Onna: Woman
Shosei: Student
Shigeru: Protagonist of the play
Okay, I hate doing this but here it goes: ANALYZE A KABUKI PLAY!!! :(
The part of the play I picked is during Act I, Scene 3. It is in an inn called Komatsuya. Here, the protagonist, Shigeru (a woman that has been raised as a boy and now acts as a man) is staying in the most private room where she will feel comfortable as no one will notice she is dressing as a man. As well, she paid the night for the rickshaw puller who brought her, Nao. The story goes on as she confesses to him that she is actually a woman who was raised since childhood as a boy, and now she follows the disguise to go to school and learn what she hadn't her entire life.
The stage direction mentions it is in a second floor of an inn, but of course for Kabuki this will be just portrayed in the same stage as if it were really on a second floor, but without actually being on a high level.
For every entrance or exit of a character there is a music accompaniment, according to the stage direction. Probably this music is not as we know, but most possibly it is some percussion marking the rhythm of the play.
There is a lot of dialogue between Shigeru and Nao. This dialogue unfolds the story, so I can imagine not much action is done like in other Kabuki plays. As well, some actions are spoken rather than done, such as when they go to the bath and Nao sees her "breasts" or as well when he rapes Shigeru. It is said but not seen nor done.
As for the research I chose make-up of Kabuki, focusing specially on the wrinkles over the white face paint. For this, I can speculate that for the play Shigeru must have some common female factions, the wrinkles must look effeminate but at the same time she must look like a man, one that no one could believe is a woman. It may be very complicated but as such it must be done like this.
The wrinkles in Kabuki make-up rather than meaning much to the audience is an psychological preparation for the actors, so they must help the actor portraying Shigeru get in character. The actor will have to feel as a woman acting out as a man with the use of the make-up.
For Nao, instead, the wrinkles will have to portray something different, such as old age and filthiness. He is a former samurai, so some "honorable" wrinkles must be included in his make-up. At the same time filthy because he is now working as a rickshaw puller, this is, he pulls the 'cartwheels' to drive high-class people from town to town.
lunes, 18 de octubre de 2010
domingo, 6 de junio de 2010
Stones in his pockets - Extras
Okay, so last Friday we saw a play once again, but this time it was a good comedy, and not as ridiculous as Captain Gazapacho or as poorly done as Kitchen and Service Zone. It actually was quite simple in terms of set design and costumes, but it had a very admirable job when it comes to light, sound and video effects.
Before anything, I must say it was a very well done idea of acting just two actors, and between them alternating through all the characters of the play, it had a better effect. It was very comical the way they acted, especially because it was a contemporaneous type of comedy, with a plot that we all know it happens. Although what I did see lack of imagination was throughout the ending scene, I really thought it could've been even better, as much as everything of the beginning.
The costumes, from my perspective, where plain and not very useful when changing from a character to another, but they did help the main characters both actors played. When they had to change into female characters, or a stoned teenager, they could've used something else, such as a scarf, bandana, or something, but what they did change was the acting by a lot, such as postures and voice, which I think was quite good.
The scenery was NOTHING. Truly nothing. And it did work. It didn't require a boat, a kitchen and a British-type of living room. It didn't need a laundry, back living room and front Modern decorated kitchen. It only needed a screen where landscape would be played of a video. Plus, really what created the scene and its atmosphere was rather the LFX. For instance, when it was all common white light we knew it was the film set the Extras were in. When it was blue it was the bar. So with it we really could identify where they were using our imagination, rather than spend $100,000 on a MISERABLE, lack of creativity play (you know which they are).
CONCLUSION: A play with less materials, costumes, props, or anything was better directed than one which spent a lot of money and time in advertising than rather in leading a good play. See? It is not that hard...
Is it?
Before anything, I must say it was a very well done idea of acting just two actors, and between them alternating through all the characters of the play, it had a better effect. It was very comical the way they acted, especially because it was a contemporaneous type of comedy, with a plot that we all know it happens. Although what I did see lack of imagination was throughout the ending scene, I really thought it could've been even better, as much as everything of the beginning.
The costumes, from my perspective, where plain and not very useful when changing from a character to another, but they did help the main characters both actors played. When they had to change into female characters, or a stoned teenager, they could've used something else, such as a scarf, bandana, or something, but what they did change was the acting by a lot, such as postures and voice, which I think was quite good.
The scenery was NOTHING. Truly nothing. And it did work. It didn't require a boat, a kitchen and a British-type of living room. It didn't need a laundry, back living room and front Modern decorated kitchen. It only needed a screen where landscape would be played of a video. Plus, really what created the scene and its atmosphere was rather the LFX. For instance, when it was all common white light we knew it was the film set the Extras were in. When it was blue it was the bar. So with it we really could identify where they were using our imagination, rather than spend $100,000 on a MISERABLE, lack of creativity play (you know which they are).
CONCLUSION: A play with less materials, costumes, props, or anything was better directed than one which spent a lot of money and time in advertising than rather in leading a good play. See? It is not that hard...
Is it?
domingo, 30 de mayo de 2010
Concert To Never Forget!
Well, it wasn't actually a concert but a compilation of Yuyachkani's plays. First of all, let me explain. Yuyachkani is a Peruvian Theatre Group which is perhaps my favorite of all types of theatre here in Peru. They always try to learn new things everywhere and of everything. For instance, they go to places such as the jungle, the "sierra" (mountains / Andes), or even here in the coast of Peru where they learn accents, folklore, and even mask making. They play several instruments and all of them have been taught to sing.
In this play what they mostly did was play instruments, make music to express something rather than acting. At some points, one of the seven of them would do a solo acting, a monologue, with music as a background.
It was so beautiful to see them have fun by playing the instruments, singing and I don't know, their enthusiasm was somehow transmitted to the audience. It was actually ironic because they looked so full of energy in a way, but at the same time they were so focused on everything, they stayed calm, even when changing clothes, or changing instruments they did it in a very slow way, not like in usual backstages where it is all a mess because everyone wants to do everything in a second. Without making a "dramatic pause" or anything, they were always slow with the transitions, but efficient at a same time.
At the beginning, when two of the actresses began to sing together it was SO fun, enjoyable, and actually, even if they would be singing like Classical Sopranos, it was great to hear. It was the atmosphere that the confrontation created which people could actually enjoy the most, or so I believe.
There was one section that I adored a lot, which was when they were all grouped together, without instruments, and they began doing noises you could hear at night in the Peruvian jungle. They began with the sound of the wind, with animals, insects, even trees noises. It was amazing because they used nothing else but the voices. Seriously, with just their voices they could transport you to the Amazon, unbelievable.
Although for me it was a very amazing play, I don't want to sound biased just because I admire and adore them, so there is something that I actually noticed that they could have improved. This was the use of the ENTIRE space. Although they did move around, I feel that they would just be stuck either in their usual line, or rather to the left side of the stage. The right side was almost unexplored. In fact, I believe only during the line was that side used, because I never saw anyone actually going there.
I really liked this play very much, even though I didn't understand them much when they spoke, and there was a consecutive action of playing instruments rather than much acting, could it be that I just bias my opinion of them because of how much I admire them?
In this play what they mostly did was play instruments, make music to express something rather than acting. At some points, one of the seven of them would do a solo acting, a monologue, with music as a background.
It was so beautiful to see them have fun by playing the instruments, singing and I don't know, their enthusiasm was somehow transmitted to the audience. It was actually ironic because they looked so full of energy in a way, but at the same time they were so focused on everything, they stayed calm, even when changing clothes, or changing instruments they did it in a very slow way, not like in usual backstages where it is all a mess because everyone wants to do everything in a second. Without making a "dramatic pause" or anything, they were always slow with the transitions, but efficient at a same time.
At the beginning, when two of the actresses began to sing together it was SO fun, enjoyable, and actually, even if they would be singing like Classical Sopranos, it was great to hear. It was the atmosphere that the confrontation created which people could actually enjoy the most, or so I believe.
There was one section that I adored a lot, which was when they were all grouped together, without instruments, and they began doing noises you could hear at night in the Peruvian jungle. They began with the sound of the wind, with animals, insects, even trees noises. It was amazing because they used nothing else but the voices. Seriously, with just their voices they could transport you to the Amazon, unbelievable.
Although for me it was a very amazing play, I don't want to sound biased just because I admire and adore them, so there is something that I actually noticed that they could have improved. This was the use of the ENTIRE space. Although they did move around, I feel that they would just be stuck either in their usual line, or rather to the left side of the stage. The right side was almost unexplored. In fact, I believe only during the line was that side used, because I never saw anyone actually going there.
I really liked this play very much, even though I didn't understand them much when they spoke, and there was a consecutive action of playing instruments rather than much acting, could it be that I just bias my opinion of them because of how much I admire them?
viernes, 30 de abril de 2010
And it all transformed to goodness!
So... FINALLY I've seen a good and worthy performance with Drama group, only thing it wasn't with my usual group but with those one year before us. I was the only one of Form V, while surrounded with the six students of Form IV and Miss AC. Awkward...
Setting off from the personal diary to the analysis of this interpretative dance based on "Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka. I actually liked many movements that José Ruiz Subauste, the unipersonal's actor/dancer, because there was intensity, dynamics, energy on them. He had everything calculated, rather than just a movement or a choreography it was an interpretation of the novel. It was really something so well-done that you could really notice it has been rehearsed with a lot of time and passion.
The use of lights for this play was really impressive. It created different scenes, such as the beginning, when he sees himself at the mirror and the light is going on and off in a flash. It created a suspense, tension, and mystery type of environment. It actually set us upon different scenarios. As when he was a "monstrous insect" and followed the lights, or the sound of the violin that his sister played.
The dancer was very well-aware of not only the story, but also the movements he had to do to impersonate it. Such as the insect, when he has to walk differently, kind of monstrously. The movements in the cocoon that were very alike to what we can see once a butterfly or another cocoon-insect moves inside it. It was a lot of study very visible in the different types of movements.
I really want to know truly how much research has the actor (not the director) done in order to create this fascinating interpretation of the novella?
Setting off from the personal diary to the analysis of this interpretative dance based on "Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka. I actually liked many movements that José Ruiz Subauste, the unipersonal's actor/dancer, because there was intensity, dynamics, energy on them. He had everything calculated, rather than just a movement or a choreography it was an interpretation of the novel. It was really something so well-done that you could really notice it has been rehearsed with a lot of time and passion.
The use of lights for this play was really impressive. It created different scenes, such as the beginning, when he sees himself at the mirror and the light is going on and off in a flash. It created a suspense, tension, and mystery type of environment. It actually set us upon different scenarios. As when he was a "monstrous insect" and followed the lights, or the sound of the violin that his sister played.
The dancer was very well-aware of not only the story, but also the movements he had to do to impersonate it. Such as the insect, when he has to walk differently, kind of monstrously. The movements in the cocoon that were very alike to what we can see once a butterfly or another cocoon-insect moves inside it. It was a lot of study very visible in the different types of movements.
I really want to know truly how much research has the actor (not the director) done in order to create this fascinating interpretation of the novella?
domingo, 25 de abril de 2010
Interview with Maritza Nuñez
Past Wednesday, we had an invited poet, Maritza Nuñez, come over and give a sort of discussion about herself as an author, her inspirations, and about a monologue she wrote about poet Gabriela Mistral.
This monologue "Niña de cera" (translation: "Girl of wax") had become so popular that actually throughout many places in the Eastern Hemisphere of the world plays and an opera would be made out of it. It was so popular, so well done and even including music (depending on director's visions) that it attracted people from Finland and Japan to play it.
Anyway... here is a bit of the talk we had from her, some of the annotations I could make of some questions made by us students:
1 Q: What made you write theatre?
1 A: She began in poetry, until one day she actually "saw the characters doing something more than talking, they were doing actions". She likes the monologue kind of writing because it is a challange to her. In the monologue one has to really analyse a character's psychology.
2 Q: Which is the reason why you have chosen this particular character?
2 A: Gabriela Mistral was a poet, she had written two plays and 1 play. Her mother would actually read some poems to her while she was little, as she was afraid of the darkness, so she could go to sleep.
3 Q: Why make a unipersonal play?
3 A: She likes making this kind of monologues, the one before the death, in order to confirm more facts known.
4 Q: In the monologue "Niña de cera", who is Doris?
4 A: She was a literary agent. She was also Gabriela's lover, as Gabriela had a double sexuality. It seemed normal to Ms Nuñez as she has always liked to make character's fight for their right of liberty. Quoting her: "It is not a right, but a duty of human being to seek their own liberty."
5 Q: If Gabriela Mistral would read this monologue, would you think that she would change or erase any part of it?
5 A: She says that Gabriela would probably invent something from which she could get inspired to create a second monologue, very different to the first. Every author/writer is very attached to fiction in their lives, at times more of what they would want life to be like than what it actually was.
I pretty much liked the whole interview and discussion with her, because she seemed honest and nice. But at times I keep wondering does she really had liked this play so much because it was a sort of best-seller or because she really loved the character that inspired her?
This monologue "Niña de cera" (translation: "Girl of wax") had become so popular that actually throughout many places in the Eastern Hemisphere of the world plays and an opera would be made out of it. It was so popular, so well done and even including music (depending on director's visions) that it attracted people from Finland and Japan to play it.
Anyway... here is a bit of the talk we had from her, some of the annotations I could make of some questions made by us students:
1 Q: What made you write theatre?
1 A: She began in poetry, until one day she actually "saw the characters doing something more than talking, they were doing actions". She likes the monologue kind of writing because it is a challange to her. In the monologue one has to really analyse a character's psychology.
2 Q: Which is the reason why you have chosen this particular character?
2 A: Gabriela Mistral was a poet, she had written two plays and 1 play. Her mother would actually read some poems to her while she was little, as she was afraid of the darkness, so she could go to sleep.
3 Q: Why make a unipersonal play?
3 A: She likes making this kind of monologues, the one before the death, in order to confirm more facts known.
4 Q: In the monologue "Niña de cera", who is Doris?
4 A: She was a literary agent. She was also Gabriela's lover, as Gabriela had a double sexuality. It seemed normal to Ms Nuñez as she has always liked to make character's fight for their right of liberty. Quoting her: "It is not a right, but a duty of human being to seek their own liberty."
5 Q: If Gabriela Mistral would read this monologue, would you think that she would change or erase any part of it?
5 A: She says that Gabriela would probably invent something from which she could get inspired to create a second monologue, very different to the first. Every author/writer is very attached to fiction in their lives, at times more of what they would want life to be like than what it actually was.
I pretty much liked the whole interview and discussion with her, because she seemed honest and nice. But at times I keep wondering does she really had liked this play so much because it was a sort of best-seller or because she really loved the character that inspired her?
lunes, 19 de abril de 2010
A play which is NOT a play
Okay... so I've basically been deciding that at least I wasn't going to watch any more plays with RR and the Drama IB group because basically we've been watching awful plays lately, and I'm really starting to piss off about it. I know it isn't RR's fault because he tries to take us to good plays, but seriously I've felt very disappointed lately so I think we can just give it a sabatical for a while on watching plays, because it isn't the third month yet and already we've watched three badly made plays. It really starts to piss off, but of course there's nothing I can do but obey... shame. :(
Anyhow, that is not the reason why I wanted (rather more MUST) to write this blog, I just wanted to continue the 'What not to do in Theatre guide'. ¬¬
I will just focus on some weak points because I am AGAINST this particular blog...
One of the things that made me feel unnerved was the over usage of bad words and the over exaggeration of the acting. They might have been a little bit connected with their characters, but it is not normal to use a thousand bad words per word. Esencially, their characters were very over-acted out. To use correct pronounciation and volume they yelled every one of their words, cutting out the good representation.
Something else was the links of stories, it was very confusing. It went from a Jack Sparrow-like female pirate, to a woman watching a movie in 3D while her sister complains about how she is British-born and have been stolen 5pm out of her life, to a married couple where the man domestically abuses his wife and she is a dumb, lost person. Did you get any of that? Us neither. This I consider a very bad lack of structure in direction. It could have improved with a story less intricate, something easy that the director could work with so it wasn't a failure.
A third thing that they lacked was their verse speech. They could have a bigger work with it, and focus on the stressed syllables, and all those different skills we've been learning in Spanish Golden Age Theatre studies. For instance, what they did do good was that the verses weren't being recited but looked as if they were in prose, but they could have actually worked out this better.
Well, really I have nothing left to say but I really want to ask one thing, were all the plays I've seen these past years as bad as these late ones, just that I hadn't realized it because I didn't deeply analyse them?
Anyhow, that is not the reason why I wanted (rather more MUST) to write this blog, I just wanted to continue the 'What not to do in Theatre guide'. ¬¬
I will just focus on some weak points because I am AGAINST this particular blog...
One of the things that made me feel unnerved was the over usage of bad words and the over exaggeration of the acting. They might have been a little bit connected with their characters, but it is not normal to use a thousand bad words per word. Esencially, their characters were very over-acted out. To use correct pronounciation and volume they yelled every one of their words, cutting out the good representation.
Something else was the links of stories, it was very confusing. It went from a Jack Sparrow-like female pirate, to a woman watching a movie in 3D while her sister complains about how she is British-born and have been stolen 5pm out of her life, to a married couple where the man domestically abuses his wife and she is a dumb, lost person. Did you get any of that? Us neither. This I consider a very bad lack of structure in direction. It could have improved with a story less intricate, something easy that the director could work with so it wasn't a failure.
A third thing that they lacked was their verse speech. They could have a bigger work with it, and focus on the stressed syllables, and all those different skills we've been learning in Spanish Golden Age Theatre studies. For instance, what they did do good was that the verses weren't being recited but looked as if they were in prose, but they could have actually worked out this better.
Well, really I have nothing left to say but I really want to ask one thing, were all the plays I've seen these past years as bad as these late ones, just that I hadn't realized it because I didn't deeply analyse them?
sábado, 10 de abril de 2010
Kitchen & Zone of pain...
Okay.... I won't use my liver in this blog... so I'm going to skip the critiques and go to the part of what I learnt ¬¬ Once again the famous: "What NOT to do".
Okay... beginning with the setting. It was realistic, a lot, but so elaborated and at the same time not enough. It didn't give much for the audience to actually imagine or perhaps visualize by themselves, it was ALL there. I mean, it isn't bad, but it really makes the audience bored at the very beginning. I actually was amused by how real it actually looked, although once I sat down the magic was gone because there was no magic. Perhaps if looked a little less realistic and somehow more, I don't know, with a concept, it would have captured even more our attention, like what was this and what was that.
The acting was actually, not impressive, but not that bad. The character of the wife, Martina, was represented by a famous Peruvian actress, Montserrat Brugué, was really wild and crazy. She build it accordingly, but it actually didn't fit in the staging. It is like, she wasn't following the realistic concept we had seen with the kitchen at the beginning of the play. She was furious at everyone, always yelling and screaming and making scandals, and it wasn't very funny to my consideration actually... It was rather more a desperate act of black comedy that didn't work out. If she could have been more hypocrite it would have fitted the image, because it looks like a nice place but at the end it is just an aweful one. But she wasn't, she was direct with what she thought and everything which made it really dull.
A second character, Javier, portrayed by Sergio Galliani, was the opposite of interesting. It could have pushed forward to a much better level but it was really disappointing. His voice was really annoying, he could have used a deeper tone of voice and it would have lift the character level, but the medium pitch he used was really upsetting. Something I liked was his posture, which was kind of with a hunch, but not exaggerated, and with his arms mostly in a middle level rather than let loose dangling.
Freddy, portrayed by Pablo Saldarriaga, was really my FAVORITE character because he was the actual comedy of this pseudo-comedy. His acting, and face expressions were without a doubt really convincing that he had worked and knew his character.
Well, somehow the play wasn't just good... it lacked creativity, a concept, a theme, everything a play NEEDS! seriously... The acting wasn't that bad... but with a lack of concept you lack everything in ANYTHING.
But if there was a concept, what could it have been?
Okay... beginning with the setting. It was realistic, a lot, but so elaborated and at the same time not enough. It didn't give much for the audience to actually imagine or perhaps visualize by themselves, it was ALL there. I mean, it isn't bad, but it really makes the audience bored at the very beginning. I actually was amused by how real it actually looked, although once I sat down the magic was gone because there was no magic. Perhaps if looked a little less realistic and somehow more, I don't know, with a concept, it would have captured even more our attention, like what was this and what was that.
The acting was actually, not impressive, but not that bad. The character of the wife, Martina, was represented by a famous Peruvian actress, Montserrat Brugué, was really wild and crazy. She build it accordingly, but it actually didn't fit in the staging. It is like, she wasn't following the realistic concept we had seen with the kitchen at the beginning of the play. She was furious at everyone, always yelling and screaming and making scandals, and it wasn't very funny to my consideration actually... It was rather more a desperate act of black comedy that didn't work out. If she could have been more hypocrite it would have fitted the image, because it looks like a nice place but at the end it is just an aweful one. But she wasn't, she was direct with what she thought and everything which made it really dull.
A second character, Javier, portrayed by Sergio Galliani, was the opposite of interesting. It could have pushed forward to a much better level but it was really disappointing. His voice was really annoying, he could have used a deeper tone of voice and it would have lift the character level, but the medium pitch he used was really upsetting. Something I liked was his posture, which was kind of with a hunch, but not exaggerated, and with his arms mostly in a middle level rather than let loose dangling.
Freddy, portrayed by Pablo Saldarriaga, was really my FAVORITE character because he was the actual comedy of this pseudo-comedy. His acting, and face expressions were without a doubt really convincing that he had worked and knew his character.
Well, somehow the play wasn't just good... it lacked creativity, a concept, a theme, everything a play NEEDS! seriously... The acting wasn't that bad... but with a lack of concept you lack everything in ANYTHING.
But if there was a concept, what could it have been?
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)