As we have been studying contemporary theatre in class, we’ve been looking at different

elements that make up contemporary theatre. Many contemporary playwrights try to push the

boundaries of set theatrical conventions and strive to create deeper meaning through their plays.

We saw this especially while looking at theatrical interpretations of ​The Curious Incident of the

Dog in the Night-time​. One contemporary director said that contemporary theatre is “less art,

more substance”. What I believe he meant by that is that contemporary plays seek to give the

audience a deeper meaning or moral that they can relate to on a more intimate level than in

traditional theatre. That’s not to say that contemporary theatre is all a complete disregard for the

​ as turned into a broadway performance

tradition. While looking at how the movie ​Anastasia w

we saw many of the traditional elements of theatre that we studied in the first half of the year.

Overall contemporary theatre seeks to create something new while still respecting the tradition

from which it came.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time i​ s a novel by author Mark Haddon. In

Theatre-Arts class we looked at two different modern theatrical interpretations of the novel. Both

interpretations were different but shared many of the same elements and qualities. The first one

used a minimalist approach to sets. We saw that they only had wooden boxes and crates to use to

create sets. The first interpretation also used technology, but in an interesting way. In the novel

when Christopher arrives at the train station, many thoughts are going through his head. He’s

making diagrams and remembering things about his toy train sets, all in his head. As many things

are going on in his head he becomes scared. He says “But this is not a very accurate map of the

station because I was scared so I was not noticing things very well, and this is just what I

remember so it is an approximation” (pg. 66). The first interpretation used projections onto the
floor of the stage to show all the thoughts racing through Christopher’s head as he’s in the

station. But it was interesting because it was almost like you had to be viewing the stage from

above in order to see the projections. The second interpretation was quite similar in its use of

minimalism and tech. When Christopher and the Policeman are on the train, Christopher

describes what he sees as the train moves. “And I looked out of the window and we were going

past factories and scrap yards full of old cars and there were 4 caravans in a muddy field with 2

dogs and some clothes hanging up to dry. And outside the window was like a map, except that it

was in 3 dimensions and it was life-size because it was the thing it was a map of” (pg. 74). In the

second interpretation for the train scene they used wooden boxes for the seats, similar to the first

interpretation. And to show the train moving they used a combination of technology as well as

body movement with the actors. They had a “moving background” not of actual scenery, but it

was like lines on a screen moving to show that the train was moving. They also had the actors all

move in sync at certain points to show the train turning or jolting.

The play interpretation of ​Anastasia ​was way more traditional than that of ​The Curious

Incident of the Dog in the Night-time.​ First of all it’s a musical so comparatively it’s more similar

to plays such as ​Guys and Dolls, or The Music Man. ​But I also feel that overall the play is more

traditional because the playwrights had the movie to look to when creating the world of

Anastasia o​ n Broadway. They had a visual representation of what characters look and sound like

and even what sets look like. Of course the writers could have gone a different route and took

more liberties, and they did with the removal of Rasputin, but as a whole I think they wanted to

stay as true to the film as they could while still creating something different and enjoyable for the

audience. In the creation of the play both traditional and contemporary elements were used to
pull of ​Anastasia.​ For example technology was used in scenes like when Princess Anastasia is

having the memories of people dancing in the palace. Rather than just using actors they projected

figures dancing and floating around the stage to give it the feeling that it happened in the past.

Moving backgrounds were also used to show Anastasia, Dimitri, and Vlads arrival in Paris.

There was also an area on the stage that rotated, they used that along with a moving background

to accomplish the whole train scene. Of course traditional elements were still used as well. They

had song and dance numbers in the play, perhaps using some dance moves that we learned in

Theatre-Arts class, and regular sets were used as well when a moving background was not

necessary.

After studying and looking at how all these elements are used in modern theatre and how

they compare to traditional theatre, I feel that the most effective element of contemporary theatre

is the use of technology. This is because with technology you can accomplish things on the stage

that you previously could not. You can show a car driving down the road, portray ghost-like

figures floating around the stage, you can even pull of complex action scene that you would

usually only see in movies. I believe that the use of tech in theatre is the future and will bring the

opportunity to playwrights, directors, and actors to accomplish things previously unseen in

theatrical performance.

Cameron, this is an extremely well thought-out essay. I can see how deeply you have been

thinking about these elements and how they can work in modern theatrical pieces. See any

comments in the margin. Fabulous job.