Monday, February 7, 2011
SUPERBOWL 45 2011 HALF TIME BLACK EYED PEAS [HD] (Property of NFL/Fox)
Perhaps we can start off our discussion of spectacle by talking about one of America's biggest: the Superbowl Halftime Show.
Some questions to consider:
As spectacles go, this tradition is among the biggest, engendering tons of media hype and criticism. But how do we critique such a spectacle? What makes a good or bad Halftime show?
Obviously lots of pyrotechnics are involved (fireworks, LED body-suits) but lots of low-tech elements are involved (singing, choreography). Which effects are successful and which are distracting or superfluous? Which would be as effective (or more effective) in a smaller setting?
Are there things other artists can learn from such a spectacle, as either a negative example (something to critique) or positive example (something to emulate)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the hardest thing about critiquing the half-time show is that its designers had to create a show for two audiences: those present at the game and everyone else sitting at home. For the folks in the stadium, I'm sure the pyrotechnics were sweet. However, as soon as you introduce camera angle, a great deal of the effect is lost.
ReplyDeleteHaving watched the show, I'm led to believe that it's main audience was everyone present at the game. This is mostly based on how poorly the show was translated to the television screen. Some of the better effects were wasted because the camera angle was too cropped. My biggest complaint is with the sound; what a horrible mixing job. I know that the background was all pre-recorded, but there was no attempt to blend it with the live vocals. Boo soundman!
My only other gripe with the show is that there was no audience participation. We could just barely hear the cheers, but the spectators were confined to their seats. Sure, the cyborg people interacted with the Peas, but it was so fake. I hope everyone in this class has had the chance to experience a show with a really enthusiastic audience, so that there is a mutual understanding when I saw that audience feedback is of paramount importance.
To summarize: while the show needed to appeal to two different types of audiences, it failed in focusing on only one. I wouldn't say that it was overproduced, but the show's designers missed some huge fundamental ideas with their end product.
I'm curious that you would not call the show "overproduced." Don't you think such shows BEGIN with overproduction? If you look at the sheer number of people and the sheer size of the venue, the whole goal of the event must be a sort of overproduction, no?
ReplyDeleteMy feeling about the singing not being blended with the pre-recorded music, is that it seems that the singers probably could barely hear themselves in that context, and often seem to have no idea what key they are meant to be in. (This seems to happen frequently in such oversized venues, as on American Idol.)
Actually, I wouldn't call the show overproduced at all. Yes, there was a lot at the show, but I won't fault the designers for taking advantage of all the different tricks any more than I would fault a visual artist for utilizing multiple mediums. Methinks, though, we have a different definition of overproduction. Yes the show had to be extreme, but this one definitely wasn't over the top (unlike just about anything Lady Ga Ga does).
ReplyDeleteI would be very surprised if the signers couldn't hear themselves. Most modern shows have in-ear monitors, for which levels would have been set before the show. In fact, it sounded like Fergie wasn't autotuned, since she was doing crazy things with her voice that computers wouldn't like. And she was always in tune. For reference, here's the original version of one of the songs they performed:
http://youtu.be/uSD4vsh1zDA
(Can't figure out how to embed it here. Sorry)