Tallon Wynne Boling

Critique:
Bonnets
Critique Prompt: (5 pts total)

1. What was overall movement style of piece?

In observing the movement style of the virtual production Bonnets, I thought

that it was very different than any live performance I’ve attended. This show
was different because in order for the movement to come across as natural
on the screen, the performers would have to move incredibly unnaturally. This
is why I would name the movement style of this piece “zoom mock” because
it tries to mimic live performance movement in a way that could be
understood with the virtual performance space of the show. The characters
would turn to the direction where the other character was placed on the
screen to mimic real in-person conversation. The stage combat and use of off
screen hands also helped establish an in-person feel to the show. In other
words, the show brought conventions and energy that are typically found in
the movement of live performance to the virtual world of the play.

2. Was it effectively performed? If so/ not so, How?

Yes, the “zoom mock” style was incredibly useful in telling the audience how
close the characters were to each other by utilizing distance between the
performer and the camera. For instance, when characters needed to whisper
or say something in secret they would get closer to the screen. This allowed
the audience to understand the nuances of what the characters were talking
about and the relationship between the characters. Another reason why this
style of movement was effective was because it gave the audience context of
what was happening between the characters in the scene. For example,
when Valerie and Claire were in the carriage, the actresses would bounce as
if they were in the carriage and this effectively told the audience where they
were and helped relay the given circumstances to the audience. Finally,
without the use of this movement style, the show would’ve been very hard to
follow. An example where this style proved to be the only effective movement
style is when Claire and Laurent were having an intimate moment and kissed.
The actresses stood up and messed up their lip stick to tell the audience that
they just kissed, and it worked very well! Without these staged pieces of
natural choreography, I think that the show would’ve been harder to follow
and less effective as a whole.

3. Who was most effective performer to support this style? Why?

 The most effective performer to support this style was the actress playing the
role of Mrs.Wolcott because of her use of camera angles, distance to the
camera, facial expressions, and choreographed movements. First, Mrs.
Wolcott was the most effective performer to support this “zoom mock” style
because of her use of camera angles and distance to camera. Mrs. Wolcott
was always directly looking at who she was talking to on the screen and it
was easy to understand from the audience point of view. Another reason why
she was the best performer to support the style was because of her use of
facial expressions. Since the performer’s body was out of view most of the
time, the actress playing Mrs. Wolcott brought the movement into her facial
expressions. Her eyebrows, mouth, and chin tilt alone were captivating to
watch as she spoke to the camera and it effectively relayed the nuances of
her character to the audience through these small movements. Finally, Mrs.
Wolcott’s fight scene with Webster was impressively effective with this style.
Not only were the actress’s movements in time with Webster’s movements,
but when her body was pulled off-screen this actress drew a picture for the
audience effectively without dialogue. All of these aspects of her performance
put together proves that Mrs. Wolcott’s performance was most effective in
supporting the style of the show.

4. Who was least effective performer to support this style? Why?

The least effective performer to support this style was the performer playing
God. This performer was very smart with movement because they would talk
to the camera as if they were in a Zoom call with the world. This allowed their
movements to differentiate themself from the characters in the story because
their character breaks the fourth wall often and is narrating the story. The
audience was able to understand through their movements that they weren’t
a part of the story, rather they were telling the story. I feel that it was
important that this character didn’t support the movement style of the piece
because it would become very confusing to the audience if God moved in
similar ways to the people they were talking about. If God were to follow the
conventions of this “zoom mock” style, then their character wouldn’t be able
to use the sound effect props that helped drive the story, specifically the
horse noise and the love chimes. All in all, while their movement didn’t
support the style used by the rest of the cast, it was effectively different and
necessary to clearly differentiate themself from the other characters in the
story to the audience.

5. What was item/ incident/moment/ etc that stood out in support of this
performance? Why/ How?

The moment in this performance that solidified my thoughts about this show
being in the style of “zoom mock” was the fight (or killing) scene between
Mrs.Wolcott and Webster. With the effective use of camera angles, what I
assume to be sound cue choreography, and fake blood, this scene mimicked
a live in-person fight flawlessly. The movement of Webster when their back
was to the camera told the audience that they were stomping Mrs.Wolcott to
death. By bringing Websters broom close to the camera, then having
Mrs.Wolcott back away from the camera, it was easily understood that these
performers were mocking what beating someone with a broomstick would
look like in real life despite their virtual limitations. Finally, the pulling of Mrs.
Wolcott’s corpse to hide her body locked down the realistic effect that the
scene was intending to accomplish -- complete with Webster virtually closing
the fresh corpse’s eyes.