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?