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)