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?
viernes, 30 de abril de 2010
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?
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)