Last night, I went to see the latest production by Ignition Theatre "Dog Sees God". I will try to be fair and balanced, yet that might prove difficult considering I'm good friends with the director of the play, and I've worked with nearly everyone involved with the production in some capacity. However in my defence of choosing to write this review I like to think that I'm very picky about the things I choose to write about. I like to write a lot, and it's difficult to write about things you aren't interested or passionate about. In my other blog (yes I have two blogs) I either write about movies I really really love, or ones I really really hate, the same can be said for any type of art I want to write about. I have to feel strongly about the subject in one way or another in order to spend my time to write about my thoughts. So without digressing too much on the topic at hand, here is my review of "Dog Sees God".
First of all, I think it's important to know what my state of mind was before I came to see the play that night. I was in no mood to see the play, I had just come off work, I was tired, I was in my work clothes, I was happy to have the day off the next day, I just wanted to go home. Yet I had said I would show up to the play that night, there was a ticket put aside for me, I still wanted to see it, but I wished it were on another day when I didn't have to work. In short, I felt obligated to go.
I arrived begrudgingly to the theatre, received my ticket and took my seat. The first thing I saw was the set, which I thought was one of the most creative sets I've seen in an Ignition show, it was very colorful. It had a cartoon feel to it, but one that wasn't too out of this world, in other words, it remained believable.
I suppose I should explain to those of you reading this blog who have no idea what "Dog Sees God" is, that this is a play set in the Charlie Brown universe. All the Peanuts characters are now teenagers, and like all teenagers, even The Peanuts, the world has become a far more darker and confusing place.
The main character is C.B. (Ryan Matilla) who's dog has just died of rabies, he was hoping to have a funeral for his lovable beagle, but none of his friends arrive for it. C.B. starts having questions of the afterlife, but he doesn't find much solace from anyone,just mostly the obligatory condolence "Sorry to hear about your dog".
He does receive some comfort from Beethoven (Chad Pitura) a former friend of C.B.'s who has become the target of bullying from him and his friends. It's from beethoven, C.B. discovers more about himself than he ever thought.
While I was watching "Dog Sees God", I found myself totally engaged in the story, but also the presentation; I appreciated this alternative take on the Peanuts universe, while die-hard loyalists to the lovable comic strip might find seeing their favorite characters turn into dysfunctional teenagers a tad distressing, I found it to be an interesting approach to the issues the play focuses on. By putting topics such as teen suicide, gay bashing, depression, death, and grief in the Charlie Brown world, it makes such a harsh pill easier to swallow. "Dog Sees God" isn't depressing to watch, it's funny, and ultimately leaves you with a hopeful message.
The surprise for me came about half way when C.B. and Beethoven confront eachother for the first time, and I began to realize how richly textured this play was. It would've been so easy for playwright Bert V. Royal to make a satire oon the Peanuts gang as teenagers and just leave it at that, instead they are used as a springboard to dive into some real emotional territory. And it's not like The Peanuts have never been emotional at its very core, it is why I think the characters remain so beloved. Royal, stays true to the vision of Charles Schultz in a way by showing this character Charlie Brown going through life and realizing it isn't fair. It's also full of questions that aren't easy to answer, Charlie Brown is in fact, a philosopher, he ponders the big questions, about life and death, why bad things happen to good people, and he speaks for all of us, when he's trying desperately to understand.
The end of the play could be open for discussion, in a way C.B. doesn't find answers, but he finds comfort, perhaps what he receives is a sort of wish fulfillment we could all someday hope for. What it is, is reason to keep going through this life no matter what swings it takes at you.
The world today is rather depressing, it's worse when you're a teenager and you're just figuring this out for the first time, it's that gap between innocence, and the harsh realities that weigh so heavy in young lives. "Dog Sees God" captures that time when the world seems to hate you the most, and the best you can do is move forward.
Props also to the awesome Peanuts dance rendition which made me laugh harder than I have in a long time at the theatre, also the great ensemble of actors, I saw no bad performances here, they all stuck out, each one had their moment to shine and they made the most of it. The set was terrific, I loved the alternate take on the Charlie Brown theme song, it was just a great time at the theatre, I will not soon forget.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
An Experiment in Film and what else I've been doing.
I've been neglectful in my blogging duties as of late, once more my laptop has crapped out on me for what I fear is the last time. I will bring it in for a tune up but until then, I'm borrowing the computer from the local library.
It's not so bad, I do miss the solitude a laptop brings you, I could type anywhere without the sound of people doing the same thing.
I've been busy as of late also, Bullskit had just finished its January show, where I was able to do some interesting and may I say (experimental) sketches which I was rather proud of. We had the usual crowd of people who were more than happy with our antics.
I also moved to a new place for the second time in less than four months, this one will hopefully see me through the winter before I find a more permanent residence.
Perhaps the most interesting thing I did in the month of January was I shot a short film. Based on my one act play "Good Morning", we shot it in a rather unorthodox but I think, exciting way. "Good Morning" is the story of a young couple and basically sees them through a morning routine of waking up, slight flirtation, and a small but meaningful talk about the past, the future, and how they see eachother.
As I was rehearsing with the actors, I blurted out "I think this is the best thing I've ever written". I'm very proud of this little 20 minute slice of life, it was inspired by a little moment in my life, and I like to think it has something to say.
I was told by multiple people that this play would make a good film and I must admit I was interested in the prospect of filming something. Film is a passion of mine, yet I've remained dormant behind the camera for far too long, I was hoping for a crack at it.
Along with my producer James Wilson and my DOP Don Armstrong, the three of us came up with a concept. Don's inspiration drew from a Woody Allen type of film where we follow these characters in and out of camera, sometimes they would both be on screen, but we would follow the more prominent personality.
My stress was on a quiet observational point of view, where we don't notice the camera movement, and at some point it stays completely motionless. There is one moment at the end of the film where there is a deliberate movement of the camera that is supposed to be noticed, other than that it was the objective not to notice any movement, but only the actors.
As a result of this concept, much of what is common in film language was thrown out the window, we didn't worry about insert shots, close-ups, coverage, or continuity. I felt this freed the actors up to run through the script from beginning to end, also give them a chance to improvise and explore their relationship.
We did very few shots, so the actors could get through big clumps of the script before we cut, this was also helpful to the continuity of the performances, as a result we did very few takes, the average number being around four in total.
As a director, I had two objectives, one was I wanted to be able to shoot a film on schedule and not run behind time. I'm happy that we finished one day ahead of schedule being able to give everyone Sunday off. My other objective was to create an environment for the actors to feel relaxed and let the pressure off, I think that was accomplished, I felt the environment was calm, everyone was professional and respectful, they were all there to do their duty and as a result we all had a good time.
I looked at the footage for the first time yesterday unedited. I feel what we have is a film that has the potential to be good, the performances are real and natural and I feel we captured it. Looking back at it though, I feel the frame was too tight at times, I wanted to pull back on them more and give the audience more space just to observe. I also felt that we might've done too many shots, that's strange thinking that we didn't do many in the first place, but I feel many of the shots could've gone on even longer. There is one shot that wasn't framed properly at all, and if I could re shoot one shot it would be that one, but honestly this is me nit-picking. I am happy with what we shot, hopefully in editing it will all come together as a whole.
The idea of this film was to capture a relationship at a crossroads, nothing more, and nothing less, and I think we have been mostly successful, when all is said and done, everyone was pleased with the shooting, the actors gave great performances, and I came away wanting to shoot something else.
I liked shooting in this style, I feel I still have to find my voice, and I need more experience composing shots, but I'm interested in stories about people and about relationships. I know many people who've had more experience behind the camera, they know more about the business and the film language. I'd like to think that film is still a new artform and it's important in order for this artform to grow, that new things must be tried to test the language of film, I suppose that was my objective too. I'm not saying what I did was new, I derived from a lot of movies I've seen to come up with this style, but I like to think that film becomes more exciting when it challenges the expectations of the viewer, it becomes unpredictable, and I guess that's what I was ultimately trying to accomplish. At the end my DOP Don saw some of the footage in black and white saying it felt very "European", I guess that's what I was excited about, the aim was more arthouse than multiplex.
It's not so bad, I do miss the solitude a laptop brings you, I could type anywhere without the sound of people doing the same thing.
I've been busy as of late also, Bullskit had just finished its January show, where I was able to do some interesting and may I say (experimental) sketches which I was rather proud of. We had the usual crowd of people who were more than happy with our antics.
I also moved to a new place for the second time in less than four months, this one will hopefully see me through the winter before I find a more permanent residence.
Perhaps the most interesting thing I did in the month of January was I shot a short film. Based on my one act play "Good Morning", we shot it in a rather unorthodox but I think, exciting way. "Good Morning" is the story of a young couple and basically sees them through a morning routine of waking up, slight flirtation, and a small but meaningful talk about the past, the future, and how they see eachother.
As I was rehearsing with the actors, I blurted out "I think this is the best thing I've ever written". I'm very proud of this little 20 minute slice of life, it was inspired by a little moment in my life, and I like to think it has something to say.
I was told by multiple people that this play would make a good film and I must admit I was interested in the prospect of filming something. Film is a passion of mine, yet I've remained dormant behind the camera for far too long, I was hoping for a crack at it.
Along with my producer James Wilson and my DOP Don Armstrong, the three of us came up with a concept. Don's inspiration drew from a Woody Allen type of film where we follow these characters in and out of camera, sometimes they would both be on screen, but we would follow the more prominent personality.
My stress was on a quiet observational point of view, where we don't notice the camera movement, and at some point it stays completely motionless. There is one moment at the end of the film where there is a deliberate movement of the camera that is supposed to be noticed, other than that it was the objective not to notice any movement, but only the actors.
As a result of this concept, much of what is common in film language was thrown out the window, we didn't worry about insert shots, close-ups, coverage, or continuity. I felt this freed the actors up to run through the script from beginning to end, also give them a chance to improvise and explore their relationship.
We did very few shots, so the actors could get through big clumps of the script before we cut, this was also helpful to the continuity of the performances, as a result we did very few takes, the average number being around four in total.
As a director, I had two objectives, one was I wanted to be able to shoot a film on schedule and not run behind time. I'm happy that we finished one day ahead of schedule being able to give everyone Sunday off. My other objective was to create an environment for the actors to feel relaxed and let the pressure off, I think that was accomplished, I felt the environment was calm, everyone was professional and respectful, they were all there to do their duty and as a result we all had a good time.
I looked at the footage for the first time yesterday unedited. I feel what we have is a film that has the potential to be good, the performances are real and natural and I feel we captured it. Looking back at it though, I feel the frame was too tight at times, I wanted to pull back on them more and give the audience more space just to observe. I also felt that we might've done too many shots, that's strange thinking that we didn't do many in the first place, but I feel many of the shots could've gone on even longer. There is one shot that wasn't framed properly at all, and if I could re shoot one shot it would be that one, but honestly this is me nit-picking. I am happy with what we shot, hopefully in editing it will all come together as a whole.
The idea of this film was to capture a relationship at a crossroads, nothing more, and nothing less, and I think we have been mostly successful, when all is said and done, everyone was pleased with the shooting, the actors gave great performances, and I came away wanting to shoot something else.
I liked shooting in this style, I feel I still have to find my voice, and I need more experience composing shots, but I'm interested in stories about people and about relationships. I know many people who've had more experience behind the camera, they know more about the business and the film language. I'd like to think that film is still a new artform and it's important in order for this artform to grow, that new things must be tried to test the language of film, I suppose that was my objective too. I'm not saying what I did was new, I derived from a lot of movies I've seen to come up with this style, but I like to think that film becomes more exciting when it challenges the expectations of the viewer, it becomes unpredictable, and I guess that's what I was ultimately trying to accomplish. At the end my DOP Don saw some of the footage in black and white saying it felt very "European", I guess that's what I was excited about, the aim was more arthouse than multiplex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)