Solo Performance: Theatre Theorist Theory

This past week we talked about the Solo performance, which is the HL product for the IB, and saw the guidelines as well as several theorists examples.

I think that in our entire theatre carreer in Theatre, we have never worked in all of the areas at once, meaning being director, producer, actor, and designer. Although we did cover most of the areas for this year's school play, we weren't techinically directors, so the experience is yet to be known.
This is something that i found very intriguing and rich about the product; all of the other three are based on one or two of the aforementioned aspects, and they try to inmerse you into the role of either of these positions (a director for the DN, an actor for the collaborative, etc.). But this one proyect, let's you experience each of them together at once. It is one thing to experience being a director, actor, producer, or designer one at a time, but it is completely different to experience being all of them at the same time. Now i do think it will be a major challenge, since apart from all the other IB work you have, it is imperative to bend over and backwards to actually comply with each of the requirements by yourself alone.
To me, this idea of experiencing all of them lets you put in perspective what you skills are, and which area is better for you, because you can actually compare them. I mean, you could compare your work as a director in the DN and as an actor in the ensemble, but they are two very different works with very different conditions and limitations. However the Solo joins all aspects together and gives you the opportunity to actually compare and know which is the area you have more skills in.

Now, talking about the theatre theorists, we managed to look at a list of about thirty of them who explored different areas, like voice, body, design, aesthetic training, psycological training, etc. But personally i have come to conclude that i want to research about a theorist that explores physical training and psycological training for the character, because is the aspect i have most training in and probably the one i do best. Now, i have considered researching about a theorists who concentrates in the voice, because it is pretty much the one i have the least training in, and i sing like a dying bird, so it would be very beneficial to get some informal training. But that is exactly the reason why i am not choosing one of these theorists, because i have no training, and doing it by myself informally might not be very succesful. I could do all of the exercises and train myself, but maybe it doesn't quite have the results i was expecting, and my application of them is not very good in the performance. So i don't really want to risk messing up, because, well, training in any area takes years, and i can't turn my horrible voice into Adele's.
As i mentioned, i decided to work with the body and the psycological state of the actor, which i think are the most important areas for the training of a good well-rounded actor. Plus, as i explained, this is the area i have most training so the process will not be as long, and the application will be a lot more succesfull than in other cases.
One of the theorists, and probably the one i will choose, that interest me the most is Stanislavsky. I heard about him a lot of years ago, but it wasn't until last year when i actually got to know who he was, and researched about him. From the very beginning i agreed completly with his theory and thought that his actor training was simply amazing. I really liked how he explored the psycological training, such as experience, that the actor needed to undergo in order to fully portray a role. I think that this is something i really want to explore someday, and probably this is the opportunity for me to do it.
Another theorists i really liked was none other than Stanislavsky's disciple, Eugenio Barba. What i find really interesting about him is his take on Stanislavsky's system and theory, because i find facinating how one theory can be explained and explored by another theorists. Basically, Barba seeks to train the actor in a mental way to a then physical one, which i find intriguing.
Although i said i wanted to work with a theory about the physical and psyocological aspects of the acting, i definitely know i don't want to research on Arteaud or the theorists on miming. As for the latest, i really don't like mimes and i don't find the theory appealing at all. But, as for Arteaud, i did find his theory incredibly facinating and amusing, but i find his work a bit over the edge, in the sense that i find some of his work a bit extreme.
Other theorists i liked where Brecht (as usual) and Berkoff, because of their theory about how acting and theatre it self should be represented, and should represent. However, i think i am definitely working with Stanislavsky.

One thing i noticed about the product, is that it is not only as open (even more) as the other ones, but it has a lot more variety, as in there are very little limitations. The pp, as i mentioned before, has a very short list of possible traditions which are mainly puppetry or Asian and Eurpean tradition. However, the Solo product has no lists for you to choose from, and lets you be as original as possible. I think this helps in the approaches and the ideas we have, making us more suceptible to exploring theatre in a wider spectrum.

Now, my only concern about this product, is the fact that it is only a product. I mean, theorists have developed their theories over the course of decades, so how are we going get through it all in just a short period of time? I know we only have to concentrate on one aspect of the theory, but it still takes a whole lot of time? Will we even be able to go through the entire theory of the aspect? What if i don't finish the theory because it is too complicated? I think the gaps that this products leaves are very frustrating because they limit you to a very small portion of a huge theatre theory.

Staging a Proposal (not very original i know...)

This week we had our proposal contest, for which Giselle's and mine won. We also looked at the future dates for next year, we must brace ourselves, deadlines are coming (well sorta.)

For my proposal, i needed to change several things in order to adapt it for it to be actually stageable, given that we have the best resources on Earth! (mind the sarcasm). I decided to change a bit the lights, and just have the entire stage lit, because there is no way we can arrange for them to direct into the circular stage, and then be rearranged for Giselle's proposal. So for now, because we still have to try out things, i will most likely just light the stage with a regular light bulb, and then when the part of the full lighting comes, i will just turn on the entire stage, without keeping the focus on the circle.
Now, the most important change i had to do, is the PG-13 thing. I cant have an actress (who is a minor by the way) naked on stage because of obvious reasons, so instead, i decided to strip her up to her undergarments. In a way, I'm still sticking to my concept and vision, because she is still taking off her dress of lies, and is revealing her true self. I think that in a way, it is fine to keep a little clothing because Blanche is still hiding some of the major truths, such as the prostitution and the illegal relationships she was having. So after all, this decision does not alter or interrupt my concept or vision, so i can keep on working towards that.
For this staging i was crystal clear on how i wanted my actress to be. I wanted someone with a powerful voice, someone that has a lot of skills with her voice and intentions, and is able to recite a long monologue without boring people. This is because there aren't a lot of actions in my proposal, and i need the actress to be able to transmit all of these painful emotions through her voice more than her body. Still, i want the physicality, and acting as a whole, to be extremely realistic (naturalistic if you will), without the usual crying in the floor Hamlet sort of thing. I want her body to transmit the pain of taking off the clothes/lies, and revealing her true self. Moreover, i need an actress with a powerful energy, that can be blasted into the audience with a single movement. Now i know it sounds very weird, but the character's energy must be felt by the audience, in the sense that they must feel her pain.
That is why i chose, Siu. Because, as abstract as it may sound, i believe she has a very good control of energy, in the sense that she can impact the audience with a few movements, which is exactly what i'm looking for. However, even though her voice skills are very good, i think i need to focus more on her intentions to get exactly where i want to.
As for Mitch, even though there was no way Daniel wasn't going to play him, he fits perfectly into what i'm looking for. The character has literally one line, but it's a very powerful and influential one, because it marks the spot where someone tries to approach a fully vulnerable Blanche, and thus she conceals again. So i wanted an actor who had very good vocal skills, like Daniel. Also, i wanted someone with a lot of stage presence, which i think Daniel has, because the character is standing at the back without doing anything, making him almost invisible. Yet i want his presence to be felt, because he represents that link between Blanche's reality and fantasy.

Something that really intrigued me and left me thinking a lot, was something two of the actors said. They mentioned that they wanted to work with me because i was very harsh and was not afraid to tell them they were doing things wrong, and pushing them. Now i think it is sort of true, in the sense that i am very straightforward. But maybe is not a good thing when it comes to your relationship with the actors, because they might eventually hate me because i'm too harsh on them. I don't really care if they hate me or not (i have no emotions), but i think that is something that can clearly mess up the director-actor dynamic, influencing on the final work. And i believe it is imperative that they form a strong relationship to able to work together; for the actor to understand what the director is saying, and for the director to further analyze strength and difficulties in the actor. If i don't achieve this (not the case), then maybe i will be missing out on several things, and the final product will not be as good as is should.
However, i still think it is important to have this trait they mentioned, to push forward and not give up just because it looks "fine", because you seek for it to be genuinely perfect. I do think i always look for this, and i am not content with a mediocre or average work. So i think it is important that a director is looking to push his actors, and not mind the "i don't want to be mean" part.

On another note, Giselle wanted me (and i accepted) to be Stanley in her proposal. She said she was looking for an actor who could transform into not only the character, but also the body into a surreal figure to convey emotions. I think her proposal is amazing, and even if she has to change a lot of things for it to be doable in our beautifully equipped stage, it will be a great performance.
My concern is that i'm not very good at learning lines, specially when it comes to a one on one conversation, as there are no other actors to give me cues. It happened to me a few years back, because i didn't even move in the stage, so it all came down to learning a bunch of lines. That is definitely an area for improvement.
My other concern is time. We have literally two weeks to stage it, and i have to work on both proposals at the same time, not to mention my other subjects' deadlines and obligations. Originally, i voted for us not to stage anything, because i felt that we wouldn't make it, and i didn't want to present a random piece of acting, with a lot of mistakes and errors. But apparently, my team is extremely confident about it, and they are willing to work a lot, which i think is amazing and very useful. I am trusting them on this one. And i think this is very important when it comes to directing, obviously there is always a pessimist (im a realist ok?), who will say they won't make it. So it comes down to the positive thoughts, the hard work, and the team work and dynamic to get through it and actually achieve the final goal, in our case, the staging of two proposals.

The day of the staging, i want the audience to leave commenting about our skills and how awesome we are. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but it will be nice to hear i did a good job in theatre one last time at school.

Surviving the IB products

This week, after handing in the first draft of the Director's Notebook, we began to talk about the other IB products, specifically the Presentation, as well as visiting our library to begin our search for plays to work with for the real DN.

For the sake of this blog let's assume I am staying for the second year, OK? Good.

Although our theatre library is not incredibly extensive, there is a lot of interesting materials to pick from. Personally, i think it is important to explore all of the possible options (that strike your attention obviously), before picking out which play to use for the actual products. I've only read one play that i chose picked out, and although i really liked the play, and found it amusing, i am certain that i do not want to use it for the real DN, which supports my view on choosing the first play you read and liked. I think that, even if the first one is amazing, you should be open to reading other material, which is something i will do, because i want to find the right play to use. For me, i want a play with very few stage directions, because i want to let my imagination and artistic ideas take over the actions of the play, as well as having lots of dialogues (specially monologues), for me to work with. This was the problem with the play i read, it had not many but millions of stage directions, and it sort of narrowed my ideas for production. Moreover, i think it is essential to have this extensive searching process, to find the best play that suits them. This is because, as a theatre maker, one must be open to any sort of material, but must be willing to work with it, thus, a play you picked out at random to work with, might limit your artistic responses and willingness to work with it. Additionally, even if you do find the play you like at first, i think it is pretty useful to read other plays, because you can draw some creative ideas from them to later use them on the play you chose.
I've also picked out a book about Stanislavsky and his method, because i am certain i want to work with his method for my solo performance product. Now, it may seem contradictory to what i said earlier about reading a range of material and then pick one out, but this is different. I've always been super interested in him and his method, and i really feel the need to work with it, because i consider his method simply astonishing. But this doesn't mean i am not open to working with other practicioners, it just means i have a certain preference, and for now i have my mind set on it.
The third book i picked, although i haven't read it yet, was a directing book. The first time i encountered the book was five years ago, when Roberto gave it to Mauricio Jordan to prepare to direct the following year's play, and it struck my interest. Now it is my turn to read it, and i expect for it to be incredibly useful for next year's play, the DN, and even college. I've come to realize i might be a better director/producer than actor, and i really want to read this book to get a better insight into the job a director has to take upon himself, because i've never really taken the role on a serious note. As for now, i think it will help me gain new skills to apply to the DN, in the sense that i will be able to make better directorial decisions, and maybe i'll improve in creating and applying the concept to the entire play. Then, i will be able to apply these skills practically in the school play, and who knows, maybe they will come in handy. So i'm really looking forward to that.

As for the PP product, i have come to find it quite interesting, yet very limited. We read the rubric, and saw one (should've been two, but you know the school's internet) example of the product, and although i like the idea of working with a world theatre tradition, i didn't like the options the IB gave. I think the list is too centered on Asian traditions, and most of them are puppet theatres, which limits the options of different tradition (if you're reading this Mr. IB, please make a longer list). Nonetheless, i find this a very relatabe project, in the sense that we've worked with a different world theatre tradition every year on the school play, making my knowledge on them a bit bigger. Moreover, the fact that we worked with Kathakali this year (which is also on the list), helped us have a great insight into the amount of research and investigation we have to apply to it. And i've come to realize that the products have certain similarities in terms of skills. In the DN, we had to investigate the context (inner and outer) of the play and the author, and now for the PP, we have to do the same but for an entire tradition. So i think our skills have had a great improvement over the year, that will definitely come in handy. Also, i think that it can help in the DN, because maybe i can apply some of the conventions, or even the tradition as a whole to the play i pick, just like the Bunraku puppets in the example.
As a theatre maker, i think it is important to have a lot of knowledge on theatre traditions, not only genres, because it gives you a wider view for explorations. Maybe you want to stage a play that has a lot of potential to do it in an specific theatre tradition, like a play where Rakugo theatre would make it best, who knows? Or maybe, you want to do a groundbreaking play, and you can use several conventions from different traditions, that apply perfectly with the play. I think knowing about them is incredibly useful to generating better creative decisions for a play, as well as analyzing them.

All in all, the products will be our doom.

Two moments, one play

This past week we had the first part of our dramaturgy workshop, and then we worked full on nerd mode on the director's notebook. On another note, i think my brain also died this week, thank you IB!

Now that my concept is fully shaped and i have my vision clear, i think i can now continue with my work properly. Essentially i resolved on working with how we build lies in order to cover the ugliness of reality, to escape it and embellish it. And i think this all came from the fact that the play explores essentially this topic through Blanche's struggle with society.

My vision especifically centers on one thing only: for the audience to see the play through Blanche's eyes, her perspective of things. I want the audience to experience the entire play and the actions just like Blanche did, and then generate a sort of catharsis.
For example, i've decided to start the play (even though this is NOT one of my two moments), with lots of sound and conversations and sequences around the stage and in the entire theatre complex, in order to set the context of New Orleans, but using all of these elements to the extent that it becomes overwhelming to the audience, just like it happened with Blanche. I think that from the begining i want to establish this sort of relation ship with the audience.
Another moment for example is when Blanche sees Mitch for the first time. I personally believe she was indeed attracted to him, so i want to cut anytype of sound and movement in the stage and she is the only one that can move, admiring him, for a few seconds, and then continue as if nothing happened. It would create the effect of attraction, and even love
I even sort of intend to heat up the theatre itself when Blanche talks about how hot and sticky everything is, for the audience to actually see things the same way, and well set the literal atmosphere.

As for the stage, at first i thought about doing an in the round play in an amphitheater, because i wanted the audience to look down on the characters, symbolizing society judging their actions. But then i found two problems with that: one, that all the exits and enters of characters, aswell as the stage division of the room would make things a bit awkward and difficult. And second, and most importantly, that it doesn't quite fit my vision, if the audience is sort of looking down on them, then they are not experiencing things like them (kind of confusing i know). So i designed a different stage. Basically it is just a normal looking stage, but it has an extension in the middle that crosses the audience, and leads to a circle (i guess we can call it that), surrounded by the audience, that stands on a lower level (about 1 m). So i want to have all the moments of great tension, like the monologue, the mailman's kiss, the poker game, etc. in this place, in order to create the effect of the audience looking down on them.
On the topic of design elements, i intend to use very flashy and bright colors for the entire. This is because this type of colors usually give a sense of dreaming or fantasy, which is exactly what happens with lies. They look so bright and pretty, in order to hide something really cruel and ugly: reality. I haven't really desinged fully how i want the costumes to look, but i want to strictly stick with the 1950's style, and i want to make the evident contrast between Blanche's attire and the others'. I also want to have a constant change of attires, and characters putting on clothes as they lie, and taking them off as they reveal something true.

Now talking about my moments, i want to stage Blanche's monologue about Allan, because it is the best example of my concept. Literally, Blanche is taking her lies apart and being fully honest, like if she is undressing herself. Thus, i want her to actually undress herself, fully naked, to symbolize her taking away all of the lies that cover her, her reality. It fits perfectly, since the "dress of lies" is physically present in the scene, and she takes it off as she reveals the truth. I also plan on staging it on the circle of the extension, to have the audience look down on her, because she ultimately created these lies to avoid being in the position where society looks down and judges her, which is happening right now. I also want to light the entire stage (the circle), for her to be fully visible by everyone, and only focus her by turning the lights off the other parts of the stage. I think that the shock of seeing an actress get naked on stage, impacts the audience a lot, to the extent that it could connect empathecally in sense of how shocking it is to tell the truth. I've been considering lighting the audience too, but i think it would be distracting from Blanche's nakedness and her monologue.
As for the second moment, i plan to do the part before the rape, where Stanley attacks verbally Blanche with the truths he knows about her, telling her what that he told the truth to Mitch. At first i had a different approach, but it didn't quite suit my concept. So now i plan on Stanley taking off parts of Blanche clothes, which symbolize her lies, and then she tries to put them back on but fails to do so, because reality is catching up to her. I'm still developing my ideas on this, and i haven't truly figured out how to make the audience feel Blanche's fear first hand.

Mainly, what i've managed to learn this week is how to work like a real director. Previously, my work with the DN was based on researching and deciding what i want to do, coming up with all of these cool ideas to use. Now that i am past that, my job has become to evaluate each idea, scratch, re-imagine, sketch, and so on and so forth and what have you. I think that it is important to stick to the concept and vision, and always check your ideas with them, like the in the round amphitheatre style stage i planned to do, i had to scratch that idea because it didn't quite fit what i wanted to do. I even had to change my initial idea for the second moment of the people carrying Blanche throught he stage, to Stanley forcing Blanche's clothes out.
So my main inquiry of the week is how to connect the vision and the concept into my second moment. How does a director actually manage to do it for every scene? Does it have to happen for every single one of them? What if a scene is just pure absurdity and there is no way to add it?

Concept and Vision

This past week i've been working on my Director's Notebook, completing the drafted version of the first two parts. I've managed to come up with lots of ideas for my vision, and i've finally decided on a concept: "Lies are a handmade dress to keep us safely covered from the cruel reality".

Personally i feel quite confident on how my work is turning out, yet i'm not sure how will i ever manage to finish it in time. I think that there's so much to write, and i have so many ideas, but i'm not sure how or when will i include them all into it.
Something that has been bothering me is the fact that i have literally millions of ideas for both scenes, and even for the entire play as a whole, and as much as i would like to include them all, it's pretty much impossible. I mean, i've had trouble on focusing a main vision, because of all the new cool ideas that i come up with. So i'm constantly struggling with focusing my ideas and scratching the ones that won't work, because i really have a lot of expectations. The good thing though, is that the work is never truly staged (except for our sampling of it), so it gives lots of space for me to actually include the craziest and coolest ideas for my vision, because it will never be physically done, and no one will have to pay for it (relaz cino...).
In terms of my concept, i found it pretty easy to come up with. From the beginning i perceived the play as a game of lies, and a struggle with reality, so i already knew what i wanted to say with this play. The hard part for me was actually phrasing it, because i sometimes want it to sound poetic, but it's supposed to be as simple as possible.
Now that i do have a concretely phrased concept, i'm confident i can move on with my work, and i can focus more my ideas directed towards it.

Something realli important i learned is that you always need to think about what you want your audience to feel, and later talk about over coffee after the play. Like Brecht himself proposed: the audience must feel a sort of catharsis through the self reflection of the actions in the play. And that's pretty much where i want to get. I want my audience to experience the play in Blanche's shoes, giving them the experience of social injustice and insanity. It is important for a theatre maker to think about this as a starting point, specially if he doens't have a fully fleshed concept at hand. I think it helps a lot to narrow down, until you actually get to phrase it. Plus, it also helps you focus on your vision to use the best ideas that fit both of these thoughts.
I think that putting yourself in the audience's perspective helps a lot when it comes to your intended impact on the audience and concept. It pretty much helps you identify and evaluate your concept and vision and whether it works or not. Maybe you had a lot of cool ideas, but if you see it from the audience's point of view, they have nothing to do with your concept, and they don't create the effect that you wanted. In my case, i'm still drafting my ideas, though i'm pretty close to a concrete scene, so i can't evaluate like that yet. But in the case of my vision, i can do this to see if my ideas are too crazy and unrelated, or if they do achieve what i want.
As i mentioned before, my concept is about lies covering up reality, and i chose it because i wanted to talk about Blanche's constant lying in order to walk away from the truth and reality for what it truly is. And i think most people do it, and so we make our own pretty lies and fantasies that cover up what we don't want to see or hear from reality. So i wanted the audience to reflect upon the lies we tell and create ourselves in order to escape the cruelty of our own reality. And thus comes my vision of the audience looking at the play through Blanche's perspective, experiencing everything like her. And as a theatre maker/producer/director, i must make sure to use every possible element to achieve them. For example i will use annoying sounds to begin the play, so the audience feels as stranged as Blanche felt when she got to Elysian Fields. It is important for a director to take notes on the most minimal details to reach his objective. To always be sure that things have a purpose in the scene, rather than just filling it up. Obviously, he needs to direct everything towards his vision and concept in order to reach the effect he wants.
But something i have been wondering about is how director's manage to translate the playwright's meaning into the concept? I mean, the director obviously has a concept that matches the play, but many elements the playwright included may affect negatively the director's vision. Should he take them out? Wouldn't it loose a bit of meaning? What if i changed the cue for the Varsouivianna to enter? Would it change Williams' effect?

Week off, work on

This past week during the school break, i worked on my Director's notebook portfolio in all of its aspects. I also got to see a play in NYC and managed to visit actual theatre facilities at a university (with actual lights and real floors).

This is really frustrating... i have a massive writer's block, and i really don't feel like working on 20 pages of pure work. But being all serious and honest, i think this is a great challenge we have taken. Writing an essay is one thing, but developing a portfolio is something else entirely. I sometimes feel like giving up and just handing in whatever i have, but i guess i just have to man up and keep on going.
So far, i'm pretty confident about my job, i think i have produced a fair amount of work, and i did manage to do develop more throughout the break. I still feel like I'm missing something, like my portfolio could be better, or even that it is not of a good enough standard.
What really bothers me is the fact that I'm used to working with a very structured scheme, and i thought the DN had a very defined and structured one. But it turns out that it is incredibly flexible, and i don't like that. Each of the three examples i read were entirely different from one another, and they all followed their own structure. I got to the conclusion that it was pretty much just having all the information needed, without any clear structure whatsoever. I'm not very fond of this, because it makes things very ambigious, and it becomes harder for me to actually lay out all of my ideas.
As of now i've already planned one of my scenes, and have lots of recorded ideas of the third part in my journal. I literally spent a day sketching the stage and some of the costumes. It's really fun actually, and i like the fact that i can let my imagination free. What i don't like is that the second part is very confusing, and none of the examples show either a pattern or what i thought was supposed to be done in that part. So i guess i'll just carry on with what i'm doing.

Something i've learned in further detail is organizing myself. Having two essays and a portfolio for the IB is not an easy task, so i guess i've been improving my organization skills. And i think this is really important not only to complete the work on time for the deadlines, but also to reduce the stress and the pressure. I believe that this skill is useful in the school, life, and even as a theatre maker. Obviously a director has deadlines to complete his work, and obviously creating an entire play takes a lot of time, and thus a lot of organization, for him to be prepared and follow a schedule. I think that i can relate this a lot to the work producing the school play, because we had to organize our works to deal with everything on time.
And i'm not only talking about organization in terms of work, i'm also talking about organizing and setting ideas. Obviously a creative process requires creativity (duh.), and sometimes your imagination flies away and you come up with all these really cool and wonderful ideas to include. But maybe they don't all match, or maybe you think of it in the shower, and then forget. So something i've learned is to keep track of my ideas that come up randomly, and writte them down to remember them. Even so, when i was visiting the drama school, tons of ideas flowed through my mind, so i started to write words on my phone to remember them later. I think this is something that happens not only to directors, but also to writers, producers, designers, etc. They can draw ideas from very simple things, and i think is important to organize them and keep track of them. Maybe some ideas work, maybe they others don't, but who knows they might come up useful anytime soon. I've heard of directors who discart ideas for one play, but then use it for another, and i think that i something i could do with the ideas i don't use for one of the scenes, and use it in the next.
And i think something really interesting, and a technique i find very useful, is to draw the images that come up in your mind. I think that as a director reading a play for the first time, it is useful to draw the characters, some of the important objects described in the play, the setting, etc. to get a physical picture of your vision, and what you want to achieve. I recon it helps to make your vision clearer and actually approachable to evaluate if it can be done, or if it works and matches with the play. I believe that as a theatre maker, someone who works with visual performances, it becomes better to record the images in your mind than just recording the sole reactions.
Speaking of which, i've had a hard time putting my ideas together, because there are so many and they don't all match together. So i've been improving my judging skills on the ideas, supported by the organization skills to put them in the most logical order, and then evaluating to see what could be useful and what is just garbagge.
Something i've noticed, is that a director is always looking for new inspirations, new ideas, new things to try. Before, when we watched plays, i was only looking at the aspects as a student, to later analyze in the play review. But now that i'm working on being a director myself, when i watched the play in NYC, i was noticing more the ideas that could apply to my own play. I've been reflecting on how directors do this, and i think this is why the DN asks us to compare and relate to previous theatre experiences. They want us to dig the ideas from things that actually existed and we have seen. And now that i watched a play with that in mind, all i could think was "maybe i could use the light in a similar way". And probably that's what directors do in real life, they look and evaluate to inspire themselves.
What i still struggle to understand, is how do directors take the vision and make it real? Now i know the DN is not going to happen, but i've been wondering about it. How do they manage to bring all of those processed ideas onto the stage? I remember how we did it in the school play, and it was not an easy job. But we had standards and limitations to follow, so we knew exactly when we were going off chances. However, how do directors know that? The budget? If so, when they know they won't have the money and decide to go another direction, wouldn't that take something off their vision? Could it make a huge difference? And how do they manage to transmit their ideas to the designers, artists, and builders? I mean, a picture in your head is not the same in someone else's head (this is why TOK is useful). And what happens if he has so many ideas he looses track of his initial vision and concept?

Alice

"It's no use going back to yesterday, because i was a different person then"- Lewis Carroll
Alicia is a ballet performance based on Lewis Carroll's famous novel Alice in Wonderland, choreographed by Humberto Canessa and directed by Pepe Corzo. Presented in El Gran Teatro Nacional, the play portrays the story of Alice, whose innocent behaviour leads her to an amazing encounter with Wonderland. Being this a ballet performance, rather than an acted play, dance takes upon the main role to portray an unspoken story. Next year's school play will be our own adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, so i believe having watch a professional performance was very useful to inspire ourselves in order to draft ideas for next year.

The play was divided into two acts, with five to six scenes per act. Although i haven't read the novel itself, i think that the way they handled the story was good enough, cutting the first act with Alice's first encounter with the Red queen, so I think that we could use a very similar structure for next year. However there are two things i would change and think are essential for our adaptation. I believe that the first act should end with a sort of cliff hanger, and a rising action that catches the audience more, something i felt that the play didn't achieve at the end of their first act. Another thing is that i believe that the Mad Hatter should make an appearance during the first act, because i think he is one of the most dynamic and interesting characters, in fact he is the most iconic of the play. So i think that unlike the ballet, should we include the Hatter in at least one scene of act one, the play would gain a very interesting character to play with. Nonetheless, i find it very useful to use their structure as a guideline for ours.
One thing I strongly believe is that we should not follow the same story as the ballet and the first novel. I think that the second novel, Through the looking glass has a lot of interesting characters and ideas presented, that i think are worth using. Besides, i find it rather odd if we follow the same old Disney sort of thing.
Something that i really like, and i think could work beautifully for next year's play, was how they begun the play. Alice was sitting alone on the stage and a clock was ticking, for which she was solely illuminated forming a sort of circle and casting a shadow on the screen opposite of her. I think that it would be interesting to start our own play in a very similar way, having Alice sitting on the stage alone playing with her doll, whilst the sound of the clock ticks loudly. However i believe that unlike the ballet, we shouldn't include an actual visual of a clock at the back because it takes away a bit of the mystery, as well as not using the screen that splits the stage into two, for obvious reasons. The use of the light in this sequence was very interesting as it drew the focus onto Alice and her movements, which i think we should do equally.
I think another very interesting scene was how they did Alice's fall through the rabbit hole, which i was already wondering how they would do it. They used several dancers dressed with patterns, who carried Alice and did a sort of dance/movement sequence that portrayed the fall. I think that we will not be able to do something similar as it seems a bit confusing and difficult (our actors are not that strong please...). So i think the most reasonable thing to do is to have Alice fall through the trapdoor (no pun intended). Yet i think we could do a very interesting sequence with the lights in a similar way they did. As well as using the real life character, just like they did, to stand around and act as memories or "ghosts".

As mentioned before, i think one of the most interesting and iconic characters of the play is the Mad Hatter, and i felt a bit disappointed on how they handled his character, because it only appeared at the very end, and had a minimum role that did not stand out as much. I think we could use in more interesting ways, and give him a rather bigger role. Something i found interesting is that there was a second level just after the main stage, and during the entire play, no character used it to dance, as there was more than sufficient space in the main stage, However, during Alice's meeting with the Hatter, both character's do cross to the extension and begin to dance, as if they entered a different dimension. I think we could do something very similar in the sense that the Hatter should be able to further connect or approach the audience, as part of his characterization. Speaking of which, i think the character lacked a lot of physicality to characterize his craziness, after all he is mad. So i believe we need to work on having a good portrayal of this character.
One of the character's that intrigued me the most was the worm guy (worm dude), because regardless of the fact that he was the best dancer (in my opinion), i think the way they portrayed him was incredibly interesting. They used various dancers that would sometimes attach to the main dancer, and make the movements like an actual worm. I think we could have the worm be a portrayed by three or even four actors, that work together to portray the movement and the body of the worm. I think his physicality full of curvy movements was very accurate to the insect, and i think we should aim to do something similar.
One character i enjoyed, yet wasn't very amused by, was the Red Queen. I think that the characterization was very interesting, portraying a failed dancer of some sort, and a burlesque character. However i think we shouldn't portray the character as skinny as she was on the ballet, because it takes away a bit of Carroll's description, and i believe it gives a further sense of ridicule. Still, i think that just as the ballet, the Red Queen should be the comic relieve, in the sense that the audience should make fun of her.
I believe that one of the best characterizations was that of the rabbit, who had very nervous and rapid body movements, as well as androgynous movements. I think that we could take inspiration on this portrayal, as it fully shows the character's intentions and ideology that Carroll explains in his book. I think we could even take inspiration on some of his dance moves, to give a further insight into the character's rabbit side. Yet i believe it is necessary for the character to have a big pocket watch, rather than a wrist one like the one they used in the ballet.

In terms of the costumes, i think they were amazing, and managed to show the impressive and crazy side of Wonderland, as well as the down to earth side of the real world. I think we could take mimic the designs of the human characters, although i think we could use dull and lifeless colors, rather than the vivid ones they used on the ballet, as it would show the dullness of reality and further contrast with Wonderland. Likewise, i think that the colors we use for Wonderland and its characters should be very vivid and lively.
The one costume i really hated was that of the Cat. I think the use of foam tubes was very interesting, but it did not reach the same standard as the other costumes. I believer we should not design something similar, and should seek to do the opposite.
I think that Alice's costumes was very dull and simple, and would have like to see something more interesting or lively. I think that we should go a different path and do something different to the ballet and the movie, yet keeping the blue color (i like blue). Still i believe we should have a costume in between the livelihood of Wonderland and the deadness of the real world. I though the contrast of the blue and the pink from the skirt did not work, and just made the character very childish.
I really liked the design of the rabbit, and i think we should keep the vest type of costume, and the white colors, as well as the ears. Yet i think that we shouldn't use the black patterns, as i thought that they made the rabbit look like a cow instead,
Although i think that the worm's costume was rather simple for the dancer to move, i think that we should do something much bigger and greater. Using make up and some patterns, like the one his costume had, we could create a very lively worm.
As i said before, i think that the slim and cartoony costume the Red Queen wore was not very amusing, and did not fully evoke the character's burlesque ideology. So i think that we could work by taking inspiration from Elizabethan and Victorian dresses, and using them with lively red patterns, making her more visually intriguing for the audience.
I think we could work with distorted versions of the old fashionable dresses, when it comes to the designs of the courtmembers and such. I think we could create a very lively and interesting image with all these distorted and visual costumes alongiside exaggerated make ups, that evoke a sense of satire to the scene.

I think that the visual effects of the ballet were incredibly interesting, specially the one with the box when Alice grew big. Still i don't think they will work for us, and we shouldn't realu any of those ideas. Also, we don't have the technology or the money to do those sort of things...

There wasn't really a lot of scenery on stage, as the characters needed enough space to dance. During the scenes in the real world, they used trees, and we shouldn't really use that, yet we could set a very mundane or common stage, with dull colors, to portray reality.
However, i found incredibly cool the use of strage shapes and patterns during the fall and other scenes of distortion, which undoubtly gave a visual performance of fantasy. I think we could inspire ourselves in using distorted scenery, where usual objects have funny shapes and such, in order to show the fantasy of Wonderland.
The same goes with the lights, they obviously have a lot more lighting equipment at their disposal, and are able to create further effects, unlike us. Yet we could use the same ideas of the combination of unusual colors to light the stage duing Wonderland.

I'm really excited for next year, and i think that watching the ballet was really worthy, as we were able to start visualizing what we want to do in the future. Brace yourself Alice.

Director's Note Origins

This past week, we began the process of the Director's Note, or well at least the demo. We read the IB's guidelines and decided how we were going to work until the end of the year. This will be a long process...

Looking back at the beginning of the year, i thought the DN project was going to be quite fun, and rather easy. However, now that i have seen the actual rubrics and guidelines, i have come to realize y was plain wrong. I think now that we are getting closer to the end of the year, and the start of next one, we are doing things closer to what the IB requires, which in this case is the External Assesment. I now realize that what i have been told about extensive works and countless hours of working during the IB are actually true, and it makes me feel both exited and nervous for what this challenge will be like, or well, would have been like.
Personally, i am feeling rather excited for the DN demo, because now i can let my imagination loose and just create whatever i want. I think it is the IB project that gives you the most freedom and felxibility to create and imagine, so im looking forward to it.
I do feel a bit nervous about how extensive this work is, and i'm not sure how well will i complete the 20 page project. Plus, the fact that we have to do it during the hardest weeks of school, which are the final trimester dates and end of year exam weeks, makes things a ton more difficult. I really do not know how i will manage.
I think that i have to keep on working hard, and organizing myself, because this is IB.

The closer i got to being a director was the school play. I never truly got to fully direct a scene, but acting as producer and creator gave me the necessary skills i need to complete this project demo.
One of the main aspects is the research skills, which will serve for the first part. For the school play we had to research about Kathakali and the Ramayan itself, learning about the context and traditions in order to understand and have further insight into what we were going to do. Now, the work goes a little further, as we need to research every detail that seems relevant of the context of the play, whereas is the author himself or the historical and geographical context. We have already a lot of research of Streetcar named Desire (the play we chose to work with), because of the English lessons. However, i think we need to combine both the skills we learned by doing the Ramayan and what we already know from Enlgish, to go one step further. I think that this is very important for a director to do because he needs to be aware of all apects of the play before he begins working on it, which also applies to any type of creative work that starts upon an existing work, such as adapting a play.
Another aspect is the creation of a concept and a vision for the adaptation. If we hadn't done the play at the beginning of the year, i think i would die doing the DN. This is because it took us about 2 weeks to define a concept, and we didn't have much experience to do it. But now, i can work with my previous learning and skill to shape both the concept and the vision. I even think that i can use my experience in all the plays to imagine and create upon that. Plus, i think it is important to combine, as a director or theatre maker, both the research and the creative exploration to produce a powerful and workable vision for the play.
We still haven't gotten that much into detail of the process, because we just started and have only read the guidelines and rubrics, barely begining the research work. So i think there is still a lot to learn and to explore in the near future. Still, i think this is great practice for next year at the play and at the real IB product. I think it is nice to sit on the director's chair, and let ourself be the creator's of what we want to see.

Embracing the inner clown

Clown is a very distinctive theatre style, which proposes a certain aperture from within the actor, letting the audience inside the actor's mind in a fun and rather childish way. And this past weeks, we have been working towards training ourselves in the clown style, in order to use it for the One Act Play.

At first, i was not very fond of the idea of exploring clown style, and i thought we were wasting the opportunity to do something meaningful as our last play. But i guess i found myself being wrong, since this is the only style that can actually let me say one last goodbye to the stage at school.
I guess, when we first started working on clown, i was sort of thrilled by it, i felt myself being a child once again, and i even got to forget the fact that i was supposed to be acting on stage. I was just being careless and childish once again, playing around the stage along the various exercises we did. But i think that is the point right? To embrace the inner child and let it come out to play, to forget about everything else and live in the now.
I think that one of the things that i found very difficult was to be completly honest, and forget about acting and concentrate on being yourself. As a very introverted person, someone who does not show his emotions very often, then it became a bit strange for me to be myself on stage, and let all of my emotions be true and honest. I think that although it may sound incredibly easy, it might as well be the most difficult part of the clown style. As someone who acts to hide himself, it became difficult to show himself and be honest in front of the audience.
I really liked the exercise were we had to walk in a circle and then say "my name is __ and the world is round", and do it as many times as possible until there was nothing but full honesty. I couldn't really tell the difference to when i was acting and when i was not, until i felt myself get loose after several tries.
Another thing i really enjoyed was the constant space for improvisation. There were several moments in which there was a huge awkward silence, and everyone was staring right at you. Personally i felt very uncomfortable, and it made me uneasy to think that they were judging me. But i guess that's when the clown has space to actually embrace his surroundings and play with it in the most creative ways. I tried to fill the void with a few ideas, but sometimes, when there were more than two of us on stage, there were too many ideas thrown to fill the gap, and it became rather confusing and disorganized.
I think, whilst exploring the clown, i began to discover several things about myself, and it sort of freaked me out. I became scared to know that i was showing these traits and emotions i tend to hide, on stage. But i feel like there is no better way to end this journey than to be true to myself.

I think the main ideas i learned from this clown experience are the rules of clowning, and how they change you.
To be aware of the surroundings brings that inner curiousity out to play, and leaves space for creativity. In theatre it is necesary to know what your surrounding looks like, in order to use it in your performance, as well as helping to be able to come up with something when in need to improvise. Furthermore, in life, it is important to be aware of what is around you, to know if it is something good or something bad for you, to be able to explore further away from your comfort zone.
Then, to live in the now, the present, creates a sense of importance to what you are currently doing, to live the performance and forget about the rest. I think that this idea is extremely important and equally applicable in both life and in theatre. To be able to live in the present, to forget and forgive, and not look forward, just stay in the now and enjoy. To be able to see yourself doing what you're doing and be able to enjoy every last bit of the performance. Personally, that is what i feel when im on stage, how everything that used to matter, does not anymore, and the only important thing is that im standing there, leaving everyone in awe. Thus, the clown must do the same, but take it one step further, and invite the audience to live with him in the moment. For them to forget their own problems and concentrate on the clown, to laugh and relieve and experience all of these emotions that the clown is feeling.
Also, the rule of staying positive and keep trying no matter what is an essential part of clowning, and being able to stay positive and honest. In life and in theatre as a whole, there are and will be millions of stepbacks and bumps, just like the few hundred ones we hit during our production of the play. But the clown teaches you to embrace these mistakes, shake them off and keep on moving forward as positive as possible. I think that through clowning, you actually get to experience all of your insecurities and mistakes all over again, but it tells you to leave them behind, and it makes you break past them. The satirical side of the clown, helps you look at all these problems from a different perspective, in order to laugh at them, invite the audience to laugh too, and cast them away.
I feel like there was no better style that we could've chosen for this last play altogether. In a way, we learned a lot about each other and ourselves, and let everyone inside our deepest side. At first, my clown used to be very sassy and rebellious, but i began to discover that he was that way in order to hide his insecurities, my insecurities. I guess that for the last time i get to be on stage with my ensemble, as a student, it is hard to say goodbye. But the clown helps you do it, as if a child was saying goodbye to his grandma or something. It helped every one of us, to laugh at it and see it as the last time we play together, rather than the sad reality. It helped us live through the production of the play, and most importantly through the performance. To stand and forget the rest, and just know that the other five are there with you no matter what. To live and enjoy every single moment. It may sound very cheesy, but the clown helped me say goodbye. Because, in any other case with a different tradition, i would have acted as usual and just left heart broken. But now, the clown lets me live every last moment, and lets me embrace with joy my insecurity, but most importantly, it lets me be the best side of me, the most positive and cheerful, and be leave with an honest goodbye. However, my question still remains unanswered, what happens next? What happens when the clown hiddes again, is it dormant until we wake him up to play again? Can he resurface anytime? And what happens if im unable to open up during the actual performance? During class and rehearsals its easy since im with people i trust and no audience, but what if i dont get to be as honest? Will i still be clowning if im not fully honest? Will i be able to say goodbye?

The Curse of the Broken Left Foot

This past week we've been working on practicing the entire play in one run, specially the final battle scene, as well as working on the last stages of each design area of production. The problem is... we've been cursed.

I am desperate, we all are. We are two weeks away from the opening night, and we have five actresses with a broken foot! And worst of all, its the same foot for all of them! I am starting to get nervous about it, and even scared that another actress will suffer from the same curse. Of course, this is over exaggerating the matters, there is no curse whatsoever, but the entire problem is very concerning.
It calms me a lot that all of these actresses are giving their best, regardless of their broken foot. They are coming to the rehearsals and trying their very best, in order to avoid messing with the other actors' work. And i think this is very valuable and important, since a missing actor or an unmotivated actor messes with the entire scene, in which case the cursed girls give their best to pretend as if nothing had happened. I'm also happy to see them updating us and trying to calm the other actors, as well as remaining calm themselves, to avoid stress and the desperation and feeling of failure that comes when you hit a bump.
What worries me the most is the fact that Siu is one of the cursed actresses, and her being the antagonist, it is a hard blow. Im very concerned about her well beign, and the fact that kalaripayattu demands a lot of physical strenght, that she might not be able to achieve having this problem.
I'm trying to keep myself concentrated on the matter, but it becomes very hard and frustrating. In previous years, as just another member of the cast, i worried about the person and the play itself, but never gave to much importance to the matter, as the producer's would fix everything. Well now i'm the producer, and it is I who has to fix everything. Still, there is nothing to fix, im not a doctor or Mr. Miyagi with healing powers or something, i'm just another student. But i guess that's were my work as a producer comes in, i have to work with the injured people for them to feel as comfortable as possible, and keep an eye on them to avoid further injures and to make sure they are healing, as well as mantaining the cast members calmed and confident that things will turn out the way we intend them to, just like previous producers did with me.

I think that, one of the main things that i learned this week was that there are always bumps in the road, specially towards the end of the entire process. I've always known that, and something happens in every play the closer we get to the opening night, so it's pretty natural. But i've never really encountered it directly, because it wasn't me who had to deal with the problem. So i have been reflecting on what my role is as a producer, and i got to the conclusion that i have to be the calmest one, and the one to transmit that energy so that nobody freaks out. As i said before, if i were to freak out, the other actors would too, and same goes for the other producers. Thus, if i remain calm and transmit that confidence that things will be ok, then the actors will remain the same. Still, i have to push the actors even further to work harder, so that the issue can be avoided. And i think this applies directly to real professional production, and even projects unrelated to theatre, the one in charge has to be the calmest, and help things be fixed as soon as possible.
I've been wondering a lot about what other types of bumps we could encounter. I mean, i would love it if there were none, but we have to be realistic. And it is not because of a curse or anything, but because that's how things are. Now i do think about, could we avoid them? And how? I'm pretty sure most bumps are unavoidable, so how do we deal with them directly? And how do we precautions to avoid bigger damage? And what type of precautions?
Last week i reflected about the trust requirements of Kalaripayattu, and the concequences it brought. Well, now that my fighting partner got hurt, i can see the concequences in more depth. I think that, because we managed to control the hesitating moments, and master our mutual trust, we started to neglect some of the outer factors that could affect us. Thus, when she fell, we both knew it was because we were to confident that our work was perfect, and we forgot about external factors. Thus i wonder once again, how can we recover this mutual trust? Once someone goes through this type of trauma, hesitating appears, so how can we erase it again? More importantly, will we have to adapt the fight? Will she even be able to fight? I think that in professional theatre, this happens sometimes, but how do they deal with it?

Kalaripayattu with Master Valentina

This week we worked on the final battle scene, which puts us one step closer to the end of this process. Moreover, given that kathakali theatre, and indian theatre as such, uses kalaripayattu to stage the battles, we had Valentina come help us by teaching us the basics of kalaripayattu, and kerala acrobatics.

Ok, forget i ever complaint about my body aching due to kathakali, THIS, is the real deal. Kalaripayattu, demands a lot of physical energy and proposes difficult body movements and positions, that make your body numb. My arms are full of bruises, i almost twisted my ankle, and the skin on my feet has been torn apart.
Now, one very important thing i felt, is the confidence of wanting to do things right. This is the last school play i act in (not counting the One Act Play), and the final battle is the most epic moment, so we want to do it right. Hence, even if the positions hurt like hell, i think i was persistent and kept on trying to improve. I'm obviously not perfect at it, but i think I'm improving massively at my acrobatic and stage combat skills, which is extremely important to achieve an epic final battle. I can also see that same behaviour on behalf of most of the actors, specially Siu, who is also motivated by the fact this is her last appearance in the play. We are fighting partners, and we encourage ourselves together to try again and again, faster and faster each time, and we tend to not hold back (ergo the bruises).
I've also been feeling more relaxed about how things will turn out, because battles tend to be really dumb in plays, and they look awful. But this time, given the style, i can see a more realistic battle, with less faking and more actual acrobatics, which makes me confident and relax that it will turn out as i wanted it to.
One thing that bothers me a lot, is that some actors are not giving their best (once again), to learn and try these positions. They complaint about it being difficult, and hurting, and do not bother to try and improve. This kind of behaviour is what makes the process slower, because them taking longer to actually do things right, due to their stubbornness, slows us all down. I am not happy with these people, and i try to be more supportive to them and teach them, but they keep on being stubborn about it.

Kalaripayattu has some very important moral and theatrical bases, that i think are worth knowing and following. For starters, stage combat, and thus Kalaripayattu, is based on mutual trust; the attacker has to give his full strenght and actually punch trusting that the defender will defend himself, and viceversa; the defender has to trust that the attacker is fully punching and he has to block it. That way, no one gets hurt, and the battle can be performed correctly. I think that this knowledge can be applied in real life and in theatre in many aspects. For example, all of us as producers have to trust each other in knowing that everyone is doing their work, for us to move on accordingly to schedule. We also have to trust, as actors, that all of the other cast members are practicing their parts and lines, for the scene to actually work and play smoothly. Similarly, i believe that in a bigger theatre production, producers, directors, and actors have to trust each other to put together the entire play, as everyone has a different but necessary role to contribute in the process of creation. What bothers me is that, we don't always have a good realtion with another actor, or producer, or whatever, so how can this mutual trust be established? I mean, i believe one must suck it up and work, but it's never the same. A single hesitating moment of trust can end up in a huge mess, specially when we are dealing with acrobatics. So how do we build this trust? In Kalaripayattu, the actors work together their whole lives, and thus this trust is built. But we have only worked with our cast members for a couple of months, so how can this full trust comitment be estavlished in such a short time? In my case, Siu and i have worked together since our first play and in class, apart from knowing each other for many years, so we trust each other. However, i sometimes feel how she flinches, and hesitates because she gets scared. I mean, i aslo get scared that the acrobatic will fail and we might hurt each other, but i try to maintain and transmit this trust so everything moves along correctly. Still, we've fallen a few times, or hurt each other because of that small millisecond of hesitation. So, even if we trust each other, how can we avoid hesitation?
One of the things that caught my attention the most, is the fact that in Kalaripayattu, everyone works together as a team, and not alone. As Valentina said, everyone is as good as the worst one. And i think this concept is applicable to every type of team work. For example, if we have a scene with three great actors, and a couple of terrible ones (not trying to sound mean, ok?) then the entire scene will not work as well, because the energy might be lost, or there might be a few problems. And i think this is important because in works such as this, that involve working in an ensamble, it is important to trust and work together, to improve together and move forward, not leaving behind the worst one of us. However, i do believe that sometimes one might be better than the other one at something. For example, i was better at the back turning jump acrobatic, and Siu was better as the balancer, so we worked upon that and made the acrobatic work, even though our skills on both excercises were different.
But, the concept that was simply the most interesting one to me, was the ideal of balancing forces to work together. When working on fighting, one must balance the forces and strenght between each other, to fake the punching and make it look realistic without hurting each other. The concept of how there is a point where opposing forces meet and balance each other was striking to me. I think that has to be applied in real life a lot, in everything that concerns the balance of forces. The strenghts of one reinforce the weaknesses of the other. When acting, support is needed, and if one's energy is greater and opposes the others, then the scene fails. Thus, the energy of every actor must meet and balance the entire scene, for it to be succesful. But how can we achieve this? Some people (like me), have very strong and repelling energy, and others have very weak ones? How can we work to improve it? Siu and i balanced our body forces by trying over and over again the acrobatic, so should this apply to scenes in general?

8 down, one more to go

This past week, we worked on building the last scene of the play, which presents the coronation of Rama and the plot twist of our open ending. Even though we are still missing the Final battle scene, we have succesfully built the entire play.

Working with almost the entire cast in one scene is very very hard. The final scene has four main moments, the narration, the king's entrance, the toast, and the open ending. Therefore, not all of the actors were present in one of the parts we were working on, having to do nothing until we begin setting up their part. I felt a bit useless the first time we were rehearsing, as we were building the narration, which was the longest and hardest part, because it involved a dance. So i really didn't have anything to do, because even if i was directing, there were already other 4 people doing that job. So i figured, maybe we should practice stage combant and Purulia Cchau with the monkeys.
The group of the monkeys dissapointed me a lot, supposedly they had already worked these animal positions with Giselle, but none of them truly knew them correctly, which is their fault for not revising what we taught. On top of that, they couldn't hold the positions for the time we wanted them to. I understand that they are not professionals and don't have super built bodies and Hulk strenght, but we've been working for two months now on balance, holdign legs-based positions, and so on and so forth, and they still can't hold them! I'm not mad, but either they are not trying hard enough, or we are terrible teachers (NO.).
One of the key aspects we taught the monkeys about stage combat, is the idea that confidence and trust is key for it to work. Some of the kids were more excited about doing a kick and a punch, that they were probably just end up hurting others and themselves. I felt that the monkeys understood what it meant, specially as we tried a couple of slaps, and they trusted each other into what the movement meant and what was going to happen. Still, some of them kept being childish and kept on and on about them wanting to punch "awesomely".
Personally i think that the scene was built pretty quickly, and that everything went very smoothly. Now that i think about it, the entire play was built relatively smoothly, the real thing came when we corrected and improved scene by scene. I thought that the most diffult thing was to impose the disipline the actors needed, and to bring everything together.
I think that, doing this scene, the most difficult thing for me was the love dovey part, because i really don't have a heart whatsoever and my soul is as dark as the night, so i guess it was a real challenge. And because Sita, which is supposed to be my wife, is my friend, it becomes a little ackward, but i guess we've come to terms with it.

Being a director is a lot of work, specially when trying to built uo a scene with a lot of actors. It is key for each scene to know the main actions, the structure and the characters to be able to produce it correctly. In this case, we had to concentrate on each of the four moments separately, as they involved the same characters, and build up bit by bit. I discovered that when directing, and specially sketching, a scene it is important to divide it in parts and work on them one by one until they are of a good standard, before moving on into the next one, so that it becomes easier to correct later. Likewise, a director must know to balance his time to sketch all of the scenes.
Given our problem of the excess in actors, who were basically sitting down doing nothing, and us trying to teach them the bases of stage combat, i learned that sometimes it is best if they just sit and watch. This is because, some of the actors caused noise and interfered with the scene, because they were screaming during the training. I also realized that, because they were watching, they were learning and getting to know the play and the scene better, for them to analyze and work upon what they saw. Moreover, if they know how the first part plays out, it becomes easier to get the mood and tone of the scene, and to be aware of the cue to enter.
I've been wondering a lot about how to convey feelings, specially those which we don't know. Personally, i've never been in love like Rama was with Sita (i don't even have a heart so...), which makes it difficult to me to relate it with a past experience, as there is none! I can have a certain approach, but i think is up to the actor to explore in different ways to make it more convinving, given that there is no past experience to relate and use as reference. So i wonder, how does the actor look for stimulus, if there is no personal reference? Will an external reference be enough? Or will the actor lack that special something that makes it more believable?

"Non, je ne regrette rien" Piaf and her music

"Chanter est un moyen de sortir. C'est un autre monde", said Edith Piaf, the celebrated French singer, who inspired the world with her voice. Piaf, an adaptation of Pam Gems' play, was presented in Teatro de La Alianza Francesa de Lima, staging the story of the famous singer, and her life full of addictions, love affairs, and most importantly, music. Singing was always present during the entire play, to portray and support the story and what the characters felt, and further evoke the memory of Piaf and her songs.

To begin with, the characterization of Piaf brought to life the singer, and through the use of the voice, the character presented the most important aspect of Piaf's life. The actress majorly focused on the use of the voice, imitating a french accent yet maintaining the street like tone, to set the audience in France but also present the fact that Piaf began as a street beggar. However, there was a major contrast in her rough accent, with her voice in the songs; she maintained very high notes and used a more clean yet distinctive french accent. This idea evoked the memory of Piaf herself, who was recognized for her distinctive voice and accent, which the actress tried to copy. Also, the cleaner side of the voice in the song also gave the effect of Piaf being her real self, instead of the street beggar she was. As the play continues, her accent stays the same, but the street like tone begins to slowly disappear, into a more classier and sick one, to portray her addiction and her sickness. It is also noticeable that Piaf was a very rude character, in the sense that she was always swearing and had a very grotesque vocabulary, which created the effect of her street life, of her not being civilized or educated enough to behave and have a proper vocabulary. Similarly to her voice, she progressively fixes her language and has a different register, to emphasize her progression as an artist and woman, but still keeping her use of swearing, to create the effect of a connection with her past, of being true to oneself and not changing. In contrast, the lyrics of her songs are quite poetical, in fact beautiful, when singing about love, youth, loss, among other themes, which evokes the effect of how music liberates her from everything that ties her, just as she said in her quote; it is another world on its own. Regarding other characters, they all maintained a standard french accent to evoke the setting of the story, and was cleaner and more sophisticated depending on the character's social status, to mark the difference. The other characters had a more standard french accent, which differed from Piaf's, creating the effect of Piaf's different voice, and emphasizing her distinction from other Frenchmen and even singers.
One of the most important acting elements in the play was the energy and the stage presence the characters maintained. The play itself was pretty dynamic, with a lot of different actions filling the scene, however the focus was always on Piaf, and thus she had a very driving and powerful energy. The audience obviously recognized her as the main character, however mostly in the first part of the play, she does not have a lot of stage presence, and maintains a very dull energy, to explore the side of the street and homeless Piaf.  However, when she sings, the actress achieves a major stage presence, and projects an amazing amount of energy, to evoke the effect of her expressing her feelings through the art of singing, and taking all the focus towards her, mirroring what was said of Piaf herself and her abilities as a singer. On the other hand, other characters maintained more stage presence, but lost it all completely, as if they weren't even on stage when Piaf sang, to evoke the power of her songs and reflect Piaf's idea of singing being another world, isolated. Still, some of the characters, such as Lepleé, who sang on their own, took focus from the scene and achieved full presence in the scene, similarly to Piaf, to give importance to what they were trying to say, which even though was in french, it was later supported by the dialogues explaining.
As for characterization itself, one of the most notable ideas regarding the songs was the contrast of Piaf's character and her persona when singing. Piaf was portrayed as a very grotesque character, being very vulgar and rude, as she did a lot of cruel jokes, swearing, and sexual implications. This characterization gave a new insight into the life of Piaf, and how her life was full of addictions. However this is image is built parallel to Piaf's persona when singing, which was kind-hearted, lovely, and beautiful, in contrast to the grotesque characterization. This creates the effect of Piaf's insecurities as a person, trying to be accepted in the world, a theme she explores at the first part of the play. Moreover, the audience is set to feel disgusted by her character, yet moved by her singing, creating the effect of how music breaks you out from reality.

The play was divided into two acts, presenting the audience with the story of Piaf's rise to fame in the first one, and her decay in the second one. During the first part, the audience gets to meet Piaf as a homeless survivor in France, and watches her go through the different steps and obstacles in the road to fame. In this act, the songs Piaf sings are a lot more joyful and about love and desire, specially when she sings about Marcel, and their relationship. It is interesting to notice that there are a lot of conflicts around her, such as Leplee's death, the world war, and the abandonment in her life, but still she continues to sing about the joys of life and love, creating the effect of her being persistent about her dreams and enduring the harships of life, and supporting the story of her fame. Most of the songs for this act are done for the sake of a presentation, to Leplee, to the club or even a stadium, with the exception of the songs to Marcel. The last song of the first act marks the definite change in Piaf's life, her turning point into decay, which was the death of Marcel. Piaf sings about his death and her grieve, and expresses her powerful emotions, breaking the goofy Piaf into a broken one, for which this is the turning point of the story, and the first climax. The second act, explores mostly her life as a stablished singer, and her attitude as a diva persuing to do as she pleased, and trying to find new talents, as well as someone to love given Marcel's death. In this act, her songs become more emotional, and more concentrated on her loss and her addictions, supporting the story of her decay and eventual death. It is interesting that during the first act, only Piaf sang, with the exception of Leplee's demonstration, whereas in the second act, three other characters have solos, for which they are the new talents Piaf discovered. This idea of more characters singing invokes a sense of weakness and decay of Piaf, due to her health and mental conditions, which did not let her sing as much as she did before, thus the use of other characters provides the audience with the idea that Piaf is looking for someone like her as she will not be able to continue for long.
One of the most interesting aspects of the structure, is the repetition of the first scene, in which Piaf is supposedly about to perform "Non, je ne regrette rien". The first time this scene is presented is at the begining of the play, when the presentor enters the stage and announces her, thus she comes in and begins to sing, but she fails, and is interrupted by the presentor, who she insults and the scene ends. Towards the end of the play, when Piaf is extremely sick and unable to work, she decides to sing to recover her fame. The scene is repeated just like the first time, but with the presence of his follower and mentee. When it finishes, it is repeated again, but now she interrupts herself due to pain, and the scene is repeated again two more times, until she falls unconcious to the floor due to the pain. The repetition of the scenes creates the effect of Piaf's failure, specially the first time when she fails but then the story tells how she conquers and stands up again. On the other hand, the other repetitions, the continuous ones, give a sense of defeat, as Piaf is trying to sing and pushing herself to do it, but failing at it, repeating as if the crowd would understand her condition. Therefore, the repetitions are progressive and further explore her defeat, and makes the audience feel worried and sorry for her. This moments are the only ones in which Piaf is unable to sing, regardless of any other factor, which emphasizes her struggle to keep fighting.
The play begins with her attempt to sing her most famous song "Non, je ne regrette rien", which contrasts with the ending of the play, in which, even though she had died, she sings the entire song and pours her heart out, even crying. This idea of ending with the succesful attempt to the song brings together the effect that Piaf's life was indeed an inspiration, and even though the path was rough, she achieved the fame and greatness she was destined to. The audience is set to be inspired by the song, and the final successful attempt. It is notable that the song itself says "i don't regret a thing, not a single one", which in retrospects the life of Piaf full of suffering and hard choices, in which she expresses " i don't regret it", creating the effect of the message of being proud of oneself. Also, the fact that the song, the attempt for Piaf to sing it, is successful after she dies evokes the sense that her music is still alive nowadays, and hence brings her memory to life.

In terms of design, the use of the lights was of major importance to the story, the portrayal of the characters and the delivering of the songs. Lighting was pretty simple on its own, and there weren't many changed patterns, by maintaining the standard amber lights with a medium intensity. It was interesting to notice that the entire scene was lit, however there was a main focus on only one element of the scenery, in which most actions happened. For example, when Piaf and Toinne chatted in their apartment, only the bed and the bedside table were focused. This design helped to give focus to the most important aspects of the scene, yet keeping the other parts lit to be seen. During the songs, especially the major solo's in which Piaf expressed her feelings, the light of the entire scene was shut, and only the singer was focused, in order to bring the character to major importance, and to concentrate on their singing. The focusing helped not only to illuminate, but also to help express the effect as if the character was thinking and feeling through singing, and the isolation from the world into another one.
Music was present live in the play, with the help of several musicians who where on the back of the stage. The main instruments used were an accordion, a piano, and a cello, which are traditional french instruments, further evoking the setting of the play and helping to create the atmosphere of it. The presence of live music helped to evoke the effect of a more pure music, instead of using pre-existing recordings that would not sound as good, and would take away the power of Piaf's singing. Being live gave more power to Piaf's songs as they sounded more personal, as if her emotions were creating the melody and she was singing on top of it, supporting her ideal of music being another world. It was interesting that in several songs that Piaf sang, there was no music played whatsoever, which seeks to emphasize more on the words and what she was trying to express, creating the effect as if she was talking and expressing her discomfort as a monologue, but singing it to escape from the tragedies.

There are several connections between our play and Piaf. For starters, the use of the live music and the traditional melodies is quite similar in both plays, as they imitate the French style, and we imitate the India one. Also, the use of the lighting to focus the main parts of the scenes, specially when singing, is similar to our focus on the royal dancers during the prologue and the ending to emphasize their narration, and take focus off the other elements on stage. Likewise, the idea of repeating part of the beginning in the end is also present in both plays, as we intend to repeat the first part of the prologue to bring together the timing of the play.

In conclusion, we can see that the play used singing and songs to portray the story and evoke the character's feelings and ideals, supported by the acting, design and structure of the play. Edith Piaf was greatly celebrated by her talent and amazing music, but she is also recognized by her tragic life full of suffering. Thus, the play intends to tell the story of her life, giving all aspects of it, and uses her most notable characteristic, her singing, to support their message, and thus bring her to life, bring her memory along with the play. The use of the singing succesfully brings the entire play to achieve its goal of bringing the memory of Piaf to live, because she is a singer, and what best way to do it by singing. Piaf used to say "death is the beginning of something", and in her case was her legacy as the French legend, which the actors intend to homage in the play.

"Je tiens à faire pleurer les gens, même quand ils ne comprennent pas mes mots"- Edith Piaf

Monologues 101

This past week, we worked mostly on correcting and improving all of the scenes from act 1, plus the first scene from act 2. We've also been working on production, as the we've purchased make-up, props and light filters. On the other hand, i've also worked mainly on Rama's monologue in scene 6, which was my main task for the past days.

When i first began working on the monologue, by writting it, i had the main idea and the purpose of it, but i had no idea what to say! I felt completely blocked, and it was hard to put my ideas into words, and most importantly, it was hard to let translate the characters feelings. I wrote several lines a few times, but none of them seemed to fit what we were trying to express, which was the idea of Rama being lost and weak, and asking for the gods to help him. Sometimes the monologue seemed a bit too disrespectful to the gods, which is completely out of place. Other times, some of the lines didn't really make sense, or weren't connected to our story. But the worst was when some lines simply sounded too cheesy, or too weird (spanish is weird, english is better...). I felt really frustrated, and it took me a while to construct the monologue and the scene itself.
Now writting the monologue was the simple part, acting it was the worst. At first, we staged the monologue as pretty straight forward; Rama speaking and then kneeling before the gods. The problem is, i didn't like it, there really was no movement whatsoever, and it didn't feel Kathakali enough. I felt like were weren't exploring the psicology of the monologue enough, and i was dissapointed. That's were the hardwork came in... We remade the entire monolgue (keeping the lines), and added a lot of mudras and acrobatics. In total i was using at least 30 mudras!
It really took me a lot of time to remember the sequence plus the words plus the mudras, and it was really hard. The first time i did it, i finnished exhausted, i could barely breathe or walk (my legs ache...). I guess now i can truly acknowledge how incredibly difficult and exhausting Kathakali is. Previously, i had done a lot of acrobatics, but not in a long sequence.
Learning lines is one thing, learing a sequence of actions is another, and learning a mudras sequence is another. But learning them altogether, that is an entirely different story. I feel very frustrated when i forget a line, or a movement, or even a mudra, because i'm trying to concentrate on doing it right, and bringing the three elements together, that i sometimes forget what comes next. I really need to work on it, and i think this challenge is good to push me even further.

I now know how screenwriters feel. I think that now that i've written from scratch a scene, with the monologue, i can certainly say i know how much work screenwritting is. In theatre, these guys have to write entire plays, whereas i only wrote one scene. Still i guess it was a great thing to experience what is like from the other side, instead of just learing the lines and acting. I think it gave me a new insight into the theatre making process. When we adapted the play, we never wrote any script, we worked within a structure and improvisations, so it was completely new for me to write. I think this is the moment were english literature class comes in handy, because i employed all of the knowledge i had on poetry and plays to construct a rich dialogue (or as rich as a Form V kid can), and give actual meaning and power to the words.
One key thing i've come to realize is that, the collective creation process is present always. I never really thought about it, but even the writters of play go through this process, because for example, the production team helped to correct some of the lines that sounded odd, and the base ideas to construct the script where brainstormed by the entire team. Now, concerning the staging of the monologue part, even though as an actor i proposed the first part of the sequence, it was Siu the one who helped implement the mudras, and the rest of the team to implement the acrobatics and other movement sequences. By the end, it was all of us the ones who shaped the entire monologue, not only me as the writer and the actor. Which has led me to wonder about how this works in real life with actual plays (like Broadway and stuff), because there are many scenes or even entire plays composed of monologues or single actor stagings, and more than one person helps to develop everything. It also happens when creating characters, for example; Gonzalo told me that it was the entire cast and a few extra helpers the one who helped Patricia Barreto with her Piaf accent and to enact her monologues and songs.
There is one thing that i have definitely improved in, and that is the intonation. I always follow the same rythm when delivering long lines, and thus monologues. But i think that the use of acrobatics and mudras have helped me to give different intonations to the lines so they fit the movements and mudras. I think that all elements on their own are very difficult to improve, because they never work alone. So when we put every element together, it all becomes magnificent.
I've also been wondering a lot about our own approach to kathakali, and i think this is as close as we have actually come to the tradition. We always use mudras in the scenes, but it's always a few, in this case we are using more than 30, and we're using them to tell the story and Rama's feelings. In Kathakali, the mudras supposedly tell the entire stories, and this is what we are doing. Also, the fact that we are implementing a lot of acrobatics and kalaripayattu movements puts us even closer to the tradition. But this is only one scene, so how can we improve the other scenes of the play to make them closer to the tradition? Should we implement more mudras, or even acrobatics? Should we dance more? If so, how will we be able to learn the choreagraphies in such a short time? Should we sing, and who would sing?

Cartas a Chimbote; Arguedas and music.

"Accompanying quietly the melody of the song, i remembered the fields and stones, squares and temples, small rivers where is was happy", said Jose María Arguedas, the famous peruvian poet, who inspired the play "Cartas de Chimbote", by Yuyachkani. In this play, the actors remembered the poet, and used several songs in both Spanish and Quechua, to evoke a sense of patriotism and memorial to the late Jose María Arguedas.

In the play, after reading some passages of Arguedas' letters, the actors began singing in Quechua, several songs that were related to the passage and thus Arguedas' life. The unison of the actors signing together created a sense of belonging and unity, as they were together signing for the late poet, and collaborating as one to remember and tribute him. Arguedas' was very patriotic, and believed in a working a united country, thus the characters evoke his ideal on stage by singing together to honor him. The main effect they were trying to explore was to evoke the memory of Arguedas; as he was recognize for spreading the Quechua literature and culture in his work. Moreover, when signing together in Quechua, they were trying to bring his memory to life through his work, for the audience to hear his songs and remember him, know his life work.

Several times, it was one actor the one who began singing, and slowly, the other actors joined in one by one, until all of them where singing. This approach to the convention of music creates the effect of inspiration, furthering the idea of Arguedas' memory. The poet's literary works brought a lot of inspiration to the peruvian community, as well as leaving a mark in peruvian literary history. Therefore, when the characters read the passages of Arguedas' letters, one of them would tend to feel inspired and moved by what he wrote, thus he or she began to sing. As a backlash, the other character's became inspired by the singing, and join altogether.
After the first half of the play, the characters began singing in Spanish, having a total of about four songs in this language, yet still alternating with Quechua. This changes into a different language create the sense of cultural knowledge, which fits into Arguedas' background as a poet in both languages. In a way, the alternating languages evoke the cultural diversity in Peru that Arguedas explores and imposes in his literary works. Additionally, the actors further bring his image to live as a Quechua and Spanish author.
It is interesting to notice that, probably none of the viewers know Quechua, and thus they are unaware of what the characters are singing. Moreover, it creates a sense of the unknown, of mystery in what Arguedas and the characters are trying to say, which reflects on Arguedas' very complicated and secretive life, ending in suicide.
The audience is aimed to be moved and touched by the songs, which the actors express their feelings to honor the late poet with, The songs mainly support what the read letters said, and make the audience understand more about his cultural greatness.
In the play, most of the music was live, and using only the voices of the actors. Such decision creates a sense of personal approach, of privacy, as it makes the memory of Arguedas more personal and alive. The singing characters, without the use of music connect with the audience more, and emphasises the idea of the group of people who are tributing the late poet.
However, some melodies are used to evoke an atmosphere in very specific moments of the play. For example, when the actors where only moving, and there was no specific talking or reading, the music created the atmosphere of memorial, honor, and even grief, through the soft tunes.
Also, it is noticeable that there where two main moments in which the actors played live music with instruments. The first one happened, when reading a letter from Arguedas about the industrial revolution in Chimbote, when a masked woman appeared on stage. She wore plastic bags as a cape, and a mask forming a skull, for which she represented the death of the sea. She was playing a white violin, playing sad and rythmic tunes, very peruvian like. The tunes emphazised the death of the sea, and the grief Arguedas explained in his letters. Additionally, the characters began tapping their feet with the floor, and set a strong repetitive rhythm. Such melody seeked to evoke the effect of the factories that where on Chimbote, reinforcing the Death of the Sea character and her grieving music.
The second moment,happened towards the end of the play, where the characters of the Upper fox and the Lower fox present themselves and talk about their lives and role in Arguedas' life and novel. The female characters used several traditional Peruvian instruments, such as the flute and the conch, among others. They played strong yet short melodies, with a very cutting rhythm, which emphasized the fight, or rather discussion, between the foxes. However, being traditional and cultural instruments, they created reinforced the cultural views of the representations of the foxes, and served as a cultural call to hear what the foxes had to say.

In Kathakali, music is feautured by the singing actors, instead of dialogue, and the drums that are played and carried by characters. In "Cartas de Chimbote", music was a major factor to evoke the memory and honor of Arguedas, and similarly, in Kathakali, music is one of the two most important factors to tell the stories and guide the dances and choreographs that make up the play. In both cases, music is presented live, and the actors are the ones to sing, even though in Kathakali there is no dialogue whatsoever. One major difference, is that there is a major, if not entirely, use of percussion in Kathakali to reinforce the strong actions and sequences, whereas in Yuyachkani's play, there was almost no percussion used, to create the opposite effect of calmness and memory. One great similarity between the two, is the use of traditional instruments from the local culture, which create a sense of patriotism and belonging, to bring to life the memory and honor either a late poet or a religion, both for the sake of cultural tradition.

On the other hand, our play has a different approach to the use of music. Given we are following Kathalali as a starting point, all of the songs will feature percussion, to emphasize the strenght of the characters, the situations and the action sequences. However, we are not using the traditional instrument, unlike Kathakali and "Cartas de Chimbote", as we cannot afford to buy them nor find them in time. Still, just like Yuyachkani's play, we will feature live music, but no pre recorded music whatsoever. Our school bad and orchestra will be playing the instruments and the melodies, instead of the actors, as we are not trained to play major instruments, as well as taking focus from the main action of the play. The live music seeks to create a much more vivid effect of the play, for it to feel more real to the audience, by creating different atmospheres that collaborate with the other design elements. Our music will remain Indian to create the atmosphere of the setting of the play, and thus reinforce the cultural value we are trying to present.
Another great difference is that of the number of songs played during the play. In our case, we will only feauture around 5 or 6 main songs, which will be repeated for their own purposes, for example there will be a song for every demon appearance, and a song for the palaces. This idea serves for the audience to relate the song to the characters, for them to undestand better which character is which, as well as being familiar with the atmosphere of the plot, according to the scene. Additionally, none of this songs will have singing in them, contrary to the tradition and to "Cartas de Chimbote", as our actors are not trained to sing, much less in Sanskrit. However, the lack of singing will draw more attention on the physicallity of the characters, and the dialogue. which is of major importance for the audience to understand the plot.

After the play ended, i realized that the music they played, was very similar to what we were looking for in ours. The ideal of keeping tradition alive, as Arguedas wanted, and making the audience feel the rhythm, and be moved by it. To be proud and to spread the word about the culture. We are following, to a certain extent, a theatre tradition that has hundreds of years, to keep this tradition alive and show it to the peruvian society, to our school's society. Now, in terms of music, we don't have the main instruments, the traditional drums, to achieve the esscence of Kathakali music. Thus i wonder, how can we keep the esscence of the music, without the main instruments? Yuyachkani managed to do it by singing in Quechua and then playing traditional instruments. And even though Kathakali is just our starting point and we are drifting a bit from the tradition to adapt to our availability, how will we manage to keep it "indian enough"? Will a couple of drums and violins do? Should we use pre recorded music at some moments, to mantain a more traditional atmosphere? Or should we copy original Kathakali music and adapt it to our instruments? Wouldn't that take out from the creative process of the musicians?