Salad Days - Striling Players
Fri, 9 July 2004, 01:54 pmDon Allen14 posts in thread
Salad Days - Striling Players
Fri, 9 July 2004, 01:54 pmSALAD DAYS started its life in June 1954 at the Theatre Royal, Bristol. It was scheduled to run just three weeks. But Fate - and a London Management - intervened. On August 5th. 1954 it opened with the same production at the Vaudeville Theatre, London, and stayed there for five and a half years, becoming (for then) the longest running musical in the history of the British Theatre with over 2400 performances.
I had never heard of it but ended up seeing it last night with a large group booking. It is a non descript vaudeville musical with a large number of scene changes that would have made sense if the programme had explained the musical's origins.
The set was a back cloth and front cloth painted as a vaudeville cloth and used with good timing for scene changes, however we still had to wait for music or lights for the show to continue so continuity was jerky.
Doing a musical in black tabs is not a good idea as musicals are meant to be bright, colourful events. It would have been better to use pivoting flats with an indoor and an outdoor setting painted on them as legs.
The lead female was excellent, I supsect WAAPA trained as we were presented with a fun character, always smiling, projecting well and moving freely with dance numbers. Unfortunately some of the other cast members were well below her standard and appeared to lack practice.
The lighting was very dark in some corners which was where actors were blocked, so a refocus or reblocking to suit limited resources would overcome the dark corners.
Stirling Players use a multipurpose hall so do not have the benefit of a raked seating arrangement but the seating needs to be moved closer together as too much leg room for the front rows puts the last few rows too far from the stage. Perhaps a measuring stick can be created for optimum spacing. If you have a lot of senior audience, make one or two rows slighty roomier and let them know about them at booking time.
A good effort but not a great show.
Don
I had never heard of it but ended up seeing it last night with a large group booking. It is a non descript vaudeville musical with a large number of scene changes that would have made sense if the programme had explained the musical's origins.
The set was a back cloth and front cloth painted as a vaudeville cloth and used with good timing for scene changes, however we still had to wait for music or lights for the show to continue so continuity was jerky.
Doing a musical in black tabs is not a good idea as musicals are meant to be bright, colourful events. It would have been better to use pivoting flats with an indoor and an outdoor setting painted on them as legs.
The lead female was excellent, I supsect WAAPA trained as we were presented with a fun character, always smiling, projecting well and moving freely with dance numbers. Unfortunately some of the other cast members were well below her standard and appeared to lack practice.
The lighting was very dark in some corners which was where actors were blocked, so a refocus or reblocking to suit limited resources would overcome the dark corners.
Stirling Players use a multipurpose hall so do not have the benefit of a raked seating arrangement but the seating needs to be moved closer together as too much leg room for the front rows puts the last few rows too far from the stage. Perhaps a measuring stick can be created for optimum spacing. If you have a lot of senior audience, make one or two rows slighty roomier and let them know about them at booking time.
A good effort but not a great show.
Don
Re: Salad Days - Striling Players
Tue, 13 July 2004, 02:21 amLiam,
That might be fair enough IF the programs (in the main) were *worth* the getting.
I have no idea about the quality of the Stirling Players 'Salad Days' program, but (FAR) too often, programs for shows contain NOTHING but an ad for the next show, some (usually) badly written (read BORING) biogs of the cast, and some drivel about joining the club/who's on the committee. And the occasional advert/acknowledgement.
My question is: "WHO CARES?" If we are doing programs for our own edification, to see our names and pictures in print, then fair enough -- what passes is fine. If we actually want these documents to represent SOMETHING OF WORTH about the production for posterity, and to enhance the enjoyment for the audience member, then I think we are CONTINUALLY failing.
My personal view is that the program have SOMETHING to SAY about the play/show, beyond "It was a nice experience to be involved" -- depending on the show, some sort of potted history of the period the play is set in, a description of how the play was originally received when premiered and how that perception of it has evolved, some glimpses into the thought process that went on behind the dramatic choices of the director and the cast, etc.
Each show has a wealth of information behind it that can not only inform the audience member of the play/shows worth or place in the great tradition we call performance, but also fill out and expand that persons ENJOYMENT of the experience FAR beyond the mere "3 hours traffic" they just experienced.
For these reasons, I generally refuse programs when offered because I know 99 times out of 100 they contain nothing of real interest to me. And I can play a part in saving a tree or two. When I sneak a glimpse, occasionally, my viewpoint is (sadly) vindicated.
There... soap box vacated... who's next? :o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
That might be fair enough IF the programs (in the main) were *worth* the getting.
I have no idea about the quality of the Stirling Players 'Salad Days' program, but (FAR) too often, programs for shows contain NOTHING but an ad for the next show, some (usually) badly written (read BORING) biogs of the cast, and some drivel about joining the club/who's on the committee. And the occasional advert/acknowledgement.
My question is: "WHO CARES?" If we are doing programs for our own edification, to see our names and pictures in print, then fair enough -- what passes is fine. If we actually want these documents to represent SOMETHING OF WORTH about the production for posterity, and to enhance the enjoyment for the audience member, then I think we are CONTINUALLY failing.
My personal view is that the program have SOMETHING to SAY about the play/show, beyond "It was a nice experience to be involved" -- depending on the show, some sort of potted history of the period the play is set in, a description of how the play was originally received when premiered and how that perception of it has evolved, some glimpses into the thought process that went on behind the dramatic choices of the director and the cast, etc.
Each show has a wealth of information behind it that can not only inform the audience member of the play/shows worth or place in the great tradition we call performance, but also fill out and expand that persons ENJOYMENT of the experience FAR beyond the mere "3 hours traffic" they just experienced.
For these reasons, I generally refuse programs when offered because I know 99 times out of 100 they contain nothing of real interest to me. And I can play a part in saving a tree or two. When I sneak a glimpse, occasionally, my viewpoint is (sadly) vindicated.
There... soap box vacated... who's next? :o)
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···