Sunday, April 01, 2007

Beatles and Costumes: codicil

I watched the Dance Kaleidoscope show again today. I wasn't planning on seeing it again, but it fit conveniently into my schedule; I came downtown with Laura, and I was on the strike call for the show anyway. I was surprised to discover that the costumes were a lot more tolerable than I originally thought. Once I was done venting my bile over the trauma my wife went through, I could watch the show more objectively. And my more objective opinion is that the costumes aren't terrible. The first act is okay; more than half of the costumes work for what they're supposed to do (this might be what's referred to as "damning with faint praise"). A lot of them were still pretty darn distracting, but since I had already seen the show once, I was better able to tune them out and pay attention to the dance. The first half of the second act was still pretty garish, but again on the second viewing I was able to tune the costumes out better. And, one costume I didn't like the first time around struck me as actually pretty good the second time; the "Jester on the Hill" costume is actually good for the character, and would look good draped on a mannequin in the lobby. But the girl's costume in "Long and Winding Road" did the impressive job of making a beautiful dancer look fat and somewhat dumpy.

That said, I completely stand by my earlier statement about elegance versus ornamentation. The costumes are extremely over-ornamented. I had a chance today to see the costumes close-up; I was amazed at how much unnecessary detail went into their production. Given that they won't ever be seen from closer than fifteen feet, they spent waaay too much time on details that are, in practice, invisible.

No comments: