissions. I don't know if most people want to sit through that much theater.
Considering most of our audience are the family and friends coming to support us, and not big theater buffs who count down the days to see our next show, and try to be the first in line to get the best seat. That probably sounds like I am putting us and our work down, but thats not what I intend.
I think my parents are a good example. They go to see the shows to support me. If I wasn't involved they wouldn't go. Thats not to say they don't enjoy the shows, but I know that the first thing they would probably say is "Emily, we liked it, but it was kind of long" or if it was just my mom "It was really nice, but it was long, and I didn't really get it."
Another thing is that the set, props, and costume are much simpler in Six Characters than Skin of our teeth. But Skin of Our Teeth has a lot more cast participation.
So I guess I don't really know which one I think we should do, but those are the major problems I think should be discussed.
Sorry that my comment is so long.
-Emily P
Please excuse me if what i'm writing is scattered and not everything comes out totally whole
Well i havn't really looked back into either play before posting this but one thought that comes to me straight away is that i think there would be a lot more opportunity for actors within Skin of our Teeth because unlike 6 characters a good number of the characters are not automatically limited by their lack of lines. I know we already discussed how in 6 characters some of the roles were just basically standing there the course of the entire play. While thinking to Skin of our Teeth most the characters i think to had it would seem more to them in terms of depth. As Mihalik has said both of these would be a challenge to put forth whether it be a challenge of lines (both) a challenge of patience (6 characters with many actors being made to listen nearly the whole play with little else to do) or setting (Skin of our Teeth did seem to have what would be a far more difficult set to put together).
Another thing is that i know people want equalish opportunity but (i dont remember who said it probably everyone and i just wasn't paying attention) as with any play there are going to be larger roles and smaller roles. But if we were looking at these plays just in terms of more equality in roles I think Skin has the edge here because not only does it has lots of roles (6 characters does as well) but Skin also gives the actors somethign with each character you could have some good fun with (while in 6 characters there are also characters like that their are less)
I enjoyed both plays a good deal. I might have slightly preferred Skin but only marginally. Both have very good stories that would be great fun to put forth. I also think that the repitition within Skin is something really cool and the religious under text also pretty interesting.
I agree with everything Emily said. I was talking to my parents, and they said even one intermission plays is difficult to sit through. Of course they enjoy the plays, and definetly think they are good - they said that after awhile it's uncomfortable to sit and have their attention stay just because it's so long.
So right now though, i don't really have an opinion - because i still haven't read six characters..but i think length of play is definetly something to consider about our audience as well.
Six Characters In Search of An Author was my favorite of the two. I felt that throughout the script, there were a lot of elements that would keep an audience interested; whereas in the other script, there were some parts that seemed to drag on. There were a lot of parts what would serve as "shock value" to the audience, which is good because it will not only keep the audience interested, but it will give them something to discuss after the play. Because there is little needed to do with the set and props, the focus can be on the storyline and character's dialogue. I think it would be a challenge to block, and that it would have to be read over multiple times in order to get everything correctly. Overall, it would be a really difficult play to do, because it is something different, and something new, but it would be worth it. I believe that in the end, it would turn out to be a great show.
I agree with Emily that Skin Of Our Teeth would be easier to do, just because it would be easier for the audience to follow, and understand. However, it is a really long script, and the audience would eventually get agitated after some time. Also, I felt that Skin Of Our Teeth was 'all over the place'. I felt it to be scattered, and that the storyline changed dramatically within each jump from act 1, to act 2 etc.
I think that Skin Of Our Teeth would be a fun one to do, but I think Six Characters would be one that an audience can leave, having felt something as a result of the show.
--Tyler Hunt
Great comments! Hard decision! Keep 'em coming!
I agree with tons of what Emily and Georgie said. What I really really agree with is that the more cast members, the better. The thing is, we can all say we don't mind having a play with only a few real cast members, but everyone knows they want a part where they can really develop a character and show their skills, and I don't think there are as many of those parts in Six as there are in The Skin of Our Teeth.
I'm also worried about the length, but they're both long, so there isn't much to be said there unless we were seriously considering a third option.
Like I said, they're both alright. They both have good parts, but also have parts they drag on and can get quite tedious. Six Characters, I was able to follow and understand after some thinking. I think we could find a way to make the audience be able to understand it more. Like someone said, it's easier to understand when we are seeing it and harder to understand when just reading the 1st time through.
By the skin of out teeth, well, that just confused me a lot. It was very jumpy. I enjoyed some parts, but it just didnt seem like something I wanted to do. It seems a bit complicated. As Tyler said, it jumped a lot from Act to Act and I really don't think it will be easy or the audience to grasp.
In conclusion, if I had to pick one, I would pick Six Characters. But I say we just keep our options open and read more plays.
Okay, so, Kristin, Angela, Hannah and I are deliberating about it as I type, haha.
I enjoyed both plays a lot, but the Skin of Our Teeth didn't seem like a challenge. And it's true, not everybody will get a big speaking part.
To be totally frank, I would still be upset if I didn't get the part I wanted (I can't really think that anybody would be happy, ROFL), but I think that, overall, the play would have a much more astounding effect on the audience, even if somebody else played that part. The big picture isn't the feelings of the cast, to me, it's the way the play will happen. I think that Six Characters in Search of an Audience is the play that will leave us remembered more than The Skin of Our Teeth.
I don't want to be one of the people that says, "Yeah, well, I wouldn't be upset." Because I'm an angry person and I would be, haha, but I don't know, I think being any part of the production would be kinda epic.
I would rather the play be Six Characters because it had a vibe that kind of said, "hey, our drama club can do that and do it well". But, so did Skin of Our Teeth...I just think that Six Characters had the bigger audience impact and would be such a powerful play if done right.
If we can do both, (I'm biased towards fall and winter :\) that would also be amazing.
I also admit that I'm biased because I L-O-V-E the Stepdaughter's character and I read for her.
Skin of Our Teeth is fun, and I think we should do it for one of the plays, but I think that we should do Six Characters no matter what...most preferably in fall or winter.
Haha. This was of minimal help. Sorry.
In Response to Jeremy's comment: "but Skin also gives the actors somethign with each character you could have some good fun with (while in 6 characters there are also characters like that their are less)"
Six Characters also gives the opportunity for fun with the minor roles. I believe we talked about writing stuff in? or maybe thats me not remembering right.
I also agree with Tyler, parts of Skin did seem to drag on. like to the point where I was flipping through the next pages to read because I was kind of bored.
I really really liked Six characters, but my big problem is that even though the smaller roles could have fun, its still not equal opportunity.
I think I am probably happy with either one.
-Emily P
In response to Angela's comment about both plays being long.
Sic character is barely 74 pages while Skin is like 120. And with six characters there really is only one set change that is done right in front of the audience. While in Skin, well I don't know how many set changes there are, but I know its more than one lol.
Okay so remember when I said that stuff about the equal opportunity being a big deal for me? Well I guess I lied, because I hadn't really thought about it I guess. I mean most have us have gone out for a role that we have had our heart set on, and not gotten it. And yeah it sucks, but life goes on. I think that its like Tyler said:
"I think Six Characters would be one that an audience can leave, having felt something as a result of the show."
I think that six characters is more challenging for us, but easier for the audience in some ways.
So I've read Six Characters, and I like it alot. It made me think more - and to be honest I still don't really understand Skin of Our Teeth compeletly. I get the idea - but like tyler said, i felt it was a bit scattered, and sometimes I felt like characters would ramble on a bit before they got to the point. I didn't really like how Skin of Our Teeth broke the fourth wall either. I think it's a great idea, but i think an audience would get WAY confused with the way it went about.
As for what Andrew says, i agree with maybe looking a little more into some other plays and keeping out options open. But Six Characters is what I like better, and feel like the audience will understand a bit more.
Interesting how the conversation seems to be tilting in favor of Six Characters...
Kristen said that Nokomis had actually done Skin of Our Teeth back in the 90s. Perhaps this highlights my predominant feeling about Skin of Our Teeth: it feels like its been done before. Six Characters, on the other hand, would present more of a challenge both to us and to the audience, and, if pulled off successfully, would result in them leaving with something more.
I also agree with Georgie's point that Skin of Our Teeth seems to ramble on at times; characters speaking without getting to the point, which to me translates to characters who are speaking without ACTION. Whereas the Characters in Six Characters are ALWAYS in action, fighting for their point of view and objective.
I'd also like second Georgie and Andrew's point and to remind you all that we do need to read more plays, in particular to fill either the winter or spring slot. I'm going to post another spot on this blog to nominate more play suggestions, but please do continue to discuss the two plays we've read.
Great discussion! -Mihalik
I agree with Andrew and Georgie, we should keep looking, and keep our options open.
Well, I wasn't able to read Skin of Our Teeth, but based on other's comments I think I can make a good assessment of how I feel about both options.
I very much enjoyed Six Characters, I think it would be a great challenge for us, it gives us a chance to mix improv with acting, comedy and tragedy. I like the characters. And as far as how many parts there are (that speak a lot) I don't think we should be basing our decision on that. I mean...I've had small parts and I've had big parts, I think that if there are people willing to learn that many lines then go for it. It's pretty simple..if you want to learn a lot of lines..audition for one of those parts, if you don't, then don't. And the ensemble is pretty much unlimited, so everyone will be able to be included. I realize that our group is close and we want everyone to feel involved, but if we're always looking for plays with parts that all speak equally, it really limits us. And this is not the only play we will do.
Also, I am definitely not opposed to doing a long play (Skin of Our Teeth). I wish I could have read it so that I would know more about what to say.
I don't know, everyone can think I'm being insensitive or whatever..I don't really care. I think that we should choose the show that will work best for us on a whole. Not pick it just by how many parts there are or how easy it is to understand or how long it is. We should weigh all of those factors equally. Either way, I know we will end up with something great, like we always do. =]
Also, we can't worry too much (notice I said "too") about what our audience will think, we need to enjoy ourselves and feel proud with what we present.
I just read one of Emily's comments and I would like to add to it.
YES. Life goes on even if we don't get the parts we want. There have been parts I wanted to badly and I was crushed when I didn't get them and there have been times when things worked in my favor. Honestly...this might sound harsh but we are in high school and we kind of need to suck it up and just put on a show.
(And for the most part..we always have fun, no matter what parts we get, and I think that is more important)
Post a Comment