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?