Different kinds of theatre need different ways of relating with the audience

Description

This week we finished reading the pre-expessionist play "Spring awakening" (German: Frühlings Erwachen), read about set design, and ...planned... to watch the performance of "Desarraigos" by a colombian theatre group.
Although in the end I couldn't assist the performance, what we discussed in class about it had a great impact in my understanding of theatre and how it works.
Desarraigos was a non-dramatic play, while Springs awakening is a dramatic one. What would be the different challenges or requirements of these works?


Analysis

While dramatic plays attract the audience's attention mainly by telling a story (which has a climax and a solution or ending), we asked ourselves the following question:

how to attract attention in a non-dramatic play?
and this immediately reminded me of the activation theory, which tells that people will seek activation through different types of stimulation, including novelty, complexity, variation and uncertainty. And underactivation will lead to boredom.

Dramatic plays have the characteristic of attracting our interest with a certain plot, but as non-dramatic plays don't have a clear story, the director needs to propose an innovative way of connecting with the audience:


Different kinds of theatre --> need a different relationship with the audience


For example, a non-dramatic play should always look for a different kind of scenery, as the form of the stage has a great influence in the connection with the audience.

We usually don't pay as much attention to the set design as to the acting, but one of its main function is to focus the audience's attention in the actions.
For this same reason, the creation of the stage is not a matter of having nice scenery but having scenery that WORKS and contributes in the actions and purpose of the play (dramatic or non-dramatic).

Connections

KIOSKOTAMBO: 

I was worried about the audience's understanding of the story, but then realized that telling a STORY is not the ONLY aim of theatre. 

People in Paucartambo do not needed to believe but to feel connected.

It can say something else without telling it in a conventional way, as we can see in non-dramatic plays, where it is clear that HOW (the way or form) actions are shown have a greater importance that WHAT is being told. 

Lo más resistente:

Plays (especially non-dramatic) need to be innovative and dynamic
- avoid being repetitive.

As well as Lo más resistente, Desarraigos was a non-dramatic play -a series of imagines- that lacked variation. In both plays the lights achieved to change the mood, but after one point the audience knows what will happen after the actions keep repeating.

Hebras:

Hebras teaches us that non-dramatic plays need to have different stage conventions. A circle around the stage, for example, creates the mood of a ritual and a close connection with the members of the audience. The stage used for Desarraigos did not work as it was a different kind of theatre, presented in the traditional western convetion.

Sin título:

This is another non-dramatic play that teaches us the importance of novelty. Each scene is different in terms of characters, stage form and actions. Changing places contributes in dynamism, as they also did in La Cocina.

La falsa criada:
Static and fixed sceneries do not help in Theatre. La falsa criada focused in a "nice' scenery rather than in a scenery that worked in terms of setting and acting. 

Reflections

Different kinds of theatre need different ways of relating with the audience, specially in non-dramatic plays, where the audience is not connected by a plot that intrigues them. Here, novelty, complexity, variation and uncertainty are essential.

In dramatic plays, we "suspend" the disbelief in order to feel connected to fictional situations, but in non-dramatic plays this connection needs to be created by being innovative!

Even if the play is a dramatic play, scenery and set design need equal importance and attention. Scenery contributes a lot in the connection established with the audience, and MATTERS as much as all the elements present. We shouldn't give more importance to one than to another.

Do promenade performances work for all kinds of theatre? -Is this the best form or convention to establish a close connection with the audience?

Is Hebras considered a promenade performance??

Should we never put on stage non-dramatic plays presented in the Western conventions for audience? Does this 'convention' create an immediate wall or psychological separation between the actors and the members of the audience?

Is the connection created by breaking the fourth wall as STRONG as the connection created in a promenade performance??

K I O S K O T A M B O

Description

With this year finally ending, we had our performance inspired from Paucartambo this week, which was presented on three consecutive days.
It required lots of physical work, and although I found it really fun to do and perform, many questions about the audience in theatre appeared in my mind just after the first day, and finally after all of them...

Analysis

Why was a great part of the audience not understanding the story??

The first thing that came into my mind that day was that probably if theatre "comes to people", without them wanting to go and watch it, they won't certainly pay much attention on what is really happening.

Unfortunately, the majority of students aren't so interested in theatre, and do not have the analysing and judgement skills that "the more theatre you watch and the more theatre you do" gives you. 

This is a major difference between the audience in Paucartambo, as they go there wanting to watch the performances and the different characters, while here, many (even including teachers) didn't have a clue of what we were doing. Therefore, in theatre, the reaction of the audience always depends on their culture and expectations.

I'm not saying students did not enjoy the performance, because they did, as cultural elements for all of us were included, such as the popular music, posters with things they usually say, dancing, and something similar to a "Pinata" in the end. Obviously most of them enjoyed a change in their monotone school life and breaks, and the atmosphere of joy that all the elements created together.

Connections

Maybe, for me, something similar to what happened in "A matter of dissection" is happening. 

The audience did feel amused with our play, and did have fun, but maybe if we reflect deeply about it, the expectations or aims we had weren't completely successful (at least in my case).
In AMOD, it was mainly in terms of characterization. Here, it was mainly the connection with the audience; as I had imagined it to be as "close" as the connection created at Paucartambo.

However, the students were shy, didn't want to dance or follow the tricks, and weren't "open" to jokes such as people in the Virgen del Carmen celebration.

Reflections

• What could have we done to improve the performance and mainly the connection with the audience? One of the students told me "maybe you should have told people what your stimulus was, so they could understand what was happening".
  Another one told me "you should have promoted it with posters"... but I think that it was a good way of experimenting another type of theatre, which reaches people who aren't looking for it.
• The way you understand a play will always depend on your knowledge and culture, but I think that the more you know about a subject or art (e.g. theatre) will make you look at it in a completely different perspective.
  
  I don't know if this is a comment I should make in my blog, but at the end of the performances I felt sorry for the students who don't care about theatre and did not have the capacity to analyse deeply what was happening (which wasn't a complicated plot at all)
  
  What can we do about this situation? I know I am not an expert in theatre, but I would like everyone to know about it and feel interested as  we are.
  
  Are "promoted" performances generally better understood than "surprise" performances?
   Why do people have so much trouble understanding an easy plot?
  
   Can you achieve all your expectations, or will you always ask for more after a performance (even though the audience enjoyed it)?
  *(as if making theatre and plays was an endless cycle)

Electra/Orestes

This will be a short summary on my thoughts, as the final exams (including the TPPP) are coming this week!!
DESCRIPTION
This Friday we watched the performance of "Electra/Orestes", a play directed by Gisela Cárdenas, which shows an adaptation of Greek theatre, in a more "contemporary style" (in terms of set design, and also acting).

ANALYSIS
Some of my partners claimed not to like the play. However, I think that it was innovative, and contained a great variety of interesting aspects.
What aspects made it interesting for me?

• The use of a chorus with choreographies added dynamism to the scenes
• Their use of the lighting also created different atmospheres (e.g. candles always work when a solemn or mysterious atmosphere is to be created)
• Dividing the whole play into two style was original, and created more interest in the audience? why? because after watching one style for more than an hour, at least what the audience sees changes completely, and connects more to our 'time'.
  However....
• Very long texts tend to bore members of the audience, even more if the play lasts more than 2 hours. Plays with long texts should have LOTS of action, and last less time.
• Is the sudden change in style confusing at the beginning? Should the scene change occur during an intermission rather than with the audience sitting there?
  *Maybe its purpose is to clearly show the audience that the whole style of the play is changing. *
• Should the projection of images be used less? Do they distract the audience from the actual acting on stage?

CONNECTIONS

• As well as in "La Cocina", also directed by Gisela Cárdenas, choreographied movements are often used as a resource to catch the audience's attention. As an experienced director, maybe she knows it is effective in creating dynamism.
• This examples show us that choreographies on stage are successful, as a technique for next year's school play. 
• The actor should always be "at risk" on stage - e.g. with "risky" choreographied movements  (this connects with Meyerhold's idea of Biomechanics)

• Characters such as Clitemnestra acted in a "very expressionist" way. Her movements were exagerated, and her 'opened' eyes always portrayed what she felt. Colours such as black and red were used in her make-up and costume, and this contributed to the "mysterious" effect she conveyed. We could certainly use this colour scheme if we want our play to have this effect or atmosphere.

REFLECTION

• Choreographies and the use of a chorus are good resources to add dynamism to a play, create rhythm, and catch the audiences attention.
• Colours and lighting are essential to create different types of moods and atmospheres.
• Games should try to include CHANGES and twists. For example, in Shadow Queendom, the game included perspective changes. In split, the "stage conventions" changed, and in A matter of dissection, characters CHANGED al the time. In this case, there was a twist in the style of the play, which created a connection and interest amongst the audience.

Can a play have two opposite concepts for two different parts? Should we get used to watch longer plays (with long texts), or should plays adapt to the audience, which tends to enjoy shorter plays and dialogues?

Can a play be completely independent from its own culture?

Description
This week we concentrated on finalizing our Paucartambo PPP and starting to learn how to make a good TPPP. By writing the report about Cultural and traditional influences, and thinking about some plays we've watched this year, I asked myself if a play can be completely independent from the culture of its creator.

Analysis and connections

As we have discussed in TOK, areas of knowledge such as human sciences, history, arts and ethics have greater dependence on culture due to their subject matter. The culture in which someone grows usually affects him/she in different ways, such as the person’s view and perception of the world, the interaction with others, their decisions and generally, their way of living life.

However... it is arguable if a play can be completely independent from the culture where it is created.

It is easy to know it in plays such as "Los músicos ambulantes", where the culture of a country is portrayed, however, what can we say about plays such as "Lo más resistente", or "Hebras"?... are they "more universal" plays, as one of the girls of the group Lila referred to their first performance of "Oda a una estrella"?

However, culture also involves the way the audience is approached in a play, like we analysed in our PPP's report. So, by using the western convention of theatre (audience sitting in front), is "Lo más resistente" already involving part of our culture?
Along with history, different Theatre practices and styles have appeared, due to the circumstances and cultures. For example, plays in Elizabethan Theatre have different characteristics than plays from German Expressionism, and all theatre traditions are linked to the cultures where they appear.
Finally, a Japanese person who knows a lot about Kabuki theatre will not comprehend, think and feel the same about a Kabuki performance than me, and people may think about different strong memories conveyed in "Lo más resistente".


Reflections
In my opinion, a play which seems independent to its surrounding culture can be created.. However, I think that the process of creation, and the content of the play will always say something about its creator. Even if she/he doesn't want to, something about his/her life will be portrayed in the creation (according to one of the readings from the Paucartambo research).
On the other hand, the empathy and understanding of a play will always depend on your culture and beliefs.

Can we consider some plays and their meaning to be "more universal" than others? 

The Director.

"Ultimately, theatre needs three elements: actors, play, and audience. But for theatre to actualize its potential, a person would need to impose his or her point of view that would penetrate all aspects of the production. That person is the director. A director is needed for any situation, whether it's a staged reading to a congregation, a reader's theatre performance at reunion, or a full theatre production. A director is not only in charge of all aspects of production, as an artist he or she has a vision that ties all performance elements together." - Debra Bruch

Description
This week started with four performances from a group called "Lila, teatro y poesía". It made us reflect about the director's role and importance is theatre. On the other hand, the PPP [based on Paucartambo] also remarks this importance, and the process that a director has to go through in order to create a play.

Analysis

Theatre started being considered part of literature, but nowadays, it is not about the WHAT (e.g. script) but about HOW a script or theme is presented on a stage.
The Director's role is to develop a different way to perform a play, by establishing the concept (giving coherence to everything happening), and a game that relates the play to the audience: asking what will the spectators think, and  how will they feel connected to the play?

Although it was a new experience to see poems being performed, we concluded that the main problem was a lack of direction concept. You can put many actions on stage, and it may "look nice", but if everything on stage doesn't have coherence, the audience will probably feel something is missing.
Apart from the design and acting concepts, the director also needs to make sure that the play has a rythm, is dynamic, and the actors aren't being monotone (e.g. with their voices, actions, body and face expression).

At the same time, the PPP teaches us that the director's vision and process is essential to develop a play. As we've been learning the whole year, Theatre is made by processes. It hasn't been and cannot be created from one day to another, and it is the directors role to find an stimulus, carry all the research involved, create a vision, a concept, a game, and an innovative way to stage his own or an already written play on stage.
Connections

• A play can be performed in MANY different ways if they are directed by different people or styles. For example, Shakespeare's play Richard III was originally written to be performed in Elizabethan style, but later was chosen by many German directors to perform it with expressionist elements (stage, acting, costumes, etc)

1919-1920- German setting for Leopold Jessner's production of Richard III, Berlin State Theater.

• In German expressionism, directors often felt disillusioned with reality and the world around them, and their version of the plays portrayed this: One of the handouts we read for Paucartambo said that even though an artist doesn't want to include aspects of his/her life in his/her work, he/se will unconsciously do it.
  For this reason, every version of a play is different, as every director has different things to say.

Reflections

• Characters in a play always need to lack/be looking for something
• Experience teaches, and as in many aspects in life, is fundamental to create wise directors
• Is it recommendable for directors not to be actors at the same time? It isn't the same to watch a play being inside/ part of it (acting), and with the audience's eyes. On the other hand, the director's role is ESSENTIAL. Therefore, he/she needs to be focused on it (and not taking other roles)
• Let's say a play does not have a director: Is there always a director even if he/she is not 'credited"? Even if the actors are convinced that they are all equal in power and weight on a given stage is there always one person who if the show is being rehearsed is directing?
• Is the person who gives the main action in an improvisation the Director? (he/she gives a direction to the action by starting it) 

Directing Theatre

by Debra Bruch:  http://www.danillitphil.com/base.html

The short Holiday entry

Once you take Theatre IB, your perception of life will never be the same.


Although you may not believe it, I spent a great part of my holidays thinking about Theatre:


Thinking about the organization and rehearsals of our Paucartambo performance, about the Shadow Queendom scene for the Arts Evening , and researching about German expressionism and Meyerhold's biomechanics.


After researching about German Expressionism.. I keep asking which could be my research question about it. For my first research task, I found videos of most of the play, and the research topic was "easy to organize" and develop for me.
However, in this case, a play has been harder to find, and specially, an specific area to explore.

This areas may include: (amongst others)


Characterisation - where the characters make abrupt and hard movements, which break halfway. There is a strain of gestures, through intense movement.


Costumes- which are a dramatic factor in expressionism. For example, in German Expressionism, characters appear often with capes and hats. Regarding makeup, it is characterized by being very pale.


Scenery - landscapes are artificially created to make use of the lighting in order to build characters and objects. For example, "Lang" realized that you cannot 'remove' nature, but you can create abstractions.


However, how can I research a topic in a play I cannot watch? Is it possible to research costumes, or scenery from a script?

Maybe the stage directions can tell us information about how characterisation and scenery should be.


On the other hand, biomechanics reminded me to an extent of the chaotic scene in "La Cocina".
Although I haven't understand COMPLETELY Meyerhold's technique, it involves communication within a group and controlling disposition in space, and he argued that one could call up emotions in performance through the use of movement and gesture.

so.. is biomechanics a technique? and was it used in Miyuki y los tres demonios in the spies scene? (as it included acrobacies)


***

How do you know which research area and play are "the best" for your topic and sources available?

Expressionist characters often dramatize and struggle against their societies.. but Do all types of theatre criticize something in their societies to an extent?

"from Chaos --to--> Order" - PPP Paucartambo

One of the many things theatre IB has made me realize this year is that I find it very difficult to do "deep analysis"... and the question I ask myself every weekend (like today) is.. what can I analyse from this week [and how]?

Description
We keep working on our first PPP (based on Paucartambo's celebration for Mamacha Carmen).
However, many aspects were changed... starting from the concept we had thought for our play, and the new ideas that appeared.

Analysis
Why did our 'first concept' had to be changed?After discussing that we wanted things to "turn upside down" in the school, we planned to have "Pachakuti" as a concept. However, a concept is a phrase that helps you GUIDE, organize, and give COHERENCE to a play, and should include a verb.  (e.g. death is at the centre, life is at the top- A matter of dissection)
For this reason, our new concept could be something along these lines:

• "Chaos is necessary in order to have Order"
•  "The creation of Order needs Chaos"
• "The creation of Order depends on Chaos"
• "The Order created turns around Chaos"
• "Chaos leads to Order"

The new vision is a "take over" of the kiosk (and kidnapping of Salim). In this case, People at Newton think that everything is in order, but chaos is needed to create a balance [and order] in the food prices at the kiosk.

After discussing our idea, we had two main things to decide.

1. If our acting space was going to be the Churchill patio or the actual kiosk:

Role: the role of acting in Churchill was to have a bigger space and to use the theatre, as it was part of our first vision //VS.// the role of acting in the kiosk is to have a similar space to Paucartambo's (crowded), to perform in a different space from past years, and to catch the attention of more people as we know that most students from upper school would be around that area.
Effect: Probably Churchill would not create the wished effect, as people wouldn't enter the stage, and it would be a huge space for only around 7 actors (actions wouldn't be completely appreciated) //VS.// Crowded as Paucartambo, people would be forced to be near the actors and watch every action. It is also innovative and surprising.
How: In Churchill we would need to CALL people to enter the acting space, while in the kiosk we don't need to. However, we must do exaggerated actions to call the attention of everyone (so that they don't prefer to buy instead of watching our performance) - [I'm sure that "random" people with costumes, masks, and music is already "eye-catching", so calling their attention isn't a real problem]
Learning: When deciding things for a play (e.g. the acting space) we need to GO and see how it is- what does it offer us. The kiosk would let us interact with the people, giving our performance the "Paucartambo effect of crowds".

2. If we are going to use the real Salim:

element -> using real Salim
role -> tries to establish a close relationship with the audience and 'the school staff' in general
effect -> it would catch the attention of many, as we know that people enjoy when school staff act
how? -> Salim would have to agree being carried, tied to a chair, etc.
VS.
element: using 'fake' Salim (e.g. a Saqra or Majeno)

role -> to make obvious that the person being kidnapped is Salim
effect -> amuse the audience, surprise them - actions should be fun
how? -> As we are working with someone we know, more "exaggerated" and funny actions such as "tying upside down".. hitting with a waraka.. etc.. can be done.
learning: Working with someone from the school staff (or inviting an actor) doesn't always work, because in this case, if we want to perform exaggerated actions that would catch the attention and amuse the audience, it is better to work with someone you know and would agree to do everything possible to achieve this.

Connections

• Was our concept always used in "A matter of dissection"?Although the concept organized and gave coherence to the whole performance (thanks to our director), I wonder if it is difficult sometimes to apply it in every single aspect of a play. For example, in our case, the props, scenery and costumes. They didn't really "convey" that concept, but had other design concepts that organized them (e.g. the colour scheme) .
• The Churchill patio would end up as a "western stage" (audience in one side and actors in the other), such as the ones used for A matter of dissection, Más pequenos que el Guggenheim, Mades Medus, and many plays that depend mainly on their scripts. However, plays such as Sin titulo: tecnica mixta, show us that it is a very interesting experience for the audience to move around the actors, and in this case the actors have to adapt to the space in that moment (more creativity needed).
  *breaking the fourth wall always catches the attention.
• In A matter of dissection, our first game had to be changed after we PROVED it. This is why things always need to be "checked", and if something does not work, it needs to be changed.
• It is essential to create an ORGANIZED CHAOS in our performance (e.g. the one in "La cocina"), in order to convey the idea of necessary chaos, but.. without creating a real one (we need to control our presentation and the audience like the Maqtas do in Paucartambo)

Reflection

• A concept should be a phrase (including a verb) that gives coherence and organized a whole performance.
• Is is difficult many times to have ALL the aspects from a play exactly linked to the concept? For this reason, the design concepts should have coherence with the main concept, and should work to organize the other elements.
• Before deciding things for a play, they need to be PROVED... e.g. the acting space, or our game in A matter of dissection. As I mentioned in a past entry, theatre is created "standing up and proving", and not sitting down and discussing ideas.
• Working with people you know is always an advantage in theatre, as it is social and depends a lot in communication and "connections" between the actors. Working with someone such as Salim wouldn't give us the freedom to do whatever our imagination tell us with his character.

Would the students (our audience) have an idea of what we are trying to represent, or should they be taught a little bit about Paucartambo before?
Maybe to be more explicit, we could use the idea of having a "big poster" telling them "where we are" (CLICK):
"Paucartambo les da la bienvenida a su fiesta patronal"



.
..And my final question is: robbie, would you please direct us?

hahaha.. I suppose you don't want to, but I hope we achieve one of our main goals for this performance ->("reinvindicarnos") and demostrate that through team work and cooperation we will be able to create an enjoyable performance.



As this is a play without text, and based in something we have seen... would working without a director be easier (than for example in the school plays or one act play)?

Do students (in general) enjoy more plays without scripts?- Or plays which have as a purpose to entertain and amuse.
Would they feel interested and stay there to see us? Are the music, masks and costumes enough to catch their attention?

Do (most) people in our society go to theatre to relax, have a good time, and not to analyse or watch tragedies.. or plays with "heavy themes"? Is this why comedies and plays with "light topics" are more "successful"? How could this be changed?

Andean PPP + a little bit about research in our "SOCIEDAAD!"

Description

This week was the starting point of our future PPP about Andean Theatre.
On Thursday, we began with a discussion and brainstorm about possible concepts and visions that could guide our work.
(1) Felipe told us that we had to think about one situation (linked to our society or school) instead of just trying to represent what happens in Paucartambo, as it would be almost impossible because of the different conditions.

Brainstorm 

(2) On Friday, we started revising the "Paucartambo readings" tests, but ended up having a long and deep discussion about individuals and their "lack of research"... why does this happen nowadays?...

Analysis

1) Andean PPP

The creation of a PPP is a new challenge. The aim is not to create directly a play, but to explain its process and production STEP BY STEP (as a director that wants to sell it to a producer). I wonder.. do both things have exactly the same process? -> Starting with a brainstorm of ideas, vision, stimulus, and then developing them into a concept to start creating the play. I think that the only difference this time is that we have to WRITE and EXPLAIN (in a persuasive way) everything we decide for our play.

Thinking about a possible concept and situation was not easy, because initially we only had the idea of representing the "three days of Paucartambo" at school, but after analysing the different conditions, we decided that our situation was going to evolve around teachers and students.
Which are some of the different "conditions" we found (between performance @school and performance @Paucartambo)?

• We aren't enough actors to represent all the comparsas, and we don't even have all the masks to represent the different characters. 
• We don't have the same amount of time (3 entire days vs. 3 school breaks)
• The spaces are completely different (in our case, we only have a patio and the different floors of the building which could work as roofs for the Saqras)
• Our audience would have different "expectations" than people who go to Paucartambo. Many students wouldn't be as interested, and the atmosphere would be completely different (than the one created on a whole town's celebration).

Why teachers and students? The idea appeared first as a result of a discussion about racial issues and divisions in our society. This could be represented with two comparsas, and links with a very important idea in the Paucartambo celebration which is "THE ONE/ME, AND THE OTHER".

The idea of a dispute between students and teachers would catch the audience's attention, and even more if the students are going to take over the school. (this was our last idea, inspired by the' taking over' of the town in la ENTRADA). This isn't a daily situation, so finally, the idea of having PACHAKUTI as a concept appeared, as we would represent a carnival and everything would be "upside down" or different from daily life. However, I believe that all these ideas have to be "checked" (by our teacher) and discussed, as it is the first time we create a PPP.

2) What is happening with our society + research?

In our class discussion, we learnt that writing preserves knowledge, but orality incorporates the other person on what you are explaining or doing.
However.. all this written knowledge is "dispersed" in an infinite number of sources... but if there are so much of them, why doesn't people look for it? Are we getting used to receive information in an easy way? is this making us become lazy to research? Is internet guilty for this? Many adults say that "in the old times" homework had to be done by first researching in different books and sources, but nowadays we are used to get all the answers for everything from the internet, and not even from different pages, but from places such as Wikipedia, which isn't completely trustful.

Connections

• Some months ago, I wrote in one of my entries that each culture/people expect and like different types of theatre. I asked which would be the type of theatre most people enjoy in Peru?, and this time.. what would catch the audience's attention in a performance at school? - we have to bare in mind that our audience will be conformed by teachers and students.
• This time we will perform for an audience, and concern more about it. (In the Paucartambo celebration, there ir a clear doubt- do the dancers perform for the audience, or for themselves/the virgin?)

Reflections

A play can change completely because of the conditions where it is going to be presented. A place will not always work in all the spaces (for example, the one act play- small space with good acoustics), and different spaces and people will create different ATMOSPHERES and EXPERIENCES for the audience.
Each time people go to theatre, they expect to 'get' innovative and interesting experiences.

So, how can we give this 'interest' to our performance? Would the students understand our concept and stimuli, or should they be informed about Paucartambo's celebration before?

Do I have to understand "the other" to know MY real identity? 

• Technology is important in our development, and the new technologies mark the position of authority. However, I believe that "the old ways" (reading books, and writing instead of using laptops all the time) should be preserved, as they are essential for our thinking and development.

Analysing a play

Description

A week after the one-act play, we focused on discussing and learning how to analyse a play, using "La falsa criada" mainly as an example. We also continued talking and analysing "A matter of dissection"...

An analysis should include:

1. ACTING: body, voice and face expression, use of space, use of design elements, styles/techniques, energy/stage presence, response, intentions/characterization, timing and rythm.

2. DESIGN: scenery and scene changes, make-up, props, music & sfx, lighting, costumes and masks + puppets (if used).

3. STRUCTURE: plot/story, settings, order and duration of scenes, characters and their objectives, conflict and climax, beginnings and endings, and perspectives.

Analysis

Although at first "La falsa criada" seemed like a 'fairly good' play for me, my perspective about it changed completely after analysing it bit by bit.

Acting and Characterisation (mainly in the female characters) was poor. The voice used by el barón for example, and the representation of the condesa did not help to make their characters more interesting.
A change between the lady and baron should have been MUCH clearer (with a change in the voice and body expression), and a 'sensual' representation of the condesa would have followed the characteristics (play asks for other actresse), and would have been interesting and funny for the audience.
Although the intentions were some times superficial, the play had a good rythm and fast response between the characters.

Regarding the design, we concluded that the scenery didn't really work for each scene. Its only intention was to be eye-catching, but I learnt that sometimes using something less 'concrete' could work in a better way. Too much detail in the scenery can be distractive or like in this case, lack sense.
Costumes looked cheap and didn't help in the transformations (as well as the Baróns hairstyle), but one of the biggest mistakes in this play was the use of the props to "create more actions on stage".
There was not a real explanation of what was happening on stage. 
*The situation should provoque the actions.

Finally, regarding the structure, the play's main error in sense is that it does not have a clear "perspective". It supposedly talks about the Baron's story, but ends with the condesa and Lelio. If the play was about him, should't it end talking about his story and destiny? 

In conclusion, we can tell that the main problem in "La falsa criada" was that it lacked a direction concept and established rules/ conventions.

So.. did our direction concept work (in "A matter of dissection") ?
The concept "death is at the centre, life is at the top" helped us focus on the death body, and to remember that every action should take place around/ based on it. Our play worked to an extent as it didn't focus on many stories but on one main situation.
Having specific conventions for the costumes also worked to 'organize' the play, as the audience really notices and likes when the costumes have a pattern (personal experience in past one-act plays), and having a simple but defined scenery was useful: "less concrete and detailed" things work generally better, as mentioned before.

Connections

Some plays have clearer direction concepts and perspectives than others.
In "Vedova In Lumine" for example, the perspective is extremely clear, as well as in "Shadow Queendom", as its game was based in the idea of perspectives.
On the other hand, "Más pequenos que el Guggenheim" and "Los musicos ambulantes" include the perspectives from all the characters in a similar way; but plays like "La falsa criada" lacks this "focus".

From which perspective do we see 'A matter of dissection'? 
Maybe from a general view, similar to the one in 'La Cocina': "There's a world outside that room in the morgue, but that room is also the world".
The play talks about ALL the characters, so it ends showing  ALL of them.


Reflections

It is extremely important to consider ALL the aspects existing when analysing a play.
Having a direction concept and focus is essential, as the director needs to make sure that everything in the play makes sense and seems connected/organized.Because of this, the director should also be sure of the play's purpose.

However, in "A matter of dissection", did we achieve our purposes?
The idea that each person has their own perspective and purposes could be valid, but this week's discussion (and today, after seeing a video of the play) really made me ask myself if I accomplished my goals for this performances.

Personally, I think that my characters weren't fully developed. It surprised me to see characters in the video very different to the ones I thought I was performing. I think the constant changes were interesting for the audience, but I don't know to what extent were my changes as interesting as I wanted them to be.

Did we take enough risks? Should we always make things such as recording ourselves or rehearsing in front of a mirror to see how our performances are really working? 

One Act Play- check ✔

Description

Another finished process this year...
Our One Act Play: "A MATTER OF DISSECTION" was finally presented this wednesday 5th, and although we had a 'troublesome' process, the result surprised and filled us with satisfaction.
The HARD process has been described in past entries...
«You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs»
but the question here is, why did the final result turned better than expected?

Analysis

Having time to prepare the stage is always a great advantage.. and after having some possible obstacles (such as traffic) we had the opportunity to do it. This is the first aspect  that contributed to have 'a good final product'.
Although jitters were present before the performance begun, when we entered the stage they were transformed into adrenaline, and this energy was one of the great differences between the performance and other rehearsals. We all transmitted high energy, and were focused in what each one had to do.
For the first time we were completely concentrated on stage and backstage (nobody said a word during the whole play), and we helped each other as much as possible.
In my case, there was another major difference between that day and the rehearsals: I was able to 'connect' with my characters and create 'internal monologues' in my head while other actions were taking place on stage.
The conditions (acoustics) of the theatre allowed us to present a play with a lot of dialogue, but the play wouldn't have been as successful without good intonation and vocalization.

However, not only what happened that day created an entertaining and amusing experience for the audience. We achieved to create intelligent & elaborated jokes, and a variety of characters which definitely made people laugh.The play was dynamic, thanks to aspects such as short lines, sound effects, the use of slapstick and THE GAME, which included TRANSFORMATIONS which surprised everybody.

Connections

*"Shadow Queendom" and this play have demonstrated me that a play cannot be created from one day to another. It implies a lot of creative and team work, because every aspect (stimuli, game, direction and design concepts, production tasks, etc.) has to be given the same importance.

*(Especially for a commedy), dynamism is essential in order to interest the audience. "Mades Medus" could be considered an opposite to "A matter of dissection" in the way that it had very long dialogues and little action taking place.

*Each "aspect of production" should link with each other, (for example. the colour scheme in our play). And if you use music and sound effects, this should also be coherent with the rest of your play:
1. In "La falsa criada" classic music (which was connected to the setting, characters, etc.) was used all the time, but using "tribal music" at the end was not a good election in my opinion.
2. When we saw a performance by "Ballet the Londrina", dancers had different hair styles and colours, and tattoos that dis-concentrated the audience.

*You should not underestimate the audience's intelligence. Lines should not be explicit, and jokes have to be elaborated: like in "Más pequenos que el Guggenheim".

*Different plays depend on the stage where they are presented: Our one act play couldn't be successfully performed in Newton's big theatre, as "more VISUAL" plays work better in a theatre with poor acoustics and great spaces.


Reflection

Although according to our director our group lacked unity, communication and organization, we managed to present a decent (in my opinion great) one act play, thanks to hard work and the instructions we received and finally followed.


...If something is going wrong in a play it shouldn't be ignored, and changes (and limits) can lead you to a great creation."The end justified the means."

Do mistakes (that are fixed) on stage always work and help the play in a positive way?
*Once you have a good start and gain the audience, you can do anything*

Now that this process is over, I wonder if working on our next performance will require the same amount of work... or working in open spaces without dialogue will give us "more freedom" in the creation process.

"La falsa criada" [Play review]

"The worse enemy of a bad man is the one who is just like him" - Marivaux
 Lelio receives a lesson from a man who seems to be just like him. A brilliant idea from a lady who showed to be stronger and more intelligent than the way women in her society were expected to be. 


"La falsa criada" is a play written by the French novelist and dramatist Pierre de Marivaux.
The Peruvian director, Alberto Isola, had always wanted to stage it (since he read it for the first time studying in Milan), and it is now being presented in "Teatro La Plaza" at Larcomar.
The cast is conformed by six different actors, representing:
Trivelino - Miguel Iza
Frontino - Alberick García
Barón - Alejandra Guerra
Lelio - Leonardo Torres
Arlequino - Christian Ysla
Condesa - Norma Martínez
The play is divided in two acts, and the plot goes around the decision of a noble lady to dress up as a man in order to discover who the man she was going to marry really was. "El barón" becomes Lelio's intimate friend, and by doing this, the lady achieves to save her family's fortune, and punish Lelio for his attitude towards life and women.

According to my hypothesis, variety and dynamism in the play are created thanks to aspects and moments inspired /extracted from Commedia Dell'Arte.

Firstly, some types of characters in commedia dell'arte can be compared to some characters in La Falsa Criada.

Clearly, Arlequino is inspired in the Italian character Arlecchino, which was the most famous servant, who tried to trick his masters (often failing), and was very quick, acrobatic and limber. 

Lady "lover"

Arlecchino

In the play, Arlequino is one of the most comic characters. His purpose is to entertain and amuse the audience with his silly jokes and personality. In the end, he tries to trick the masters in order to receive a reward, but his clumsiness is stronger than his wish for money. Although characters do not wear masks as in Commedia Dell'Arte, the face, body and voice expression used by this character are essential in order to achieve the funny effect in the audience.

On the other hand, the "condesa" may not be exact but can be compared to the typical lady/"lover" in Commedia Dell'Arte. The lovers had high status in town (sons or daughters of rich families), but their status was slightly lowered because of infatuation.
In this case, the condesa belongs to a very high status in society, and shows to be rich and "spoiled", as Pantalone's daughter in Commedia Dell'Arte.
She is almost carried away by unreasoned passion and love for the Barón, and almost accepts to loose an amount of money if she can stay with the man she loves.

Finally, although they can be very different, a comparison between Lelio and Pantalone can be done, because Pantalone was obsessed with money, very high on the social ladder, and lusts for women all the time.
In La falsa criada, Lelio does not care about women feelings, and is obsessed with the idea of having more money and a higher social status. On the other hand, he has a huge ego like Il Capitano, and as well as him, behind his front of courage he is actually a coward.

This diversity of characters which can be very similar to different characters of Commedia Dell'Arte contributes to the dynamism and essence of the play.

Finally, other moments that help to make the play more interesting and dynamic are the moments where artistic elements such as singing and playing instruments are included, as they were in Commedia Dell'Arte.
Trivelino and Arlequino are key to create comic scenes such as the one where they compose a song and sing it on stage.
Another very funny and important moment performed by one of these characters is the representation of a conversation between the Baron and Condesa, where the changes in voice, face and body expressions imitating each character are essential to create a dynamic and amusing scene.

For all these reasons, a  direction concept for this play would maybe have been inspired in Italian Commedia Dell'Arte, or in Italy around the year 1801.

Although the play may have slow moments, aspects such as music that doesn't work much, and may be very long, it does work to an extent, thanks to moments such as the ones explained before and characterisation in some of the actors.

In conclusion, variety and dynamism in the play are created thanks to aspects and moments inspired /extracted from Commedia Dell'Arte such as the characters, music elements and comic moments (with body, voice and face expression replacing masks).
As Alberto Isola mentioned, it is a play that seems to have been written to be presented in our days, as it touches themes that are still present in our society.
They play shows the determination and power of women, who should fight for their rights, free will and welfare.

PPP + dynamism?

Description
These weeks we've been concentrated mainly in our one-act play... which will be presented in only 10 days (matameee)

As the PPP is one of the tasks we have to do for the IB, we are using our play to practice and learn how it must be done (while planning and making sure that every aspect is right for the play)

On the other hand, we keep practicing and creating, and this was an important week, as we finally thought about an ending for our play.


Analysis 

The Practical Performance Proposal, as it name mentions, is a proposal where you need to explain CLEARLY a play that you want to create.
It should be very detailed, and explain the reason for choosing every single aspect of your play. (include diagrams, not a few examples but 'everything')

One of the things that should be included is the play's aim. The purpose of this play is to entertain and amuse the audience as it is going to be presented in a school festival.
But, how can these aims be achieved?

The play needs to be DYNAMIC: including short texts, counterpoints wherever possible so that all characters participate all the time, a variety of ''eye-catching" characters in the same stage, and... Slapstick!

Charles Chaplin: known for creating laughter by using slapstick

We learnt that slapstick (a type of broad, physical comedy involving exaggerated, boisterous actions (e.g. a pie in the face), farce, violence and activities which may exceed the boundaries of common sense), is a great way to 'accomplish' laughter in the audience.
In my opinion, it is one of the funnier and best parts of the play, as the characters exagerate their actions, and the 'problem' they have will amuse the audience, making it funnier and more interesting thanks to the background music -> Magic Mamaliga
Another aspect that will help us create a dynamic play is the fact that it will develop around one central issue rather than around a 'whole world'. The central issue is the situation taking place around the whole body : Each character has a different aim and situation, but this corpse is their connection.

Some characters may have connections (nurso and nursa,
bad wife and her son, priest and good wife, etc) but all of them
are connected thanks to Mr. Mcrobbie's death.

...+ Connections

1. Music, choreographies or sequences of movement always help to create dynamism in a play. The choreography in "La Cocina" is a clear example. The rythm marked by the actors in unison and the organized chaos built up created sensations of stress and fatigue, but 'woke up' the audience,entertained and interested it. 

2. Other way of creating dynamism is breaking the fourth wall and refer the audience. In some parts of "Los Músicos Ambulantes", the characters talk to the audience and play with them. (The music and dancing present in the play are also key elements to create entertainment)

3. If according to Theatre historians slapstick has been present in theatre since its beginnings, it is clear that it is a technique that has always worked to amuse the audience.
"Beating the devil off stage, for example, remained a stock comedic device in many otherwise serious religious plays. Shakespeare also incorporated many chase scenes and beatings into his comedies, such as in his play The Comedy of Errors. "

4. According to Julio Cortazar, 'the short story wins by knock out'. Our play, like the short story, develops around one central issue, and this makes it more interesting.

5. Dynamism can also be created when actors walk near the audience, such as in "Miyuki y Los tres demonios "with the hanamichi, or the ghosts in "Shadow queendom", or Sandra's character in "Its all bussiness"

Reflection/ Final questions

As the creation of a play is a hard process, being specific and detailed (PPP) is very important in order to create something clear and that seems organized and well-planned (for example> cholour scheme in the costumes). 

You have to focus on the purpose of your play, and if it is a comedy, find all the ways possible to entertain the audience. Think about what you would like to see on stage.. what would make you laugh?
It should have well-elaborated jokes and situations. Watching and reading other plays may give you more ideas.


What other techniques could be included in our play to make it more dynamic? Does the use of music always help to catch the audience's attention? Will all types of audience enjoy black humour?

c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n

"Becoming a character, as it is colloquially termed in theater, is more than stage make-up and reciting lines. It is the purposeful altercation of one mannerisms and appearance to mimic a very specific sort of person." 1

Description

one act play one act play one act play
only 17 days left, and so much to be done...

This was a "characterisation week". We did some fisical work (mainly based in rythm) which helped us to develop and 'deepen' our characters.

On the other hand, we continue practicing the scenes and editing ->(our director)
However... we don't know yet how's the play going to end


Analysis and Connections

"They say, "Don't judge a book by its cover." But that is exactly what an actor must count on. Because of mass media influences, certain physical attributes are linked with different behaviors." 1

As I always mention, the creation of a play (including it's vision, concept, game, characters, etc.) is not an easy process!
I've learned it is important to "go forward", and avoid changing things in the play that had already been decided or created.

The creation of a character isn't easy either, and as this play concentrates a lot in changes in characterisation to amuse the audience, we've done some exercises in order to know our centre of energy + how (and at what rythm) our characters walk, stand up, and breath.

Although I like my character, it has been hard for me to perform it, as many times I forget about being "sweet" and keep using a more "stereotyped personality". In order to solve this, I will start using Jessica Rabbit's voice as a stimuli. [Jessica's Famous Scene]

On the other hand, I think that my other character (the priest) needs to be further developed, and as I want it to be the opposite from the mean wife (to create a greater surprise in the audience), I decided that my stimuli will be the Chameleon.

"Any actor worth his salt should learn a variety of accents, voice types and voice patterns. Not all thirty-year old men have the same style of voice."  1

Finally, it is essential to know the importance of the internal monologue for characterisation:
"But these things cannot be accomplished without one more task: how does the character think? Understanding the noetic tendencies of a character is the key that unlocks the rest of his personality.Identify the cognitive processes of a character; the likes and dislikes, dreams and failures - what is rational and what is irrational. Create the person that should be represented." 1

---

• In plays such as 'La cocina' and 'Más pequeños que el Guggenheim', we were able to see very different types of characters in one stage, and that was one of the things which mainly catched my attention and amused the audience.
  Different accents and personalities (such as Chiclayo and the "bad boy", or "el albino" and Sunday) demostrate that contrasts and good characterisation were essential, as it is going to be in our play.
  On the other hand, (depending on the play's concept) the scenery and design does not need to be extremely elaborated, because if characterisation is well-developed, the audience will concentrate on that and find it very enjoyable (like in 'Más pequeños que el Guggenheim').
• Our method and approach in characterisation reminded me of a class where we discussed about Stanislavski:
  "In Stanislavski's technique, the actor would perform a physical motion or a series of physical activities to create the desired emotional response for the character. Emotions were considered to be formed from the subconscious, so this technique allowed the actors to consciously target and control their subconscious emotions through movement. For instance, if an actor needed to weep, he could sigh and hold his head in his hands, a physical action that many who are crying instinctively do." 2

Reflections/ final question

*It is very important to mention what I've also learned this week:
when you are acting, you DON'T IGNORE what is happening on stage, in order to keep the energy. [It is essential to maintain a high energy]

*If you want a deep characterisation, you need to analyze and develop (psychologically and physically) your character. This isn't an easy process.

*in the creation of a play, lines (better if short) need to be acted and not said.

When do I know if my characterisation is "good enough" to start working on the next one? (in this case, from the wife to the priest)
Is there a better way to approach characterisation (for example, through animals, or cartoons), or does it depend on the case?

Which method works better for our characterisation -> developing our characters from the inside to the outside, or from the outside to the inside?

Quotes from:
1 "Method Acting: How to Become a Character" - by Andy Herrick
2 "Stanislavski's system" - from Wikipedia