Men&Mehler

Description:

This week we went to see Men&Mahler a dance spectacle (with a little bit of theatre I suppose). I wanted to analyze an aspect of this, but really when wanting to choose an element (in acting, design, or structure) no aspect called my attention. Trying to look for inspiration I read the pamphlet that had some information of the performance. While reading I found a line that said “50 meters of elastic band”.

Analysis:

The elastic band I think was one of the elements that look more interesting. It helped the actors to do different actions, I found the use of this prop interesting as the actors, and although they use it in similar ways they also used it in contrasting ways, at the same time causing different sensations with the same prop in the audience.

One of the ways this elastic band was used was when to actors where holding the band, one on the left and another one in the right, and in the center another actor holding the elastic band with his hands, going from one side do another, stretching this elastic band and another actor marking where did he get with a chalk, suppostly trying to show his strength was really not very deep, the audience didn’t need to think about this much, but what was interesting of this wasn’t what was said by the action but how it looked. The performance really relies in this, in images… interesting images that would create the audience to surprise but not to reflect. In the first impression this was a really great merit for the performance, but analyzing I get to the conclusion that because of the woman speaking in a reflective tone, the fact of trying to understand men, was really the intention of the author not to be a reflective spectacle and just use the story as an excuse for “dancing”, or did the director just didn’t achieve it?

I think that if the story would be just an excuse to show images, more images would be interesting. But really most of the images were just training exercises, and also many where repetitive. But images are not just comforted by the actors, but by design elements such as lighting, scenery, costume, etc.

The lighting I think was the most controversial design element, because in a way I think it was good, but in another way it wasn’t bad. Although this is a superficial statement I can explain it because for example in the beginning when each of the men were in their “changing rooms” with a lamp on each of this that lit them individually. Each time that the black cloth that cover them was pulled so we could see the men inside the lights turned on and then when the black cloth was closed the light turned off. As the light was really strong and light them individually it helped to see the man being lit naked. The fact that we could see them clearly and the light put focus on to this (although we see them from the back) helped I think called for my attention and make the play interesting at a first instance, I think it was a good manner to start because it was impacting and from the beginning it show the theme of men (as the representation of it was naked men). Then when the woman start talking the lights get dim again and the lamp that had the women just focused her, so the audience eye was onto the woman, but the men help to create the atmosphere, but really what was the atmosphere that wanted to be created? I was kind of confused by seeing this because it really didn’t create any feeling, just the sound of the men falling gave me a feeling of pain, but furthermore no other feeling was created. I think that this is one of the main problems of this performance, that many times not any feeling was portrayed, not any sensations, just images but really because they were confusing, without a clear intention the audience couldn’t pick up the intention either, and it make it hard to follow, to understand, there were just images without a purpose, without a meaning.

In other times the light was to dim so that the audience couldn’t see what the actors where doing, what was happening. At the first instance when this happen I thought “I want the light to be brighter” and then progressively it get brighter and brighter but, still many times it continue to be dim. I still got the doubt until now that if using the light so dim that the audience couldn’t see was on purpose so that the audience get interested by asking what is there in the dark, or was just a problem of the performance as the audience will get disinterested and loose concentration because there is apparently nothing on stage, or if there is the audience still cannot see nothing.

Connections:

“Romper la piel”: Many times in the play dark was used, but this helped to hide this from the audience eye, and for the tower there was a strong light use, which although because of the shadows we couldn’t see the whole actor, a chiaroscuro effect was created making the image more obscure, there was more mystery. I think that this is the main contrast between the use of dark light in the school play (which make it work for this performance) and with Men&Mahler, because there was a clear intention to use the light like this, and would create an effect on the audience

Ballet de londrina: This performance was also dancing, but I think that the main difference was that actions did have an intention; the performance just didn’t seek to create images, but that the images create emotions and sensations on the audience.

Reflection:

Dancing (specially contemporary dancing) have close relationships with theatre, but can the fact of the performance be dance and not theatre be an excuse of creating images without a real intention? I think that in dancing many times characters are not developed, just the control of the body, but this would not be an excuse for the director just to create images that may be “nice to the eye” but to create sensations by having clear the intentions of the movements of the dancers, the function of the design elements in the performance and the structure of it. 

Lighting

Description:

For the school play i was responsible of lights and props, and although props wasn’t really a hard job rather than making sure everything was there and get all what we needed, lights i thought it to be very complicated as it was the first time I really get into it.

Analysis:

The color of lighting usually transmits a feeling, a sensation, can create atmospheres. While doing the “Craig’s photos” I realized who the atmosphere of a same picture could change just by light, and when I thought of the school play and the color scheme set for this I thought this was lost, but in the contrary, in the process I realized that the white, and the contrast of this with the dark enhance the atmosphere we wanted to create, a cold world, with cold colors, where the shadows create darkness. Then having to divide the numbers of light, not being able to use all the ones we wanted as some lights needed to be used for one color, and another for others made me think that we were left with little possibilities and I was worried about not all the scenery been able to be lit up, but this actually helped to create the effect we wanted. Leaving some parts of the scenery dim and dark, and just some parts lighten help to enforce contrast and also helped to create the sense of coldness, because as it was dark it wasn’t a welcoming place, but a tenebrous place in the shadows.

In the other hand, for the dreams where everything was colored I thought that all of a same color will make the play less vibrant and therefor it would lose dynamism, it would be boring to see all of the same color with no contrast. I first thought of using other colors for the lights than the ones for the clothes but this would not follow the color scheme. This was my main worry for the lights in the play. When we put it in practice using all of the same color create a feeling of fantasy, unrealism that take the audience to another state, they weren’t in reality anymore and this help to achieve it. While the blue created a dark atmosphere, mysterious which help to put the mood of nightmare in the scene, the purple I think didn’t work that well, it was too bright, but this problem was reduced by using the Lycos in the scene as not everything was purple, and the purple lights could be lowered the intensity creating a dim purple light behind and with the Lycos just light up what was necessary creating more intrigue and building up tension.

For the fuchsia light, although this wasn’t dark and neither was intended to be, I think it work well because it gave this fantastic happy atmosphere, but that much “happiness” turned to be creepy with the help of the face expressions of the actors, although I think that more exaggerated face expressions will make this more nightmarish that it was. I understand this scene to be a less hectic scene than the others, and tried to lower done the tension, but still it needed to be more creepy so the effect that had been build up all during the play wasn’t lost in one scene.

Lastly for the red dream I think that not many people realized this crescendo in the light colors that gradually turn into red, but red in our society usually links to fire, madness and I think that that effect and atmosphere was the one build up, which was enhanced by the “madness” of the actions, the incoherent in a way, but coherent in another as the actions were an exaggeration and distortion of the office actions which create a feeling of oppression and paranoia in the main character, which was reflected in the audience as the play was seen under his perspective.

In the end the red light maintains the other feelings and the atmosphere that was built before, but because of the script it also turned in the imagination of the audience into fire, into liberation. I realized then how the script and what is said complements what is viewed. The text gives a sense to the colors, to the movements, to the make-up and other design elements. It puts them into context and give them sense, the atmosphere created by the text is then also transmitted by the one created by the stage elements.

The Lycos in the other hand help so that not all the scene was lighted up with color, and not all the scenery was with light. Yes it flooded the stage with a color by the Pares, but it wasn’t fastidious as a low intensity could be used. The Lycos also helped to light certain parts of the scene and enhance this while other things passed in the dim color light. For example for the fuchsia dream – the circus, there were many kids on stage and many things happening at the time but the Lycos helped to focus on a certain action will other things happen. The Lycos helped to do many actions at the time without letting the audience distract, but to concentrate in one action but have the feeling of many things happening at the same time, being in somehow oppressing, and contrasting with the previous scene where we went stage by stage, one thing first and then another, which may be seen as to be in order, but in the dream is distorted to be catastrophic as this apparent “order” in reality is not.

Connections:

Proyeccion Privada: “Teatro de imagen” was used and the “unreal” scenes used green light. What was the purpose of light here? I think that it help to give the unrealistic atmosphere but it really didn’t get further than that. We couldn’t really get what does this color represent.

El ultimo ensayo: The lights here I think was one of the strengths for the scene changes. Although it wasn’t that elaborated for the “reality” scenes, when the actors were preparing the ceremony for Yma Sumac, while doing the scene changes it help to give fluency as using a dim light helped to change the scene in a way that the audience could see what it was happening, it didn’t cut the scene and the another, but it also didn’t enhance this scene change, it was made as unperceived but it was present at the time. We follow with what was happening in a way in which we didn’t put our focus to it but it also didn’t take out this image to take out the focus of it (by using the projections for example). This technique was also used in the play, while one thing happen as for example Eduardo’s monologue and the lights focused him, in the dim dark light (but no complete darkness) scene change happen.

Conclusion:

The lights can create an atmosphere but this is also enhanced by other elements, it is difficult to create an atmosphere by its own as the interpretation of a bright light or a dark light, or a green or a red light can be different by putting them into different contexts. But can in a way light express something by its own, without the influence of other elements? Or does other elements always are needed to give a concrete meaning to light, as for example the text, actions, and face expression?

Proyección Privada and school play

To start with a general idea of the play we can say that the main theme is the television, which is then developed to the theme of the television and the interpersonal relationships, which leads us to the sub-theme “The television as a break up and scape of the interpersonal relationships”. We can say that the play work with two concepts: “You consume, and they consume you” and “You are what you see”. Although this is pretty clear, when we get to think about the game, this is not clear.

We can see that the play follows the conventions of contemporary theatre but they don’t respond to an artistic exploration process, but they are used because this is what is spectate of a contemporary director, it follows the direction fashion in western theatre. This is no good, because it isn’t coherent with the play, the game is supposed to build the connection with the audience, but the game is just put there, it doesn’t respond to the necessities of the play.

One of the games could be that the man doesn’t remember the name of her wife. This comes from Harold Pinter who talks about “deshacer el objeto”, which is accomplished by the fact that as she doesn’t have a name it gives the impression of not knowing who is she.

We can see that in the play they usually don’t mention name, as the name of the woman is never said as the husband is always confusing. In the “melodrama scene” the names are always repeated and the force given to the voice emphasizes this. This gives a contrast in the play, as the names are more important in the fictional live, than in reality. The individualism is more important in a “fictional reality” than the real reality, where we ignore the importance of each individual, we don’t know who is in our sourroundings, but we know the characters in television.

Another game of the play would be using “teatro del absurdo” which works on leading the situations to the extreme. For example when the man doesn’t know that her wife don’t have a sister or they don’t have sons, or when the wife and the “lover”?? live as friends. This type of theatre indicates us that the play must not be interpret as realist theatre, but this is really confusing as the man appears drunk and the “absurdo” becomes justify which induce the audience to think in a possible realism. This is why when in the end when the wife poison the man and her “lover” the audience tries to see a coherence in this, because in a first instance the wife didn’t care about her husband dating another woman, but then she kills them. In an absurd theatre this would be normal as we aren’t expecting a coherent psychology of the characters, but if we interpret it as realist drama it just doesn’t have sense.  

In terms of actor, we can see that the actors are not given all of what they have, they haven’t been worked properly, a lack of exploration is evident. The play would be “theatre of image” but the actors don’t work on it. The choose of actors have not been the apropiate as the actors the husbond and wife work for realist theatre, The one who acts of the lover does work with theatre of image, and she haves much to give to the play, but the director hasn’t used her.

If we link this to the play, when we choose which actor will represent each character we need to see what each actor can give to us. For example we can see that some actors work better with fave expression but less with the body expression, for this a more static character would be optimus. While an actor that doesn’t have much energy is beter to use him as a statue and work in poses with this actor, rather than doing body movements and moving around the stage. For example Siu doesn’t develop much face expression but in the spect of voice expression she is very good so the character of the grandmother, in which she acts given the back to the audience, works perfectly for her.

To highlight something positive in the play we can talk of the “melodrama scene”. The voices show a really good work, as they try to imitate the “telenovelas” and they do it perfectly, with the intonation and the stress in the right position. The body expression and the face expression also imitate this very good, and this makes it work. The audience can relate what they see to real “telenovelas”. The scene of the rutine when they are watching the TV its to repetitive and it doesn’t have much sense, so in this part where they give the “message” of we are what we see there is no connection with the audience.

We want to our play to be expressionist, although the audience will not recognize this theatre practice we want them to recognize that the problems presented are the ones that are the ones in our society. We are going to catch the audience attention going from the reality to dreams, but we also want to connect with the audience and get the audience get our message by empathizing with the character. But what makes the character empathize with the audience??

working with limitations

Description:

This week we talk to work upon what we have. To build a character for example we had to see what the actor could give to it and then choose how the character must be.

Analysis:

It’s already a challenge to think how would you like things to be, you imagine for the set design, the structure and the acting certain things and then you have to face that somethings are not possible.  For the acting for example in the play we want the eyes to be wide open but when I asked and tried to do this with the form 2 actors many couldn’t do it. I had to spend a lot of time just to fix this because is one of the important aspects of the acting, but then there where one or two actors who just couldn’t do it… what will happen with this actor? What happens when an actor can’t follow a convention?

Then for the set design I’m doing lighting, and i have many ideas of what can be done, the shadows, the effects, etc. But then when I think on the theatre we have I just realize this is not possible. The stage gives a lot of limitations on this, but I think that hopefully with the projections this would work better… anyway the shape of our theatre its already a challenge. We have to work with what we have, but sometimes these limitations don’t let you follow conventions. So what will happen if you have to break a convention because it’s just not possible to follow it? Is it acceptable? I know that for the school play we are doing an adaptation of german expressionism and using projections rather than shadows will not be negative for the play as the effect created is similar, but in other occasions? Can the limitations of the stage break with conventions?

Connections:
In Hebras for example we can see that in the floor there are lines, but what would happen if that is performed in a theatre as the one in school, where the stage is higher than the audience level. The audience will not be able to see those lines, the “convention” will have to be broken.

Reflexion:

I know that in the beginning we must work with what we got, but what happens later, when the play needs to adapt to another stage or the conventions for acting can’t be accomplished by an actor? Are we supposed to ignore this? To what extent limitations will change the effect created in the audience?

Building up characters for the School Play

Description:

I’m working with the oldest actors of the school play. I started to do some physical training and then develop more the psychological part so that the actors could build up their characters. The physical training was mostly based on a “Grotowsky” kind of training while the psychological part was based on looking for your character inside you. I mean, that for not just “imitating” someone else, but to take their inner emotions actors thought of an experience that may them feel the way their character is feeling.

With this “actor training” the actors have developed a sequence so that they explore their character.

Analysis and connections

They are developing characters from the inside to the outside for the physiological part but from the outside to the inside for the visual part. This two must complement each other to express emotions so we can follow the conventions of expressionism theatre.

The sequence the actors have built up have been progressing and clearing through practice, but there were two particular cases that call up my attention:

Diego – He first did a sequence with Natalie, but Roberto told him to change the character. I went and talk to him as he looked lost I he told me he couldn’t do the character as he is too different from what it’s supposed to be like. It was a big challenge for him as he found this character so different to himself that his imagination blocked. I tried to help him first building the external image which he accomplished, but then while working he still didn’t find the character as internally he didn’t comprehend it. I find this particular case special as it makes me think how much do you need of yourself to build a character? How close do you need to be to your character as an actor? How different could you be?

This connects to my previous experiences as an actress:

Shadow Queendom: In shadow queendom although I didn’t thought of this, many times I remembered a moment when I felt angry when I shout, or when I get spoiled for when I ordered the servants. I think I had a lot in common with my character in certain moments, but there where also other moments where I completely wasn’t myself, as for example when I did Matilda and I had to receive the crown, I never felt like that or had a moment in my life that help me like a stimulus for this character. I just worked it externally, as big  smile and stand straight.

Kioskotambo: I didn’t feel any connection at all, I just thought of making big movements and playing with the rhythm. I think a fact that influence in this is that we were trying to imitate Paucartambo’s celebration. This leads me to say that not every character needs to be similar to you, but it influence on the kind of theatre.

A matter of dissection: I think this was one of the characters that I am more likely to. First because im always impacient and trying to make things faster, and also because im pretty serious and upset about that. It was also one of the characters I felt more comfortable with. This is way I can say that when you find the stimulus for your character in your inside, you feel more comfortable and dominate the character.

The other special case that take my attention was:

Renzo – He also needed to change his character as the character he was building up was completely different to the one we assign him for the school play. He also found it very difficult, but there where different reasons as from Diego’s. He found difficult how to appear “a good companion” as this was the description for his character. This make me though of a previous discussion we had in class this year when we said that the “dream scenes” were going to be positive and we were afraid to do it boring. Why is it so difficult to make something good be entertaining? One actress suggested him to make the character silly and this helped a lot to begin a progress. Now that he was silly we could simply suggest that the character tries to help but he mess up. This is kind of comic, but helped to build the character externally a lot, although as this was a change in the last minute, the work wasn’t as good as the other actors.  But the play doesn’t aim to be comic; in the other hand it must be creepy… how a silly guy or a good guy could appear to be creepy? I think that this can be accomplished by making grotesque movements, and also by changing the voice to a creepier one (although I am just discovering what makes a voice creepy…). Also the situation I think will modify this, but to what extent?

This connects to previous plays I have seen where “good” characters has been presented, as:

La cocina: Chiclayo was always trying to do things right, but this character became entertaining to see in the last part, when he breaks with this. In the other hind while performing it was funny as the others take advantage of his kindness. This idea could work for the school plays

Mas pequeños que el Guggenheim: In this play “albino” is a good character. But this is helpful to make it funny. Although it’s interesting as it makes contrast between the other characters and also because it makes us laugh.

German Expressionist plays: There are good characters in this plays, which help other characters, specially the main character. For example the “salvation army”. I think the characters in the salvation army work as their work to reach the “good” is exaggerated and contrast a lot with real life, at the end you don’t feel relieve by their performance, but they make you think about it. They make you think about how religion interferes to make “good”, but are they really getting to it?

Reflexion:

So how can a good character been develop in Expressionist theatre? I think my analysis helps me to understand how should a “good” character must begin to build up in expressionism. Maybe give them as example the salvation army and use them to show a critic to an identity that is supposed to help, but it just doesn’t. I still think of how close do you need to be to your character? I know this will depend on the kind of theatre, but in German expressionism where the actor has to take their inner emotions, is this essential?

Analysis - Confesiones by Ana Correa

“Confesiones” by Ana correa was a “unipersonal” in which she explained and gave tips of how to act and then did short demostrations of her acting. 

She talked about how build a character and how one recognize in her characters as she says for performing as someone else one needs to be connected with themselves. For example when she act of the teacher she could recognize she was sometimes like that with her pupils and this make her reflect. But then she said that her body was not just for acting, to appear as someone else, but her body was a support of information. She then performed a passage of Sin Título – Tecnica Mixta where she represent a native woman and had a kushma with text printed in it that was what people said about the terrorism there. In the inside of the kushma, which she later turns to be the outside, there were photos of native people in the terrorism times. She achieves to be a support of information this gave to his character a deep and emotional resonance as it’s not any more acting to represent another and entertain the audience, but to tell people a reality that they weren’t aware of.

In another scene she talks about the use of props, how she converts an object into another by her way of using it on stage. How manipulation change a simple object into another. But the manipulation of props had to be seen as a prolongation of the actor, not as something he uses. Making an object to appear to be another is a clear example of “imagen dividida” as the audience imagination has to be activated to complete the image which isn’t there, but is instead suggested. I think that this tips she gives to us work in some kind of theatre but it depends in the context, you can’t use this in realist or naturalist theatre but you can use it in a more expressionistic theatre (which she mentions to do in the beginning).

Can any prop be used as another? Although and object can represent something more the object which is used it conveys different things to the audience. For example the texture of the original object will tell us something and will transmit a feeling to the audience (for example a metal texture gives us the feeling of cold, hard, while wood give us a more warm feeling which seems nicer to the audience.) Also the proportion and size will influence as even though it is representing something more, the size of the original object will be the one conveyed to the object being represent. The color will give us also different feelings and it also has to work with the color scheme in the play. As we can see we can transform props in the stage, but we can’t transform whatever into another thing. The original prop although is representing something more convey characteristics to it, so that the original prop although is not what is representing has to be chosen carefully as not by transforming it on stage will give the feeling we want to give.

The tips she gave to us work in a type of context, we can’t just take them and apply them in all of our performance. Yuyachkani has a similar way of acting, which has many conventions followed in all of the different plays so she has talked the tips that will obviously work in a type of theatre like yuyachkani, but we have to consider that not in all theatre practices is the same. Also she speaks in a broadway as we have to consider them and also see the effect it has in the audience as she talks more in an actor point of view but she doesn’t consider much a director point of view so she doesn’t relate much how her work affects the audience, the different effects that are build up and how. I think that is why the director is important, because the actor can transmit and work on a character, when it’s well trained, by them. But regarding the set design is not the actor who consider this but the director. The director gives coherence to what the actor does.

Kioskotambo

Description:

This week was KIOSKOTAMBO presentation. I think that there are things in this performance that worked and didn’t work so I’m going to analyze them.

Analysis:

The presentation was well accepted by the audience, so they were enthusiastic with it. People laugh and go to see it on day 2 and 3 after watching the first performance. I think that this was because it is very dynamic and the music also gave joy to the performance. Also because it was a story, so people wanted to know what happens next. It was also something different than usual so people get interested, and because it was talking about the kiosk. The kiosk was something which the audience could connect, they were identified with this and by the laughter in the first day, and they get to protest.

Although there was a good response of the audience I think we fail on “turning the cholito in the inside”. The audience liked the performance but they didn’t get that “cholito” to come out. I think this was due a lack of interaction with the audience, and in the third day when there was more interaction people was more interested in the food that in the performance.

The third day was the one that get the best response with the audience. I think it was because the interaction of it and because of the food. Although many people in the audience were most interested on the food, there were other that didn’t really wanted the food, but wanted to interact with the characters. For example they didn’t wanted cookies, but just a little candy so they get to play with the characters.

Regarding my personal performance, I found that sometimes it was too repetitive, and I know I was an “image” but maybe I could change it and made clearer what this image represent, because it wasn’t very clear what I represent. Also I was many times counting on the others to take me around with the chair, as we rehearsed but in day 2 they didn’t so I felt lost, I didn’t know if I should move my self or should stay in a place with the “image”.  I think this take presence to my character as I was confused and insecure on doing the actions.

Connections:

Paucartambo:

In paucartambo as in the performance people like to interact with the characters and call them so they can play with them. Also in the bosque people get enthusiastic on receiving something, because of the actual fact of receiving than because of what they are receiving. Also between one day and the other in paucartambo the audience after seeing the beginning they are always waiting to see the next performance, but not because there is an story that must be followed but to see the performance and get to this “carnaval” atmosphere.

I think that here the interaction with the audience is better because although it isn’t rehearsed, they have experience on it. They know how to do the jokes and how to approach the audience. Also because the performance is longer, for example in the first day the audience is “afraid” of maqtas and qollas touching them and joking with them, but in the next days the audience claim to interact with them and want them to get carried, “kissed”, hugged, etc.

Reflection:

I think the performance generally was good, but because we didn’t had rehearsed too much and we lacked experience, we relied too much on improvisation, so many times actions were insecure. In paucartambo celebration the different dance groups don’t get to rehearse with the audience, or exactly what they are going to do, but they approach to the audience better than we did, is it because they have experienced this many times? Or is there other reasons too?