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?
