(Close Window)
Topic: Productin of first thimble
Message: Posted by: Watson (Sep 3, 2015 03:46PM)
What do you think of this production of the first thimble? (thought of this while driving to work the other day).
Ask if the spectator likes plays. Say they are usually in 3 acts. Say your right hand (with thimble in palm) is the stage and the left hand is the curtain.
Bring curtain over stage for first act, lift curtain and show nothing. Say that not much happens in act 1.
Lift curtain for second act, show empty finger straight up. Say that now the play is getting more interesting.
For the third act show the thimble. Lower the curtain.
Then lift the curtain to take your bow, bending the finger with the thimble like a person was bowing.
Then vanish the thimble into left hand, saying the actor was going back stage.
Silly, but I like a little story, and it gives an excuse for producing the first thimble.
Message: Posted by: Watson (Sep 15, 2015 12:36PM)
That bad?
Message: Posted by: Bill Hegbli (Sep 15, 2015 02:05PM)
So nothing happens in the 1st and 2nd act, well you have a premise and that is all, go work on it and come back when you have a complete story with patter and actions connected.

I believe you will loose them right up front, they will walk away on the 2nd.

You need to hook them with your 1st production. I have never seen the empty finger get any kind of decent reaction from any audience. Except disappointment.
Message: Posted by: Watson (Sep 16, 2015 05:42AM)
Thank you
Message: Posted by: Anatole (Sep 17, 2015 09:54AM)
My two cents...
I'm not sure that American audiences in general are familiar with the construct of a play, so they may not relate to the structure of Act I, Act II, Act III.
I say this not as a criticism of American cultural sophistication--merely as a statement of fact.

There used to be American TV shows--most notably those produced by Quinn Martin ("The FBI," "The Invaders") that were presented in four acts as a nod to live theater. But that was almost more a sumbliminal device than one the viewer thought anything about. Granted that some writers on presentation may discuss structuring a performance in a structure resembling a theatrical play. But I feel that's more part of the process of putting an act together than presenting it.

European audiences would likely appreciate the play structure more, so it would be an interesting approach for any performance in Europe, including FISM.

Ameircan audiences are more likely to respond to story structure than theatrical play structure--character, plot, setting, conflict. Sort of the way Peter Samelson structured his "Snowstorm in China" presentation. And sort of like the chapter divisions of American movie serials.

----- Amado "Sonny" Narvaez
Message: Posted by: jay leslie (Sep 18, 2015 01:39AM)
OP
Why the h do you need an excuse to produce a thimble?
Over linking at it's finest.

What if the object was a ring like a linking ring? No one ever over explains a ring.
What if the object was a a wallet? No one ever explains what it does, just why they've introduced it.

What if the performer is doing a act to music in a foreign country? They usually just perform visual feats without conversation.

It's good that you're thinking about your performance as a theatrical endeavor but if it was me, I'd concentrate on my character and the entire performance, not stopping a perfectly good performance because you're second guessing the audience.