Design Seminar
I have to preface this post by saying as things are winding down and more shows are closing we get to spend some educational time with some of our higher ups. Specifically Bill our TD gives these seminars to the P.A.s to get our input on how he can better understand our process and build sets that are functional on multiple levels and to help us further our learning of things we are specifically interested in.
This particular seminar we were given a designers first scenic renderings of a production of Henry V. Then asked to come up with some possible problems we could find that would have to be considered during the revision of the design.
The set consisted of two large clusters of raked platforms on stage right and stage left leaving open stage floor in the middle. I found some production pictures of what the actual play looked like for reference:
http://americanplayers.org/assets/documents/King_Henry_V_Abstract.pdf
We primarily used the ground plan to determine where the structural issues may be. Some potential issues we came up with included: material of the structure, division of platforms, delegation of leg or gate system, making allowance for swelling, making plugs around the permanent structure, height of walls and interaction with lighting positions, assessing rake (if there was too much). I'm certain there were more as well.
We presented these first to Bill who tended to agree with our assessment and tell us how it was done the first time (the show was remounted). He told us the set was a hybrid of materials, both wood and steel that started out as a system of knee walls, platforms and plug system. The initial system didn't work too well because it was cumbersome to make attachments to.
The second time around they used a more solid state platform system that was modular. While heavier it took less time to make the attachment points and took less time to plug without having to worry to much about the rake.
The large thing that Bill highlighted however was the budget and time management aspects of the two different attempts at building the set. He said that the first time it was much faster and cheeper to build but with the trade off that it was hard to build consistently the same. The second set, while it took more labor and money in the shop (as well as more storage space in the clubhouse) was a good deal easier to consistently get built fast and accurately.
In the ways of critical thinking this was a particularly interesting exercise for me because of the fact that as a PA I often find awkward scenic units that could possibly have been engineered differently to alleviate problems. It was nice to see all the consideration and thought put into how I do my job and nice to find out that our arguments don't fall by the wayside.
This particular seminar we were given a designers first scenic renderings of a production of Henry V. Then asked to come up with some possible problems we could find that would have to be considered during the revision of the design.
The set consisted of two large clusters of raked platforms on stage right and stage left leaving open stage floor in the middle. I found some production pictures of what the actual play looked like for reference:
http://americanplayers.org/assets/documents/King_Henry_V_Abstract.pdf
We primarily used the ground plan to determine where the structural issues may be. Some potential issues we came up with included: material of the structure, division of platforms, delegation of leg or gate system, making allowance for swelling, making plugs around the permanent structure, height of walls and interaction with lighting positions, assessing rake (if there was too much). I'm certain there were more as well.
We presented these first to Bill who tended to agree with our assessment and tell us how it was done the first time (the show was remounted). He told us the set was a hybrid of materials, both wood and steel that started out as a system of knee walls, platforms and plug system. The initial system didn't work too well because it was cumbersome to make attachments to.
The second time around they used a more solid state platform system that was modular. While heavier it took less time to make the attachment points and took less time to plug without having to worry to much about the rake.
The large thing that Bill highlighted however was the budget and time management aspects of the two different attempts at building the set. He said that the first time it was much faster and cheeper to build but with the trade off that it was hard to build consistently the same. The second set, while it took more labor and money in the shop (as well as more storage space in the clubhouse) was a good deal easier to consistently get built fast and accurately.
In the ways of critical thinking this was a particularly interesting exercise for me because of the fact that as a PA I often find awkward scenic units that could possibly have been engineered differently to alleviate problems. It was nice to see all the consideration and thought put into how I do my job and nice to find out that our arguments don't fall by the wayside.
No comments:
Post a Comment