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