"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.