The strongest light sources that were installed in this production were neon lights hanging around the wall, which the light evoked me as if I was in a bad strip bar, the color of those neon lights were represented as cheap and indiscreet to me. Within its support of strong color of light and various changes, the story became more intense, but it eventually lost its details of emotions and individual characteristic. Also, I looked up some of the other production of Dog Sees God and there were more of simple, light concepts than one I have seen in Tucker Theater; use of darker tonal and less dramatic color change definitely settled down the mood. Except those wall lights changing the color, none of other lights were moving nor changed, they just turned on at off with different intensity for more various representations of the scenes, which these steady lights were masked during the show due to other …show more content…
Maybe there were enough cues and I did not realize it, but I think the overall lighting concept were very similar to each other. When I think of lighting cues, I always refer to the lights on “Wicked,” which has colorful and dramatic changes constantly informing audience the evil and the good, sadness, and happiness, but not fatigue at all. Dog Sees God’s lighting concept well expressed its unified theme of teenage violence, but it is hard to distinguish each individual subject that lies within one big picture. For instance, I cannot really tell the difference between places like backyard, cafeteria, music room, and party house when looking at the lighting of the play. However, each individual cue changes was appropriately timed that I did not feel any unusualness in it. It would have been better if there were professional stage crews who could move props and change stages during the short black out rather than actors doing it, but things went smoothly from one scene to