So I'm thinking that the best theatrical career for me would be an actress. I know that it's not very original, but I think it would suit me the best. Either that or like an assistant director. I wouldn't mind doing that because I don't want the burden of being the main director, but I think the direction I would give would be good enough to make a good show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_director
This site explains the duties of what a typical assistant director does. Reading more about this career choice, it appears to be more work than I thought! Maybe I'll stick with acting. How could I get more into acting? Well, I could study it in college and hopefully be able to get a small role in something which would eventually lead into larger roles until I get super-famous! I know this isn't exactly probable, but I can always dream!

As I said in the other blog, RENT is pivotal because it introduced ideas like drugs, AIDS, and drag queen-ism to the theatre, which hadn't been done before. I think that the movie and play were similar in the sense that some of the cast members were the same, and the same things happened in both. But some things like the fire in the beginning was different because it was lame in the play. I do think the show adequately conveyed its message. Essentially we should all appreciate one another, even if we are all different. At least that's what I got from it. Oh, and that time is precious and live in the moment and stuff. That sort of idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_(musical)

This resource talks about RENT in it's entirety. I was surprised to learn that the show has not been around foor as long as I thought it had. Heck, I was 3 years old when it was first seen! I feel bad that the creator, Jonathan Larson, died just before it went on Broadway. That would suck! Essentially, RENT was pivotal because it introduced ideas like drugs, AIDS, and drag queen-ism to theatre. Seeing as how most of the audiences were fairly conservative, these topics had yet to be brought up, because nobody wanted to acknowledge them. But it's good that they were because they are all facts of life, whether people like them or not.

I feel like my costume and make-up plot is accurate and semi-embarrasing. The costume itself is fine, but the wig I'm having some issues with. Maybe when we do dress rehearsal and such, I'll get used to it. But until then, it worries me a little. And I'm used to having people laugh at me, so you can see that this is pretty bad. We haven't really seen the make-up, but we all know that most of us have to wear really white make-up because that's how the Chinese rocked it. But no one is as light-skinned as me, so maybe I'll get a reduction in it. That'd be nice. But then again, I'm not sure if my character(s) need it. I am glad, though, that for the Matchmaker, I don't wear a fat suit, cause that would have annoyed me.The Salesperson doesn't really wear anything special, so it's not too hard to deal with that. But I am going to have multiple costume changes, which I've never done before. I changed my shirt in HSM, but that's not the same. When talking about character collages, my costume doesn't really align with it, in my opinion. I put a lot of angry and alcoholic objects on mine, and the only aspect of the Matchmaker costume that really stands out from all the others is that I have the super-ridiculous wig and pretty much no one else has to wear it, a wig I mean. I guess what my costume lacks, I'll have to make up in superb acting skills. Well being in costume makes me feel Chinese. The wig will demand attention from people, so that people won't forget my character. But how could they, it's me we're talking about here!

http://www.sapsema.org/proj1itw.html

This is a link for a website that shows how to make the molds for the Wolf costume for the play Into The Woods. Judging by the length of the source, it takes a lot of time and effort to properly make a good wolf snout for this specific production of Into The Woods. This source doesn't mention it, but other characters in this play require special make-up, primarily the Witch. I think make-up will play a large role in our production, because as it has been said, none of us are Asian, so we'll need special make-up just for that. Plus this show has a lot of girls being guys and guys being girls, so that needs make-up. Not to mention the brides and soldiers have to look a specific way to look realistic. Unless we need a wolf, I doubt this source would really help. However, I bet with the knowledge that comes from this source, somebody could make any needed synthetic parts for a character in our show.

Well, STOMP would be pretty much nothing if the actors didn't have props, because then they would go on stage with nothing. Nobody would come see it, because it would suck! The make-up in STOMP is also important because, without it, the actors just look like normal people, not the kind that would be around trash all day long. Not to mention the "accessories" in the background because they help with the setting, and the performers use some of the stuff as instruments. For Peter Pan, it would be pretty lame if he couldn't fly, so that show needs special tech. Also the background had some pretty interesting art on it, so that's important. The big props we have are the platforms, which give the play more depth. We also have some random ones that add to the show. As of right now, I can't really think of any problem areas, but that might change, seeing as how we haven't fully ran the show yet. If something like the make-up was missing, we (especially me) would all be washed out, not to mention we wouldn't look Asian, and you know people would comment on that.

I thought the production of Peter Pan was good.But just good. The use of glitter was great, haha. The "flying" was interesting to watch, especially when the kid that played Michael said "Ouch" into his mic as he got lifted up. I honestly think our theatre could have done a better job at putting on this play. What was bad? It was just dorky, I guess is the best way to put it. During each intermission, a group of us had to comment on all the lame things or the things that they messed up on. It's a little sad when the thing that got the biggest laugh, Clark announcing that he believed, had nothing to do with the characters. Maybe we were being hyper-critical, but as Larissa G. put it, we were being critics! If I was the director, I would have tried to find someone better to play Michael, because he could have been better. As I said the "flying" was neat. There isn't a huge connection between this post and the ones I did earlier, because I mainly talked about make-up, and this play had make-up, but in most cases it wasn't super important, at least not in my opinion.