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?