Hebras, again.

I have already seen this play around the same time last year, having said that, it was extremely different, not because of the addition of a guitar player but because one of the actors was replaced by a woman.

Back then, the simple fact that all the actions were done by a man and a woman, instantly gave some sort of romantic connotation to the play, making people's minds turn to ideas of domestic abuse or at least some quarrel between married people. This was indeed understandable and perhaps even commendable, because it shows people have, well, emotions or at least the ability to connect with a case that wasn't their own. The play was very good then but now, having changed one actress for an actor, it's even better because with that simple yet huge change the play has completely broadened its scope in terms of the interpretations of an audience. Combine this with the use of masks to neutralize the actors into not being or having "characters" but being more of an entity, a figure for man in general (perhaps an allegory to a certain extent) that serves as a wonderful canvas for the audience to paint their own or someone's story into, thus making each one's relationship with the play very much personal.

One of the interesting things that popped up during the Q&A session after the play is that the initial pose, "rupture" of the entity in two and the bandages signify some sort of separation of parts of the same person, and thus the bandage to heal the wound. Even though I didn't get that during the actual performance, I thought the pose and the separation and the play coming full circle again represented the addictive, relentless and deeply troubled nature of human relationships that, even though one says he/she will never do it again they end up doing it anyways and thus end up in the same place they began (which as I write I notice, is very much swayed by the previous impression I had of the play, when there was an actress and it inevitably became about domestic abuse), but I can, however, appreciate and observe that when given the idea, which is a very good thing because it shows again how the interpretation of pretty much anything in this play is entirely subjective (now I'm not saying that if some lunatic came to me and said that Hebras was about a man's relationship with his car I could see it, but you catch my drift).

What is most significative and impressive about this play, besides the fact that it appeals to everyone and could hold special meaning to everyone, is the physicality of it all. It's the way in which this concept or idea of human relationships is presented, through fantastic physical movements that make the ritual aspect of the play (the seating arrangement, etc) mesh together and work, because, rituals have been performed for centuries and human relationships have been around for centuries, so ti makes perfect sense to see this play as some form of ritual. This indeed makes me go back to my independent project, about craig's ubermarionette and the effect of body movement in a play. By stripping the actor of any possible form of identification (blank neutral mask) and making him or it (the entity or figure) perform this sequence of movements, they have managed to capture the spirit of the thing, the essence of the physicality of relationships, every movement had a start and an end, which sort of matches up to the whole play itself, I particularly enjoyed how the actors themselves created the threads with their bodies, and i think it was a good decision to leave those to the imagination of the audience, this also leads me to think about Qorihuaman in which the actor created the space with his body through miming, now, it's not the same thing but they do share a concept, in this case, the fact that there are no props or "set design" also helps the audience to let their imagination run free, without any indicator of a time and place or a name or a face, allowing them to paint this empty canvas themselves, I say empty not because there is no substance in this play, because there is, and them some, but because it is carefully done to keep its neutral aspect, to keep the actors hidden in a way that allows them to be so free that through their movement and their faces shielded with the mask, they could be just about anyone.

The music again plays an important role, an atmospheric one, one with excellent performances by the violinist and guitarist, my only observation here is that I much preferred the previous arrangement, with just violins rather than the addition of the guitar. This could very well be due to my flair for the dramatic, but it's just that, there is something special to the violin, it's an instrument that's sophisticated and it can put the audience into the trance that is this play, whereas the guitar added some, although pleasant, pedestrian quality to the play, it's strings sort of reminded me I was in the coast of Peru and prevented me from flying off to far far places. Now, it's only a suggestion and an observation, the play is in no way diminished by the use of the guitar, but, without it and a second violin, it's becomes deeply entrancing in a level one can only imagine and hope for.

I wonder about this play, because, the students who've seen it, have seen it because they have to, and by some of their (immature, yet valid) reactions they wouldn't have particularly chosen to see this play if they were given the choice, so why does one go to the theatre? Is it for the mere escapism of it all? "to have fun"? or is it because people have the urge to see a play that they can connect with? If the latter one, then we have discovered why theatre and culture are so tightly knit together, because that urge to feel part of a community and to seem as if we influence it in some way or the other, is a wonderful tool that any playmaker can (and should) use in order to have their play transcend into the audience's lives. I'm not saying that now, in my everyday life I'll be constantly concerned about my way of handling interpersonal relationships and the threads that join us together, but, I will, occasionally and perhaps even involuntarily, because of any stimuli that triggers memories from this play, dwell into the vast world that is my imagination and my reflexive capabilities and wonder, wonder about the state and effect of the threads in my life, and that, in today's world in which people can seem so selfish, is more than any playmaker could ask for.

for my independent project i have decided to research Gordon Craig, his theory of the ubermarionnette to be more precise. at first of course i wanted to do something different, i wanted to study puppets and the disappearance of the actor when they are used by him (if he is the actor, if the puppet is the actor, then i would've investigated why, etc) but this task proved to be too complex for the short period of time, especially when it came to getting resources to study from (books, puppets, etc). To be quite honest, my mind wanted to study every single area of theatre and some proved to be to simple to study. So along the same lines of the puppet investigation, i decided to study Craig's ubermarionnette, and luckily the disappearance of the actor was still very relevant.

before i begun my actual research, i knew little about the concept and what was behind it, and to be quiet honest, it just sounded as a very extremist point of view or desire for a puppet to do the director's wishes. Yet upon further investigation, I began to sympathize with Craig, in fact, some of his ideas and most part of his theory makes perfect sense.

to sort of summarize my findings in a very general, and very broad way, here are some of the most striking and very true parts of Craig's theory that i could explore:

- he speaks about symbolism, there's almost a kabuki air exuding from his ideas, he says: "they must create for themselves a new form of acting, consisting for the main part of symbolical gesture" this perfectly sums up his overall view on the perfect actor, and acting itself. He does not wish for theatre to represent or imitate real life, he wants it to be an art form, and art has form, it has a way to present things other than the way they actually are. although clear, craig does make me wonder: would this new, perfect form of acting that every actor must inspire to create give less credit to those actors that can perfectly reproduce the so called "tremors of the flesh"(emotions)? and if so, would acting itself become so abstract, we could go on and call it interpretative dance? and if I keep pondering (which is perfectly possible for me) I can ever wonder about facial expression, because the face is the key place to look to tell a person's emotions, so would this new form of acting concentrate on the body itself and not care about the face? would theatre become this new form of language that only the most devote people could understand and enjoy? On a personal note, I can appreciate an actor who is in perfect control of his body, and who, together with a director has come up with his own little language of symbols; however I cannot lie to myself and say i don't appreciate and admire an actor who can powerfully reproduce a person's emotions and move the audience and perhaps ( my apologies to craig, who must be rolling in his grave) even himself.
-to try to apply this to my independent i will have to get symbolism that is not too abstract yet abstract enough so that love is not represented by a kiss, especially if it happens after a character has professed his love for another one.


-Craig then speaks on about how "the greater artist is he who creates the impression of the whole genus of donkey, the spirit of the thing." referring to a painter who painted a donkey and labelled it donkey below, thus giving no form to his art, imitating nature. When directing the actors, we have to manage how to, instead of imitating one person, represent that person via symbolism and yet also represent the whole group of people that person belongs to, capture the spirit of "man" in this case. How will i manage to capture that spirit? because the spirit of man is made alive by his emotions, yet, Craig is against the literal representation of emotions.

I wonder, since Craig was a designer and many of his ideas seem rather superficial on the surface, does this make his theory superficial? since he speaks constantly about style, about an artist having to follow rules, or is it so abstract and has so much substance, that capturing the spirit of the thing is the ultimate test for an actor? how can this be done? Another thing i wonder about, say you have a play in which the protagonist is not a human being, but rather an animal,or a fantastical creature, yet he experiences emotions, would this imply that an actor trying to portray those emotions, maintaining the feel of the creature rather than trying to make him as human, be rejected by Craig's point of view? How can we capture the spirit of the thing, if the thing is something totally new to man? (say an alien, or a mermaid, or a dragon)

miyuki y los tres demonios.

the play is over and now it's time to think about the entire process and reflect upon our work, first of all i feel that directing the play has been the best way to close my school play process because it has been an amazing learning experience and quite the challenge.

In general i feel i did a decent job, however there were moments (more than there should have been) in which I found myself too passive during rehearsals. This is a lesson on its own because I learnt that directing, especially such a large group of children, requires a hands on method and an active one so that the actors get inspired. What this means is: don't tell people what to do, show them. I found it most effective when rather than telling an actor to do something in a certain way, getting on stage next to him and doing what I wanted him to achieve so that he can copy and *important* put his own spin on it, this worked best on most cases and it was only needed when the actor was stubborn and refused to take plain direction. I wonder, had this method been used all the time, would the actors feel suffocated? or restrained in a way? because having the director show you what he wants would make an actor feel his creative process is being cut short, yet it is the director's job to tell them - and I told them this very often - that a director mustn't tell the actor what to do, the actor has to present an idea and the director works around it if it works or proposes another idea so that the actor can work on that.

One of the biggest mistakes I made is one concerning time management, at first i took over the geisha dance and spent so much time in it, i completely shut out the rest of the scenes, of the play for that matter. However at the end of each rehearsal each group would show what has been done and I would give feedback on that, making up for me not being there directing them, at least a little bit. However, this makes me think upon the fact that, being the play so large and me not being able to split myself into 4 I wonder how does a director cope with this? what is the best way to manage ones time to ensure optimum directing experience? and what is the best way to do it? because i noticed and found it more effective when me, arianna and carlos were present during rehearsals and stood there and worked together, because each of us directed the scene that was being performed in a way that concerned our assigned production task, arianna gave direction that somehow related to the overall design of the play, carlos gave direction that concerned mostly on learning the text and interpreting what this text means and i gave direction in terms of the acting and the actual performance of the scene: through this collaborative process I felt rehearsals ran at their best because we had the entire production team working together, therefore the details I missed out on (which makes more than one question arise: how does a director check everything? how can he ensure that he hasn't missed on any detail of the performance?) were pointed out by the rest of the production team. I can't help but wonder what method of directing is best, a solo director? because in this case if my work wasn't satisfying enough (and this is me reflecting, not complaining) then it would be edited by Roberto the general director, therefore i found that directing is similar to acting in a way because an actor must propose and explore the ways in which he can act in a way he feels would work on stage for a certain performance and a director has to explore as well, explore the ways in which he can have the actor act for a certain performance, explore the different actions an actor can do -however i learnt this has to be done prior to the actual rehearsal because there really wasn't any time to explore during the rehearsals, a director, especially one with a play that has such a specific concept has got to plan the scenes beforehand so that he can state and explain his vision clearly to the actors, keep them in the loop because they aren't puppets, they are an essential part of the direction and of the play itself - especially in a situation such as this one where we have a general director and a mentor that is always checking to see what we have achieved.
I also found rehearsals to run smoother when we had the playwright, the director and the overall director in charge of the entire performance present during rehearsals because again, the input from each one of us was different (however we coincided in several things), i'll admit it's intimidating to give direction when Roberto is giving direction but I found it most rewarding when I just gave direction and he left, because i knew he left because he felt that I could be in charge for a while so i conclude that being shy and having second thoughts on your ideas is a big no no for directors, because the director being presented as that to the actors in the play has to inspire confidence in the actors (something i feel i did too late, when the pressure of the actual performance came closer) and has to motivate them to keep working and trying to find another way of performing actions in their scenes (if the ones they have been using didn't work as much)

One big question in my mind is regarding the amount of help I had, i'm not sure whether that is the way it should be done but I feel that having many people helping and directing scenes when i was directing another scene and then present their work on stage so that i could give them feedback is a positive way of directing a play, because, again, it was impossible for me to be in every scene at the same time and when help is available, you don't say no to it.
This was another aspect of the direction process I noticed, it was easier, by far, for me to give direction upon other people's work (scenes that were rehearsed without me there) and input new ideas to keep the scenes entertaining than giving direction and starting a scene from scratch. I wonder why this is, does any of the two methods devaluate the other? is there a better choice? and does the fact of being a director mean that help is out of the question? should a director direct every little detail of the performance? because in this case, as i said before, it was best to direct when other people from the production team were present, i reflect upon a comment Valentina made, she said that that is how rehearsals should be: with the playwright, the general director and the director present, all of them creating together, which could be true for this performance (one of this magnitude) or all performances perhaps? because don't we always say that theatre is a collective experience? doesn't this apply as well to the creating process? and don't two heads think better than one?

There were moments in which i got extremely frustrated with the actors because of their stubbornness, having spent over a month on teaching them the kabuki position and way of acting (at least the basics because, let's not forget kabuki actors train since they're extremely young) seeing them completely overlook and simply not use that position or way of acting and talking was well, frustrating. Other moments were when I directed them and they nodded only to forget or overlook what i had told them , having me repeat several things to them several times (too many times) now, this may sound like i'm complaining but actually it opens up a Pandora's box full of possible reflections and solutions because i ask myself, if the director gives direction and the actor refuses to take it what is there to do? how does one manage such a situation? should one give up and move on? keep insisting? it was a surprise for me to see that after the later rehearsals in which we did a run through of the whole play (or as far as we got) and i gave the actors feedback (having me take notes rather than direct them during the performance) the next rehearsal i really did see an improvement, and i saw several (most) actors taking into account the feedback that had been given to them, so to answer my question about insisting or not, i think letting it go and have them correct themselves during later rehearsals (when pressure and stakes are higher, since opening night is looming ahead) or retell them such direction during those rehearsals because that is when they were, at least i felt, more focused and more concentrated on getting things right (at least most actors)

overall i feel the experience has been extremely rewarding for me and i have truly learnt so much from it because as a director i was aware not only of my job but of other people's job thus my learning is far broader than that of a prop designer or a costume designer. I did stumble several times but the important thing is that i learnt something and applied the feedback (harsh but necessary) that Roberto gave us in the next rehearsal, i have discovered that directing and acting, although seemingly different, posses some similarities and directing in itself is something every actor should try at least once, because it enabled me to be aware of the director and i think, if i were to act something i would be much more concentrated and focused because i now know the hard work every person in the production team or working in any aspect of the play for that matter is putting into the performance. I'm extremely grateful that i asked to be director, and that nobody said no because i feel this experience is priceless and sort of gives me a broader perspective of what performing and theatre is.

HOWEVER i cannot help but wonder on all of the questions i have presented in this entry, especially those concerning what directing method is better and why should one be applied and the other left out. In terms of a final question I don't have just one, more like a million. why should there only be one director? what way of directing is best? an does this differ from the type of performance and the tradition it's being performed in? (say the caporal, he's there to ensure proper practice of the comparsas dances yet he has very little input in the actual performance because the tradition stays the same) how does a director deal with stubborn actors? how do you teach people how to act? (because some of the actors weren't exactly masters of the craft yet, those tricks roberto gave me to have them play with their faces really worked however i feel that they wouldn't work if they were to act in a realistic play or a drama, because they worked because the tradition allowed them to work) can you teach someone how to act? or can we say that we give them the necessary tools to fake it till they make it?

kill me

DANCE
this dance is driving me insane, however i really think i'm on a breakthrough because for the past rehearsals we had this whole routine that looked good on paper but once it was put in performance it didn't work as much, i had the geisha dance separately but now, given that the ending is so much better (both on paper and live) than all the rest of the dance i scratched the rest of the dance and made it more like the ending, meaning the geisha now dance as a group, as a unit or at least more than the first dance we choreographed. this allows a bigger effect and it allows for me to concentrate on that effect when directing rather than concentrating on every geisha to learn and execute their own little dance perfectly. HOWEVER now that they do more things alike and together, the little mistakes and imperfections on their posture and overall performance as geisha are extremely noticeable thus i feel like i'm back to square one (at least in terms of having to correct each girl until perfection, which i´m very aware is impossible).
it was also very useful for me to have another person direct the girls (valentina) and then show me their final product. i noticed that the way she directed the girls was different to mine, she was giving them references that because of their age, they would understand and respond to (mulan,etc) and i could see they enjoyed doing things and working with her so i thought this could be applied when i'm directing them, so when they showed me their final product i was rather shocked to see that they still put the lackluster performance they always do, the same mistakes were made and when speaking to valentina she had the exact same notes and complaints as i did (complaints in terms of performance, not in gossipy terms so calm down) therefore i was relieved, it wasn't me who was the problem, it's not the directing here. however i'm really nervous and preoccupied now because this must mean the problem is them, they just wont work properly even though they all give it their all because, in terms of kabuki and performing they just cant, so this leads me to think and wonder if: is it true? are there people who just can't? what is a director's role here? because in terms of acting roberto taught me a wonderful trick, have them play with their faces (pout, frown, etc) and there really wont be a need for honest facial expression , in that case, they can fake it BUT what is to be done in terms of the physical performance (which is basically their whole performance)because you can't have a girl fake it when it comes to keeping their heads facing forward or their knees together, or smiling or the, dare i say it, overtly complicated walk+move shoulders+move head concept that is just too complicated for them to do? because to have actors fake facial expressions you tell them to frown constantly or pout and they do it, whereas here to have them fake it they actually have to know it. so how do we teach them? how can you teach someone how to act? and how do you direct someone if they dont know how to act?


again, kill me

Rehearsals

So far rehearsals are going as I have expected them to, that does not necessarily mean "well".

i find it deeply frustrating that the geisha are taking extremely long to learn their dance and how their lack of effort and commitment (some at least) is hindering their performance.
i think constant repetition of actions in the dance will help them learn it and it will further engrave in their brains that it's not about whether they want to do anything or not, it's about the play and it being successful. I read in Marowitz' book that a director must have a balance between someone who is firm and gives orders and someone who takes suggestions to make the performance better, however, what if when I take suggestions and agree with them the end product is still the same? (no effort, bad product) or when i'm firm and tell them to work i still get nothing? How does one deal with something like this? because usually, the books and information given by actual directors is mostly about their work with professional or at least experienced actors NOT with 6th grade and above.

roberto came up with the idea to have the geisha along with the ninjas come every rehearsal so that they learn their parts alone. I think this could be effective because they will somehow become bored with not doing anything (what they would do in the first half hour i think) and actually get some work done, maybe they feel intimidated by anyone else's presence (anyone in charge that is) so we'll give this a try.

This week start the actual rehearsals, what i mean by this is the rehearsals of scenes. I think the last one i had was quite successful but i have come to the realization that the actual arrangement of the scene (particularly the ones in the palace) is kind of restraining. I found myself thinking about things the royal family could do, around the stage or even stand somewhere but this would not be possible because they are fixed in the platform, moving them would ruin the aesthetics of the scene so i think yes, this does restrain but isn't that what we want? restrain then earthquake? so i will have people there move only when an earthquake or very important and tense action happens in the scene.

with this last thing i realize that things that restrain us can actually turn to our benefit, so i begin to wonder about the so called "no-nos" of theatre, what is wrong? because say, turning your back on the audience is something that is wrong in western forms of theatre but it could work in other traiditions an places. so
what exactly do we mean and what exactly is, in theatre, wrong?

pedro de valdivia

le alianze francaise was this week's destination for our theatre group, we went there to see a play about the life and work of pedro de valdivia.

upon entering the theatre, the stage is set up in a rather familiar way (suspicious eye brow), with musical instruments bordering the stage walls so my mind went directly to Yuyachkani's con-cierto olvido (mainly a display of the actors' talents and celebration of their repertoire). This was the first hint of how the actors would be like, well rounded i mean because if you put several musical instruments on stage they have to be there for a reason. My mind quickly wondered wether these would be actually used during the performance, and let me tell you something, if they weren't i would be really dissapointed. So we already learn a lesson, dont fill your stage with interesting crap if you ain't gonna use it because you will end up with one pissed off audience. What i mean is, the set design has to be both clever and useful ( serves both the actor and the audience) so when choosing to have the instruments displayed on stage, automatically making them part of the set design itself, you create some expectation in your audience because these are things that can be used by the actor and give some psazz to your play. Thankfully they did.
However i do get one question from this, when can we say something is a prop and when is something part of scenery? because when they were laying there, the instruments were scenery but when played they were props, right? So we can say, and i've said it like a gzillion times, a play is a whole, it's a unity, it's when all of the production elements and then the acting come together to form a magical experience (if it's good) and a bad one (if it sucks). BUT isn't this too modern from my part? because the modern paradigm states that everything is a unit, a total and complete play in this case therefore you can understand everything but isn't me rambling about JUST one thing (in this case the first impression the stage gave me) a very fragmented opinion?

i think, although pointless, this is very useful because it made me identify that to analyze a play a breakdown of its different aspects is very much necessary because you have to be specific and it leads to my believing in not two of the paradigms but both: thus i present to you, with proper grandieur and drama (that i love so deal with it) the new post-postmodern paradigm. because limiting ourselves to either understanding everything or just parts leaves out a very important process that results in this post-post modern paradigm, because to understand (properly) everything at least some form of analysis of every part must be made. This applies to analyzing plays or theatre, to properly soak all of the experience of watching a play, of being a part of a play, you need to understand and break it into parts (technically reffering to design elements acting elements and directing elements) to get to its core (concept)and then go back to the whole play. get it? me neither. (jk)

one interesting thing about this play's first impression is the fact that the actors entered afterwards when usually they are there in still picture. it led me to wonder, what effect does this have on the audience? because having them there in character at the very beggining is far more striking than having them casually enter (as they did in this play) or having them enter in character. so to what extent are first impressions important? because you can have an amazing first impression but then all of the play must be equally amazing so that that awe created in the audience is maintained. or is it better to have a meh first impression (medium, mediocre, or just there) and then start a build up in the overall qualiy of the play?
and wouldn't it be interesting (for learning purposes) to have the actors enter during the beginning (rather than there in still picture) and see the transition from actor to the character?

That is kinda what actually happened in this play, the actors entered in a rather nonchalant way- in not very elaborate costumes that represented the period in which the events of the play took place- and sat down with the instruments and began to sing and play. However i felt they did not get into character upon singing, especially during the beginning of the play so, what effect can this have on the audience? and on the performance itself? because when you go to a play you expect some characters, and even though they did deliver fantastic ones later on there was a lack of characterization upon playing so does this mean they were acting when playing the instruments? or were they just actors playing some music?

speaking of which, music played a very important role in this play, it served as a narrating vessel. This narrating of what could be overtly boring facts was made playful and pleasing by the music, this leads me to think about our own kabuki play and how music is key to it being succesful given that kabuki is such a sensorial experience. For example, when Miyuki delivers her long monoloque, don't you think it would be rather bland if there weren't any music? and wouldn't the constant narrating of things without any song (and clever word play in this play's case) be overbearing and just plain dull for the audience? The difference with our kabuki play is that during the music there are also several actions and dances that are meant to be powerful and interesting for the audience whereas here, more than halve of the actors where just playing the instruments and singing while another one acted or joined them playing. This is why i believe a play has to at least try to appeal to all the senses of the audience, not just center on one however this could be refuted with and example from con-cierto olvido: the entire cast sat down and started to make sounds of a forest or jungle, it was so powerful and realistic that most of the audience including myself closed our eyes and were just swept away, YET did this not eventually trigger all of our senses? because if we think about it, sounds of a forest make you think about something and make you smell, see and even feel different things whereas three men playing guitar and singing is just, that.

Going on with the topic of sound, the sound effects were fantastic in this play and though unrealistic, they worked because the whole vibe of the play was not a serious one, it was a very playful and silly one that really worked. One interesting thing concerning sound is the use of the voice, THIS part was where i really burst into laughter because those sutil yet completely noticeable changes in one or another actors' voice were increidibly comical. Take the chilean accent for example, i thought the play would be po this po that and cachai and all that mumbojumbo but i was pleasently surprised to see they saved those moments to perfect comic timing especially because the colloquial and very not serious tone of their voice was the complete opposite of the situation. EG: when they are guarding the doors and the middle one gets struck by an arrow, that "pero que paso" was so perfect and so natural it had to be one of the funniest one liners of the play and this provides me a valuable lesson, especially because i tend to write on the elaborate side: SOMETIMES SAYING SO MUCH CRAP THAT REALLY COULD BE SAID IN ONE LINE is just, a bunch of crap that yes, might be funny but doesnt share the strength and umph of one hell of a one liner. so already this play that clearly presents well rounded actors (sing, dance act, play instruments, etc) is helping me and hopefully all of those who saw it to be well rounded dramaturgs. Of course the play isn't going to present things on a silver platter, it will spatter you with ideas and concepts and even little moments in it such as this one that must be analyzed in order to get the big picture = third paradigm, post post modernist -really think this could be a thing here.

one interesting convention that was used is the pause, which happened right after the moment i mentioned just before, after the arrow struck him, he stood there for a moment, silent and then the three of them burst into screams and panic which was fairly funny. this pause reminds me of the one used in kabuki and it shows me how this pause can be used not only for dramatic moments (as it is used in kabuki) but also as a build up for comedic moments.

In terms of acting, every single one of the performers acted as a different character a one point or another and i thought this could have been tedious and almost obnoxious for the audience but gladly i was wrong, the transtitions between characters were effortlessly done and even though somewhat abrupt (like the ones leading to the man writing in a scroll with a feathered pen and grandieur) they still worked, because they were meant to be that way, funny too. The acting was very exaggerated and slaptstick at times, serving the comedic purpose of the play (when guarding the doors and moving the hips or when acting scared, etc)and i think the contradiction of such a serious and historical theme with the way it was presented works very well because even though the aim is not to offend but to criticize at least just a little bit, it never seized to be funny and it never seized to be clever and it never struck a nerve (except on what i believe was a 9/11 joke). So another lesson we learn is that thre is no need to be so serious about things, plays and theatre are supposed to be about precisely that: "play", fun so when presenting such a heavy subject like this one that could be a speech of fact after fact after fact could result in one suicidal audience, it is presented in the least expected way possible that surprises and most importantly entertains the audience.
The acting was also effective when creating props and parts of the scenery (the horse, the pen, etc.) and it showed that it is not necessary to fill the stage with stuff ( a whole lotta stuff) because that could somehow exclude the audience from the game whereas if you don't have certain elements and create them through the acting then the audience is going along the play with you. take macbeth for example, in the dining room scene when the ghost of Banquo appears it is the director's choice wether to have him present or not, if he is then the audience sees things from mcbeths point of view and if he isnt they'll think he's insane, thus being with the people sorrounding macbeth and so if they want to be with macbeth then they must begin to imagine the ghost aswell, thus keeping the audience on their toes and continuing to have them following and understanding (or at least wanting to) the action.

Overall i feel this play was very succesful, it entertained but still managed to tell a story (rather than presenting random shenanegans a lá cocina y zona de servicio) and presented the actors as multitalented, well rounded ones. I was thoroughly entertained and managed to learn a lot from this play, because it all boils down to the reflections, if we don't reflect enough or if we don't ramble then no conclusions can be made and therefore the point of watching a play is reduced to the mere enjoyment of it. However there are several questions that arise from watching and reflecting upon this play like to what extent can the impact of this play change? what i mean is, what way of presenting it would be best: the serious one? or the funny satirical one that was presented? because when you think about it, say you have a nice teacher, one who tells jokes and tries hard to make hisher classes entertaining-most of the time- you don't learn squat and eventually forget everything except how fun the teacher was whereas mean, really uptight teachers really have a way to make facts and figures stick in your brain. And now that i wonder, would this play have worked if performed by a group of another country? stripped from its funny regionalisms? because this play had very chilean-esque moments that, if not there, could result in a less funny and effective performance. What if a north korean theatre group performs this play? will it have the same effect?

im tired

so, hit some form of an obstacle since roberto feels i'm not directing them enough (the kitchen scene) and i think he's right, he said i needed to get more creative and put some spark and fun-ness in the scene. i was so focused on getting the concept sequence into the scene (tension pose earthquake) that i think i left out the rest, i felt that the actors would do that for themselves but this is W R O N G because, if everybody did that then there would be no need at all for a director and i would be without a job. so goals for next rehearsal are:

- keep the spark and action of the scene, whether its's a tense and dramatic scene or a hilarious one, present so that the audience wants to see more, so that they don't get bored because ultimately the play is NOT for any of us, it's for them to enjoy and critique, personal feelings of acomplishment aside.


- work on the idea of the "ghost" (i wanted to have miyuki talk and move around while the people listening focused on one place, giving the illusion that she dissapeared and then reappeared somewhere else. roberto was quick to point out it would confuse the audience so i might have to scratch that idea altogether, but still, i think if played well with the lights and the actors themselves it could be a fun little thing to do that would inject some life into a huge monologue. another idea is to have her represent what happened to her with actions but i fear it would be too dramatic YET now that i think about it this scene (numero OCHO) comes right after the intermedio so it would be a nice way to keep up with ourselves and keep the energy of the play going. ESPECIALLY. if what she's saying is OH SO important (it is) because here she reveals the truth and the toriyama are now seen in a different light, they killed her. so what she says has to have some form of resonance so that it makes sense for them to basically go to war, this scene is very important in the play because it manages to twist things and keep them ggoing.


-make sure production goes well, BUT only supervise two or three times because they are beginning to work very well on their own and constant supervision from anyone (me) would be too much to handle and just unnecessary. (Score! trusting people now. moving forward)


-on a less actual-rehearsals-related-note, i had a very succesfull journey to gamarra with kenzo, we came across some fantastic fabrics at the exact same price as arianna's in the exact same store. we found some that hopefully make it to the play itself. i learnt great skills such as bargaining and letting kenzo work on his own, yes i kind of gave him nudges in certain directions BUT mainly let him work on his own, so all and all it was good.


going back to the miyuki scene, EIGHT i wonder, how do we create ressonance in a play? how is that we make certain things stick in the audience so that other events in the play that happen as a consequence of it make sense? and if our play has a message (this on does not, but still, some do) how do we give the necessary strength to that message without overwhelming and ultimately saturating our audience? becuase in real life if you just say something powerful as, i don't know: "he killed me" or "i was raped" or "this world will end" or "do onto others as you want them to do onto you" (which sounds silly but really does help) people understand without paying full attention but sometimes, when they are forced to pay attention (like in a proscenium arc theatre whre they face the stage and nothing else) things that need to be heard or that are important have to be given the necessary umph so that they cross over to the audience.

yes, it might feel out of the blue and yes it might not be so related to our superficial play (which is awesome) but it still relates to theatre as a form of teaching or as a way to give messages to people, sometimes.

when rehearsing the fourth scene of the play, the more domestic one i found myself blocked by the overall inability of the actors to perform so what i did is i repeated and repeated and repeated so much that they understood and did everything they needed to properly, however this failed to be productive since during 2 hours we had only achieved 10 seconds of the scene and i had only worked with two actors and left out the other ones to work on their own. this was a huge mistake, i realized it not only after the rehearsal when carlos said the same thing happened to him but when i found myself drained both physically and emotionally, i never realized how frustrating directing can be at times, but after thinking at home and letting go of the need to control every little detail and "me" part i came to the realization that for next rehearsal i had to have a different attitude and expectations.

so, first i must go into the rehearsal expecting the best but preparing for the worst (wise words from miss alicia), this really helps a lot because it enables me to, well, be prepared. what did i do to prepare? i thought about what roberto had said, dividing the scenes into beats, giving them laban styles or whatever its called, being patient and always have in mind the actors are not perfect. and also, the idea of "friendly" competition and motivation was very appealing, and yes i must admit that stirring the pot always appeals to me but when i really thought about it it did seem to have potential of giving some positive products.

so i brought in nathalie, a possible contender for zuyi's role and i made both of them very aware of that, yes she was frustrated, yes she was angry and yes she was very scared BUT, this motivated her A LOT in fact, nathalie's energy was so contagious that the whole atmosphere and feel of the scene changed and the overall work zuyi did became much better because she had received the motivation and little (well, huge) nudge she needed to move forward. yes, the movements and voice are not perfect but they are trying their hardest and overall the plan was a success. so, after seeing such great effort from the three geishas i decided to let them be exactly that, three, not two as we had planned beforehand. so this makes me realize that not only do i need to give the actors a second chance, but i must be open to changes that either come from me or from the actors themselves, because we have a good batch of creative actors here and sometimes they just need to be a little scared or excited to tap into their potential. now, don't think i just worked with them , no, i managed to split myself in 5000 and work with EVERYONE involved in the scene, the scene was divided in parts, in little scenes inside the scene that involved different groups, i told every group to think and act with Laban movements that, even though some were not aware of them they understood the concept once it was explained to them, i also worked with them and explained the plate tectonics concept and how we would use it in the play, particularly in their scene, yes it was tricky but i managed to make it simpler so that they understood, however here comes my first question: im not really sure if they have to know everything, must they understand and be aware of the WHOLE concept? exactly the same as we explained it to the kids in form 5? or should i break it down for them so that they grasp the concept OF the concept itself (pose, tense, then earthquake) in order for them to apply it quickly into the scene? so far the latter has worked fine and due to time constraints im not really sure if explaining the whole thing is the way to go, but, then again i don't know everything do i?
so after some time of me buzzing around each group in the scene we took the scenes and joined them and yes, we didn't manage to complete the whole scene but we worked a LOT more effectively and got way past the dreadful 10 second mark from last time.
the voice is not perfect and some don't even understand it, but, they seem to be quick learners and be very motivated because i do think that, during this rehearsal, i was less of the cranky dictator i "supposedly" am and was more friendly and it truly works, however there are times when i must be strict otherwise they just play around, but these are just kinks that well, come with the job.

YES my rehearsal was perfect!


NO, i had left out the production meeting and so at the end of the rehearsal i asked for the outcome of that meeting and this is what they had:










a whole bunch of nothing (jajaja manyas, el espacio? clever...) URGH frustrating, because people aren't doing their jobs and i know i can't do everything adn be involved in everything but if me being involved and constantly ask for things results in some form of results where as me leaving them to work alone ends in nothing, what do i do? because in the sheets we have of set design and the order of how it's done they all say: i dunno, let's say step 5 is the designer meets with the director and they decide stuff then all of the following steps don't say director, im supposed to not meddle, but i have to so that they get motivated and do SOMETHING which leads me to the next rehearsal, saturday's

i spent a whole lotta time with production people and we achieved some good things, more than what had been done in any production meeting, in fact, in all of them put together (just sayin') i did this because, apparently, the scene was to be directed by carlos as we had decided before, he was to direct that scene and more while i was to direct other ones, however this doesn't seem right know, given that im director i should be involved in the process (yes it sounds very self absorbed, but is it not the truth? ) i was told to "go direct" and not be so worried about production so i did, but what i found most effective is that during the beginning of the scene i directed taking ideas in from carlos who was next to me, and for parts as creating sequences of movements etc, i left them to create on their own while i checked the production meeting, so that i directed the end product, and found this to be very productive and effective except for those times when people just scattered about without doing things.

overall both rehearsals have been quite productive and very rewarding, i have now discovered one of the perks of being a director, you feel proud of what has been achieved and i think that the fact both the actors and myself are motivated and excited is one very good sign and a very good boost to when we work together because if people don't want to do things (which shows sometimes) then the whole play suffers. so for next rehearsal, the last of this week (fml, this is really bad, we lose 2 rehearsals which is VERY valuable time) i have set quite the challenge for me, because, since we have been progressively stepping up our game, i set 3 scenes to come to rehearse, one will be directed by carlos (which i still believe i have to check from time to time, since carlos tends to ramble and not get to the point thus hindering the possibilities of what could be done during the short time we have) , the other one will be the scene i was working on first, scene four (which by the way, was the actors' idea, so yes, they are motivated to work) , who will work alone (but i think i'll have them work in the theatre as well,so i can direct them a little, since they have been working so well and the scene is yet to be completed) and one more scene to be directed as well, which will be the main focus of the rehearsal, i have good expectations for this, but yes, i am still preparing for the worst which helps a lot.

but still, those sheets about set design have made gumbo out of my head, because they don't mention the director after the meeting with the designer, so, how far must i go? how far should i supervise that they are doing their jobs? how much time should i spend with them? because, let's face it, they kinda have to multitask as well, since the form 5ers are doing production AND acting , so is that supposed to happen? can you truly do both things? successfully? so in the end it all boils down to that, one person doing two or more things in a play, what has to be done other than simple organization to execute both tasks properly?

i've had my humble pie, right?

so far we're going really well, i mean, in terms of organization we`re kinda ahead schedule (which is a huge help) so we can relax.
JAA

no, there shall be no relaxing until we're done, completely done. so far in terms of directing the actors i think i'm doing pretty well, i have learnt a whole lot from watching and being directed by roberto, patty, carlos, valentina, and miss alicia when i was in her class so even though we haven't been truly sat down and taught how to direct we are still able to because we have been directed all along, so, this makes me think about paucartambo and how they get someone to be the caporal, they don't choose the young one, they choose the old and experienced one because he has been learning all of his life and acting all of his life, and in a way, haven't we been as well? we started when we were 5 and now we're 17 going on 18, that's more than ten years of theatre training and learning, so, this makes the process much more dynamic since we don't stop our learning process as actors to begin one as directors, we learn as actors and then, from that process translate it into directing, at least that's what i'm doing and so far i'm doing pretty well.

it is frustrating when a group has been taught something for the past 3 weeks and still they don't do it, but i think those things happen because they don't feel the pressure we do, they don't realize how little time we have to put this play together (some do, some work really hard and have the movements in their pocket, which for me, as a director can be very rewarding.) However, so far the process has been that of training and coaching them in the kabuki tradition, actual directing of scenes comes in the next rehearsal where i will really be directing the actors and moving them along the actual scene. that will be a challenge but i can't wait.

set design has been really important this past week and arianna is in charge of it, i feel that i and all of us should be a part of it along with her (which is what we're doing) and i understand that i must let her work by herself but, i decided to give her deadlines on certain things that really need to be done so that we can all work properly and on schedule, at first i kinda saw that she wanted to kill me, but, it had to be done so that she sets deadlines for herself and delegates to form 5, i've also asked esteban to give me the plotline of the play with annotations on where there should be music and how it should be like, according to each scene. this will not only help me but it will help the musicians and the play overall.
during our first production meeting not a lot was done, i think we need to stop wasting time on trivial things like who got kicked of the play and concentrate on more important things, i also thought it was rather frustrating that i had to ask and push form 5 into giving us proper and relevant comments and suggestions, but in the end i think they understood that they are there to work with us and not just for us.
now, the cyclorama business was decided but i don't agree with it, i thought it was supposed to be the palace resembling THE forest and the forest resembling THE palace (not any palace and any forest), i think it would me much more cohesive and simple for the audience yet i do agree that it would be predictable and rather monotone-ish if we limited ourselves to just one interpretation so in the end i'm convinced and in the end it's not JUST my decision, even though i could get up and say i wanted things done one way because i said so, i'd rather save that for times when it is desperately needed and when a something that could potentially harm the play would take place, not in cases when it helps, if executed properly.

this idea of learning and of this process to become a director still floats in my mind, i can't seem to decide whether you have to take a class on directing to be able to or if it comes on its own, maybe some people just can't do it and maybe you learn by being taught, do you know what im saying? by being directed by somebody else you are learning rather than having a teacher come in and teach you how to direct, i know this seems contradictory with what i have said before but, in theatre there is this fantastic world that keeps growing and keeps you on your feet so that one thing you thought worked can change and evolve into another thing that works even better. so, can you learn how to direct? and if so, how? what is the best or more proper way to learn and to actually direct? because in the end, isn't it all up to the actors during the performance? to do what they have been directed to do? because if one actor is bitter and decides not to do anything, would that be because of the director? and how do we identify when it is an actor's choice or an actor's performance that has been decided by the actor or a decission and product of the director?

rehearsals

before the rehearsal on saturday we really were not moving forward at all, in fact, all that we learnt one day i found myself to be practicing with the group the days after because they had not learned anything at all. I keep having to tell these girls to put the elbows touching the waist or bending their knees, etc. something i should not be doing had they learned, most importantly had i taught them well: have i failed to some extent? whose to blame when actors don't do things correctly? actors or the director? when do we know when it is enough and we should just let the actors perform? how could i get through to them enough so that they learn?

i honestly think they did learn but they just didn't want to perform well, they're tired, annoyed and bored of the same movements every rehearsal BUT come on, kabuki actors train since they're four, these girls have been training for no more than 2 weeks and 2-3 months away from the play being bored is NOT an option. Thank God that las rehearsal things moved forward a whole lot. Knowing their characters and a sequence of every general movement women make during a kabuki play (I figured teaching them all the basics and then start teaching them separately depending on their characters' needs) i explained a little bit of our concept (not really, i just told them to be inspired and try to evoke something from the forest, which they all understood pretty well - i wasn't going to try to explain to the little ones something they don't need to know really, but i know i have to someday during rehearsals so that the actors are fully integrated into this process of making our play happen. fml) and then asked for them to, basing their work on the movement sequence we learnt, perform that same sequence but being inspired and influenced by their characters. turns out they really did know the sequence, in fact, some who were not able to perform it say perfectly actually shone when implementing their characters' body language to it (props to the cocineras, witches and spiders) HOWEVER i was thoroughly disappointed when the geishas didn't know the sequence, in fact, they didn't know how to stand as a geisha (something we had been working on and improving for the past rehearsals).

so, to conclude. the feeling of failure perhaps, disappeared upon seeing some of the girls performances but really took over me upon seeing those that, well, kinda sucked. I felt as if my job wasn't done correctly or maybe it was my fault being the director, however i quickly realized that not everything is my fault, in fact, it stops being about the director when it comes to performing and some weird thing in the mind and body of the actors just does not want to work properly, this is why we as directors must detach ourselves and become spectators when watching the performance so that we can analyze every detail (still keeping in mind the creative process) and then give our actors feedback upon it, so that hopefully, the next day of performing, they will take it into consideration and transform it into an enhanced action and a better performnace.

i still have many questions about directing and have even thought: what's the point if during the actual performance the actors might just throw it all away? how can we, as directors, ensure a good performance from the actors? how do we know the product of our and their hardwork will be properly presented to an audience?

hello. i am tired and my appendix did not explode.

so i'm still trying to figure out where my stress related "mark" will appear (maybe something icky like a blue thing on my tongue or maybe something awesome like a moving tattoo on my forearm or maybe i'll die.)

let's talk rehearsals.

the first few rehearsals were all fun and games for the actors, i found this an excellent way of getting to know them and of identifying those who work really hard and those who don't. I was rather surprised to see some of the best actors slacking and found myself to be pleasantly surprised by those who worked hard. however there are some who try their best but when it comes to actual acting they seem to choke or maybe they just can't. with this i come to one of my first questions: how do you learn to act? can you learn to act? because in theatre (the course) we have yet to be taught HOW to act, what we do learn is the techniques and different ways of acting so that we become better, in fact, the course is not of acting, it's a theatre course it's learning everything you need to put on a solid play because since we're kids we're told not to turn our backs on the stage and talk loudly so that the audience can hear us, etc. we haven't been taught how to portray sadness or how to act as if, i don't know, our dog died. do you see where im going? so then i ponder about a director, hence my job this year, can he/she make an actor who isn't very good, act better? i think not, i think what must be done is directing the actor, working along with the actor so that from that collaboration a better performance can be achieved, a director doesn't carry an actor around, he directs them to the way, he shows them (justifying why sometimes when an actor doesn't seem to grasp what we as directors are trying to tell them to do the director stands and SHOWS them) so that they can do that going along with the play and the style of acting such play requires. HOWEVER i have come to another crossroads because when teaching the girls in my group how to act as geishas when i don't know how to do it perfectly they ask me a valid question: "how can you teach me if you don't know?" and i feel the answer is, i don't need to do it so that you can learn HOW to do it, because what i'm teaching these girls is HOW, how do you do it? the techniques involved in the acting of something. in this case geishas. so that i can see, correct and thus improve their overall performance as geishas. so that they are fully aware of the how. there's a difference in just standing there and doing (acting like a geisha) and have them copy me to tell them how to do it, tell them that the knees have to be together, the elbows stuck to your body, etc. and the result is we make them better as, not actors, but as theatre makers, as someone who is fully capable of fulfilling every task required to put on a good play. as someone who can not only perform a geisha role in a kabuki play (wether they suck or not) but more so as someone who can now pass on those techniques and teach someone else (if they have been paying full attention) thus, what we learn throughout the course is extremely useful and NECESSARY for us to be play makers. so i come to the conclusion that everything in theatre is a collective, it's done at least in twos for example: te director and the actor work together, a director can't work alone because then who acts his vision, the actor can do things alone but in a way he she is his her own director, right? and if they do work alone it's because of what i said before, they have been taught the techniques necessary for a long time that's why there is no director in several theatre traditions around the world usually those that are taught since a very young age so that the actors are aware of how to do things so that they do them perfectly. one of the girls asked me if i was qualified to do this, another one asked me how long have i been doing this. this blog comes from that, i've been learning for the past 10 years of my life the HOW, now it's time to improve these actors' hows (this is getting awfully philosophical, or whatever you might call it.) because even though i'm not a super theatre expert i am aware of the knowledge they are currently acquiring, the one i was taught 4 or 5 years ago.

let's talk kabuki.

i am actually very excited about this play because the tradition we chose is a very interesting one, in fact, it's a very visually stunning and stunning-in-every-other-way one. yet there are some aspects of the tradition that I feel could be changed or slightly (evil laugh) altered so that the play turns out to be, well, better or perhaps more enjoyable for the audience because better in what terms? in terms of kabuki, it wouldn't be "better" because we wouldn't follow the tradition as it is, in fact, the fact that we started to learn kabuki less than 6 months ago means we're doomed even before we started because in order for us to follow the kabuki tradition we'd have to go back in time move to a different country and learn since we're fetuses. (ALERT, EMOTIONAL PART) so i feel it is rather unfair to alter some conventions our kabuki expert desires to alter and not mine (end) as i said, theatre is a collective effort and if we are quick to shut down other ideas for our own interest then overall, we all fail. so this helps me in my role as director (everything is connected in theatre, it's like a spider web in which you are trapped until you die and one of your body parts is used as a prop :) ) and the typical "because i said so", up to what point to we work along with others? and at which point to we stop taking ideas and just say "do it because i said so", at what point do we impose our vision for the sake of the play? what if we fail?

AHH!


so far so good, i feel. i do have kids telling me im just like roberto and that they never see me smile. but, they say this when i'm strict mauricio (which is most of the time because the kids are just wild) but i do laugh and joke around with them but it is only so that they are comfortable around me therefore working in a friendly environment, thus happy. allowing them to tap into their full potential because remember, a happy worker is a good worker. (also, i am missing an annie wig when i direct them so i honestly can't find any resemblance) This is where a balance is important, it is always important. i can't be hitler but i can't be a clown with them because they won't take me seriously so where i feel our performance as directors is hindered is in the confidence the actors have with us, that's why being strict works so that they listen and do things better consequentially making the play better. i feel that for the first two rehearsals i was rather power hungry and wanted to yell at them and make sophie cry BUT after strong medication and thinking i came to the conclusion i said earlier, the balance and the happy worker. i find directing rather relaxing, i've been recently encountering some rather annoying stomach pains but when i direct (which would be a stressful situation) it doesn't really hurt that much.

overall i feel we're heading in a good direction, however it might be to soon to tell since we're just barely getting our feet wet. we still have to go through the different aspects of production and design, that i'm rather nervous about, but, good nervous. as far as directing goes, i feel that keeping it professional is key however i am a teenager and interacting with some of the older kids is kind of unavoidable. i am still haunted by the doubt of the how, how are we able to do something out of a different tradition and do it well? how do i direct something if in the theatre tradition we're doing it in doesn't even have a director in the first place? and which way of directing is the best one? where does my role, as director, end, in terms of the roles of my fellow classmates, do i supervise everything? or do i let it run its course? and if so, how do i direct 106 if im just one? this is when it depends on the actor to pay attention to how i direct others so that the common errors they have are corrected by themselves. making my job and theirs easier.

Masks in sin titulo

short and sweet, im dying.

1: The teacher mask: as the frenzy of the teacher's rampage heightens, the actress then takes a mask that is simple (just the face with holes on the eyes, nostrils and mouth), grey and dark grey horizontal stripes that turns her into this sort of ninja-movement person. This is the only one that i didn't understand, and it's weird because usually masks in yuyachkani don't come out of the blue, but this one felt like it did. This mask changed the way the actress moved, her movements (accompanied by some form of chop sticks) became swift and almost violent, so masks serve as a form of characterization and as an incentive for using our bodies as actors.

2:The politicians and judges, this one was the one i understood the most. Its shape and colors and cartoonish nature had a mocking effect, they mocked the politicians (montesinos, fujimori, etc) and along with the music and body language (and body in general, the head was bigger giving this feeling of having a "big head", or letting the power get to their heads, etc.) gave this part of the play a more comical appeal. so then the semiosis here is to mock these politicians and judges, to present them as clowns and laughing-stocks of the population, however, when we think about it, the actions in the play were not of us fooling them, they were of them fooling us so were they really presented as that? or were they presented as that to further present US like that?

3: the baby in the pot, this one was kind of tricky as well, roberto explained that this play with the elements and the fire in the belly meant something, it meant some sort of inner turmoil in the character, i said it meant she was pregnant, but roberto said it had been more violent than that, so maybe a rape? the mask clearly represented a baby, and in this case it serves as a substitute for an actual baby, like in antigone, it serves as a substitute for a character, but it is also used to represent how that character, stiff, has now been lost forever (when the mask is broken).

4: The blindfold used here, could it be counted as a mask? or is it a mere representative? then, what is a mask? and how far can we push to say that something we put on our faces is a mask? in this case, if it were a mask, it represented blindness and how the character or the population was being played by the government, by the corruption. Here a "mask" represents a state in which the people or character is in, rather than transforming it as it did in the first one or as it would if it were a mask of a bird,

Sin titulo

So today my mind was f**** a whole bunch of times during the play. This is why i really like Yuyachkani, sometimes it's a little tricky, sometimes it's a little blah and sometimes it's amazing. This time, it was.

As soon as we entered the corridor the atmosphere was different, beginning with the in your face text and peruvian flag on the walls and the posters and displays that create this museum like environment. However it ain't your typical museum, in fact it's the complete opposite. The air is thick and the music and low lighting help make an ominous atmosphere. The conveniently shaped theatre (not a conventional stage but rather a box like theatre that allows transformation and better involvement of the audience) also enables the atmospheric nature of the play, in fact, had it been done on a typical stage the play would've been just that, a normal play.
I really loved the setup, each character had one space, they stood still (perfectly still some, except for blinking.) that again, served the atmosphere well. This whole idea of how memories need something to trigger them so that they live on and so that we learn from them is ever so present in this play, in fact it's almost continuously shoved down our faces (not that im complaining), however the execution was so perfect that i did not mind, normally i'd be put off by the overwhelmingly historical context of yuyachkani plays but this time it was different, this time it was one hell of a show. The play reminded me of our concept for this years play, plate tectonics, of how there is this tension that is straining to be released and at certain moments of the play it is. The music started calm, yet tense and unnerving then came to explosive mixes of several songs that heightened the situation (it was fun and bombastic when the magic tricks were being done, it was different when jesus and mary came along and it was different when the crazy teacher started screaming at us.) This helps me think about the music in our play and reminds me of the day we were shown the first piece, i remember i said it was too "happy" and it needed to be more sinister, more tense. Although i was right, i differ slightly now because i'm aware, thanks to this play, that tension doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing (for the characters in the play of course) and that those earthquakes in our play can be comical in nature, thus the music will match and be funny but never ceasing to be strong. however, which one is better? which one has more of an impact in the audience? i particularly feel toward the "evil" one, but that's just me and my love for the drama and tragedy. then again i think, wouldn't that be overkill? just too much? so this is where that really REALLY important balance comes in and now i begin to understand the kabuki tradition on its own, why they use those two types of plays in one show, so that the audience doesn't become saturated and just bored because us, as dramaturgs and playmakers we, instead of savoring those little earthquakes we decide to create one huge one that last throughout the play, allowing our audience to become used to it. Im afraid this play was on the verge of that, however they never really crossed the line to the over OVER the top (gotta go big or go home, big enough to fit your stage and your head). I find theses topics common in most of my blogs and it is because some plays and sometimes me, just don't seem to get it, we might think theatre and spectacle comes from the exaggerated (yes, some styles of acting are but that's not my point, my point is about the overall show) and so that the audience gets something from a play we have to destroy their minds whereas if we savor those moments, the audience will remember them, rather than going "oh, the play was a hot mess of bombs and poofs, i can't remember a thing". This common information, i feel, must be used on my TPPPPPPPPPPPPPP or whatever the hell its name is, because if it happens commonly, then it must not be an anomaly and who knows, it might be one of the reasons why some plays are good and some plays are not.

One aspect of this play in which they, unfortunately, did over kill it, was the overwhelmingly and sometimes unreadable amount of text there was in it. There were just letters everywhere and frankly, i didn't read them because there was so much going on all the time all around that it was just impossible to stop, stand and read the woman's skirt, i mean, i know they're geniuses but i think you'd know people don't go to the theatre to read, as roberto said people go to the theatre because they want more, they want things that aren't real, things that are better (in terms of show and grandeur) , so to slap us with one wikipedia worth of peruvian history, is most definitely a no no. And even if we did want to read (which i did sometimes) it was impossible for people shorter than me because EVERYONE crammed on one space and tried to read the letters off her boob, mix those with the light effects that flew sporadically around and you got yourself a disco party, and not the good kind.

Another aspect that reminded me of this years production was the direction, because as i stood there, avoiding karts and people bumping into me, twirling trying to see what went on on every mini stage i thought, how did they direct this thing? how do you get, as a director, to properly SEE the show as it will be presented to the audience? yes, i think the director directed one little stage at a time, but there must've been a point where he had to see the play as a whole, right? so it's important to be able to step back and watch the play, all of it with an eagle's eye so that we can edit and present a solid, seamlessly created play to the audience, because after all, they decide whether it's good or not.

So overall, this play was a perfect example of how every single element of production works together to create one fantastic show and its patriotic message really stuck, but out of that a doubt flowers in my mind. What would've happened if, instead of making this about peruvian history, the play was simply a museum? is it even possible? or would our minds and theirs always take them to something familiar they and us can relate to? and if so, no matter how different wouldn't they, in terms of theme, be making the same play over and over again? it's a question not an affirmation, im not sure, don't kill me.
More questions emerge, especially those concerning my role in Kabuki-yet-to-be-titled. In relation to this play, how will we manage to create and maintain a certain atmosphere to go along with our concept, using all elements of production in our conventional stage? and how important is atmosphere? (very, i think) and another one for you, if we were to put this play on our stage or in a SPGA corral, would we be able to achieve the same atmosphere? better? worse? how? How do you take something out of it's zone ( a particular stage form, a particular tradition, a particular type of acting and training of the actors) and do it somewhere else?

I D O N ' T K N O W

second one of the year

so this week was our first "rehearsal" (we didn't rehearse because it's the first stage of the play so there's nothing TO rehearse) and i was very excited, im directing this year and so this was my first opportunity to actually get to know the children a little bit better.
i had a rather difficult time trying to control them , they are so full of energy which is a plus but it's constantly being unleashed, thus clashing with our plate tectonics concept that requires a level of restraint. im curious to see how that will happen and have to plan how to get these children to understand a kind of complicated concept. i also think we had some organization problems during the start because we had the kids playing ja jondom for like and hour while arianna took their general information. however since it was our first experience being in charge of a rehearsal i didn't think we did that bad, in fact, i think we did pretty good for people without experience at it. this leads me to think about my role as a director and how that differs from just another actor, i mean not in the sense that i direct the actor and the actor acts, but more in the sense of how do we become directors? we've all been trained in the same way, we're all good at certain aspects and have weaknesses so what is it that determines whether you become a director? what gives us the quality to be a good director? i need to think about this so that i can understand my role and therefore execute it better.

another thing about my role as director this year is the fact that i have to supervise everything, this includes the playwriting, in fact im also writing a play that carlos will direct. i find it extremely exciting to be able to direct someone else's work and have them direct mine with me present, this will be and amazing learning experience and sort of an out of body one if you think about it. you have someone else direct your work, you see it through their eyes thus giving it whole new meaning and making a whole new sense of it you did not even know existed. the other playwright however is not so thrilled not to be directing his own work and that's too bad because as students and most of all dramaturgs we must allow ourselves to let go of our egos and do what is best for the play, and if it turns out badly then we must allow ourselves to learn from that experience, after all, this is not a play in an actual kabuki stage in japan but a school play directed by students, by people who are supposed to learn. even if he's not directing his own work, he'll be there and i'll be there when he directs mine, you see, this is what makes it even better that both of us will be present thus we can input and give ideas to the other one enriching the play and our experience as a whole.

i do have a trillion questions that if i addressed them right now i would be unable to sleep the few hours i have left and be cranky in the morning. so i chose one that ponders my mind: since our play is going to go along with the kabuki tradition but will not be a strict kabuki play, how far will we be able to bend the tradition to the play's convenience? and which bends are more important than others? how do we know when it's enough?

Hello.

It's been a long time since i wrote here...

the first theatre class of the year was a little tricky for me, when we were asked to choose and give reasons why one of the plays we produced during last year was the "odd one out" of the bunch i knew which one to pick but i wasn't very sure of the why. I chose Supermarket and gave simple reasons why: it was shorter with simple concept and preparation and it had a different relationship with the audience. I was wrong in many ways, to begin with yes it was short but also was la ropavejera, in fact they were almost the same length. I still stand behind my "simple concept and preparation" reason because it's true. For all the other performances we had to either prepare a research study beforehand to further understand the theatre tradition (andean theatre) we were getting ourselves into or simply create the whole play from scratch ourselves (yes we created this one ourselves as well, but, the process is still far shorter than that we had for any other play: we wrote a script for the one act play and for down to earth.
The relationship with the audience was the tricky one to explain for me because i kept contradicting myself by saying reasons that involved the other ones thus making them the odd ones out aswell.
then roberto suggested we think of the progression of the relationship with the audience we had through our presentations:
Let's begin with la Ropavejera: it was a simple entremes with Spanish golden age theatre conventions, it involved the audience in a minimal level. Then along came Down to earth, a play that had theatre for children conventions, hence the involvement of the audience grew exponentially, we now asked questions directly to the audience, we asked for their help (during the hide and seek scene with sophie) and during scenes we ran around the whole theatre screaming and making silly faces at the audience. This involves the audience but we are still on the surface, on a superficial level because the play itself did not involve the audience (referring to the themes and a more personal level). After that we did The other side, a play that encouraged the audience to discover what was happening, even before the characters themselves (the game of the mirror and alternate realities). This engaged the audience on an intellectual level and allowed them to think along with the characters, more so even, because the characters were not aware of what the audience was aware of, the mirror.
Then came Paucartambo, this is were we created the presentation from a socio cultural point of view, hence establishing our relationship with the audience from the very origins of the play. We were part of the audience because the audience was in the same social and cultural environment as we were. The concept was useless authorities, something everyone in the audience could relate to. Let's not forget the fact that the whole thing was us running around the audience and teasing them, screaming and not expressing words but a few.
Now comes the final one, Supermarket. my idea was that there was little relationship with the audience because we used no words and were not using any particular idea or situation but a more trivial one (a casual encounter in a supermarket that resolves in shenanigans). However when i really thought about it i came to the realization (not sure whether right or wrong) that us not using words we were shutting our audience out, BUT, weren't we including them so much that they had to go along with us and interpret our body movements and facial expressions? doesn't this technique of, when someone is feeling sad instead of saying "i`m sad" they act "sad", deepen the relationship with the audience because we make them feel what we feel? we make them see how we feel and they interpret it and come to their own conclusions? take Hebras for example, their use of masks was fantastic because it stripped the characters and actors of a self, of an identity, therefore the plot is so general that the audience is forced to give faces to the actors hence relating a general and very possible situation to something that they have lived or someone they know has lived through. And if it hasn't happened to them or anyone they know it's even better because the possibilites for the audience to use their imagination and get involved in their minds as the play goes on become limitless, thus the emotional impact of the play is infinte.

I do not know which one is right or wrong, the possibilities are limitless but what i do know is that i am one step closer to the meaning of "making sense of things" after we do them, to the construction of a rationale. This is why the rationale comes last of the PPP and this is why people get this wrong sometimes, we set the rationale first in our minds and base the whole PPP on it whereas had we saved it for last the rationale would be a fantastic explorational technique and we could give sense to a whole lot more things we would've had we set the idea beforehand in our minds.

so hence i come to one final question, one little bug that is actually humongous in my mind. Which one is better? Which one is more effective? To have one purpose and one thing we want the audience to feel or experience with our play before we do it? and therefore go full force on making the audience feel and experience what we want them to? or to just let the audience explore alongside us as dramaturgs and allow them to make sense of what they saw?