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? 

The Director.

"Ultimately, theatre needs three elements: actors, play, and audience. But for theatre to actualize its potential, a person would need to impose his or her point of view that would penetrate all aspects of the production. That person is the director. A director is needed for any situation, whether it's a staged reading to a congregation, a reader's theatre performance at reunion, or a full theatre production. A director is not only in charge of all aspects of production, as an artist he or she has a vision that ties all performance elements together." - Debra Bruch

Description
This week started with four performances from a group called "Lila, teatro y poesía". It made us reflect about the director's role and importance is theatre. On the other hand, the PPP [based on Paucartambo] also remarks this importance, and the process that a director has to go through in order to create a play.

Analysis

Theatre started being considered part of literature, but nowadays, it is not about the WHAT (e.g. script) but about HOW a script or theme is presented on a stage.
The Director's role is to develop a different way to perform a play, by establishing the concept (giving coherence to everything happening), and a game that relates the play to the audience: asking what will the spectators think, and  how will they feel connected to the play?

Although it was a new experience to see poems being performed, we concluded that the main problem was a lack of direction concept. You can put many actions on stage, and it may "look nice", but if everything on stage doesn't have coherence, the audience will probably feel something is missing.
Apart from the design and acting concepts, the director also needs to make sure that the play has a rythm, is dynamic, and the actors aren't being monotone (e.g. with their voices, actions, body and face expression).

At the same time, the PPP teaches us that the director's vision and process is essential to develop a play. As we've been learning the whole year, Theatre is made by processes. It hasn't been and cannot be created from one day to another, and it is the directors role to find an stimulus, carry all the research involved, create a vision, a concept, a game, and an innovative way to stage his own or an already written play on stage.
Connections

• A play can be performed in MANY different ways if they are directed by different people or styles. For example, Shakespeare's play Richard III was originally written to be performed in Elizabethan style, but later was chosen by many German directors to perform it with expressionist elements (stage, acting, costumes, etc)

1919-1920- German setting for Leopold Jessner's production of Richard III, Berlin State Theater.

• In German expressionism, directors often felt disillusioned with reality and the world around them, and their version of the plays portrayed this: One of the handouts we read for Paucartambo said that even though an artist doesn't want to include aspects of his/her life in his/her work, he/se will unconsciously do it.
  For this reason, every version of a play is different, as every director has different things to say.

Reflections

• Characters in a play always need to lack/be looking for something
• Experience teaches, and as in many aspects in life, is fundamental to create wise directors
• Is it recommendable for directors not to be actors at the same time? It isn't the same to watch a play being inside/ part of it (acting), and with the audience's eyes. On the other hand, the director's role is ESSENTIAL. Therefore, he/she needs to be focused on it (and not taking other roles)
• Let's say a play does not have a director: Is there always a director even if he/she is not 'credited"? Even if the actors are convinced that they are all equal in power and weight on a given stage is there always one person who if the show is being rehearsed is directing?
• Is the person who gives the main action in an improvisation the Director? (he/she gives a direction to the action by starting it) 

Directing Theatre

by Debra Bruch:  http://www.danillitphil.com/base.html

The short Holiday entry

Once you take Theatre IB, your perception of life will never be the same.


Although you may not believe it, I spent a great part of my holidays thinking about Theatre:


Thinking about the organization and rehearsals of our Paucartambo performance, about the Shadow Queendom scene for the Arts Evening , and researching about German expressionism and Meyerhold's biomechanics.


After researching about German Expressionism.. I keep asking which could be my research question about it. For my first research task, I found videos of most of the play, and the research topic was "easy to organize" and develop for me.
However, in this case, a play has been harder to find, and specially, an specific area to explore.

This areas may include: (amongst others)


Characterisation - where the characters make abrupt and hard movements, which break halfway. There is a strain of gestures, through intense movement.


Costumes- which are a dramatic factor in expressionism. For example, in German Expressionism, characters appear often with capes and hats. Regarding makeup, it is characterized by being very pale.


Scenery - landscapes are artificially created to make use of the lighting in order to build characters and objects. For example, "Lang" realized that you cannot 'remove' nature, but you can create abstractions.


However, how can I research a topic in a play I cannot watch? Is it possible to research costumes, or scenery from a script?

Maybe the stage directions can tell us information about how characterisation and scenery should be.


On the other hand, biomechanics reminded me to an extent of the chaotic scene in "La Cocina".
Although I haven't understand COMPLETELY Meyerhold's technique, it involves communication within a group and controlling disposition in space, and he argued that one could call up emotions in performance through the use of movement and gesture.

so.. is biomechanics a technique? and was it used in Miyuki y los tres demonios in the spies scene? (as it included acrobacies)


***

How do you know which research area and play are "the best" for your topic and sources available?

Expressionist characters often dramatize and struggle against their societies.. but Do all types of theatre criticize something in their societies to an extent?

"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.