There are many differences between film and live theatre. Live theatre is an academic experience you must act a certain way when walking into a theatre. You feel and see first hand the feelings of the actors. You critique the acting much more when you watch it in person. Film, on the contrary, is very expensive to make and usually features big box office names to make it into the movie theatres. The differences between the live production of The Tale of the Heike which I saw at the Glenn Hughes Theatre at the University of Washington and the film Chicago 2002 that I watched from the comfort of my dorm room are immense. The acting, the viewing experience, and the design specifically lighting are the most significant differences. I enjoyed the …show more content…
Zellweger’s nasally tone, at first, comes off as very annoying, but you begin to believe it’s what makes her character seem so innocent, she comes off as just a girl with a dream. Her gestures seem almost insecure at first, like a mouse, she moves with such innocence, but at the same time, her acting portrays someone entitled, so you don’t know how to react to her character. The gestures Renèe Zellweger utilizes develops her character. When she is performing “Funny Honey” you can sense love when she gently rubs her hands down her chest, as she walks around the piano and rubs her head on the piano as if she 's hugging it you get this feeling of love in her character. You can also feel her anger when she punches the piano. Velma played by Zeta-Jones was remarkable. The way that she was able to belt out the first song was amazing, the singing was unexpected, to say the least, her tone was thick and you could hear the deception in her voice. The role of Mama (Latifah) was acted out perfectly. When she is performing “When You’re Good to Mama” you cannot help but feel like you need to join in with the dancing and singing. Her gestures reinforced my feelings about the performance. They aided …show more content…
Andre Brown, Cory Lee, and Aaron Cammack are relatively unknown actors, at least, to me. Because I didn’t know the actors in this production the expectations were lower for me, I didn’t go into this production feeling like it should go a certain way. Nonetheless, the acting was still excellent. As this performance was a stage reading the acting was very different than something I had ever seen because they were able to read the script in front of them. Andre Brown played the retired emperor. When reading the script, Andre would approach certain scenes differently, for instance when he was conspiring against Kiyomori (Steve Sumida) his tone seemed more sarcastic to make it look as if he wasn’t truly conspiring, but joking. His tone shaped the way we viewed his character. His gestures were also very flamboyant; his arms were flailing around which showed that the emperor was an attention seeker, and his gestures gathered my attention to where I was only focusing on him speaking not the rest of the cast. By using tone and gestures, the characterization of the Emperor (Brown) was developed. At the Climax of the production, Steve Sumida’s acting shines. By reading off a script I didn’t expect that I the actors would still be acting, but Sumida’s performance proved me wrong. The climax saw Taira no Kiyomori’s (Sumida) son Taira no Shigemori (Denny Le) die. At this moment Sumida began to cry, you actually could
The acting in the play was superb. Honestly everyone did an excellent job. Kody Grassett’s ability to act feminine like Mother Superior was amusing and realistic. Brianna Joseph’s dancing had myself laughing hysterically. Alexandra Voelmle’s portrayal of Agnes and her ability to switch from an innocent personality to her later sinful personality was impressive. The individual performances really showcased each actor’s strong suit which kept the audience intrigued the entire time. I can relate to all the characters as each one is struggling to showcase exactly how they want to be known to the
It is curious to see the great star of the musical Wicked on Broadway, Indina Menzel, giving her voice to a character in Disney’s Movie, Frozen. This movie, that is an example of success, has won many awards, among them the Oscar for the best animation movie and music. However, does a musical produced in a theater such as Les Miserables or Chicago have the same success and prestige as the movie version? The advance of technology in the field of cinema that has been possible to adapt and improve the stories of books, real facts, and of course, musical theater presentations, makes everyone think the answer is no. Hence, even though the musicals produced in theater and for movies are very similar in the presentations, they have certain differences, such as audience and production that make one more successful than the other.
Throughout the musical, the prowess of each individual performer was on display. Every performer, with the exception of Kristine, expressed a power and vibrato that was breathtaking; the highest notes lilting and the lowest notes thundering. I was in awe during a majority of the performances because of the commanding singing in each performer.
For a college production, the acting was outstanding. I really felt the emotions. The lead Wendla, who was played by KyLeigh Zimmerer, was amazing. I have also seen bits and pieces of the Broadway version which starred Lea Michelle, and obviously if I were to compare the acting, the Broadway version would be victorious. However, for a college production, these actors have limited past experience, but their acting was professional. Also, when they sang the song "Those You've Known," I felt chills and had goose bumps because that was such an emotional song. You could feel all the emotions and guilt Melchior, played by Ryan Ramirez, was feeling because both his best friend, Moritz, played by Justin Noblitt, and the girl he impregnated, Wendla, died and he believed he was to blame. Moritz committed suicide while Wendla died from a botch abortion her mom for...
I could see how Harold Hill’s tactic changed from something along the lines of ‘to deceive’ to ‘to woo’ around the song “The sadder but wiser girl”. Marian Paroo’s tactic also changes from ‘to avoid’ to ‘to love’ around “My white Knight”. These actors also projected extremely well, as I could hear everything being said. They articulated well too, which I believe must be hard for them as every character had a southern accent. The actors easily incorporated their character’s goals into their acting and onstage
Their acting chops were very impressive whether it was comedic, emotional, or just stunning overall. Yet, on the other hand, some minor characters weren’t as well heard as others. I feel as the play could be better if some of the minor characters had projected their voice more, allowing their character to be known. However, although some voices were much stronger than others, all actors were full of talent, capable of dealing with script’s requirements, and did a good job
The production had many elements which for the most part formed a coalition to further the plot. The characters, the three part scenery and costumes represented well the period of time these people were going through. As far as the performers entering and exiting the stage, it could have been more organized. There were a few times when the performers exited at the wrong times or it seemed so due to the echo of the music. At certain moments the music was slightly loud and drowned the performers. Many of the songs dragged on, so the pacing could have been more effectively executed. Though the music was off at times, the director's decision to have most of the songs performed center sage was a wise one. Also the implementation of actual white characters that were competent in their roles came as a great surprise to the audience and heightened the realism.
When it came to the dialogue of the production and the understanding of it the performers again did an excellent job. Their gestures and vocal elements all aided in the production’s success and were all fittingly used by the characters. For example, when Lala was talking on the phone with Peachy she casually twirled the phone cord in her hand, leaned against the banister and childishly flirted with Peachy.
Theatre is restricted to geographical span, whereas motion the opposite is true. In film the director has freedom to shoot each scene at different locations and at different times, later putting them together for the final product. The result for the movie is that the audience is easily able to recognize the time of day and place. Stage performances are less clear, and unless one is familiar with the play they must often simply wait for actors to deduce where and when the scene is t...
Tori Gresham also had a wonder voice that was enjoyable to listen to throughout the performance. I thought that the sound was just perfect. I was clearly able to hear, and understand each character thought the entire performance. Each character sang very well, and performed every performance to its fullest potential. There was not one character that disappointed me.
Besides the fact that I didn't like this play, the actors did do a pretty good job with their acting and memorization of their lines. Couple times Marisol hesitated with her lines but it wasn't too bad. I like the accents they were using. It wasn't to hard to understand what they were saying, but once again there were those times when their accents did effect a little on their pronunciations and my understanding on what they were saying. Overall, I don't think they were too believable with their characters. They didn't reach me.
Moving onto the significant differences between the two. Imagery, body language, mood, and tone are all important literature elements that could be portrayed better in the film. This is due to the fact that the (written) play depends more on imagination. On the other hand, the film relies more on the audience’s senses. Tom's and Amanda relationship occurred to be stronger in the movie than it was explained in the play. The atmosphere in the movie is rather ill and boring than it is in the play. When it comes to lighting, it was more dim in the play to reflect a memory. In the film, it wasn't as dimmed because the memory could be reflected in different ways. Moreover, images, that were flashed in a screen device, did not exist in the film. In the movie, the atmosphere was more boring and ill than it was in the play.
The most successful aspect of the performance for me were the scene changes. I found that the rotation of the blackboard, center stage, where the actors were able to stoop beneath it in order to enter and exit the stage, was an effective touch to this non naturalistic performance. When this was first used, at the end of the first scene, when the characters Ruth and Al left the stage, I thought it didn't quite fit as at the beginning the style was leaning towards realism. But as the play progressed and the acting style became more and more non naturalistic, and this rotation of the black board technique was used more frequently it fitted in really well and became really effective.
Theatre is a more language driven medium, while movies and television are driven by what you see. Theatre relies solely on excellent script, and acting. Theatre has a live element, a more heightened sense of realism. Some argue that we are losing the very essence of theatre, its live-ness, because of recorded media seeping into plays and performances (Trueman). With technology things can more easily go wrong. Lyn Gardner says that if the show relies too heavily on technology, it can cause performances to be canceled completely due to technical glitches that instead of adding to performances, the technology has become the show. The spectacle has began to make actors obsolete, leaving the audience to feel alienated and passive to the performance rather than part of it as they should feel
There wasn’t any particular scene on stage that made me doubt the integrative work of the director since all the staging work such as lighting, design, costumes and performance were well coordinated and blended for a very good production. The lights were well positioned with well fitted costumes and a very ideal scene to match. There wasn’t much change of scenes in the play except for some movement of tables and chairs. There was an entrance and exit for the performers which made their movements uninterrupted. There was a loud sound of a bell when school was over while the lights were dimmed whenever there was a change of scene. The pace of the production was very smooth since one scene followed the other without delay and most likely because most of the performers wore the same costume; especially all eight students wore the same costume for the entire