I have already seen this play around the same time last year, having said that, it was extremely different, not because of the addition of a guitar player but because one of the actors was replaced by a woman.
Back then, the simple fact that all the actions were done by a man and a woman, instantly gave some sort of romantic connotation to the play, making people's minds turn to ideas of domestic abuse or at least some quarrel between married people. This was indeed understandable and perhaps even commendable, because it shows people have, well, emotions or at least the ability to connect with a case that wasn't their own. The play was very good then but now, having changed one actress for an actor, it's even better because with that simple yet huge change the play has completely broadened its scope in terms of the interpretations of an audience. Combine this with the use of masks to neutralize the actors into not being or having "characters" but being more of an entity, a figure for man in general (perhaps an allegory to a certain extent) that serves as a wonderful canvas for the audience to paint their own or someone's story into, thus making each one's relationship with the play very much personal.
One of the interesting things that popped up during the Q&A session after the play is that the initial pose, "rupture" of the entity in two and the bandages signify some sort of separation of parts of the same person, and thus the bandage to heal the wound. Even though I didn't get that during the actual performance, I thought the pose and the separation and the play coming full circle again represented the addictive, relentless and deeply troubled nature of human relationships that, even though one says he/she will never do it again they end up doing it anyways and thus end up in the same place they began (which as I write I notice, is very much swayed by the previous impression I had of the play, when there was an actress and it inevitably became about domestic abuse), but I can, however, appreciate and observe that when given the idea, which is a very good thing because it shows again how the interpretation of pretty much anything in this play is entirely subjective (now I'm not saying that if some lunatic came to me and said that Hebras was about a man's relationship with his car I could see it, but you catch my drift).
What is most significative and impressive about this play, besides the fact that it appeals to everyone and could hold special meaning to everyone, is the physicality of it all. It's the way in which this concept or idea of human relationships is presented, through fantastic physical movements that make the ritual aspect of the play (the seating arrangement, etc) mesh together and work, because, rituals have been performed for centuries and human relationships have been around for centuries, so ti makes perfect sense to see this play as some form of ritual. This indeed makes me go back to my independent project, about craig's ubermarionette and the effect of body movement in a play. By stripping the actor of any possible form of identification (blank neutral mask) and making him or it (the entity or figure) perform this sequence of movements, they have managed to capture the spirit of the thing, the essence of the physicality of relationships, every movement had a start and an end, which sort of matches up to the whole play itself, I particularly enjoyed how the actors themselves created the threads with their bodies, and i think it was a good decision to leave those to the imagination of the audience, this also leads me to think about Qorihuaman in which the actor created the space with his body through miming, now, it's not the same thing but they do share a concept, in this case, the fact that there are no props or "set design" also helps the audience to let their imagination run free, without any indicator of a time and place or a name or a face, allowing them to paint this empty canvas themselves, I say empty not because there is no substance in this play, because there is, and them some, but because it is carefully done to keep its neutral aspect, to keep the actors hidden in a way that allows them to be so free that through their movement and their faces shielded with the mask, they could be just about anyone.
The music again plays an important role, an atmospheric one, one with excellent performances by the violinist and guitarist, my only observation here is that I much preferred the previous arrangement, with just violins rather than the addition of the guitar. This could very well be due to my flair for the dramatic, but it's just that, there is something special to the violin, it's an instrument that's sophisticated and it can put the audience into the trance that is this play, whereas the guitar added some, although pleasant, pedestrian quality to the play, it's strings sort of reminded me I was in the coast of Peru and prevented me from flying off to far far places. Now, it's only a suggestion and an observation, the play is in no way diminished by the use of the guitar, but, without it and a second violin, it's becomes deeply entrancing in a level one can only imagine and hope for.
I wonder about this play, because, the students who've seen it, have seen it because they have to, and by some of their (immature, yet valid) reactions they wouldn't have particularly chosen to see this play if they were given the choice, so why does one go to the theatre? Is it for the mere escapism of it all? "to have fun"? or is it because people have the urge to see a play that they can connect with? If the latter one, then we have discovered why theatre and culture are so tightly knit together, because that urge to feel part of a community and to seem as if we influence it in some way or the other, is a wonderful tool that any playmaker can (and should) use in order to have their play transcend into the audience's lives. I'm not saying that now, in my everyday life I'll be constantly concerned about my way of handling interpersonal relationships and the threads that join us together, but, I will, occasionally and perhaps even involuntarily, because of any stimuli that triggers memories from this play, dwell into the vast world that is my imagination and my reflexive capabilities and wonder, wonder about the state and effect of the threads in my life, and that, in today's world in which people can seem so selfish, is more than any playmaker could ask for.
domingo, 27 de noviembre de 2011
martes, 6 de septiembre de 2011
for my independent project i have decided to research Gordon Craig, his theory of the ubermarionnette to be more precise. at first of course i wanted to do something different, i wanted to study puppets and the disappearance of the actor when they are used by him (if he is the actor, if the puppet is the actor, then i would've investigated why, etc) but this task proved to be too complex for the short period of time, especially when it came to getting resources to study from (books, puppets, etc). To be quite honest, my mind wanted to study every single area of theatre and some proved to be to simple to study. So along the same lines of the puppet investigation, i decided to study Craig's ubermarionnette, and luckily the disappearance of the actor was still very relevant.
before i begun my actual research, i knew little about the concept and what was behind it, and to be quiet honest, it just sounded as a very extremist point of view or desire for a puppet to do the director's wishes. Yet upon further investigation, I began to sympathize with Craig, in fact, some of his ideas and most part of his theory makes perfect sense.
to sort of summarize my findings in a very general, and very broad way, here are some of the most striking and very true parts of Craig's theory that i could explore:
- he speaks about symbolism, there's almost a kabuki air exuding from his ideas, he says: "they must create for themselves a new form of acting, consisting for the main part of symbolical gesture" this perfectly sums up his overall view on the perfect actor, and acting itself. He does not wish for theatre to represent or imitate real life, he wants it to be an art form, and art has form, it has a way to present things other than the way they actually are. although clear, craig does make me wonder: would this new, perfect form of acting that every actor must inspire to create give less credit to those actors that can perfectly reproduce the so called "tremors of the flesh"(emotions)? and if so, would acting itself become so abstract, we could go on and call it interpretative dance? and if I keep pondering (which is perfectly possible for me) I can ever wonder about facial expression, because the face is the key place to look to tell a person's emotions, so would this new form of acting concentrate on the body itself and not care about the face? would theatre become this new form of language that only the most devote people could understand and enjoy? On a personal note, I can appreciate an actor who is in perfect control of his body, and who, together with a director has come up with his own little language of symbols; however I cannot lie to myself and say i don't appreciate and admire an actor who can powerfully reproduce a person's emotions and move the audience and perhaps ( my apologies to craig, who must be rolling in his grave) even himself.
-to try to apply this to my independent i will have to get symbolism that is not too abstract yet abstract enough so that love is not represented by a kiss, especially if it happens after a character has professed his love for another one.
-Craig then speaks on about how "the greater artist is he who creates the impression of the whole genus of donkey, the spirit of the thing." referring to a painter who painted a donkey and labelled it donkey below, thus giving no form to his art, imitating nature. When directing the actors, we have to manage how to, instead of imitating one person, represent that person via symbolism and yet also represent the whole group of people that person belongs to, capture the spirit of "man" in this case. How will i manage to capture that spirit? because the spirit of man is made alive by his emotions, yet, Craig is against the literal representation of emotions.
I wonder, since Craig was a designer and many of his ideas seem rather superficial on the surface, does this make his theory superficial? since he speaks constantly about style, about an artist having to follow rules, or is it so abstract and has so much substance, that capturing the spirit of the thing is the ultimate test for an actor? how can this be done? Another thing i wonder about, say you have a play in which the protagonist is not a human being, but rather an animal,or a fantastical creature, yet he experiences emotions, would this imply that an actor trying to portray those emotions, maintaining the feel of the creature rather than trying to make him as human, be rejected by Craig's point of view? How can we capture the spirit of the thing, if the thing is something totally new to man? (say an alien, or a mermaid, or a dragon)
before i begun my actual research, i knew little about the concept and what was behind it, and to be quiet honest, it just sounded as a very extremist point of view or desire for a puppet to do the director's wishes. Yet upon further investigation, I began to sympathize with Craig, in fact, some of his ideas and most part of his theory makes perfect sense.
to sort of summarize my findings in a very general, and very broad way, here are some of the most striking and very true parts of Craig's theory that i could explore:
- he speaks about symbolism, there's almost a kabuki air exuding from his ideas, he says: "they must create for themselves a new form of acting, consisting for the main part of symbolical gesture" this perfectly sums up his overall view on the perfect actor, and acting itself. He does not wish for theatre to represent or imitate real life, he wants it to be an art form, and art has form, it has a way to present things other than the way they actually are. although clear, craig does make me wonder: would this new, perfect form of acting that every actor must inspire to create give less credit to those actors that can perfectly reproduce the so called "tremors of the flesh"(emotions)? and if so, would acting itself become so abstract, we could go on and call it interpretative dance? and if I keep pondering (which is perfectly possible for me) I can ever wonder about facial expression, because the face is the key place to look to tell a person's emotions, so would this new form of acting concentrate on the body itself and not care about the face? would theatre become this new form of language that only the most devote people could understand and enjoy? On a personal note, I can appreciate an actor who is in perfect control of his body, and who, together with a director has come up with his own little language of symbols; however I cannot lie to myself and say i don't appreciate and admire an actor who can powerfully reproduce a person's emotions and move the audience and perhaps ( my apologies to craig, who must be rolling in his grave) even himself.
-to try to apply this to my independent i will have to get symbolism that is not too abstract yet abstract enough so that love is not represented by a kiss, especially if it happens after a character has professed his love for another one.
-Craig then speaks on about how "the greater artist is he who creates the impression of the whole genus of donkey, the spirit of the thing." referring to a painter who painted a donkey and labelled it donkey below, thus giving no form to his art, imitating nature. When directing the actors, we have to manage how to, instead of imitating one person, represent that person via symbolism and yet also represent the whole group of people that person belongs to, capture the spirit of "man" in this case. How will i manage to capture that spirit? because the spirit of man is made alive by his emotions, yet, Craig is against the literal representation of emotions.
I wonder, since Craig was a designer and many of his ideas seem rather superficial on the surface, does this make his theory superficial? since he speaks constantly about style, about an artist having to follow rules, or is it so abstract and has so much substance, that capturing the spirit of the thing is the ultimate test for an actor? how can this be done? Another thing i wonder about, say you have a play in which the protagonist is not a human being, but rather an animal,or a fantastical creature, yet he experiences emotions, would this imply that an actor trying to portray those emotions, maintaining the feel of the creature rather than trying to make him as human, be rejected by Craig's point of view? How can we capture the spirit of the thing, if the thing is something totally new to man? (say an alien, or a mermaid, or a dragon)
lunes, 4 de julio de 2011
miyuki y los tres demonios.
the play is over and now it's time to think about the entire process and reflect upon our work, first of all i feel that directing the play has been the best way to close my school play process because it has been an amazing learning experience and quite the challenge.
In general i feel i did a decent job, however there were moments (more than there should have been) in which I found myself too passive during rehearsals. This is a lesson on its own because I learnt that directing, especially such a large group of children, requires a hands on method and an active one so that the actors get inspired. What this means is: don't tell people what to do, show them. I found it most effective when rather than telling an actor to do something in a certain way, getting on stage next to him and doing what I wanted him to achieve so that he can copy and *important* put his own spin on it, this worked best on most cases and it was only needed when the actor was stubborn and refused to take plain direction. I wonder, had this method been used all the time, would the actors feel suffocated? or restrained in a way? because having the director show you what he wants would make an actor feel his creative process is being cut short, yet it is the director's job to tell them - and I told them this very often - that a director mustn't tell the actor what to do, the actor has to present an idea and the director works around it if it works or proposes another idea so that the actor can work on that.
One of the biggest mistakes I made is one concerning time management, at first i took over the geisha dance and spent so much time in it, i completely shut out the rest of the scenes, of the play for that matter. However at the end of each rehearsal each group would show what has been done and I would give feedback on that, making up for me not being there directing them, at least a little bit. However, this makes me think upon the fact that, being the play so large and me not being able to split myself into 4 I wonder how does a director cope with this? what is the best way to manage ones time to ensure optimum directing experience? and what is the best way to do it? because i noticed and found it more effective when me, arianna and carlos were present during rehearsals and stood there and worked together, because each of us directed the scene that was being performed in a way that concerned our assigned production task, arianna gave direction that somehow related to the overall design of the play, carlos gave direction that concerned mostly on learning the text and interpreting what this text means and i gave direction in terms of the acting and the actual performance of the scene: through this collaborative process I felt rehearsals ran at their best because we had the entire production team working together, therefore the details I missed out on (which makes more than one question arise: how does a director check everything? how can he ensure that he hasn't missed on any detail of the performance?) were pointed out by the rest of the production team. I can't help but wonder what method of directing is best, a solo director? because in this case if my work wasn't satisfying enough (and this is me reflecting, not complaining) then it would be edited by Roberto the general director, therefore i found that directing is similar to acting in a way because an actor must propose and explore the ways in which he can act in a way he feels would work on stage for a certain performance and a director has to explore as well, explore the ways in which he can have the actor act for a certain performance, explore the different actions an actor can do -however i learnt this has to be done prior to the actual rehearsal because there really wasn't any time to explore during the rehearsals, a director, especially one with a play that has such a specific concept has got to plan the scenes beforehand so that he can state and explain his vision clearly to the actors, keep them in the loop because they aren't puppets, they are an essential part of the direction and of the play itself - especially in a situation such as this one where we have a general director and a mentor that is always checking to see what we have achieved.
I also found rehearsals to run smoother when we had the playwright, the director and the overall director in charge of the entire performance present during rehearsals because again, the input from each one of us was different (however we coincided in several things), i'll admit it's intimidating to give direction when Roberto is giving direction but I found it most rewarding when I just gave direction and he left, because i knew he left because he felt that I could be in charge for a while so i conclude that being shy and having second thoughts on your ideas is a big no no for directors, because the director being presented as that to the actors in the play has to inspire confidence in the actors (something i feel i did too late, when the pressure of the actual performance came closer) and has to motivate them to keep working and trying to find another way of performing actions in their scenes (if the ones they have been using didn't work as much)
One big question in my mind is regarding the amount of help I had, i'm not sure whether that is the way it should be done but I feel that having many people helping and directing scenes when i was directing another scene and then present their work on stage so that i could give them feedback is a positive way of directing a play, because, again, it was impossible for me to be in every scene at the same time and when help is available, you don't say no to it.
This was another aspect of the direction process I noticed, it was easier, by far, for me to give direction upon other people's work (scenes that were rehearsed without me there) and input new ideas to keep the scenes entertaining than giving direction and starting a scene from scratch. I wonder why this is, does any of the two methods devaluate the other? is there a better choice? and does the fact of being a director mean that help is out of the question? should a director direct every little detail of the performance? because in this case, as i said before, it was best to direct when other people from the production team were present, i reflect upon a comment Valentina made, she said that that is how rehearsals should be: with the playwright, the general director and the director present, all of them creating together, which could be true for this performance (one of this magnitude) or all performances perhaps? because don't we always say that theatre is a collective experience? doesn't this apply as well to the creating process? and don't two heads think better than one?
There were moments in which i got extremely frustrated with the actors because of their stubbornness, having spent over a month on teaching them the kabuki position and way of acting (at least the basics because, let's not forget kabuki actors train since they're extremely young) seeing them completely overlook and simply not use that position or way of acting and talking was well, frustrating. Other moments were when I directed them and they nodded only to forget or overlook what i had told them , having me repeat several things to them several times (too many times) now, this may sound like i'm complaining but actually it opens up a Pandora's box full of possible reflections and solutions because i ask myself, if the director gives direction and the actor refuses to take it what is there to do? how does one manage such a situation? should one give up and move on? keep insisting? it was a surprise for me to see that after the later rehearsals in which we did a run through of the whole play (or as far as we got) and i gave the actors feedback (having me take notes rather than direct them during the performance) the next rehearsal i really did see an improvement, and i saw several (most) actors taking into account the feedback that had been given to them, so to answer my question about insisting or not, i think letting it go and have them correct themselves during later rehearsals (when pressure and stakes are higher, since opening night is looming ahead) or retell them such direction during those rehearsals because that is when they were, at least i felt, more focused and more concentrated on getting things right (at least most actors)
overall i feel the experience has been extremely rewarding for me and i have truly learnt so much from it because as a director i was aware not only of my job but of other people's job thus my learning is far broader than that of a prop designer or a costume designer. I did stumble several times but the important thing is that i learnt something and applied the feedback (harsh but necessary) that Roberto gave us in the next rehearsal, i have discovered that directing and acting, although seemingly different, posses some similarities and directing in itself is something every actor should try at least once, because it enabled me to be aware of the director and i think, if i were to act something i would be much more concentrated and focused because i now know the hard work every person in the production team or working in any aspect of the play for that matter is putting into the performance. I'm extremely grateful that i asked to be director, and that nobody said no because i feel this experience is priceless and sort of gives me a broader perspective of what performing and theatre is.
HOWEVER i cannot help but wonder on all of the questions i have presented in this entry, especially those concerning what directing method is better and why should one be applied and the other left out. In terms of a final question I don't have just one, more like a million. why should there only be one director? what way of directing is best? an does this differ from the type of performance and the tradition it's being performed in? (say the caporal, he's there to ensure proper practice of the comparsas dances yet he has very little input in the actual performance because the tradition stays the same) how does a director deal with stubborn actors? how do you teach people how to act? (because some of the actors weren't exactly masters of the craft yet, those tricks roberto gave me to have them play with their faces really worked however i feel that they wouldn't work if they were to act in a realistic play or a drama, because they worked because the tradition allowed them to work) can you teach someone how to act? or can we say that we give them the necessary tools to fake it till they make it?
In general i feel i did a decent job, however there were moments (more than there should have been) in which I found myself too passive during rehearsals. This is a lesson on its own because I learnt that directing, especially such a large group of children, requires a hands on method and an active one so that the actors get inspired. What this means is: don't tell people what to do, show them. I found it most effective when rather than telling an actor to do something in a certain way, getting on stage next to him and doing what I wanted him to achieve so that he can copy and *important* put his own spin on it, this worked best on most cases and it was only needed when the actor was stubborn and refused to take plain direction. I wonder, had this method been used all the time, would the actors feel suffocated? or restrained in a way? because having the director show you what he wants would make an actor feel his creative process is being cut short, yet it is the director's job to tell them - and I told them this very often - that a director mustn't tell the actor what to do, the actor has to present an idea and the director works around it if it works or proposes another idea so that the actor can work on that.
One of the biggest mistakes I made is one concerning time management, at first i took over the geisha dance and spent so much time in it, i completely shut out the rest of the scenes, of the play for that matter. However at the end of each rehearsal each group would show what has been done and I would give feedback on that, making up for me not being there directing them, at least a little bit. However, this makes me think upon the fact that, being the play so large and me not being able to split myself into 4 I wonder how does a director cope with this? what is the best way to manage ones time to ensure optimum directing experience? and what is the best way to do it? because i noticed and found it more effective when me, arianna and carlos were present during rehearsals and stood there and worked together, because each of us directed the scene that was being performed in a way that concerned our assigned production task, arianna gave direction that somehow related to the overall design of the play, carlos gave direction that concerned mostly on learning the text and interpreting what this text means and i gave direction in terms of the acting and the actual performance of the scene: through this collaborative process I felt rehearsals ran at their best because we had the entire production team working together, therefore the details I missed out on (which makes more than one question arise: how does a director check everything? how can he ensure that he hasn't missed on any detail of the performance?) were pointed out by the rest of the production team. I can't help but wonder what method of directing is best, a solo director? because in this case if my work wasn't satisfying enough (and this is me reflecting, not complaining) then it would be edited by Roberto the general director, therefore i found that directing is similar to acting in a way because an actor must propose and explore the ways in which he can act in a way he feels would work on stage for a certain performance and a director has to explore as well, explore the ways in which he can have the actor act for a certain performance, explore the different actions an actor can do -however i learnt this has to be done prior to the actual rehearsal because there really wasn't any time to explore during the rehearsals, a director, especially one with a play that has such a specific concept has got to plan the scenes beforehand so that he can state and explain his vision clearly to the actors, keep them in the loop because they aren't puppets, they are an essential part of the direction and of the play itself - especially in a situation such as this one where we have a general director and a mentor that is always checking to see what we have achieved.
I also found rehearsals to run smoother when we had the playwright, the director and the overall director in charge of the entire performance present during rehearsals because again, the input from each one of us was different (however we coincided in several things), i'll admit it's intimidating to give direction when Roberto is giving direction but I found it most rewarding when I just gave direction and he left, because i knew he left because he felt that I could be in charge for a while so i conclude that being shy and having second thoughts on your ideas is a big no no for directors, because the director being presented as that to the actors in the play has to inspire confidence in the actors (something i feel i did too late, when the pressure of the actual performance came closer) and has to motivate them to keep working and trying to find another way of performing actions in their scenes (if the ones they have been using didn't work as much)
One big question in my mind is regarding the amount of help I had, i'm not sure whether that is the way it should be done but I feel that having many people helping and directing scenes when i was directing another scene and then present their work on stage so that i could give them feedback is a positive way of directing a play, because, again, it was impossible for me to be in every scene at the same time and when help is available, you don't say no to it.
This was another aspect of the direction process I noticed, it was easier, by far, for me to give direction upon other people's work (scenes that were rehearsed without me there) and input new ideas to keep the scenes entertaining than giving direction and starting a scene from scratch. I wonder why this is, does any of the two methods devaluate the other? is there a better choice? and does the fact of being a director mean that help is out of the question? should a director direct every little detail of the performance? because in this case, as i said before, it was best to direct when other people from the production team were present, i reflect upon a comment Valentina made, she said that that is how rehearsals should be: with the playwright, the general director and the director present, all of them creating together, which could be true for this performance (one of this magnitude) or all performances perhaps? because don't we always say that theatre is a collective experience? doesn't this apply as well to the creating process? and don't two heads think better than one?
There were moments in which i got extremely frustrated with the actors because of their stubbornness, having spent over a month on teaching them the kabuki position and way of acting (at least the basics because, let's not forget kabuki actors train since they're extremely young) seeing them completely overlook and simply not use that position or way of acting and talking was well, frustrating. Other moments were when I directed them and they nodded only to forget or overlook what i had told them , having me repeat several things to them several times (too many times) now, this may sound like i'm complaining but actually it opens up a Pandora's box full of possible reflections and solutions because i ask myself, if the director gives direction and the actor refuses to take it what is there to do? how does one manage such a situation? should one give up and move on? keep insisting? it was a surprise for me to see that after the later rehearsals in which we did a run through of the whole play (or as far as we got) and i gave the actors feedback (having me take notes rather than direct them during the performance) the next rehearsal i really did see an improvement, and i saw several (most) actors taking into account the feedback that had been given to them, so to answer my question about insisting or not, i think letting it go and have them correct themselves during later rehearsals (when pressure and stakes are higher, since opening night is looming ahead) or retell them such direction during those rehearsals because that is when they were, at least i felt, more focused and more concentrated on getting things right (at least most actors)
overall i feel the experience has been extremely rewarding for me and i have truly learnt so much from it because as a director i was aware not only of my job but of other people's job thus my learning is far broader than that of a prop designer or a costume designer. I did stumble several times but the important thing is that i learnt something and applied the feedback (harsh but necessary) that Roberto gave us in the next rehearsal, i have discovered that directing and acting, although seemingly different, posses some similarities and directing in itself is something every actor should try at least once, because it enabled me to be aware of the director and i think, if i were to act something i would be much more concentrated and focused because i now know the hard work every person in the production team or working in any aspect of the play for that matter is putting into the performance. I'm extremely grateful that i asked to be director, and that nobody said no because i feel this experience is priceless and sort of gives me a broader perspective of what performing and theatre is.
HOWEVER i cannot help but wonder on all of the questions i have presented in this entry, especially those concerning what directing method is better and why should one be applied and the other left out. In terms of a final question I don't have just one, more like a million. why should there only be one director? what way of directing is best? an does this differ from the type of performance and the tradition it's being performed in? (say the caporal, he's there to ensure proper practice of the comparsas dances yet he has very little input in the actual performance because the tradition stays the same) how does a director deal with stubborn actors? how do you teach people how to act? (because some of the actors weren't exactly masters of the craft yet, those tricks roberto gave me to have them play with their faces really worked however i feel that they wouldn't work if they were to act in a realistic play or a drama, because they worked because the tradition allowed them to work) can you teach someone how to act? or can we say that we give them the necessary tools to fake it till they make it?
domingo, 29 de mayo de 2011
kill me
DANCE
this dance is driving me insane, however i really think i'm on a breakthrough because for the past rehearsals we had this whole routine that looked good on paper but once it was put in performance it didn't work as much, i had the geisha dance separately but now, given that the ending is so much better (both on paper and live) than all the rest of the dance i scratched the rest of the dance and made it more like the ending, meaning the geisha now dance as a group, as a unit or at least more than the first dance we choreographed. this allows a bigger effect and it allows for me to concentrate on that effect when directing rather than concentrating on every geisha to learn and execute their own little dance perfectly. HOWEVER now that they do more things alike and together, the little mistakes and imperfections on their posture and overall performance as geisha are extremely noticeable thus i feel like i'm back to square one (at least in terms of having to correct each girl until perfection, which i´m very aware is impossible).
it was also very useful for me to have another person direct the girls (valentina) and then show me their final product. i noticed that the way she directed the girls was different to mine, she was giving them references that because of their age, they would understand and respond to (mulan,etc) and i could see they enjoyed doing things and working with her so i thought this could be applied when i'm directing them, so when they showed me their final product i was rather shocked to see that they still put the lackluster performance they always do, the same mistakes were made and when speaking to valentina she had the exact same notes and complaints as i did (complaints in terms of performance, not in gossipy terms so calm down) therefore i was relieved, it wasn't me who was the problem, it's not the directing here. however i'm really nervous and preoccupied now because this must mean the problem is them, they just wont work properly even though they all give it their all because, in terms of kabuki and performing they just cant, so this leads me to think and wonder if: is it true? are there people who just can't? what is a director's role here? because in terms of acting roberto taught me a wonderful trick, have them play with their faces (pout, frown, etc) and there really wont be a need for honest facial expression , in that case, they can fake it BUT what is to be done in terms of the physical performance (which is basically their whole performance)because you can't have a girl fake it when it comes to keeping their heads facing forward or their knees together, or smiling or the, dare i say it, overtly complicated walk+move shoulders+move head concept that is just too complicated for them to do? because to have actors fake facial expressions you tell them to frown constantly or pout and they do it, whereas here to have them fake it they actually have to know it. so how do we teach them? how can you teach someone how to act? and how do you direct someone if they dont know how to act?
again, kill me
this dance is driving me insane, however i really think i'm on a breakthrough because for the past rehearsals we had this whole routine that looked good on paper but once it was put in performance it didn't work as much, i had the geisha dance separately but now, given that the ending is so much better (both on paper and live) than all the rest of the dance i scratched the rest of the dance and made it more like the ending, meaning the geisha now dance as a group, as a unit or at least more than the first dance we choreographed. this allows a bigger effect and it allows for me to concentrate on that effect when directing rather than concentrating on every geisha to learn and execute their own little dance perfectly. HOWEVER now that they do more things alike and together, the little mistakes and imperfections on their posture and overall performance as geisha are extremely noticeable thus i feel like i'm back to square one (at least in terms of having to correct each girl until perfection, which i´m very aware is impossible).
it was also very useful for me to have another person direct the girls (valentina) and then show me their final product. i noticed that the way she directed the girls was different to mine, she was giving them references that because of their age, they would understand and respond to (mulan,etc) and i could see they enjoyed doing things and working with her so i thought this could be applied when i'm directing them, so when they showed me their final product i was rather shocked to see that they still put the lackluster performance they always do, the same mistakes were made and when speaking to valentina she had the exact same notes and complaints as i did (complaints in terms of performance, not in gossipy terms so calm down) therefore i was relieved, it wasn't me who was the problem, it's not the directing here. however i'm really nervous and preoccupied now because this must mean the problem is them, they just wont work properly even though they all give it their all because, in terms of kabuki and performing they just cant, so this leads me to think and wonder if: is it true? are there people who just can't? what is a director's role here? because in terms of acting roberto taught me a wonderful trick, have them play with their faces (pout, frown, etc) and there really wont be a need for honest facial expression , in that case, they can fake it BUT what is to be done in terms of the physical performance (which is basically their whole performance)because you can't have a girl fake it when it comes to keeping their heads facing forward or their knees together, or smiling or the, dare i say it, overtly complicated walk+move shoulders+move head concept that is just too complicated for them to do? because to have actors fake facial expressions you tell them to frown constantly or pout and they do it, whereas here to have them fake it they actually have to know it. so how do we teach them? how can you teach someone how to act? and how do you direct someone if they dont know how to act?
again, kill me
domingo, 22 de mayo de 2011
Rehearsals
So far rehearsals are going as I have expected them to, that does not necessarily mean "well".
i find it deeply frustrating that the geisha are taking extremely long to learn their dance and how their lack of effort and commitment (some at least) is hindering their performance.
i think constant repetition of actions in the dance will help them learn it and it will further engrave in their brains that it's not about whether they want to do anything or not, it's about the play and it being successful. I read in Marowitz' book that a director must have a balance between someone who is firm and gives orders and someone who takes suggestions to make the performance better, however, what if when I take suggestions and agree with them the end product is still the same? (no effort, bad product) or when i'm firm and tell them to work i still get nothing? How does one deal with something like this? because usually, the books and information given by actual directors is mostly about their work with professional or at least experienced actors NOT with 6th grade and above.
roberto came up with the idea to have the geisha along with the ninjas come every rehearsal so that they learn their parts alone. I think this could be effective because they will somehow become bored with not doing anything (what they would do in the first half hour i think) and actually get some work done, maybe they feel intimidated by anyone else's presence (anyone in charge that is) so we'll give this a try.
This week start the actual rehearsals, what i mean by this is the rehearsals of scenes. I think the last one i had was quite successful but i have come to the realization that the actual arrangement of the scene (particularly the ones in the palace) is kind of restraining. I found myself thinking about things the royal family could do, around the stage or even stand somewhere but this would not be possible because they are fixed in the platform, moving them would ruin the aesthetics of the scene so i think yes, this does restrain but isn't that what we want? restrain then earthquake? so i will have people there move only when an earthquake or very important and tense action happens in the scene.
with this last thing i realize that things that restrain us can actually turn to our benefit, so i begin to wonder about the so called "no-nos" of theatre, what is wrong? because say, turning your back on the audience is something that is wrong in western forms of theatre but it could work in other traiditions an places. so
what exactly do we mean and what exactly is, in theatre, wrong?
i find it deeply frustrating that the geisha are taking extremely long to learn their dance and how their lack of effort and commitment (some at least) is hindering their performance.
i think constant repetition of actions in the dance will help them learn it and it will further engrave in their brains that it's not about whether they want to do anything or not, it's about the play and it being successful. I read in Marowitz' book that a director must have a balance between someone who is firm and gives orders and someone who takes suggestions to make the performance better, however, what if when I take suggestions and agree with them the end product is still the same? (no effort, bad product) or when i'm firm and tell them to work i still get nothing? How does one deal with something like this? because usually, the books and information given by actual directors is mostly about their work with professional or at least experienced actors NOT with 6th grade and above.
roberto came up with the idea to have the geisha along with the ninjas come every rehearsal so that they learn their parts alone. I think this could be effective because they will somehow become bored with not doing anything (what they would do in the first half hour i think) and actually get some work done, maybe they feel intimidated by anyone else's presence (anyone in charge that is) so we'll give this a try.
This week start the actual rehearsals, what i mean by this is the rehearsals of scenes. I think the last one i had was quite successful but i have come to the realization that the actual arrangement of the scene (particularly the ones in the palace) is kind of restraining. I found myself thinking about things the royal family could do, around the stage or even stand somewhere but this would not be possible because they are fixed in the platform, moving them would ruin the aesthetics of the scene so i think yes, this does restrain but isn't that what we want? restrain then earthquake? so i will have people there move only when an earthquake or very important and tense action happens in the scene.
with this last thing i realize that things that restrain us can actually turn to our benefit, so i begin to wonder about the so called "no-nos" of theatre, what is wrong? because say, turning your back on the audience is something that is wrong in western forms of theatre but it could work in other traiditions an places. so
what exactly do we mean and what exactly is, in theatre, wrong?
domingo, 1 de mayo de 2011
pedro de valdivia
le alianze francaise was this week's destination for our theatre group, we went there to see a play about the life and work of pedro de valdivia.
upon entering the theatre, the stage is set up in a rather familiar way (suspicious eye brow), with musical instruments bordering the stage walls so my mind went directly to Yuyachkani's con-cierto olvido (mainly a display of the actors' talents and celebration of their repertoire). This was the first hint of how the actors would be like, well rounded i mean because if you put several musical instruments on stage they have to be there for a reason. My mind quickly wondered wether these would be actually used during the performance, and let me tell you something, if they weren't i would be really dissapointed. So we already learn a lesson, dont fill your stage with interesting crap if you ain't gonna use it because you will end up with one pissed off audience. What i mean is, the set design has to be both clever and useful ( serves both the actor and the audience) so when choosing to have the instruments displayed on stage, automatically making them part of the set design itself, you create some expectation in your audience because these are things that can be used by the actor and give some psazz to your play. Thankfully they did.
However i do get one question from this, when can we say something is a prop and when is something part of scenery? because when they were laying there, the instruments were scenery but when played they were props, right? So we can say, and i've said it like a gzillion times, a play is a whole, it's a unity, it's when all of the production elements and then the acting come together to form a magical experience (if it's good) and a bad one (if it sucks). BUT isn't this too modern from my part? because the modern paradigm states that everything is a unit, a total and complete play in this case therefore you can understand everything but isn't me rambling about JUST one thing (in this case the first impression the stage gave me) a very fragmented opinion?
i think, although pointless, this is very useful because it made me identify that to analyze a play a breakdown of its different aspects is very much necessary because you have to be specific and it leads to my believing in not two of the paradigms but both: thus i present to you, with proper grandieur and drama (that i love so deal with it) the new post-postmodern paradigm. because limiting ourselves to either understanding everything or just parts leaves out a very important process that results in this post-post modern paradigm, because to understand (properly) everything at least some form of analysis of every part must be made. This applies to analyzing plays or theatre, to properly soak all of the experience of watching a play, of being a part of a play, you need to understand and break it into parts (technically reffering to design elements acting elements and directing elements) to get to its core (concept)and then go back to the whole play. get it? me neither. (jk)
one interesting thing about this play's first impression is the fact that the actors entered afterwards when usually they are there in still picture. it led me to wonder, what effect does this have on the audience? because having them there in character at the very beggining is far more striking than having them casually enter (as they did in this play) or having them enter in character. so to what extent are first impressions important? because you can have an amazing first impression but then all of the play must be equally amazing so that that awe created in the audience is maintained. or is it better to have a meh first impression (medium, mediocre, or just there) and then start a build up in the overall qualiy of the play?
and wouldn't it be interesting (for learning purposes) to have the actors enter during the beginning (rather than there in still picture) and see the transition from actor to the character?
That is kinda what actually happened in this play, the actors entered in a rather nonchalant way- in not very elaborate costumes that represented the period in which the events of the play took place- and sat down with the instruments and began to sing and play. However i felt they did not get into character upon singing, especially during the beginning of the play so, what effect can this have on the audience? and on the performance itself? because when you go to a play you expect some characters, and even though they did deliver fantastic ones later on there was a lack of characterization upon playing so does this mean they were acting when playing the instruments? or were they just actors playing some music?
speaking of which, music played a very important role in this play, it served as a narrating vessel. This narrating of what could be overtly boring facts was made playful and pleasing by the music, this leads me to think about our own kabuki play and how music is key to it being succesful given that kabuki is such a sensorial experience. For example, when Miyuki delivers her long monoloque, don't you think it would be rather bland if there weren't any music? and wouldn't the constant narrating of things without any song (and clever word play in this play's case) be overbearing and just plain dull for the audience? The difference with our kabuki play is that during the music there are also several actions and dances that are meant to be powerful and interesting for the audience whereas here, more than halve of the actors where just playing the instruments and singing while another one acted or joined them playing. This is why i believe a play has to at least try to appeal to all the senses of the audience, not just center on one however this could be refuted with and example from con-cierto olvido: the entire cast sat down and started to make sounds of a forest or jungle, it was so powerful and realistic that most of the audience including myself closed our eyes and were just swept away, YET did this not eventually trigger all of our senses? because if we think about it, sounds of a forest make you think about something and make you smell, see and even feel different things whereas three men playing guitar and singing is just, that.
Going on with the topic of sound, the sound effects were fantastic in this play and though unrealistic, they worked because the whole vibe of the play was not a serious one, it was a very playful and silly one that really worked. One interesting thing concerning sound is the use of the voice, THIS part was where i really burst into laughter because those sutil yet completely noticeable changes in one or another actors' voice were increidibly comical. Take the chilean accent for example, i thought the play would be po this po that and cachai and all that mumbojumbo but i was pleasently surprised to see they saved those moments to perfect comic timing especially because the colloquial and very not serious tone of their voice was the complete opposite of the situation. EG: when they are guarding the doors and the middle one gets struck by an arrow, that "pero que paso" was so perfect and so natural it had to be one of the funniest one liners of the play and this provides me a valuable lesson, especially because i tend to write on the elaborate side: SOMETIMES SAYING SO MUCH CRAP THAT REALLY COULD BE SAID IN ONE LINE is just, a bunch of crap that yes, might be funny but doesnt share the strength and umph of one hell of a one liner. so already this play that clearly presents well rounded actors (sing, dance act, play instruments, etc) is helping me and hopefully all of those who saw it to be well rounded dramaturgs. Of course the play isn't going to present things on a silver platter, it will spatter you with ideas and concepts and even little moments in it such as this one that must be analyzed in order to get the big picture = third paradigm, post post modernist -really think this could be a thing here.
one interesting convention that was used is the pause, which happened right after the moment i mentioned just before, after the arrow struck him, he stood there for a moment, silent and then the three of them burst into screams and panic which was fairly funny. this pause reminds me of the one used in kabuki and it shows me how this pause can be used not only for dramatic moments (as it is used in kabuki) but also as a build up for comedic moments.
In terms of acting, every single one of the performers acted as a different character a one point or another and i thought this could have been tedious and almost obnoxious for the audience but gladly i was wrong, the transtitions between characters were effortlessly done and even though somewhat abrupt (like the ones leading to the man writing in a scroll with a feathered pen and grandieur) they still worked, because they were meant to be that way, funny too. The acting was very exaggerated and slaptstick at times, serving the comedic purpose of the play (when guarding the doors and moving the hips or when acting scared, etc)and i think the contradiction of such a serious and historical theme with the way it was presented works very well because even though the aim is not to offend but to criticize at least just a little bit, it never seized to be funny and it never seized to be clever and it never struck a nerve (except on what i believe was a 9/11 joke). So another lesson we learn is that thre is no need to be so serious about things, plays and theatre are supposed to be about precisely that: "play", fun so when presenting such a heavy subject like this one that could be a speech of fact after fact after fact could result in one suicidal audience, it is presented in the least expected way possible that surprises and most importantly entertains the audience.
The acting was also effective when creating props and parts of the scenery (the horse, the pen, etc.) and it showed that it is not necessary to fill the stage with stuff ( a whole lotta stuff) because that could somehow exclude the audience from the game whereas if you don't have certain elements and create them through the acting then the audience is going along the play with you. take macbeth for example, in the dining room scene when the ghost of Banquo appears it is the director's choice wether to have him present or not, if he is then the audience sees things from mcbeths point of view and if he isnt they'll think he's insane, thus being with the people sorrounding macbeth and so if they want to be with macbeth then they must begin to imagine the ghost aswell, thus keeping the audience on their toes and continuing to have them following and understanding (or at least wanting to) the action.
Overall i feel this play was very succesful, it entertained but still managed to tell a story (rather than presenting random shenanegans a lá cocina y zona de servicio) and presented the actors as multitalented, well rounded ones. I was thoroughly entertained and managed to learn a lot from this play, because it all boils down to the reflections, if we don't reflect enough or if we don't ramble then no conclusions can be made and therefore the point of watching a play is reduced to the mere enjoyment of it. However there are several questions that arise from watching and reflecting upon this play like to what extent can the impact of this play change? what i mean is, what way of presenting it would be best: the serious one? or the funny satirical one that was presented? because when you think about it, say you have a nice teacher, one who tells jokes and tries hard to make hisher classes entertaining-most of the time- you don't learn squat and eventually forget everything except how fun the teacher was whereas mean, really uptight teachers really have a way to make facts and figures stick in your brain. And now that i wonder, would this play have worked if performed by a group of another country? stripped from its funny regionalisms? because this play had very chilean-esque moments that, if not there, could result in a less funny and effective performance. What if a north korean theatre group performs this play? will it have the same effect?
upon entering the theatre, the stage is set up in a rather familiar way (suspicious eye brow), with musical instruments bordering the stage walls so my mind went directly to Yuyachkani's con-cierto olvido (mainly a display of the actors' talents and celebration of their repertoire). This was the first hint of how the actors would be like, well rounded i mean because if you put several musical instruments on stage they have to be there for a reason. My mind quickly wondered wether these would be actually used during the performance, and let me tell you something, if they weren't i would be really dissapointed. So we already learn a lesson, dont fill your stage with interesting crap if you ain't gonna use it because you will end up with one pissed off audience. What i mean is, the set design has to be both clever and useful ( serves both the actor and the audience) so when choosing to have the instruments displayed on stage, automatically making them part of the set design itself, you create some expectation in your audience because these are things that can be used by the actor and give some psazz to your play. Thankfully they did.
However i do get one question from this, when can we say something is a prop and when is something part of scenery? because when they were laying there, the instruments were scenery but when played they were props, right? So we can say, and i've said it like a gzillion times, a play is a whole, it's a unity, it's when all of the production elements and then the acting come together to form a magical experience (if it's good) and a bad one (if it sucks). BUT isn't this too modern from my part? because the modern paradigm states that everything is a unit, a total and complete play in this case therefore you can understand everything but isn't me rambling about JUST one thing (in this case the first impression the stage gave me) a very fragmented opinion?
i think, although pointless, this is very useful because it made me identify that to analyze a play a breakdown of its different aspects is very much necessary because you have to be specific and it leads to my believing in not two of the paradigms but both: thus i present to you, with proper grandieur and drama (that i love so deal with it) the new post-postmodern paradigm. because limiting ourselves to either understanding everything or just parts leaves out a very important process that results in this post-post modern paradigm, because to understand (properly) everything at least some form of analysis of every part must be made. This applies to analyzing plays or theatre, to properly soak all of the experience of watching a play, of being a part of a play, you need to understand and break it into parts (technically reffering to design elements acting elements and directing elements) to get to its core (concept)and then go back to the whole play. get it? me neither. (jk)
one interesting thing about this play's first impression is the fact that the actors entered afterwards when usually they are there in still picture. it led me to wonder, what effect does this have on the audience? because having them there in character at the very beggining is far more striking than having them casually enter (as they did in this play) or having them enter in character. so to what extent are first impressions important? because you can have an amazing first impression but then all of the play must be equally amazing so that that awe created in the audience is maintained. or is it better to have a meh first impression (medium, mediocre, or just there) and then start a build up in the overall qualiy of the play?
and wouldn't it be interesting (for learning purposes) to have the actors enter during the beginning (rather than there in still picture) and see the transition from actor to the character?
That is kinda what actually happened in this play, the actors entered in a rather nonchalant way- in not very elaborate costumes that represented the period in which the events of the play took place- and sat down with the instruments and began to sing and play. However i felt they did not get into character upon singing, especially during the beginning of the play so, what effect can this have on the audience? and on the performance itself? because when you go to a play you expect some characters, and even though they did deliver fantastic ones later on there was a lack of characterization upon playing so does this mean they were acting when playing the instruments? or were they just actors playing some music?
speaking of which, music played a very important role in this play, it served as a narrating vessel. This narrating of what could be overtly boring facts was made playful and pleasing by the music, this leads me to think about our own kabuki play and how music is key to it being succesful given that kabuki is such a sensorial experience. For example, when Miyuki delivers her long monoloque, don't you think it would be rather bland if there weren't any music? and wouldn't the constant narrating of things without any song (and clever word play in this play's case) be overbearing and just plain dull for the audience? The difference with our kabuki play is that during the music there are also several actions and dances that are meant to be powerful and interesting for the audience whereas here, more than halve of the actors where just playing the instruments and singing while another one acted or joined them playing. This is why i believe a play has to at least try to appeal to all the senses of the audience, not just center on one however this could be refuted with and example from con-cierto olvido: the entire cast sat down and started to make sounds of a forest or jungle, it was so powerful and realistic that most of the audience including myself closed our eyes and were just swept away, YET did this not eventually trigger all of our senses? because if we think about it, sounds of a forest make you think about something and make you smell, see and even feel different things whereas three men playing guitar and singing is just, that.
Going on with the topic of sound, the sound effects were fantastic in this play and though unrealistic, they worked because the whole vibe of the play was not a serious one, it was a very playful and silly one that really worked. One interesting thing concerning sound is the use of the voice, THIS part was where i really burst into laughter because those sutil yet completely noticeable changes in one or another actors' voice were increidibly comical. Take the chilean accent for example, i thought the play would be po this po that and cachai and all that mumbojumbo but i was pleasently surprised to see they saved those moments to perfect comic timing especially because the colloquial and very not serious tone of their voice was the complete opposite of the situation. EG: when they are guarding the doors and the middle one gets struck by an arrow, that "pero que paso" was so perfect and so natural it had to be one of the funniest one liners of the play and this provides me a valuable lesson, especially because i tend to write on the elaborate side: SOMETIMES SAYING SO MUCH CRAP THAT REALLY COULD BE SAID IN ONE LINE is just, a bunch of crap that yes, might be funny but doesnt share the strength and umph of one hell of a one liner. so already this play that clearly presents well rounded actors (sing, dance act, play instruments, etc) is helping me and hopefully all of those who saw it to be well rounded dramaturgs. Of course the play isn't going to present things on a silver platter, it will spatter you with ideas and concepts and even little moments in it such as this one that must be analyzed in order to get the big picture = third paradigm, post post modernist -really think this could be a thing here.
one interesting convention that was used is the pause, which happened right after the moment i mentioned just before, after the arrow struck him, he stood there for a moment, silent and then the three of them burst into screams and panic which was fairly funny. this pause reminds me of the one used in kabuki and it shows me how this pause can be used not only for dramatic moments (as it is used in kabuki) but also as a build up for comedic moments.
In terms of acting, every single one of the performers acted as a different character a one point or another and i thought this could have been tedious and almost obnoxious for the audience but gladly i was wrong, the transtitions between characters were effortlessly done and even though somewhat abrupt (like the ones leading to the man writing in a scroll with a feathered pen and grandieur) they still worked, because they were meant to be that way, funny too. The acting was very exaggerated and slaptstick at times, serving the comedic purpose of the play (when guarding the doors and moving the hips or when acting scared, etc)and i think the contradiction of such a serious and historical theme with the way it was presented works very well because even though the aim is not to offend but to criticize at least just a little bit, it never seized to be funny and it never seized to be clever and it never struck a nerve (except on what i believe was a 9/11 joke). So another lesson we learn is that thre is no need to be so serious about things, plays and theatre are supposed to be about precisely that: "play", fun so when presenting such a heavy subject like this one that could be a speech of fact after fact after fact could result in one suicidal audience, it is presented in the least expected way possible that surprises and most importantly entertains the audience.
The acting was also effective when creating props and parts of the scenery (the horse, the pen, etc.) and it showed that it is not necessary to fill the stage with stuff ( a whole lotta stuff) because that could somehow exclude the audience from the game whereas if you don't have certain elements and create them through the acting then the audience is going along the play with you. take macbeth for example, in the dining room scene when the ghost of Banquo appears it is the director's choice wether to have him present or not, if he is then the audience sees things from mcbeths point of view and if he isnt they'll think he's insane, thus being with the people sorrounding macbeth and so if they want to be with macbeth then they must begin to imagine the ghost aswell, thus keeping the audience on their toes and continuing to have them following and understanding (or at least wanting to) the action.
Overall i feel this play was very succesful, it entertained but still managed to tell a story (rather than presenting random shenanegans a lá cocina y zona de servicio) and presented the actors as multitalented, well rounded ones. I was thoroughly entertained and managed to learn a lot from this play, because it all boils down to the reflections, if we don't reflect enough or if we don't ramble then no conclusions can be made and therefore the point of watching a play is reduced to the mere enjoyment of it. However there are several questions that arise from watching and reflecting upon this play like to what extent can the impact of this play change? what i mean is, what way of presenting it would be best: the serious one? or the funny satirical one that was presented? because when you think about it, say you have a nice teacher, one who tells jokes and tries hard to make hisher classes entertaining-most of the time- you don't learn squat and eventually forget everything except how fun the teacher was whereas mean, really uptight teachers really have a way to make facts and figures stick in your brain. And now that i wonder, would this play have worked if performed by a group of another country? stripped from its funny regionalisms? because this play had very chilean-esque moments that, if not there, could result in a less funny and effective performance. What if a north korean theatre group performs this play? will it have the same effect?
domingo, 24 de abril de 2011
im tired
so, hit some form of an obstacle since roberto feels i'm not directing them enough (the kitchen scene) and i think he's right, he said i needed to get more creative and put some spark and fun-ness in the scene. i was so focused on getting the concept sequence into the scene (tension pose earthquake) that i think i left out the rest, i felt that the actors would do that for themselves but this is W R O N G because, if everybody did that then there would be no need at all for a director and i would be without a job. so goals for next rehearsal are:
- keep the spark and action of the scene, whether its's a tense and dramatic scene or a hilarious one, present so that the audience wants to see more, so that they don't get bored because ultimately the play is NOT for any of us, it's for them to enjoy and critique, personal feelings of acomplishment aside.
- work on the idea of the "ghost" (i wanted to have miyuki talk and move around while the people listening focused on one place, giving the illusion that she dissapeared and then reappeared somewhere else. roberto was quick to point out it would confuse the audience so i might have to scratch that idea altogether, but still, i think if played well with the lights and the actors themselves it could be a fun little thing to do that would inject some life into a huge monologue. another idea is to have her represent what happened to her with actions but i fear it would be too dramatic YET now that i think about it this scene (numero OCHO) comes right after the intermedio so it would be a nice way to keep up with ourselves and keep the energy of the play going. ESPECIALLY. if what she's saying is OH SO important (it is) because here she reveals the truth and the toriyama are now seen in a different light, they killed her. so what she says has to have some form of resonance so that it makes sense for them to basically go to war, this scene is very important in the play because it manages to twist things and keep them ggoing.
-make sure production goes well, BUT only supervise two or three times because they are beginning to work very well on their own and constant supervision from anyone (me) would be too much to handle and just unnecessary. (Score! trusting people now. moving forward)
-on a less actual-rehearsals-related-note, i had a very succesfull journey to gamarra with kenzo, we came across some fantastic fabrics at the exact same price as arianna's in the exact same store. we found some that hopefully make it to the play itself. i learnt great skills such as bargaining and letting kenzo work on his own, yes i kind of gave him nudges in certain directions BUT mainly let him work on his own, so all and all it was good.
going back to the miyuki scene, EIGHT i wonder, how do we create ressonance in a play? how is that we make certain things stick in the audience so that other events in the play that happen as a consequence of it make sense? and if our play has a message (this on does not, but still, some do) how do we give the necessary strength to that message without overwhelming and ultimately saturating our audience? becuase in real life if you just say something powerful as, i don't know: "he killed me" or "i was raped" or "this world will end" or "do onto others as you want them to do onto you" (which sounds silly but really does help) people understand without paying full attention but sometimes, when they are forced to pay attention (like in a proscenium arc theatre whre they face the stage and nothing else) things that need to be heard or that are important have to be given the necessary umph so that they cross over to the audience.
yes, it might feel out of the blue and yes it might not be so related to our superficial play (which is awesome) but it still relates to theatre as a form of teaching or as a way to give messages to people, sometimes.
- keep the spark and action of the scene, whether its's a tense and dramatic scene or a hilarious one, present so that the audience wants to see more, so that they don't get bored because ultimately the play is NOT for any of us, it's for them to enjoy and critique, personal feelings of acomplishment aside.
- work on the idea of the "ghost" (i wanted to have miyuki talk and move around while the people listening focused on one place, giving the illusion that she dissapeared and then reappeared somewhere else. roberto was quick to point out it would confuse the audience so i might have to scratch that idea altogether, but still, i think if played well with the lights and the actors themselves it could be a fun little thing to do that would inject some life into a huge monologue. another idea is to have her represent what happened to her with actions but i fear it would be too dramatic YET now that i think about it this scene (numero OCHO) comes right after the intermedio so it would be a nice way to keep up with ourselves and keep the energy of the play going. ESPECIALLY. if what she's saying is OH SO important (it is) because here she reveals the truth and the toriyama are now seen in a different light, they killed her. so what she says has to have some form of resonance so that it makes sense for them to basically go to war, this scene is very important in the play because it manages to twist things and keep them ggoing.
-make sure production goes well, BUT only supervise two or three times because they are beginning to work very well on their own and constant supervision from anyone (me) would be too much to handle and just unnecessary. (Score! trusting people now. moving forward)
-on a less actual-rehearsals-related-note, i had a very succesfull journey to gamarra with kenzo, we came across some fantastic fabrics at the exact same price as arianna's in the exact same store. we found some that hopefully make it to the play itself. i learnt great skills such as bargaining and letting kenzo work on his own, yes i kind of gave him nudges in certain directions BUT mainly let him work on his own, so all and all it was good.
going back to the miyuki scene, EIGHT i wonder, how do we create ressonance in a play? how is that we make certain things stick in the audience so that other events in the play that happen as a consequence of it make sense? and if our play has a message (this on does not, but still, some do) how do we give the necessary strength to that message without overwhelming and ultimately saturating our audience? becuase in real life if you just say something powerful as, i don't know: "he killed me" or "i was raped" or "this world will end" or "do onto others as you want them to do onto you" (which sounds silly but really does help) people understand without paying full attention but sometimes, when they are forced to pay attention (like in a proscenium arc theatre whre they face the stage and nothing else) things that need to be heard or that are important have to be given the necessary umph so that they cross over to the audience.
yes, it might feel out of the blue and yes it might not be so related to our superficial play (which is awesome) but it still relates to theatre as a form of teaching or as a way to give messages to people, sometimes.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)