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?