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?