Hebras.... lalallaalala
hmmmm no se, eeeh no se de que hablaaaaaaar y no se why i was writing in spanish
sfol;kass oon wednesday... we stayed after school to watch roberto's play: Hebras. We entered the stage and we smelled the *insert english name of the smell here* which sets the mood very quickly. Lights... at the centre shining from above, and the lights turned off... actors in... lights on. play starts
Actors use a blank mask to get rid of all traits, audience identification and facial expression, this is because the characters are just individuals... could be anyone since they are no one and the spectator gives the meaning to their actions... the spectator in his brains builds the character which could be anyone, as the actions and sequences done by the actos could be anything and it is up to the actor and his memory, understanding and emotions to see what he/she wants to see.
I will now talk more about the desindividualization (word that seems not to be in the dictionary so... yeah... you will understand right?) ok... sooo this idea, as far as i understand, ( i will summarize it for when i read this again next year i can remember) is that 1 man can represent different personalities and at the same can represent no personality at all by abstracting him to the point that he/she has no traits, and therefore can change into anything, or be representing anything at the same time as it is representing nothing. That is my definition of it. In a shor phrase: Being nothing can lead you to be representing anything and everything at the same time. - desindividualization, ta daaah
the play (its not 3am, but its 12:30 so it is still a good time to blog :D) made differet spectators, as they mentioned after the play, that they undrstood different things and could relate it to different situations. I would say it funny if it wasn't that they were bliss to the background information that they were asking trying to find out what was the REAL situation that was happening, while it was supposed to be that way.
You long ago told me that is was impossible to make a play that could mean completely different things to different audiences (in one of my blogs) but now you make a play that does that... OOH THE IRONY
okay so yes.. indeed... a mask will let a actor get rids of all traits and let him perform as something else. If the "mask" does not help the actor to transform his performance, then it is not a mask... but a prop or make up. When an actor puts a mask on, he has to rely more on the body, as the body will change the emotion on the mask, so the body changes the mask in a certain way, but does the mask changes the body? If it does... to what extent does a mask will change the body of an actor? Does the body rely on the mask also?
ASDIJOF;LASDKFSADL se me borro todo... pero justo lo copie, OH SI
domingo, 27 de noviembre de 2011
lunes, 21 de noviembre de 2011
Words without actions serve only to lie.
ITS TIEM
uuhh, i liked the play :) yay.
3:06 am... play review time!
The first impression of the play was given by the 3 girls in the chairs. Throughout the play i noticed that these 3 women where not characters, but rather feelings. I forgot the name of the type os theatre this was... but it was a kind of greek theatre in which actors do not represent characters, but feelings, or virtues/characteristics, whatever you wanna call them. They also served as narrators, additional characters, and abstract thinking (... at least that is how i like to name it). They are flat characters though, as they do not change parallel to the development of the play, but rather do different roles which do not change. Adding to this, they were also the backstage, in the way that they moved the props and scenery. But not only that... they were ALSO part of the scenery. In my opinion... the best part and most important of the play. For example, when Filoctetes was standing on the middle of the stage and the 3 women were doing some loop movements like dancing around him which game a very cool and impressive look visually, you would not get the same impression if they wouldn't be there. The bow. oooh the freaking bow... i bet half of the audience questioned themselves "WHY IS SHE CARRYING THE BOW? THAT MAKES NO SENSE" because... it was not really explicit that the women were not characters, it was not explicit that they did not exist. well... they did exist, they were just... not there. But anyhow... the vision by the director seemed to me very concrete. And he definitely saw these three women as much more use than a simple chorus... which i reckon was their original purpose on stage.
Odysseus...he sucks. I did not like how he acts... he... is... boring. I noticed him using the Awkward hands WAY TOO MUCH. it was pathetic. Shame on him, he sucks. He walked like a normal person. his face expression was stupid, and his movements had no purpose and were meaningless.
There was a lot of subtext involved in the script parts for Filoctetes and Neoptolemo. I personally liked how they performed their characters and was well worth it going to see this play. Uhhh they were well into character. the walking, the reactions, the voice, the subtext... blah blah etc pim puf paf. You could see how Filoctetes (no se que Isola i think was the actor) had worked on how his wound affected his character; physically and internally. although yes, he sometimes seemed to have forgotten COMPLETELY about his feet. like once he sat on the floor and placed his body weight on top of his wounded foot... uuhmm WTF YOUR FUCKING FOOT IS BLEEDING. ARE YOU A BLOODY RETARD OF SOME SHIT LIKE THAT? but still... apart from that little stupid flaw... it went well and flowed with ease, he did not seem very concerned, he seemed to have gotten into character very... deeply. stomp stomp stomp stomp stomp i summon you fire god or whatever, i think he could had found a better action for "summoning" the god.... instead of stomping the floor. But well...moving on
Neoptolemo had the ONE prop which was completely useless... the HELMET. yeah... it was useless and stupid. He wore it at the beginning for no real good reason... just to take it off and leave it there. They should had bought some arrows instead... where were the arrows? low on budget? THEN DON'T BUY A USELESS HELMET BLOODY HELL. But ok... i can handle it. that was ok, at least it looked decent. He was the most dynamic character in the play, and hell he was dynamic, his subtext work was hardcore...he could had mastered it more though, but it was pretty harsh so i will give it to him this time... (so strict... too many theatre classes) AAANYWAYS i liked how when his characters was confused or changing he had some slow motion seizure of some sort in which the upper part of his body moved freakishly around the chorus women. But it was understandable... and freed them from having no actions as Filoctetes spoke.
Costumes were fine... they were really cool, and i saw the concept behind, which the dry colors of the costumes contrasted with the dresses of the chorus to differentiate reality from abstract ideas in the play. Odysseus had white... white was not part of the concept in costumes to the extent that i could perceive... and anyhow, he sucks... so who cares. he can wear whatever he wants for all i care...
The projecting wasn't really necessary... but did help with the atmosphere a little bit. It was ok, could had worked without it, but it worked with it, so what the hell, why not. I really liked the play. The ideas in the chorus verses were really good philosophical questioning that made me start thinking a lot about greek minds...
OH YEAH... the music was PERFECT, it went INCREDIBLY well with the concept and the atmosphere. specially with the rhythm of the play and actions. ALTHOUUGH there was a sound effect went the smoke appeared that was really annoying and stupid... and did not fit the concept. but was magical and godly and shit so why not... i have noticed i use too many bad words in blogs... I SHALL USE LESS... and apologize for the ones i said before. FUCK YEAH... i mean... INDEED.
Well i really don't remember much more so i have nothing else to say.
okthxbye
By the way... this is a play review more than a blog entry so no final question right?
uuhh, i liked the play :) yay.
3:06 am... play review time!
The first impression of the play was given by the 3 girls in the chairs. Throughout the play i noticed that these 3 women where not characters, but rather feelings. I forgot the name of the type os theatre this was... but it was a kind of greek theatre in which actors do not represent characters, but feelings, or virtues/characteristics, whatever you wanna call them. They also served as narrators, additional characters, and abstract thinking (... at least that is how i like to name it). They are flat characters though, as they do not change parallel to the development of the play, but rather do different roles which do not change. Adding to this, they were also the backstage, in the way that they moved the props and scenery. But not only that... they were ALSO part of the scenery. In my opinion... the best part and most important of the play. For example, when Filoctetes was standing on the middle of the stage and the 3 women were doing some loop movements like dancing around him which game a very cool and impressive look visually, you would not get the same impression if they wouldn't be there. The bow. oooh the freaking bow... i bet half of the audience questioned themselves "WHY IS SHE CARRYING THE BOW? THAT MAKES NO SENSE" because... it was not really explicit that the women were not characters, it was not explicit that they did not exist. well... they did exist, they were just... not there. But anyhow... the vision by the director seemed to me very concrete. And he definitely saw these three women as much more use than a simple chorus... which i reckon was their original purpose on stage.
Odysseus...he sucks. I did not like how he acts... he... is... boring. I noticed him using the Awkward hands WAY TOO MUCH. it was pathetic. Shame on him, he sucks. He walked like a normal person. his face expression was stupid, and his movements had no purpose and were meaningless.
There was a lot of subtext involved in the script parts for Filoctetes and Neoptolemo. I personally liked how they performed their characters and was well worth it going to see this play. Uhhh they were well into character. the walking, the reactions, the voice, the subtext... blah blah etc pim puf paf. You could see how Filoctetes (no se que Isola i think was the actor) had worked on how his wound affected his character; physically and internally. although yes, he sometimes seemed to have forgotten COMPLETELY about his feet. like once he sat on the floor and placed his body weight on top of his wounded foot... uuhmm WTF YOUR FUCKING FOOT IS BLEEDING. ARE YOU A BLOODY RETARD OF SOME SHIT LIKE THAT? but still... apart from that little stupid flaw... it went well and flowed with ease, he did not seem very concerned, he seemed to have gotten into character very... deeply. stomp stomp stomp stomp stomp i summon you fire god or whatever, i think he could had found a better action for "summoning" the god.... instead of stomping the floor. But well...moving on
Neoptolemo had the ONE prop which was completely useless... the HELMET. yeah... it was useless and stupid. He wore it at the beginning for no real good reason... just to take it off and leave it there. They should had bought some arrows instead... where were the arrows? low on budget? THEN DON'T BUY A USELESS HELMET BLOODY HELL. But ok... i can handle it. that was ok, at least it looked decent. He was the most dynamic character in the play, and hell he was dynamic, his subtext work was hardcore...he could had mastered it more though, but it was pretty harsh so i will give it to him this time... (so strict... too many theatre classes) AAANYWAYS i liked how when his characters was confused or changing he had some slow motion seizure of some sort in which the upper part of his body moved freakishly around the chorus women. But it was understandable... and freed them from having no actions as Filoctetes spoke.
Costumes were fine... they were really cool, and i saw the concept behind, which the dry colors of the costumes contrasted with the dresses of the chorus to differentiate reality from abstract ideas in the play. Odysseus had white... white was not part of the concept in costumes to the extent that i could perceive... and anyhow, he sucks... so who cares. he can wear whatever he wants for all i care...
The projecting wasn't really necessary... but did help with the atmosphere a little bit. It was ok, could had worked without it, but it worked with it, so what the hell, why not. I really liked the play. The ideas in the chorus verses were really good philosophical questioning that made me start thinking a lot about greek minds...
OH YEAH... the music was PERFECT, it went INCREDIBLY well with the concept and the atmosphere. specially with the rhythm of the play and actions. ALTHOUUGH there was a sound effect went the smoke appeared that was really annoying and stupid... and did not fit the concept. but was magical and godly and shit so why not... i have noticed i use too many bad words in blogs... I SHALL USE LESS... and apologize for the ones i said before. FUCK YEAH... i mean... INDEED.
Well i really don't remember much more so i have nothing else to say.
okthxbye
By the way... this is a play review more than a blog entry so no final question right?
domingo, 13 de noviembre de 2011
Scripts... You are doing it wrong.
Writing a script is not as easy as it seems.
Well yeah, everyone can write a script, anyone can take 2 or more names and give lines to each characters. But thats not the point. You need your script to be DESTROYED AND RE WRITTEN by Roberto to learn :D right? >.>
What i have learned:
The 5 commandments for writing scripts according to Roberto:
1) You shall not write too much description about the actions.
2) You Shall always work on the subtext before than the line.
3) If there shall be a chorus, thou shall make them say lines, not sounds.
4) Thou shall make stage directions short and clear.
5) It Shall not matter how great your script it. Roberto will always change it.
Charles: I BEG TO DIFFER.
Judge: How dare you speak like that? You should always agree with the commandments. They have been set upon us from the Theatre God: Roberto.
Charles: I DON'T BELEIVE SUCH NONSENSE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Judge: Such disrespectful words can get you into big trouble.
JURY: GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS INMORTAL. GOD IS REAL.
(Charles stomps the floor)
Charles: I have heard enough of all this nonsense. I have had enough of living with this false traditions.
Judge: The excommunication will do you well. The suffering that awaits for you in hell shall be your punishment.
Charles: (Laughs) You really beleive that shit... how sorry I feel for you.
JURY: YOU WILL BURN IN HELL. YOU WILL SUFFER IN HELL. YOUR SOUL WILL BURN IN HELL.
Judge: I'M SICK OF YOU! (hammers the table) tell us, why do you say we, who follow our father in tue skies, are wrong. And you... the only one who thinks differently is right?
Charles: because The 5 commandments are wrong. A playwright is supposed to make the script according to his vision of the play. Making the script more detailed will limit the actor with the character he is exploring, because a certain stage direction will make the actor follow it, giving him what could be called a rule.
Judge: Stop! What is your point?
Charles: (moving) if you give a very detailed stage direction then you limit the actors interpretation of the character. This can be used by a playwright that wants his play to be performed in a certain way. But you can also write stage direction which are more free to interpretation. such as "moving" or you can try to make the. reader. read. a. certain. part. slower. to give him a different first impression as you can also make reader faster more dynamic text first impression text.
And the same way as the playwright can make his script free to interpretation as limit the interpretation, if there are rules for the playwright to write upon, then it is limiting the imagination of the playwright. If someone wants to write in a certain way it may have a purpose for being that way. if u wantz it to saund ztupid u wrait in bad grammars, while in the other hand, you could very well write in a very classy, or if i may, sophisticated way to change the image the reader will create of the character. For example, this last paragraph is contradicting as it says that the playwright should not limit the actors interpretation of the character by saying that the playwright can make the reader see the character different. it causes confusion and that is another technique, that goes against the rules, and can be used if the author was free to write whatever he wants.
JURY: EXILE HIM NOW. MAKE HIM LEAVE NOW.
Judge: No! let him finish.
Charles: The point is that there should be no rules on how to write a script, because if there are rules, you are limiting the playwright as the playwright will then limit the actor reading the script. These rules should be abolished and so give much more freedom to write a script. Because otherwise, you are limiting the vast techniques a playwright could use to write a script.
Judge: You are an anarchist. You shall me exiled right away. This case is closed. I'm tired of listening to your nonsense.
JURY: DO RULES LIMIT IMAGINATION OR DO RULES MAKE IT INTERPRETED IN A RANGE OF IDEAS? SHOULD WE LIMIT THE READER OR LET HIM MAKE HIS OWN CHARACTER? TO WHAT EXTENT IS MAKING THE SCRIPT LIMITING GOOD AND WHERE DOES IT START TO BE CLOSED AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS?
Lights out. applauses. Charles screams.
Well yeah, everyone can write a script, anyone can take 2 or more names and give lines to each characters. But thats not the point. You need your script to be DESTROYED AND RE WRITTEN by Roberto to learn :D right? >.>
What i have learned:
The 5 commandments for writing scripts according to Roberto:
1) You shall not write too much description about the actions.
2) You Shall always work on the subtext before than the line.
3) If there shall be a chorus, thou shall make them say lines, not sounds.
4) Thou shall make stage directions short and clear.
5) It Shall not matter how great your script it. Roberto will always change it.
Charles: I BEG TO DIFFER.
Judge: How dare you speak like that? You should always agree with the commandments. They have been set upon us from the Theatre God: Roberto.
Charles: I DON'T BELEIVE SUCH NONSENSE. GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Judge: Such disrespectful words can get you into big trouble.
JURY: GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS INMORTAL. GOD IS REAL.
(Charles stomps the floor)
Charles: I have heard enough of all this nonsense. I have had enough of living with this false traditions.
Judge: The excommunication will do you well. The suffering that awaits for you in hell shall be your punishment.
Charles: (Laughs) You really beleive that shit... how sorry I feel for you.
JURY: YOU WILL BURN IN HELL. YOU WILL SUFFER IN HELL. YOUR SOUL WILL BURN IN HELL.
Judge: I'M SICK OF YOU! (hammers the table) tell us, why do you say we, who follow our father in tue skies, are wrong. And you... the only one who thinks differently is right?
Charles: because The 5 commandments are wrong. A playwright is supposed to make the script according to his vision of the play. Making the script more detailed will limit the actor with the character he is exploring, because a certain stage direction will make the actor follow it, giving him what could be called a rule.
Judge: Stop! What is your point?
Charles: (moving) if you give a very detailed stage direction then you limit the actors interpretation of the character. This can be used by a playwright that wants his play to be performed in a certain way. But you can also write stage direction which are more free to interpretation. such as "moving" or you can try to make the. reader. read. a. certain. part. slower. to give him a different first impression as you can also make reader faster more dynamic text first impression text.
And the same way as the playwright can make his script free to interpretation as limit the interpretation, if there are rules for the playwright to write upon, then it is limiting the imagination of the playwright. If someone wants to write in a certain way it may have a purpose for being that way. if u wantz it to saund ztupid u wrait in bad grammars, while in the other hand, you could very well write in a very classy, or if i may, sophisticated way to change the image the reader will create of the character. For example, this last paragraph is contradicting as it says that the playwright should not limit the actors interpretation of the character by saying that the playwright can make the reader see the character different. it causes confusion and that is another technique, that goes against the rules, and can be used if the author was free to write whatever he wants.
JURY: EXILE HIM NOW. MAKE HIM LEAVE NOW.
Judge: No! let him finish.
Charles: The point is that there should be no rules on how to write a script, because if there are rules, you are limiting the playwright as the playwright will then limit the actor reading the script. These rules should be abolished and so give much more freedom to write a script. Because otherwise, you are limiting the vast techniques a playwright could use to write a script.
Judge: You are an anarchist. You shall me exiled right away. This case is closed. I'm tired of listening to your nonsense.
JURY: DO RULES LIMIT IMAGINATION OR DO RULES MAKE IT INTERPRETED IN A RANGE OF IDEAS? SHOULD WE LIMIT THE READER OR LET HIM MAKE HIS OWN CHARACTER? TO WHAT EXTENT IS MAKING THE SCRIPT LIMITING GOOD AND WHERE DOES IT START TO BE CLOSED AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS?
Lights out. applauses. Charles screams.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)