Outside the Box: Design/Tech Solutions

Mirror, Mirror on the Set: Which Is the Fairest Alternative to Standard Shrink Mirror Products?

by F. Randy deCelle

When attempting to stage beloved Broadway favorites, producing entities often face challenges because they lack the resources needed to recreate the iconic looks that audience members relish,such as the dance mirrors in A Chorus Line. For a 2017 production at the University of Alabama, our goal was to re-stage the original Broadway production, using periaktoi (three-sided rotating scenic flat units arranged in a line) to perform the majority of the work for supporting the play scenically.

This was not the Department of Theatre and Dance’s first time producing A Chorus Line in its traditional form. Our 2004 production also used periaktoi. For that production, we created the mirrored sides of the three-sided units from Broadway style flats, which we covered with the standard shrink mirror material found at theatrical production suppliers. These flats performed well and are still in our stock,seeing use in a variety of shows. However,for our 2017 production, the design of the periaktoi was changing slightly, as the show had to tour and we felt our existing flats were a little worn.

With the opportunity to create new mirror flats, I set out to find a different material for the mirror that would require less labor and be lower in cost than the traditional shrink mirror products. The process of creating them not only can be time-consuming, but also requires patience and a steady hand, especially for the 14-foot tall mirrors we needed. After researching alternatives, I focused on Mylar products, which are a form of polyester film.

Photo by Porfirio Solorzano

The mirrors in the 2017 (top) and 2004 (bottom) productions of A Chorus Line at the University of Alabama had very similar reflectivity and overall effectiveness onstage, despite the use of a less expensive material for the most recent production.

Photo by Porfirio Solorzano

Challenges to Address

1. Your mirror shouldn’t be too perfect.

One thing that many people do not understand is that, when using mirrors onstage for scenery, you don’t want perfect mirrors, especially when collectively they form a 14-foot-tall by 26-foot wide mirror wall, unless you want the audience to be watching itself throughout the show. Mirrors also can be problematic for lighting and scenery, because those parts of the audience that look up at the mirrors may see lighting fixtures or into the backstage of the theatre.

2. Size matters.

Perhaps the biggest challenge with affordable polyester products is the more narrow product width. Rolls of mirror products made for the entertainment industry tend to be 50-60 inches wide, while the Mylar products tend to be in the 36-inch-wide range, with some around 48 inches wide.

3. Flammability is an issue.

A significant consideration when using polyester film is the flammability of the product.The rolled mirror products made for the entertainment industry are listed by the manufacturers as self-extinguishing. To protect general-purpose polyester film, however, you need to add a flame retardant made for it, which is available through online suppliers.

Our Product Tests

I identified five Mylar film products to test in comparison to the shrink mirror product most often used. We fabricated test flats using the products chosen, mounting the materials in a variety of ways. For the traditional shrink mirror product, we created a wooden flat frame according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. For the Mylar film products, we used standard Broadway flats that were open-frame or hard-covered. Most of the flats were Broadway-style, 2-foot-by-4-foot frames that we use for our scenic art class.

The five Mylar film products we chose met three main criteria: their width was the largest available, they came in a practical roll length for covering 14-foot flats, and their costs were reasonable. The table at the top of this page shows the costs of the final contestants in the Mylar shoot off. At approximately $5.08 per foot, the entertainment-based shrink mirror product is about 21 times more expensive than the least expensive Mylar film option.

While the film products looked very similar at first pass, we soon discovered distinct differences. The HTG Supply products with the polyvinyl backing seemed ideal due to their enhanced strength, until we discovered that the mirror side of the material was pitted. While it was reflective,it was not aesthetically appropriate. The Hydrofarm and Space Paper products seemed much too flimsy to be practical for scenic use, especially for tour, and the mirror surface on both was not consistent.

The Winning Choice

We chose the Earth Start Mylar. The consistency of the mirror surface was much better than the others and the material is mirrored on both sides, adding thickness and more strength, compared to the others.It also helped that it was available in 100-foot rolls and was the cheapest product we found in the minimum width we needed.

We compared the entertainment-based shrink mirror and the Earth Start Mylar version, and the look achieved was very similar. The mirror surface created with the Earth Start Mylar was not a perfectly reflective surface, which is what is desired.When performers are close to the surface,there is a good deal of reflectivity that more than adequately mimics a dance mirror. However, the reflection is blurry at the audience’s distance, which keeps the mirrors from being too distracting and helps with lighting and scenic issues.

Putting the Mirrors into Action

Once we chose the mirror surface, the next step was creating the base frame. We chose an open-frame, Broadway-style flat that was a bit under four feet wide. We stretched the material across the flat face,stapling it on the structure face, within ¾" of the edge of the flat frame. We then applied black gaff tape along the edges, covering the staples, and wrapped it around the edge of the flat frame. This provided a clean edge to the mirror flats. By using this method instead of the traditional shrink mirror, we saved enough time and money to make a spare mirror flat, in case there was any damage on the tour.

The final result was a mirror product that was much more economical and far easier to install than the traditional shrink mirror. I was able to pull archive photos of our original 2004 A Chorus Line mirrors and compare the results with our 2017 production. While the staging and images captured are different, the mirrors appear to be extremely similar in quality, reflectivity and overall effectiveness.

F. Randy deCelle is an associate professor and head of design and technical production at the University of Alabama. A member of the Southern Theatre Editorial Board, he is editor of the Outside the Box column.