Personally, I like the idea of the Rough Theatre. In my opinion, one of the beat ways to engage the audience is to draw them in with a set that adds to the performance. Of course, this is especially successful if the play calls for sets that aren’t so grand. This adds to the suspension of disbelief. Still, the concept of Rough Theatre is a bit limiting. It would be difficult, or jarring, to put on a production of “The Phantom of the Opera” with the Rough Theatre model.
I really prefer the Rough Theatre theory when applied to film. It seems like the model of filmmaking is a demand for more, more, more! In today’s practice of grossly over inflated budgets, ultra-high resolution cameras, and special effects excess, a little simplicity can come as a breath of fresh air. Black and white 16 mm cameras, and their film stock, add character to a movie. The more modern digital cameras may be able to increase the resolution and detail, but they are not necessarily adding to the texture of the film. As for special effects, modern computer generated images can be very impressive, but increasingly, something seems lost. The audience is far too aware that what they are looking at was rendered on a computer and does not occupy the same space as the actor. Some of the older effects, like the dinosaurs from the first “Jurassic Park” movie are far more visually stunning. There’s a certain feeling that the older technology has more validity to it. A feeling that, although the older 16 mm cameras require more work, the filmmaker put more effort into making their movie.
As for the idea of the shower curtain screen, the simple feeling that one did the work themselves is gratifying enough. Sure, it’s not Hollywood, but it has heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment