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?