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??