Download wit

Production Response Form
Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival
Region IV (Southeast)
Title of Production: Wit
Producing College/University: Converse College
Participating Entry_____
Associate
Is this an original script? No
Is this a student original script? No
Author (if original or student original): N/A
Author’s email address (if original or student original):
Director: Mary Nicholson
Student?
Costume Designer: Bridget Schiller
Student?
Scenic Designer: John Bald
Student?
Lighting Designer: Brent Glenn
Student?
Sound Designer: None listed
Student?
Voice/Dialect Coach: None listed
Student?
Choreographer: N/A
Student?
Technical Director: Brent Glenn
Student?
Makeup Designer: Chevelle Walsh
Student?
Stage Manager: Brandy Wyont
Student?
Dramaturge: Melissa Vaughan-Kleppel
Student?
Production Evaluation (For Participating Entries ONLY):
_____Strongly Recommended for Regional Festival
_____Recommended for Regional Festival
_____Not Recommended for Regional Festival
Irene Ryan Acting Scholarship Award Nominee(s):
By Department: Brittani Hare
By Respondent: Juanita Murphy
Design Award Nominee(s):
Barbizon Costume Design
By Department:
By Respondent:
Barbizon Scenic Design
By Department:
By Respondent:
Barbizon Lighting Design
By Department:
By Respondent:
Entry XXXX
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Makeup:
By Department:
By Respondent:
Sound:
By Department:
By Respondent:
Student Directing, Stage Management and Dramaturgy Award Nominee(s):
By Department: Brandy Wyont—Stage Manager
By Respondent: Melissa Vaughan-Kleppel--dramaturgy
Faculty Director, Designer, Technologist Certificate of Merit Award
Nominee(s):
By Department:
By Respondent:
Name of Respondent: Andrew Vorder Bruegge
Date of Oral Response: 29 April 2007 Date Submitted: 2 May 2007
Please return the information sheets above no later than 72 hours after
seeing the production to:
Shannon Robert
[email protected]
If you need to fax, please send to 601-318-6145 to Audrea Stewart.
The drama is a fine choice to include in the Theatre Converse season. The
script presents many design, acting and directing challenges for students to
confront. The subjectmatter—a university professor stricken with ovarian
cancer—has great relevance to an academic community. A drama about
cancer can bring youthful students face-to-face with mortality—a topic that
polls show remains far from their minds. Also, any academic theatre
program that produces a drama with a university professor at the center of
the action will find a sympathetic audience among faculty and students.
Moreover, perhaps, faculty members on campus can enjoy the conflict of Wit
on a metaphorical level: Dr. Bearing’s long struggle and inevitable death
from cancer calls to mind the death of traditional literature studies (e.g.
Milton) in the “culture wars” on America’s campuses in the 1980s. To its
great credit, the Converse College theatre program connected with an area
cancer clinic, and this collaborative effort is always valuable in the
educational theatre setting.
As the director, Ms. Nicholson demonstrated a concise grasp of the script’s
potential. The mise-en-scene kept the protagonist—and her rich interior
life—center stage, and flashback scenes moved to the two “wing” stages or
off center. The placement of the hospital bed up center put that item of
furniture at the focal point of the stage—as well it should be. This positioning
did create a few difficulties with staging. For example, when the student
doctors crowded on stage, and when the code blue team took over the stage,
and when Dr. Ashford paid her visit there were sightline problems and
upstaging problems. The director capitalized on every opportunity in the
script to visualize ideas, to make the action dynamic, to put the moments of
conflict in physical terms. This is no small accomplishment with a script that
is highly rhetorical and physically static, with the protagonist limited in
mobility like a modern-day Prometheus. The show moved forward
purposefully without dragging. The director’s hand was very evident in
guiding the performers in their characterizations that created the sterile,
impersonal, bureaucratic, parochial world of a hospital. Of particular note is
the energy of the performance. All the performers, within their characters’
range, generated energy. On practical terms, this means that 99 and
44/100% of the dialogue was easily heard because volume and articulation
were sustained by the performers. This is no small achievement for the
director and for the performers.
The performers presented their characters well. For many of the student
performers, their characters were well beyond their age—as is often the case
in educational theatre. Ms. Hare and Ms. Vaughan-Kleppel relied successfully
upon physical restraint that presented personae of great dignity. The
performers playing the roles of Drs. Kelekian and Posner did not shy away
from the difficult task of functioning as the antagonists in the story. Their
false jollity and ruthlessness created the perfect complement to Ms. Murphy’s
warm, genuine characterization of Nurse Monahan.
The design elements served the story with great effect. The lighting design
succeeded in two important ways. First, it isolated spaces on the stage when
the script called for important focus. The sequence of X-rays and tests early
in the show and the scenes on the two wings stages benefited from this
isolation of light. Second, it complemented the staging to distinguish
between the “here-and-now” world of the hospital and the moments of
interior life for the protagonist. The final tableau, of course, also succeeded
beautifully in creating an “other” world for Dr. Bearing’s “Crossing of the
Bar.” The costume design for a script like this seems, at first glance, to be
unremarkable and limited in scope/palate. The costumes for this production,
however, demonstrated a strong design sense. The ensemble of performers
who played the students/technicians/residents appeared in a variety of colors
and textures, and this went a long way in bringing some visual variety
onstage. The contrast between the soft colors, textures and silhouette of Dr.
Bearing and Susie stood in bold contrast to the dour, hard appearance of the
medical doctors. This costuming strategy presented the conflict in
straightforward visual terms. The scenic design offered a “Racinian
starkness,” and that is a perfect approach to a script such as this one. The
rainbow of hospital screens not only gave a sense of the place on a literal
level (a hospital), but they also communicated so much about the sterile,
cold mood of the place. On a practical level, they were very mobile, allowing
smooth transitions between scenes when furniture needed to move. The
craftsmanship of the screens’ construction could have been higher in quality.
The fabric sagged and bagged on several of the panels, when they should
have been crisply taut.
The production proceeded with technical efficiency. All lighting and sound
cues during the show occurred with proper timing. Cast members moved
scenery and furniture briskly, professionally and confidently. The entire
production presented a professional polish.
The presence of a student dramaturge is worth noting. It is pedagogically
appropriate for a student to undertake this role on the artistic staff.
Moreover, the script stands upon two huge backstories—Milton and cancer
research. Hence, there is much to be mediated between script and
performers. The dramaturge’s paragraph of notes in the production program
indicated a very respectable level of intellectual sophistication.
The Converse College’s presentation of Wit reflected the concerted effort of
director, designers, technicians, and cast to produce a professional-quality
presentation of a thoughtful, evocative, sobering script.