Body exploration and expression

Description:

Long live mathilda! This week was SHADOW QUEENDOM!! Finally after all those weeks of puppet making, mask painting and rehearsals the play is done. During the week, the puppets, masks, props, scenery were ready. Just a few “fix up here” and “fix up there” were needed. We focused more in the scene changes and the performance. We also did the dress rehearsal and finally the REAL performance.

Analysis:

During the last months we built up everything for THESE three days of performance. As we were getting nearer to the “deadline” I thought there was too much to do, and “little time to achieve it”. From the production point of view I wasn’t worried, puppets were finished, masks were too, there were very few things to improve, but as an actress in the play I was really worried. The last and first scene weren’t ready; some actors didn’t even know their lines.

Knowing the lines is something basic, you need to know the script in order to imagine the character, to be confident to explore while rehearsing the voice and movements of the character, because if you don’t know the lines you cannot go to the next step. I think that the big problem was that the script was sent too late, also there was little initiative of some actors, and without initiative you cannot move forward. It was very frustrating that because other actors didn’t know their lines the work of the other actors was affected. A performance is a group activity as each character reacts to the other. The action, movements a character does is the result of a response to another characters action or 
movement.

Fortunately everybody learned their lines in the end, and the final performance “looked” as if we had finished it a long time ago. The play looked good at the end, complete; but I think that all though we didn’t have much time because of the requirements in production, the script IS the priority. Production tasks must be finished with time so that actors can rehearse with the props, (and in this case puppets and masks) but what is the point of rehearsing with these if the script is not finished, or if even though its finished actors don’t know the lines? I think that if in the beginning the director put more importance in the script, the acting would also improve, as actors could pass lines and explore their movements and voice in their houses or rehearsals. In my opinion the problem with the script was one of the greatest reasons for the lack of characterization.

Another reason for the lack of characterization which lowered the acting level of many actors was that each actor couldn’t explore one character in-depth, as each actor had to explore not only one character but maybe 2 or 3 and even if the character was the same in different scenes, due to the game of the play the character had to change as-well. And … these are the costs of creativity………

With the puppets the problem with characterization was almost the same, many actors did make a great job with vocal characterization but in the physical exploring of puppets, as it was something new to work with, it wasn’t developed as much. The movements sometimes weren’t clear, or sometimes puppeteers just moved the puppets with any clear intention, only with the purpose that it doesn’t stay still, instead of making the puppet look real and transmit intentions with their body expression.

Where I think my acting skills were better was in the shadow puppets scene. In this scene I really explored the movements of my arms and gave a lot of vivacity to the character. The movements also where coherent with the text and precise, they had an intention behind… I think this was due to the working out of the movements with the actual lines we were going to say. I think that in order to have intentions along with what you say, it is better to say the lines first with choreography and then take some movements out or add new ones. This gives more intention to the movements, and it is easier to have precise movements with this technique in my opinion, as they are fixed and are easier to remember. So that the next time you do them they remain the same.

Connections:

In “Mas pequeños que el Guggenheim” characterization was very good. The actions each character did weren’t just precise but each character developed the way of moving depending on the personality. The voice, the movements, the posture of each character, built up their own personality. The audience could pick up the personality of these characters from the physical part more than from the dialogue. It looked as if the dialogue was a complement to the movements and not the movements being a complement to the dialogue. The actions transmitted more than the words.

In “Hebras” for example no words are said, but all the body expression expressed a lot. The audience could recognize feelings, moments, imagine a whole situation without words, just with the body expression.

In “La cocina” for example I think the acting was not very good due to the lack of this body expression. Many characters looked the same, the voice didn’t have much intonation so the “important” words weren’t highlighted or the intentions weren’t clear. To understand what the characters where feeling or how they are it was very important to listen to the dialogue as the body expression didn’t transmit much.

Reflection:

I think that what makes a play attractive is the movements a character does, or even if the character doesn’t move much, the posture and intonation that is given to the words is what makes it attractive. So then is the "game" really what makes the connection with the audience, or is it how attractive the expression of the characters by the voice and physical characterization is? Maybe is the mixture of both...do the plays which don’t have a game make the characterization unreliable as the audience doesn’t “connect" with the play, or is a good characterization enough for the audience to "connect" with the play?

A hole that is never full

Description:

This week we finished the puppets and the scenography and did and did the final changes in the scenes on the first act of the school play.

Analysis:

Finishing the play is like trying to fill up a hole that continues to go bigger and bigger. You finish something and there is still something more to do, and when you say ok, it’s only this left something will happen and that whole will continue to get bigger, then for you have still having something to do, it NEVER finishes.

Regarding to production “it’s almost finished” and I can see how a whole process that began months ago it’s coming to an end. Puppets are finished, dressed, masks are ready. The scenography is almost ready, the tubes of the scaffolds are wrapped, the costume is almost complete, the music is there… all of this together makes the play more interesting, it gives vivacity, it looks different…. But if one of this is taken out the effect is not the same. The visual part of this play is the one that I found more interesting due to the colors, the masks, the puppets. In my opinion the audience will be more focused on how it looks like than the actual story, as the visual part is different than usual, interesting for those who don’t know the “world” of masks and puppets. 

How the puppets are being used by know is getting better and this gives live to the puppet, the voice that the actors develop to use this puppets also suggest a personality for each one. Although the puppeteers still take out some of my attention in some puppets instead of giving a powerful presence to the puppet the movements now are much more developed that in the beginning, I think that it’s a matter of the lack of time we have had to explore the puppets, I remember Maria Laura trained years to be a proper puppeteer. 

Regarding to my own performance this week in scene 1 I was really scared, I have been going through difficulties because of the long skirt which I always step on and this even go worst when I had the crinoline. I just feel so uncomfortable because I feel I’m going to fall. There is not much time left so that I can get used to it so I just need to grab my skirt and leave the fear behind, because as I have already experienced in the last rehearsal, if an actor is worried about something it just ends in a rush throwing up lines with any intention. 

For my performance in scene 3 I think it worked better than the times before, I still had sometimes problems with the movements in some parts where I stay still, but the voice did improve. This is like the hole that I was talking at the beginning, it never ends up filling. For now the best I can do is not to forget and have always in mind the advices I have been told so that I don’t take any step back.

Connections:

Finishing the play finally is pretty similar to finish a work, to complete with a dead line as you know there is always something you can improve, is like when you do your power point presentation in class and say “I could have done this”, and this is one of my biggest fears having TOO MUCH to improve.

Reflection:

When I leave a theatre after watching a play anyway there is always something in my mind which I think could improve, so there for I ask to myself, is a play always “incomplete”? Or is it matter of likes and dislikes that someone feels there is something that could be improved?

The matter of culture and authority in a performance

Description:

This week in class we talk about the Andian Theatre, and we arrive to the topic of culture, the importance of the audience and authority

Analysis:

“Never before, when it is life itself that is in question, has there been so much talk of civilization and culture. And there is a curious parallel between this generalized collapse of life at the root of our present demoralization and our concern for a culture which has never been coincident with life, which in fact has been devised to tyrannize over life.” - Antonin Artaud

Culture is formed by the different needs we have, nowadays the meaning of culture has been broken, nowadays we think that we have more culture by knowing more, but culture is not how much knowledge we have, it’s the way we live, the needs we have.

But aren’t we all humans supposed to have the same needs? Don’t we all just need water, food, shelter, to survive? Well indeed this is what maintain as alive, but not what forms our culture. Culture goes beyond that, culture is not formed by what we need to live, but the things we do to live, how we manage to live.

The different cultures have different theatre traditions. The worries or ideas in a culture are reflected somehow in theatre practices and other forms of art.

We are going to see the festival in Paucartambo in honor to “Virgen del Carmen”, a typical festival from here. Andian Theatre comes from a different culture than Lima Culture, its different. Theatre shows who we are, theatre shows culture. To understand what they are showing in this festival we have to understand their culture first, because how are we going to judge this theatre practice without understanding what it represents and why certain things are seen that way. The way the Incas lived and the problems and ideas they had will be reflected in this theatre practice.

Now, which role will the audience play in this festival? This festival is done in honor to “Virgen del Carmen”. It is done to adore this virgin, at least the festival started with this purpose. As the role of this festival is to honor this religious image does the audience is important? Research will help me answer this question but as a hypothesis I suppose that all this festival started without giving importance to the audience but due to the tourists the audience was creating more and more importance in this festival due to the tourist attraction it created and the citizens who do this festival will be benefit from this.

Now leaving this behind the issue of authority comes. Who created this festival? Who owns it? The one who takes the decisions is the author of something, but what happens if there are many people taking decisions together? Everybody is the author? I think that to resolve this is why people don’t just recognize the author, but recognizes for example in a theatre play the costume designer, the actors, the scenery designer, etc. All of these are the one who CREATE the theatrical piece. In this case the festival is not just created by one person, it’s a group of people creating and putting up in a stage (the streets) this festival. Each troupe has its own director, this director is the one who takes the decisions of what it’s going to be shown and how things are going to be done, then for he is the author. Does it belong to him? Being the author doesn’t mean that the put into scene is yours, it belongs to everybody who made this as all of them are part of it. The festival in Paucartambo belongs to the town, to all the people who lives here and are part of the festival. But then who is the author of the whole festival? It’s not a big deal; nobody really cares who the author is as the author will not receive any money by being the author. Each troupe has their own director but there is not really a problem between the actors and the director of who does the performance belongs to.

Connections:

The school play this year reflects our culture, the way we live but also has elements of the British culture. The author of the play we are going to do are the directors, then for the authors are Kenzo, Esteban and Roberto, but who it belongs to? Does it belong to everybody who is part of it? And if it is like this why is it the “school play”, does the school own it? And why the school own it if most people in school didn’t do anything for the performance?

Reflection:

The author is the director as he takes the decisions of what is going to be in the performance, the other members of the group suggest but finally the director decides. In the school play or festival in paucartambo there is no really a fight for who belongs the performance, but in other pieces of art it does, why? Does the importance of who belongs something only matters if there is an economic benefits?

Characterization

Description

Last week I rehearsed scene 3, where I act as Deborah, after many weeks of not practising the scene. Also it was the first time with the shadow puppets where I got to work with Katty, doing a big queen with four arms.

Analysis:

Deborah in scene 3 wasn’t easy to perform this week. I already had a character before and I was used to do some specific movements, as well as the voice and the actual words I said. I was just used to it. It wasn’t easy to hear the director’s comments and try to learn the changes so fast after being so used to my character. I have to open my arms and move because the character looks very boring when it stays at the same position. Exploring how Deborah would move was difficult, as I never did this before for the character. When starting to reharse they told me not to move much because it would make Deborah lose class but now the director told me that it looked boring so it was difficult to think what movement I could do instead. I started exploring and then the director told me I should use a cat as a stimulus. For this I think I need to start watching videos of cats in order to associate the movements of the cat with the ones of my characters. Also I should remember the movements I explored in the physical workshops and use them too. Due to the changes in the script, i found it hard to remember the lines, so I will read the script several times. I think that if I already know the script I can focus more in my movements. Finally the voice; I finally found it. I now realize that changing your voice into the one of the character gives the character a mood and also a personality. It helps to build up the character, and not only for the audience to imagine how the character is but also for the actor.

The shadow puppets; the first day we worked in this I really didn’t feel well. All the bright lights flashing or shining in front me gave me migraine. I think this is one of the limitations a person in production has to go through. I can do Deborah's shadow without this problem as I’m not facing the lights, but I recognize that a task such as setting the lights goes beyond my limitations (Due to the migraine). These limitations can sometimes bring problems in production but I think it’s important to recognize them because then I can do something else in production where I can work better and things are done more effectively.

When I start doing the big Deborah it was difficult to decide what movements will be done but finally looking at our own shadow and exploring, we were able to choose the movements. The voice of this character was also important so both of us (katty and me) decided to speak at the same time in a same pitch and tone so it sounds powerful. I felt a lack of comprehension by one of the directors due to the lack of importance he gave to the movements and how he just told us the lines we needed to say. Then when we started to work with the other director I think things starting to go better. He looked at our movements and told us what was good and what we needed to improve. If I’m a director sometime in my life I should remind myself of this experience so I take into account not only the script, but the importance in the movements and also to listen to my actors.

Connections:

Exploring the voice and movements for Deborah reminded me to the characters in “Mas pequeños que el Guggenheim” I thought about the characterization; how the actors moved, how they change their voices. A good characterization makes a play entertaining. Also in this play there weren’t many pauses like in my scene and this makes it dynamic.

Reflection:

Now that I have reflected about exploring my character I started thinking... would it be more helpful to work my character from the outside to the inside, or from the inside to the outside? Grotowski or Stanislavski?