Tideline Critique

By: Ian Henteleff

Professor: Peter McKinnon

Hart House Theatre's production of Tideline attempted to use the basic elements of
stagecraft, specifically lighting, costume, set, and sound/audio design, to accentuate certain
aspects of the production and differentiate between settings and characters. However, it struggled
to achieve these goals due to inconsistency and an evident lack of effort to find creative ways to
do so.

Tideline used primarily white lights, sharpening the actors' outlines on stage and in a
way, separating them their surroundings. Multiple spotlights were used as well as one large light
that took up the entire back wall of the set. The wall light was used for multiple purposes. For
example, light intensity and pattern would vary depending on the setting. In a strip club the light
flashed dimly to the beat of a simple club-dance song, yet in an apartment the light was slightly
brighter and consistent, clearly showing the change in setting.
As the play had more characters than actors, some had to play multiple roles. The wall
light helped to hide or highlight these actors' bodies at different times to show clear discrepancies
between the different characters or at least establish a setting that one would associate with a
certain character. Spotlights were also used in this way for the more specific character physical
traits, for example the lighting on the face drastically changes the appearance and expressions of
the actor.
All the lighting used was white with the exception of two, one second long, flashes of red
from the wall light. The purpose of these sudden and short lived changes was not clear and came
across as simply an attempt to grab the audience's attention. The lighting design in Tideline was
relatively functional but not interesting or particularly well executed due to uninspired and
inconsistent choices.

The costumes in this production were all white, grey, or black. They did not have any
design or label on them, just bland clothing of all kinds; from T-shirts to formal suits. The
costumes made it much easier to distinguish between different characters. For example, a shawl
and sunglasses for a blind man in an unspecified African or Middle-Eastern country or a suit and
tie for a man attending a funeral. In these cases, they also helped establish a setting.
Occasionally the clothing would be a reflection of a character's feelings, for instance a
character who is feeling distressed might have messy hair and an untucked shirt buttoned down
one third of the way. However, this happens few times throughout the performance, so it was
clearly not a point of focus.
 The simple colours of the costumes added to the 'blank canvas' aesthetic of the show.
Similar to the lights, the costumes seemed a tired, shortcut to differentiating characters, that
lacked any ample attempt at deeper meaning.

The set consisted of multiple identical all white chairs, two white elevated ramps with
wheels and one without. The reflective white surface made it easy for lighting to affect the
appearance of the stage from the audiences perspective. However, the choices the lighting design
team made were seemingly easy, lackluster ways to do so, resulting in boring, inconsistent light
patterns and at times confusion over setting.
The wheeled ramps made it easy to change the set around completely and it was quite
well executed. Through the exceptional use of only the set pieces and occasional tarps, different
settings were obviously distinguishable. I am not sure if the entirely blank white set is an attempt
to encourage the audience's imagination or if it symbolizes something significant but it comes
across as a slack effort attempting to be played off as abstract art. That being said, it did do a
great job of creating many different places with very few set pieces, which from both financial
and ease of operation standpoints is certainly a positive thing.
As an audience member however, I was unimpressed by the set. It lacked any
eyecatching, enthralling or even relatively interesting details; which may have been what was
intended, but to me it came across as taking the easy way out and relying on two, wheeled set
pieces and the other elements of the stagecraft to establish a definite setting. The set is true to the
theme of this critique so far, a remiss attempt to be artistic, as if an afterthought to the other
elements of the production.

Last and very possibly least is the sound and audio design. There is a melody repeated at
times throughout the play. It is light, slow Spanish guitar over white ambient noise. It sounded as
if it should carry some significance but was played at random times that did not imply any theme
or meaning behind it; which was more confusing than it was interesting.
A somewhat effective use of noise was the sound of rainfall. Not because it sounded like
rain, but because, accompanied by the distant call of wildlife in the background, it sounded like
African rainforest rain which helped establish a setting that was at that point, relatively unclear.
The sound and audio design, with the exception of a few redeeming moments, was at the same
relatively low level as the other elements of stagecraft in this play. A failed attempt at artistic
relevance due to lack of thought or purpose.
 The stagecraft in Tideline was seemingly overlooked as everything either seemed
unfinished or hastily done so. It failed to accentuate the storyline and had limited artistic value. It
did, however, have relative success in its goal of differentiating between characters and settings
through different uses of lights, costumes, set, and sound/audio design. Unfortunately, this
success was achieved in a boring, unimaginative fashion. Tideline's stagecraft was, in short,
extremely weak. Not because of the resources or equipment used, but because the use of it held
very little significance to the story or deeper meaning and was effective for purely literal
elements of the show.