p a u c a r t a m b o (oh yes, it happened)

so last week we did our paucartambo presentation:

day 1:
we were all qollas except for hannarella (she was the very believable chola, blonde and everything.) and bebenorme (he was the bull) and what surprised me the most was how good it actually was, i think this is why in paucartambo they don't rehearse per se (they do have extensive training since they are children) so that the day of the performance they can improvise and be more alert, more energetic, basically what kept going through my mind was DO NOT stop, just don't. therefore the energy in our performance does not die, because, afterall this performance is nothing without energy, and even though i wasn't feeling very well (yes, this is an understatement) i still gave it my all and just forgot about my condition, this leads me to think about actors and what they're supposed to to do: THEIR JOBS, act, doesn't matter if you're dying, if you're dead, if you're pooping all the time, when you get on stage you are no longer you, you are a character with no connection whatsoever to your former "real" self because in the end, the audience doesn't care about your problems, they care about being entertained because that is what theatre is for to them, for entertainment and if you stop acting, the reality of a performance breaks and thus it is ruined. ok, in western theatre sometimes there is an understudy but in andean theatre, there isn't, actors just deal with things and something as simple as touching your mask to just plain stopping obliterates any chances a performance had to be successful.
another very helpful element is the actual audience, their energy and just the fact that they're there changes the performance so much, our energy level rises because instead of interacting with air during rehearsals we actually interact with other people so this is another reason why actors in paucartambo do not rehearse so much.
as far as my job with props goes, i think more candy would have been nice so that the hype of candy falling from the sky didn't die off so quickly.

day 2:
carlos and i were saqras, the first problem was the costume that apparently was wrong for me to bring the white socks we agreed on, however, it isn't about me nor pineda, it's about the performance as a whole and about how, if we don't get organized and talk as a group (because this is not a self directed one man show) the performance goes all kablooey so again i come to the resolution that the play is not for the actors, or for one person in particular, it's a collective effort for the people who come to see it, whether we want to admit it or not.
in terms of acting, i think we were good, however there were moments that i felt were not as appreciated by the audience as we would have liked since the qollas were kinda stealin' our fantabulous saqra thunder, however in the actual festival the qollas and all the other comparsas were each doing their own thing and each got equal attention. mainly because of:
the shape of the "stage" (the plaza and other places in the town allows people all around to get to see the moving comparsas)
the amount of saqras (we only had two and over 5 hyperactive qollas, unfair much? so as much as the energy level has to be high and the interaction has to be great, there still needs to be the respect for the main action of the play, whether it is about the qollas or the saqras in our case.
i think the music elevated our performance to the next level, it gave it that paucartambo feel.

however, what i took from both days of performance led me to wonder about our rehearsal times, and how in paucartambo they don't rehearse a lot yet are taught since they are children, is it possible that we were late? and the only way to capture the paucartambo spirit and overall performance is by training for over 15 years? and if so, this led me to think about acting itself and how different people from different cultures have their own ways of acting and of theatre itself, is it possible to TRULY learn and be able to perform these traditions as if we were born into them? and overall, can you then "learn" how to act?

paucartambo

so in less than a week we WILL present our performance based on the paucartambo festival, we will, i'm serious. and along the way we have encountered some major issues, the first one being that we are not actually IN paucartambo therefore we are "bending" the tradition to fit with our environment and society (basically a way of pleasing our paucartamboknowledge-free audience) however the things we bent are no longer working or weren't put into action at all: for example the saqra costumes, we agreed to make them more colorful and chicha however we have not because we decided to go with the traditional-ish and keep the shape of the costumes but use ones we already have, the ones from la vida es sueño, so when do we have to stop and realize that what we want cannot be done so we must work with what we have? and do we have to change our concept to fit our needs? or do we change our needs to fit our concept? and if so, will this make the play more succesful? because overly produced plays can be quite the charmers with the audience but sometimes they just feel it's too much, like eating a whole cake by yourself so when do we know that we must: a) produce more in terms of design? or b) keep things simple?

another problem we encountered is that during rehearsals (many rehearsals, this does not match the tradition since the actors in paucartambo don't rehearse a lot, however it is understandable since they have been learning the dances since they were born.) we do not bring the energy needed for the actual performance day, however when we rehearsed with the Ib students i felt we kind of fed off their energy (we weren't very energetic when it was just the 5 of us.) so i realize that it's important to rehearse with all the actors, especially when doing something that requires a great deal of enthusiasm and energy so that the actors can feed off each others and so that the director has a clear idea of how the performance is going to look, this leads me to think about how it is important to have all the elemnts of a performance ready when rehearsing (at least the last couple of rehearsals) so that the actors can get used to the new sorroundings and work together with the elements in order to produce a higher quality performance.

so i have come to one conclusion and question, how will we, no more than 10 students be able to represent and convey the amount of energy the paucartambo festival (with definitely more than 10 people) has? because there's only so much we can do especially because some of the attitudes we have been giving aren't exactly positive, does it come from the fact that in paucartambo they do it as a tradition and there is more of a love for the festival? or is it just pure coincidence? or is it the fact that during the rehearsals we are bland but when the actual performance comes we will give it 200% (this is usually what happens in our plays) and also considering the audience's energy we will be able to feed off theirs to?

Hebras

so, this friday we went to the school's theatre to see Hebras, the new play from our very own Robbie ray (and his theatre group cuer2).

upon entering the stage (yes, the stage, not sitting on the chairs in the audience) there were chairs set up in a circle and the two lead and only actors were already in still picture. this image was very striking to me, they were intertwined and contorted, wearing masks and girdles with two beams of warm light on them. this is a very effective first impression since it strikes the audience, sets the mood and creates the atmosphere it was wonderful because the pose they were in seemed very complicated, thus we are able to recognize the body language and work hence the effort put in is perceivable. so we return to think about a play's first impression, if we want to captivate the audience and have them interested on what's to come then we must be able to make a very strong first impression, giving enough to keep them interested but not too much so that we are able to keep up with this first impression as the play goes on. so can a play succeed if it starts with a weak first impression? and then again what is a good first impression? since too much shock can disgust/frighten and sometimes even offend an audience.so this is where a play's "reality" meets the artifice of theatre, we can do whatever we want but it somewhat has to go according to our audience so that we do not lose them along the way whereas in real life, since we are not presenting anything to an audience, we do not care about what the audience thinks.
in this first pose, a man and a woman were shown, this is key because, had they been two men or two women it would change the overall meaning of the play, this reminds us that the process we put into a play has to go according to our overall message and purpose.

there were no words however the sound of the violins were perfect for the play nevertheless i enjoyed it most when the characters were moving and the sounds came just from their breathing hitting with the mask, this heightened the overall effect for me because the sound variated, when the characters moved most and they became most agitated the breathing sounded like muffled cries and quiet suffering, this was fantastic because it gave the play more tension and made us feel the characters emotions. (when they were on the floor trying to escape from each other their breathing got heavier, when they were calm the sound was almost quiet.) this makes me think about props and masks, they aren't just there to make the play pretty, these are tools an actor and a director can use to elevate a performance to the next level and for me the masks hence the breathing sounds did this, it leads me to wonder if this was done on purpose, i think yes because otherwise the masks would've had a hole on the mouth, or maybe not, hmmmm), overall i am lead to wonder about acting itself and what a fantastic craft it is, we, as actors can portray and evoke the whole range of human emotion with something as small as a sigh, a whisper or a breath so sometimes it is best to keep things subtle (rather than scream out loud this play just breathed.) the masks were also useful because they rid the actors of a face hence we as audience are able to put any face we want on the character and any emotion we want, however this emotion is influenced by the action of a play so figuring out which one to put helps us to understand the message, plot and play better.

as the play progressed the story became clear to me, it was a couple who was in love and they had a troublesome relationship: there was abuse from the man (evident in the "puppeteer" part when he controls her to clean etc.) and these sort of threads that joined them into a never-ending circle were evident as well, when they were laying down and their fingers started to travel along sinuously and when they had each other's hearts on their hands are a perfect example of how things don't have to be there to make a message and an overall performance come through, in fact it's better for an actor to be able to represent these things with their body (one of the reason's why our supermarket performance was successful) and better for an audience because, if done properly, the audience is, well, in awe. so back to props, yes they are very useful but, how do we know when to put them in and when to take them out? doesn't it depend on the kind of play we do? (let's be honest here, this play is not for everyone, the oh-so-fabulous pitucas from lima aren't going to go crazy for this play because their idea of theatre is, i don't know, something ,more like cocina y zona de servicio, something more "real", well i'm sorry to break it to you PTA, theatre is NOT REAL, it is theatre and yes it can be a representation of life but is never real life. so how do we find that balance between what i call a commercial play and an interpretative or more artsy kind of play? so that we don't limit ourselves when putting a play together.

i think rehearsal was key in this play because of the intricate choreography it had, and, well, having no deadline to present the play, cuer2 were able to present this play when they knew it was ready, ripe. but, how do we know it is? because upon watching the play along with the audience, don't directors always get the feeling that something could've been changed or added or removed? and if this is the case for people with no deadline where do people with a, i don't know, from march to june 21,22,23, deadline stand? because the case here isn't that the play is ripe then so it can be shown, it's a matter of the play HAVING to be ready for that time so a director is never going to be free from "what if" feelings/thoughts.

having a play with such simple production elements as this one is great because it allows the audience to focus on the characters and their story and also on the details from the overall atmosphere, ever notice the little particles floating in the air? well when you put a warm beam of light such as the one this play had you create magic for maniacs such as myself, i found myself drifting off watching the particles and seeing the actions from a different perspective, like if i were outside from the action and hence i reflected on the message, because finding myself detached (in a good way) i reflected upon these threads that we sometimes ignore and cease to care for hence they are broken or overgrown so we are stuck (like the couple here) and when not looking into the light i felt more of a part of the action, on an emotional level and technical level because i was part of the stage, i was the fourth wall, so it was this circle that also trapped the characters into, well, their circle of "love" so to speak and this is great because it makes you think about the different stages you can put a play in and their overall effect on the audience and the performance itself. this play was purely atmospheric as well, little things like the breeze the characters gave off when "hugging" the audience brought this play up a notch and enhanced the overall relationship and effect on the audience.

when the play ended the characters were in the same position that they were on in the beginning thus completing this idea of the circle, then we had a q&a session with roberto and the actors, i found this particularly useful (even though i didn't ask anything) to understand the different perspectives and overall understanding of a play from the audience, i found myself listening to questions i knew the answers to (because they were confirmed by roberto) and some i had no idea of, so, when it comes to the message and effectiveness of a performance how do we know an audience (the whole VARIED audience) is able to grasp it? understand it? reflect upon it? and if there were no message how can we be sure that an audience will enjoy a play? (again the whole audience) so therefore what is a GOOD play? because not everybody thinks the same way, so this leads me to think about the once annoying resolution that plays have to have a message and reflect on culture and society, this becomes useful because when applied we are able to narrow the scope of what we can do in a performance and helps us reach our audience in a more efficient way, or does it?

Supermarket

So for the arts evening a couple of weeks ago we had to present a small performance in representation of the theatre arts department, there was a twist, we had less than 3 weeks to prepare. so straight from the bat we knew it needed to be simple, entertaining and have no other purpose but to entertain the audience (this is extremely rare because out of every performance we do we need to give it more meaning than it actually was intended to have) however when it came to the process and choosing what we could do we were rather stuck, we had no idea what to do so Roberto gave us a tool, inspiration. turns out you could be inspired by something as small as a song?! whoa, what do you know, guess we can do a PPP know!

on a more serious level though, having a song be the inspiration for a performance is a very effective technique and can result in solid performances. songs can indicate many factors of a performance, if the song feels dramatic and strong then the performance could be dramatic and strong, or you could go the opposite and have the music inspire you to do the contrary of what it inspires you to do. so we arrived to "the gift", a song that had a very beachy and relaxed feel to it, hence we came up with what would be our acting concept, being inside gelatin, everything is slow motion and dense, you need to exaggerate your movements and facial expressions so that they can push through the dense gelatin.
however i come to wonder something that didn't occur to me during the process and final performance, we know we are in a gelatin, the audience does not so wouldn't they feel rather overwhelmed by the over the top slow motion and facial expressions? well, the answer is no, in fact, if EXECUTED PROPERLY this effect can be extremely interesting and awe worthy for an audience so we had a challenge, we had to make it as perfect as possible so that the performance wasn't a stinky pile of hoo hah.

when it came to working with the acting concept it was rather difficult at first and continued to be towards the end, slow motion is easy if you are in a gelatin, we weren't therefore we had to keep our balance perfect and timing flawless as well so that one actor doesn't look like he/she's inside a different gelatin and thus ruining the overall effect of the performance.
we needed to resort to the first teachings of theatre we had, working with our centre of energy so that it will maintain balance to our bodies, i found this particularly challenging because there was a part when pineda kicked me on the leg and i had to jump up without jumping (it's impossible to jump in slow motion unless we are in slow motion) and grab my leg (yes, standing in the other one.) in pain. this helped me figure out the very useful artifice of lying to the audience, you see, production elements and concepts and such are irrelevant to the audience (non ib theatre students) they care about being entertained by a good performance (yes they do consider good visual effects that could be provided by production elements but in the end they won't say to their friends "hey, you have to spend money to see this play that sucks because the scenery is SO worth it.") so we as actors/directors or playwrights have to, eventually, adapt our work and ourselves so that it is able to keep an audience engaged so that the performance is successful. little things like the fake "jumping" and over the top facial expressions kept the audience entertained, in fact, the swaying at the beginning also kept the entertained and brought the performance to a whole new level because it kept it from ever becoming static, boring.

the "design concept" (we chose not to go with the obvious Miami theme the song conveyed, so we decided to go with a supermarket since they often have that kind of music.) (sort of?) was chosen to enhance the acting concept, black pants and white shoes (against a dark backdrop) to enhance the effect of our legs moving in slow motion gives the scene a much more fantastic feel, however i would have wished to have this constant in every character, for example arianna's character didn't have any black in her legs, some black leggings would have made the effect more cohesive, however for the effect to be cohesive and successful there needs to be an extensive rehearsal process, something we didn't have.

we had no props whatsoever, everything had to be imagined but still, it HAD to be present, because if the imaginary props weren't clear then the performance will be an utter failure since the audience will not be able to understand a thing. this also proposed a challenge because of littel coordination elements, for example if holding a jar of pickles from the supermarket our hands had to be kepts as if we were holding it, for real, thus we are not able to move our hand or close it because if the jar were there we wouldn't be able to magically put our fingers through it.

overall i think we had a very successful little performance, that as simple as it may sound it turned out to be quite entertaining for the audience (SUCCESS), in fact some people were more enthusiastic about his than they were for past years plays, this leads me to wonder: is it more effective to have a short and sweet performance that will inject the audiene with our message and purpose (yes, we are back to having a purpose and message FOR EVERYTHING) in, shall we say no more than 8 minutes? or is it better when we have a large scale play that lasts 2 hours and sends the same message but it is spread out in a long play rather than 8 mins? what do people really want? and how far can we compromise to give them what they want?

Overall i think it was a very succesful little performance

Medea

I was very excited to see this play, i'm quite a fan of the original version and when i heard that it had been adapted to modern times i was...i want to say intrigued?

anyhow, we all know Medea, a woman who was cheated on by her husband Jason, she then proceeds to go absolutely b'zerk and kills the king his daughter and her own children thereby leaving jason completely screwed.

The play really worked visually, at least for me. I think from the very beginning there was an atmosphere that was created with the Nodriza, her monologue was really good, the positioning of her body along with the overly large hips really made the eye dance, the lighting during that part was also quite effective and it could have really failed since it was complicated to deliver the lines realistically and still manage for the audience to see the actors faces and facial expressions. this is one of the first problems I had with the play, the teacher/old man person wasn’t very good, I think he thought he was doing good and probably was but the costume design for him (especially the glasses that blocked his facial expressions from transmitting anything to the audience) and the overall awareness of the light was rather poor, in fact when he left and appeared again later on I couldn’t even remember who he was.
So then I came to realize one of the major challenges an actor faces during a performance, because as actors we need to push through what is on us and who/what is next to us so that we can stand out individually and make the play better but still manage to not break the atmosphere and “reality” the play creates so that we feel as we are part of any play we’re in and not stand out for the wrong reasons (being the odd one out, the one that doesn’t quite fit the atmosphere created.)
Still talking about the beginning, there was background music playing as the Nodriza said the opening monologue, it was like a soft ringing that I think was put there by the director to “create tension” and I think it worked on some level but then it stopped making sense, in fact, mixed with the screaming of Medea it was kind of an overkill, foreshadowing the overall result of the play, but we’ll chat about that later.
The metal panels from the beginning worked really well, it was quite fantastic to see the coppery colors contrast with the Nodriza’s costume and when she opened them to reveal the coir was a very powerful image.
The children we’re also effective visually, however the acting right from the start was not convincing enough, you could tell they were kind of confused on stage, almost intimidated, so i come to the conclusion that working with child actors is very difficult because you can’t be as hard on them yet you can’t baby them along the way and they’re pretty much unpredictable so it’s a challenge for a director and maybe the other actors can come to be frustrated with them, however in my experience in the school plays it is usually the child actors who are much more responsible than the older ones.

When the metal panels are opened the chorus is revealed, they are all in intricate positions in beds, their costume is very good and the makeup is also effective, they have an eerie feel to them, however I do think the costume was a bit restraining for them, so much more physical work could have been done with them thus exploiting their full potential, performance wise. I think the beds were some sort of Qorihuaman-ish, it’s nice to see other directors be inspired by other plays but, it came to be too literal, too Qorihuaman (in fact, the unnecessary naked person in the end bathed in one beam of light was also Qorihuaman.) so, how do we take an inspiration either as performers or directors and make it our own? it is very complicated to find that balance when something inspires us, we need to make it our own so that the audience is aware of the effort and hard work that was put into that particular aspect but still manage to keep it’s essence so that the inspiration is recognizable, at least by the cast and crew.

Now, the room in which the play develops is quite good looking as well and it mixed beautifully with the other elements and colors, creating striking contrast between them, for example when the coir is rambling about, the Nodriza is seen standing there listening, just listening but her costume really stood out, this is a clear example of how a design concept can very much elevate the overall look of a play and sometimes razzle dazzle (...se que no te gustan los musicales, pero, chicago, seriously) the inexperienced audience, I’m not trying to separate the herd here but having any form of theatre studies rather than just going to the theatre because it’s “fancy” really changes our perspective on plays, our reactions change as well because we know more hence we are much more picky and notice every little detail, if this is not happening then our education has failed, i’m sorry but it’s true, you see, how will we ever be able to construct a play if we don’t even know what makes a good play, sure it depends but the fact that a play has to work to be good is true in every theatre form and tradition. This is what we refer to the curse of the IB, we are stripped from our childlike innocence, we stop thinking that when something glitters, it’s better and we begin to notice why it glitters and why that particular way of glittering, going beyond what we see and try to see things from the director of that particular play so that we can understand the play better.

In terms of the acting, Medea was the definite stand out of the play, her voice her body movement, everything worked majestically and it could have been easy to get lost along the gimmicks of the play but her performance is a perfect example of what i was yapping about earlier, an actor must stand out but still keep the reality constant. Every single detail of her performance was great, when she spoke she sounded like Scar from The lion king (one of the most haunting villains to me, the voice the facial expressions, everything.) and sometimes flowed to a more Ursula-ish way. She managed to portray Medea’s insanity, rage and hate very convincingly so much so that in the moments she was speaking it worked beautifully but it was the moments were she was quiet, just standing still in a corner (when she was in the second level of the house) contorted to her own feelings and betrayal, those images were haunting and were the little moments that made that play worthwhile. Even when she was shown happy and very nice instead of trying to kill people it was fantastic, I really enjoyed her scene with the traveling king Egeo, they had very good chemistry together and gave a weird uncle-little niece vibe, it was really sweet to see her reacting and treating him with love almost, she razzle dazzled me because she was doing that to be able to kill her kids, i found myself really rooting for a murderer. which leads me to one of the main reasons why i was doing this, jason.

Holy mother of god, this man, the little bacteria that dragged himself out of Mil oficios and other crappy form of television managed to land the role of Jason, one that has many colors and a large spectre of intentions and ways to fulfill them. there were times he needed to be flirty or times where he needed to be infuriated and he just flatlined, his monotone voice lack of gestures mannerisms movements and ability to water every garden in the district with half a monologue made me squirm with disgust and just plain dislike.
This is a perfect example of stunt casting, why couldn’t the director or if you must be fancyshmancy the “casting director” hire another actor, a less known one that can provide the range of emotions needed and if he was stuck with him by the forces of a mystical being why didn’t the director DIRECT him, why didn’t she tell him he was doing things wrong and showed him how to do it, for such an elaborate production it is really hard to believe that the director was unable to see his lackluster performance, and if she didn’t then boy, i recommend her to reexamine her career choice. Maybe she was intimidated by his superstar status in peru (...maybe not) or maybe she was afraid to hurt his feelings (which is unlikely because she did manage to get the man naked.) so, how do we as directors manage to tell an actor he’s a bad one? and if so, how do you teach him/how to act? is it possible to learn? if it were, let’s face it, the whole school would come to audition for the plays and we’d have to create a role for every single one. can we truly learn HOW to act? well, i say no. the raw goods have to be there and we are taught what to do with them, we are taught techniques to enhance our performances and then it is our job to utilize them to our advantage.
there was a particular technique that i wanted to like but didn’t really work for me, when Jason and Medea acted together and things got a little rough, so to speak they would eat each others faces, this sounds very powerful in theory but again, it became to gimmicky and Jason was not helping either, this is a perfect example of bad or a lack of editing (something that seemed to be a virus that infected the whole play.), as i said in previous entries directors need to be able to edit and step out of their ego and leave their pride behind and say “hey, this doesn’t work, let’s take it out.” and if they don’t do that the play becomes a mess of gimmicks that really, as a whole do not work. If the director doesn’t do that, then the actors could notice it and maybe plant the little evil seed in the director’s brain.

I could talk forever on how the play was filled with overkill but there is one aspect i need to reflect on: the music.
Slight sound effects like the ringing worked, almost but didn’t really fit in with the play, mainly because the play itself is overly dramatic and is perfect for building tension.
I have always loved the idea of atmospheric music that creates tension, that tingly sensation that something bad is going to happen (one of the reasons why i love desperate housewives) BUT sometimes, it is beautiful to strip the play from that music and just let the text and actions speak for themselves, the music is yet another example of how the director got too much involved with the drama and hypnotized by it, it was just TOO much drama so much that it felt kind of funny, kind of soap operaish and editing is again, key. Maybe it was a poor choice of music, the music played during “tense” moments didn’t really fit them whereas the music in the end, when the audience began to leave was fantastic, it’s a shame they didn’t use that during the play.

The television.
One of my favorite aspects from greek tragedies is their ability to narrate the most dramatic and shocking/violent moments instead of actually showing them, this was attempted however it was stripped of the drama. Strangely here is a case where the director should have kept things as dramatic as they were on the original version instead of trying to go along with the modernized concept, she gave some lines to the Nodriza (who in my opinion was very much capable to deliver that monologue) and gave others to a television, she gave the strongest lines to the televisions thereby losing the shock factor and just leaving us wanting more. This is a perfect example of how the adaptation of the text to modern time was not effective and in this case, the director had complete power to eliminate this from the script and change it back to the traditional form. Sometimes classic is better.

The murdering of the children was not effective for me, there was too much build up and unfortunately no result. Their scream came completely indifferent to me, i didn’t really care because, as with the television, this is another case of how the drama was taken away from the play, the children were off stage so they were perfectly capable of “encouraging” (muahahha) them to scream louder and more in pain. It would have been perfect to see Medea with the bodies or a little bit of blood BUT again, here is a case where there was editing in all the wrong places.
Medea then proceeds to leave, descending to god knows where, first of all she was supposed to go to egeo’s land and not descend to hell or wherever. In the actual play she leaves on a chariot of fire triumphantly and swiftly, this being her victory dance, i killed your kids and BAM! i’m leaving like a f****ing winner, catch me. However it worked with the sound, her voice was ethereal and haunting, this is a case of how the director successfully using technology for a play’s advantage.

Overall i really did want to like the play, there were little moments that made me jump in my seat with joy and excitement (Medea standing in the corner, the sudden light changes, the curtain falling) but these, when they came together became TOO MUCH, they became a whole lot to take in, which makes me wonder when doing a play that is dramatic in itself, how do we know what the balance is to make it lower the level a bit, give the audience time to breathe? and in terms of acting, what do we do when an actor stands to much amongst the crowd? and how do we properly tell an actor he can’t act?

robbieeeeee no se que paso, se guardo en borrador pero no se publcioo, no me pongas dfetencioon.

kabuki play analisis

So i finished reading Masakado, a kabuki play. It's mainly about a soldier who murdered a king and took over the empire, long time after these events the king's daughter disguises herself as a prostitute from the "pleasure quarters" and tries to seduce him, she really wants to avenge the death of her father, the soldier realizes this and they fight, destroying the surroundings, and pose TAH DAH...

what's most interesting in this play is that the dialogue is extremely fun and upbeat, i almost peed my pants upon reading it, not really, in fact, it was surprisingly bland and boring, it's Yoda-ish and very slow paced and almost too "fancy". I do not feel the realness of the characters upon reading it, heck i don't feel a thing, it's like they're robots as if the play were a stereotype of what ancient asian people are portrayed to speak like. what was weird is that the dialogue between the main characters was significantly shorter than that of a sort of chorus this play had (something i have come to realize is a fixture in kabuki theatre.) it is this "chorus" that tells the stories, they sing and play the music (this is one of the first elements of the play that break the realism of it, the second one being the stage assistants that help the actors with props and costume changes.), the chorus' song is accompanied by a dance from the main characters, it is here where the play finally comes to life.

dance is a very important part of kabuki theatre, in fact, if one were to choose between boring dialogues and splendorous dancing that actually means a thousand times more than the dialogue, one would definitely choose dancing.
The dances are accompanied by the singing of the TOKIWAZU and there are several movements that indicate different feelings, this leads to a very high level of a symbolism of sorts, things mean something in this play, they are not just there. The sorceress costume, for example, was very beautiful and meant peacefulness but a spider web pattern indicated the "courtesans true nature and evil powers" .

The stage directions (plenty of them by the way, a whole lot of them.) were very descriptive and more enjoyable than the actual dialogue, they were very very very very very very long and excruciatingly specific meaning the movement and dancing and posing in kabuki theatre is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT this will make my job harder next year as director since i will be forced to be meticulous, VERY meticulous (Muaahahha...) and i actually enjoy extensive using of stage direction so, there's that- JA.

another thing that struck me is the production level in this play, costume is described as gorgeous and scenery...well, all i need to say is that they have a castle...that is destroyed and apparently it's "magnificent", so i am a little bit scared with how much work will have to be done next year and on what price (if you know what i mean TSHHH(big nose fella), on a more theatrical level i am concerned because this play has a very specific and TRADITIONAL look, which will be difficult to work with in terms of concept and design, unless we go la vida es sueño on it and do it as it is supposed to be done.

but a doubt and insecurity that i have is the overall appeal that a kabuki play will have (that is if all kabuki plays have the same structure on paper, meaning the same kind of dialogue and actions.) on newton students and generally speaking on people who have never heard of kabuki theatre. so i'm puzzled, how will we make a kabuki play that incorporates kabuki conventions that stay true to the tradition, but still adapt it to fit the expectations of newton students? and also, if this play's dialogue struck me as boring even though it is VERY kabuki, how will pinedah (morira) make a play with both witty and dramatic and engaging dialogue that actually keeps the interest of the audience but still keep it along the tradition? I also wondered about my job as director, how will i, a kabuki inexperienced person, direct a kabuki play? and what aspects of it will i direct more? since we have assigned uga uga as choreographer (due to the departure of our beloved luisgi D1 dance expert) .

as a side note i must say, i am worried, but more than that i'm excited, it's challenging yes, but it's like fuel my mind runs with ideas and different looks that we can transform the newton theatre into, so i'm scared because i know that i won't be able to control all of those aspects so i come to a final question, how does a director take on the challenge of directing a kabuki play that has the EXTREMELY clear vision of the playwright splattered all over it? oh dear lord, the earth is doomed

PPP stimulus analysis

I have decided to have the planetary system as my stimulus (at least for now), it appealed to me because it has fixed characteristics, an order, a routine.
-9 planets + sun
-they all spin around it
-each planet takes it's own time (always the same) to spin around the sun
-sun is constant, each planet expects it to shine the next day
-the further from the sun, the colder the temperature
-etc

what I thought to be interesting is to play with these characteristics and to form a theatrical chaos of what would happen if they changed, what happens if the sun stops shining, what happens if it bursts, what happens if the planets stop spinning, etc.
I'm not really sure whether the planets will each serve as one character, mainly because i feel that is too obvious, but, aren't they indivudal characters? as i said before, each planet has different characteristics hence these make them individual hence they could be interpreted as different characters.
Another important aspect i am unsure of is the sun, should i make it one character and have the others revolve around it? and if so, they could either depend on it (but to make it more interesting i could have them be sucking the life out of it rather than going the obvious direction.) or they could worship it.
matame

Going to the chapel and we're gonna get ma a a rried

ah, reviewing crappy plays is always fun and oh so very entertaining. Anywhooo

a couple of weeks ago we went to act in the one act play festival in san silvestre, what we also got to do (quite a landmark of my life, might i say.) is watch the plays of the other schools. three of them. in the same day.

the first one, well, i arrived 5 mins late to the festival so i didn't get to see the beggining; was about an orphanage kind of thing with a bunch of school girls who are pregnant and get by by singing the songs from the girl groups they love. I gotta give it to them, it sure sounds like an interesting premise (on paper).
my first impression was that it was well staged, ok, not so well staged but what i meant is that it had the basics, just what they needed, no gimmicks. Mainly because all the actios were either in an office area for the unpregnant woman in charge of the preggie ones (this was only iluminated when in use, a technique that i found very useful, especially with a restricted amount of space.) and a room area with a bunch of beds where the girls would sit sleep talk chew some gum and play with their super hot sansil hair. so as far as scenery i thought they were ok, i say ok and not great because it was too obvious, too real almost, they didn't have a design concept. so, is a design concept needed? could a play just be presented the way in which life really is? and if so, wouldn't the acting have to be as real as possible? (therefore not for theatre because in theatre, you need to act for the audience, always keeping them in mind, otherwise, your play has no purpose and if it does you might as well write it in your diary because no one will understand it.)

so, heh, the acting. it wasn't very good, it seemed as if they didn't rehearse enough or just didn't care at all. they all looked like sansilvestre girls who had to pretend to be pregnant sansilvestre girls. you know what i mean? like totally. and if they were just not able to pull a character off, then try harder to be a sansilvestre girl, because, these girls in the institution were girls from highschool, so it could've worked, if more work had been put into it. which makes me think, did the director assume that it was ok for them to act as sansilvestre girls because they were playing girls somewhat their age? and if so, is it good enough if the director just says "ok, do what you do because that is what your character asks of you"? why? which makes me them wonder why have archetypes? and actors playing the same kind of role over again (in spanish golden age) ? which makes me them realize that it's because they did a damn good job at it, they rehearsed their booties of, they put an effort which is what these girls lacked. It was so obvious,like, so...obvious (little jabs at the sansil gals, sorry can't help myself.) because when they had to say their lines they thought about them, and the audience could tell, then they waited but not listened to what the other character (notice how i do not say actress since when performing, it is the character speaking, keeping this in mind makes it more belieavable.) was saying and reacting to it by saying their lines. this forshadowed the singing. THE SINGING, was fantastic






not really

they also thought about and painfully waited as if on deathrow, to sing. the whole point of the play are the songs, the music, the energy and life these girls had even though they were stuck in this hole waiting to give their unborn children up. They were like girls who are forced to sing in front of the class, they even stopped, looked at each other (like "oh my god, we have to sing, we HAVE to.") paused and the sang (in a terrible pitch, this aspect i enjoyed because, it made it more believable and fun, I do feel it wasn't intentional, and so a dilemma. it has to be believable but it has to be a play, recognizeable (the effort, i mean.) so it's tricky because you have to find that balance between a realness that makes the audience engage with the performance and a technical skill that prooves (this is a random example) that they are acting, very good, as if they're nervous rather than being actually nervous.
so, how do we find that balance? which one is more important? does it depend on the overall message of the performance? on the interests of the director? and how does a director recognize and makes a priority out of the two? which makes me reflect on our own one act play, we didn't have characterization but we made the best of that, we acted. and that is why our play worked with the audience, because we acted, because we wanted to act. even though we didn't have a character, we delivered the lines, maybe me as me and pineda as pineda, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't pineda it was me playing me. it's different, and that's why it works.

the costumes, again, lacked a design concept. they were predictable and boring. the costumes, and overall look of a play can make it better, can elevate it exponentially because if a play is an absolute piece of cow dung, at least it looks amazing and an effort is noticeable. and in this case, both were just...meh. bland. dull. this led me to wonder of the theatre education they get, i'm not trying to be bitchy and i am truly not speaking from my "liver", but seriously, little kids use it, they say "oh i like blue, lets make this blue because so and so and so", maybe they did have a concept and it was playing dress up, like, little girls in their mother's clothes, which, come to think of it is very interesting and relates to the overall theme of the play in a pretty good way. but then i remember, they didn't, there was no concept.

another thing was the overall vomiting of the script, there were so many moments they could have savoured, saying something slowly can be much more powerful than farting the words out of our mouths. so, how much script analysis is needed? is it enough with reading it once and memorizing the lines? isn't painfully reading and annotating the script so much better than just doing it once or twice? so that we are able, as actors, to act the part as best as we can? or even just memorizing the lines and going with the gut, or the heart, making ourselves feel the emotions through the words? but, again, this requires commitment and rehearsal, and good direction because if a director doesn't push his/her actors, who will?

i really enjoyed this play, i mean, as a play not the performance. it's a pitty they didn't squeeze all the juice out of it.
and as i say this, i can't help but wonder, can a play depend on itslef? just rely on the script and situation? keeping the audience awake because it's interesting? and just giving up on the actual performance? which leads me to wonder, what is a good play? because a script can be really bad but the actual performance of it can be fantastic, does that make it a good play? or can a good play stand on its own?

Qorihuaman (naked mimo)

On saturday I went to see the Yuyachkani play "Qorihuaman" or Halcon de Oro, our theatre group went the day before but I couldn't go with them.
This play is, I think, one of the most metaphorical, hard to understand plays I've seen from Yuyachkani, but, in a way it wasn't so hard to understand, and why? because it was amazingly executed. This play did not have any words to help transmit the audience it's meaning, it was technically a one man show (except for the weird, ethereal mummy like thing).

The play begins with a bang, one beautiful striking image, a man in the corner of a completely dark room, he lights up a match so we can see him hunched on the floor. He is completely painted white, wearing nothing but army shorts. I think what really helped make this work really really well is the fact that the theatre is not an actual stage, it's a box like room with some seats in the back. This gives it great potential to create atmosphere (which I think was one of the best things of this Qorihuaman) and the lack of artificial lighting in the beginning was a fantastic idea I think, it showed us this vulnerable, scared and desperate character, it perfectly introduced it to us and still managing to frighten me a little as well.
What also helped create atmosphere was the music, but sometimes I feel they went a little overboard, the music did sound cheesy at times and almost, expected and if there is something Yuyachkani plays aren't, is expected. So, creating atmosphere is really great and helps a lot build this relationship with the audience, it helps bring them into the play but, when do we know we've gone a tiny bit too far? the music became a little overbearing and sometimes seemed to fit too perfectly, too...almost lame or cheesy, what was expected to fit the situation or action. I think there were moments in the play that were complete silence that were just magnificent.
The use of prop is very important not only for the actor but for the audience and the whole purpose of the play, in this case it was a bed, no mattress, no wooden planks, just a wire bed that was surprisingly strong. This represented the man's prison, his barrier (when he couldn't get out) it also represented his burden (by the fact he had to take it everywhere). This further proves that having a prop is incredibly useful for us actors, not only can you do a whole lot more things with it but you can also show the audience more things about the play as a whole and charge it with symbolism.

The use of body was fantastic, from the first moment we could see it, completely in character (whatever it was) hunched, frightened and breathing heavily. Emphasis on the breathing, it helped give the character more life, more punch and have a stronger impact visually on the audience. It helped define the characters nervousness, his anxiety and almost made me forget the fact that there were no words.
The importance for an actor to dominate his/her body was also deeply emphasized, especially in the acrobatics of the play (when he stood on the bed, on the rope, etc.) Without these the play wouldn't have been nearly as incredible. But I also felt it came across as trying to hard, and so I wonder, if a play has no words, is it a rule for it to be over the top on the movement? does it help or eventually hinder the play? since the audience will focus on the visual and fail to read between the lines, I say this because sometimes I found myself paying way more attention to what the character was doing to WHY he was doing it.

Another element that amazed me was the miming, the part where the character tries to escape and is stopped by the invisible walls was AMAZING, he was trapped in this invisible wall that was still, because of his incredible skill, completely perceivable.

The convention of the weird man that apperead during the play was strange to me, whenever he came on stage the main character would change characters, he changes into a pregnant woman ( the use of costume was also great, I came to understand that costume can and should be used as props, so the costumes aren't there just to look pretty, we as actors need to be able to use them.

This play was exquisitely symbolical, greatly put together and incredibly performed. It maintained its Yuyachkani purpose always, treating themes such as death, entrapment, death, etc. in order to "critique" society. But, I was and still am stuck on one thing, what struck me most of this play is that it is very entertaining, a bit like going to the circus. The play was fantastic, don't get me wrong, but, it was too fantastic, there was too much to look at and too little to understand, and for those who understood eventually forgot because they were busy watching the fantastic actions. So, how do we know when a play becomes solely recreational and no longer informative, didactic, etc? Where is the line between theatre and circus (not in a bad way) or is circus a form of theatre? how to grab the audiences attention to make a point without overshadowing WHAT you want to say with HOW you say it?

Randomness

So, It's father's day (jaja esta entrada estaba guardad en borradores hace tiempo) and I was returning from the funtastic world that was my paternal family (notice the sarcasm in my typing) and I mentioned to my father and sister that there was a possibility of me studying theatre, my dad's answer was "then why the f@ck am i paying so much money for school? why not study it right now?" and I replied that my IB is very important and of course, IB theatre is also very important and will become the basis for my theatre studies, besides, being an actor doesn't happen by magic or just plain talent (which my dad completely thinks i lack) and also, to become an actor, personally, we have to know every single area of theatre, we have to understand it otherwise we might as well be a piece of scenery.
I particularly find the knowing of directing and acting very useful and complicated at the same time because, when we act and are directed we could try different things we think, as actors, might work very well whereas on the POV of the director, they don't at all. Having the knowledge of direction itself enables us to have an idea, think if it will work both as actors and directors and if it does, put it in practice, this increases the quality of the overall performance.
Knowing how to direct does not mean bossing people around, though some "bossing" is required it is not the only part of the job. In fact, it is the least important part (in my opinion) because being a director implies giving enough space to your actors for them to grow and for them to learn from your directions.
The other areas of theatre (production ones mainly) are also very important because, as an actor, you need to be aware of your surroundings in order to react to them, because when you act not only do you have to react to the people acting with you but to the general atmosphere as well, usually provided by the scenery/costumes etc. These are often defined by the overall CONCEPT of the play which can alter the performance a lot, for example, if the concept is "sadness" the acting isn't going to be particularly cheerful right? and if it's "violence" the movements would not be very gentle now would they? For "sadness" the scenery and costumes and makeup could be dull in color. Whereas for violence they could be with bright colors (red ones, dark ones, etc.) and not so polished (scenery and costumes) to have a certain feel that tells the audience they were made violently.
Knowing all of these production areas and the concept of a main concept enriches our knowledge as actors and adds more potential to our performances, if we do take this knowledge into consideration we will be able to perform in the best way we can.

Another thing I discussed with my father and sister was theatre in general, we talked about plays from peru and actors from peru and i came to the conclusion that, they have no idea what theatre is, what it's about and why it is there. (my dad told me "you should be a director, because you're always bossing people around") They thought good plays were the ones where you laugh at stupid jokes or dumb physical comedy and deeply rejected "complicated" plays that had a concept and weren't just to entertain but to teach the audience something.
Why does this happen? Is it possible to make people like plays with a concept? and if it is, will they grasp the concept? these comments led me to the conclusion that, because of what we know, us IBers now have a more critical eye of theatre and a better ability to understand it, but, does this mean we enjoy it less? and if theatre is for the audience then why don't we just make stupid plays that make people pee their pants? So i eventually stopped arguing with my father and sister, but in my head the conversation kept playing over and over again and with each time I came up with more things to answer to them, to teach to them and then, as i write this, it came to me, that was it, that was exactly it, theatre is there to teach it has a message and when you go to see a play you leave with a message, sure, some are more hidden than other ones but that doesn't mean they're not there and if you leave from watching a play with no message or newly found knowledge at all, then the play itself is the message, it teaches us how to make plays, what to do, what not to do and so i understood, that is why we go to see different plays, to learn from them, to learn to like them and to learn how to make them.
I haven't spoken about this again with my father, but i do believe he and all the other people unaware of theatre and its concepts can like them, I do believe you can be taught to like, i'm not saying people should be brain washed, what i mean by this is that with this knowledge we can appreciate things more because now, we know how they (plays) work, we know what they mean because unfortunately, us, as humans reject what we don't know.

5 am, i couldn't help but wonder...

Sooo, today in class we began to dive into the marvelousity that is Spanish Golden Age theatre...again. But somehow, as we always do, we got caught up with something deeper.

It began when Robbie explained to us the difference between a poet and an author. You see, in S.G.A a poet is the person who writes the play (in our times, the playwright.) and the author is the person who directs the play. And so, caught up in the wonderland that is my brain, it struck me, WHY are there such TWO concepts? why isn't there just one that is in fact both.

The thought came to me when i began to realise that, whenever I write something i have an extremely precise vision of what I want to happen (hence the long and painfully detailed accotations.)so i coudn't possibly imagine anyone else directing my play but me.

So, then why do these playwrights hire directors? why not just direct their work themselves. And so I dared to ask, Robbie then answered that it is mainly because, even though you may have a clear vision of what you want, you may not be capable to express it so that actors (trained or untrained) could easily perform it as desired. Not everyone is made for directing because, sadly, not everyone is a people person, if you know what i mean.

That is the shallowest reason, but, what if we dig deeper? because, your idea or concept is most certainly going to be different from the next person's concept and so on. And, isn't that what theatre is after all? the different interpretations people give to a play? the different messages a play can transmitt to different people? and how they reflect on different societies? because, theatre is happening, it's moving so, if you want somthing to be precisely as you want it to be and have it not be open to other interpretations you might as well keep the play running in your head exactly like you wanted it.

So, i did a little of my regular blog stalking and found a comment Roberto said in valentina's blog

"i personally think that repeating old plays should be done only for documentary (museum) or educational purposes. and not even that, bacause theatre is an art of here and now (that's why we're making our own plays at newton)."

i disagree with this, and i'm not trying to be contradictory as i usually am but, if a play is only done once and then not repeated in the past, what's the point. It's the same idea as with the director, if you only do a play once, then there is only one message to the community of that time, just one interpretation. but, since time goes on and society changes, doesn't theatre do so as well? and if theatre is in fact changing and moving, then wouldn't doing an old play but with a different concept and adapting it to modern times (not in a mcbeth on the loose kind of way but, in a message changing kind of way.) wouldn't the message change? and therefore wouldn't the play live on through time? I think that is what makes a great play, the ability it has to live on through time without loosing it's relevance and the multiple interpretations you could have of it.

So yes, hiring a director is ok, you get to see other peoples vision of your work and if you are not satisfied then, do it again yourself but quick because, your interpretation and concept of your own work can also change because, like theatre, we are moving, we are changing and coming to a new state of mind.

Yuyachkani, our saviors, f*!@*ing finally

Actuamos tanto que para hacer teatro, tendríamos que dejar de actuar.

Last Friday we went to see a play in Yuyachkani, as usual I was a little bit frightened by the idea, not because i don't like Yuyachkani, but, because i don't like Yuyachkani. The play's name is a pun, it's called Con-cierto Olvido and it is a concert/play that could be interpreted as a celebration of this theatre group, it is somewhat of a compilation of most of their plays and a reflection of their journey as actors presented in a fun, concert form.

The music was bombastic, fantastic and extremely enjoyable. It got the whole audience clapping and tapping their feet (which is very rare for theatre, especially for our theatre group mainly because we are bombarded with boring plays.) to the rythm, even though the music was fantastic, there were some parts that felt a little bit awkward, especially when playing wind instruments mainly because they ran out of air ; this is understandable and i won't hold it against them, it doesn't affect how fantastic they are.

As well as playing musical instruments, the actors are skilled singers, again, they ran out of breath some times but that is to be expected, and, quite frankly they were pretty wonderful. I particularly enjoyed the sing off between the tiny person (i still can't remember her name but she's fantastic for comic relief, she's an oposition, having a very deep voice and such a small body) and the one who played antigone (Robbi sorry, no me se los nombres). Another stand out was the one who sang in quechua and played Ima Sumac in "El Ultimo Ensayo".

Going on with the positive, the comic performances of most were pretty fantastic, the one who put on a mask and spoke about the "Theatre Mountain" was particularly good. She was also good in the technical aspects, her voice changed, she had a mannerism (sticking her tongue out) and her body movements changed and resembled, pardon the strange reference, a very old mickey mouse (from the black and white cartoons), this all came together to a pretty solid example of good character building (something i need to work on myself for the school play, kill me.)
The one that wore a clown nose was also hilarious and it stood out for its colloquial, very blunt and sarcastic (very peruvian might i say) language/humour.


In true Yuyachkani fashion, the text was sometimes hard to understand, but when it was understandable it was entertaining and went from very dramatic (effective as well) to very funny (effective as well). It was mostly drawn from several Yuyachkani plays (mostly social commentaries) that i think you had to see to understand, that is one of the things i wasn't very keen of, if you weren't familiar with yuyachkani plays, you wouldn't have understood anything, that is why this is more of a celebration rather than an invitation for new fans.

Another negative aspect was that, the audience was expected to clap at everything, i mean, somethings were certainly funny or worth the fuzz but that doesn't mean we were going to clap our hands of for every time an actor twirled around the stage while singing a showtune, that's how sometimes, the play fell short, it expected to much from the audience while expecting too little from it as well, they thought we'd laugh and cheer at all the shananegans they did on stage but they didn't realize that instead of being funny they were being stupid.
I blame that on the directing, i think it's the directors job to EDIT, it is extremely important because sometimes it's good to cut things that don't work as well rather than stuffing the play with loads of jokes and monologues that just drag it down.

Despite the few negative aspects this is BY FAR the best play i have seen this year, but that's just it, it's the best because it wasn't actually a play but a pastiche of many different things that combine to form one, at times glorious, at times just plain boring, celebration and interpretation of what theatre and acting is.
So, by the time we left the theatre i was haunted by one and only one question.

How do we know, as directors or actors or playwrights when it's enough? Where does the, even though we say we're not, self centered writer director or playwright end and the audience begins so that we are able to see what will work adn what won't.

¿Te duele?

This was the final play of the festival our drama group had been attending during the week, it was in the San Marcos university campus, FAR FAR AWAY.

The play began with a married couple who got into their new house and set up a boxing ring with christmas lights, this is the main metaphor throughout the play, marriage is a boxing match because of an abusive husband. (This metaphor, although used many times, I'v never seen been interpreted in a play before.)
What i really liked about this play is that it had a concept and it was different, i loved the unrapping of the furniture and the way they showed the audience how the couple had children. I think they were very creative in the aspects of scenery, props, etc. The acting was also quite good but what really stood out was the physical work. The actors were so much in control of their bodies, which is one of the things every actor needs to master. The way the actor carried the bride around the stage and she managed to stay perfectly still and stiff was incredible, the way in which they slept was my favourite part because not only does it show the precense of skill but confidence in your fellow actor which is also something every actor needs.

I also think, even though they had an almost metaphoric approach to domestic abuse, they were spot on on what was domestic abuse.

Despite its tremendous effort on physical work, the play was not perfect, i think it started rather slow (some people fell asleep) and the parts when there wasn't any strong actions i just can't remember, that cannot be a good thing can it? i think they forgot to find a balance that keeps the audience just as entertained when they speak without extreme movement and when they perform fantasticly choreographed actions.

So, on that note, how can we find that balance? and what to do when one of those actions goes wrong in the middle of a performance? how can we appeal to everyone?

Complete Failure

We went to see a play but we didn't get in the theatre.

Final Question?

Why are our outings to the theatre so disastrous? why? What did we ever do to them?

Niña de cera (Maritza Nuñez visit)

This was, by far, the best extracurricular theatre experience of the whole year, mainly because all the other ones were complete pieces of c-r-a-p but also because it came at the perfect time.

A few days before that wednesday Robbie gave us a script, Niña de Cera, a monologue written by Maritza Nuñez and inspired by the life of famous Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral. We were supposed to read it, well, I didn't. The very idea of reading a long monologue that composed an entire play was just painful, but when the day of her visit came i was proved to be wrong.
Gabriela was read by our very own Miss Alicia, the other characters were read by the author herself and the rest by Robbie Ray.

Their voices smoothly read the whole script with very few stumbles, a rather emotional and spot on interpretation from Miss Alicia blended with the marvelous melodic and, what I think to be, one of the best voices since James Earl Jones' (googlealo Robbie) of Maritza Nuñez and the monotone ( as it should be for the reading) voice of Robbie. I am very pleased to say I really enjoyed the play, it was rich with symbolism, character depth and beautiful quotes that fit its perfectly with certain scenes.

After the reading there was a Q&A section, the questions were either related to the play itself or to her experience as an actress-playwright-director. I payed most attention to the answers she gave about playwriting, since that is my task for this year's play, i was very impressed with her answers and the warmth she put into them (it felt like sitting with a friend for coffee) though i do think she went along the edges a bit too much i think they are useful to help us understand what is in them.
One of her answers to a question about playwriting was about the stage annotations, she said she writes what is vital otherwise you limit your actors. I thought that was very useful and i realised that i write too many ones, mainly because i have a very clear image of what i want to happen in a scene i write but, then why have actors? why have actors with ideas? why not just do it myself? and i came to the conclusion that it isn't useful to limit the actors because otherwise, the beauty of theatre that is having different people act out a play in different ways, different interpretations, dissappears therefore making going to the theatre a very boring experience.

In general i thought this was a very useful learning experience that i would love to repeat again with another playwright or actor or director.

Las not-so-fantastic aventuras de la capitana Gaspacho

After a long lasting streak of really bad plays, Robbie had told us we would go to see "Las fantasticasm (or tremendas, not quite sure) aventuras de la Capitana Gaspacho" in hopes of actually enjoying it.
In true friday night play fashion, the play was a complete, almost painful disaster.

Although it did possess a very interesting concept and premise, a captain and her one man crew embark on a journey, there was a slightly entertaining sequence where the captain asked for different things on the ship be fixed/prepared and only one man did them.
The scenery for the first scene was good, instead of having your typical ship, you had a wooden platform with unconventional elements representing other objects from the ship (eg. A wheel was the stiring wheel, a toilet was a seat or throne, a teddy bear was a star.)

I also liked the fact that there were three different scenes going on and that they eventually bled into each other (this is one of the few liver driven comments i will do, sorry robbie.) it was a la-it's all business.

The other scene was about two sisters, one talking about how a man had stolen her 5 o'clock, therefore tea time, and she would now go on to take tea at five always, she was now british.
The other sister wasn't actually listening, she responded according to a "movie" she was watching (another interesting element, the movie was the first scene), this had potential but the actress was not very good, there wasn't the necessary umph behind her lines, i think she was just blurting them out in a trying-to-be-sweet way, without actual intention.
The first sister, the one that wouldn't shut up about the tea, she was good i thought, but again, the extra punch several of her lines required (eg. when calling her sister a whore) was lacking for me, monotonizing her character a little bit, thus making her boring.
The scenery of this scene was pretty, interesting yet, it was just a pretty set of table, chairs and clock, there was no creative process present which, let's be honest for the simple pedestrian man with no studies on theatre, is absolute non sense because pretty furniture will forever be pretty furniture, but for us, IB theatre students it is very important, vital even to have a concept behind a play, this will help with absolutely every aspect of a play.

The third and last of the little scenarios was a simple table with chairs and table cloth (no creative concept again.) it was a housewife who cried over a bird, sh wouldn't cut onions nor chicken because she thought "if i cut onions and cry, what would happen if i cut chicken." , her abusive husband beats her.
The woman was not a very good actress, she did not know how to deliver her lines and the infamous and extremely painful, boring and overused "Alguien tiene un fosforo?" at the end was by far one of the worst jokes of the play.
When the husband chased her around the table, it wasn't believable enough, believable in the sense that the audience knew the effort put into it, and although i do think there was effort, i don't think that part of the scene, and other chases similar to it, were completely squeezed out of their whole comedic potential.

The oral sex scene was very funny, yes, but it was such a Risas Y Salsas kind of thing, and having her sitting on the table was not a very good idea, because of the whole When Harry met Sally (ijij) fake orgasm scene with Meg Ryan, i mean, for the actors to take such a defining scene that had strong cultural impact and try to emulate that (aware of it or not) they had to have amazing results for it to stand out, yes it got a few laughs but i think it was mainly because of the situation rather than the execution of it.

Another major problem for me was the lighting, it was too yellow and created so many shadows in so many wrong places, at times the actors faces were completely darkened and it was impossible for me to see their facial expressions, and since, let's face it, they weren't good enough at the actual delivery of the lines, i was also completely oblivious of the character's feelings.

In the end all the scenes mix with each other, the characters eventually meet and chaos ensues. The court scene i thought was well executed in a technical sense, the acting was not quite there yet, except for, who i thought to be the standout of the play, Jorge (not his real name.) However, his character started on an energy level of 10 (out of 10) with lines and actions to match, so there was no space for the character to grow in intensity and overall impact. He almost flatlined in a high level throughout the whole play.

Las tremendas aventuras of la capitana Gaspacho, yet another example of a terrific script that combines good old fashioned verse with contemporary elements and potentially incredibly hilarious situations and characters, executed poorly or perhaps, rehearsed fantastically but in the final performance the energy went down the drain. Or maybe they were just bad.

Directing is key, i am not sure and quite certain i never will be, wether this play and its actors were pushed hard enough for it to be great during rehearsals by the director and in the end nerves got the best of them, or if the lack of creative concept was product of lackluster directing.

So, in terms of directing, if he/she works extremely hard enough with positive response and results from the actors, why is it that when it comes to the actual performance, all that process vanishes and what can the director do about it?

Down to earth, Mr Malice and writing parts of the play

This year, the play is called Down To Earth, it tells the story of Sophie, a young scout girl who is recruited by some superheroes to help save the world, in the end act 2 (yet to be written) happens.

I have been chosen to help Diego write the play, the system is he writes a scene and sends it to me so that i add or correct things, the he checks it and turns in the final draft. The problem is that we write in very opposite ways, he tends to underwrite so to speak and i tend to overwrite, the play is supposed to be for children so we have to find a happy medium so that children and parents can enjoy the play.

Another problem is the input of the children who participate in the play, although i think it's very cool that the children's ideas are taken into consideration, some will be dissapointed because unfortunately, we can't write ALL of their ideas in and even if we do they won't be as spectacular as they want them to be because, well, the budget doesn't allow us to make a child dissolve into a black substance that creates fire wherever it goes...

so, how can we incorporate all the elements to get all the kids to be happy (remember, a happy worker is a good worker) without compromising the overall message and the play itself?
_____________________________________________________________

Mr. Malice
My character for the play this year is called Mr. Malice (frani's husband) and he's a villain, my power is karma inspired, whatever is done to me happens to frani and whatever happens to her happens to me, if frani dies i die. This is really great because Mrs malice and i have a disfunctional marriage, so when she hits me it hurts her too, this gives us plenty of things to do that could be very funny.
I still need to work on my character, i need to figure out what to do when i'm not saying anything and how to say things, what accent to have if i have any (i was thinking british, but, there are several brits in this play so i think i need to come up with something more original. I also need to work more with Frani since we are always together in the play we need to kind of rely on each other.
I think, since we have the whole karma thing going, working more with physical work would be very interesting and potentially quite funny.

My personality is yet to be defined, Mrs. Malice is crazy and bipolar, but i was thinking it would be very nice for us to complement each other in a disfunctional marriage way, when she's crazy i'm calm, when i'm crazy she's calm. I also came up with the concept of us being stepford-ish (not in a sense that we do as we are told but more of the overall feeling, unexpressive faces with fake smiles, cold, almost non-present but very present in a weird way because when i'm like that frani is going crazy and when she's like that i am, get it?), i know that the wives were the only ones that acted like that, but it would be nice for both of us to be, so that we create an uncomfortable but funny atmosphere with the audience and the characters around us.

Cocina y zona de servicio

Undercooked, that's the perfect word to describe the play we went to see this friday with robbie. As we rode in his red yaris the words of a young student in our theatre class fluttered around my head "it was INCREDIBLE, the play was so much fun i loved it", did you arianna? really?

Cocina y Zona de servicio is an award winning dramedy written by the recognized duo that is Agnes Jaoui & Jean-Pierre Bacri, after a very succesful run in theatres the play was then adapted into another succesful venture, a movie in 1994. This year that play was put on La Plaza ISIL, directed by Marisol Palacios and starring Montserrat Brugue and Sergio Galliani.

The first thing you see when you enter the theatre is a perfectly put together kitchen, a glimpse of a beautiful living room and hallway, freshly washed sheets hanging from a cord in the outdoor hallway, yes, pure perfection... that is of course if you built a house, but it was scenery that i was looking at and even though it was beautifully built it showed no creative process, it didn't showcase the main concept of the play, because being the first thing you see, it should be, in my opinion, the most representative of the main concept of a play.

The play is about a group of friends who reunite after 10 years without seeing each other, although this seems like just your average reunion, there is and emotional backstory to it, Martina was or still is emotional about her old friend (who is now rich and famous and married to another old friend), the reunion begins an hour and 30 mins later, leading into total chaos which eventually "climaxes" (notice the use of "" since it doesn't climax, it just ends) in a discussion in the kitchen and all the characters are seen crying and depressed.

Rather than having an actual plot, the play developes through a series of mishaps that emotionally break the characters. This gives it enormous potential however this is a play that never reached boiling point, and after the first hour i was praying for it to do so, the climax of the play did get some laughs out of me but in the back of my mind i kept thinking "this could be so much better".
The acting became comedic one second and dramatic the next (especially with Martina, Montserrat Brugue is very good with comedic exaggeration but this performance fell in an awkward in-between, had it all been comicly exagerated it would have worked.)
The character Carla also had potential but the actress wasn't very good, i think she portrayed the character giving only 50 % of her energy because it seemed that whenever she walked into the scene it slowed down and eventually fizzle away, her dialog (and most of the play) was full of curse words that could have been exploited for her advantage, given more punch but she fell short of "punch", she didn't have any.
Even the actions of the actors when they weren't saying anything felt very awkward and just plain bad (when they were relfexive or depressed there was the typical fake-lean-on-the-wall and the character of Freddy always had his hand on his hip, that just made my eye twitch because it felt so fake and awkward, it was plain wrong.)

The music, OH DEAR GOD THE MUSIC. Even though the songs that were chosen are very popular and well known by everybody, they had no relevance what so ever to the play and personally i think made the play very cheesy especially during the PAINFULLY long scene changes.
At times, a song would play for a little more than a minute and the characters would do actions and say no words, i think this made the play look like a montage from a movie and overall i think that's what happened with the play as a whole, it tried to seem like something that would work on televison (like a sitcom) and lost its way through the process, i think it was trying too hard to be funny, so hard it seemed like it wasn't trying at all or perhaps it wasn't, relying too much on it's actors, on the script it self and on the lackluster directing.

Overall, the play never lived up to its potential and never quite exploded in such a way that it would turn into pure comedy magic, it just flatlined with some spikes of laughter but never really caught my attention.
After the play was over, the thought of putting this play ourselves occured to me, to make it better and more entertaining, however, i couldn't help but wonder:
If we did, how could we turn this play into something more artistic that has more of a concept rather than just putting a play that represents more how things would take place in real life?

Spanish Golden Age Theatre Costumes

During term one we have been studying spanish golden age theatre (historical context, playwrights, scenery, costumes, the works.) .
We began by summerging ourselves in long lessons of theory with roberto learning the basics and general facts, from there we were assigned to do a power point presentation in order to dig deeper into the conventions of the time, however we needed to cut away our periferal vision by focusing more on a specific point, hence the research question. Since my area of choice was costumes i came up with " What would actresses that represented higher class women wear during plays?" this allowed me to focus more on one character (called the Dama) because costumes aren't just a materialistic thing that people seem to find so shallow, they are one of the most representative aspects of both, Spanish Golden Age Theatre and its characters.

Costumes can give you unsaid information about characters, they can give details that you couldn't know by reading the script not only by the way they are built but also by the way the character wears them, with pride? (a queen) carelessly? (a servant) or with selfconcioussness?

In order for me to research roberto gave a book to me about costumes in theatre and after reading through it, it didn't provide as much information as i thought it would, not because it wasn't a good book but because it wasn't focused, it provided general information about each period of theatre (from Greek to contemporary) and the rest was more about the costume building it self. So i found my self with just a glimpse of what the S.G.A.T costumes looked like...what to do? where to go? who to ask? well Google.

But Google had failed me, there was little or no information on the costumes on S.G.A.T but i realised that there was something that linked S.P.G.A.T with the rest of the theatre traditions during the 16th and begginings of 17th century, fashion. And luckily for me, the costumes in theatre of those times were pretty much people's everyday clothing so i researched all night and got really good bits of information and great pictures. The general consensus was this:

• Increase in opulence (bigger is better, more is better, more expensive is better)


• The farthingale was very important.


• Corsets, corsets, corsets.

But a question remained to be answered, why? why go through so much trouble just to look good, to look expensive? and as i searched and searched for an answer i was unaware that the answer was less intricate than i thought, Because they liked it, because they wanted to look good and also because theatre was an oportunity to dress up in any way you wanted to (mainly because of the sumptuary laws).
In the end i was really proud of my power point, however i couldn't help but wonder: if they wore clothes that were worn in everyday life, when we put on a play that was written in S.G.A should we wear clothes from that time or should we just wear what we want to? and if so, would this have the same impact?
_____________________________________________________________

Puppets (review 1)

Puppets, a form of theatre that requires mastery of skill, great humour, a good plot and a lot of heart.

Hold that thought.

Now take a combi to Centro Fundación Telefónica Av. Arequipa 1155 Santa Beatriz, Lima. Watch the entire show.
Did your thoughts evolve to "THANK GOD IT WAS FREE, I JUST WAISTED AND HOUR AND A HALF ON THIS C-R-A-P".

Upon entering, the "stage" is set up in a black, box shaped room like structure in which the puppeteers operate from the inside while the puppets are shown on the top, you assume that the black cloth would prevent the puppeteers hands from showing but... the lighting, or the lack there of, was terrible.


The first mini play was called "El zorro y el Puma", set in a desert land with a soft andean music in the background, you think "hey, this could be good."

You were wrong.

Through a series of predictable twists, turns, chases and falls, it tells the story of a lonesome wolf who trips around the desert searching for food. On his way he encounters a squirrel, a grey form of Scrat ripoff (the squirrel from Ice Age robbie... the squirrel from Ice Age...) whom he misserably attempts and fails to eat. (Predictably, of course, the wolf is hurt during the process, this does get several laughs from the kids and some from adults, but from us, it merely got slight chuckles that expressed our boredom.)
The wolf then is teased by a fly, this, as to be expected, leads to another series of chases and falls. Finally we are introduced to a Puma, who is proudly hiding his fresh food, eventually the wolf finds the food and eats it and the Puma, well, he kicks his butt, for all our sakes.

What I did find interesting from the first play was the use of voice, it was all through sounds that were representative of each animal and they were the most enjoyable, maybe even funny part of the play, but in true crappy puppet show fashion, all good things must never start, or in this case, come to an end. The actors started speaking, the voices were very Risas y salsas-ish and they ended making the play even worse.

The second mini play, "Divertino", was done with another technique, called Visible puppeteer, in which you can see the actual person moving the characters. The actual puppets were interestingly made, out of paper and tape (the kind you put on your radio) and colored with pens and pencils. You think: "isn't he point of puppets that they move on their own? why go that way? hmm, it must be REALLY GOOD to afford doing that".

Again, you were wrong.

This one was about a homeless hippie who steals garbage, on his way he meets an angry cop and a rat who lives in the garbage, they both try to stop him.
The good thing is it had a more developed plot and characters than the first one but again, it became so repetitive that we found ourselves trapped in a loop of bad dialog, and sadly bad puppeteering skills.
In a very kiddie-theatre way, this was the only play that interacted with its audience, unfortunately this made it even more of a cliche and less of an enjoying experience.

The third and last actual play was called "Fuga" and it was part of a series of plays that were adapted for kids, it presented a very intriguing concept: a dead person escaping from death (yes, more chase sequences), sadly...it was bad too.
Death ended beaten up by a Hitler-ish man who dug his way out of the grave, I, on the other hand wanted to dig my way into it.
The music was somber and very Horror movie-esque, there was no use of lights but one candle on the corner that was about to fall and burn the place down...yay.

The last of the mini plays wasn't even a play, it was a series of "dances" of two marionettes, it showed a lack of skill because the so called dance, was just the wiggling of the strings in order for the legs to move, and yes, it was also a complete disaster.

I consider this a learning experience, a how not to, if you will. Since the school play this year will be for children, we needed to learn what were the conventions of that kind of theatre, and this represented every single one (falling, chasing, interacting with kids, etc.) but ended up being just bad theatre.

You see, what was meant to be a celebration of the now established World Puppet Day turned out to be an endless, utterly painful experience. The weird thing is, when we were little toddlers we enjoyed this kind of theatre, we loved to see the main character fall down or be beaten up/ripped to shreds by an andean puma, but now that we are older we see the flaws, we don't se the fun but the flop.

So i can't help but wonder, if we need to put on a good quality play that makes both children and their parents laugh, but we can't do what we saw, what can we do?