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?
martes, 6 de abril de 2010
Act I, Scene 3, Grade 00
"Fernán Gómez, estad cierto,
que en esta parcialidad,
porque veo que es verdad,
con mis deudos me concierto.
Y si importa, como paso
a Ciudad Real mi intento
vereis que, como violento
rayo, sus muros abraso.
No porque es muerto mi tío
piensen de mis pocos años,
los propios y los extraños,
que murió con él mi brío."
So... this was the small dialogue I had to memorize for our work on "Fuenteovejuna" by Lope de Vega. I picked it because I really like this part of the play a lot (and of course I couldn't pick Laurencia's monologues or dialogues because it is a female character), because it is like the jump start for the plot to happen, when the Comendador tells the Maestre (the character's dialogue I memorized) to go conquer Ciudad Real.
The first stanza is about how the Maestre is convinced of what the Comendador has told him, and how he agrees after being enlighted with the truth and has to reconcile his family. The second stanza is the passion and power he exhibits on how he is going to conquer Ciudad Real. And the third stanza is about how he cannot be miscredited for being young, because he is still on the run.
I think in this dialogue he uses so much passion to speak that it really convinced me to play this character... although I failed at it.
First, I didn't learn the lines FAIL! Second, I didn't pronounce it correctly FAIL! Third, I had no actions for it FAIL! Fourth, I wasn't very good with the verse enunciation FAIL! Fifth, I didn't do the correct ways to stress the important words and I stressed some that weren't that important MAJOR FAIL!
Well... this experience has taught me that Spanish Golden Age Theatre is very intricate and well elaborated, so I really shouldn't take it so lightly, I have to put even more than a 100% effort on it. My only question is: If Lope de Vega had seen me act out his character, what would have he said?
que en esta parcialidad,
porque veo que es verdad,
con mis deudos me concierto.
Y si importa, como paso
a Ciudad Real mi intento
vereis que, como violento
rayo, sus muros abraso.
No porque es muerto mi tío
piensen de mis pocos años,
los propios y los extraños,
que murió con él mi brío."
So... this was the small dialogue I had to memorize for our work on "Fuenteovejuna" by Lope de Vega. I picked it because I really like this part of the play a lot (and of course I couldn't pick Laurencia's monologues or dialogues because it is a female character), because it is like the jump start for the plot to happen, when the Comendador tells the Maestre (the character's dialogue I memorized) to go conquer Ciudad Real.
The first stanza is about how the Maestre is convinced of what the Comendador has told him, and how he agrees after being enlighted with the truth and has to reconcile his family. The second stanza is the passion and power he exhibits on how he is going to conquer Ciudad Real. And the third stanza is about how he cannot be miscredited for being young, because he is still on the run.
I think in this dialogue he uses so much passion to speak that it really convinced me to play this character... although I failed at it.
First, I didn't learn the lines FAIL! Second, I didn't pronounce it correctly FAIL! Third, I had no actions for it FAIL! Fourth, I wasn't very good with the verse enunciation FAIL! Fifth, I didn't do the correct ways to stress the important words and I stressed some that weren't that important MAJOR FAIL!
Well... this experience has taught me that Spanish Golden Age Theatre is very intricate and well elaborated, so I really shouldn't take it so lightly, I have to put even more than a 100% effort on it. My only question is: If Lope de Vega had seen me act out his character, what would have he said?
To be or not to be... in the play???
Okay... so here's the thing... I really... really... REALLY don't want to be in the school play this year and I don't know why... maybe it's a lack of motivation, or maybe just I dislike the fact that there are soooo many children in OUR PLAY!!!! Damn them because seriously they mess it up! Well.. not all of them, but most of them YES! The ugliest of things is that one time many years ago we were those children too.... ¬¬
Looking in retrospective, we were at some time obnoxious, with no focus, lack of concentration, irritating, making a lot of scandals, always wanting to be the center of attention, and... never mind this wasn't years ago it was just about 10 hours ago.
Anyway... at least the good thing is that the play is progressing at some level, so I guess they aren't much of a pain in the bum... well, YES THEY ARE but at least they don't mess up the play so whatever I will just have to stand them.
But... are they the reason I am not motivated for this play or might it be something else? Something such as the fact that something I have to produce for it is the choreographies, but the writers (because a student of IB 2nd year and a friend of mine are writing it) agreed that there will be NO DANCE in the play. Perhaps that is the reason I feel without motivation. I've been so addicted to dance lately (for seven months now...) that knowing that I won't be choreographing nothing of the school play made me feel disappointed and really without any desire to act in it as well...
But luck is tough and I have to for my IB... shame. So the character I chose was a robot called Delta One (Because D1 dance is the academy I go to study COOKING! ¬¬) Anyway... the point is I really don't know where my character will be put, neither do the writers, but it has to appear at any point. If I get lucky I'll get no dialogue, but I can get actions, because after all Acting comes from Act, which makes up the word Action. Just remember Charles Chaplin (R.I.P.)
Well, if I get lucky it'll be mostly actions rather than words, because it'll be a bigger challenge. With words, commonly one focuses more on the lines one has to say, rather than the meaning and the actions that can be done with them... but if I focus only in the actions I can improve myself as an actor. If I can transmit intentions, words, a storyline, and so on with just actions it would mean I might have improved as an actor for good luck.
Rather than acting for this play, though, I like directing. It has been something I have liked for so much time that I can finally have the time to do it actually... as everyone's rehearsing scenes, and I have (apparently) none I have the opportunity to go around and help with the direction of everyone... of course that isn't my role in this play though. Luckily, I am not (such) a bad director, I only lack certain skills such as authority, a better way to express my ideas and more control over the things I say and do.
I'm still in the decision whether or not do I want to be in the play. I have to because it is mandatory for my Theatre IB, although I am really pessimistic about acting in it. So here's the grand question I am asking to myself every day: To be or not to be in the school play this year?
domingo, 14 de marzo de 2010
Kill me with your bare hands
Oh wow... it has been a day since I saw a puppet show "play" and still cannot get the hang of it... AWEFUL is the lightest word I could use to describe it. It was such an aweful torture, like no one could imagine. I mean, kids were enjoying it, but us from the Theatre IB were about to kill ourselves to stand no more torture. Oh wow... I just had a flashback of it and seriously I think twenty thousand neurones died at the thought of it.
Well... I'll just mention the important things about that play, like the different puppet techniques that can be used, the motives why we went (our teacher hated us ¬¬ LOL just kidding RR), and I don't know, different things that have been important throughout the performance.
For beginning I wanna say it sucked at so many different levels that it is really difficult for me having to write this blog. The voices were so ridiculous at some point or another, that it would've, without a joke, been better to just stay quiet throughout the whole play. The first small puppet play was about a fox eating a puma's food, which actually began a little bit interesting and funny, though some things were repetitive, like slapsticks (i.e. fox crashing to tree) but funny for the kids obviously. Throughout that small play I couldn't stop thinking how many characteristics there were from the Italian theatre period called Commedia Dell'Arte. I couldn't stop thinking about the zibaldone (a small register/book where they used to keep record of what things made people laugh the most so they could interpret them in future improvisations) because of the repetitive hitting and punching throughout the first three plays. As it made the kids laugh it might have been something they all copied from each other to get the audience's attraction. It was one of the reasons I couldn't almost stand it. It also seemed somehow like Latin Comedy, more accurate the Roman Mimes. They used to be barbarian, for which they enjoyed constant hitting, hurting, yelling, falling, etc., which was seen from the first to the third play. It was very explicit and sadistic, like when the puma ate the llama.... won't even talk about it for the explicity that was shown to minors....
Oh yeah.... forgot to tell you the motives we had to see the play. At first I thought it would've been to learn different puppet-play techniques, like for example the live animation and the behind screens techniques for the human performers. After that, after seing the first play our teacher (Roberto) told us that the motive for watching it was: "What NOT to do ever in a play." LOL! Was that hilarious. We learnt not to do FAKE voices, not to over-do some comedic acts because at the long-run it becomes boring and repetitive, not to do boring scenes, not to take way too long for a change of scene or character makeover, etc., not to leave empty spaces with no actions being done, and not to over-act so it looks comedic.
Well, I guess that was everything that I actually learned throughout the performances. What do kids see fun in these kind of performances?
Well... I'll just mention the important things about that play, like the different puppet techniques that can be used, the motives why we went (our teacher hated us ¬¬ LOL just kidding RR), and I don't know, different things that have been important throughout the performance.
For beginning I wanna say it sucked at so many different levels that it is really difficult for me having to write this blog. The voices were so ridiculous at some point or another, that it would've, without a joke, been better to just stay quiet throughout the whole play. The first small puppet play was about a fox eating a puma's food, which actually began a little bit interesting and funny, though some things were repetitive, like slapsticks (i.e. fox crashing to tree) but funny for the kids obviously. Throughout that small play I couldn't stop thinking how many characteristics there were from the Italian theatre period called Commedia Dell'Arte. I couldn't stop thinking about the zibaldone (a small register/book where they used to keep record of what things made people laugh the most so they could interpret them in future improvisations) because of the repetitive hitting and punching throughout the first three plays. As it made the kids laugh it might have been something they all copied from each other to get the audience's attraction. It was one of the reasons I couldn't almost stand it. It also seemed somehow like Latin Comedy, more accurate the Roman Mimes. They used to be barbarian, for which they enjoyed constant hitting, hurting, yelling, falling, etc., which was seen from the first to the third play. It was very explicit and sadistic, like when the puma ate the llama.... won't even talk about it for the explicity that was shown to minors....
Oh yeah.... forgot to tell you the motives we had to see the play. At first I thought it would've been to learn different puppet-play techniques, like for example the live animation and the behind screens techniques for the human performers. After that, after seing the first play our teacher (Roberto) told us that the motive for watching it was: "What NOT to do ever in a play." LOL! Was that hilarious. We learnt not to do FAKE voices, not to over-do some comedic acts because at the long-run it becomes boring and repetitive, not to do boring scenes, not to take way too long for a change of scene or character makeover, etc., not to leave empty spaces with no actions being done, and not to over-act so it looks comedic.
Well, I guess that was everything that I actually learned throughout the performances. What do kids see fun in these kind of performances?
miércoles, 3 de marzo de 2010
Hurts to realize...
First off all... this blog isn't made for fun (trust me... ¬¬) but rather for my thoughts, feelings, my absurdness (LOL) after everything theatre-related like my IB Theatre classes, plays, Operas, schoolplay, etc. Just clarifying... so if you're bored by now (which I betcha are), BITE ME! ;)
But if a dancer would have seen my performance what could have s/he interpreted it as?
If you seek Amy did it hurt too much first day of school... whole day BORING... but theatre class we had to do some physical activity... I still hold it in my memory.. traumatized: Jump, fall, back, forward, roll, roll, voice, jump, back, roll, jump, fall... what the flurp??? INSANE! Seriously... we had to creatively make any sound out loud, jump, fall and roll in different ways, and make different types of movements that went forward and back. Crazzee...
Well that's a summary of the jump I made for the after-presentation... but of course that ain't me... I'm a boy... plus my arch isn't that amazing LOL.
Anyways... so it hurt, but the ending result was cool... when we had to deeply analyze the whole exercise, I was impressed because I figured out how from simple draft movements and sounds we could actually create a sequence and a story... like mine actually a friend of mine titled it "Michael Jackson" (R.I.P. <3)
This was the whole idea of the exercise, create sets of movements to see how different people interpret different things.. UNBELIEVABLE! It turned out great after all :) I'm happy with the end-results.
But if a dancer would have seen my performance what could have s/he interpreted it as?
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)