so, hit some form of an obstacle since roberto feels i'm not directing them enough (the kitchen scene) and i think he's right, he said i needed to get more creative and put some spark and fun-ness in the scene. i was so focused on getting the concept sequence into the scene (tension pose earthquake) that i think i left out the rest, i felt that the actors would do that for themselves but this is W R O N G because, if everybody did that then there would be no need at all for a director and i would be without a job. so goals for next rehearsal are:
- keep the spark and action of the scene, whether its's a tense and dramatic scene or a hilarious one, present so that the audience wants to see more, so that they don't get bored because ultimately the play is NOT for any of us, it's for them to enjoy and critique, personal feelings of acomplishment aside.
- work on the idea of the "ghost" (i wanted to have miyuki talk and move around while the people listening focused on one place, giving the illusion that she dissapeared and then reappeared somewhere else. roberto was quick to point out it would confuse the audience so i might have to scratch that idea altogether, but still, i think if played well with the lights and the actors themselves it could be a fun little thing to do that would inject some life into a huge monologue. another idea is to have her represent what happened to her with actions but i fear it would be too dramatic YET now that i think about it this scene (numero OCHO) comes right after the intermedio so it would be a nice way to keep up with ourselves and keep the energy of the play going. ESPECIALLY. if what she's saying is OH SO important (it is) because here she reveals the truth and the toriyama are now seen in a different light, they killed her. so what she says has to have some form of resonance so that it makes sense for them to basically go to war, this scene is very important in the play because it manages to twist things and keep them ggoing.
-make sure production goes well, BUT only supervise two or three times because they are beginning to work very well on their own and constant supervision from anyone (me) would be too much to handle and just unnecessary. (Score! trusting people now. moving forward)
-on a less actual-rehearsals-related-note, i had a very succesfull journey to gamarra with kenzo, we came across some fantastic fabrics at the exact same price as arianna's in the exact same store. we found some that hopefully make it to the play itself. i learnt great skills such as bargaining and letting kenzo work on his own, yes i kind of gave him nudges in certain directions BUT mainly let him work on his own, so all and all it was good.
going back to the miyuki scene, EIGHT i wonder, how do we create ressonance in a play? how is that we make certain things stick in the audience so that other events in the play that happen as a consequence of it make sense? and if our play has a message (this on does not, but still, some do) how do we give the necessary strength to that message without overwhelming and ultimately saturating our audience? becuase in real life if you just say something powerful as, i don't know: "he killed me" or "i was raped" or "this world will end" or "do onto others as you want them to do onto you" (which sounds silly but really does help) people understand without paying full attention but sometimes, when they are forced to pay attention (like in a proscenium arc theatre whre they face the stage and nothing else) things that need to be heard or that are important have to be given the necessary umph so that they cross over to the audience.
yes, it might feel out of the blue and yes it might not be so related to our superficial play (which is awesome) but it still relates to theatre as a form of teaching or as a way to give messages to people, sometimes.
domingo, 24 de abril de 2011
domingo, 17 de abril de 2011
when rehearsing the fourth scene of the play, the more domestic one i found myself blocked by the overall inability of the actors to perform so what i did is i repeated and repeated and repeated so much that they understood and did everything they needed to properly, however this failed to be productive since during 2 hours we had only achieved 10 seconds of the scene and i had only worked with two actors and left out the other ones to work on their own. this was a huge mistake, i realized it not only after the rehearsal when carlos said the same thing happened to him but when i found myself drained both physically and emotionally, i never realized how frustrating directing can be at times, but after thinking at home and letting go of the need to control every little detail and "me" part i came to the realization that for next rehearsal i had to have a different attitude and expectations.
so, first i must go into the rehearsal expecting the best but preparing for the worst (wise words from miss alicia), this really helps a lot because it enables me to, well, be prepared. what did i do to prepare? i thought about what roberto had said, dividing the scenes into beats, giving them laban styles or whatever its called, being patient and always have in mind the actors are not perfect. and also, the idea of "friendly" competition and motivation was very appealing, and yes i must admit that stirring the pot always appeals to me but when i really thought about it it did seem to have potential of giving some positive products.
so i brought in nathalie, a possible contender for zuyi's role and i made both of them very aware of that, yes she was frustrated, yes she was angry and yes she was very scared BUT, this motivated her A LOT in fact, nathalie's energy was so contagious that the whole atmosphere and feel of the scene changed and the overall work zuyi did became much better because she had received the motivation and little (well, huge) nudge she needed to move forward. yes, the movements and voice are not perfect but they are trying their hardest and overall the plan was a success. so, after seeing such great effort from the three geishas i decided to let them be exactly that, three, not two as we had planned beforehand. so this makes me realize that not only do i need to give the actors a second chance, but i must be open to changes that either come from me or from the actors themselves, because we have a good batch of creative actors here and sometimes they just need to be a little scared or excited to tap into their potential. now, don't think i just worked with them , no, i managed to split myself in 5000 and work with EVERYONE involved in the scene, the scene was divided in parts, in little scenes inside the scene that involved different groups, i told every group to think and act with Laban movements that, even though some were not aware of them they understood the concept once it was explained to them, i also worked with them and explained the plate tectonics concept and how we would use it in the play, particularly in their scene, yes it was tricky but i managed to make it simpler so that they understood, however here comes my first question: im not really sure if they have to know everything, must they understand and be aware of the WHOLE concept? exactly the same as we explained it to the kids in form 5? or should i break it down for them so that they grasp the concept OF the concept itself (pose, tense, then earthquake) in order for them to apply it quickly into the scene? so far the latter has worked fine and due to time constraints im not really sure if explaining the whole thing is the way to go, but, then again i don't know everything do i?
so after some time of me buzzing around each group in the scene we took the scenes and joined them and yes, we didn't manage to complete the whole scene but we worked a LOT more effectively and got way past the dreadful 10 second mark from last time.
the voice is not perfect and some don't even understand it, but, they seem to be quick learners and be very motivated because i do think that, during this rehearsal, i was less of the cranky dictator i "supposedly" am and was more friendly and it truly works, however there are times when i must be strict otherwise they just play around, but these are just kinks that well, come with the job.
YES my rehearsal was perfect!
NO, i had left out the production meeting and so at the end of the rehearsal i asked for the outcome of that meeting and this is what they had:
a whole bunch of nothing (jajaja manyas, el espacio? clever...) URGH frustrating, because people aren't doing their jobs and i know i can't do everything adn be involved in everything but if me being involved and constantly ask for things results in some form of results where as me leaving them to work alone ends in nothing, what do i do? because in the sheets we have of set design and the order of how it's done they all say: i dunno, let's say step 5 is the designer meets with the director and they decide stuff then all of the following steps don't say director, im supposed to not meddle, but i have to so that they get motivated and do SOMETHING which leads me to the next rehearsal, saturday's
i spent a whole lotta time with production people and we achieved some good things, more than what had been done in any production meeting, in fact, in all of them put together (just sayin') i did this because, apparently, the scene was to be directed by carlos as we had decided before, he was to direct that scene and more while i was to direct other ones, however this doesn't seem right know, given that im director i should be involved in the process (yes it sounds very self absorbed, but is it not the truth? ) i was told to "go direct" and not be so worried about production so i did, but what i found most effective is that during the beginning of the scene i directed taking ideas in from carlos who was next to me, and for parts as creating sequences of movements etc, i left them to create on their own while i checked the production meeting, so that i directed the end product, and found this to be very productive and effective except for those times when people just scattered about without doing things.
overall both rehearsals have been quite productive and very rewarding, i have now discovered one of the perks of being a director, you feel proud of what has been achieved and i think that the fact both the actors and myself are motivated and excited is one very good sign and a very good boost to when we work together because if people don't want to do things (which shows sometimes) then the whole play suffers. so for next rehearsal, the last of this week (fml, this is really bad, we lose 2 rehearsals which is VERY valuable time) i have set quite the challenge for me, because, since we have been progressively stepping up our game, i set 3 scenes to come to rehearse, one will be directed by carlos (which i still believe i have to check from time to time, since carlos tends to ramble and not get to the point thus hindering the possibilities of what could be done during the short time we have) , the other one will be the scene i was working on first, scene four (which by the way, was the actors' idea, so yes, they are motivated to work) , who will work alone (but i think i'll have them work in the theatre as well,so i can direct them a little, since they have been working so well and the scene is yet to be completed) and one more scene to be directed as well, which will be the main focus of the rehearsal, i have good expectations for this, but yes, i am still preparing for the worst which helps a lot.
but still, those sheets about set design have made gumbo out of my head, because they don't mention the director after the meeting with the designer, so, how far must i go? how far should i supervise that they are doing their jobs? how much time should i spend with them? because, let's face it, they kinda have to multitask as well, since the form 5ers are doing production AND acting , so is that supposed to happen? can you truly do both things? successfully? so in the end it all boils down to that, one person doing two or more things in a play, what has to be done other than simple organization to execute both tasks properly?
i've had my humble pie, right?
so, first i must go into the rehearsal expecting the best but preparing for the worst (wise words from miss alicia), this really helps a lot because it enables me to, well, be prepared. what did i do to prepare? i thought about what roberto had said, dividing the scenes into beats, giving them laban styles or whatever its called, being patient and always have in mind the actors are not perfect. and also, the idea of "friendly" competition and motivation was very appealing, and yes i must admit that stirring the pot always appeals to me but when i really thought about it it did seem to have potential of giving some positive products.
so i brought in nathalie, a possible contender for zuyi's role and i made both of them very aware of that, yes she was frustrated, yes she was angry and yes she was very scared BUT, this motivated her A LOT in fact, nathalie's energy was so contagious that the whole atmosphere and feel of the scene changed and the overall work zuyi did became much better because she had received the motivation and little (well, huge) nudge she needed to move forward. yes, the movements and voice are not perfect but they are trying their hardest and overall the plan was a success. so, after seeing such great effort from the three geishas i decided to let them be exactly that, three, not two as we had planned beforehand. so this makes me realize that not only do i need to give the actors a second chance, but i must be open to changes that either come from me or from the actors themselves, because we have a good batch of creative actors here and sometimes they just need to be a little scared or excited to tap into their potential. now, don't think i just worked with them , no, i managed to split myself in 5000 and work with EVERYONE involved in the scene, the scene was divided in parts, in little scenes inside the scene that involved different groups, i told every group to think and act with Laban movements that, even though some were not aware of them they understood the concept once it was explained to them, i also worked with them and explained the plate tectonics concept and how we would use it in the play, particularly in their scene, yes it was tricky but i managed to make it simpler so that they understood, however here comes my first question: im not really sure if they have to know everything, must they understand and be aware of the WHOLE concept? exactly the same as we explained it to the kids in form 5? or should i break it down for them so that they grasp the concept OF the concept itself (pose, tense, then earthquake) in order for them to apply it quickly into the scene? so far the latter has worked fine and due to time constraints im not really sure if explaining the whole thing is the way to go, but, then again i don't know everything do i?
so after some time of me buzzing around each group in the scene we took the scenes and joined them and yes, we didn't manage to complete the whole scene but we worked a LOT more effectively and got way past the dreadful 10 second mark from last time.
the voice is not perfect and some don't even understand it, but, they seem to be quick learners and be very motivated because i do think that, during this rehearsal, i was less of the cranky dictator i "supposedly" am and was more friendly and it truly works, however there are times when i must be strict otherwise they just play around, but these are just kinks that well, come with the job.
YES my rehearsal was perfect!
NO, i had left out the production meeting and so at the end of the rehearsal i asked for the outcome of that meeting and this is what they had:
a whole bunch of nothing (jajaja manyas, el espacio? clever...) URGH frustrating, because people aren't doing their jobs and i know i can't do everything adn be involved in everything but if me being involved and constantly ask for things results in some form of results where as me leaving them to work alone ends in nothing, what do i do? because in the sheets we have of set design and the order of how it's done they all say: i dunno, let's say step 5 is the designer meets with the director and they decide stuff then all of the following steps don't say director, im supposed to not meddle, but i have to so that they get motivated and do SOMETHING which leads me to the next rehearsal, saturday's
i spent a whole lotta time with production people and we achieved some good things, more than what had been done in any production meeting, in fact, in all of them put together (just sayin') i did this because, apparently, the scene was to be directed by carlos as we had decided before, he was to direct that scene and more while i was to direct other ones, however this doesn't seem right know, given that im director i should be involved in the process (yes it sounds very self absorbed, but is it not the truth? ) i was told to "go direct" and not be so worried about production so i did, but what i found most effective is that during the beginning of the scene i directed taking ideas in from carlos who was next to me, and for parts as creating sequences of movements etc, i left them to create on their own while i checked the production meeting, so that i directed the end product, and found this to be very productive and effective except for those times when people just scattered about without doing things.
overall both rehearsals have been quite productive and very rewarding, i have now discovered one of the perks of being a director, you feel proud of what has been achieved and i think that the fact both the actors and myself are motivated and excited is one very good sign and a very good boost to when we work together because if people don't want to do things (which shows sometimes) then the whole play suffers. so for next rehearsal, the last of this week (fml, this is really bad, we lose 2 rehearsals which is VERY valuable time) i have set quite the challenge for me, because, since we have been progressively stepping up our game, i set 3 scenes to come to rehearse, one will be directed by carlos (which i still believe i have to check from time to time, since carlos tends to ramble and not get to the point thus hindering the possibilities of what could be done during the short time we have) , the other one will be the scene i was working on first, scene four (which by the way, was the actors' idea, so yes, they are motivated to work) , who will work alone (but i think i'll have them work in the theatre as well,so i can direct them a little, since they have been working so well and the scene is yet to be completed) and one more scene to be directed as well, which will be the main focus of the rehearsal, i have good expectations for this, but yes, i am still preparing for the worst which helps a lot.
but still, those sheets about set design have made gumbo out of my head, because they don't mention the director after the meeting with the designer, so, how far must i go? how far should i supervise that they are doing their jobs? how much time should i spend with them? because, let's face it, they kinda have to multitask as well, since the form 5ers are doing production AND acting , so is that supposed to happen? can you truly do both things? successfully? so in the end it all boils down to that, one person doing two or more things in a play, what has to be done other than simple organization to execute both tasks properly?
i've had my humble pie, right?
lunes, 11 de abril de 2011
so far we're going really well, i mean, in terms of organization we`re kinda ahead schedule (which is a huge help) so we can relax.
JAA
no, there shall be no relaxing until we're done, completely done. so far in terms of directing the actors i think i'm doing pretty well, i have learnt a whole lot from watching and being directed by roberto, patty, carlos, valentina, and miss alicia when i was in her class so even though we haven't been truly sat down and taught how to direct we are still able to because we have been directed all along, so, this makes me think about paucartambo and how they get someone to be the caporal, they don't choose the young one, they choose the old and experienced one because he has been learning all of his life and acting all of his life, and in a way, haven't we been as well? we started when we were 5 and now we're 17 going on 18, that's more than ten years of theatre training and learning, so, this makes the process much more dynamic since we don't stop our learning process as actors to begin one as directors, we learn as actors and then, from that process translate it into directing, at least that's what i'm doing and so far i'm doing pretty well.
it is frustrating when a group has been taught something for the past 3 weeks and still they don't do it, but i think those things happen because they don't feel the pressure we do, they don't realize how little time we have to put this play together (some do, some work really hard and have the movements in their pocket, which for me, as a director can be very rewarding.) However, so far the process has been that of training and coaching them in the kabuki tradition, actual directing of scenes comes in the next rehearsal where i will really be directing the actors and moving them along the actual scene. that will be a challenge but i can't wait.
set design has been really important this past week and arianna is in charge of it, i feel that i and all of us should be a part of it along with her (which is what we're doing) and i understand that i must let her work by herself but, i decided to give her deadlines on certain things that really need to be done so that we can all work properly and on schedule, at first i kinda saw that she wanted to kill me, but, it had to be done so that she sets deadlines for herself and delegates to form 5, i've also asked esteban to give me the plotline of the play with annotations on where there should be music and how it should be like, according to each scene. this will not only help me but it will help the musicians and the play overall.
during our first production meeting not a lot was done, i think we need to stop wasting time on trivial things like who got kicked of the play and concentrate on more important things, i also thought it was rather frustrating that i had to ask and push form 5 into giving us proper and relevant comments and suggestions, but in the end i think they understood that they are there to work with us and not just for us.
now, the cyclorama business was decided but i don't agree with it, i thought it was supposed to be the palace resembling THE forest and the forest resembling THE palace (not any palace and any forest), i think it would me much more cohesive and simple for the audience yet i do agree that it would be predictable and rather monotone-ish if we limited ourselves to just one interpretation so in the end i'm convinced and in the end it's not JUST my decision, even though i could get up and say i wanted things done one way because i said so, i'd rather save that for times when it is desperately needed and when a something that could potentially harm the play would take place, not in cases when it helps, if executed properly.
this idea of learning and of this process to become a director still floats in my mind, i can't seem to decide whether you have to take a class on directing to be able to or if it comes on its own, maybe some people just can't do it and maybe you learn by being taught, do you know what im saying? by being directed by somebody else you are learning rather than having a teacher come in and teach you how to direct, i know this seems contradictory with what i have said before but, in theatre there is this fantastic world that keeps growing and keeps you on your feet so that one thing you thought worked can change and evolve into another thing that works even better. so, can you learn how to direct? and if so, how? what is the best or more proper way to learn and to actually direct? because in the end, isn't it all up to the actors during the performance? to do what they have been directed to do? because if one actor is bitter and decides not to do anything, would that be because of the director? and how do we identify when it is an actor's choice or an actor's performance that has been decided by the actor or a decission and product of the director?
JAA
no, there shall be no relaxing until we're done, completely done. so far in terms of directing the actors i think i'm doing pretty well, i have learnt a whole lot from watching and being directed by roberto, patty, carlos, valentina, and miss alicia when i was in her class so even though we haven't been truly sat down and taught how to direct we are still able to because we have been directed all along, so, this makes me think about paucartambo and how they get someone to be the caporal, they don't choose the young one, they choose the old and experienced one because he has been learning all of his life and acting all of his life, and in a way, haven't we been as well? we started when we were 5 and now we're 17 going on 18, that's more than ten years of theatre training and learning, so, this makes the process much more dynamic since we don't stop our learning process as actors to begin one as directors, we learn as actors and then, from that process translate it into directing, at least that's what i'm doing and so far i'm doing pretty well.
it is frustrating when a group has been taught something for the past 3 weeks and still they don't do it, but i think those things happen because they don't feel the pressure we do, they don't realize how little time we have to put this play together (some do, some work really hard and have the movements in their pocket, which for me, as a director can be very rewarding.) However, so far the process has been that of training and coaching them in the kabuki tradition, actual directing of scenes comes in the next rehearsal where i will really be directing the actors and moving them along the actual scene. that will be a challenge but i can't wait.
set design has been really important this past week and arianna is in charge of it, i feel that i and all of us should be a part of it along with her (which is what we're doing) and i understand that i must let her work by herself but, i decided to give her deadlines on certain things that really need to be done so that we can all work properly and on schedule, at first i kinda saw that she wanted to kill me, but, it had to be done so that she sets deadlines for herself and delegates to form 5, i've also asked esteban to give me the plotline of the play with annotations on where there should be music and how it should be like, according to each scene. this will not only help me but it will help the musicians and the play overall.
during our first production meeting not a lot was done, i think we need to stop wasting time on trivial things like who got kicked of the play and concentrate on more important things, i also thought it was rather frustrating that i had to ask and push form 5 into giving us proper and relevant comments and suggestions, but in the end i think they understood that they are there to work with us and not just for us.
now, the cyclorama business was decided but i don't agree with it, i thought it was supposed to be the palace resembling THE forest and the forest resembling THE palace (not any palace and any forest), i think it would me much more cohesive and simple for the audience yet i do agree that it would be predictable and rather monotone-ish if we limited ourselves to just one interpretation so in the end i'm convinced and in the end it's not JUST my decision, even though i could get up and say i wanted things done one way because i said so, i'd rather save that for times when it is desperately needed and when a something that could potentially harm the play would take place, not in cases when it helps, if executed properly.
this idea of learning and of this process to become a director still floats in my mind, i can't seem to decide whether you have to take a class on directing to be able to or if it comes on its own, maybe some people just can't do it and maybe you learn by being taught, do you know what im saying? by being directed by somebody else you are learning rather than having a teacher come in and teach you how to direct, i know this seems contradictory with what i have said before but, in theatre there is this fantastic world that keeps growing and keeps you on your feet so that one thing you thought worked can change and evolve into another thing that works even better. so, can you learn how to direct? and if so, how? what is the best or more proper way to learn and to actually direct? because in the end, isn't it all up to the actors during the performance? to do what they have been directed to do? because if one actor is bitter and decides not to do anything, would that be because of the director? and how do we identify when it is an actor's choice or an actor's performance that has been decided by the actor or a decission and product of the director?
lunes, 4 de abril de 2011
rehearsals
before the rehearsal on saturday we really were not moving forward at all, in fact, all that we learnt one day i found myself to be practicing with the group the days after because they had not learned anything at all. I keep having to tell these girls to put the elbows touching the waist or bending their knees, etc. something i should not be doing had they learned, most importantly had i taught them well: have i failed to some extent? whose to blame when actors don't do things correctly? actors or the director? when do we know when it is enough and we should just let the actors perform? how could i get through to them enough so that they learn?
i honestly think they did learn but they just didn't want to perform well, they're tired, annoyed and bored of the same movements every rehearsal BUT come on, kabuki actors train since they're four, these girls have been training for no more than 2 weeks and 2-3 months away from the play being bored is NOT an option. Thank God that las rehearsal things moved forward a whole lot. Knowing their characters and a sequence of every general movement women make during a kabuki play (I figured teaching them all the basics and then start teaching them separately depending on their characters' needs) i explained a little bit of our concept (not really, i just told them to be inspired and try to evoke something from the forest, which they all understood pretty well - i wasn't going to try to explain to the little ones something they don't need to know really, but i know i have to someday during rehearsals so that the actors are fully integrated into this process of making our play happen. fml) and then asked for them to, basing their work on the movement sequence we learnt, perform that same sequence but being inspired and influenced by their characters. turns out they really did know the sequence, in fact, some who were not able to perform it say perfectly actually shone when implementing their characters' body language to it (props to the cocineras, witches and spiders) HOWEVER i was thoroughly disappointed when the geishas didn't know the sequence, in fact, they didn't know how to stand as a geisha (something we had been working on and improving for the past rehearsals).
so, to conclude. the feeling of failure perhaps, disappeared upon seeing some of the girls performances but really took over me upon seeing those that, well, kinda sucked. I felt as if my job wasn't done correctly or maybe it was my fault being the director, however i quickly realized that not everything is my fault, in fact, it stops being about the director when it comes to performing and some weird thing in the mind and body of the actors just does not want to work properly, this is why we as directors must detach ourselves and become spectators when watching the performance so that we can analyze every detail (still keeping in mind the creative process) and then give our actors feedback upon it, so that hopefully, the next day of performing, they will take it into consideration and transform it into an enhanced action and a better performnace.
i still have many questions about directing and have even thought: what's the point if during the actual performance the actors might just throw it all away? how can we, as directors, ensure a good performance from the actors? how do we know the product of our and their hardwork will be properly presented to an audience?
i honestly think they did learn but they just didn't want to perform well, they're tired, annoyed and bored of the same movements every rehearsal BUT come on, kabuki actors train since they're four, these girls have been training for no more than 2 weeks and 2-3 months away from the play being bored is NOT an option. Thank God that las rehearsal things moved forward a whole lot. Knowing their characters and a sequence of every general movement women make during a kabuki play (I figured teaching them all the basics and then start teaching them separately depending on their characters' needs) i explained a little bit of our concept (not really, i just told them to be inspired and try to evoke something from the forest, which they all understood pretty well - i wasn't going to try to explain to the little ones something they don't need to know really, but i know i have to someday during rehearsals so that the actors are fully integrated into this process of making our play happen. fml) and then asked for them to, basing their work on the movement sequence we learnt, perform that same sequence but being inspired and influenced by their characters. turns out they really did know the sequence, in fact, some who were not able to perform it say perfectly actually shone when implementing their characters' body language to it (props to the cocineras, witches and spiders) HOWEVER i was thoroughly disappointed when the geishas didn't know the sequence, in fact, they didn't know how to stand as a geisha (something we had been working on and improving for the past rehearsals).
so, to conclude. the feeling of failure perhaps, disappeared upon seeing some of the girls performances but really took over me upon seeing those that, well, kinda sucked. I felt as if my job wasn't done correctly or maybe it was my fault being the director, however i quickly realized that not everything is my fault, in fact, it stops being about the director when it comes to performing and some weird thing in the mind and body of the actors just does not want to work properly, this is why we as directors must detach ourselves and become spectators when watching the performance so that we can analyze every detail (still keeping in mind the creative process) and then give our actors feedback upon it, so that hopefully, the next day of performing, they will take it into consideration and transform it into an enhanced action and a better performnace.
i still have many questions about directing and have even thought: what's the point if during the actual performance the actors might just throw it all away? how can we, as directors, ensure a good performance from the actors? how do we know the product of our and their hardwork will be properly presented to an audience?
domingo, 27 de marzo de 2011
hello. i am tired and my appendix did not explode.
so i'm still trying to figure out where my stress related "mark" will appear (maybe something icky like a blue thing on my tongue or maybe something awesome like a moving tattoo on my forearm or maybe i'll die.)
let's talk rehearsals.
the first few rehearsals were all fun and games for the actors, i found this an excellent way of getting to know them and of identifying those who work really hard and those who don't. I was rather surprised to see some of the best actors slacking and found myself to be pleasantly surprised by those who worked hard. however there are some who try their best but when it comes to actual acting they seem to choke or maybe they just can't. with this i come to one of my first questions: how do you learn to act? can you learn to act? because in theatre (the course) we have yet to be taught HOW to act, what we do learn is the techniques and different ways of acting so that we become better, in fact, the course is not of acting, it's a theatre course it's learning everything you need to put on a solid play because since we're kids we're told not to turn our backs on the stage and talk loudly so that the audience can hear us, etc. we haven't been taught how to portray sadness or how to act as if, i don't know, our dog died. do you see where im going? so then i ponder about a director, hence my job this year, can he/she make an actor who isn't very good, act better? i think not, i think what must be done is directing the actor, working along with the actor so that from that collaboration a better performance can be achieved, a director doesn't carry an actor around, he directs them to the way, he shows them (justifying why sometimes when an actor doesn't seem to grasp what we as directors are trying to tell them to do the director stands and SHOWS them) so that they can do that going along with the play and the style of acting such play requires. HOWEVER i have come to another crossroads because when teaching the girls in my group how to act as geishas when i don't know how to do it perfectly they ask me a valid question: "how can you teach me if you don't know?" and i feel the answer is, i don't need to do it so that you can learn HOW to do it, because what i'm teaching these girls is HOW, how do you do it? the techniques involved in the acting of something. in this case geishas. so that i can see, correct and thus improve their overall performance as geishas. so that they are fully aware of the how. there's a difference in just standing there and doing (acting like a geisha) and have them copy me to tell them how to do it, tell them that the knees have to be together, the elbows stuck to your body, etc. and the result is we make them better as, not actors, but as theatre makers, as someone who is fully capable of fulfilling every task required to put on a good play. as someone who can not only perform a geisha role in a kabuki play (wether they suck or not) but more so as someone who can now pass on those techniques and teach someone else (if they have been paying full attention) thus, what we learn throughout the course is extremely useful and NECESSARY for us to be play makers. so i come to the conclusion that everything in theatre is a collective, it's done at least in twos for example: te director and the actor work together, a director can't work alone because then who acts his vision, the actor can do things alone but in a way he she is his her own director, right? and if they do work alone it's because of what i said before, they have been taught the techniques necessary for a long time that's why there is no director in several theatre traditions around the world usually those that are taught since a very young age so that the actors are aware of how to do things so that they do them perfectly. one of the girls asked me if i was qualified to do this, another one asked me how long have i been doing this. this blog comes from that, i've been learning for the past 10 years of my life the HOW, now it's time to improve these actors' hows (this is getting awfully philosophical, or whatever you might call it.) because even though i'm not a super theatre expert i am aware of the knowledge they are currently acquiring, the one i was taught 4 or 5 years ago.
let's talk kabuki.
i am actually very excited about this play because the tradition we chose is a very interesting one, in fact, it's a very visually stunning and stunning-in-every-other-way one. yet there are some aspects of the tradition that I feel could be changed or slightly (evil laugh) altered so that the play turns out to be, well, better or perhaps more enjoyable for the audience because better in what terms? in terms of kabuki, it wouldn't be "better" because we wouldn't follow the tradition as it is, in fact, the fact that we started to learn kabuki less than 6 months ago means we're doomed even before we started because in order for us to follow the kabuki tradition we'd have to go back in time move to a different country and learn since we're fetuses. (ALERT, EMOTIONAL PART) so i feel it is rather unfair to alter some conventions our kabuki expert desires to alter and not mine (end) as i said, theatre is a collective effort and if we are quick to shut down other ideas for our own interest then overall, we all fail. so this helps me in my role as director (everything is connected in theatre, it's like a spider web in which you are trapped until you die and one of your body parts is used as a prop :) ) and the typical "because i said so", up to what point to we work along with others? and at which point to we stop taking ideas and just say "do it because i said so", at what point do we impose our vision for the sake of the play? what if we fail?
AHH!
so far so good, i feel. i do have kids telling me im just like roberto and that they never see me smile. but, they say this when i'm strict mauricio (which is most of the time because the kids are just wild) but i do laugh and joke around with them but it is only so that they are comfortable around me therefore working in a friendly environment, thus happy. allowing them to tap into their full potential because remember, a happy worker is a good worker. (also, i am missing an annie wig when i direct them so i honestly can't find any resemblance) This is where a balance is important, it is always important. i can't be hitler but i can't be a clown with them because they won't take me seriously so where i feel our performance as directors is hindered is in the confidence the actors have with us, that's why being strict works so that they listen and do things better consequentially making the play better. i feel that for the first two rehearsals i was rather power hungry and wanted to yell at them and make sophie cry BUT after strong medication and thinking i came to the conclusion i said earlier, the balance and the happy worker. i find directing rather relaxing, i've been recently encountering some rather annoying stomach pains but when i direct (which would be a stressful situation) it doesn't really hurt that much.
overall i feel we're heading in a good direction, however it might be to soon to tell since we're just barely getting our feet wet. we still have to go through the different aspects of production and design, that i'm rather nervous about, but, good nervous. as far as directing goes, i feel that keeping it professional is key however i am a teenager and interacting with some of the older kids is kind of unavoidable. i am still haunted by the doubt of the how, how are we able to do something out of a different tradition and do it well? how do i direct something if in the theatre tradition we're doing it in doesn't even have a director in the first place? and which way of directing is the best one? where does my role, as director, end, in terms of the roles of my fellow classmates, do i supervise everything? or do i let it run its course? and if so, how do i direct 106 if im just one? this is when it depends on the actor to pay attention to how i direct others so that the common errors they have are corrected by themselves. making my job and theirs easier.
let's talk rehearsals.
the first few rehearsals were all fun and games for the actors, i found this an excellent way of getting to know them and of identifying those who work really hard and those who don't. I was rather surprised to see some of the best actors slacking and found myself to be pleasantly surprised by those who worked hard. however there are some who try their best but when it comes to actual acting they seem to choke or maybe they just can't. with this i come to one of my first questions: how do you learn to act? can you learn to act? because in theatre (the course) we have yet to be taught HOW to act, what we do learn is the techniques and different ways of acting so that we become better, in fact, the course is not of acting, it's a theatre course it's learning everything you need to put on a solid play because since we're kids we're told not to turn our backs on the stage and talk loudly so that the audience can hear us, etc. we haven't been taught how to portray sadness or how to act as if, i don't know, our dog died. do you see where im going? so then i ponder about a director, hence my job this year, can he/she make an actor who isn't very good, act better? i think not, i think what must be done is directing the actor, working along with the actor so that from that collaboration a better performance can be achieved, a director doesn't carry an actor around, he directs them to the way, he shows them (justifying why sometimes when an actor doesn't seem to grasp what we as directors are trying to tell them to do the director stands and SHOWS them) so that they can do that going along with the play and the style of acting such play requires. HOWEVER i have come to another crossroads because when teaching the girls in my group how to act as geishas when i don't know how to do it perfectly they ask me a valid question: "how can you teach me if you don't know?" and i feel the answer is, i don't need to do it so that you can learn HOW to do it, because what i'm teaching these girls is HOW, how do you do it? the techniques involved in the acting of something. in this case geishas. so that i can see, correct and thus improve their overall performance as geishas. so that they are fully aware of the how. there's a difference in just standing there and doing (acting like a geisha) and have them copy me to tell them how to do it, tell them that the knees have to be together, the elbows stuck to your body, etc. and the result is we make them better as, not actors, but as theatre makers, as someone who is fully capable of fulfilling every task required to put on a good play. as someone who can not only perform a geisha role in a kabuki play (wether they suck or not) but more so as someone who can now pass on those techniques and teach someone else (if they have been paying full attention) thus, what we learn throughout the course is extremely useful and NECESSARY for us to be play makers. so i come to the conclusion that everything in theatre is a collective, it's done at least in twos for example: te director and the actor work together, a director can't work alone because then who acts his vision, the actor can do things alone but in a way he she is his her own director, right? and if they do work alone it's because of what i said before, they have been taught the techniques necessary for a long time that's why there is no director in several theatre traditions around the world usually those that are taught since a very young age so that the actors are aware of how to do things so that they do them perfectly. one of the girls asked me if i was qualified to do this, another one asked me how long have i been doing this. this blog comes from that, i've been learning for the past 10 years of my life the HOW, now it's time to improve these actors' hows (this is getting awfully philosophical, or whatever you might call it.) because even though i'm not a super theatre expert i am aware of the knowledge they are currently acquiring, the one i was taught 4 or 5 years ago.
let's talk kabuki.
i am actually very excited about this play because the tradition we chose is a very interesting one, in fact, it's a very visually stunning and stunning-in-every-other-way one. yet there are some aspects of the tradition that I feel could be changed or slightly (evil laugh) altered so that the play turns out to be, well, better or perhaps more enjoyable for the audience because better in what terms? in terms of kabuki, it wouldn't be "better" because we wouldn't follow the tradition as it is, in fact, the fact that we started to learn kabuki less than 6 months ago means we're doomed even before we started because in order for us to follow the kabuki tradition we'd have to go back in time move to a different country and learn since we're fetuses. (ALERT, EMOTIONAL PART) so i feel it is rather unfair to alter some conventions our kabuki expert desires to alter and not mine (end) as i said, theatre is a collective effort and if we are quick to shut down other ideas for our own interest then overall, we all fail. so this helps me in my role as director (everything is connected in theatre, it's like a spider web in which you are trapped until you die and one of your body parts is used as a prop :) ) and the typical "because i said so", up to what point to we work along with others? and at which point to we stop taking ideas and just say "do it because i said so", at what point do we impose our vision for the sake of the play? what if we fail?
AHH!
so far so good, i feel. i do have kids telling me im just like roberto and that they never see me smile. but, they say this when i'm strict mauricio (which is most of the time because the kids are just wild) but i do laugh and joke around with them but it is only so that they are comfortable around me therefore working in a friendly environment, thus happy. allowing them to tap into their full potential because remember, a happy worker is a good worker. (also, i am missing an annie wig when i direct them so i honestly can't find any resemblance) This is where a balance is important, it is always important. i can't be hitler but i can't be a clown with them because they won't take me seriously so where i feel our performance as directors is hindered is in the confidence the actors have with us, that's why being strict works so that they listen and do things better consequentially making the play better. i feel that for the first two rehearsals i was rather power hungry and wanted to yell at them and make sophie cry BUT after strong medication and thinking i came to the conclusion i said earlier, the balance and the happy worker. i find directing rather relaxing, i've been recently encountering some rather annoying stomach pains but when i direct (which would be a stressful situation) it doesn't really hurt that much.
overall i feel we're heading in a good direction, however it might be to soon to tell since we're just barely getting our feet wet. we still have to go through the different aspects of production and design, that i'm rather nervous about, but, good nervous. as far as directing goes, i feel that keeping it professional is key however i am a teenager and interacting with some of the older kids is kind of unavoidable. i am still haunted by the doubt of the how, how are we able to do something out of a different tradition and do it well? how do i direct something if in the theatre tradition we're doing it in doesn't even have a director in the first place? and which way of directing is the best one? where does my role, as director, end, in terms of the roles of my fellow classmates, do i supervise everything? or do i let it run its course? and if so, how do i direct 106 if im just one? this is when it depends on the actor to pay attention to how i direct others so that the common errors they have are corrected by themselves. making my job and theirs easier.
lunes, 21 de marzo de 2011
Masks in sin titulo
short and sweet, im dying.
1: The teacher mask: as the frenzy of the teacher's rampage heightens, the actress then takes a mask that is simple (just the face with holes on the eyes, nostrils and mouth), grey and dark grey horizontal stripes that turns her into this sort of ninja-movement person. This is the only one that i didn't understand, and it's weird because usually masks in yuyachkani don't come out of the blue, but this one felt like it did. This mask changed the way the actress moved, her movements (accompanied by some form of chop sticks) became swift and almost violent, so masks serve as a form of characterization and as an incentive for using our bodies as actors.
2:The politicians and judges, this one was the one i understood the most. Its shape and colors and cartoonish nature had a mocking effect, they mocked the politicians (montesinos, fujimori, etc) and along with the music and body language (and body in general, the head was bigger giving this feeling of having a "big head", or letting the power get to their heads, etc.) gave this part of the play a more comical appeal. so then the semiosis here is to mock these politicians and judges, to present them as clowns and laughing-stocks of the population, however, when we think about it, the actions in the play were not of us fooling them, they were of them fooling us so were they really presented as that? or were they presented as that to further present US like that?
3: the baby in the pot, this one was kind of tricky as well, roberto explained that this play with the elements and the fire in the belly meant something, it meant some sort of inner turmoil in the character, i said it meant she was pregnant, but roberto said it had been more violent than that, so maybe a rape? the mask clearly represented a baby, and in this case it serves as a substitute for an actual baby, like in antigone, it serves as a substitute for a character, but it is also used to represent how that character, stiff, has now been lost forever (when the mask is broken).
4: The blindfold used here, could it be counted as a mask? or is it a mere representative? then, what is a mask? and how far can we push to say that something we put on our faces is a mask? in this case, if it were a mask, it represented blindness and how the character or the population was being played by the government, by the corruption. Here a "mask" represents a state in which the people or character is in, rather than transforming it as it did in the first one or as it would if it were a mask of a bird,
1: The teacher mask: as the frenzy of the teacher's rampage heightens, the actress then takes a mask that is simple (just the face with holes on the eyes, nostrils and mouth), grey and dark grey horizontal stripes that turns her into this sort of ninja-movement person. This is the only one that i didn't understand, and it's weird because usually masks in yuyachkani don't come out of the blue, but this one felt like it did. This mask changed the way the actress moved, her movements (accompanied by some form of chop sticks) became swift and almost violent, so masks serve as a form of characterization and as an incentive for using our bodies as actors.
2:The politicians and judges, this one was the one i understood the most. Its shape and colors and cartoonish nature had a mocking effect, they mocked the politicians (montesinos, fujimori, etc) and along with the music and body language (and body in general, the head was bigger giving this feeling of having a "big head", or letting the power get to their heads, etc.) gave this part of the play a more comical appeal. so then the semiosis here is to mock these politicians and judges, to present them as clowns and laughing-stocks of the population, however, when we think about it, the actions in the play were not of us fooling them, they were of them fooling us so were they really presented as that? or were they presented as that to further present US like that?
3: the baby in the pot, this one was kind of tricky as well, roberto explained that this play with the elements and the fire in the belly meant something, it meant some sort of inner turmoil in the character, i said it meant she was pregnant, but roberto said it had been more violent than that, so maybe a rape? the mask clearly represented a baby, and in this case it serves as a substitute for an actual baby, like in antigone, it serves as a substitute for a character, but it is also used to represent how that character, stiff, has now been lost forever (when the mask is broken).
4: The blindfold used here, could it be counted as a mask? or is it a mere representative? then, what is a mask? and how far can we push to say that something we put on our faces is a mask? in this case, if it were a mask, it represented blindness and how the character or the population was being played by the government, by the corruption. Here a "mask" represents a state in which the people or character is in, rather than transforming it as it did in the first one or as it would if it were a mask of a bird,
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
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
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)