Hew Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I dont really have a problem with a 20 year old playing a 60 year old. Did you get up shaking your head after Phantom did Faust because the devil was played by some 20 year old dude with a bunch of face paint?? I'm pretty sure that worked just fine, and I'm pretty sure a dude with a mask is farther from the devil than a 20 year old woman is from a 60 year old woman. Ok, but when you start adding actors to the field, make sure they protray the image and style needed to sell the program. Faust worked because the 20 year old protrayed the devil character to the level at which it was believable (due to the fact that we dont have a solid concept of what "devil" looks like or moves like, and the actor never had lines to say). Unfortunately for the Cadets design team, we have all seen professional business women, women in their 50's and 60's, and many of us have heard women discuss their life experiences with family and struggles with cancer....... and what is on the field right now is not even close. So now the "actors" and design team need to expand their research to figure out how to sell this to the audience in the outdoor stadium setting. My previous post suggested that changing the narration concept to align more with Liam's perspective would be the easiest way to make it believable and palatable. Changing the perspective for Sarah to be reflecting on her mother's persuit of happiness and how that affects her own persuit is easier to stomach than the current narration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I dont really have a problem with a 20 year old playing a 60 year old. Did you get up shaking your head after Phantom did Faust because the devil was played by some 20 year old dude with a bunch of face paint?? I'm pretty sure that worked just fine, and I'm pretty sure a dude with a mask is farther from the devil than a 20 year old woman is from a 60 year old woman. Now - does that mean there isnt a lot of room to grow - of course not. If you feel the lines sound like something a man would say, then thats a valid concern. If you feel like the lines arent what a 60 year old would say, then thats a valid concern...but to say the story doesnt work because a 20 year old is playing a 60 year old is a bit silly, imo. Its been happening for centuries... Well, I think it goes a little beyond just "because a 20 year old is playing a 60 year old". It's that this particular 20 year old SOUNDS like a 20 year old -- in the words that she is saying for sure, but also in her speech pattern and such -- she talks like a 20 year old. No shame in that. For a 20 year old to successfully portray a 60 year old -- well, that's some pretty good acting. Can it be done? sure, but in order for the audience to be taken where I think the Cadets want to take us, well, it's just not working in this case -- there just isn't enough experience in the narrator's voice, if you get my drift. So the Cadets can just go with it as is. Or they can try to rewrite some of the script to sound more like what an actual 60 year old woman with those experiences would say. And/or they can try to find a speaker that brings those experiences across better. Or they can change it around just a little bit so that a 20 year old is using words that a 20 year old would use in a voice that a 20 year old would have to describe, from her perspective, the experiences and journey to Happiness that she has witnessed in a 60 year old close to her. All of these are valid improvements ... imo, the latter would be the most effective and powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So the Cadets can just go with it as is. Or they can try to rewrite some of the script to sound more like what an actual 60 year old woman with those experiences would say. And/or they can try to find a speaker that brings those experiences across better. Or they can change it around just a little bit so that a 20 year old is using words that a 20 year old would use in a voice that a 20 year old would have to describe, from her perspective, the experiences and journey to Happiness that she has witnessed in a 60 year old close to her. All of these are valid improvements ... imo, the latter would be the most effective and powerful. Thats pretty much my point. I dont think its fair to say they cant do it with the story they have now. Change the costumes, change the lines, get a 60 year old woman to write it...I dont care. I'm only addressing the people who say it cant be done because of the age difference - not the people that say some changes need to be made... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Ok, but when you start adding actors to the field, make sure they protray the image and style needed to sell the program. Faust worked because the 20 year old protrayed the devil character to the level at which it was believable (due to the fact that we dont have a solid concept of what "devil" looks like or moves like It was one example - kids have been portraying people older than them for as long as drum corps has been around. You bring up the point about having lines to say - I'm fairly certain that age discrepency is a common occurance in theater. What makes it work there and not here? - well - talent, better writing, costuming, etc... these are all things that can be worked on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Smith Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Thank you to those of you who are staying on point. There's a real danger in this thread of spinning off into each of us (myself included) contending for where we believe happiness is found. We all bring our biases to this conversation, whether because of our life experiences, religious beliefs, things we were taught at home, in school, or what we've been taught in drum corps. My overall concern with the content of the narration is that the conclusion cannot be taken apart from the rest of the message. It's very possible that Sarah Jones spent all her free time working in an orphanage and spending time with her daughters loving them and training them. But...that is NOT what is communicated. What is communicated is that she spent all of her time pursuing her own happiness regardless of others. I acknowledge that it doesn't say that she turned her back on others, but the implication is that it was all about her. While I would agree that there are people who may devote their entire lives to the good of others and not be happy, my point is that the message of this show seems to be the opposite of what drum corps taught each of who marched. We (or at least I) was taught that my "happiness" in drum corps was wrapped up in the entire group. We all succeeded together, and we failed together. I marched off the field each night and not one single person in the stands knew my name. Integrity was drilled into my head and we were taught that our FIRST pursuit was to fulfill our responsibilities and to uphold our commitment to the corps and to each other. This is not a commentary on marriage or child raising, but it seems that those fundamental commitments and responsibilities that she made were secondary to Sara Jones. Then at the end of it all, her conclusion is that happiness is here for us to simply have. What is that? So, let's transfer this philosophy directly to a corps meeting at the beginning of the year. Mr. Hopkins stands up in front of the membership and says, "Welcome to the 2008 Cadets! We are glad you are here and want to let you know a few fundamental things before we kick it into high gear. First, we as a staff want you to first and foremost pursue your own personal happiness this summer. If that means you need to renege on some of the commitments you have made to us and to those around you, then that is fine. Secondly, we want you to want to be known and take every opportunity to stand out. Lastly, we want you to know that if you get just a little bit down then to simply click your fingers and be happy." I realize this is a bit satirical, but I'm trying (probably not too well) to make a point that what is being preached on the field by the Cadets seems hypocritical to what they probably teach at their own camps. Maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) Thats pretty much my point. I dont think its fair to say they cant do it with the story they have now. Change the costumes, change the lines, get a 60 year old woman to write it...I dont care. I'm only addressing the people who say it cant be done because of the age difference - not the people that say some changes need to be made... I dont' recall anyone saying "it can't be done because of the age difference" -- but rather that the age difference does cause an issue in this particular show/instance. This thread is about improving the script: 1) Granny's original point about how Happiness is attained is well taken (by me anyway) -- I have made some suggestions about the whole approach to the "answer" that I think make the story less satisfyingly easy, but more honest and on point to a drum corps show -- namely (and briefly) that it takes focused hard work and a commitment to things other than your own appetites and emotions to pay off, whether you are pursuing Happiness or a kick-a** field show. 2) The secondary issue of the overall presentation (writing, delivery, age protrayal, etc), which I think currently affects the storytelling to the point that it is not effective/believable in any form, and a simple switching of perspective might alleviate all of these issues without abandoning the underlying theme (and actually enhancing it in some ways). It's early July -- someone has asked how the Cadets show can be improved within the realm of there current narrated message, and here's what I think are some pretty good observations/suggestions. that's all Edited July 2, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) I dont' recall anyone saying "it can't be done because of the age difference" -- but rather that the age difference does cause an issue in this particular show/instance. This thread is about improving the script: 1) Granny's original point about how Happiness is attained is well taken (by me anyway) -- I have made some suggestions about the whole approach to the "answer" that I think make the story less satisfyingly easy, but more honest and on point to a drum corps show -- namely (and briefly) that it takes focused hard work and a commitment to things other than your own appetites and emotions to pay off, whether you are pursuing Happiness or a kick-a** field show. Didnt they do that last year? Hard work? Commitment? Working as a team? 2) The secondary issue of the overall presentation (writing, delivery, age protrayal, etc), which I think currently affects the storytelling to the point that it is not effective/believable in any form, and a simple switching of perspective might alleviate all of these issues without abandoning the underlying theme (and actually enhancing it in some ways). I dont mind the 'daughter' idea - in fact I'm sure it could work. I just think there is some merit to the way they have chosen, and that it's possible that they could make it work within the framework provided. It's early July -- someone has asked how the Cadets show can be improved within the realm of there current narrated message, and here's what I think are some pretty good observations/suggestions. that's all Yes - this is probably the best cadets thread of the year, and probably the only one I'll really be taking part in for a while. Sadly, there's only about 3 or 4 different personalities taking part in the debate...it seems most people would rather circle the same wagon for the 37th time, rather than actually stretch their minds out a bit... to add a word on to granny's point - yes, there are a lot of ways they could go with this happiness theme. You are also right in suggesting that the 'snap' method is somewhat narrow in scope, and that there is a lot more to it then that. However, I'm not really sure if it's feasible to put any more broad 'philosophy' into the show. I'll estimate that by finals, there will be between 2 and 2:30 of narration in the show. To explore a whole new avenue of happiness, or even to add an adendum on would vastly increase that number. Not only would that upset many, but as a few have pointed out, there still needs to be some 'drum corps' in this show. Last year, the corps did a fine job with this balance, putting out what was arguable the most in your face and difficult visual and music package around. This year seems to more of the same (as well as we can tell on july 2nd) Im not saying the show couldnt be vastly changed, but one would have to be very careful about upsetting that delicate balance... Edited July 2, 2008 by euponitone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT921 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) i would use this quote.. "If you look for trust you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end despair" -C.S. Lewis Edited July 2, 2008 by GT921 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes - this is probably the best cadets thread of the year, and probably the only one I'll really be taking part in for a while. Sadly, there's only about 3 or 4 different personalities taking part in the debate...it seems most people would rather circle the same wagon for the 37th time, rather than actually stretch their minds out a bit... Look, at the end of the day you're just not going to convince people who are anti narration to constructively contribute to a discussion about how to make a script better. Quite frankly it doesn't matter what the Cadets say in their narration, it will suck regardless because narration sucks and doesn't belong in drum corps. Yes, that's just my opinion, but all of the pro narration folks out there need to realize that those of us who hate it will never stop complaining about it, will never stop railing corps for using it, and will hijack every thread related to narration possible to continue making our opinions heard. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the philosophy is pathetic. (edit) BUT, to tell such a story about a self-serving person and then end it the way they did seems to run completely counter to some of the core purposes of drum corps. The philosophy is pathetic and so is the character, I don’t really care if she finds happiness, there is little for me to be sympathetic with …the spinning flags of money (the greed) – the acting if going to the recital is a burden as opposed to a delight – does Sara deserve happiness? Classical literature would say no (more on that later) The narration as it stands seems to imply that Happiness doesn't need to be pursued at all, that it's been right in front of you the whole time. Yes it does And that’s partly why this show is so offensive – tell that to someone that is bipolar or suffering with clinical depression or addiction or post traumatic stress and they will laugh at you and they won’t be laughing because they are happy That fact is, happiness has never been defined, medical science has worked on that but without conclusive success (they also are working on the what, why and how of pain). Point here, some people can’t find happiness no matter how much they try or how many pills they take, shrinks they see Happiness is independent of your circumstances. Yes and no, moslty no are you happy after a death of a loved one? but for some people, happiness does seem like a disposition that can be temporality affected by circumstances *--- there is no single formula to happiness very true, if there were, I’d be selling it There's a real danger in this thread of spinning off into each of us (myself included) contending for where we believe happiness is found. We all bring our biases to this conversation, whether because of our life experiences, religious beliefs, things we were taught at home, in school, or what we've been taught in drum corps. I think that is the point - Happiness and its purist is not an absolute so to attempt to tell others how to peruse it you are imposing your own philosophy which, some will agree with but most others will be alienated or turned off by. The pursuit of happiness is generally the realm of religion. Religion often attempts to provided the structure and the path to a happiness. That’s partly why this show is so flawed. Would a drum corps today attempt to preach a religious philosophy? Doubtfully, because most are aware how risky it would be to preach their, singular version of the ‘truth’ to a large and diverse audience. now to my ending... Well, I can’t really offer one and keep in line with the pursuit of happiness because after the set up….I need to see Sara struggle and change her ways and then find redemptions before she can achieve happiness. Redemption is the main literary device used to connect the audience with unpleasant character and there is no sense of redemption or even working on or earning happiness A question I would ask, is Hoppy happy, seriously? Listening to him of the DVD, looking at his face and the way he carries himself, his combative personality, some of his postings here, his unquenchable ego…. he does not strike me as a happy person at all, he strikes me as Sara Jones and just as I’m not convinced Sara really found happiness well, you can fill in the rest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.