PPP stimulus analysis

I have decided to have the planetary system as my stimulus (at least for now), it appealed to me because it has fixed characteristics, an order, a routine.
-9 planets + sun
-they all spin around it
-each planet takes it's own time (always the same) to spin around the sun
-sun is constant, each planet expects it to shine the next day
-the further from the sun, the colder the temperature
-etc

what I thought to be interesting is to play with these characteristics and to form a theatrical chaos of what would happen if they changed, what happens if the sun stops shining, what happens if it bursts, what happens if the planets stop spinning, etc.
I'm not really sure whether the planets will each serve as one character, mainly because i feel that is too obvious, but, aren't they indivudal characters? as i said before, each planet has different characteristics hence these make them individual hence they could be interpreted as different characters.
Another important aspect i am unsure of is the sun, should i make it one character and have the others revolve around it? and if so, they could either depend on it (but to make it more interesting i could have them be sucking the life out of it rather than going the obvious direction.) or they could worship it.
matame

Going to the chapel and we're gonna get ma a a rried

ah, reviewing crappy plays is always fun and oh so very entertaining. Anywhooo

a couple of weeks ago we went to act in the one act play festival in san silvestre, what we also got to do (quite a landmark of my life, might i say.) is watch the plays of the other schools. three of them. in the same day.

the first one, well, i arrived 5 mins late to the festival so i didn't get to see the beggining; was about an orphanage kind of thing with a bunch of school girls who are pregnant and get by by singing the songs from the girl groups they love. I gotta give it to them, it sure sounds like an interesting premise (on paper).
my first impression was that it was well staged, ok, not so well staged but what i meant is that it had the basics, just what they needed, no gimmicks. Mainly because all the actios were either in an office area for the unpregnant woman in charge of the preggie ones (this was only iluminated when in use, a technique that i found very useful, especially with a restricted amount of space.) and a room area with a bunch of beds where the girls would sit sleep talk chew some gum and play with their super hot sansil hair. so as far as scenery i thought they were ok, i say ok and not great because it was too obvious, too real almost, they didn't have a design concept. so, is a design concept needed? could a play just be presented the way in which life really is? and if so, wouldn't the acting have to be as real as possible? (therefore not for theatre because in theatre, you need to act for the audience, always keeping them in mind, otherwise, your play has no purpose and if it does you might as well write it in your diary because no one will understand it.)

so, heh, the acting. it wasn't very good, it seemed as if they didn't rehearse enough or just didn't care at all. they all looked like sansilvestre girls who had to pretend to be pregnant sansilvestre girls. you know what i mean? like totally. and if they were just not able to pull a character off, then try harder to be a sansilvestre girl, because, these girls in the institution were girls from highschool, so it could've worked, if more work had been put into it. which makes me think, did the director assume that it was ok for them to act as sansilvestre girls because they were playing girls somewhat their age? and if so, is it good enough if the director just says "ok, do what you do because that is what your character asks of you"? why? which makes me them wonder why have archetypes? and actors playing the same kind of role over again (in spanish golden age) ? which makes me them realize that it's because they did a damn good job at it, they rehearsed their booties of, they put an effort which is what these girls lacked. It was so obvious,like, so...obvious (little jabs at the sansil gals, sorry can't help myself.) because when they had to say their lines they thought about them, and the audience could tell, then they waited but not listened to what the other character (notice how i do not say actress since when performing, it is the character speaking, keeping this in mind makes it more belieavable.) was saying and reacting to it by saying their lines. this forshadowed the singing. THE SINGING, was fantastic






not really

they also thought about and painfully waited as if on deathrow, to sing. the whole point of the play are the songs, the music, the energy and life these girls had even though they were stuck in this hole waiting to give their unborn children up. They were like girls who are forced to sing in front of the class, they even stopped, looked at each other (like "oh my god, we have to sing, we HAVE to.") paused and the sang (in a terrible pitch, this aspect i enjoyed because, it made it more believable and fun, I do feel it wasn't intentional, and so a dilemma. it has to be believable but it has to be a play, recognizeable (the effort, i mean.) so it's tricky because you have to find that balance between a realness that makes the audience engage with the performance and a technical skill that prooves (this is a random example) that they are acting, very good, as if they're nervous rather than being actually nervous.
so, how do we find that balance? which one is more important? does it depend on the overall message of the performance? on the interests of the director? and how does a director recognize and makes a priority out of the two? which makes me reflect on our own one act play, we didn't have characterization but we made the best of that, we acted. and that is why our play worked with the audience, because we acted, because we wanted to act. even though we didn't have a character, we delivered the lines, maybe me as me and pineda as pineda, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't pineda it was me playing me. it's different, and that's why it works.

the costumes, again, lacked a design concept. they were predictable and boring. the costumes, and overall look of a play can make it better, can elevate it exponentially because if a play is an absolute piece of cow dung, at least it looks amazing and an effort is noticeable. and in this case, both were just...meh. bland. dull. this led me to wonder of the theatre education they get, i'm not trying to be bitchy and i am truly not speaking from my "liver", but seriously, little kids use it, they say "oh i like blue, lets make this blue because so and so and so", maybe they did have a concept and it was playing dress up, like, little girls in their mother's clothes, which, come to think of it is very interesting and relates to the overall theme of the play in a pretty good way. but then i remember, they didn't, there was no concept.

another thing was the overall vomiting of the script, there were so many moments they could have savoured, saying something slowly can be much more powerful than farting the words out of our mouths. so, how much script analysis is needed? is it enough with reading it once and memorizing the lines? isn't painfully reading and annotating the script so much better than just doing it once or twice? so that we are able, as actors, to act the part as best as we can? or even just memorizing the lines and going with the gut, or the heart, making ourselves feel the emotions through the words? but, again, this requires commitment and rehearsal, and good direction because if a director doesn't push his/her actors, who will?

i really enjoyed this play, i mean, as a play not the performance. it's a pitty they didn't squeeze all the juice out of it.
and as i say this, i can't help but wonder, can a play depend on itslef? just rely on the script and situation? keeping the audience awake because it's interesting? and just giving up on the actual performance? which leads me to wonder, what is a good play? because a script can be really bad but the actual performance of it can be fantastic, does that make it a good play? or can a good play stand on its own?

Qorihuaman (naked mimo)

On saturday I went to see the Yuyachkani play "Qorihuaman" or Halcon de Oro, our theatre group went the day before but I couldn't go with them.
This play is, I think, one of the most metaphorical, hard to understand plays I've seen from Yuyachkani, but, in a way it wasn't so hard to understand, and why? because it was amazingly executed. This play did not have any words to help transmit the audience it's meaning, it was technically a one man show (except for the weird, ethereal mummy like thing).

The play begins with a bang, one beautiful striking image, a man in the corner of a completely dark room, he lights up a match so we can see him hunched on the floor. He is completely painted white, wearing nothing but army shorts. I think what really helped make this work really really well is the fact that the theatre is not an actual stage, it's a box like room with some seats in the back. This gives it great potential to create atmosphere (which I think was one of the best things of this Qorihuaman) and the lack of artificial lighting in the beginning was a fantastic idea I think, it showed us this vulnerable, scared and desperate character, it perfectly introduced it to us and still managing to frighten me a little as well.
What also helped create atmosphere was the music, but sometimes I feel they went a little overboard, the music did sound cheesy at times and almost, expected and if there is something Yuyachkani plays aren't, is expected. So, creating atmosphere is really great and helps a lot build this relationship with the audience, it helps bring them into the play but, when do we know we've gone a tiny bit too far? the music became a little overbearing and sometimes seemed to fit too perfectly, too...almost lame or cheesy, what was expected to fit the situation or action. I think there were moments in the play that were complete silence that were just magnificent.
The use of prop is very important not only for the actor but for the audience and the whole purpose of the play, in this case it was a bed, no mattress, no wooden planks, just a wire bed that was surprisingly strong. This represented the man's prison, his barrier (when he couldn't get out) it also represented his burden (by the fact he had to take it everywhere). This further proves that having a prop is incredibly useful for us actors, not only can you do a whole lot more things with it but you can also show the audience more things about the play as a whole and charge it with symbolism.

The use of body was fantastic, from the first moment we could see it, completely in character (whatever it was) hunched, frightened and breathing heavily. Emphasis on the breathing, it helped give the character more life, more punch and have a stronger impact visually on the audience. It helped define the characters nervousness, his anxiety and almost made me forget the fact that there were no words.
The importance for an actor to dominate his/her body was also deeply emphasized, especially in the acrobatics of the play (when he stood on the bed, on the rope, etc.) Without these the play wouldn't have been nearly as incredible. But I also felt it came across as trying to hard, and so I wonder, if a play has no words, is it a rule for it to be over the top on the movement? does it help or eventually hinder the play? since the audience will focus on the visual and fail to read between the lines, I say this because sometimes I found myself paying way more attention to what the character was doing to WHY he was doing it.

Another element that amazed me was the miming, the part where the character tries to escape and is stopped by the invisible walls was AMAZING, he was trapped in this invisible wall that was still, because of his incredible skill, completely perceivable.

The convention of the weird man that apperead during the play was strange to me, whenever he came on stage the main character would change characters, he changes into a pregnant woman ( the use of costume was also great, I came to understand that costume can and should be used as props, so the costumes aren't there just to look pretty, we as actors need to be able to use them.

This play was exquisitely symbolical, greatly put together and incredibly performed. It maintained its Yuyachkani purpose always, treating themes such as death, entrapment, death, etc. in order to "critique" society. But, I was and still am stuck on one thing, what struck me most of this play is that it is very entertaining, a bit like going to the circus. The play was fantastic, don't get me wrong, but, it was too fantastic, there was too much to look at and too little to understand, and for those who understood eventually forgot because they were busy watching the fantastic actions. So, how do we know when a play becomes solely recreational and no longer informative, didactic, etc? Where is the line between theatre and circus (not in a bad way) or is circus a form of theatre? how to grab the audiences attention to make a point without overshadowing WHAT you want to say with HOW you say it?

Randomness

So, It's father's day (jaja esta entrada estaba guardad en borradores hace tiempo) and I was returning from the funtastic world that was my paternal family (notice the sarcasm in my typing) and I mentioned to my father and sister that there was a possibility of me studying theatre, my dad's answer was "then why the f@ck am i paying so much money for school? why not study it right now?" and I replied that my IB is very important and of course, IB theatre is also very important and will become the basis for my theatre studies, besides, being an actor doesn't happen by magic or just plain talent (which my dad completely thinks i lack) and also, to become an actor, personally, we have to know every single area of theatre, we have to understand it otherwise we might as well be a piece of scenery.
I particularly find the knowing of directing and acting very useful and complicated at the same time because, when we act and are directed we could try different things we think, as actors, might work very well whereas on the POV of the director, they don't at all. Having the knowledge of direction itself enables us to have an idea, think if it will work both as actors and directors and if it does, put it in practice, this increases the quality of the overall performance.
Knowing how to direct does not mean bossing people around, though some "bossing" is required it is not the only part of the job. In fact, it is the least important part (in my opinion) because being a director implies giving enough space to your actors for them to grow and for them to learn from your directions.
The other areas of theatre (production ones mainly) are also very important because, as an actor, you need to be aware of your surroundings in order to react to them, because when you act not only do you have to react to the people acting with you but to the general atmosphere as well, usually provided by the scenery/costumes etc. These are often defined by the overall CONCEPT of the play which can alter the performance a lot, for example, if the concept is "sadness" the acting isn't going to be particularly cheerful right? and if it's "violence" the movements would not be very gentle now would they? For "sadness" the scenery and costumes and makeup could be dull in color. Whereas for violence they could be with bright colors (red ones, dark ones, etc.) and not so polished (scenery and costumes) to have a certain feel that tells the audience they were made violently.
Knowing all of these production areas and the concept of a main concept enriches our knowledge as actors and adds more potential to our performances, if we do take this knowledge into consideration we will be able to perform in the best way we can.

Another thing I discussed with my father and sister was theatre in general, we talked about plays from peru and actors from peru and i came to the conclusion that, they have no idea what theatre is, what it's about and why it is there. (my dad told me "you should be a director, because you're always bossing people around") They thought good plays were the ones where you laugh at stupid jokes or dumb physical comedy and deeply rejected "complicated" plays that had a concept and weren't just to entertain but to teach the audience something.
Why does this happen? Is it possible to make people like plays with a concept? and if it is, will they grasp the concept? these comments led me to the conclusion that, because of what we know, us IBers now have a more critical eye of theatre and a better ability to understand it, but, does this mean we enjoy it less? and if theatre is for the audience then why don't we just make stupid plays that make people pee their pants? So i eventually stopped arguing with my father and sister, but in my head the conversation kept playing over and over again and with each time I came up with more things to answer to them, to teach to them and then, as i write this, it came to me, that was it, that was exactly it, theatre is there to teach it has a message and when you go to see a play you leave with a message, sure, some are more hidden than other ones but that doesn't mean they're not there and if you leave from watching a play with no message or newly found knowledge at all, then the play itself is the message, it teaches us how to make plays, what to do, what not to do and so i understood, that is why we go to see different plays, to learn from them, to learn to like them and to learn how to make them.
I haven't spoken about this again with my father, but i do believe he and all the other people unaware of theatre and its concepts can like them, I do believe you can be taught to like, i'm not saying people should be brain washed, what i mean by this is that with this knowledge we can appreciate things more because now, we know how they (plays) work, we know what they mean because unfortunately, us, as humans reject what we don't know.

5 am, i couldn't help but wonder...

Sooo, today in class we began to dive into the marvelousity that is Spanish Golden Age theatre...again. But somehow, as we always do, we got caught up with something deeper.

It began when Robbie explained to us the difference between a poet and an author. You see, in S.G.A a poet is the person who writes the play (in our times, the playwright.) and the author is the person who directs the play. And so, caught up in the wonderland that is my brain, it struck me, WHY are there such TWO concepts? why isn't there just one that is in fact both.

The thought came to me when i began to realise that, whenever I write something i have an extremely precise vision of what I want to happen (hence the long and painfully detailed accotations.)so i coudn't possibly imagine anyone else directing my play but me.

So, then why do these playwrights hire directors? why not just direct their work themselves. And so I dared to ask, Robbie then answered that it is mainly because, even though you may have a clear vision of what you want, you may not be capable to express it so that actors (trained or untrained) could easily perform it as desired. Not everyone is made for directing because, sadly, not everyone is a people person, if you know what i mean.

That is the shallowest reason, but, what if we dig deeper? because, your idea or concept is most certainly going to be different from the next person's concept and so on. And, isn't that what theatre is after all? the different interpretations people give to a play? the different messages a play can transmitt to different people? and how they reflect on different societies? because, theatre is happening, it's moving so, if you want somthing to be precisely as you want it to be and have it not be open to other interpretations you might as well keep the play running in your head exactly like you wanted it.

So, i did a little of my regular blog stalking and found a comment Roberto said in valentina's blog

"i personally think that repeating old plays should be done only for documentary (museum) or educational purposes. and not even that, bacause theatre is an art of here and now (that's why we're making our own plays at newton)."

i disagree with this, and i'm not trying to be contradictory as i usually am but, if a play is only done once and then not repeated in the past, what's the point. It's the same idea as with the director, if you only do a play once, then there is only one message to the community of that time, just one interpretation. but, since time goes on and society changes, doesn't theatre do so as well? and if theatre is in fact changing and moving, then wouldn't doing an old play but with a different concept and adapting it to modern times (not in a mcbeth on the loose kind of way but, in a message changing kind of way.) wouldn't the message change? and therefore wouldn't the play live on through time? I think that is what makes a great play, the ability it has to live on through time without loosing it's relevance and the multiple interpretations you could have of it.

So yes, hiring a director is ok, you get to see other peoples vision of your work and if you are not satisfied then, do it again yourself but quick because, your interpretation and concept of your own work can also change because, like theatre, we are moving, we are changing and coming to a new state of mind.

Yuyachkani, our saviors, f*!@*ing finally

Actuamos tanto que para hacer teatro, tendríamos que dejar de actuar.

Last Friday we went to see a play in Yuyachkani, as usual I was a little bit frightened by the idea, not because i don't like Yuyachkani, but, because i don't like Yuyachkani. The play's name is a pun, it's called Con-cierto Olvido and it is a concert/play that could be interpreted as a celebration of this theatre group, it is somewhat of a compilation of most of their plays and a reflection of their journey as actors presented in a fun, concert form.

The music was bombastic, fantastic and extremely enjoyable. It got the whole audience clapping and tapping their feet (which is very rare for theatre, especially for our theatre group mainly because we are bombarded with boring plays.) to the rythm, even though the music was fantastic, there were some parts that felt a little bit awkward, especially when playing wind instruments mainly because they ran out of air ; this is understandable and i won't hold it against them, it doesn't affect how fantastic they are.

As well as playing musical instruments, the actors are skilled singers, again, they ran out of breath some times but that is to be expected, and, quite frankly they were pretty wonderful. I particularly enjoyed the sing off between the tiny person (i still can't remember her name but she's fantastic for comic relief, she's an oposition, having a very deep voice and such a small body) and the one who played antigone (Robbi sorry, no me se los nombres). Another stand out was the one who sang in quechua and played Ima Sumac in "El Ultimo Ensayo".

Going on with the positive, the comic performances of most were pretty fantastic, the one who put on a mask and spoke about the "Theatre Mountain" was particularly good. She was also good in the technical aspects, her voice changed, she had a mannerism (sticking her tongue out) and her body movements changed and resembled, pardon the strange reference, a very old mickey mouse (from the black and white cartoons), this all came together to a pretty solid example of good character building (something i need to work on myself for the school play, kill me.)
The one that wore a clown nose was also hilarious and it stood out for its colloquial, very blunt and sarcastic (very peruvian might i say) language/humour.


In true Yuyachkani fashion, the text was sometimes hard to understand, but when it was understandable it was entertaining and went from very dramatic (effective as well) to very funny (effective as well). It was mostly drawn from several Yuyachkani plays (mostly social commentaries) that i think you had to see to understand, that is one of the things i wasn't very keen of, if you weren't familiar with yuyachkani plays, you wouldn't have understood anything, that is why this is more of a celebration rather than an invitation for new fans.

Another negative aspect was that, the audience was expected to clap at everything, i mean, somethings were certainly funny or worth the fuzz but that doesn't mean we were going to clap our hands of for every time an actor twirled around the stage while singing a showtune, that's how sometimes, the play fell short, it expected to much from the audience while expecting too little from it as well, they thought we'd laugh and cheer at all the shananegans they did on stage but they didn't realize that instead of being funny they were being stupid.
I blame that on the directing, i think it's the directors job to EDIT, it is extremely important because sometimes it's good to cut things that don't work as well rather than stuffing the play with loads of jokes and monologues that just drag it down.

Despite the few negative aspects this is BY FAR the best play i have seen this year, but that's just it, it's the best because it wasn't actually a play but a pastiche of many different things that combine to form one, at times glorious, at times just plain boring, celebration and interpretation of what theatre and acting is.
So, by the time we left the theatre i was haunted by one and only one question.

How do we know, as directors or actors or playwrights when it's enough? Where does the, even though we say we're not, self centered writer director or playwright end and the audience begins so that we are able to see what will work adn what won't.