How can a play create an impact

This was a question Roberto commented after my past review, after showing "la jungla de las ciudades" provoked an impact on me the question was how did it happen, and why was it successful. I have watched many other plays that were just boring and nothing creative, therefore when comparing them to a play such as "jungla" I end up with one major conclusion, the vision.

It does not only rely on the fact that the director has a vision, that is the starting point, one director might have a vision, a rather simple and plain one and then the play would just go along those lines, with no real effect provoking no impact. However, once the vision has a certain exploration to it, there is an attribute gained, this opens the possibilities for the rest of elements to explore. A vision is something the entire play must rely on, a direction concept from where all the other elements initiate. Therefore this must be open enough for those things to start from, if the concept is too ambiguous the resulting play would be too hard to follow or shallow at times, since the ideas haven´t been well organized before being performed.

After having a concise vision, there must also be a harmony found between different production elements, one must not interrupt with other, if the lighting plan goes along one direction, the texture shouldn´t go in the other affecting badly the resulting effect the lighting would have on the play. If there has been a plan from the start for the acting to be in such a way, there should´t be an interference from the scenery in the movements or acting style chosen. Those elements must harmonize to create an impact, since a great vision can be completely damaged by a lack of harmony between these elements.

Therefore, I believe the whole creative structure of a play is what eventually causes this impact on the audience, however, what exactly would this mean? Causing an impact would be merely causing an emotion? Or would it go beyond causing a reflection, is the response from the audience always going to be subjective?

Emotion vs critical thinking

As I study and do research surrounding Bertolt Brecht I find myself asking questions about how important is it to cause an emotion and make the audience think. The process of assisting to a theatrical tradition implies the experiencing of emotions, however some kinds of theatre don´t stop there, don´t just cause an emotion and leave it there, they transcend it making it just part of a larger process which ends up with reflection and, to some extend, critical thinking in the spectators, making them not only spectators but involving them in the production so they become observers.

With this contrast of emotion vs. critical thinking I wonder more about Brecht´s theories surrounding theatre, but at the same time the idea of these two elements going against each other is appealing when trying to apply it to art in general, and more so, in what differentiates art from simple entertainment. The main idea which about form all these reflections was that entertainment, just as the name states, entertains, centers on entertaining the public and possibly causing emotion while art produces emotion, produces an entertainment but transcends that provoking a reflection from the audience. However, I find this reflection is not complete, since the basic understanding I have of a theorist such as Artaud leads me to understand that the "theatre of cruelty" centers on causing an emotion, and so through the last statement, would that be simple and mere entertainment? would that cease to be art? Therefore I can only address this statement once i possess more knowledge regarding the subject.

Not only regarding theatre but art in general, what is the difference between art and entertainment, and is it possible for a branch of entertainment to develop into an art form? Can we say art is what produces a meditation, or reflection int he public while entertainment only centers on producing an emotion? Through the independent project I want to achieve this knowledge and hopefully get in touch furthermore with the cultural aspect behind theatre. To what extent is representing culture, or modern society, important in Brecht´s theories? That is the main objective i want to achieve, the thing I want to learn about the most out of all.

A directors´ vision.

Though I don’t know what the exact direction/design/acting concepts were, I can truly assure they all worked in harmony creating an amazing play.

Brecht´s “La jungla de las ciudades” was a play I truly enjoyed due to the symbolism present in the design concept and a wonderful vision on stage. It was the application of the symbols in the text, how they were portrayed thorugh Gisela cardenas´ vision, which really captivated my attention. Throughout the play I was trying to

Brecht makes it clear at the start of the play the important thing is not the why, is what is actually happening, the struggle of the characters (garga and shlink) is actually what matters and not why did shlink actually starts “the fight”. The progression and evolution of the characters, garga decides to keep his opinion and not “sell-out” to shlink´s proposition and hence becomes a total mess, even when possessing all of shlinks fortune, he becomes an alcoholic and does not resemble at all the humble man from the first scene anymore. He treats his sister more as an object rather than as a person, making her feel as if she was “being auctioned”, and all the tragedies, all the degradation and collapse of his family and life, they all occur due to him not selling his opinion.

Although I recognize I haven´t actually been able to comprehend Cardenas vision fully ( I believe there´s more to it than what I have actually been able to comprehend, mostly because I don´t feel I know enough about Brecht´s theories and ideas), I do believe I have been able to appreciate the play enough to realize Cardenas vision is what really sold me on the play.

The play would not have made such an impact without Cardenas vision, the stage set up was different, it played much more vertically, playing with the levels that could be possibly achieved due to the stage layout. When it became the Garga´s house, it felt it was all extremely too tight. Everything gave this sense the apartment was extremely small and was worn out, the shape of the vertical scenery gave the sense we were able to watch what was happening inside a building in Chicago, as if it had been cut in half and we were allowed to view inside the lives of those who inhabit it. This also happened when the scenery changed to the hotel and each segment of the “building” became a room, some filled with couples that spent time together in bed while others showed the regular life of a man. Anyhow, they all helped to give this sense of degradation about the city of Chicago at the time.

“In the end, we are all that we have.” In the play this is mentioned, people are what actually matter, our opinions and family bonds should be more important than money or physical objects, but the truth is, that society pushes us to do the contrary. This is where the symbolism behind “coldness” appears. In many occasions characters complain about how cold Chicago city is, possibly the most recurring theme along with “the boxing fight”. They suddenly feel cold, many times when a character is left alone, specially George Garga´s sister Mary, they complain about feeling cold. Perhaps I am analysing this way too much but after Shlinks final speech it is clear to me, the coldness represents and stands for the solitude. Therefore characters feel as if they are all alone and by themselves, the concern for getting money or getting payback is way more important for many of them.

However the element that attracted me the most of Cardenas vision is the juxtaposition between ideas in the script and their application in elements such as the visual design. Shlink mentions men are born with a skin too soft for the human world, and that is why it is needed to harden the skin, making it black. In this case I wonder whether I am trying too hard to analyse it or if these were actual reasons for the decisions taken in designing the play. I am sure it is the latter, and so when Shlink mentions we have to be able to harden our skin and make it dark I believe he refers to repel emotions or feelings, act with apathy in many cases and end up loving through hate, having affection through such a negative feeling as hate. I don´t believe this stops here, the moment Garga accepts Shlink´s fortune, he also accepts to done a black outfit, a black leather jacket. Leather is a cloth able to repel substances and not stain with many dyes, is hard and we wear it as if it was our skin. In addition we can also take this metaphor and explain all of this is obtained through money, being rich will give you the means to wear this hard and dark skin to repel many things and gives you the means to survive in this dark and cold world.

This is something you can obtain only in theatre; no other medium is capable of portraying and creating an experience that can juxtapose visual elements with iconic and abstract images such as words and their meaning behind. I believe the only other medium which can actually obtain a similar, but not as effective, effect is sequential art, but that is because there is an actual juxtaposition of words and pictures. You actually look at them and it is way more explicit, even though reading a comic book is an experience where the reader is as important as the creator doing the book, there is no way theatre is something you really experience it, a play is something you live and you participate in. This sole element of the black jacket Garga wears made me realize all of this, how crucial this juxtaposition can be in a play.

Now here are some of the question which have appeared after watching the play.

What would be the consequences of taking the slow and long lasting scenes away from this theatrical production? Would it cause the play to advance too fast and make it feel it has an uneven pace, is it something necessary for the play to later on engage us furthermore with revelations behind symbols and such?

If so, must the director be aware that the “active moments” must compensate for the slow ones? So all the decisions would have to centre in keeping the balance between these moments? If this happens, then why is this happening? Is it because there was a problem, an error in the play´s structure? Would this be the fault of the director´s vision not being well portrayed?

If the director´s vision had been different, would all of my interpretations have been different too? Would I have misunderstood the play? Would I have different interpretations about all those elements I just described? How can I know that my interpretations might not follow Brecht´s original intentions but are truly symbolisms created by Cardenas vision? If so, then the script exists just for the basis of the play, what actually matters is what the director is able to make out of it, what the vision is.

Script

For Miyuki, we had no set script, instead we went following much closer this aspect of the Kabuki tradition. After having a concise outline of each scene, we proceeded to the rehearsals, we just followed an outline with the actions, theatrical actions, and started improvising.

In this stage we already noticed several problems, since there was no defined script (those came later as the scenes progressed) actors did not have the ability to go back to the scripts and reread them to memorize their texts, in addition most were already used to having a written version of the dialogues which they were able to consult. In addition, some time was lost during rehearsals when stumbling upon a part where all stopped and the whole group started thinking of a possible line for a character. In this moments some actors would stop rehearsing, lose all their focus and their attention would drift away and center on the possible new dialogue.

The point of this entry is my reflection on the importance of a script in a play. In Miyuki there was no script, time was lost in some rehearsals and at moments it was confusing when the playwright (me) didn´t do his job right, however the play has been a success.

The public received very well the play and honestly all the comments we have received so far have been positive, but yet, no script was used. This makes me thinking if this was the aspect which made the play stand out, it definitely was not the sole element which made it a good play, however it was one of the overall differences the play had with the rest of the school`s productions. The script exists to make sense of the story, a play needs actions and a story may be told as a medium for these actions to happen. It is a convention for a play to have a script but many other plays which we have seen apparently never had a script and always based the actions on intentions and followed closely the director`s vision.

The common question would be, which is better? to use or not to use a script? but I think on another possible one, how does having/not having a script influences on the director`s vision?

What makes a good actor?

Perhaps this topic cant be well addressed on a blog entry, but these are my thoughts.

A play must revolve on actions, they must push the play forward, not the text. These actions must be concise, o rat least clear so the audience is able to understand them, for this an actor must be well prepared. When watching Yuyachkani we watch an amazing spectacle and the actors have prepared themselves in different martial arts and different disciplines, music and have learned different languages. All this push the envelope forward and allows for different performances to be able to happen.

When reflecting on what makes a good actor we must not only focus on a Western point of view, also think of Andean theatre, or theatre from different parts of the world, i.e Asia for example. When watching a performer from the Saqra comparsa we notice a different perspective, they have a different purpose, they don´t look fro portraying realism, they dont experiment with different ways of breathing. They are in the middle of a celebration and dont really focus so much on coordination and so on.

In kabuki actors are much more dettached and look to perform the kata perfectly, following the tradition, as well with Noh theatre. They are not looking for realism, which reminds me a bit of Gordon´s Ubbermarionnette, but instead to portray the actions.

I can conclude a good actor is one which always tries to explore the possibilities within its field, whether it is kabuki, noh, Paucartambo or Yuyachkani. However this gets me thinking of another question, if an audience used to watching kabuki acting will be able to appreciate the work of a good actor?, for instance, from Yuyachkani

Rehearsals

After we finish rehearsing a scene and go on to another one, it is probable that we wont get to watch and rehearse that scene until the general rehearsal. However, I had the chance to work once again with the three demons which are the only actors in the opening scene, because it has been quite some time since the last rehearsal i have been able to come onboard with a fresh take on the scene.

This gets me thinking about the process of rehearsing a scene, after rehearsing for so long, eventually you might keep rehearsing but not notice several errors or possible mistakes that could be easily improved. We can always explore a scene in different ways and take a new approach to the acting, where could they move and what changes could be made to the ways the actions are performed. After not rehearsing a scene for a while and you realize it is the same for almost every creative process. Whether you are writing a book or drawing a portrait once you leave it for a while and let it rest, when you come back you will have grown as an artist, or even as a person. In a much more simple level, you will simply be able to notice those mistakes that were previously present but, due to your constant focus on the project, were not able to correct before.

However, while I reflect upon this entry, I also ask myself, how does this help us improve? Would this count more as an observation rather than an understanding of a process ?

Pedro de Valdivia

After enjoying the great performance Pedro de Valdivia was, I reflected upon different aspects in the play. The one aspect which caught me right away as we entered the theatre was the stage, full of musical instruments a table at the back and a puppet with some props at a side. I simply thought this would be something such as Yuyachkani´s "Con cierto olvido" but was pleasantly surprised my first impression was wrong, not because Con cierto olvido was a bad performance, I truly enjoyed and thought highly of it. However it is nice that we were able have a different experience, which had some similarities with the play mentioned, but Pedro de Valdivia was a different and enjoyable play.

Music played a huge role through the presentation, starting off with music playing and went on telling Spanish conquistador Pedro de Valdivia in his crusade for becoming the first royal governor of Chile and battling against the native people of the country. The music was the first thing which caught my attention, however as the play progressed the acting itself was possibly the most highlighting part of the performance by the three actors. The voice was clear, they were Chilean actors and yet only in moments where they performed as natives the accent became more prominent because of the characterization. Each of them played a variety of instruments and different roles, from spanish conquerors to native Indians, the protagonist being Pedro de Valdivia played by the same actor throughout the play, who stood out with a vast range of facial expressions, making the character of Valdivia charismatic and enjoyable to watch.

A variety of effects were employed at different moments and many of these reminded me a lot of the Black light theatre of Prague portraying inanimate objects as if they were alive: the lighting effect used to portray gold in a dark environment due to the mix of lights, there were scenes in which Pedro de Valdivia stood aside serving as a narrator while the two actors used a puppet representing the real Valdivia writing a letter to Spanish conqueror Francisco Pizarro. In addition during the play they created a whole diorama of a battlefield using dirt and blue powder, and once it was finished they started using it to plan an strategy against the natives, furthermore to represent a battle and finish the play they used this set-up mixed with the Valdivia puppet finishing it with his demise at the enemy´s hand.

Although the play was a truly great and hilarious, you could notice the actors were well aware about their country´s history, although the performance did not work as a documentary, it collected all these historic aspects and presented them with a different approach, different than usual. In addition to the play being hilarious, cruel acts by the conquerors were portrayed, showing the harsh slavery and oppression natives had to endure, these acts were presented in a somewhat cartoony manner but soon enough, we realized the real effect it had on the characters . However, the play was most likely not done to center around the criticism, such as "Sin título", of a specific government or regime.

The performance was not looking forward to be overly realistic, such as Cocina & zona de Servicio, which tried to be realistic and funny at the same time( but was honestly an utter failure). The play, Pedro de Valdivia worked because of the great acting skills, the inventive approach of the performance mixing different acting techniques creating a harmony between the music and the acting( along with those effects which created a whole special and unique environment) and the consciousness of those involved with this project involving the historical and cultural aspects found in their country regarding the conquering by the Spanish.

We have seen different approaches for portraying a variety of remarkable time periods in the history of a nation (Peru & Chile, Sin título and Pedro de Valdivia), but when realizing how vastly different these are I ask myself If one could be considered much more theatrical than the other?, if one of them would approach more to the general understanding of theatre?. The answer would vary, and many would agree that you have to reflect upon your culture and past when creating theatre but many others would also add that you not only have to reflect but use art as a medium open for critique of past/present events.

Perhaps I have answered my question as I was writing it down but I believe the answer for such an open question would vary widely from each one of us.