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?
domingo, 25 de marzo de 2012
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?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)