Response To Cabaret

2004 Words9 Pages
Response Paper: Cabaret Fundamentals of Acting David Waggoner Missouri State University Response Paper: Cabaret The Missouri State University Department of Theatre and Dance’s production of the musical Cabaret was extraordinarily entertaining. That was the consensus of those friends and family that accompanied me to Thursday, April 12th’s performance, and I wholly agree. On the whole, the level of professionalism, in terms of the music, performance and visual impact was stunning and the show itself makes me as excited to write about, as it was to watch and listen to. In responding to the acting performances, I’m going to afford myself the luxury of speaking also to the visual and aural life of the production and how the related production areas might (or might not) have advanced the direction of the production. Although those areas are admittedly not in focus within the context of the class, they are germane to this discussion as it relates to their renderings influencing the way in which the world of the play was made manifest and ultimately the impact those production areas had on the individual performances and how the audience received the characters. This is the best way for me to adequately identify acting strengths and weaknesses (what worked and what didn’t) and explain why I believe some of the actors’ performances were crafted the ways that they were. Also, highly germane to the discussion of this enormously important play are answers to Nietzsche’s tenants of theatrical criticism, which I will touch on as briefly as possible. The fundamental difficulty experienced by the performance as a whole was that the production elements of the show, specifically elements of lighting, costumes and scenic design (aside from very successful projected images) failed to assist the direction and make manifest the world of the play suggested and

More about Response To Cabaret

Open Document