下载App
旅行
账户
Fortheloveofacting
"good enough"
Chemainus Theatre的点评
点评：I'm coming here to write this review in hopes something will be done, I have seen the last 4 shows at chemainus in a row among many others and it seems the attitude for the directors has become "eh good enough". This is coming from someone who adores theatre, and loves to go to chemainus. But something has to be said.
I just saw Footloose and i can't believe how awful it was. Yet they say broadway quality in the programe. This felt to me, like it was a highschool musical.
The set was none existent and stage space was used poorly. (no levels, and nothing to work with) compare this to their 2016 set of the same production where they had two distinct levels for example, with layer and nuance.
The lighting was plain - no colour other than a few moments, not much texture other than a couple spots with use of gobos. Just static light the whole way through. Seriously? Chemainus has the ability to do better! With such a plain stage I would at least expect there to be rich, dynamic, interesting light and textures throughout to help create the scenes and sell the story. Nah, Good enough, it'll be fine.
The opening sequence of the play with the iconic "Footloose" song could have been so grabbing had there been any use of light but it remained(as with all scenes) mostly static and underwhelming.
The casting of our lead "Ren" doesn't help much either. This young man is a good actor. Yet he does not sell this role. He comes across as nerdy, and without charisma. It doesn't help that the costumer also dresses him like a nerd. Complete with suspenders and pants that are too short. ( but i will talk about costuming later)
Why didn't the director say anything?? It completely goes against the script and the circumstances of the character. His name is REN - like - renegade... "a person who behaves in a rebelliously unconventional manner" And when you listen to the script that's exactly what the character should be. Oozing charisma, full of angst, not a fool, not a mean guy but beats to his own drum - a contrarian etc. That's why he is able to intimidate the antagonist and steal his girl! Yet the way he is portrayed here is just nerdy. In appearance and performance. I do not buy that this version of Ren would intimidate anyone effortlessly just by existing and that all the girls would be all over him - as written in the script.
The costumes. So Ren is dressed like a nerd the entire play - that isn't supported by the script. He has an outfit with suspenders, he has an outfit that looks like it is for a girl which is purple and green, and then most egregiously he was dressed at one point in the exact same sky blue as the bloody background! (with a dainty little silver chain) His whole upper torso just blending in! Why?? Why didn't anyone say anything! this is basic stuff. Good enough though.
The others are dressed no better either. Our antagonist "Chuck" is in an outfit that makes him look silly, not threatening. A oversized white jean jacket with a black leather vest over top of an AC/DC t shirt. He looks silly. The actor himself looks to be quite built, i have no idea why they didn't put him in a black t shirt and let us see his muscles.
Rusty is dressed in an ugly all purple outfit for the majority of the play that doesn't do the actress any favours. Why? She's a very good actress playing the part perfectly and all i can think the whole time is "why is she wearing that"
The one scene that stood out was the bar scene, people were dressed in such a way that it wasn't distracting and i could believe they were real people for a moment. The light also changed a bit.
Why is the attitude "good enough"?
This play could be leagues better had the director said, no hang on, that's not right, this can be better. The things i am pointing out are basic principles. Static light, no texture, lack of colour... which I could see how something like that could work to show how dreary everyone is about not being able to dance, if it had been thought out and then juxtaposed somehow when dance happens perhaps. except it isn't used like that. It's just static light. The portrayal and costuming of the main character is not supported by the story. Others look silly. Moments that should have earned a pause and should have heart are just rushed through. I could say more, but my point is made.
The same general things can be pretty well said about all other plays i've seen this past season. The attitude seems "good enough." And the general audience is pleased, but that shouldn't be a reason to allow your art to be just "good enough"
I do not blame the actors, for the most part. You can't see yourself on stage. You need someone to tell you it isn't right.
So please, find your passion again if you're one of the directors reading this. Make some bold choices. Do something interesting. Stop saying "good enough". You're an artist! Or hire a director who is passionate and has a vision and isn't going to let such simple little things slide.
I just saw Footloose and i can't believe how awful it was. Yet they say broadway quality in the programe. This felt to me, like it was a highschool musical.
The set was none existent and stage space was used poorly. (no levels, and nothing to work with) compare this to their 2016 set of the same production where they had two distinct levels for example, with layer and nuance.
The lighting was plain - no colour other than a few moments, not much texture other than a couple spots with use of gobos. Just static light the whole way through. Seriously? Chemainus has the ability to do better! With such a plain stage I would at least expect there to be rich, dynamic, interesting light and textures throughout to help create the scenes and sell the story. Nah, Good enough, it'll be fine.
The opening sequence of the play with the iconic "Footloose" song could have been so grabbing had there been any use of light but it remained(as with all scenes) mostly static and underwhelming.
The casting of our lead "Ren" doesn't help much either. This young man is a good actor. Yet he does not sell this role. He comes across as nerdy, and without charisma. It doesn't help that the costumer also dresses him like a nerd. Complete with suspenders and pants that are too short. ( but i will talk about costuming later)
Why didn't the director say anything?? It completely goes against the script and the circumstances of the character. His name is REN - like - renegade... "a person who behaves in a rebelliously unconventional manner" And when you listen to the script that's exactly what the character should be. Oozing charisma, full of angst, not a fool, not a mean guy but beats to his own drum - a contrarian etc. That's why he is able to intimidate the antagonist and steal his girl! Yet the way he is portrayed here is just nerdy. In appearance and performance. I do not buy that this version of Ren would intimidate anyone effortlessly just by existing and that all the girls would be all over him - as written in the script.
The costumes. So Ren is dressed like a nerd the entire play - that isn't supported by the script. He has an outfit with suspenders, he has an outfit that looks like it is for a girl which is purple and green, and then most egregiously he was dressed at one point in the exact same sky blue as the bloody background! (with a dainty little silver chain) His whole upper torso just blending in! Why?? Why didn't anyone say anything! this is basic stuff. Good enough though.
The others are dressed no better either. Our antagonist "Chuck" is in an outfit that makes him look silly, not threatening. A oversized white jean jacket with a black leather vest over top of an AC/DC t shirt. He looks silly. The actor himself looks to be quite built, i have no idea why they didn't put him in a black t shirt and let us see his muscles.
Rusty is dressed in an ugly all purple outfit for the majority of the play that doesn't do the actress any favours. Why? She's a very good actress playing the part perfectly and all i can think the whole time is "why is she wearing that"
The one scene that stood out was the bar scene, people were dressed in such a way that it wasn't distracting and i could believe they were real people for a moment. The light also changed a bit.
Why is the attitude "good enough"?
This play could be leagues better had the director said, no hang on, that's not right, this can be better. The things i am pointing out are basic principles. Static light, no texture, lack of colour... which I could see how something like that could work to show how dreary everyone is about not being able to dance, if it had been thought out and then juxtaposed somehow when dance happens perhaps. except it isn't used like that. It's just static light. The portrayal and costuming of the main character is not supported by the story. Others look silly. Moments that should have earned a pause and should have heart are just rushed through. I could say more, but my point is made.
The same general things can be pretty well said about all other plays i've seen this past season. The attitude seems "good enough." And the general audience is pleased, but that shouldn't be a reason to allow your art to be just "good enough"
I do not blame the actors, for the most part. You can't see yourself on stage. You need someone to tell you it isn't right.
So please, find your passion again if you're one of the directors reading this. Make some bold choices. Do something interesting. Stop saying "good enough". You're an artist! Or hire a director who is passionate and has a vision and isn't going to let such simple little things slide.
翻译：我来写这篇评论是希望事情能有所改观。我已经连续看了切梅纳斯剧院的四场演出，而且还有很多其他剧院的演出，感觉导演们的态度已经变成了“嗯，够好了”。这话出自一个热爱戏剧、喜欢去切梅纳斯剧院的人之口。但有些话还是要说。
我刚看了《浑身是劲》，简直不敢相信它竟然这么糟糕。然而，节目单上却说它达到了百老汇的水平。我觉得这就像一部高中音乐剧。
布景毫无存在感，舞台空间利用得很糟糕。（没有层次，也没什么可发挥的）相比之下，他们2016年同一作品的布景有两个不同的层次，层次感和细微差别都很明显。
灯光很单调——除了几个瞬间的色彩，没有其他色彩；除了几个用遮光片点缀的点之外，几乎没有什么质感。全程都是静态光。真的吗？切梅纳斯剧院完全可以做得更好！舞台如此朴素，我至少希望它能有丰富、动感、有趣的灯光和质感贯穿始终，从而营造场景并推进故事发展。不，够好了，就那样就好了。
如果用上灯光，这部戏的开场片段，尤其是那首标志性的《浑身是劲》会非常吸引人，但最终（和所有场景一样）它依然保持着静态，毫无亮点。
主角“Ren”的选角也功不可没。这个年轻人演技不错，但他却无法演好这个角色。他给人一种书呆子气，缺乏个人魅力。服装师也把他打扮得像个书呆子，更糟了。他穿着背带裤，裤子又太短了。（服装方面我稍后再谈。）
为什么导演什么都没说？这完全违背了剧本和角色的处境。他的名字叫REN——就像——叛逆者……“一个行为叛逆、标新立异的人”。剧本里的角色就是这样的。魅力四射，充满焦虑，不傻，也不刻薄，而是我行我素——一个反传统主义者等等。正因如此，他才能震慑反派，抢走他的女朋友！然而，他在这里的形象却很呆板。无论是外表还是表演。我不相信这个版本的Ren会轻而易举地吓倒任何人，也不会像剧本里写的那样，让所有女孩都对他趋之若鹜。
服装。Ren在整部戏里都打扮得像个呆瓜——剧本里根本没提到这一点。他有一套带吊带的服装，还有一套看起来像是女装的紫色和绿色相间的服装，最令人震惊的是，他竟然穿了和血腥背景一模一样的天蓝色！ （戴着一条精致的小银链）他的整个上半身都融入其中了！为什么？为什么没人说什么！这都是些基本的东西。不过已经够好了。
其他人的穿着也好不到哪里去。我们的反派“查克”穿的那套衣服让他看起来很傻，一点也不吓人。一件超大的白色牛仔夹克，里面套着一件黑色皮背心，外面套着一件AC/DC的T恤。他看起来很傻。演员本人看起来很壮，我不知道他们为什么不让他穿件黑色T恤，让我们看看他的肌肉。
拉斯蒂在剧中大部分时间都穿着一件丑陋的全紫色衣服，这对女演员来说一点好处都没有。为什么？她演得非常好，完美地演绎了这个角色，而我一直想的只是“她为什么要穿那套衣服”
唯一一个引人注目的场景是酒吧那场戏，人们的穿着非常得体，不会让人分心，我甚至一度相信他们是真人。灯光也变了一点。
为什么说“足够好”？
如果导演说“等等，这不对，这可以更好”，这部戏可能会好得多。我指出的是一些基本原则。静态灯光，没有质感，缺乏色彩……如果经过深思熟虑，并在舞蹈表演时以某种方式并置，我就能理解这种效果如何展现人们因为不能跳舞而感到多么沮丧。只是它并没有这样使用。它只是静态灯光。主角的刻画和服装与故事情节脱节。其他的看起来很傻。一些应该停下来，应该让人感动的时刻却被匆匆带过。我还可以多说一些，但我的观点已经表达清楚了。
关于过去这个季度我看过的所有其他戏剧，类似的评价也相当普遍。这种态度似乎“足够好”。观众当然会感到满意，但这不应该成为让你的艺术仅仅停留在“足够好”的阶段的理由。
我大部分时候都不会责怪演员。你无法想象自己在舞台上的表现。你需要有人告诉你，这不对。
所以，如果你是正在读这篇文章的导演之一，请重新找回你的热情。做出一些大胆的选择。做一些有趣的事情。别再说“足够好”了。你是一位艺术家！或者聘请一位充满热情、有远见、不会放过这些简单小事的导演。
我刚看了《浑身是劲》，简直不敢相信它竟然这么糟糕。然而，节目单上却说它达到了百老汇的水平。我觉得这就像一部高中音乐剧。
布景毫无存在感，舞台空间利用得很糟糕。（没有层次，也没什么可发挥的）相比之下，他们2016年同一作品的布景有两个不同的层次，层次感和细微差别都很明显。
灯光很单调——除了几个瞬间的色彩，没有其他色彩；除了几个用遮光片点缀的点之外，几乎没有什么质感。全程都是静态光。真的吗？切梅纳斯剧院完全可以做得更好！舞台如此朴素，我至少希望它能有丰富、动感、有趣的灯光和质感贯穿始终，从而营造场景并推进故事发展。不，够好了，就那样就好了。
如果用上灯光，这部戏的开场片段，尤其是那首标志性的《浑身是劲》会非常吸引人，但最终（和所有场景一样）它依然保持着静态，毫无亮点。
主角“Ren”的选角也功不可没。这个年轻人演技不错，但他却无法演好这个角色。他给人一种书呆子气，缺乏个人魅力。服装师也把他打扮得像个书呆子，更糟了。他穿着背带裤，裤子又太短了。（服装方面我稍后再谈。）
为什么导演什么都没说？这完全违背了剧本和角色的处境。他的名字叫REN——就像——叛逆者……“一个行为叛逆、标新立异的人”。剧本里的角色就是这样的。魅力四射，充满焦虑，不傻，也不刻薄，而是我行我素——一个反传统主义者等等。正因如此，他才能震慑反派，抢走他的女朋友！然而，他在这里的形象却很呆板。无论是外表还是表演。我不相信这个版本的Ren会轻而易举地吓倒任何人，也不会像剧本里写的那样，让所有女孩都对他趋之若鹜。
服装。Ren在整部戏里都打扮得像个呆瓜——剧本里根本没提到这一点。他有一套带吊带的服装，还有一套看起来像是女装的紫色和绿色相间的服装，最令人震惊的是，他竟然穿了和血腥背景一模一样的天蓝色！ （戴着一条精致的小银链）他的整个上半身都融入其中了！为什么？为什么没人说什么！这都是些基本的东西。不过已经够好了。
其他人的穿着也好不到哪里去。我们的反派“查克”穿的那套衣服让他看起来很傻，一点也不吓人。一件超大的白色牛仔夹克，里面套着一件黑色皮背心，外面套着一件AC/DC的T恤。他看起来很傻。演员本人看起来很壮，我不知道他们为什么不让他穿件黑色T恤，让我们看看他的肌肉。
拉斯蒂在剧中大部分时间都穿着一件丑陋的全紫色衣服，这对女演员来说一点好处都没有。为什么？她演得非常好，完美地演绎了这个角色，而我一直想的只是“她为什么要穿那套衣服”
唯一一个引人注目的场景是酒吧那场戏，人们的穿着非常得体，不会让人分心，我甚至一度相信他们是真人。灯光也变了一点。
为什么说“足够好”？
如果导演说“等等，这不对，这可以更好”，这部戏可能会好得多。我指出的是一些基本原则。静态灯光，没有质感，缺乏色彩……如果经过深思熟虑，并在舞蹈表演时以某种方式并置，我就能理解这种效果如何展现人们因为不能跳舞而感到多么沮丧。只是它并没有这样使用。它只是静态灯光。主角的刻画和服装与故事情节脱节。其他的看起来很傻。一些应该停下来，应该让人感动的时刻却被匆匆带过。我还可以多说一些，但我的观点已经表达清楚了。
关于过去这个季度我看过的所有其他戏剧，类似的评价也相当普遍。这种态度似乎“足够好”。观众当然会感到满意，但这不应该成为让你的艺术仅仅停留在“足够好”的阶段的理由。
我大部分时候都不会责怪演员。你无法想象自己在舞台上的表现。你需要有人告诉你，这不对。
所以，如果你是正在读这篇文章的导演之一，请重新找回你的热情。做出一些大胆的选择。做一些有趣的事情。别再说“足够好”了。你是一位艺术家！或者聘请一位充满热情、有远见、不会放过这些简单小事的导演。
© 2025 Tripadvisor 版权所有。
部分照片由 VFM Leonardo 提供。
TripAdvisor公司对外部网站的内容一概不负责。优惠价格中不含税和其他费用。
ICP证：沪B2-20200433
沪ICP备20013175号
沪公网安备31010502005427号鹰程信息技术（上海）有限公司
