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.

Fabric selection

The costume design for our play has reached another level, the designs haven´t been finished but we have already started looking for the fabrics which are going to be used for the play taking into consideration, the price (since we have a limited budget), the texture, how it would react to the scenery and how could they mix.

When looking at the fabrics at our disposal we realize that most of them resemble fabrics used in kabuki, most have a soft texture but some have a much more rough feeling. When taking a look at two different blue cloths, the difference, even when you are not touching them stands out, hence we have to find a balance between the rough and soft textures in the costumes. A balance in how individual costumes must look, we cannot overdue a costume with print fabrics as it would look messy and unbalanced. In addition we also have to find their reaction to the scenery, how the color scheme would match it and whether it`d be appropriate or not.

This process is long and tedious but helps us understand how many elements in set design come together, we understand there must be a harmony between all the elements in the play, actors would not be able to perform to their fullest if the set design elements were not well-placed and for this to happen costumes must not interfere in the acting, neither should the objects which form the scenery, the selection of fabrics and color scheme should go along with the scenery and the rest of the elements, should highlight certain characters but should always be in harmony with other elements like the lights, different light effects might have a different effect on different fabrics employed.

When reflecting upon this last part, I stumble upon a question about set design in general, to what degree can a bad mixture of the elements in set design affect a performance which has already been rehearsed to its fullest? Would the actors be able to overcome those difficulties and still give the finest performance possible? Or would the lack of harmony in those elements prevent in all ways the finest outcome?

SET DESIGN

When studying set design and its importance we´ve had to read through different texts to understand the basic functions of set design. When learning the importance it has we realize the true purpose behind a concept and how it might apply to a performance, as we read through the texts we are presented two different approaches the first being a much more general approach to the history of set design through different periods of time, however the second one, written by Adolph Appia, showed a much more in-depth look to set design and its involvement to a performance.

Appia presented a different approach to set design by focusing mostly on the lighting, making us understand something we truly never thought of before, why some elements such as painting wouldnt work on a performance and how does the light effects are able to change the mood in a play. When thinking of the light effects we must understand the setting in which the performance will take place and how will that affect the position of the lights and their audience, in a proscenium arch we might be able to use lights from above and in front of the stage but in a transverse stage it is most likely the designer will have to place the lights in the floor near the audience.

Different approaches have been created for set design , some highlighting a performance in its entirety while others show it incomplete, for Kabuki we are approaching the set design superficially, the play does not look to comprehend human nature or to reflect upon human nature.

Does one of these approaches limits or enhances a play´s importance and value?

Design Concept

As we approach the rehearsals for the actual scenes of the play we have to finish up the designing process so these two aspects don´t get mixed up. Because our design concept is already establish all that´s left is the actual designing of the elements in the performance, how will the cyclorama look? how are the costumes going to look like? Even though I am not in charge of the designing aspect, I am still involved to help, support, and to help to improve when feedback is needed. We do not want to end up mixing up the deadlines and rush out the designs in the last minute so we are already starting the production aspect, soon the cycloramas will arrive and we are already starting to get the designs out of the way so the ones in charge of designing, and which act at the same time, are much more free to rehearse when needed.

This is probably the shortest entry in the blog but nonetheless will help me remember of what this process was like in the future when my IB is coming to a close.

however I still ask to myself what advantages could there be by producing a play by yourself? it might sound a much more hard task but thinking about it, you do not have to worry about explaining and reaching to an agreement with your companions.

Performance concept

During this week we have decided upon our acting and design concepts for our kabuki performance and agreed on the concepts of "Pressure" and "equivocation" respectively. When thinking of the concepts we had stumbled upon different problems, how did the proposals related to the main direction concept " plate tectonics", we had several problems when trying to connect all the pieces together and realized the reasons for their incorporation into the performance had to be important and be tied together with the direction concept.

My task was the acting concept, Pressure, through a mental map we arrived to other key elements of this proposal, how tension was always present and was static and dynamic at the same time, in addition they merged together into a pose. We tied it together with plate tectonics which are always in tension, and with equivocation, because characters may pose as other elements from other locations, "theres more than meets the eye".

In addition we´ve also had to focus much more into how do we explain all these ideas we already know and understand. Only when we are able to explain to someone who has no idea of what our concepts are and make them understand what we are saying, that we truly say we fully understand what we have created and plan to use in our performance.

How well would our concepts in general fit a traditional western play? It would not be necessary to have a restrained passion which suddenly bursts out with great passion on certain occasions, therefore how well would these concepts adapt to a traditional western play, such as Hamlet or "La vida es sueño?

Kabuki acting

We have started rehearsing the acting aspect for our kabuki play.

Its been hard.

We have separated the actors in males and females and subdivided them into two more groups and are using as basis the DVD´s of acting in kabuki by Leonard Pronko which shows the different basic movements for male and female performers. The DVD´s have been split into male and female categories, and they last 30 minutes each, however, as we started practicing we soon took notice of how long this process would last.

In the first rehearsal i had with my group, we only covered the first 6 or 7 minutes of the dvd of male acting. At first I thought it was my bad and that I had not spent the time well, however as I met with the rest of the IB´ers we took notice of our slow progress during the rehearsal.

In the next rehearsals we have progressed furthermore, but we encounter people who put almost no effort when performing, and those who are simply trouble some and who slow even more the process. We realize we have to prioritize our objectives, we cannot tolerate a kid who is not willing to put the effort when rehearsing, we try to help him but in the end he will not play a huge roll if he does not control himself and show responsibility with the project.

Simple movements, such as walking, are difficult for many as they are completely different and exaggerated, I have realized how difficult a change can be for a performer, as you take him out of his/her comfort zone training and breaking out of the mold. This has been proven by the training for kabuki acting, the exaggerated way of acting is something all the actors are not familiar with.

Therefore a reach a conclusion which consists (as usual) of a question, would it be necessary for an actor to try out a different style of acting, as in this case kabuki, so that he/she would expand the knowledge he/she possesses or is it sufficient for him/her to specialize in a certain way of acting and/or portraying of a similar character (such as in comedia de´ll arte or spanish golden age)? Which of them makes them a much more complete and/or perfect performer, one which is an expert in one field or another one who has a much more broader knowledge?

SIN TITULO

The first play we have watched this school year as part of the IB Program is called "sin titulo" created and performed by the theatrical group Yuyachkani. As part of their 40th anniversary they have started a season full of their most memorable plays and "Sin titulo" is the first one in this year long celebration.

Peru has always been a country were politics have played a huge part in popular culture, however it is due to the wrong reasons. For many of us the word politics is a synonym for corruption and it has led us to distrust politicians and those who intend to become politic figures.

This distrust has been portrayed in different forms of art, and Yuyachkani is well known for their criticism against the "dark ages" of peruvian history decades ago, where human rights were violated daily due to terrorism.

The only word which i find suitable to describe this play is "experimental", it has a strong political and social context and has an amazing sense of documentation. Going through different stages of Peruvian history such as the Pacific war and the horrific violence in the eighties and early nineties to the corrupt dictatorship and abuse of power until the new millenium.

The audience is part of the play, it acts as an important component in the performance, the stage had been convrted into a living museum where thes tatues and cartoons of polititians or of ihstorical figures come to life. FOr instance, in some cases where actors wore masks of politicians theya cted as if they were playing, otying around iwth us, the people form the republic which is what happened during those times, many of us had no idea of what was really happening until it was too late.

The play takes diferent tones, at first it seems dramatic,, as the actions take place in four platform which circled around and us the audience either followed them or stayed static to watch a larger picture of the performance. This gave the play a new level, the performers now where able to communicate with us on a deeper level, we were part of the play by being on the stage but they still were recognizable because they were on a higher level on the platforms at moments acting,

This play is something unique, personally it was an amazing experience to go and watch this performance, the main attraction for me was the social and political content but once i was part of the performance i realized there was more than that, there was an entire experimentation from scenery, to the actual stage, costumes, props and even to acting, the play started tragically with the horrors of the war with Chile and at the moments of modern history we were laughing and enjoying the show as the actors performed wearing masks depicting corrupt politicians.

Even though Ido think i understood the play and the thematics, i still have yet to fully comprehend the idea of the concepts in this play. The direction, design and acting concepts must have been truly explored when arming the production. The acting style changed completely, the environment changed with lightning and scenery changes.

Therefore my question is,

What concept would have been employed to produce a performance as complex as this one and how far were the concepts (design, direction, acting) explored?

Foreign theatrical tradition.

When producing a play based on a well-known and highly acclaimed theatrical tradition, following its conventions and trying to make the performance as close as possible to the selected tradition, as a group we must first understand what the tradition is about and then realize and always have present that we are not professional actors and that in our case it is, after all, a school play. When producing the kabuki play and consulting Mr. Leonard Pronko, a kabuki expert, we understood the complex process in which we were involved, even though we had it present,we finally understood we wouldn´t achieve the level of a kabuki play form Japan, tis impossible, kabuki performers train since they are 3 or 4 years old to become actors and become professionals at the age of thirty or forty.

Mr. Pronko adviced us to keep the essence of kabuki showing a lot of restrained energy which was about to burst full of passion. We were reminded of the main objective behind the whole school play is to learn about the tradition and how is it like to take a play from that tradition and perform it following the conventions , in this case, from Kabuki.

After the advice we received from Mr. Pronko i have come to ask myself a question thats always been in my mind. If we were to present another performance from Andean Theatre were we performed following every convention, using the same costumes and dancing exactly, would that be considered Andean theatre? I doubt it will, since its not performed in or from the Andes, however if someone cooks spaghetti and he/she is from Peru, that would still be considered Spaghetti.

There´s this problem with the performing arts, you can call yourself a surrealist painter and come form Peru having no contact with European teachers but still you can´t call yourself a Kabuki or Andean performer if you haven´t been trained there, or if the performance wasnt created in Japan or the Andes.

To answer this question, I must ask myself a question thats been asked million of times, What is theatre? what is the exact definition of this art form, answering this question would lead me to finding an answer to my previous doubt, however since this definition has yet to be precised my previous inquiry will remain a topic of discussion with different points of view.

Division of tasks in theatre.

When doing a play the usual for us in the school is to divide the tasks either in the beginning of the present school year or in the end of the previous one so we can advance them during summer vacation. Through the different performances we have presented we have split the different tasks of production, for instance in "The other side", last year´s One act play, i was in charge of the costumes and make-up while others were responsible for the scenery and props.

However a conflict of interests appears once an individual desires to approach more than one task, and the responsible for that specific task is opposed to the inclusion of someone else. Because of this we must understand what is best for the play itself, if someone wants to enter the designing aspect and be in charge of the costumes then we must understand what it means, if he´s/she´s inclusion into that aspect will increase the possible outcome of the play and the results will be better or if the inclusion of someone else in the specific aspect will diminish the possible quality of the play, then most likely that individual must understand the position where he is.

Even, though there is no "I" in theatre there is the chance an undeniable conflict of interests between members of production happens which can worsen the production aspect, and even though those conflicts are finally settled it is most likely that either one of the individuals involved will not be satisfied with the outcome of the situation.

Therefore I reach my final question, How important are individual interests of performers or people involved in a play to overcome the play itself which is the sole reason for many of us to be involved?