Men&Mehler

Description:

This week we went to see Men&Mahler a dance spectacle (with a little bit of theatre I suppose). I wanted to analyze an aspect of this, but really when wanting to choose an element (in acting, design, or structure) no aspect called my attention. Trying to look for inspiration I read the pamphlet that had some information of the performance. While reading I found a line that said “50 meters of elastic band”.

Analysis:

The elastic band I think was one of the elements that look more interesting. It helped the actors to do different actions, I found the use of this prop interesting as the actors, and although they use it in similar ways they also used it in contrasting ways, at the same time causing different sensations with the same prop in the audience.

One of the ways this elastic band was used was when to actors where holding the band, one on the left and another one in the right, and in the center another actor holding the elastic band with his hands, going from one side do another, stretching this elastic band and another actor marking where did he get with a chalk, suppostly trying to show his strength was really not very deep, the audience didn’t need to think about this much, but what was interesting of this wasn’t what was said by the action but how it looked. The performance really relies in this, in images… interesting images that would create the audience to surprise but not to reflect. In the first impression this was a really great merit for the performance, but analyzing I get to the conclusion that because of the woman speaking in a reflective tone, the fact of trying to understand men, was really the intention of the author not to be a reflective spectacle and just use the story as an excuse for “dancing”, or did the director just didn’t achieve it?

I think that if the story would be just an excuse to show images, more images would be interesting. But really most of the images were just training exercises, and also many where repetitive. But images are not just comforted by the actors, but by design elements such as lighting, scenery, costume, etc.

The lighting I think was the most controversial design element, because in a way I think it was good, but in another way it wasn’t bad. Although this is a superficial statement I can explain it because for example in the beginning when each of the men were in their “changing rooms” with a lamp on each of this that lit them individually. Each time that the black cloth that cover them was pulled so we could see the men inside the lights turned on and then when the black cloth was closed the light turned off. As the light was really strong and light them individually it helped to see the man being lit naked. The fact that we could see them clearly and the light put focus on to this (although we see them from the back) helped I think called for my attention and make the play interesting at a first instance, I think it was a good manner to start because it was impacting and from the beginning it show the theme of men (as the representation of it was naked men). Then when the woman start talking the lights get dim again and the lamp that had the women just focused her, so the audience eye was onto the woman, but the men help to create the atmosphere, but really what was the atmosphere that wanted to be created? I was kind of confused by seeing this because it really didn’t create any feeling, just the sound of the men falling gave me a feeling of pain, but furthermore no other feeling was created. I think that this is one of the main problems of this performance, that many times not any feeling was portrayed, not any sensations, just images but really because they were confusing, without a clear intention the audience couldn’t pick up the intention either, and it make it hard to follow, to understand, there were just images without a purpose, without a meaning.

In other times the light was to dim so that the audience couldn’t see what the actors where doing, what was happening. At the first instance when this happen I thought “I want the light to be brighter” and then progressively it get brighter and brighter but, still many times it continue to be dim. I still got the doubt until now that if using the light so dim that the audience couldn’t see was on purpose so that the audience get interested by asking what is there in the dark, or was just a problem of the performance as the audience will get disinterested and loose concentration because there is apparently nothing on stage, or if there is the audience still cannot see nothing.

Connections:

“Romper la piel”: Many times in the play dark was used, but this helped to hide this from the audience eye, and for the tower there was a strong light use, which although because of the shadows we couldn’t see the whole actor, a chiaroscuro effect was created making the image more obscure, there was more mystery. I think that this is the main contrast between the use of dark light in the school play (which make it work for this performance) and with Men&Mahler, because there was a clear intention to use the light like this, and would create an effect on the audience

Ballet de londrina: This performance was also dancing, but I think that the main difference was that actions did have an intention; the performance just didn’t seek to create images, but that the images create emotions and sensations on the audience.

Reflection:

Dancing (specially contemporary dancing) have close relationships with theatre, but can the fact of the performance be dance and not theatre be an excuse of creating images without a real intention? I think that in dancing many times characters are not developed, just the control of the body, but this would not be an excuse for the director just to create images that may be “nice to the eye” but to create sensations by having clear the intentions of the movements of the dancers, the function of the design elements in the performance and the structure of it.