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.