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?