Friday, April 30, 2010

Makeup design for The School for Scandal

The School for Scandal by Richard Brinsley Sheridan







All these sites were unbelievably helpful I want to thank each and every site that did such a fantastic job at explaining everything.



Site #1:



http://www.themakeupgallery.info/period/c18/georgian/index.htm



This reveals the Georgian type of make up that is inspired by the Duchess herself in London, England in the 18th century. I decided that this would be great for the sweet Maria in School for Scandal.




Site #2:



http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/leisure/sanitation.html


Another site talking about how make up is used and what is in it as well. Some pretty crazy stuff too. Also what they used for the patches, I had no idea they did it with Tafetta.





Site #3:


http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/nov/19.htm



I had always wondered what was inside that powder. Lots of talc and poison, pretty much what killed a lot of the women back then is lung poisoning from make up.



Site #4:





http://www.minuetcompany.org/furtherinformation/demands.html


Alot of these sites are pretty much the same, make up is one of those deals that is fairly talked about. I always thought it intrigueing when an author does her/his own explaining on the time period. I enjoyed this site.



Site #5:




http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/kosmetik.shtml


Again more make up curiosities, has a way better explination of the powder it even gives out an receipe to make it...Which I am not going to do because I don't think I want my skin decaying anytime soon.




Site #6:




http://www.nwta.com/Spy/Winter/Makeup.html

This has a funny explanation on what women and men did to keep up their hygiene. They would use a cork to put it in their mouth to fill out missing teeth! Agh I could not be able to stand that...





Site #7:




http://www.vintageconnection.net/ModesInMakeup.htm (Starting with 'The Great Cover up')


Little blurb of it, not too much that I could find here but held some interesting topics covered in the 18th century make up.


Site # 8:




http://www.jolique.com/general_interest/evils_of_artifice.htm (Interesting article of when they banned make up)


Of course the priest hood thought make up should be banned because they thought the women were showing signs of the 'devil' possession.(Not true but people back thought up alot of things.)






Site #9:




http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17465006/The-18th-Century/

This one really delves deep into the information of make up use and wigs. It even talks about how women would actually sleep with them for three days. Infestations of rats and lice would come about, what I have learned from a guide in Spain is that they would actually put bacon in there hair so that the lice would feed on that instead of their scalp.



Site #10:


http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/130/7/4/Make_up_Tutorial_18th_century_by_ladyredvelvet.jpg


This is a tutorial I made, please forgive me for spelling errors. After looking


over all the sites and such I decided to do two tutorials or this. I hope this is


alright, it may not be a great reference I will do another in the near future.






I did not do a great job on this, I forgot to line in the brows so pretend that I did.
The lips were small, in the 18th century that is what you looked at when talking to a woman.
Everything had been exagerated, when the French court moved in people started to
produce patches of Tafetta and placed it on any skin deformaties to make them look even.
Skin is pale, rouge was very dark and eyes were lined with brown khol.


Sorry if it is not helpful, if you really want to know more about it I will post a tutorial for it soon...My computer frecked up on my youtube video...*fail*.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Murder He Wrote: Macbeth Project Costume and Make up design

Project number three: Macbeth by William Shakespeare
Costume and Make up Design by Casey Martin


Macbeth, hearing the name send shivers up your spine. When seeing it, it is usually the darker, Gothic type style that many have just stereotypically put with Macbeth. To me there is so much more than the darker side of Macbeth. I believe there is a deeper decadence behind it, a very pristine anomaly about the play that people look over. What I am talking about is my concept delves into not only the deep undertones but also the beauty that covers those sinister lies hiding behind those clothes. How I stumbled upon my 'idea' is through a fashion source that is heard little about. I wanted to make a statement without over shadowing the characters true initial personality. Thus getting drawing out the design a Steam punk Victorian era concept with an added twist of animal like attributes. Not the basic jest of whoever would create a costume rack for Macbeth. However it is a different one and one that will capture the attention of the audience. First I must describe what Steam punk means, it is the post industrialist world of the 19th century London where writers like H.G. Wells that wondered what if science had taken over the new frontier of the industrial revolution. However it did not last long until the 20th centry of 1990 had picked it up again revitalizing it and changing the spectrum of the Victorian clothing aspect. I am using that type as well as the 19th century attributes with my costumes. In Steam punk, mixing in gadgets is the fad, and I wanted to interpret that into the pictures with arm bands made out of gold and different weaponry. Another aspect I added is a animistic one, kind of twisting the barriers of the Victorian era giving it a raw edge. I grouped their class into separate species; example the witches being the anti-fashion type women would be the jungle feline type for being so ravenous. The Thanes being of the bird phylum for their swift movements and military experiences. The murderers the lupine having said their loyalty to Macbeth. The royal family, mostly King Duncan would be apart of the Eutheria class (plant eating animals) having King Duncan be an Elephant. The only one who is much different then the rest is Lady Macbeth which I did on purpose. Everyone can relate that the woman would be 'venomous like a viper' I dubbed her the cobra who always lashes at the Raven (Macbeth's) ego. Is it practical? Yes, it may take a lot of work because the amount of gadgets all over the characters costume. It can be a much more rounded show capturing the attention of the audience so that they may be able to understand it without racking the brain on 'who is who'. As I have said before I do not want Macbeth to be just another dull dreary play you have to sit through. This will be able to keep the audiences attention while still keeping that abysmal coarseness of the play.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Part Deux, Project #2 Greek Comedy

The Birds by Aristophanes: With the hypocrites (the actors) Jackie P. and Casey M. (That is me!)


To kick off this comedy I will introduce the summary to this whimsical play. Aristophanes had wrote The Birds purely out of entertainment purposes. Unlike his other comedic plays that go by political satires. This one does not, it mostly goes by the fact that why we humans try to become like the gods. It starts out with two middle aged Athenian men Peisthetaerus and Euelpides fulminating about how much they hate paying the taxes and want to live in a world where no one reigns over you. They find it by seeking out the King of "Cloud Cuckoo land" also known as Nephelococcygia asking him if they may be apart of his royal court. Ultimately they become birds, however Peisthetaerus has other plans as he tries to become the most powerful and lead the birds in Nephelococcygia to a better place. He then winds up being the King himself and the birds become the strongest force, and even more so then the gods themselves. Eventually in the end with Peisthetaerus marrying Sovereignty which is a hand maiden to Zeus. There is a wedding and the chorus of Birds come out singing Peisthetaerus's praises. Working with Jackie was a blast, she is very versatile on directing and acting. We actually feed off of each other making the scene more fantastically fun. Why we picked David Barret is because his translation is more comedic and makes a whole lot more sense then the last one I had picked. It also did not have a bunch of words that we could not pronounce either. We have had three practices in all, each time we start out knowing a little more about our character and scene. I play Peisthetaerus the perverted middle aged leader of the birds. While Jackie plays the beautiful goddess of the rainbows Iris. What happens during this scene is that Peisthetaerus has heard news of a god that has slipped through the gate the jackdaws were guarding. When it is apparent that it is just Iris whom he just taunts at. He then tells her to send a message to Zeus that the birds are now the stronger power. In a haughty attitude she flies off saying that her father, Zeus, will destroy him but Peisthetaerus just laughs at her nonsense of Iris's answer. I liked the fact that Jackie kind of molds her outside the angry goddess of the rainbow into one that is sweet and naive. Now, I know one of the questions was if I would ever make this show into a production? The play is funny, complex if you may say because the comedic timing has to be right in order for it to work. Truthfully I would love to do the make up for this production, there is about twenty four species of birds mentioned in this play and I would love to decorate each one of them. However I would not be the director, to me this play seems to not hold my interest at times. The only parts that intrigue my taste would have to be the chorus of birds and Peisthetaerus's boisterous character. If someone does have the time to actually create the mounds of costumes plus the comedic timing for this play then I say go for it!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Project #1 Oedipus



Ralph Fiennes as Oedipus, National Theatre in London (People were allowed to see it on the 8th for a private showing, 10/15/08 , 01/04/09 )

Wow, this guy got it rough on the reviews I have found on him. From all the reviews that I have read he was pretty much either put 'boring' or just plain bad. His control over emotions were too much also there are traces that he may have copied a previous actor from before. Yet the most ideal thing to see is when an actor actually gets into the role. His very heart, and soul sprawled out on the stage for the audience to enjoy...As of what the articles say that Fiennes did not give that type of grueling performance. It seemed that he was trying too hard rather trying to understand the role itself.

Sources:
Oedipus at National Theater review: Critic Charles Spencer; 17, Oct. 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturereviews/3562228/Oedipus-at-the-National-Theatre-Review.html
West End Wingers Review "Oedipus With Ralph Fiennes" 14, Oct 2008:http://westendwhingers.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/review-oedipus-with-ralph-fiennes-national-theatre/



-- --


Billy Crudup as Oedipus, Blue Light Theater Company, New York (10/17/1998-?)



Both articles, that I have read, seem to praise the every astounding Billy Crudup in his performance as Oedipus. However, every star has his faults. At times they have said he gets so caught up in the whimsical part that when he gets to the more suffering part of Oedipus that he fumbles over the lines at times. Than The articles also state that he can be kind of reptitious that his voice never showed any reflection. Yet he tends to save them with his humorous manner in some parts intrigued some of the audience while most were just baffled by it rather than anything else. Billy Crudup, all in all, had given a stellar performance.

Sources:







Theater Journal, University of Columbia; by Tamsen Wolff





Theater Review New York Times, Oct 12, 1998 'Destiny's Child does not quite get the message'; by Ben Brantley






---




Mark Brian Sonna as Oedipus, Addison Theater Center Texas, (April 9, 09- ?)


Should a director be an actor in his own play? The reviewer thought otherwise. The way he conveyed Oedipus was not his confident self which led him into his ultimate doom later on. Rather more 'meek' and soft spoken than trying to get to the bottom of things. Basically while everyone did an oustanding job his portrayl of Oedipus would be considered weak. When an actor describes how he would portray his character that means he would have to act out on it correct? Wrong, for this guy he did nothing of the sort and instead contridicted his own words.




Theater Review: Oedipus by Clyde Berry:




---


George Ashiotis as King Oedipus, The Mint Space Theater New York (June/3/05-June/26/05)


To say the least, this actor has done a splendid job in his role as Oedipus the King. Would you like to know another little tid bit? He is blind. Mr. Ashitois actually runs a theater troop called the 'Theater by the Blind' where the seeing and the unseeing are able to participate in acting roles. At first he did not want to take on the role of Oedipus but after some convinceing he finally gave in. The way he learned how to memorize his lines is by an auditory learning mechnism. What is really interesting is how he has to train himself ( as long as others) to look at someone in the eye . When opening this program they actually just did Murder mystery plays so that audience would accept them as visually paired people but instead he decided to reach out of the box and do Oedipus which is a more involved play. (He is also a co-artistic director of this play as well.)

Sources: New York Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E6D91138F932A25755C0A9639C8B63

Best Seats, by Pamela Ryckman: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/livewire/archived/theater_by_the_blind_a_company/




-----

Emerich Robert as Oedipus, The Old Burgtheater Vienna, Austria (Dec/29/1886)


Emerich, a upbeat kinda guy with a passion for acting. When he took on the role of Oedipus they praised for his work. Mind you that he was not as grand as his counter part Mount Sulley in the role but he did an outstanding job otherwise. Hermann Bahr had said his voice produced such extraordinary quality and a riveting performance.

Sources: Richard H. Armstrong: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/journal/articles/psyart1999/oedipus/oedipus.ii.html#robert



----


Jean Mounet-Sully as Oedipus, Orange Theater Paris France (Only known to be performed in 1888)


The original Oedipus of the Orange theater who critics praised him for this role. With a little help on the translating part, one audience member had said that everyone had been astounded by the way he came upon the stage as if it were second nature to him. In his memoir about the role he played he says he plays it like a religious aspect and goes in feeling a heavy heart for the character however knows that Oedipus is only human and that is how he shall portray him.


Sources:

Wikipedia:http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jean_Mounet-Sully



Richard H. Armstrong 1998: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/journal/articles/psyart1999/oedipus/oedipus.html#paris

Babel Fish for Translations: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/



-----

Sir John Martin Harvey as Oedipus, Covent Garden London England (Jan. 1912)

It is not the most entitled role that he has had but it has been one of his most memorable. It was praised, and he went on tour with the role. He also praised the role of Mounet Sully who was a big factor of how he got into the Oedipus character. Sigmund Freud also watched his performance gathering his ideas for the Oedipus Complex.

Sources:


Richard H. Armstrong 1998:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/journal/articles/psyart1999/oedipus/oedipus.ii.html#vienna,%201911




The Cambridge Companion (Pg 301): http://books.google.com/books?id=Fy4iSjY2VTYC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=oedipus+martin+harvey&source=bl&ots=UAE8kckqf6&sig=ZvR16VLkRnopQDncHmZqixuWVBg&hl=en&ei=_ShnS77dGYS1tgeIyZioBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=oedipus%20martin%20harvey&f=false




Canada Article Site: http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/Theatre/Calendars/search_cal.cgi?terms=oedipus&field=all&f_date=&l_date=&order_by=DATE

---



Conrad Nelson as Oedipus, London Viaduct Theater (Oct 13 2001-Touring still?)




Latest reviewers have said that Conrad Nelson had brought a raw type of visage to the utterly guilty Oedipus. The way he performed it left the reviewer astonished at how he added some reckless tendencies that made Oedipus actually seem likable. The reviewer even says when the actor who plays Oedipus gauges his eyes out and walks to the front stage where some people actually got up to try and help him.

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2001/sep/23/features.review67

---

Levi Ben-Israel as Oedipus, Theatre Salisbury UAF Alaska (April 8 2005- April 10 2005)

Alaskan natives put on a lovely production of Oedipus, but did the actor live up to his expectations? The reviewers said yes, but he also said that he had no range of emotions. He just went to crying...Yelling...to more crying. However he was quite powerful in his performance...All he needed was to stir in some emotional range and he would have been grand.

Sources:

Sun Star Alex Grantham: http://www.uaf.edu/sunstar/archives/20050405/oedipus.htm

Robinson Duffy:
http://www.uaf.edu/theatre/archives/oedipus/OedipusReviewNewsMiner.pdf
----

Jay Stratton as Oedipus, Pittsburgh Public Theater Pennsylvania (Oct 4 2006 ?- Oct 29 2006)

Stratton portrayed Oedipus as the morally confident which leads to his ultimate downfall. He ultimatly does not go so over bored with the ranges of emotions that he portrays himself as the stubborn angry Oedipus that we often see, to sum up what the reviewer has said. It also helps the moral of the cast because it kind of brings up their level as well. So over all he did a pretty brand spankin job.

Source: 'Public Produces compelling...' Alice T. Carter:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/theater/s_473914.html

Post Gazette Stage Review, Christopher Rawson:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06282/728472-325.stm