If you think that the success of the theatrical performance mostly depends on the scenery design then I will try to agree with you. The posting under consideration states that the theatrical performance The Blood Knot (1964) is worth seeing not for its vivid decorations and special effects but for the depth of the play’s meaning represented in a professional actors’ work and some ‘props’ used. Of course, it cannot be said that the play is full of rich design techniques and light effects like we have nowadays on or off the Broadway. However, I am going to agree with the posting in terms of new vision of the play though watching it in black-and-white and without extra pathos.
Contemporary audience is used to see emotionally bright performances once they come to the theatre. Definitely, it helps express the protagonists’ feelings, also it attracts more audience and, hence, raises much funds. However, the theatrical heritage tells us a story about the theatre not being so ‘showbizy’ several decades ago. For example, the play The Blood Knot being performed in 1964 for the first time gained appraisal of the audience not for the impressive scenery and effects but for the marvelous plot conveying. First arrived at the Cricket Theatre the play by Athol Fugard brought a new story about white and black men living in the same society and still feeling suspiciousness to each other.
As per the design of the stage in 1964 it was very poor, just some adjustments to the historical period were made. You can only distinguish the story’s place by the wooden crate and wooden chairs used the furniture for poor people. Of course, also you can see the absence of such necessary thing like a pillow, which only demonstrates that the director wanted to stress upon the awfully poor profits of that layer of Southern Africans.
Also, once again the stage design was very poorly arranged, the physical layout was fit into a space for just two protagonists. Although it didn’t spoil the impression at all because we have to keep in mind that the play took place in 1964 and the art of the theatre was re-enrolling to the sophisticated audience’s minds. Meaning, that the historical period during which the play was performed presupposed modest scenery design due to the post-war background. Besides, the author of the play, being a white man himself just came from Africa in order to light his own star.
The scenery that surrounds actors throughout the play is extremely important for the audience to understand some specific issues and get involved in the plot easier. However, one has to remember that the absence of the design features may also be a very tempting art technique that draws the entire attention to the actors’ play, because ‘a good scene should be, not a picture, but an image’. And, although, the design sets a mood for the audience to react to specific scenes accordingly, I still stand on the ground that one room and ‘props’ like umbrella were enough to be absorbed by the play The Blood Knot.
In order to conclude, I would like to say that the black-and-white film imparted everything necessary for me to understand that there is also another perspective of understanding the performance rather than stunning modern effects. Besides, as Wilson remarked: …theatre has experienced a combination of improved stage machinery – the means by which scenery is shifted – and increasing realism in depicting scenes. (p.262), so you never know what exactly might surprise you several years later, maybe the special effects will begin to stale, after all.
Works Cited
Wilson, Edwin. The Theatre Experience. 11th ed. NY, New York. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.