Stimuli and the game

Description:

This week in class we were analyzing the stimuli (symphony 25 – Mozart). I am going to talk about this and how it links to final performances when from the stimuli develops into a play.

Analysis:

When we start to analyze the stimuli we get to the idea of the mirror… For me the mirror developed into the idea of a person as a reflection of other people. When I get to this idea I started to think that every action in theatre must create and effect, it must have a role, to be interesting… because if not, why is it there?

In “Hebras” for example the stimuli they had developed into a whole play. I suppose that from the stimuli the director get into different visions but not all of what jumps in our mind can be put into performance because if we put a scene, an action without a purpose without a game then is not interesting.  A scene I liked a lot in this play because of the use of the body was when one of the characters was like locked in a reduced space and made breathing sounds as it get frustrated because he was trapped, all his movements had a lot of energy and also the second character was looking at him… The actor that wasn’t trapped didn´t disappeared, was still in character. All in a play develops from a starting point, the stimuli. In this case for example the scene that developed from the stimuli wasn´t boring as it created an effect. It made me feel like I was trapped to because of the light focusing the actions the actor made and also the absence of dialog but the breathing sounds present create tension in the audience. Also the game with how the audience was located surrounding in a circle the stage link the audience with the actors and you feel comfortable to give the sense it most linked to your life experience to the actions the actors made.

All this scene and the position of the audience created different effects in the audience but had a purpose, it wasn´t there without a purpose. When analyzing the stimuli this is why the ideas that came into your head must have a role and create an effect so the audience connects with the play because If this link between the audience and the play isn’t there then there is a void between the characters and the audience making the play really boring, actions and words are just there but don’t create any effect if it doesn’t connect with the audience, and art is something collective and it depends on the audience take something as art to BE art.

Connections:

Now analyzed this scene I can compare how the stimuli develop to approach something as there was a connection with the audience and not just random actions done without a purpose, like in “Mades medus” that because the audience didn’t connect with the play it turn up to be vague as words were just said and the audience didn’t really get the effect of the actions done.

Reflections:

If a vision must have a game to work in a play, then why we first develop the vision and then the game?