Theatre Studies – Production Elements

This essay is provided only as help and inspiration for your own work.
Please don’t plagiarise, it’s not worth it.

With detailed reference to one theatre event you have seen, assess how the production elements created an impact on you.

[BACK TO ESSAYS]

At 7.15pm on 3rd March 1999, I attended a performance of The Tempest by William Shakespeare. The play was directed by Adrian Noble and had used the New Penguin Shakespeare edition, cutting approximately sixty-two lines of the text. I was unfamiliar with the story of The Tempest, so the information in the programme and the presentation of the play was crucial for my understanding.

One stage was used to represent different parts of the island as well as the ship. The main devices allowing this were a large opaque curtain and the technical effects of projection. The audience formed the fourth wall of a set that was not naturalistic. Possibly the only concession to reality was the sand coloured floor. I believe that not having a naturalistic set enabled the mysticism of the play to shine through, showing that the characters could be shipwrecked anywhere; a place where magic was the norm. A large quantity of soft, light and flowing material was used in this production which I felt gave a fluid movement to the whole performance, especially during scene changes, as the curtain drew across from one side of the stage to the other. In the opening scene of the tempest, violent waves were projected onto the front curtain and behind this a model ship was seen riding the waves. Unfortunately the illusion was shattered to a degree by the visibility of the actor holding the model. The tranquillity created by the swaths of material had to be transformed to represent the danger of the tempest. This was achieved by the projections, the use of lights to create lightning and the sound effects of thunder. The desperation of the situation was evident from all the noise and the shouting of the boat’s crew. However, I was immediately discouraged to find that the first few words of the production were completely lost through unclear diction and the cacophony of the tempest.

I was impressed by the staging of the play, especially the use of the front curtain through which the actors could be seen, even when images were being projected onto it. Despite this, my seat was in a position that limited my view of the stage. At one point, Ariel appeared upstage left, suspended by wires, in a red spotlight. Really all I knew of this was from being able to see the red spot on the opposite side of the stage.

Caliban first appeared from within a large shell that was brought on to the stage. Having a moment like this acted as an original and amusing idea, but could also be argued to be predictable as soon as the shell appeared. One drawback was that my mind immediately started to wander – wondering how long the actor had been inside the shell and so on.

Minimal props were used, reiterating the idea of Prospero and Miranda being alone on the island with Ariel and Caliban. It was an interesting directorial decision to only give the character of Prospero a magical rod and no books. There are references in the text to the importance of the magic books to Prospero “volumes that I prize above my dukedom”. However, with no previous knowledge of the text and only a basic understanding of the language of Shakespeare, I had no idea of the importance of the books until a later discussion. Breaking free from his magic was only symbolised by breaking his rod at the end of the performance.

The relationship between the actors and the audience also created an impression on me. While my seat in the gallery was somewhat detached from the action, I could see the curved ramp that led from the stage into the auditorium. At several points, characters entered or left using the ramp, increasing their proximity to the audience. The main characters to use the ramp as an entrance or exit were the more comical characters: Stephano, Trinculo, Caliban and Ariel. I felt that the use of the ramp added another dimension to the somewhat restrictive proscenium arch theatre. In addition to this, for the comical characters, an almost pantomime-like quality was added, seeming to bring them from the auditorium.

Each actor was responsible, in my opinion, for relating their part of the story to a person unfamiliar with the story. Of course, the theatre can be a much more enjoyable experience with an understanding of themes and so on, but there will always be newcomers to a story. I was one such person and so I needed clear performances. I felt that each actor played their part well, though somehow Prospero appeared arrogant on stage. On the whole it must say something about everybody’s performance that nothing stands out in my memory. I was impressed that I understood the majority of the story, but beyond a basic plot line, my understanding waned.

The trio of Stephano, Trinculo and Caliban were the characters responsible for bringing humour to the production. Their physical comedy broke up the more intense scenes with Prospero, Miranda and the characters directly related to them. Scenes such as the following were, for me, highlights of the otherwise serious play. Trinculo accidentally threw the drink form his cup up into the air. He and Stephano then looked up to see why they were wet. Predictably, the three comedians received a rapturous round of applause at the end of the play. The only element of The Tempest directly associated with them that I would criticise is the journey through the marsh. The actual journey was not shown in the production, so when Trinculo and Stephano entered the stage covered in mud, I had no idea why they were dirty.

Costume was important in distinguishing Caliban and Ariel from the mortal characters. Body paint was used with these characters. For me, the main impact was created by their eyes. They were painted red and in Ariel appeared gaunt, but in Caliban appeared savage and aggressive. Ariel was a pale character, with his hair slicked back and whitened. Both he and Caliban appeared to be naked apart from underwear fitting in with the colour scheme of their bodies. In contrast to the savage browns and reds of Caliban, Miranda appeared dressed in a long, flowing virginal white dress. The shipwrecked nobles’ costumes were very similar to each other’s. They wore outfits instantly recognisable as historical clothes of nobility, down to the white ruff collars. Having read some background material to The Tempest since the performance, it is apparent that many productions use Prospero’s cloak as a powerful symbol of his magical qualities. This production of The Tempest dressed Prospero in a cloak, but there were no magical moons or stars to be seen. This directorial decision, I feel, lost some of Prospero’s differentiating features, but without wider reading, I am not sure that the thought of a magic cloak would have entered my head.

The masque involved the use of fabrics and movement. The elaborate dress and decoration of the dancers made the scene even more mystical, but the visibility of those billowing the material on the stage was a drawback. Once something like this has been seen, it is difficult to ignore it. Ariel was then responsible for helping to arrange those later known to my friends as the “teabag” people. These people were dressed in material like a duvet cover and formed shapes to represent inanimate embeds as well as moving spirits. The mystical qualities of these characters helped to justify the temptation of Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban.

Ariel’s method of temptation or, more appropriately, enchantment was musical. The use of his voice and of music charmed many people such as Trinculo. The live music being played in both wings added to the mystical atmosphere and Ariel’s singing voice was pure and relatively high for a male. Ariel’s use of an ocarina acted like a charm on characters. The use of this sound was much mellower and formed a direct contrast to the noise of the tempest. The movement of the characters was also an important device for distinguishing them. Ariel’s light footed, upright and flowing movements directly contrasted with Caliban’s aggressive, boisterous and stooped movements. I felt that the accompanying music was also beneficial in intensifying the antithetical characters.

The use of lighting was a method of separating characters. However, without knowledge of the director’s exact assessment of the symbolism of colours it is not entirely obvious what the effect is meant to be. Spotlights highlighted the important characters of the scene, while keeping others in the background. A blue light was mainly used for Ariel, while a green light was more often used for the magical, less innocent characters and events. It is in these cases that the symbolic aim of lighting falls down for me.

The production elements of The Tempest ranged from details such as the way in which characters moved to the greater scale of set design and interpretation. I believe that this performance was aimed more specifically at those who were familiar with the story. Little was explained in the programme and the adaptation of the script to the extent of changing central symbols such as Prospero’s magic books made little sense. My first impression was that the tumultuous effects of the tempest were simply too suffocating. As the play progressed, the elements of the production such as the lighting and set design drew me into the world of Prospero’s magic and Miranda’s love, but when analysing the impact of a performance, it is not just the initial impression that should be considered. A theatrical event would be most likely considered a success if the audience continued to consider it days after it had ended. A performance that makes the audience think like this certainly makes an impact, but The Tempest for me was memorable only for the comedy, special effects and uncomfortable seating.It is difficult to judge how the production elements create an impact on you when unfamiliar with the text and unfamiliar with the thought and symbolism behind the production.

[BACK TO ESSAYS]