Supermarket

So for the arts evening a couple of weeks ago we had to present a small performance in representation of the theatre arts department, there was a twist, we had less than 3 weeks to prepare. so straight from the bat we knew it needed to be simple, entertaining and have no other purpose but to entertain the audience (this is extremely rare because out of every performance we do we need to give it more meaning than it actually was intended to have) however when it came to the process and choosing what we could do we were rather stuck, we had no idea what to do so Roberto gave us a tool, inspiration. turns out you could be inspired by something as small as a song?! whoa, what do you know, guess we can do a PPP know!

on a more serious level though, having a song be the inspiration for a performance is a very effective technique and can result in solid performances. songs can indicate many factors of a performance, if the song feels dramatic and strong then the performance could be dramatic and strong, or you could go the opposite and have the music inspire you to do the contrary of what it inspires you to do. so we arrived to "the gift", a song that had a very beachy and relaxed feel to it, hence we came up with what would be our acting concept, being inside gelatin, everything is slow motion and dense, you need to exaggerate your movements and facial expressions so that they can push through the dense gelatin.
however i come to wonder something that didn't occur to me during the process and final performance, we know we are in a gelatin, the audience does not so wouldn't they feel rather overwhelmed by the over the top slow motion and facial expressions? well, the answer is no, in fact, if EXECUTED PROPERLY this effect can be extremely interesting and awe worthy for an audience so we had a challenge, we had to make it as perfect as possible so that the performance wasn't a stinky pile of hoo hah.

when it came to working with the acting concept it was rather difficult at first and continued to be towards the end, slow motion is easy if you are in a gelatin, we weren't therefore we had to keep our balance perfect and timing flawless as well so that one actor doesn't look like he/she's inside a different gelatin and thus ruining the overall effect of the performance.
we needed to resort to the first teachings of theatre we had, working with our centre of energy so that it will maintain balance to our bodies, i found this particularly challenging because there was a part when pineda kicked me on the leg and i had to jump up without jumping (it's impossible to jump in slow motion unless we are in slow motion) and grab my leg (yes, standing in the other one.) in pain. this helped me figure out the very useful artifice of lying to the audience, you see, production elements and concepts and such are irrelevant to the audience (non ib theatre students) they care about being entertained by a good performance (yes they do consider good visual effects that could be provided by production elements but in the end they won't say to their friends "hey, you have to spend money to see this play that sucks because the scenery is SO worth it.") so we as actors/directors or playwrights have to, eventually, adapt our work and ourselves so that it is able to keep an audience engaged so that the performance is successful. little things like the fake "jumping" and over the top facial expressions kept the audience entertained, in fact, the swaying at the beginning also kept the entertained and brought the performance to a whole new level because it kept it from ever becoming static, boring.

the "design concept" (we chose not to go with the obvious Miami theme the song conveyed, so we decided to go with a supermarket since they often have that kind of music.) (sort of?) was chosen to enhance the acting concept, black pants and white shoes (against a dark backdrop) to enhance the effect of our legs moving in slow motion gives the scene a much more fantastic feel, however i would have wished to have this constant in every character, for example arianna's character didn't have any black in her legs, some black leggings would have made the effect more cohesive, however for the effect to be cohesive and successful there needs to be an extensive rehearsal process, something we didn't have.

we had no props whatsoever, everything had to be imagined but still, it HAD to be present, because if the imaginary props weren't clear then the performance will be an utter failure since the audience will not be able to understand a thing. this also proposed a challenge because of littel coordination elements, for example if holding a jar of pickles from the supermarket our hands had to be kepts as if we were holding it, for real, thus we are not able to move our hand or close it because if the jar were there we wouldn't be able to magically put our fingers through it.

overall i think we had a very successful little performance, that as simple as it may sound it turned out to be quite entertaining for the audience (SUCCESS), in fact some people were more enthusiastic about his than they were for past years plays, this leads me to wonder: is it more effective to have a short and sweet performance that will inject the audiene with our message and purpose (yes, we are back to having a purpose and message FOR EVERYTHING) in, shall we say no more than 8 minutes? or is it better when we have a large scale play that lasts 2 hours and sends the same message but it is spread out in a long play rather than 8 mins? what do people really want? and how far can we compromise to give them what they want?

Overall i think it was a very succesful little performance

Medea

I was very excited to see this play, i'm quite a fan of the original version and when i heard that it had been adapted to modern times i was...i want to say intrigued?

anyhow, we all know Medea, a woman who was cheated on by her husband Jason, she then proceeds to go absolutely b'zerk and kills the king his daughter and her own children thereby leaving jason completely screwed.

The play really worked visually, at least for me. I think from the very beginning there was an atmosphere that was created with the Nodriza, her monologue was really good, the positioning of her body along with the overly large hips really made the eye dance, the lighting during that part was also quite effective and it could have really failed since it was complicated to deliver the lines realistically and still manage for the audience to see the actors faces and facial expressions. this is one of the first problems I had with the play, the teacher/old man person wasn’t very good, I think he thought he was doing good and probably was but the costume design for him (especially the glasses that blocked his facial expressions from transmitting anything to the audience) and the overall awareness of the light was rather poor, in fact when he left and appeared again later on I couldn’t even remember who he was.
So then I came to realize one of the major challenges an actor faces during a performance, because as actors we need to push through what is on us and who/what is next to us so that we can stand out individually and make the play better but still manage to not break the atmosphere and “reality” the play creates so that we feel as we are part of any play we’re in and not stand out for the wrong reasons (being the odd one out, the one that doesn’t quite fit the atmosphere created.)
Still talking about the beginning, there was background music playing as the Nodriza said the opening monologue, it was like a soft ringing that I think was put there by the director to “create tension” and I think it worked on some level but then it stopped making sense, in fact, mixed with the screaming of Medea it was kind of an overkill, foreshadowing the overall result of the play, but we’ll chat about that later.
The metal panels from the beginning worked really well, it was quite fantastic to see the coppery colors contrast with the Nodriza’s costume and when she opened them to reveal the coir was a very powerful image.
The children we’re also effective visually, however the acting right from the start was not convincing enough, you could tell they were kind of confused on stage, almost intimidated, so i come to the conclusion that working with child actors is very difficult because you can’t be as hard on them yet you can’t baby them along the way and they’re pretty much unpredictable so it’s a challenge for a director and maybe the other actors can come to be frustrated with them, however in my experience in the school plays it is usually the child actors who are much more responsible than the older ones.

When the metal panels are opened the chorus is revealed, they are all in intricate positions in beds, their costume is very good and the makeup is also effective, they have an eerie feel to them, however I do think the costume was a bit restraining for them, so much more physical work could have been done with them thus exploiting their full potential, performance wise. I think the beds were some sort of Qorihuaman-ish, it’s nice to see other directors be inspired by other plays but, it came to be too literal, too Qorihuaman (in fact, the unnecessary naked person in the end bathed in one beam of light was also Qorihuaman.) so, how do we take an inspiration either as performers or directors and make it our own? it is very complicated to find that balance when something inspires us, we need to make it our own so that the audience is aware of the effort and hard work that was put into that particular aspect but still manage to keep it’s essence so that the inspiration is recognizable, at least by the cast and crew.

Now, the room in which the play develops is quite good looking as well and it mixed beautifully with the other elements and colors, creating striking contrast between them, for example when the coir is rambling about, the Nodriza is seen standing there listening, just listening but her costume really stood out, this is a clear example of how a design concept can very much elevate the overall look of a play and sometimes razzle dazzle (...se que no te gustan los musicales, pero, chicago, seriously) the inexperienced audience, I’m not trying to separate the herd here but having any form of theatre studies rather than just going to the theatre because it’s “fancy” really changes our perspective on plays, our reactions change as well because we know more hence we are much more picky and notice every little detail, if this is not happening then our education has failed, i’m sorry but it’s true, you see, how will we ever be able to construct a play if we don’t even know what makes a good play, sure it depends but the fact that a play has to work to be good is true in every theatre form and tradition. This is what we refer to the curse of the IB, we are stripped from our childlike innocence, we stop thinking that when something glitters, it’s better and we begin to notice why it glitters and why that particular way of glittering, going beyond what we see and try to see things from the director of that particular play so that we can understand the play better.

In terms of the acting, Medea was the definite stand out of the play, her voice her body movement, everything worked majestically and it could have been easy to get lost along the gimmicks of the play but her performance is a perfect example of what i was yapping about earlier, an actor must stand out but still keep the reality constant. Every single detail of her performance was great, when she spoke she sounded like Scar from The lion king (one of the most haunting villains to me, the voice the facial expressions, everything.) and sometimes flowed to a more Ursula-ish way. She managed to portray Medea’s insanity, rage and hate very convincingly so much so that in the moments she was speaking it worked beautifully but it was the moments were she was quiet, just standing still in a corner (when she was in the second level of the house) contorted to her own feelings and betrayal, those images were haunting and were the little moments that made that play worthwhile. Even when she was shown happy and very nice instead of trying to kill people it was fantastic, I really enjoyed her scene with the traveling king Egeo, they had very good chemistry together and gave a weird uncle-little niece vibe, it was really sweet to see her reacting and treating him with love almost, she razzle dazzled me because she was doing that to be able to kill her kids, i found myself really rooting for a murderer. which leads me to one of the main reasons why i was doing this, jason.

Holy mother of god, this man, the little bacteria that dragged himself out of Mil oficios and other crappy form of television managed to land the role of Jason, one that has many colors and a large spectre of intentions and ways to fulfill them. there were times he needed to be flirty or times where he needed to be infuriated and he just flatlined, his monotone voice lack of gestures mannerisms movements and ability to water every garden in the district with half a monologue made me squirm with disgust and just plain dislike.
This is a perfect example of stunt casting, why couldn’t the director or if you must be fancyshmancy the “casting director” hire another actor, a less known one that can provide the range of emotions needed and if he was stuck with him by the forces of a mystical being why didn’t the director DIRECT him, why didn’t she tell him he was doing things wrong and showed him how to do it, for such an elaborate production it is really hard to believe that the director was unable to see his lackluster performance, and if she didn’t then boy, i recommend her to reexamine her career choice. Maybe she was intimidated by his superstar status in peru (...maybe not) or maybe she was afraid to hurt his feelings (which is unlikely because she did manage to get the man naked.) so, how do we as directors manage to tell an actor he’s a bad one? and if so, how do you teach him/how to act? is it possible to learn? if it were, let’s face it, the whole school would come to audition for the plays and we’d have to create a role for every single one. can we truly learn HOW to act? well, i say no. the raw goods have to be there and we are taught what to do with them, we are taught techniques to enhance our performances and then it is our job to utilize them to our advantage.
there was a particular technique that i wanted to like but didn’t really work for me, when Jason and Medea acted together and things got a little rough, so to speak they would eat each others faces, this sounds very powerful in theory but again, it became to gimmicky and Jason was not helping either, this is a perfect example of bad or a lack of editing (something that seemed to be a virus that infected the whole play.), as i said in previous entries directors need to be able to edit and step out of their ego and leave their pride behind and say “hey, this doesn’t work, let’s take it out.” and if they don’t do that the play becomes a mess of gimmicks that really, as a whole do not work. If the director doesn’t do that, then the actors could notice it and maybe plant the little evil seed in the director’s brain.

I could talk forever on how the play was filled with overkill but there is one aspect i need to reflect on: the music.
Slight sound effects like the ringing worked, almost but didn’t really fit in with the play, mainly because the play itself is overly dramatic and is perfect for building tension.
I have always loved the idea of atmospheric music that creates tension, that tingly sensation that something bad is going to happen (one of the reasons why i love desperate housewives) BUT sometimes, it is beautiful to strip the play from that music and just let the text and actions speak for themselves, the music is yet another example of how the director got too much involved with the drama and hypnotized by it, it was just TOO much drama so much that it felt kind of funny, kind of soap operaish and editing is again, key. Maybe it was a poor choice of music, the music played during “tense” moments didn’t really fit them whereas the music in the end, when the audience began to leave was fantastic, it’s a shame they didn’t use that during the play.

The television.
One of my favorite aspects from greek tragedies is their ability to narrate the most dramatic and shocking/violent moments instead of actually showing them, this was attempted however it was stripped of the drama. Strangely here is a case where the director should have kept things as dramatic as they were on the original version instead of trying to go along with the modernized concept, she gave some lines to the Nodriza (who in my opinion was very much capable to deliver that monologue) and gave others to a television, she gave the strongest lines to the televisions thereby losing the shock factor and just leaving us wanting more. This is a perfect example of how the adaptation of the text to modern time was not effective and in this case, the director had complete power to eliminate this from the script and change it back to the traditional form. Sometimes classic is better.

The murdering of the children was not effective for me, there was too much build up and unfortunately no result. Their scream came completely indifferent to me, i didn’t really care because, as with the television, this is another case of how the drama was taken away from the play, the children were off stage so they were perfectly capable of “encouraging” (muahahha) them to scream louder and more in pain. It would have been perfect to see Medea with the bodies or a little bit of blood BUT again, here is a case where there was editing in all the wrong places.
Medea then proceeds to leave, descending to god knows where, first of all she was supposed to go to egeo’s land and not descend to hell or wherever. In the actual play she leaves on a chariot of fire triumphantly and swiftly, this being her victory dance, i killed your kids and BAM! i’m leaving like a f****ing winner, catch me. However it worked with the sound, her voice was ethereal and haunting, this is a case of how the director successfully using technology for a play’s advantage.

Overall i really did want to like the play, there were little moments that made me jump in my seat with joy and excitement (Medea standing in the corner, the sudden light changes, the curtain falling) but these, when they came together became TOO MUCH, they became a whole lot to take in, which makes me wonder when doing a play that is dramatic in itself, how do we know what the balance is to make it lower the level a bit, give the audience time to breathe? and in terms of acting, what do we do when an actor stands to much amongst the crowd? and how do we properly tell an actor he can’t act?

robbieeeeee no se que paso, se guardo en borrador pero no se publcioo, no me pongas dfetencioon.

kabuki play analisis

So i finished reading Masakado, a kabuki play. It's mainly about a soldier who murdered a king and took over the empire, long time after these events the king's daughter disguises herself as a prostitute from the "pleasure quarters" and tries to seduce him, she really wants to avenge the death of her father, the soldier realizes this and they fight, destroying the surroundings, and pose TAH DAH...

what's most interesting in this play is that the dialogue is extremely fun and upbeat, i almost peed my pants upon reading it, not really, in fact, it was surprisingly bland and boring, it's Yoda-ish and very slow paced and almost too "fancy". I do not feel the realness of the characters upon reading it, heck i don't feel a thing, it's like they're robots as if the play were a stereotype of what ancient asian people are portrayed to speak like. what was weird is that the dialogue between the main characters was significantly shorter than that of a sort of chorus this play had (something i have come to realize is a fixture in kabuki theatre.) it is this "chorus" that tells the stories, they sing and play the music (this is one of the first elements of the play that break the realism of it, the second one being the stage assistants that help the actors with props and costume changes.), the chorus' song is accompanied by a dance from the main characters, it is here where the play finally comes to life.

dance is a very important part of kabuki theatre, in fact, if one were to choose between boring dialogues and splendorous dancing that actually means a thousand times more than the dialogue, one would definitely choose dancing.
The dances are accompanied by the singing of the TOKIWAZU and there are several movements that indicate different feelings, this leads to a very high level of a symbolism of sorts, things mean something in this play, they are not just there. The sorceress costume, for example, was very beautiful and meant peacefulness but a spider web pattern indicated the "courtesans true nature and evil powers" .

The stage directions (plenty of them by the way, a whole lot of them.) were very descriptive and more enjoyable than the actual dialogue, they were very very very very very very long and excruciatingly specific meaning the movement and dancing and posing in kabuki theatre is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT this will make my job harder next year as director since i will be forced to be meticulous, VERY meticulous (Muaahahha...) and i actually enjoy extensive using of stage direction so, there's that- JA.

another thing that struck me is the production level in this play, costume is described as gorgeous and scenery...well, all i need to say is that they have a castle...that is destroyed and apparently it's "magnificent", so i am a little bit scared with how much work will have to be done next year and on what price (if you know what i mean TSHHH(big nose fella), on a more theatrical level i am concerned because this play has a very specific and TRADITIONAL look, which will be difficult to work with in terms of concept and design, unless we go la vida es sueño on it and do it as it is supposed to be done.

but a doubt and insecurity that i have is the overall appeal that a kabuki play will have (that is if all kabuki plays have the same structure on paper, meaning the same kind of dialogue and actions.) on newton students and generally speaking on people who have never heard of kabuki theatre. so i'm puzzled, how will we make a kabuki play that incorporates kabuki conventions that stay true to the tradition, but still adapt it to fit the expectations of newton students? and also, if this play's dialogue struck me as boring even though it is VERY kabuki, how will pinedah (morira) make a play with both witty and dramatic and engaging dialogue that actually keeps the interest of the audience but still keep it along the tradition? I also wondered about my job as director, how will i, a kabuki inexperienced person, direct a kabuki play? and what aspects of it will i direct more? since we have assigned uga uga as choreographer (due to the departure of our beloved luisgi D1 dance expert) .

as a side note i must say, i am worried, but more than that i'm excited, it's challenging yes, but it's like fuel my mind runs with ideas and different looks that we can transform the newton theatre into, so i'm scared because i know that i won't be able to control all of those aspects so i come to a final question, how does a director take on the challenge of directing a kabuki play that has the EXTREMELY clear vision of the playwright splattered all over it? oh dear lord, the earth is doomed

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?