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.
domingo, 20 de junio de 2010
martes, 15 de junio de 2010
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.
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.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)