THR 489: Final Project
Course: THR489 Final Project
Production: A Timeless Journey
Term: Summer 2020
Evaluator: Morris Ertman, Design
Student: Katherina Stegerman
The following evaluation is based upon Katherina’s design renderings, watching the show in performance and a subsequent conversation about the process. It should be noted that Katherina had to do a conceptual pivot from an original concept to a reader’s theatre concept because of COVID. The solution was conceptually good given the context of a reader’s theatre event.
Costumes: I am more enamoured with the costumes in the renderings than in performance. In the renderings, they are conceptually clearly illustrated. They’re nice renderings! In performance, they were not as clear.
Understanding that the story is allegory, I could not make the connection between Balbina and his/her past. Was the floral dress meant to be some kind of emblematic connection to Eden? I couldn’t make a story connection to the choices in that costume - either in the rendering or live.
I love the through-line of Freedom/Journey, and The Holy Spirit. Beautifully rendered and executed. Although I must say that I completely missed the Holy Spirit cape in the performance. I’m not sure why.
But that does lead me to the set. In my conversation with Katherina, I wondered whether the Holy Spirit character costumes needed to inform the scenic projection piece more. She informed me that that was indeed her intention. She talked about the geometric design in the animal puppets and how she was incorporating that into the scenic projection surface element of the scenic design. Katherina was illustrating the mountain and diamond referenced in the story - combining them into a geometric abstraction for the projection of the slides.
The problem is that I spent a good part of the play confused by something that looked to me like a sci-fi helmet or the eye of an insect. I just didn’t get it.
As Katherina and I chatted about that, I pointed out that in allegorical type stories, there is a pitfall in trying to be emblematic if there is no real connection in the staging to tie the audience’s understanding to that emblematic device. I must iterate (with my own set of biases) that the theatre is an emotional more than a cerebral experience. We get stuck on the thing we don’t understand. (Of course, when I’m in the middle of directing a play, I forget that sometimes as well.) And we can’t. The image needs to make visual sense. It has to integrate in a way that creates an “aha!” or series of growing revelatory “ahas!" for the audience.
There was an “aha!!” at the end of the play when a literal illustration of human beings was projected. But that “aha” had more to do with finally connecting to something we readily understood - some humanity in the middle of what was a very abstract visual narrative. I do understand that that was a choice of Katherina’s. And in that sense, it was effective. But there were no steps leading me into that moment. As a result, it arrived as relief rather than revelation.
I must say that in live performance, the images were quite washed out by the light illuminating the actors. We talked about the fact that significant separation has to happen between actor and projection surface for projections to have a chance of working, especially given the abstract nature of these. It’s a common problem in the theatre. Companies and spaces hat are able to use projections effectively have a significant distance between the projection and the actor, or have the resource to light the actor without bouncing up onto the projection surface. So, Katherina’s projections were much more technically vividly successful on line than live.
In our conversation, Katherina mentioned that the abstract projections were all about the view of the central character as she viewed heaven. But they seemed like computer drawings rather than character informed abstractions that gave us a clue into the heaven seen through the eyes of the character.
We always have to start with humanity. If humanity must be distorted for the sake of the story, let the actor do that work in their performance. Scenically, we need to provide a touchstone, a perch to land on in front of the "story bird feeder” if you will, or we’ll not know where to stand so we can know where to put our beak, yes? There’s a deceptive bird feeder in my back yard. It looks fantastic. But birds don’t eat from it. I’ve watched them peck away at the clear plastic, trying to get at the seeds. The whole thing is a caged surface so they can land anywhere on it. But they can’t find the openings to get at the seed because there is no identifiable perch! I bought it on sale in Peavey Mart because I liked the look and finish of it.
Those poor birds …
My poor wallet …
At least I’ll never have to refill it …
Something has to make sense for us or the ”seed” of the story will elude us, yes?
Thoughts: A humbling evaluation for sure, but one that I saw as both very fair and something that I have a lot to take away from. Morris was gracious enough to have a phone conversation with me where we discussed the issues he had with the design and after speaking with him about it I understood his point of view. The simple reality is that with my final project design I allowed the concepts to be cerebral and theoretical more than visceral. With other designs I have done I could “feel” when it was right - I never gave myself the time to wrestle with this design until it didn’t just have a cool concept but also “felt” right. Morris was able to pick up on that, I have learned that the art cannot exist theoretically, it must speak to me, it must resonate emotionally before it is done.