lunes, 16 de julio de 2012
lunes, 9 de julio de 2012
domingo, 8 de julio de 2012
If a tree falls in the forest but there is no one to hear it... did it make any sound?
If a play is performed but there is no one to watch it... is it theatre?
I do not know.
Theatre is done when the audience reacts to a play. If a play cannot transmit its purpose to anyone... it is a play, but it is not fiatah.
It is. It is for the spectator. And the actor?
Well he. The actor. He actor learns. And they. The audience. They enjoy, create the theatre.
Or do they?
It gets to a point where it is ridiculous to try to explain why the audience is so necessary for a play.
Yes. You need an audience. Why?
Because theatre is social. It is done for spectator and not for the actor.
Indeed. You need to adapt to the audience.
Blasphemy. You say the audience needs to adapt to the play?
Bollocks. I say the play changes and adapts itself for every audience.
Simon does not say. He is locked up in my basement.
The play will be received differently by every audience. It can't be a 'bad' or a 'good' play. It is just a play. The spectator decides if it was good or not. You do not. You do not.
Applause, laughter, shouts, silence, and other reactions are what make the play 'good'.
Theatre is not 'bad' or 'good' until it is on stage with a filled auditorium. Before and after it is just a play. Who is to speak of its quality but the spectator, who you are presenting it to? You don't force the client to like your product, the client decided whether to buy it or not. Whether its good or not.
You do not. You do not. The client/spectator is always right.
Theatre is measured from the inertial frame of reference of every spectator.
'C'est la vie' say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell.
No final question
If a play is performed but there is no one to watch it... is it theatre?
I do not know.
Theatre is done when the audience reacts to a play. If a play cannot transmit its purpose to anyone... it is a play, but it is not fiatah.
It is. It is for the spectator. And the actor?
Well he. The actor. He actor learns. And they. The audience. They enjoy, create the theatre.
Or do they?
It gets to a point where it is ridiculous to try to explain why the audience is so necessary for a play.
Yes. You need an audience. Why?
Because theatre is social. It is done for spectator and not for the actor.
Indeed. You need to adapt to the audience.
Blasphemy. You say the audience needs to adapt to the play?
Bollocks. I say the play changes and adapts itself for every audience.
Simon does not say. He is locked up in my basement.
The play will be received differently by every audience. It can't be a 'bad' or a 'good' play. It is just a play. The spectator decides if it was good or not. You do not. You do not.
Applause, laughter, shouts, silence, and other reactions are what make the play 'good'.
Theatre is not 'bad' or 'good' until it is on stage with a filled auditorium. Before and after it is just a play. Who is to speak of its quality but the spectator, who you are presenting it to? You don't force the client to like your product, the client decided whether to buy it or not. Whether its good or not.
You do not. You do not. The client/spectator is always right.
Theatre is measured from the inertial frame of reference of every spectator.
'C'est la vie' say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell.
No final question
lunes, 2 de julio de 2012
R2D2 and 3CPO discuss about theatre with an interesting phone call from Johnny
Attempt 1:
Attempt 1 - You are not prepared
Attempt 2:
Attempt 2 - Johnny calls
Stars wars intro: Fernando Rojas (AKA Panetón)
Narrator: Nicolas Coppellotti
Attempt 1 - You are not prepared
Attempt 2:
Attempt 2 - Johnny calls
Stars wars intro: Fernando Rojas (AKA Panetón)
Narrator: Nicolas Coppellotti
domingo, 24 de junio de 2012
domingo, 17 de junio de 2012
Death Week
El nina carro nos lleva.... esta semana moriremos :D
Directing the play I found my limitations, my difficulties, my fails. This, as a learning experience to know more about how theatre works. The "common sense"directing basics, such as:
Directing the play I found my limitations, my difficulties, my fails. This, as a learning experience to know more about how theatre works. The "common sense"directing basics, such as:
- No upstaging
- Pronunciation / volume / speak slowly / intonation
- No monologues (unless making it work)
- Counter scene
- Awkward time
- There always has to be something happening on stage
- Not cinema. Other possibilities
- Actions and reactions
- Transitions
are not easy to combine.
This week is the last chance to apply it all... 3 more rehearsals and thursday we have the premier.
There is where I will be able to reflect about the whole process.
There is where I will be able to reflect about the whole process.
I don't know if people are going to enjoy it as much as last year's play.
I find it difficult to reflect on what I'm doing as a director right now while directing.
Why?
(maybe because I don't really know if im doing it right o wrong and I wil not until it finishes)
(maybe because I don't really know if im doing it right o wrong and I wil not until it finishes)
I'm probably doing it wrong.
What can I learn from doing it wrong?
miércoles, 6 de junio de 2012
Chasing, upside down, what is beneath
Directing sucks if you are not mean enough to forget people have emotions...
Discharge the rage on the weak
That is my blog for directing. Nothing else to say.
The furthermore would be redundant, duff.
Here is a fun quote to change the topic of this blog:
"I'm thinking of imagining" - Kevin Thompson
Discharge the rage on the weak
That is my blog for directing. Nothing else to say.
The furthermore would be redundant, duff.
Here is a fun quote to change the topic of this blog:
"I'm thinking of imagining" - Kevin Thompson
In the shadows, something creeps
the power, the reign
On the stage, the life takes identity
take control, unleash the spade
The domain behind one's mask
Pull your face out
restrain the heart from leaping
Breathe in, Breathe out
Is this only what I see?
May the reflection copy the shape
Creeping unceasingly
It sprouts a wonder
A rustling
It sprouts a wonder
A rustling
When a shadow replaces,
Does the other exchange places?
lunes, 21 de mayo de 2012
Wrapping up the candy
Is there a BEST way of doing physicall work or it depends on the actor and his body?
Still i wonder, What is better? Doing many characters or just 1? If you do many characters, can you reach the same level for each one that you would if you were only doing one? Is it best to do just 1 and really well or is it best to do many characters? But all at the same level of mastery as if you would be doing 1?
It is time to wrap things up, develop ideas, answer questions and I JUST HAD A BRILLIANT IDEA.
to prepare for the oral, can I, instead of blogging like this, can i blog in youtube? blog with videos to start practicing for my oral?
MOVING ON.
the 2 questions above are questions I asked myself on my first blogs from the beginning of the previous year, when i was starting to study theatre in the IB. I now wish to see how far my understanding have reached by trying to answer them and see if I have found the answers during my experience in the IB.
I will begin to discard the idea of only being the best in 1 character. Theatre, according to what I believe i have learned, is not about convincing the audience that you are someone else (that comes because yes) (because yes = porque si), but it is to be able to transmit the desired feeling on to the audience.
The idea of working on 1 character and learning from the inside and becoming that character was studied and applied by stanislavski, who at the end of his career he rejected it because he realized it was not the best way to do theatre. the process in which you learn and build a character is not just to perform the character, but to learn from the character. I don't like when people do things for the audience, but rather for themselves. Its like music, music does not work when it is done for the audience, but rather to experiment for themselves.
There is no best way to do physical work for a character, because each character is different and demands a different approach. For each character you need to explore how to make it work and find exercises that will allow you to achieve it. The type of physical work will not be static as you change character, because for example, you may be in a play in which part of your body is not seen, or part of your body should not move, or the character demands something form your body which you are not used to and you need to achieve this.
All the exploring for a character would not be productive but a waste of time if it required the same as a previous character, because you would not be learning anything, and therefore you are taking away a big part of what acting and theatre is: exploring and learning. If you keep performing characters that demand the same from your body, you are getting nowhere, but rather getting stuck in the whole process.
Is there a beginning? Should actors learn one thing before the other? For example should an actor learn western theatre before occidental theatre such as Noh? NOH LUCA NOH. (reference to the No Luca No game). This would mean that kabuki actors are not able to learn western theatre. Both are really different. Different explorations and different approaches to theatre, lead to different learning. Does it actually lead to different learning? Most people get to the same conclusion about many things but doing different things wrong which teaches them what is right. Maybe, just maybe, different types of theatres just teach the same in a different way.
(the last sentence was not a question as I'm now trying to answer my previous blog questions to start developing ideas for my oral presentation)
domingo, 29 de abril de 2012
Learning as a director: Volume #1
Chapter 1: Choreography
I'm useless at choreographies. Visuals and I do not get along as pancake and syrup.
Solution #1: Dictatorship
Shout at the performers to do it well... or to just do it. Avoid distractions and don't allow yourself to laugh at their jokes or be fooled by their excuses. Stupid people will think you are stupid.
Summary: Be cruel, be feared.
This solution does not work.
Solution #2: Uninterested
Let them work on their own. Come up with something and they show it to show. Then you perform solution #1, and tell them to do more. At the end, you fix, cut, add, change some details and say you did it.
This is what many people do. Doesn't work.
Solution #3: Focus group
Converse with the performers what they should do and how to tacle to objective. Everyone gives their ideas and then they perform it. This method will make the performers believe they have more power and vote than what they actually do, though, and may lead to distraction. Also, they will never come to a unison decision on what to do unless you tell them.
Therefore, this solution is stupid.
Solution #4: The tree
Performers than work: Stay
Performers that don't work: Put them as trees on the stage.
Performers that don't like to be trees: Will leave voluntarily
Flawless.
What is the best way to approach directing to young unprofessional performers?
I'm useless at choreographies. Visuals and I do not get along as pancake and syrup.
Solution #1: Dictatorship
Shout at the performers to do it well... or to just do it. Avoid distractions and don't allow yourself to laugh at their jokes or be fooled by their excuses. Stupid people will think you are stupid.
Summary: Be cruel, be feared.
This solution does not work.
Solution #2: Uninterested
Let them work on their own. Come up with something and they show it to show. Then you perform solution #1, and tell them to do more. At the end, you fix, cut, add, change some details and say you did it.
This is what many people do. Doesn't work.
Solution #3: Focus group
Converse with the performers what they should do and how to tacle to objective. Everyone gives their ideas and then they perform it. This method will make the performers believe they have more power and vote than what they actually do, though, and may lead to distraction. Also, they will never come to a unison decision on what to do unless you tell them.
Therefore, this solution is stupid.
Solution #4: The tree
Performers than work: Stay
Performers that don't work: Put them as trees on the stage.
Performers that don't like to be trees: Will leave voluntarily
Flawless.
What is the best way to approach directing to young unprofessional performers?
domingo, 22 de abril de 2012
Royal Betrayal
Violence for power. Power for good. Power for bad. Power from violence.
Violence, don't try to deny it, is and approach to entertainment. Its instinctively entertaining. We are just thought that it is morally wrong... so we have to learn to control it and we see it on movies, plays, games, etc.
Is it arbitrary to say that all entertainment comes from violence but I will say that most of it does. And here I turn the corner to the block of the play. We always have an epic fight. People like power rangers. People like chuck norris, star wars, harry potter, bullfighting, football, wrestling, pulp fiction... etc...etc...etc.
We require to have our epic fight in order to please the audience, which are expecting it so anxiously through the whole play. Every kids dreams to have super powers. Superman, Hulk, Spiderman. Ever wonder why they are so popular among kids and no one reads romantic comics? It is just how we are. We like violence, but are trained to control it.
We require to have our epic fight in order to please the audience, which are expecting it so anxiously through the whole play. Every kids dreams to have super powers. Superman, Hulk, Spiderman. Ever wonder why they are so popular among kids and no one reads romantic comics? It is just how we are. We like violence, but are trained to control it.
Hold your four-legged-living-transport. I never, if it crosses your mind, said it is the only entertainment. There is comedy, romance, violence, fun, alcohol, drugs, monopoly, some people even find porn entertaining (which is none of my business). But we can't play monopoly with the audience, we can't have super powers (some) we can't have a bullfight in the theatre, we cant do drugs, get wasted, and even less show porn in a school play ( This is not Botanica ).
We rely on suspense for a long awaited epic battle. No battle, no fun. Now to think about it... To what extent are those who claim that the arts are the opposite of violence wrong? I claim violence can be an art itself. To what extent can that be applied for entertainment?
P.S. the title is a suggestion for the name of the play.
P.S. the title is a suggestion for the name of the play.
lunes, 16 de abril de 2012
Applied Jerzy Grotowski vs XXI century puberty
3:50 am. 2 litres of coke (beverage of course... before you pun me into a discussion). This is going to be a fun blog to write...
Why is it actors and actresses feel ashamed of their body when on stage? It is just yer body matey... its yer tool. Open up your toolbox and take out your hammer, screwdriver and body.
and some nails... you are going to need the nails.
Now lets say that acting in puberty is like hammering a screwdriver. Or screwdriving a horse. It may work, but you should not do it. Puberty is not prepared for Grotowski as the horse is not prepared for the screwdriver. The actors will make you end up like the horse... screwed.
(oh how I love to play with language)
At this stage people are hugely influenced by outer influences, specially, mostly, or maybe even only, what others think about them. They can't, and won't do many things that are capable of because they are being watched. What is this fear to exposure?
In stage you are not you. You are a body in movement. or so they say. but "They talk a lot" - Uma Thurman
body. movement. actions. purpose. transmit something to audience. In a nutshell. Why should an actor be afraid or ashamed of his/her body?
It is puberty. this stage where everyone is like "no, i don't wanna. they are gonna laugh at me. They are gonna call me gay. They are going to hit my weewee" Grow up. That is one of the hardest things to work with in a school play. 12 - 17 year old people... HELL YEAH. There is no will to explore further from what is not laughable.
Apply some grotowski to the outer shell of the cannonball. shoot at target.
*WARNING: If in puberty, this may have no effects.
No energy. No explore. No ideas. No actions. No fap Artaud.
How can we teach puberty to forget about the outer influences? How can we take away the observer. Make puberty see no eyes judging it. This would speed the process of exploration and creating a school play much faster. exponential growth please. But what does puberty wants when it stays to rehearsals? Intriguing to think it is fun, or to be seen by the audience.
Ironic isn't it? They want to be seen, but they don't like it to be seen doing "funny" things. Oh puberty, you so silly. Confessing I do find some empathy within myself to understand this. Is autoesteem the solution to the mixture? will it dissolve? Or will these bits stay in the liquid which will only obstacle us.
I just wonder. I just wonder.
I just dare to think this is impossible. The other path leads the way.
How can we take away the embarrassment and leave the tool on stage? Kill puberty and hammer the nails. (I told you we were going to need them)
How can we make puberty turn its eyes inside out and brainwash outer influences? Make an efficient actor out of puberty. At least for a while, big enough time balloon to stay on the air until the 4th of July. Then it can explode with the rest of the fireworks. But where can we find this air to fill the balloon that is going to make it levitate enough time?
Sorry about the strange language... I'm exploring that myself :P
and I have watched too much Stephen Fry
DFTBA
Why is it actors and actresses feel ashamed of their body when on stage? It is just yer body matey... its yer tool. Open up your toolbox and take out your hammer, screwdriver and body.
and some nails... you are going to need the nails.
Now lets say that acting in puberty is like hammering a screwdriver. Or screwdriving a horse. It may work, but you should not do it. Puberty is not prepared for Grotowski as the horse is not prepared for the screwdriver. The actors will make you end up like the horse... screwed.
(oh how I love to play with language)
At this stage people are hugely influenced by outer influences, specially, mostly, or maybe even only, what others think about them. They can't, and won't do many things that are capable of because they are being watched. What is this fear to exposure?
In stage you are not you. You are a body in movement. or so they say. but "They talk a lot" - Uma Thurman
body. movement. actions. purpose. transmit something to audience. In a nutshell. Why should an actor be afraid or ashamed of his/her body?
It is puberty. this stage where everyone is like "no, i don't wanna. they are gonna laugh at me. They are gonna call me gay. They are going to hit my weewee" Grow up. That is one of the hardest things to work with in a school play. 12 - 17 year old people... HELL YEAH. There is no will to explore further from what is not laughable.
Apply some grotowski to the outer shell of the cannonball. shoot at target.
*WARNING: If in puberty, this may have no effects.
No energy. No explore. No ideas. No actions. No fap Artaud.
How can we teach puberty to forget about the outer influences? How can we take away the observer. Make puberty see no eyes judging it. This would speed the process of exploration and creating a school play much faster. exponential growth please. But what does puberty wants when it stays to rehearsals? Intriguing to think it is fun, or to be seen by the audience.
Ironic isn't it? They want to be seen, but they don't like it to be seen doing "funny" things. Oh puberty, you so silly. Confessing I do find some empathy within myself to understand this. Is autoesteem the solution to the mixture? will it dissolve? Or will these bits stay in the liquid which will only obstacle us.
I just wonder. I just wonder.
I just dare to think this is impossible. The other path leads the way.
How can we take away the embarrassment and leave the tool on stage? Kill puberty and hammer the nails. (I told you we were going to need them)
How can we make puberty turn its eyes inside out and brainwash outer influences? Make an efficient actor out of puberty. At least for a while, big enough time balloon to stay on the air until the 4th of July. Then it can explode with the rest of the fireworks. But where can we find this air to fill the balloon that is going to make it levitate enough time?
Sorry about the strange language... I'm exploring that myself :P
and I have watched too much Stephen Fry
DFTBA
domingo, 8 de abril de 2012
Yo queria un poni... pero mi energia no era rosada
Wednesday we stayed for Kenzo's workshop.
We started as any normal roberto-stealed-from-grotowsky's exercise, sleeping (laying) on the floor and start to breathe and pretend (feel) the energy and how is runs through our body.
I don't mean it like that, but it is purely psicological. If you really want to feel the energy, you are going to feel it, even if it is not there. If you don't want to feel it, you won't. I know this is maybe not supposed how im to approach the energy feeling thing. But it is the only way. the only way to feel the energy flowing through your body is if you actually beleive it. Imagination is more powerful than facts, or so they say. your mind can make you believe that something that is not really there is actually there.
That is how i make it work, I just make myself believe it is actually happening. FEEL THE POWER.
like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYxCrugJj_o
He showed me that if you really believe something, then it is possible... but only in your mind.
During the exercise, we were asked to choose a texture, a color, and other characteristics for our energy, mine was blue and water-like. yay :D
I already know my final question but im going to build towards it. When we stood up, we started walking around the space, and we had to choose and animal. I chose the ocean. But then, it transformed into a panther, a blue panther. a blue sneaky panther.
But I wonder if my animal was influenced highly by my energy texture and color, i guess it was...
it seems like it was.
I wonder what would had been Mikimoto's energy, and I also wonder if exploring Heisenberg could had been easier if I would had tried this approach.
Would it really help, when exploring a new character, to find a color and texture for your "energy" and build it from that? Or is it just an exercise with no practical use?
DFTBA
We started as any normal roberto-stealed-from-grotowsky's exercise, sleeping (laying) on the floor and start to breathe and pretend (feel) the energy and how is runs through our body.
I don't mean it like that, but it is purely psicological. If you really want to feel the energy, you are going to feel it, even if it is not there. If you don't want to feel it, you won't. I know this is maybe not supposed how im to approach the energy feeling thing. But it is the only way. the only way to feel the energy flowing through your body is if you actually beleive it. Imagination is more powerful than facts, or so they say. your mind can make you believe that something that is not really there is actually there.
That is how i make it work, I just make myself believe it is actually happening. FEEL THE POWER.
like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYxCrugJj_o
He showed me that if you really believe something, then it is possible... but only in your mind.
During the exercise, we were asked to choose a texture, a color, and other characteristics for our energy, mine was blue and water-like. yay :D
I already know my final question but im going to build towards it. When we stood up, we started walking around the space, and we had to choose and animal. I chose the ocean. But then, it transformed into a panther, a blue panther. a blue sneaky panther.
But I wonder if my animal was influenced highly by my energy texture and color, i guess it was...
it seems like it was.
I wonder what would had been Mikimoto's energy, and I also wonder if exploring Heisenberg could had been easier if I would had tried this approach.
Would it really help, when exploring a new character, to find a color and texture for your "energy" and build it from that? Or is it just an exercise with no practical use?
DFTBA
domingo, 1 de abril de 2012
Vladimiro! Abre la boca, Vladimiro! .................. AH!
A tool to twist reality.
Helllooooo everyone! And welcome to another entry in Monchips blog... you are not prepared....
what am i talking about? no one ever reads this blog.... AAARRRRRRROOOOZZZZ
A puppet is an object that, with your actions, you give life to it. It can be your shadow as it, an apple, or anything.
On thursday and friday we learnt more about puppets, with a workshop by Martin and Maria laura, who kindly explained everything to us.
On friday morning we started to make our own puppets... we all seemed really exited, and got on to do them, it turned out to be harder then what we thought, but i managed and started exploring with what my puppet could do, how could i maximize the use of my fingers... how i could turn my fingers into a tool to make this puppet of mine do things that i could not do. For example, move its eyes with 2 fingers.
I thought, at the beginning, puppets were for children. I knew there were cool puppets and things, but i had never seen a puppet take life like Ian Curtis did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVc29bYIvCM
I never imagined a puppet... that was not exactly representing reality, took life so amazingly. I was astonished.
The dances were awesome. The epileptic part could had been done better... and I did not understand when the naked girl shouted "INMORTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL"
ok... but the dance was AAAAMAAAZINNNG.
I wish my puppet could do that. But it can't. Mine is stupid. I will go cry now. No more blog.
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm done crying.
A puppet is a very variable and multi-use prop that can be used in various different ways. As a glove, "shared hand" or only torso and above, full body, with moving mouth, without a moving mouth, with moving arms, or w/o moving arms. It is completely free for you to make it as your wish... of course, as long as it is within reason and not something done for the sake of it.
Puppets can have different sizes, a puppet can be really small, or cover the complete stage. You can even have GIANTS. 3 arms? 4 legs? 5 eyes? 6 noses? no ears? 10 mouths? upside down head?
legs instead of arms
56 fingers
one bigger eye than the other
eyes in the chest
heart -shaped face
levitate
long to touch the audience
short to fit in your pocket
black to hide in the dark. to be your shadow
blue hair, green hair. spear hair, no hair,
the possibilites are endless.
So this is what a puppet is for. To help us show what an actor can't. A puppet is a tool.
A puppet can do what an actor cannot. If a puppet did equal to the actor then it would have no reason to be. And when a puppet doesn't have a reason to be. A puppet gets sad. And when puppets get sad... they lose their magic. And what is a puppet without magic?.... Just an object.
If an object with life is a puppet, and a puppet is an actor... Is the actor a puppet? If so... who controls the actor? The actor controls the puppet, and the puppet controls the actor. Who, behind puppets, controls the actor?
Can your turn this concept upside down on a stage?
Something to think about, and idea to develop.
"Dios mueve al jugador, y éste, la pieza.
¿Qué Dios detrás de Dios la trama empieza
de polvo y tiempo y sueño y agonías?"
Fragment of Jorge Luis Borges poem: Ajedrez
The actor moves the puppet, and this, the actor.
What is the actor then if not just a puppet?
To say that "we are not puppets because we have a mind of our own" is the easy way out.
think deeper about it. Get to the abstract. Get to the magic.
What does and actor transform to when he gets into character but a puppet? And what does a puppet turn when it turns into character but an actor? On a stage, there is no difference between these 2 but the possibilities one can achieve that the other can't.
Is the actor his own puppeteer?
Helllooooo everyone! And welcome to another entry in Monchips blog... you are not prepared....
what am i talking about? no one ever reads this blog.... AAARRRRRRROOOOZZZZ
A puppet is an object that, with your actions, you give life to it. It can be your shadow as it, an apple, or anything.
On thursday and friday we learnt more about puppets, with a workshop by Martin and Maria laura, who kindly explained everything to us.
On friday morning we started to make our own puppets... we all seemed really exited, and got on to do them, it turned out to be harder then what we thought, but i managed and started exploring with what my puppet could do, how could i maximize the use of my fingers... how i could turn my fingers into a tool to make this puppet of mine do things that i could not do. For example, move its eyes with 2 fingers.
I thought, at the beginning, puppets were for children. I knew there were cool puppets and things, but i had never seen a puppet take life like Ian Curtis did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVc29bYIvCM
I never imagined a puppet... that was not exactly representing reality, took life so amazingly. I was astonished.
The dances were awesome. The epileptic part could had been done better... and I did not understand when the naked girl shouted "INMORTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL"
ok... but the dance was AAAAMAAAZINNNG.
I wish my puppet could do that. But it can't. Mine is stupid. I will go cry now. No more blog.
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm done crying.
A puppet is a very variable and multi-use prop that can be used in various different ways. As a glove, "shared hand" or only torso and above, full body, with moving mouth, without a moving mouth, with moving arms, or w/o moving arms. It is completely free for you to make it as your wish... of course, as long as it is within reason and not something done for the sake of it.
Puppets can have different sizes, a puppet can be really small, or cover the complete stage. You can even have GIANTS. 3 arms? 4 legs? 5 eyes? 6 noses? no ears? 10 mouths? upside down head?
legs instead of arms
56 fingers
one bigger eye than the other
eyes in the chest
heart -shaped face
levitate
long to touch the audience
short to fit in your pocket
black to hide in the dark. to be your shadow
blue hair, green hair. spear hair, no hair,
the possibilites are endless.
So this is what a puppet is for. To help us show what an actor can't. A puppet is a tool.
A puppet can do what an actor cannot. If a puppet did equal to the actor then it would have no reason to be. And when a puppet doesn't have a reason to be. A puppet gets sad. And when puppets get sad... they lose their magic. And what is a puppet without magic?.... Just an object.
If an object with life is a puppet, and a puppet is an actor... Is the actor a puppet? If so... who controls the actor? The actor controls the puppet, and the puppet controls the actor. Who, behind puppets, controls the actor?
Can your turn this concept upside down on a stage?
Something to think about, and idea to develop.
"Dios mueve al jugador, y éste, la pieza.
¿Qué Dios detrás de Dios la trama empieza
de polvo y tiempo y sueño y agonías?"
Fragment of Jorge Luis Borges poem: Ajedrez
The actor moves the puppet, and this, the actor.
What is the actor then if not just a puppet?
To say that "we are not puppets because we have a mind of our own" is the easy way out.
think deeper about it. Get to the abstract. Get to the magic.
What does and actor transform to when he gets into character but a puppet? And what does a puppet turn when it turns into character but an actor? On a stage, there is no difference between these 2 but the possibilities one can achieve that the other can't.
Is the actor his own puppeteer?
domingo, 25 de marzo de 2012
En el nombre de Chaclacayo, Chiclayo y el nuevo. espero que este analisis me salga rechicken.
Monday we go see play. Play called La cocina. I enjoy play. Now I blog play. Yes. Blog play. Lets blog play.
There was a particular part of the play that caught my attention. It was where the chaos turned into order. Where sounds made music, and our brains lied. (like arnold Schwazenegger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wk-jT9rn-8 )
Theatre is playing with our minds.
In the scene we could first, blindly see everyone cooking, until we realized that they were just doing nothing. They were passing the things in circles and doing absolutely nothing and everything was exagerated and stupidly big and noisy. Still, it worked very well.
The waitresses were just dancing around and moving their legs around. That is what peruvian ignorant-stereotipical audiences want. (just look at TV series, peruvian magazines and newspapers…and not to mention el comercio’s website, where you can certainly see biased political stories, how our football team lost last night, and the photo shoot of some model with big boobs.)
GETTING BACK ON TRACK
WHAT WAS THERE: actors moving objects and making a lot of noise
WHAT DID IT REPRESENT: cooking
HOW DID IT REPRESENT IT? I don’t know.
-> When they first said they were going to cook, you imagined they were actually doing it, and there was the smell on the auditorium of food passing through the Maillard reaction. This gave an ambience of food being cooked. Until you realized that they were actually doing nothing.
At this point where you find out what they are doing, you don’t really care because the choreography was pretty well organized, fast pase, good rhythm and movements changed fast, you didn’t get bored of watching the same over and over again.
It represented very well the kitchen with everyone constantly working. Artaud would have been pleased. Nofap right?
This fitted the play more than another approach to a cooking scene since it was a comedy… and not for people that wanted to think a lot. This piece of the puzzle has a kinky shape but looks good. A slow, realistic cooking scene would have broken the whole play. And a puzzle with a broken piece is not complete. The scene is the broken glass to the balloon, for a broken balloon cannot break the glass.
Levels well fully explored, things were throwned into the air. Space was fully occupied. Everyone was happening constantly and changing constantly and you could not realize everything that was happening at every moment. Which caused Chaos. But everything made sense.
Uuh se me acabaron las ideas… necesito keke de mayita…
The scene is like a european highway to the play. You can’t go slower but you can go as fast as you like. It helps to the play because you can see it as a transition period. Fast-forward time. It is supposed to represent the 5-hour or more work time that they are doing shortened to a massive 2-minute in which everything happens… and then they are done. Like a one act play with 2 intermissions? Not intermissions but just a transition in which time is going a lot faster on stage than you think.
Although that is only my opinion, I think its pretty coherent.
And we all know that “Las cosas no tienen sentido. TU les das el sentido” – Antonin Artaud Roberto
So the cooking is a fast forwarding transition on stage without any cuts, but showing everything that happens. Which is pretty original.
The idea of having a fast-forwarding time at normal speed is what makes theatre create itself in your mind. It is not happening faster, you just think it is, you just accept the fact that a lot of time just passed, but you wouldn’t had accepted the fact if it was not on stage. Why do our minds create things and relate different things when we see something just because it is a play? Why would we think something is different or acceptable just because it is portrayed on a stage? Is it the stage or the actor that make this things happen? But if it is the stage… what is an stage? Anywhere could be a stage? Who decides what is the stage? Or is there actually no stage? And it all happens only in our minds because theatre is the art of making our minds create and accept things or facts that are not there?
There was a particular part of the play that caught my attention. It was where the chaos turned into order. Where sounds made music, and our brains lied. (like arnold Schwazenegger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wk-jT9rn-8 )
Theatre is playing with our minds.
In the scene we could first, blindly see everyone cooking, until we realized that they were just doing nothing. They were passing the things in circles and doing absolutely nothing and everything was exagerated and stupidly big and noisy. Still, it worked very well.
The waitresses were just dancing around and moving their legs around. That is what peruvian ignorant-stereotipical audiences want. (just look at TV series, peruvian magazines and newspapers…and not to mention el comercio’s website, where you can certainly see biased political stories, how our football team lost last night, and the photo shoot of some model with big boobs.)
GETTING BACK ON TRACK
WHAT WAS THERE: actors moving objects and making a lot of noise
WHAT DID IT REPRESENT: cooking
HOW DID IT REPRESENT IT? I don’t know.
-> When they first said they were going to cook, you imagined they were actually doing it, and there was the smell on the auditorium of food passing through the Maillard reaction. This gave an ambience of food being cooked. Until you realized that they were actually doing nothing.
At this point where you find out what they are doing, you don’t really care because the choreography was pretty well organized, fast pase, good rhythm and movements changed fast, you didn’t get bored of watching the same over and over again.
It represented very well the kitchen with everyone constantly working. Artaud would have been pleased. Nofap right?
This fitted the play more than another approach to a cooking scene since it was a comedy… and not for people that wanted to think a lot. This piece of the puzzle has a kinky shape but looks good. A slow, realistic cooking scene would have broken the whole play. And a puzzle with a broken piece is not complete. The scene is the broken glass to the balloon, for a broken balloon cannot break the glass.
Levels well fully explored, things were throwned into the air. Space was fully occupied. Everyone was happening constantly and changing constantly and you could not realize everything that was happening at every moment. Which caused Chaos. But everything made sense.
Uuh se me acabaron las ideas… necesito keke de mayita…
The scene is like a european highway to the play. You can’t go slower but you can go as fast as you like. It helps to the play because you can see it as a transition period. Fast-forward time. It is supposed to represent the 5-hour or more work time that they are doing shortened to a massive 2-minute in which everything happens… and then they are done. Like a one act play with 2 intermissions? Not intermissions but just a transition in which time is going a lot faster on stage than you think.
Although that is only my opinion, I think its pretty coherent.
And we all know that “Las cosas no tienen sentido. TU les das el sentido” – Antonin Artaud Roberto
So the cooking is a fast forwarding transition on stage without any cuts, but showing everything that happens. Which is pretty original.
The idea of having a fast-forwarding time at normal speed is what makes theatre create itself in your mind. It is not happening faster, you just think it is, you just accept the fact that a lot of time just passed, but you wouldn’t had accepted the fact if it was not on stage. Why do our minds create things and relate different things when we see something just because it is a play? Why would we think something is different or acceptable just because it is portrayed on a stage? Is it the stage or the actor that make this things happen? But if it is the stage… what is an stage? Anywhere could be a stage? Who decides what is the stage? Or is there actually no stage? And it all happens only in our minds because theatre is the art of making our minds create and accept things or facts that are not there?
domingo, 18 de marzo de 2012
NOFAPARTAUD vs Hero
If you ever speak tales about some crazy guy who was loyal to murphy's law, be sure, the name that memory will suddenly bring upon my mind, will be Antonin Artaud.
In parallel, if you ever speak of those who defied laws of gravity, realism, contrast between colors and thought that the possibility of you getting hit by and arrow is over 1 million arrows are shot at you is extremely slim, I shall call forth Hero.
ARTAUD VS HERO
Artaud was against realism. He saw "fiatah" (theatre with a british accent) as mental poetry.
Indeed many may disagree with him, as he was a drug addict, and was locked up about 10 years of his 50 year long life. And for many, this make his argument invalid. Although most of the things he said were creepy or really vague... he did have a point.
He talks about life as theatre's double. And I will dare to take his idea beyond and talk about it made me think myself (activation theory... not)
In Balinese theatre everyone single detail means something, everything in stage, for little as it can be, its meaning grows it its maximum, making it important on stage. Every gesture can represent a state of mind that can't de described with words... the language of signs is much more power. Surrealism. Contrast. Exxageraton. Perfection of life.
Metaphysics, mental poetry. It's all in your mind. He thought that sounds from crying to laughing could occur with a elusive transition in one's mind. Exagerating gestures and signs on stage could create emotions that words could not describe. A language that all cultures could understand.
In the movie hero, we see some of this exxageration, surrealist and gesture techniques.
I can say - maybe wrongly - hero is a movie that would had pleased artaud. The moments in which gesture described the whole mood without any words, the contrast in colors, the exageration of special effects to imitate what legendary swordmen were supposed to do.
But moving into antonin-topic, he explained how theatre is the double of life. Life can therefore be the double of theatre. In real life, although we don't pay much attention to it, each single small movement and thing mean something big. I go far from him - but still i dare - and say that real life could be explained and analysed the same way as he saw theatre. Making the theatre (double of life) exactly the same. Realism, but according to dreams. Surrealist plays can be as realistic and dreams can get. It gets confusing for me, so i will finish it before it gets worse.
Trying to understand and analyze the ideas of some Artaud is no easy task.
He wasn't right. No one in theatre can be right. Its just a trend.
It is really difficult to compare Artaud to different traditions because he destroyed one of the most important elements of theatre before him... the dialogue. And turned plays into mental, metaphysical poetry. His theatre of cruelty dismembered the mind of the actor to the edge were he could work. To ever single detail.
People didn't like his work back then. Why did he suddenly turned into such an important influence for theatre? If gestures -according to artaud- couln not be explained in words, how do you create them on stage. How can his mental poetry understand human mind without language? How can all actors understand the same? For me... His plays were well designed chaos. Chaos that language could not understand, but just through emotions. And that was the beauty of his theatre. I have no questions, just doubts. I can't understand Artaud.
But should theatre represent, in a higher perfection, life or should theatre represent what life is, but bigger? How can you create a stage of signs that can't be described into language and go beyond metaphysics to cause emotions on the audience that can't be understood?
I will need to think more about it and maybe blog again during the week about this...
In parallel, if you ever speak of those who defied laws of gravity, realism, contrast between colors and thought that the possibility of you getting hit by and arrow is over 1 million arrows are shot at you is extremely slim, I shall call forth Hero.
ARTAUD VS HERO
Artaud was against realism. He saw "fiatah" (theatre with a british accent) as mental poetry.
Indeed many may disagree with him, as he was a drug addict, and was locked up about 10 years of his 50 year long life. And for many, this make his argument invalid. Although most of the things he said were creepy or really vague... he did have a point.
He talks about life as theatre's double. And I will dare to take his idea beyond and talk about it made me think myself (activation theory... not)
In Balinese theatre everyone single detail means something, everything in stage, for little as it can be, its meaning grows it its maximum, making it important on stage. Every gesture can represent a state of mind that can't de described with words... the language of signs is much more power. Surrealism. Contrast. Exxageraton. Perfection of life.
Metaphysics, mental poetry. It's all in your mind. He thought that sounds from crying to laughing could occur with a elusive transition in one's mind. Exagerating gestures and signs on stage could create emotions that words could not describe. A language that all cultures could understand.
In the movie hero, we see some of this exxageration, surrealist and gesture techniques.
I can say - maybe wrongly - hero is a movie that would had pleased artaud. The moments in which gesture described the whole mood without any words, the contrast in colors, the exageration of special effects to imitate what legendary swordmen were supposed to do.
But moving into antonin-topic, he explained how theatre is the double of life. Life can therefore be the double of theatre. In real life, although we don't pay much attention to it, each single small movement and thing mean something big. I go far from him - but still i dare - and say that real life could be explained and analysed the same way as he saw theatre. Making the theatre (double of life) exactly the same. Realism, but according to dreams. Surrealist plays can be as realistic and dreams can get. It gets confusing for me, so i will finish it before it gets worse.
Trying to understand and analyze the ideas of some Artaud is no easy task.
He wasn't right. No one in theatre can be right. Its just a trend.
It is really difficult to compare Artaud to different traditions because he destroyed one of the most important elements of theatre before him... the dialogue. And turned plays into mental, metaphysical poetry. His theatre of cruelty dismembered the mind of the actor to the edge were he could work. To ever single detail.
People didn't like his work back then. Why did he suddenly turned into such an important influence for theatre? If gestures -according to artaud- couln not be explained in words, how do you create them on stage. How can his mental poetry understand human mind without language? How can all actors understand the same? For me... His plays were well designed chaos. Chaos that language could not understand, but just through emotions. And that was the beauty of his theatre. I have no questions, just doubts. I can't understand Artaud.
But should theatre represent, in a higher perfection, life or should theatre represent what life is, but bigger? How can you create a stage of signs that can't be described into language and go beyond metaphysics to cause emotions on the audience that can't be understood?
I will need to think more about it and maybe blog again during the week about this...
domingo, 11 de marzo de 2012
Game game game game game game. Yes.
Having a game for a play... It's like roberto's theatre tradition. Who knows where it can lead to? but so far it has been great, and really make our plays stand out.
What I reckon the games do to our plays is take the focus away from the acting and story... content is good enough as its coherent.
It reminds me of a game, where you have priority stats and after you reach the optimum for the higher priority stat, you then put everything into the next stat.
As for the play, we only need to put enough to the story to where it is decent enough, and then put everything into the game. And design elements. But today we are talking about the game. Game is our second priority, when we reach the optimum with the game, we then put everything into the design.
The game of our plays make it fun for the audience. Or at least makes them have to participate and think a little for once. We do however try to make it obvious enough so that the audience can understand. If an spectator fails to understand the game, since it's our strong point, we fail to entertain. After all, our aim is to entertain the audience.
Moving away from the audience, and going to our play itself. It has to run around something, every play rotates around an idea. But if you have 2 ideas, then you would have your play orbiting in a binary solar system... and as far as we know those harvest no life. You can't satisfy both needs, you can go 100% story, and 100% play, because the game may limit the story at some points, and the story may limit the game at some points. Conventions are what make both collude.
But as a counter argument, the movie Hero provides a game that rotates around its story. However, the story does not reach a full potential as the game and design concept it provides. aesthetics over story. visuals over content. content over visual. Seems we have to pick 1 or the other.
But What if you go 50/50 and then make it bigger, and powerful, egocentric, awesome, hyper-realistic, you act like an oligopoly, instead of competing with price, you compete with other other things.
Can you make it powerful enough? I don't know. That is an answer that may come from experience.
This is a matter to keep thinking about for the end of year presentation... or maybe not. Maybe there is no answer. Whatever it is, we must now focus on the game for this particular play. And i can't do more than wonder. What effect would a play give without its game? What would people think of split without the split? What would people think about this play without its game? Are this play prepared to be presented without the game?
What I reckon the games do to our plays is take the focus away from the acting and story... content is good enough as its coherent.
It reminds me of a game, where you have priority stats and after you reach the optimum for the higher priority stat, you then put everything into the next stat.
As for the play, we only need to put enough to the story to where it is decent enough, and then put everything into the game. And design elements. But today we are talking about the game. Game is our second priority, when we reach the optimum with the game, we then put everything into the design.
The game of our plays make it fun for the audience. Or at least makes them have to participate and think a little for once. We do however try to make it obvious enough so that the audience can understand. If an spectator fails to understand the game, since it's our strong point, we fail to entertain. After all, our aim is to entertain the audience.
Moving away from the audience, and going to our play itself. It has to run around something, every play rotates around an idea. But if you have 2 ideas, then you would have your play orbiting in a binary solar system... and as far as we know those harvest no life. You can't satisfy both needs, you can go 100% story, and 100% play, because the game may limit the story at some points, and the story may limit the game at some points. Conventions are what make both collude.
But as a counter argument, the movie Hero provides a game that rotates around its story. However, the story does not reach a full potential as the game and design concept it provides. aesthetics over story. visuals over content. content over visual. Seems we have to pick 1 or the other.
But What if you go 50/50 and then make it bigger, and powerful, egocentric, awesome, hyper-realistic, you act like an oligopoly, instead of competing with price, you compete with other other things.
Can you make it powerful enough? I don't know. That is an answer that may come from experience.
This is a matter to keep thinking about for the end of year presentation... or maybe not. Maybe there is no answer. Whatever it is, we must now focus on the game for this particular play. And i can't do more than wonder. What effect would a play give without its game? What would people think of split without the split? What would people think about this play without its game? Are this play prepared to be presented without the game?
domingo, 22 de enero de 2012
Writing a script guide for dummies
Step 1.- Grab a pen and paper. It can be any color pen, or a pencil. If you are feeling a little kinky, you can even use crayons!
Step 2.- Think about your stimulus, and write/draw/scribble on the paper relevant things that pop up in your mind. Anything relevant, as stupid as may seem at the beginning, may turn out to be a great idea!
step 3.- look at what you have done. Don't panic, it's not as bad as it looks. now focus.
step 4.- find a relationship between everything you have on your paper. Change ideas, upgrade them. Twist the tales to change the facts. Get it right, straight forward, concrete.
step 5.- If you don't like it. Too bad, push forward. If I learned something is to push forward with crappy ideas to make them good. "crappy" ideas are just raw ideas, you won't get it all perfect right away, so don't wait for another raw idea, just push forward with what you have.
step 6.- write. re-read. delete. re-write. re-read. delete again. re-write. drink coffee. re-read. Get stressed out because you don't like it. Don't worry... you are getting there. drink more coffee. write. keep writing. keep writing. keep writing. read. Realized you did it wrong. too lazy to write it again. tl;dr. throw it on the rubbish bin. sleep. go back to step 1.
Step 2.- Think about your stimulus, and write/draw/scribble on the paper relevant things that pop up in your mind. Anything relevant, as stupid as may seem at the beginning, may turn out to be a great idea!
step 3.- look at what you have done. Don't panic, it's not as bad as it looks. now focus.
step 4.- find a relationship between everything you have on your paper. Change ideas, upgrade them. Twist the tales to change the facts. Get it right, straight forward, concrete.
step 5.- If you don't like it. Too bad, push forward. If I learned something is to push forward with crappy ideas to make them good. "crappy" ideas are just raw ideas, you won't get it all perfect right away, so don't wait for another raw idea, just push forward with what you have.
step 6.- write. re-read. delete. re-write. re-read. delete again. re-write. drink coffee. re-read. Get stressed out because you don't like it. Don't worry... you are getting there. drink more coffee. write. keep writing. keep writing. keep writing. read. Realized you did it wrong. too lazy to write it again. tl;dr. throw it on the rubbish bin. sleep. go back to step 1.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)