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?
