Watching, analysing and learning. (Mades and Medus vs. Más pequeños que el Guggenheim)

“Más pequeños que el Guggenheim” This week highlight for me was this theatre play. I could clearly see the characterization of one character and really enjoy and have fun of a play while in my head the analysing keep going.

First, the costume. In “Más pequeños que el Guggenheim” the costumes really help for the characterization as it showed physically the personality of the different characters. In “Mades medus” I think the costume was not appropriate, it did a contrast to the philosophical text that was being worked in the play which was sometimes sad, but it wasn’t really the appropriate to represent two actors I think. From this two experiences I think that costumes have to be clear, and if the costumes are representing something abstract you need to be the less messy as possible, keep it simple because if not it can lead to confusion and unwanted effects in the audience.

Focussing in the props, as its what I am the responsible for props in the school play (props and puppets) I paid close attention to them. In “Mades medus” the prop that most catch up my attention was the candle. I think that this little prop, which is unusual, catch up the attention of the audience and creates an effect depending on the connection they give it to the play. As part of the audience the candle make me feel hope, because although all the problems Mades and Medus where talking about there was a light… These types of props that can be physically clear and represent what they are, I mean it was a candle and it was used as a candle, can be used because of their double meanings to create a deeper reflection in the audience.

In the other hand in “Más pequeños que el Guggenheim” There where not much props used but the ones used for example the bench that was the one that most catch up my attention, didn’t look as what it was used for, but the actors made the function of the bench change with the use of their body expressions (for example when the characters used the bench as a motorcycle). This two different techniques of using props where very interesting and for example in the scene I have been rehearsing for the school play I think the mirror can be used as in “Mades Medus” and it will be interesting that in different scenes there is a prop that change its function… Well that’s an idea that the director of the play have to decide if its included or not.

Finally the physical part, in “Más pequeños que el Guggenheim” I couldn’t really see the working from the outside to the inside… I even thought that the characters where worked from the inside to the outside as the physical part was very similar to real life, I mean stereotyped. It can also be that the actors have done a lot of exploration and therefore chosen very carefully the movements that most fit to the character. Although I can’t be sure about it I can say that it wasn’t clear which technique was used by only watching the play. In “Mades Medus” I did clearly see the physical work, I think that the highlight of this play where the actors as they physically showed a lot of control on their bodies and the movements and expressions where different that in real life. I could clear see some of the exercises we have been doing in Kenzo’s Grotowski physical workshop (but more developed). Watching the actors’ dominance of their bodies encouraged me to continue the workshop, and although I have always had a lot of interest in the workshop this performance showed me how helpful this physical exploring is. After the sessions we have done I have really enjoyed and feel effect of the physical exploring while performing I realize that the sessions are coming to an end but I feel I will continue the physical exploring by my own. 

Now I ask my self… What will differ from a group physical exploring and a personal physical exploring without even a person that guides the exercises? What prop could change its role to appear to be different objects? And how this prop will change its role?