DANCE
this dance is driving me insane, however i really think i'm on a breakthrough because for the past rehearsals we had this whole routine that looked good on paper but once it was put in performance it didn't work as much, i had the geisha dance separately but now, given that the ending is so much better (both on paper and live) than all the rest of the dance i scratched the rest of the dance and made it more like the ending, meaning the geisha now dance as a group, as a unit or at least more than the first dance we choreographed. this allows a bigger effect and it allows for me to concentrate on that effect when directing rather than concentrating on every geisha to learn and execute their own little dance perfectly. HOWEVER now that they do more things alike and together, the little mistakes and imperfections on their posture and overall performance as geisha are extremely noticeable thus i feel like i'm back to square one (at least in terms of having to correct each girl until perfection, which i´m very aware is impossible).
it was also very useful for me to have another person direct the girls (valentina) and then show me their final product. i noticed that the way she directed the girls was different to mine, she was giving them references that because of their age, they would understand and respond to (mulan,etc) and i could see they enjoyed doing things and working with her so i thought this could be applied when i'm directing them, so when they showed me their final product i was rather shocked to see that they still put the lackluster performance they always do, the same mistakes were made and when speaking to valentina she had the exact same notes and complaints as i did (complaints in terms of performance, not in gossipy terms so calm down) therefore i was relieved, it wasn't me who was the problem, it's not the directing here. however i'm really nervous and preoccupied now because this must mean the problem is them, they just wont work properly even though they all give it their all because, in terms of kabuki and performing they just cant, so this leads me to think and wonder if: is it true? are there people who just can't? what is a director's role here? because in terms of acting roberto taught me a wonderful trick, have them play with their faces (pout, frown, etc) and there really wont be a need for honest facial expression , in that case, they can fake it BUT what is to be done in terms of the physical performance (which is basically their whole performance)because you can't have a girl fake it when it comes to keeping their heads facing forward or their knees together, or smiling or the, dare i say it, overtly complicated walk+move shoulders+move head concept that is just too complicated for them to do? because to have actors fake facial expressions you tell them to frown constantly or pout and they do it, whereas here to have them fake it they actually have to know it. so how do we teach them? how can you teach someone how to act? and how do you direct someone if they dont know how to act?
again, kill me
domingo, 29 de mayo de 2011
domingo, 22 de mayo de 2011
Rehearsals
So far rehearsals are going as I have expected them to, that does not necessarily mean "well".
i find it deeply frustrating that the geisha are taking extremely long to learn their dance and how their lack of effort and commitment (some at least) is hindering their performance.
i think constant repetition of actions in the dance will help them learn it and it will further engrave in their brains that it's not about whether they want to do anything or not, it's about the play and it being successful. I read in Marowitz' book that a director must have a balance between someone who is firm and gives orders and someone who takes suggestions to make the performance better, however, what if when I take suggestions and agree with them the end product is still the same? (no effort, bad product) or when i'm firm and tell them to work i still get nothing? How does one deal with something like this? because usually, the books and information given by actual directors is mostly about their work with professional or at least experienced actors NOT with 6th grade and above.
roberto came up with the idea to have the geisha along with the ninjas come every rehearsal so that they learn their parts alone. I think this could be effective because they will somehow become bored with not doing anything (what they would do in the first half hour i think) and actually get some work done, maybe they feel intimidated by anyone else's presence (anyone in charge that is) so we'll give this a try.
This week start the actual rehearsals, what i mean by this is the rehearsals of scenes. I think the last one i had was quite successful but i have come to the realization that the actual arrangement of the scene (particularly the ones in the palace) is kind of restraining. I found myself thinking about things the royal family could do, around the stage or even stand somewhere but this would not be possible because they are fixed in the platform, moving them would ruin the aesthetics of the scene so i think yes, this does restrain but isn't that what we want? restrain then earthquake? so i will have people there move only when an earthquake or very important and tense action happens in the scene.
with this last thing i realize that things that restrain us can actually turn to our benefit, so i begin to wonder about the so called "no-nos" of theatre, what is wrong? because say, turning your back on the audience is something that is wrong in western forms of theatre but it could work in other traiditions an places. so
what exactly do we mean and what exactly is, in theatre, wrong?
i find it deeply frustrating that the geisha are taking extremely long to learn their dance and how their lack of effort and commitment (some at least) is hindering their performance.
i think constant repetition of actions in the dance will help them learn it and it will further engrave in their brains that it's not about whether they want to do anything or not, it's about the play and it being successful. I read in Marowitz' book that a director must have a balance between someone who is firm and gives orders and someone who takes suggestions to make the performance better, however, what if when I take suggestions and agree with them the end product is still the same? (no effort, bad product) or when i'm firm and tell them to work i still get nothing? How does one deal with something like this? because usually, the books and information given by actual directors is mostly about their work with professional or at least experienced actors NOT with 6th grade and above.
roberto came up with the idea to have the geisha along with the ninjas come every rehearsal so that they learn their parts alone. I think this could be effective because they will somehow become bored with not doing anything (what they would do in the first half hour i think) and actually get some work done, maybe they feel intimidated by anyone else's presence (anyone in charge that is) so we'll give this a try.
This week start the actual rehearsals, what i mean by this is the rehearsals of scenes. I think the last one i had was quite successful but i have come to the realization that the actual arrangement of the scene (particularly the ones in the palace) is kind of restraining. I found myself thinking about things the royal family could do, around the stage or even stand somewhere but this would not be possible because they are fixed in the platform, moving them would ruin the aesthetics of the scene so i think yes, this does restrain but isn't that what we want? restrain then earthquake? so i will have people there move only when an earthquake or very important and tense action happens in the scene.
with this last thing i realize that things that restrain us can actually turn to our benefit, so i begin to wonder about the so called "no-nos" of theatre, what is wrong? because say, turning your back on the audience is something that is wrong in western forms of theatre but it could work in other traiditions an places. so
what exactly do we mean and what exactly is, in theatre, wrong?
domingo, 1 de mayo de 2011
pedro de valdivia
le alianze francaise was this week's destination for our theatre group, we went there to see a play about the life and work of pedro de valdivia.
upon entering the theatre, the stage is set up in a rather familiar way (suspicious eye brow), with musical instruments bordering the stage walls so my mind went directly to Yuyachkani's con-cierto olvido (mainly a display of the actors' talents and celebration of their repertoire). This was the first hint of how the actors would be like, well rounded i mean because if you put several musical instruments on stage they have to be there for a reason. My mind quickly wondered wether these would be actually used during the performance, and let me tell you something, if they weren't i would be really dissapointed. So we already learn a lesson, dont fill your stage with interesting crap if you ain't gonna use it because you will end up with one pissed off audience. What i mean is, the set design has to be both clever and useful ( serves both the actor and the audience) so when choosing to have the instruments displayed on stage, automatically making them part of the set design itself, you create some expectation in your audience because these are things that can be used by the actor and give some psazz to your play. Thankfully they did.
However i do get one question from this, when can we say something is a prop and when is something part of scenery? because when they were laying there, the instruments were scenery but when played they were props, right? So we can say, and i've said it like a gzillion times, a play is a whole, it's a unity, it's when all of the production elements and then the acting come together to form a magical experience (if it's good) and a bad one (if it sucks). BUT isn't this too modern from my part? because the modern paradigm states that everything is a unit, a total and complete play in this case therefore you can understand everything but isn't me rambling about JUST one thing (in this case the first impression the stage gave me) a very fragmented opinion?
i think, although pointless, this is very useful because it made me identify that to analyze a play a breakdown of its different aspects is very much necessary because you have to be specific and it leads to my believing in not two of the paradigms but both: thus i present to you, with proper grandieur and drama (that i love so deal with it) the new post-postmodern paradigm. because limiting ourselves to either understanding everything or just parts leaves out a very important process that results in this post-post modern paradigm, because to understand (properly) everything at least some form of analysis of every part must be made. This applies to analyzing plays or theatre, to properly soak all of the experience of watching a play, of being a part of a play, you need to understand and break it into parts (technically reffering to design elements acting elements and directing elements) to get to its core (concept)and then go back to the whole play. get it? me neither. (jk)
one interesting thing about this play's first impression is the fact that the actors entered afterwards when usually they are there in still picture. it led me to wonder, what effect does this have on the audience? because having them there in character at the very beggining is far more striking than having them casually enter (as they did in this play) or having them enter in character. so to what extent are first impressions important? because you can have an amazing first impression but then all of the play must be equally amazing so that that awe created in the audience is maintained. or is it better to have a meh first impression (medium, mediocre, or just there) and then start a build up in the overall qualiy of the play?
and wouldn't it be interesting (for learning purposes) to have the actors enter during the beginning (rather than there in still picture) and see the transition from actor to the character?
That is kinda what actually happened in this play, the actors entered in a rather nonchalant way- in not very elaborate costumes that represented the period in which the events of the play took place- and sat down with the instruments and began to sing and play. However i felt they did not get into character upon singing, especially during the beginning of the play so, what effect can this have on the audience? and on the performance itself? because when you go to a play you expect some characters, and even though they did deliver fantastic ones later on there was a lack of characterization upon playing so does this mean they were acting when playing the instruments? or were they just actors playing some music?
speaking of which, music played a very important role in this play, it served as a narrating vessel. This narrating of what could be overtly boring facts was made playful and pleasing by the music, this leads me to think about our own kabuki play and how music is key to it being succesful given that kabuki is such a sensorial experience. For example, when Miyuki delivers her long monoloque, don't you think it would be rather bland if there weren't any music? and wouldn't the constant narrating of things without any song (and clever word play in this play's case) be overbearing and just plain dull for the audience? The difference with our kabuki play is that during the music there are also several actions and dances that are meant to be powerful and interesting for the audience whereas here, more than halve of the actors where just playing the instruments and singing while another one acted or joined them playing. This is why i believe a play has to at least try to appeal to all the senses of the audience, not just center on one however this could be refuted with and example from con-cierto olvido: the entire cast sat down and started to make sounds of a forest or jungle, it was so powerful and realistic that most of the audience including myself closed our eyes and were just swept away, YET did this not eventually trigger all of our senses? because if we think about it, sounds of a forest make you think about something and make you smell, see and even feel different things whereas three men playing guitar and singing is just, that.
Going on with the topic of sound, the sound effects were fantastic in this play and though unrealistic, they worked because the whole vibe of the play was not a serious one, it was a very playful and silly one that really worked. One interesting thing concerning sound is the use of the voice, THIS part was where i really burst into laughter because those sutil yet completely noticeable changes in one or another actors' voice were increidibly comical. Take the chilean accent for example, i thought the play would be po this po that and cachai and all that mumbojumbo but i was pleasently surprised to see they saved those moments to perfect comic timing especially because the colloquial and very not serious tone of their voice was the complete opposite of the situation. EG: when they are guarding the doors and the middle one gets struck by an arrow, that "pero que paso" was so perfect and so natural it had to be one of the funniest one liners of the play and this provides me a valuable lesson, especially because i tend to write on the elaborate side: SOMETIMES SAYING SO MUCH CRAP THAT REALLY COULD BE SAID IN ONE LINE is just, a bunch of crap that yes, might be funny but doesnt share the strength and umph of one hell of a one liner. so already this play that clearly presents well rounded actors (sing, dance act, play instruments, etc) is helping me and hopefully all of those who saw it to be well rounded dramaturgs. Of course the play isn't going to present things on a silver platter, it will spatter you with ideas and concepts and even little moments in it such as this one that must be analyzed in order to get the big picture = third paradigm, post post modernist -really think this could be a thing here.
one interesting convention that was used is the pause, which happened right after the moment i mentioned just before, after the arrow struck him, he stood there for a moment, silent and then the three of them burst into screams and panic which was fairly funny. this pause reminds me of the one used in kabuki and it shows me how this pause can be used not only for dramatic moments (as it is used in kabuki) but also as a build up for comedic moments.
In terms of acting, every single one of the performers acted as a different character a one point or another and i thought this could have been tedious and almost obnoxious for the audience but gladly i was wrong, the transtitions between characters were effortlessly done and even though somewhat abrupt (like the ones leading to the man writing in a scroll with a feathered pen and grandieur) they still worked, because they were meant to be that way, funny too. The acting was very exaggerated and slaptstick at times, serving the comedic purpose of the play (when guarding the doors and moving the hips or when acting scared, etc)and i think the contradiction of such a serious and historical theme with the way it was presented works very well because even though the aim is not to offend but to criticize at least just a little bit, it never seized to be funny and it never seized to be clever and it never struck a nerve (except on what i believe was a 9/11 joke). So another lesson we learn is that thre is no need to be so serious about things, plays and theatre are supposed to be about precisely that: "play", fun so when presenting such a heavy subject like this one that could be a speech of fact after fact after fact could result in one suicidal audience, it is presented in the least expected way possible that surprises and most importantly entertains the audience.
The acting was also effective when creating props and parts of the scenery (the horse, the pen, etc.) and it showed that it is not necessary to fill the stage with stuff ( a whole lotta stuff) because that could somehow exclude the audience from the game whereas if you don't have certain elements and create them through the acting then the audience is going along the play with you. take macbeth for example, in the dining room scene when the ghost of Banquo appears it is the director's choice wether to have him present or not, if he is then the audience sees things from mcbeths point of view and if he isnt they'll think he's insane, thus being with the people sorrounding macbeth and so if they want to be with macbeth then they must begin to imagine the ghost aswell, thus keeping the audience on their toes and continuing to have them following and understanding (or at least wanting to) the action.
Overall i feel this play was very succesful, it entertained but still managed to tell a story (rather than presenting random shenanegans a lá cocina y zona de servicio) and presented the actors as multitalented, well rounded ones. I was thoroughly entertained and managed to learn a lot from this play, because it all boils down to the reflections, if we don't reflect enough or if we don't ramble then no conclusions can be made and therefore the point of watching a play is reduced to the mere enjoyment of it. However there are several questions that arise from watching and reflecting upon this play like to what extent can the impact of this play change? what i mean is, what way of presenting it would be best: the serious one? or the funny satirical one that was presented? because when you think about it, say you have a nice teacher, one who tells jokes and tries hard to make hisher classes entertaining-most of the time- you don't learn squat and eventually forget everything except how fun the teacher was whereas mean, really uptight teachers really have a way to make facts and figures stick in your brain. And now that i wonder, would this play have worked if performed by a group of another country? stripped from its funny regionalisms? because this play had very chilean-esque moments that, if not there, could result in a less funny and effective performance. What if a north korean theatre group performs this play? will it have the same effect?
upon entering the theatre, the stage is set up in a rather familiar way (suspicious eye brow), with musical instruments bordering the stage walls so my mind went directly to Yuyachkani's con-cierto olvido (mainly a display of the actors' talents and celebration of their repertoire). This was the first hint of how the actors would be like, well rounded i mean because if you put several musical instruments on stage they have to be there for a reason. My mind quickly wondered wether these would be actually used during the performance, and let me tell you something, if they weren't i would be really dissapointed. So we already learn a lesson, dont fill your stage with interesting crap if you ain't gonna use it because you will end up with one pissed off audience. What i mean is, the set design has to be both clever and useful ( serves both the actor and the audience) so when choosing to have the instruments displayed on stage, automatically making them part of the set design itself, you create some expectation in your audience because these are things that can be used by the actor and give some psazz to your play. Thankfully they did.
However i do get one question from this, when can we say something is a prop and when is something part of scenery? because when they were laying there, the instruments were scenery but when played they were props, right? So we can say, and i've said it like a gzillion times, a play is a whole, it's a unity, it's when all of the production elements and then the acting come together to form a magical experience (if it's good) and a bad one (if it sucks). BUT isn't this too modern from my part? because the modern paradigm states that everything is a unit, a total and complete play in this case therefore you can understand everything but isn't me rambling about JUST one thing (in this case the first impression the stage gave me) a very fragmented opinion?
i think, although pointless, this is very useful because it made me identify that to analyze a play a breakdown of its different aspects is very much necessary because you have to be specific and it leads to my believing in not two of the paradigms but both: thus i present to you, with proper grandieur and drama (that i love so deal with it) the new post-postmodern paradigm. because limiting ourselves to either understanding everything or just parts leaves out a very important process that results in this post-post modern paradigm, because to understand (properly) everything at least some form of analysis of every part must be made. This applies to analyzing plays or theatre, to properly soak all of the experience of watching a play, of being a part of a play, you need to understand and break it into parts (technically reffering to design elements acting elements and directing elements) to get to its core (concept)and then go back to the whole play. get it? me neither. (jk)
one interesting thing about this play's first impression is the fact that the actors entered afterwards when usually they are there in still picture. it led me to wonder, what effect does this have on the audience? because having them there in character at the very beggining is far more striking than having them casually enter (as they did in this play) or having them enter in character. so to what extent are first impressions important? because you can have an amazing first impression but then all of the play must be equally amazing so that that awe created in the audience is maintained. or is it better to have a meh first impression (medium, mediocre, or just there) and then start a build up in the overall qualiy of the play?
and wouldn't it be interesting (for learning purposes) to have the actors enter during the beginning (rather than there in still picture) and see the transition from actor to the character?
That is kinda what actually happened in this play, the actors entered in a rather nonchalant way- in not very elaborate costumes that represented the period in which the events of the play took place- and sat down with the instruments and began to sing and play. However i felt they did not get into character upon singing, especially during the beginning of the play so, what effect can this have on the audience? and on the performance itself? because when you go to a play you expect some characters, and even though they did deliver fantastic ones later on there was a lack of characterization upon playing so does this mean they were acting when playing the instruments? or were they just actors playing some music?
speaking of which, music played a very important role in this play, it served as a narrating vessel. This narrating of what could be overtly boring facts was made playful and pleasing by the music, this leads me to think about our own kabuki play and how music is key to it being succesful given that kabuki is such a sensorial experience. For example, when Miyuki delivers her long monoloque, don't you think it would be rather bland if there weren't any music? and wouldn't the constant narrating of things without any song (and clever word play in this play's case) be overbearing and just plain dull for the audience? The difference with our kabuki play is that during the music there are also several actions and dances that are meant to be powerful and interesting for the audience whereas here, more than halve of the actors where just playing the instruments and singing while another one acted or joined them playing. This is why i believe a play has to at least try to appeal to all the senses of the audience, not just center on one however this could be refuted with and example from con-cierto olvido: the entire cast sat down and started to make sounds of a forest or jungle, it was so powerful and realistic that most of the audience including myself closed our eyes and were just swept away, YET did this not eventually trigger all of our senses? because if we think about it, sounds of a forest make you think about something and make you smell, see and even feel different things whereas three men playing guitar and singing is just, that.
Going on with the topic of sound, the sound effects were fantastic in this play and though unrealistic, they worked because the whole vibe of the play was not a serious one, it was a very playful and silly one that really worked. One interesting thing concerning sound is the use of the voice, THIS part was where i really burst into laughter because those sutil yet completely noticeable changes in one or another actors' voice were increidibly comical. Take the chilean accent for example, i thought the play would be po this po that and cachai and all that mumbojumbo but i was pleasently surprised to see they saved those moments to perfect comic timing especially because the colloquial and very not serious tone of their voice was the complete opposite of the situation. EG: when they are guarding the doors and the middle one gets struck by an arrow, that "pero que paso" was so perfect and so natural it had to be one of the funniest one liners of the play and this provides me a valuable lesson, especially because i tend to write on the elaborate side: SOMETIMES SAYING SO MUCH CRAP THAT REALLY COULD BE SAID IN ONE LINE is just, a bunch of crap that yes, might be funny but doesnt share the strength and umph of one hell of a one liner. so already this play that clearly presents well rounded actors (sing, dance act, play instruments, etc) is helping me and hopefully all of those who saw it to be well rounded dramaturgs. Of course the play isn't going to present things on a silver platter, it will spatter you with ideas and concepts and even little moments in it such as this one that must be analyzed in order to get the big picture = third paradigm, post post modernist -really think this could be a thing here.
one interesting convention that was used is the pause, which happened right after the moment i mentioned just before, after the arrow struck him, he stood there for a moment, silent and then the three of them burst into screams and panic which was fairly funny. this pause reminds me of the one used in kabuki and it shows me how this pause can be used not only for dramatic moments (as it is used in kabuki) but also as a build up for comedic moments.
In terms of acting, every single one of the performers acted as a different character a one point or another and i thought this could have been tedious and almost obnoxious for the audience but gladly i was wrong, the transtitions between characters were effortlessly done and even though somewhat abrupt (like the ones leading to the man writing in a scroll with a feathered pen and grandieur) they still worked, because they were meant to be that way, funny too. The acting was very exaggerated and slaptstick at times, serving the comedic purpose of the play (when guarding the doors and moving the hips or when acting scared, etc)and i think the contradiction of such a serious and historical theme with the way it was presented works very well because even though the aim is not to offend but to criticize at least just a little bit, it never seized to be funny and it never seized to be clever and it never struck a nerve (except on what i believe was a 9/11 joke). So another lesson we learn is that thre is no need to be so serious about things, plays and theatre are supposed to be about precisely that: "play", fun so when presenting such a heavy subject like this one that could be a speech of fact after fact after fact could result in one suicidal audience, it is presented in the least expected way possible that surprises and most importantly entertains the audience.
The acting was also effective when creating props and parts of the scenery (the horse, the pen, etc.) and it showed that it is not necessary to fill the stage with stuff ( a whole lotta stuff) because that could somehow exclude the audience from the game whereas if you don't have certain elements and create them through the acting then the audience is going along the play with you. take macbeth for example, in the dining room scene when the ghost of Banquo appears it is the director's choice wether to have him present or not, if he is then the audience sees things from mcbeths point of view and if he isnt they'll think he's insane, thus being with the people sorrounding macbeth and so if they want to be with macbeth then they must begin to imagine the ghost aswell, thus keeping the audience on their toes and continuing to have them following and understanding (or at least wanting to) the action.
Overall i feel this play was very succesful, it entertained but still managed to tell a story (rather than presenting random shenanegans a lá cocina y zona de servicio) and presented the actors as multitalented, well rounded ones. I was thoroughly entertained and managed to learn a lot from this play, because it all boils down to the reflections, if we don't reflect enough or if we don't ramble then no conclusions can be made and therefore the point of watching a play is reduced to the mere enjoyment of it. However there are several questions that arise from watching and reflecting upon this play like to what extent can the impact of this play change? what i mean is, what way of presenting it would be best: the serious one? or the funny satirical one that was presented? because when you think about it, say you have a nice teacher, one who tells jokes and tries hard to make hisher classes entertaining-most of the time- you don't learn squat and eventually forget everything except how fun the teacher was whereas mean, really uptight teachers really have a way to make facts and figures stick in your brain. And now that i wonder, would this play have worked if performed by a group of another country? stripped from its funny regionalisms? because this play had very chilean-esque moments that, if not there, could result in a less funny and effective performance. What if a north korean theatre group performs this play? will it have the same effect?
domingo, 24 de abril de 2011
im tired
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.
- 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, 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?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)