Props update (keep those responses coming!)

Thread View: net.theater

5 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

5 total messages Started by showard Fri, 17 May 1985 18:35

#45

Author: showard
Date: Fri, 17 May 1985 18:35

25 lines
1450 bytes

   Well, folks, it's been kind of quiet on net.theater lately.  I've gotten a
few responses to my prop query and here are the totals so far in our "Name the
Play with the Most Difficult Prop List" contest:

Two votes for You Can't Take it With You

Two votes for Sleuth

One vote for Sweeney Todd (along with a dissenting vote)

One vote for Deathtrap

One vote for The Ride Across Lake Constance (costumes--not props)

Let's get some more replies.  Post them or mail them to udenva!showard

PS  While we're doing You Can't Take it With You, we're also wondering about
this:  what's the (non-musical) play with the largest cast?  YCTIWY has 19,
I think Witness for the Prosecution and Inherit the Wind have more, but I'm
not sure.  Let's get this one going.
 
--Mr. Blore, aka the DJ who would not die, 
                                          aka Steve Howard
 ...udenva!showard

Re: Props update (keep those responses coming!)

#48

Author: reiher
Date: Thu, 23 May 1985 22:44

22 lines
1837 bytes

In article <669@udenva.UUCP> showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) writes:
>
>PS  While we're doing You Can't Take it With You, we're also wondering about
>this:  what's the (non-musical) play with the largest cast?  

Eugene O'Neill wrote some really strange plays during the 1920s, some of which
required huge casts.  In particular, I remember reading "Lazarus Laughed", which
called for a cast in the neighborhood of 100, what with the pseudo-Greek chorus
and all.  What's more, some poor costumer had to provide masks for each and
every cast member.  I don't know if "Lazarus Laughed" ever was produced, but
it certainly sounds expensive.  It's not, unfortunately, very good.

Many Shakespearean plays require very large casts, as well, even without the
hoards of extras which add to the atmosphere.  This is why doubling of actors
in several parts is so popular in Shakespearean productions.  I was in a 
production of "Macbeth" which had at least 25 speaking performers, many doing
several parts.
-- 
        			Peter Reiher
        			reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
				soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDA
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher

Re: person-intensive plays

#49

Author: Steve Kaufman
Date: Wed, 29 May 1985 18:15

6 lines
764 bytes

[no relation, so far as I know]

Kaufman & Hart's  "Once in a Lifetime" has 38 parts.
Though dated by now, it's also quite funny.

		"Yes, but not of Ed"

Re: person-intensive plays

#51

Author: Ron Natalie <ron>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1985 04:22

8 lines
848 bytes

> Kaufman & Hart's  "Once in a Lifetime" has 38 parts.
> Though dated by now, it's also quite funny.
> 
> 		"Yes, but not of Ed"
Arena Stage did this a few years ago (what, 9 years, gee, time flies).
It was really amusing and not all that dated.

-Ron

Re: person-intensive plays

#53

Author: Mark Adolph
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1985 20:09

7 lines
896 bytes

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

> Kaufman & Hart's  "Once in a Lifetime" has 38 parts.
> Though dated by now, it's also quite funny.

I also saw this about two years ago.  It's as fresh as "You Can't Take
It With You."

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads