Masks and Puppets: the conclusion

8th week

A week of reflections and final analysis of what masks and puppets are...

What is a mask?According to the pragmatic definition (USE) a mask can be any object that covers the face.
Masks can be gigantic or small, and are used to represent/transform actors in theatre by hiding parts of their faces and some face expressions. They represent human, animal or organic features to an extent.


Masks are used for disguise and have been used for ages in the history of theatre, however, there are some questions that have appeared about their use..


*Are miniature masks "real" masks or just "replicas"?According to our essential definition,  miniature masks do not cover the face of an actor, and as they are not used to disguise, can be considered just replicas and not masks.


*Is a nose, or anything that covers parts of the actor's face a mask?A clown nose for example, changes the features and physicality of an actor, and we all agreed in class that we would consider them a mask.

However, wouldn't it be the same using a "big nose", big glasses or big ears? Some people argued that they should be considered make-up and not masks, however, if they are changing features of the actor, and transforming a character, shouldn't they be considered masks?

*Do masks need to hide the actor's face? (reference- The Lion King, Broadway)

Our definition says that masks need to cover, hide and transform the actors face, therefore, this big heads can be considered puppets, such as the ones we have studied, whith "cuerpo prestado", and without covering the face (puppeteers aren't always hided and can be seen)

We learnt that masks show fixed physical features and impressions (regardless of what the actor's face is doing), but in our daily lives, aren't we to an extent wearing masks?
Are there physical and psychogical masks?

For example, in "Más pequeños que el Gugenheim", we considered that each character used psichological masks, which hided things, feelings and intentions to others- or attitudes towards the rest.

For example, Sunday had the "mask" of "el machito latino", acting as one and even saying nicknames such as "maricon" to others.. however, he admitted to be gay, and this was the real face inside his mask.

The play was built from the outside to the inside (so stereotipes such as Sunday's were used as masks for the characters).

So, according to this play, are we wearing masks in our daily lives?
What makes us be who we are, and how people look at us?

Artaud said that theatre lets you put a masks which brings "the real you".. and that it is more true thatn everyday life.

This is true if we analyse that with the use of masks, the movements of the actor are revealed, and the body cannot lie.


What is a puppet?
According to the dictionary, it is a small figure of a person or animal having a cloth body and hollow head, designed to be fittet over and manipulated by the hand.


However! puppets aren't always small, there are MANY kinds and sizes.
"Any object that comes to life on stage thanks to the life that the puppeteer gives it" is a puppet, not just a figure made of cloth and a head..
Puppeteers have to define the posture, way of walking, and intentions of the eyes to prevent the puppet become just an object.
Are puppets the starting point?Puppeteers usually end up doing what the puppet "asks for", and every movement or action they do must be justified (COHERENT + STRUCTURED MOVEMENTS = LIFE)
So, how do Masks and Puppets connnect?
Both elements can achieve things that human actors can't.
Masks for example, huge/weird/funny/impossible features
Puppets: huge/funny/weird features and impossible actions, such as flying


Both elements transform actors, are used for disguise, and actors have to accomodate to what they can offer. Puppets and masks need to be explored before they are used.They have fixed expressions, whith determine specific characteristics or feelings.


Masks and Puppets are the perfect examples of LIMITS in theatre. They amuse the audience, and ask more from the artists.
In theatre "we put the maximum effort to get the minimum result", and both elements ask for the creativity to find the best way of overcoming the obstacles they present.
We are "witnesses" of this in the school play..Even from the beggining (making the puppets and masks) their use has been an obstacle as they ask more effort and training from all the actors.


***

If a miniature mask is used on your finger, or in a puppet, would t it be a mask or part of the puppet's "face" (As a puppet is an unanimated object)?

Are glasses (elements used in daily lives) "daily masks"?

Are limits a "key element" for the production of a good play?

One specific way of making theatre? No

7th week: Warming up, Stanislavski, puppet making, directing and last but not least, "Mades Medus" + "Más pequeños que el Guggenheim".

At the beginning of the year, Roberto told us very clearly that there is not an specific way of making theatre, and this week was a clear example for me.

Actors from different parts and countries train and are directed in different ways, and at the same time, plays around the world, or even in the same continent or country can vary immensely.

Lets start with the idea of actor training. We were thought how to do a warm-up which concentrates on the centre of energy and the respiration, and it is one kind of training, but nowadays, most of the work done for actor training comes from a technique developed by Stanislavsky.

He thought that plays had no room for fantasy  or a lot of imagination, and that theatre should be used to analyse and study human behaviour. The actor had to believe that he/she was the character, and start "from the inside, to the outside", acting in a more realistic way.

However, Stanislavsky's method didn't help to represent OTHER types of plays, and as we know, different parts of the world need different types of theatre!

This is another important reason why there is not an specific way of making it.

According to Roberto, the method we approach is the opposite to this one, starting from the outside of the character and then developing the inside. In this "way" the actor first does the actions and explores what he/she can do and then creates the character.

What could be other different methods for actor training? Why isn't Stanislavsky's method used every time? and why doesn't it work for all types of plays?

Would the opposite method work for all types of characters or plays?

Connecting this with the school play, we have learnt that the use of puppets and masks are one of the MANY ways of making theatre, and it is important to explore and see what our bodies can do, as using masks especially needs GREAT body expression and characterization.

It may be better if we use the opposite method to Stanislavsky's, as we need more exploration and actions showed with our bodies, than "deep" characters which are completely connected with the actors (although a connection is very important).

What would be the difference between using Stanislavsky's method, or the opposite, for characterization in the play?

Now..  "Mades Medus" & "Más pequeños que el Guggenheim" 

This two plays clearly showed me that there is not an specific way of making theatre, and that two plays, created/directed by people from the same continent and similar societies can be totally different, as theatre does not have "rules" respect to this.

"Mades Medus" was more a "philosophical" play, the text was completely admirable and the acting too (great and clear movements from the actors, loud and imposing voices, etc.).

However, there was lack of coherence between the action and the elaborated script, and the whole production overshadowed the text.

How could the production connect with the text, instead of "ruining" it?

Which might have been the training method for actors in this play? Where they concentrating more in what they were saying and their actions rather than on transmitting the feelings and ideas?

On the other hand, "Más pequeños que el Guggenheim" (one of my favourite plays hitherto) was a play full of jokes and comedy, which I sincerely think that "public in our society" may enjoy more.. (A more rentable play in this time?)

It had a completely different style from "Mades Medus", and the characters from both plays were developed in completely different ways.

In  "Más pequeños que el Guggenheim", characters were more realistic (like people you see on daily life), while Mades and Medus where characters that, although were realistic, seemed more imaginary.

After watching both plays, and realizing that there is not an specific way of making theatre and an specific type of plays.. I remember some questions we asked in class weeks ago..

What kinds of theatre work "more" today?

Which is the most "common" or favourite type of play of our society?

Who is considered "our society"? Maybe each person likes different types of plays according to their personality and points of view..

Which way of "making" theatre works better? Does the way really matter?

Which method for actor training will work better for the use of masks and puppets in the school play?

p u r p l e n e r g y

6th week: A week full of puppet making (yes, I have evolved from being THE disaster and shame doing the heads... to the PUPPET[body] MASTER according to Robbie) but the most important (and bloggable) aspect of my week were the two days of workshop that we had on Thursday 12th and Friday 13th.

I remember we did something similar a couple of years ago, and I think it was Diego who directed it in one of the school play rehearsals.
Of course, this time the exercise was much more complex and harder, but the similarity was that we had to start on the floor (in position A), and imagine that the air that we breath is ENERGY that enters our bodies, but specially energy that is deposited into our centre of energy, which is located near the belly button.

At the beginning of the warm-up , we had to imagine a colour for that energy, at the beginning, I tried to imagine my energy being colour salmon (just because it is one of my favourite colours).. but although I tried.. my mind kept imagining my energy being purple.. the same colour that I had imagined it a couple of years ago... I know this may not be extremely important for my 'learning process', but...

although this is all part of the imagination and playing with our minds,

 if we really concentrate and try to feel and imagine it, can we create more energy inside our bodies in order to start working or acting?
Can our imagination be more powerful than reality?

After visualizing and feeling our energy,  the centre of energy has to start moving and controlling your body, as everything that we do on stage must be controlled from that point.Your breathing must start emitting sounds (such as vocals) [and in this part you should be moving like a fish]

The third step of the warm-up is to use your spinal cord and explore it. Your body should start growing as if you were a plant, and your breathing should start emitting louder and stronger sounds (now using consonants for example)

Finally, warming-up each part of the actor´s body is not an easy task, you have to challenge yourself, explore what can you do, and what is a real challenge or problem for your body. Try your equilibrium. explore explore explore
Now that each of the parts of your body is warmed-up, the final part of the warm-up is to EXPLORE walking in different ways, positions, levels, intentions, etc., without forgetting that everything that an actor does must be connected to his/her breathing.For example...I cannot imagine "Las Brujas de Kókoro" from "Miyuki y los Tres Demonios" without their loud, strong and heavy breathing.

Breathing really is an extremely important part of characterization and acting.
It may sound "easy", but this warm-up demands lots of creativity and imagination, and a very high concentration, which are key elements that all actors need. Apart from, of course, knowing how to use the breathing and centre of energy to perform all the actions on stage.
The actor's body needs to be used as a TOOL


Does really using our centre of energy as a starting point for every action make a difference when performing?

Does the colour we imagine for our energy have a specific meaning?

Should we practice this warm-up always before creating a character or even a play? And would the colours of the energy be different for different characters?

If it was not me, but (my character) "Queen Mathilda from the 2nd scene of the play" making the warm-up, which would be the colour for her energy? 

LIFE

Week #5: Only three days, however, each of them very "bloggable" (according to Robbie)

You may be asking yourself why did I give my entry that name (LIFE), and it is because everything I learnt this short week can have that as a 'center'.

We had the last session of our workshop about puppets on Monday, where the main aim was to learn about the ANIMATION of puppets.





On the other hand, I realized that we have to concentrate on giving LIFE to each scene of the school play, otherwise the use of puppets will not be worthwhile at all.
so, how do we give LIFE to a puppet?

1. Define your puppet's posture, way of walking, personality and 'axis':
When the puppet gets an specific "personality" when standing and walking, our minds start looking at it as a living thing, instead of just an object.

2.Use "smooth and continuous" movements:
If it is not part of the creative proposal for the puppet, avoid 'robotic' movements, which may take life and 'realism' away from your puppet.

3. Work on your puppet's eyes:
Be always aware of the puppet's intentions when looking and talking, and the direction of its look.

4. Manipulate your puppet with care, otherwise, it can become very easily just an object.

There are special cases and types of puppets, where for example moving the puppets mouth for every syllable you say can give LIFE easily.
However, is the puppet the starting point, or the 'mean'?
The puppeteer needs to KNOW the puppet. To explore, know how does it work and what it can do according to its structure and material.
Most of the times puppeteers end up doing what the puppet offers.
The puppet and the puppeteer complement each other (puppets can seem more alive when the puppeteer works with passion and there is a "mystique" between them).
"Limits will let you have creativity"

Connecting the idea of LIFE with the school play, I learnt that each scene NEEDS to be dynamic, include all the characters (no one should be "just standing there"), we should be ALWAYS focusing on the game, and extremely important: focusing on giving LIFE to the puppets.

Puppeteers will need to apply the 'points' I said before, and as our audience is not used to see plays of this type, we need to focus on having puppets full of life and energy.

I remember Martin and Maria Laura told us about one puppet show that didn't focus on animating and giving movement to puppets, but only on their voices and intentions, so...

Do all types of plays/theatre focus on giving LIFE to puppets in the same way?
Does this have something to be with the different plays' concept, style, or maybe a convention?

Do the flat/plain puppets used in the Black Light Theatre play "Aspects of Alice" convey as much energy and life as the other kinds of puppets?

The universe of PUPPETS

"Hay todo un universo de los títeres", were the words that Martin (an expert in puppets) said to us this week.


Fourth week, and the main topic: puppets

I keep working on my research task about puppets in the Black Light Theatre of Prague, and the workshop on puppets that two experts gave us on Thursday was very useful for me


We learnt that a puppet can be any element that comes to life in the stage thanks to the puppeteer. I think that in this year's school play puppets are only going to represent people always, in different ways that could be from a "sock", to well elaborated and articulated puppets made with foam. But on the other hand, in Black Light Theatre puppets are MANY times represented by SIMPLE elements, that could be from one pair of trousers  (watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L7-cLP9AOc), to big and more elaborated puppets.


Martin talked about the different kinds of puppets: he said that the puppets such as the teacher in Vedova in Lumine, which I compared to the ghosts in "Aspects of Alice" in my last entry, are called "Marotte Puppets".
At this point of our work on the play and my research, these are one of the types of puppets that catch my attention the most, as I really like the effect of power, inmensity and 'enlargement' of parts of the body that could be for example the neck or the waist, that they create.


As I said before, Black Light Theatre uses different types of puppets, but another type that is used in the play "Aspects of Alice" are plane/flat puppets. (As we can see in this video, from min 0:05 to 0:40aprox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYIjEBlloIA&feature=related)
Would this type of puppets work in the school play?
Plain/flat puppets work in Black Light Theatre as they are in front of a dark background, and catch easily the audience's attention as they seem naturally part of the scene and stage, but I think that this type of puppets may be kind of boring in the school play, and other kinds of puppets (such as Marotte or articulated ones) can be more dynamic and make different actions in order to catch the audience`s attention, because, as Martin said, a simple movement or action done by the puppet may catch more attention and create more emotion than words from it.

The 'more theorical' day of the workshop ended with two different performances using puppets,
the first one used hand puppets, which are not very common in black light theatre, but that we are going to use in the school play for characters such as the prime minister, and the second one showed articulated puppets that are controlled by the puppeteers (without hiding). This is similar to black light theatre as puppeteers control de puppets (and also people, in this kind of theatre) in a similar way, but in black light theatre they are COMPLETELY hidden (using generally black velvet).


It is a shame for me to talk about the 'practical' part of the workshop (jeje)...
We were explained how to make the heads for our puppets using foam.
I learnt that before creating the puppet, you should know what actions and purposes it will have or do,to justify how you are making it. For example, if your puppet will grab things with its hands, dance, talk, move their eyes, tong, etc, you will need to create a puppet that can perform this actions.
As I commented in my last entry, the use of puppets in theatre is justified as they can do things that humans can't, such as flying, loosing parts of their bodies, etc.



I thought I was 'doing well´at the beginning of the workshop, creating my puppet, but on Saturday I (I think that was a mistake) destroyed it "to make a new one".. but never achieved a 'good piece of art'


I suppose things like this one always happen in the "universe of puppets· and that many puppeteers have to try and try again in order to achieve what they want or need.
[Anyway.. I felt kind of useless and did not like "giving up".. but I'll see what to do tomorrow (something useful for the play), which is the last day of the workshop..]
During this weeks I've found that the use of puppets in theatre is much more important (and complicated) than I thought:


*Why are puppets used in Black Light Theatre, if actors in this kind of theatre can do actions (such as flying) that we can't in real life thanks to optical illusion?

*Which could be other ways of making puppets (especially for people without artistic skills)?and what useful tasks can people in the play (including me,but also others if there are..) which do not have as much skills in plastic arts as others, do?

*Which is the type of puppets that would word (better) in the school play this year?